Recommendation: The FTA Administrator should include the known limitations and intended uses of its TAM performance data in its public reports such as its annual NTD summary and other reports for decision-makers. This action should include clarifying the context of state of good repair data in TAM reports in relation to similar data in DOT's Condition and Performance Report and how they differ. (Recommendation 1)

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

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

Recommendation: The FTA Administrator should develop a plan for how FTA intends to analyze, implement, and communicate any identified TAM program improvements moving forward. The plan should describe how FTA intends to address:

• relying on a single performance measure per asset category,

• potential limited use of investment scenarios by transit agencies in making asset decisions, and

• shorter-term planning horizons than those used by other planning counterparts. (Recommendation 2)

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

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

Recommendation: The Administrator of FEMA should plan and conduct regular fraud risk assessments of PA emergency work grants to determine a fraud risk profile that aligns with leading practices as provided in the Fraud Risk Framework. Specifically, this process should include (1) identifying inherent fraud risks to PA grant funds, (2) assessing the likelihood and impact of inherent fraud risks, (3) determining fraud risk tolerance, (4) examining the suitability of existing fraud controls, and (5) documenting the fraud risk profile. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Homeland Security: Directorate of Emergency Preparedness and Response: Federal Emergency Management Agency
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: The Administrator of FEMA should designate one entity as the lead entity with responsibility for providing oversight of agency-wide efforts to manage fraud risks to PA emergency work grants, including managing the fraud risk assessment process, consistent with leading practices. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Homeland Security: Directorate of Emergency Preparedness and Response: Federal Emergency Management Agency
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: The Administrator of FEMA should update key training and guidance documents for the PA grant program to include information on where and how to report suspected fraud, and direct PA recipients to include such information in key training and guidance documents they provide to subrecipients. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Homeland Security: Directorate of Emergency Preparedness and Response: Federal Emergency Management Agency
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: The Administrator of FEMA should update key resources, such as training and guidance documents, FEMA makes available to PA applicants to ensure these resources consistently communicate information on the highest fraud risks to PA emergency work grant funds and applicants' responsibilities for managing those risks. The highest fraud risks may include risks related to procurement and debris removal, and other risks FEMA identifies through fraud risk assessments. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of Homeland Security: Directorate of Emergency Preparedness and Response: Federal Emergency Management Agency
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: The Administrator of FEMA should implement program-specific antifraud training for PA staff who work directly with PA applicants; this training should include information on the highest fraud risks to PA emergency work grants. The highest fraud risks may include risks related to procurement and debris removal, and other risks FEMA identifies through fraud risk assessments. (Recommendation 5)

Agency: Department of Homeland Security: Directorate of Emergency Preparedness and Response: Federal Emergency Management Agency
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 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 Administrator for USAID should communicate to all missions and bureaus the expectation that they report data on all funding attributed to the key issue of indirect climate adaptation. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: United States Agency for International Development
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 Veterans Affairs should incorporate key elements of a performance assessment system, such as establishing performance goals and taking steps to assess outcomes, for the Educational and Vocational Counseling (or Chapter 36), Veterans Integration to Academic Leadership, and VetSuccess on Campus programs. (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 Secretary of Education should develop performance goals for the Iraq and Afghanistan Service Grant program. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of 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 Commandant of the Coast Guard should develop formal performance goals and measures for its Spouse Employment Assistance Program. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Coast Guard
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: The NNSA Administrator should incorporate additional management controls to better oversee and coordinate NNSA's microelectronics activities. Such management controls could include investing the microelectronics coordinator with increased responsibility and authority, developing an overarching management plan, and developing a mission need statement and a microelectronics requirements document. (Recommendation 1)

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

Comments: In a May 2020 letter signed by the NNSA Administrator that provided agency comments on our draft report, NNSA neither agreed nor disagreed with our recommendation. However, NNSA stated that by December 2020 the agency plans to complete a strategic management plan that will more clearly articulate the integration of management controls for the various components of its microelectronics activities. NNSA stated that it believes this action is consistent with our recommendation. We are encouraged by this planned action and will evaluate the completed strategic management plan to determine if it meets the intent of our recommendation.

Recommendation: The Director of the Bureau of Indian Education should develop a systematic process for identifying JOM contractors and maintaining an accurate and complete list of contractors and other relevant information about contractors, such as the amount of JOM funds they receive and their current points of contact. (Recommendation 1)

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

Comments: Interior concurred with this recommendation. They expect their newly expanded JOM program workforce to develop, publish and implement a comprehensive JOM policy and procedure that includes a systemic process for identifying JOM contractors and maintaining a complete and accurate list of contractors. We will monitor the progress of these efforts.

Recommendation: The Director of the Bureau of Indian Education, in coordination with the Bureau of Indian Affairs as needed, should establish a process to track and monitor the timeliness of JOM disbursements to non-tribal contractors, including identifying a target date for disbursing funds to these contractors. (Recommendation 2)

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

Comments: Interior concurred with this recommendation. The BIE, BIA and other partners will work collaboratively to publish and implement a policy and procedure that accurately tracks and monitors timely disbursement of JOM funds to these contractors. We will monitor the progress of these efforts.

Recommendation: The Director of the Bureau of Indian Education should develop a timeline to assess the usefulness of the information they are collecting from JOM contractors and update JOM information collection forms, including converting them to an electronic format to reduce the burden on contractors to complete them. (Recommendation 3)

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

Comments: Interior concurred with this recommendation. They expect that their newly expanded JOM program workforce will expedite the BIE's review and information collection efforts. We will monitor the progress of these efforts.

Recommendation: The Director of the Bureau of Indian Education should develop and provide training to contractors on administering the JOM program. (Recommendation 4)

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

Comments: Interior concurred with this recommendation. SIE and JOM staff will be tasked with developing a technical assistance framework for contractors and a training plan as part of the wider JOM program policy and task procedures. We will monitor the progress of these efforts.

Recommendation: The Director of the Bureau of Indian Education should clearly define the roles and responsibilities and identify the staff necessary for conducting critical JOM functions, including administering contracts, reviewing the appropriateness of contract types, and overseeing those contractors that are subject to BIE oversight. (Recommendation 5)

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

Comments: Interior concurred with this recommendation. The BIE, BIA and other partners plan to work collaboratively to develop an inter-bureau policy that clearly identifies each agency's roles and responsibilities. They are also developing a data-informed workforce analysis for the JOM program. They will continue to develop and implement a data-informed workforce strategy to identify human capital needs and clearly identifies and assigns critical JOM-related functions among BIE divisions, offices and staff. We will monitor the progress of these efforts.

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 Director of OCC should establish internal written policies to effectively implement and document the State Plan review and approval process for future review and approval periods. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Administration for Children and Families: Office of the Child Care Bureau
Status: Open

Comments: In September 2020, OCC told us it has been working on establishing written policies (e.g., internal guidance documents and checklists) to implement and document the State Plan review and approval process. OCC expects to complete this work for the FY2022-2024 Plan period. We will continue to monitor OCC's efforts to implement this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Director of OCC should define the informational needs related to the results of program-integrity activities. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Administration for Children and Families: Office of the Child Care Bureau
Status: Open

Comments: In September 2020, OCC told us that it is developing the next CCDF State/Territory Plan Preprint due for submission by states and territories July 1, 2021. According to OCC, it plans to incorporate its information needs regarding the results of program integrity into the Preprint document as it develops the document. We will continue to monitor OCC's progress in implementing this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Director of OCC should communicate externally to the states its informational needs related to the results of states' program-integrity activities. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Administration for Children and Families: Office of the Child Care Bureau
Status: Open

Comments: In September 2020, OCC told us that it is developing the next CCDF State/Territory Plan Preprint due for submission by states and territories July 1, 2021. According to OCC, it plans to communicate its information needs regarding the results of program integrity activities to states and territories as part of the Preprint Training activities - including webinars and peer-to-peer virtual meetings - so Lead Agencies understand what is expected for them to address in the CCDF Plan. We will continue to monitor OCC's progress in implementing this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Director of OCC should communicate internally to staff its informational needs related to the results of states' program-integrity activities. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Administration for Children and Families: Office of the Child Care Bureau
Status: Open

Comments: In September 2020, OCC told us that it is developing the next CCDF State/Territory Plan Preprint due for submission by states and territories July 1, 2021. According to OCC, it plans to communicate its information needs regarding the results of program integrity activities to staff in both regional and central offices as part of the Preprint Training activities so staff understand what is expected for Lead Agencies to address in the CCDF Plan. We will continue to monitor OCC's progress in implementing this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Director of OCC should develop documented criteria to guide the review of CAPs submitted by states to ensure that proposed corrective actions are aimed at root causes of improper payments and are effectively implemented. (Recommendation 5)

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Administration for Children and Families: Office of the Child Care Bureau
Status: Open

Comments: In September 2020, OCC told us it revised the CAP Review Tool to in response to our recommendation. OCC also told us that it plans to implement the revised CAP Review Tool beginning September 2020 to document the review of CAPs submitted for the most recent ACF-404 reporting cycle (June 2020). We asked OCC to provide documentation showing the revised CAP Review Tool is responsive to our recommendation. We will update this recommendation status after reviewing the documentation OCC provides.

Recommendation: The Director of OCC should timely complete its effort to develop established written policies for the CAP follow-up process to ensure that OCC's oversight and monitoring of CAPs is carried out consistently. (Recommendation 6)

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Administration for Children and Families: Office of the Child Care Bureau
Status: Open

Comments: In September 2020, OCC told us it developed draft written policies for the CAP follow-up process to ensure that OCC's oversight and monitoring of CAPs is carried out consistently. However, due to the impact of the COVID-19 on staffing capacity, OCC has not presented the draft policies to regional offices for feedback. OCC told us it plans to finalize the written policies for the CAP follow-up process by December 2020. We will continue to monitor OCC's progress in implementing this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Director of OCC should develop and document criteria to assess the effectiveness of states' program-integrity control activities. (Recommendation 7)

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Administration for Children and Families: Office of the Child Care Bureau
Status: Open

Comments: In September 2020, OCC told us it analyzed information gathered from federal and state resources to develop and document criteria to be used to assess the effectiveness of states' program integrity control activities. We asked OCC to provide us the document showing all criteria to be used to assess the effectiveness of states' program integrity control activities. We will update this recommendation status after reviewing the documentation OCC provides.

Recommendation: The Director of OCC should evaluate the feasibility of collecting information from the Grantee Internal Controls Self-Assessment Instrument (Self-Assessment Instrument) and Fraud Toolkit, such as during its Monitoring System process, to monitor the effectiveness of states' program-integrity control activities. (Recommendation 8)

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Administration for Children and Families: Office of the Child Care Bureau
Status: Open

Comments: In September 2020, OCC told us it is working to make the Self-Assessment Instrument and Fraud Toolkit more user-friendly to encourage increased use within the state CCDF program. With increased usage, OCC believes it will be in a better position to assess how the collection of data from these two instruments can be incorporated into the Onsite Monitoring System or other oversight activity. OCC told us it anticipates completing work to implement this recommendation by December 2020. We will continue to monitor OCC's progress in implementing this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Assistant Secretary for ACF should ensure that ACF conducts a fraud risk assessment to provide a basis for the documentation and development of an antifraud strategy that describes the CCDF program's approach to address prioritizing fraud risks identified. (Recommendation 9)

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Administration for Children and Families
Status: Open

Comments: In September 2020, HHS told us it anticipates completing the initial fraud risk assessment for the CCDF program by December 2020. We will continue to monitor HHS's efforts to implement this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Commandant of the Coast Guard should direct the Assistant Commandant for Engineering and Logistics and Assistant Commandant for Prevention Policy to update the Coast Guard's ATON-related initiatives to include the specific outcomes to be achieved and associated time frames. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Coast Guard
Status: Open

Comments: DHS concurred with our recommendation and stated that the Coast Guard plans to review and update ATON-related initiatives to include specific outcomes with associated implementation milestones by December 31, 2020.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Veterans Affairs should ensure that the Associate Executive Director of VA's NAC puts controls in place to better ensure the completeness of vendor FSS sales reporting. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open

Comments: VA concurred with this recommendation and is taking steps to implement it. In August 2020, VA reported that it has taken steps to better ensure the completeness of vendor FSS sales reporting, including by conducting more active monitoring of the sales data submitted by vendors. These steps are ongoing, but NAC has reported a decrease in the number of FSS contractors not reporting sales.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Veterans Affairs should ensure that the Associate Executive Director of VA's NAC assesses data on the participation of and items and services offered by veteran-owned small businesses in NAC's FSS program, in order to determine whether their program is meeting the needs of VHA contracting officers who use it given the Veterans First requirements they must meet. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open

Comments: VA concurred with this recommendation and is taking steps to implement it. In August 2020, VA reported that NAC has conducted additional outreach to veteran-owned small businesses regarding FSS participation, and plans to conduct analysis of these businesses' participation in FSS by the end of fiscal year 2020.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Veterans Affairs should ensure that the Associate Executive Director of VA's NAC directs the FSS Director to develop a mechanism to consistently obtain and analyze VHA user feedback on the FSS program. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open

Comments: VA concurred with this recommendation and has taken several actions to more consistently obtain VHA user feedback on the FSS program, including holding meetings with each VHA regional contracting office and participating in VHA integrated project teams and other recurring meetings. We have requested documentation of these activities, but VA has yet to provide it.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Veterans Affairs should ensure that the Associate Executive Director of VA's NAC provides FSS contracting staff with comprehensive FSS guidance. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open

Comments: VA concurred with this recommendation and NAC reported in August 2020 that it has taken steps to make existing guidance on the FSS program more accessible to FSS contracting staff. We have requested more documentation from VA to confirm that the guidance is comprehensive.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Veterans Affairs should ensure that the Associate Executive Director of VA's NAC develops an FSS-specific training program to include essential skills and processes to meet ongoing training needs for new and existing contracting staff. (Recommendation 5)

Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open

Comments: VA concurred with this recommendation and NAC reported in August 2020 that it has implemented additional introductory training for new FSS contracting staff, as well as quarterly training events for all FSS contracting staff. We have requested additional documentation from VA on the content of the quarterly training.

Recommendation: The Administrator of GSA should work with the Secretary of VA to develop a memorandum of understanding outlining the roles and responsibilities of GSA and NAC for collaborating under GSA's delegation of authority to VA for the healthcare-related Federal Supply Schedules, including the processes through which the two organizations will coordinate and share useful tools and practices. (Recommendation 6)

Agency: General Services Administration: Office of the Administrator
Status: Open

Comments: GSA concurred with this recommendation. In August 2020, GSA stated that it has met with VA and agreed to develop an interagency memorandum of understanding by December 2020.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Veterans Affairs should work with the Administrator of GSA to develop a memorandum of understanding outlining the roles and responsibilities of GSA and NAC in collaborating under GSA's delegation of authority to VA for the healthcare-related Federal Supply Schedules, including the processes through which the two organizations will coordinate and share useful tools and practices. (Recommendation 7)

Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open

Comments: VA concurred with this recommendation. In August 2020, GSA stated that it has met with VA and agreed to develop an interagency memorandum of understanding by December 2020.

Recommendation: The Administrator of GSA should take steps to document its delegation of authority for the healthcare-related Federal Supply Schedules to VA. (Recommendation 8)

Agency: General Services Administration: Office of the Administrator
Status: Open

Comments: GSA concurred with this recommendation. In August 2020, GSA stated that it is working to develop updated delegation of authority and will provide further details by December 2020.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Veterans Affairs should ensure that the Associate Executive Director of VA's NAC assesses the appropriateness of NAC's current timeliness goals for FSS contract awards and takes steps to comprehensively identify and address barriers to achieving them. (Recommendation 9)

Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open

Comments: VA concurred with this recommendation. In August 2020, VA reported that NAC has confirmed that existing timeliness goals are appropriate, and that NAC officials meet on a quarterly basis to discuss barriers to meeting these goals. We have requested more detail from NAC on the barriers they have identified and steps they are taking to address them so that we can assess whether they are comprehensive.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Veterans Affairs should ensure that the Associate Executive Director of VA's National Acquisition Center takes measures to ensure greater efficiency in the offer-intake process, such as providing additional guidance for vendors or by adopting a system that includes checks for completeness of required vendor documentation. (Recommendation 10)

Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open

Comments: VA concurred with this recommendation. In August 2020, VA reported that NAC has developed a checklist for assessing the completeness of submitted offers, and that new offers are currently processed in an average of two days. NAC is considering adoption of an automated offer intake system. We have requested additional details from NAC on the recent average offer processing time.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Veterans Affairs should take steps to assess duplication between VA's FSS and MSPV programs, to determine if this duplication is necessary or if efficiencies can be gained. (Recommendation 11)

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

Comments: VA concurred with this recommendation. In August 2020, VA stated that it is analyzing duplication of contracting across the department as part of its Category Management efforts, and expects to complete an internal report on this issue in early 2021.

Recommendation: The NASA Administrator should ensure that the NASA Associate Administrator for Human Exploration and Operations directs the Advanced Exploration Systems division to define and determine a schedule for synchronization reviews, including the role of the proposed Lunar Exploration Control Board, to help ensure that requirements between mission and program levels are reconciled. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Status: Open

Comments: NASA agreed with this recommendation and stated that the Advanced Exploration Systems division will review program life-cycle review plans to ensure enterprise and program requirements are reconciled across the mission. NASA is in the process of determining the organizational structure of the Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate. Following this completion, NASA officials stated that the appropriate control board and division structures for review and program direction will become active.

Recommendation: The NASA Administrator should ensure that the NASA Associate Administrator for Human Exploration and Operations directs the Gateway program to conduct a joint cost and schedule confidence level at the program level for the Artemis III mission. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Status: Open

Comments: NASA agreed with this recommendation and stated it would conduct a joint cost and schedule confidence level analysis or equivalent. The Gateway program is planning to conduct a series of project- and program-level reviews and assessments aligned with key decision point reviews. This includes conducting a joint cost and schedule confidence level analysis or equivalent of the Gateway initial configuration to support a program key decision point planned for fall 2021. NASA has not yet taken action on this recommendation.

Recommendation: The NASA Administrator should ensure that the NASA Associate Administrator for Human Exploration and Operations directs the Gateway program to update its overall schedule for 2024 to add a KDP II to occur before system integration. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Status: Open

Comments: NASA agreed with this recommendation, but has not yet taken action on it. NASA stated that it would provide a schedule for future reviews, including whether there will be a Key Decision Point (KDP) II, at the KDP-I review currently scheduled for fall 2021.

Recommendation: The NASA Administrator should ensure that the NASA Associate Administrator for Human Exploration and Operations creates a life-cycle cost estimate for the Artemis III mission. (Recommendation 4)

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

Comments: NASA agreed with the recommendation and stated that the agency will provide a preliminary cost estimate for the Artemis III mission by the end of 2020. Further, NASA stated that it will provide an updated cost estimate for the Artemis III mission after it establishes cost and schedule commitments for some of the projects that compose the lunar mission, currently planned for the Spring of 2021. To fully implement this recommendation, NASA will need to provide a cost estimate.

Recommendation: The NASA Administrator should ensure that the NASA Associate Administrator for Human Exploration and Operations directs the Advanced Exploration Systems division to commit to a completion date and finalize a cohesive document outlining the rationale for selecting its current lunar architecture and lunar programs. (Recommendation 5)

Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Status: Open

Comments: NASA agreed with this recommendation and stated that it is developing a document that will summarize the trades and architectural studies, but the document is not yet complete.

Recommendation: The NASA Administrator should ensure that the Office of the Chief Engineer determines under what conditions it is appropriate to complete an analysis of alternatives, particularly when there are multiple pathways—including architectures or programs—that NASA could pursue in the future, and document the justification for not completing an analysis. (Recommendation 6)

Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Status: Open

Comments: NASA agreed with this recommendation, but has not yet taken any action on it. NASA stated that it will provide additional clarifying guidance for conducting analyses of alternatives for new programs in the next update to NASA Procedural Requirements 7120.5E, "NASA Space Flight Program and Project Management Requirements." NASA plans to complete the update of the procedural requirement in September 2021.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Energy should direct the Assistant Secretary of the Office of Environmental Management to take steps to manage the three GDPs as an integrated program and follow relevant program management leading practices (developing a GDP-wide program management plan; an integrated master schedule; and a reliable, integrated, comprehensive life-cycle cost estimate.) (Recommendation 1)

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

Comments: In June 2020, DOE officials told us that its Office of Environmental Management (EM) Portsmouth/Paducah Project Office (PPPO) is in the process of developing a program management master plan, to include site-integrated master schedules and life-cycle cost estimates, for the Portsmouth and Paducah gaseous diffusion plants (GDPs). Officials stated that the plan will incorporate program management leading practices as appropriate. According to DOE officials, EM will direct PPPO to use actual collected cost and schedule information for integration of relevant lessons learned from ETTP cleanup into integrated program plans, schedules, and estimates. DOE officials estimated that this effort would be completed by December 31, 2020.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Energy should direct the Assistant Secretary of the Office of Environmental Management to track consistent and detailed expenditure information on cleanup activities across the three GDPs. (Recommendation 2)

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

Comments: In June 2020, DOE officials told us that its Office of Environmental Management (EM) is assessing and identifying an appropriate mechanism for tracking expenditures for both the Portsmouth and Paducah GDP sites, using a standardized approach with an Earned Value Management System (EVMS) reporting on, at a minimum, an annual basis. According to DOE officials, PPPO is in the process of using the ETTP data as a basis of comparison for contractor estimates and assessing the potential development of cost estimating tools for independent cost estimating. DOE officials estimated that this effort would be completed by December 31, 2020.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Energy should direct the Assistant Secretary of the Office of Environmental Management to ensure the site-specific life-cycle cost estimates for the cleanup of each of the GDPs fully incorporate best practices for cost estimation. (Recommendation 3)

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

Comments: In June 2020, DOE officials told us that its Office of Environmental Management (EM) has directed the Portsmouth and Paducah GDP sites to review and incorporate the practices from GAO's Cost Estimating Guide (GAO-20-195G), as appropriate, into the next revision of each site's life-cycle cost baselines. According to DOE officials, Oak Ridge is in the process of procuring a follow-on cleanup contract, which includes the scope to complete the cleanup of ETTP. According to DOE officials, given that the cleanup of the ETTP GDP is nearly complete, the baseline for the entire ETTP GDP will not be included in the life cycle cost estimate review. Officials stated the remaining scope of work for the ETTP GDP will, however, become part of the performance baseline for the next Oak Ridge cleanup contractor. DOE officials estimated that this effort would be completed by December 31, 2020.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Energy should direct the Assistant Secretary of the Office of Environmental Management to work—in conjunction with EPA and Kentucky and Tennessee state regulators—with an independent, third-party facilitator to help resolve disagreements over cleanup priorities, cleanup remedies, and cost estimation assumptions. (Recommendation 4)

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

Comments: In June 2020, DOE officials told us that its Office of Environmental Management (EM) has incorporated the use of an independent facilitator on a case-by-case basis to help resolve any disagreements, in conjunction with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and Kentucky and Tennessee state regulators over cleanup priorities, remedies, and cost estimation assumptions. Officials stated that most recently, the Paducah GDP site used an independent facilitator to resolve disagreements with EPA Region IV and Kentucky state regulators. According to DOE officials, in the future, EM will continue the use of an independent facilitator, as deemed appropriate. DOE officials estimated that this effort would be completed by December 31, 2020.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Energy should regularly report on the status of the D&D Fund and cleanup efforts at the three GDPs with current information that contains details on challenges in reaching agreement with regulators and a clear scope of work. (Recommendation 5)

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

Comments: In June 2020, DOE officials told us that its Office of Environmental Management (EM) has prepared the triennial Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund Report, providing accomplishments through fiscal year 2019 and disclosing the most recent environmental liability estimate associated with remaining challenges and scope of cleanup at the GDPs. Officials stated that the report is being circulated for approval. DOE officials estimated that this effort would be completed by December 31, 2020.

Recommendation: The Deputy Director for Management of OMB, in conjunction with the PMPC, should develop program and project management standards to include (1) a minimum threshold for determining the extent to which agencies have met the standards, (2) how standards apply differently at the program and project levels, (3) how standards are interrelated to work in a synchronized way, and (4) how standards should be applied across the life cycle of a program or project. (Recommendation 1)

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

Comments: Awaiting 180-day letter.

Recommendation: The Deputy Director for Management of OMB, in conjunction with the PMPC, should create a governance structure to further develop and maintain program and project management standards that fully aligns with key practices for governance structures. (Recommendation 2)

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

Comments: Awaiting 180-day letter.

Recommendation: The Deputy Director for Management of OMB should, when expanding PMIAA to additional program types, design pilot efforts to follow leading practices so that OMB can optimize its efforts to improve and broaden portfolio reviews across a full range of program types. (Recommendation 3)

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

Comments: Awaiting 180-day letter.

Recommendation: The Deputy Director for Management of OMB should communicate program areas and timeframes, and expectations pertinent to annual program portfolio reviews, to be reviewed in future program portfolio reviews. (Recommendation 4)

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

Comments: Awaiting 180-day letter.

Recommendation: The Deputy Director for Management of OMB should clarify for agencies how the different definitions of a "program" relate to each other in OMB guidance. (Recommendation 5)

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

Comments: We added this recommendation as a priority in our OMB priority recommendation letter in April 2020. We recommended that OMB clarify for agencies how different definitions of a "program" relate to each other in OMB guidance. Clarifying the definitions could help agencies and OMB increase transparency and identify synergies across related laws, such as GPRAMA and the Program Management Improvement Accountability Act of 2016.

Recommendation: The Deputy Director for Management of OMB should convene trilateral meetings between OMB, relevant agencies, and us for addressing all high-risk areas during each two-year high-risk cycle (Recommendation 6).

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

Comments: We added this recommendation as a priority in our OMB priority recommendation letter in April 2020. OMB should convene trilateral meetings between OMB, relevant agencies, and us for addressing all areas on our High Risk List during each two-year high-risk cycle. Doing so would better position OMB to enhance the leadership commitment needed to make greater progress on high-risk areas. Meetings with senior OMB and agency officials on individual high-risk areas have proven in the past to be helpful to making progress. These meetings would also help OMB meet statutory requirements to conduct portfolio reviews of programs on GAO's high-risk list.

Recommendation: The Deputy Director for Management of OMB, in conjunction with PMPC, should ensure PMPC meeting agendas include time for discussing high-risk areas during meetings and provide time for the PMPC to make recommendations to OMB about addressing high-risk areas. (Recommendation 7)

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

Comments: Awaiting 180-day letter.

Recommendation: The Deputy Director for Management of OMB, in conjunction with PMPC, should establish measures to assess outcomes of PMIAA, such as establishing a baseline of information on programs or collecting trend data. (Recommendation 8)

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

Comments: Awaiting 180-day letter.

Recommendation: The Director of OMB should develop and implement a plan with GSA that outlines the actions needed to fully recover the TMF Program Management Office's operating expenses with administrative fee collection in a timely manner. (Recommendation 1)

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

Comments: The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not yet taken any actions to implement our recommendation. We will continue to monitor OMB's progress in implementing this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Director of OMB should work with GSA to clarify the requirement in the TMF guidance that agencies follow the cost estimating process outlined in Circular A-11 (that references GAO's cost estimating guidance discussed in this report), when developing the proposal cost estimate. (Recommendation 2)

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

Comments: The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not yet taken any actions to implement our recommendation. We will continue to monitor OMB's progress in implementing this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Administrator of General Services should develop and implement a plan with OMB that outlines the actions needed to fully recover the TMF Program Management Office's operating expenses with administrative fee collection in a timely manner. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: General Services Administration
Status: Open

Comments: The General Services Administration (GSA) has not yet taken any actions to implement our recommendation. We will continue to monitor GSA's progress in implementing this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Administrator of General Services should work with OMB to clarify the requirement in the TMF guidance that agencies follow the cost estimating process outlined in Circular A-11 (that references GAO's cost estimating guidance discussed in this report), when developing the proposal cost estimate. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: General Services Administration
Status: Open

Comments: The General Services Administration (GSA) has not yet taken any actions to implement our recommendation. We will continue to monitor GSA's progress in implementing this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Administrator of General Services should develop detailed guidance for completing the Technology Modernization Fund project cost estimate template, including information on the data elements and the fields required to be completed, in order to help ensure the accuracy and completeness of the provided information. (Recommendation 5)

Agency: General Services Administration
Status: Open

Comments: In comments on our report, the General Services Administration (GSA) concurred with our recommendation but has not yet taken any actions to implement our recommendation. We will continue to monitor GSA's progress in implementing this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Director of OMB should establish a process for monitoring and holding agencies accountable for authorizing cloud services through FedRAMP. (Recommendation 1)

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

Comments: OMB neither agreed nor disagreed with this recommendation and as of September 2020, the office has not provided information on its actions to implement our recommendation. To fully implement this recommendation, OMB needs to collect data on the extent to which federal agencies are using cloud services authorized outside of FedRAMP and oversee agencies' compliance with using the program. According to an OMB Associate General Counsel, the agency does not have a mechanism for enforcing agencies' compliance with its guidance on FedRAMP. However, we believe that OMB can and should hold agencies accountable for complying with its policies. By implementing this recommendation, OMB could substantially improve participation in the FedRAMP program, which is intended to standardize security requirements for federal agencies' authorizations of cloud services. We will update the status of this recommendation when OMB provides information on its corrective actions.

Recommendation: The Administrator of GSA should direct the Director of FedRAMP to clarify guidance to agencies and cloud service providers on program requirements and responsibilities. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: General Services Administration: Office of the Administrator
Status: Open

Comments: As of September 2020, GSA has not provided evidence to close this recommendation. We will continue to monitor the agency's progress and update the recommendation's status when GSA provides its corrective actions.

Recommendation: The Administrator of GSA should direct the Director of FedRAMP to improve the program's continuous monitoring process by allowing more automated capabilities, including for agencies to review documentation. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: General Services Administration: Office of the Administrator
Status: Open

Comments: As of September 2020, GSA has not provided evidence to close this recommendation. We will continue to monitor the agency's progress and update the recommendation's status when GSA provides its corrective actions.

Recommendation: The Administrator of GSA should update security plans for selected systems to include the description of security controls and reviews and approvals plan. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: General Services Administration: Office of the Administrator
Status: Open

Comments: As of September 2020, GSA has not provided evidence to close this recommendation. We will continue to monitor the agency's progress and update the recommendation's status when GSA provides its corrective actions.

Recommendation: The Administrator of GSA should update the security assessment report for the selected system to identify the summarized results of control effectiveness tests. (Recommendation 5)

Agency: General Services Administration: Office of the Administrator
Status: Open

Comments: As of September 2020, GSA has not provided evidence to close this recommendation. We will continue to monitor the agency's progress and update the recommendation's status when GSA provides its corrective actions.

Recommendation: The Administrator of GSA should update the list of corrective actions for selected systems to identify the responsible office and estimated funding required and anticipated source of funding. (Recommendation 6)

Agency: General Services Administration: Office of the Administrator
Status: Open

Comments: As of September 2020, GSA has not provided evidence to close this recommendation. We will continue to monitor the agency's progress and update the recommendation's status when GSA provides its corrective actions.

Recommendation: The Administrator of GSA should develop guidance requiring that cloud service authorization letters be provided to the FedRAMP program management office. (Recommendation 7)

Agency: General Services Administration: Office of the Administrator
Status: Open

Comments: As of September 2020, GSA has not provided evidence to close this recommendation. We will continue to monitor the agency's progress and update the recommendation's status when GSA provides its corrective actions.

Recommendation: The Secretary of HHS should direct the Director of CDC to update the security plan for the selected system to identify the authorization boundary, the system operational environment and connections, a description of security controls, and the individual reviewing and approving the plan and date of approval. (Recommendation 8)

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open

Comments: In June 2020, CDC stated it has taken actions to address our recommendations, but we have not received evidence of its corrective actions. We will continue to monitor the agency's progress and update the recommendation's status when CDC provides its corrective actions.

Recommendation: The Secretary of HHS should direct the Director of CDC to update the security assessment report for the selected system to identify the summarized results of control effectiveness tests. (Recommendation 9)

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open

Comments: In June 2020, CDC stated it has taken actions to address our recommendations, but we have not received evidence of its corrective actions. We will continue to monitor the agency's progress and update the recommendation's status when CDC provides its corrective actions.

Recommendation: The Secretary of HHS should direct the Director of CDC to update the list of corrective actions for the selected system to identify the specific weaknesses, funding source, changes to milestones and completion dates, identified source of weaknesses, and status of corrective actions. (Recommendation 10)

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open

Comments: In June 2020, CDC stated it has taken actions to address our recommendations, but we have not received evidence of its corrective actions. We will continue to monitor the agency's progress and update the recommendation's status once CDC provides its corrective actions.

Recommendation: The Secretary of HHS should direct the Administrator of CMS to update the system security plans for selected systems to identify a description of security controls. (Recommendation 11)

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open

Comments: In June 2020, HHS stated CMS took actions to close this recommendation, but CMS has not yet provided evidence of its corrective actions. We will continue to monitor the agency's progress and update the recommendation's status when CMS provides its corrective actions.

Recommendation: The Secretary of HHS should direct the Administrator of CMS to update the security assessment report for selected system to identify the summarized results of control effectiveness tests. (Recommendation 12)

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open

Comments: In June 2020, HHS stated CMS took actions to close this recommendation, but CMS has not yet provided evidence of its corrective actions. We will continue to monitor the agency's progress and update the recommendation's status when CMS provides its corrective actions.

Recommendation: The Secretary of HHS should direct the Administrator of CMS to update and document the CMS remedial action plan for the selected system to identify the anticipated source of funding. (Recommendation 13)

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open

Comments: In June 2020, HHS stated CMS took actions to close this recommendation, but CMS has not yet provided evidence of its corrective actions. We will continue to monitor the agency's progress and update the recommendation's status when CMS provides its corrective actions.

Recommendation: The Secretary of HHS should direct the Administrator of CMS to prepare letters authorizing the use of cloud services for the selected systems and submit the letters to the FedRAMP program management office. (Recommendation 14)

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open

Comments: In June 2020, HHS stated CMS took actions to close this recommendation, but CMS has not yet provided evidence of its corrective actions. We will continue to monitor the agency's progress and update the recommendation's status when CMS provides its corrective actions.

Recommendation: The Secretary of HHS should direct the Director of NIH to update security plans for selected systems to identify the authorization boundary, system operation in terms of mission and business processes, operational environment and connections, and a description of security controls. (Recommendation 15)

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open

Comments: In June 2020, NIH stated it is taking actions to address this recommendation, but the agency did not provide evidence of its corrective actions. NIH stated it will provide an update in December 2020. We will continue to monitor the agency's progress and update the recommendation's status when NIH provides its corrective actions.

Recommendation: The Secretary of HHS should direct the Director of NIH to update the security assessment report for selected systems to identify summarized results of control effectiveness tests. (Recommendation 16)

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open

Comments: In June 2020, NIH stated it is taking actions to address this recommendation, but the agency did not provide evidence of its corrective actions. NIH stated it will provide an update in December 2020. We will continue to monitor the agency's progress and update the recommendation's status when NIH provides its corrective actions.

Recommendation: The Secretary of HHS should direct the Director of NIH to update the NIH list of corrective actions for selected systems to identify estimated funding and anticipated source of funding, key milestones with completion dates, and changes to milestones and completion dates. (Recommendation 17)

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open

Comments: In June 2020, NIH stated it is taking actions to address this recommendation, but the agency did not provide evidence of its corrective actions. NIH stated it will provide an update in December 2020. We will continue to monitor the agency's progress and update the recommendation's status when NIH provides its corrective actions.

Recommendation: The Secretary of HHS should direct the Director of NIH to submit the division's letters authorizing the use of cloud services for the selected systems to the FedRAMP program management office. (Recommendation 18)

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open

Comments: In June 2020, NIH stated it is taking actions to address this recommendation, but the agency did not provide evidence of its corrective actions. NIH stated it will provide an update in December 2020. We will continue to monitor the agency's progress and update the recommendation's status when NIH provides its corrective actions.

Recommendation: The Administrator of EPA should update security plan for the selected operational system to identify a description of security controls, and the individual reviewing and approving the plan and date of approval. (Recommendation 19)

Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Status: Open

Comments: In June 2020, EPA stated it is taking actions to address this recommendation, but the agency did not provide evidence of its corrective actions. We will continue to monitor the agency's progress and update the recommendation's status when EPA provides its corrective actions.

Recommendation: The Administrator of EPA should update the security assessment report for the selected operational system to identify the summarized results of control effectiveness tests. (Recommendation 20)

Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Status: Open

Comments: EPA did not concur with this recommendation and as of September 2020, the agency has not provided any evidence of its corrective actions. We will continue to monitor the agency's progress and update the recommendation's status when EPA provides its corrective actions.

Recommendation: The Administrator of EPA should update the list of corrective actions for the selected operational system to identify the specific weakness, estimated funding and anticipated source of funding, key remediation milestones with completion dates, changes to milestones and completion dates, and source of the weaknesses. (Recommendation 21)

Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Status: Open

Comments: In June 2020, EPA stated it is taking action to address this recommendation, but the agency did not provide evidence of its corrective actions. We will continue to monitor the agency's progress and update the recommendation's status when EPA provides its corrective actions.

Recommendation: The Administrator of EPA should prepare the letter authorizing the use of cloud service for the selected operational system and submit the letter to the FedRAMP program management office. (Recommendation 22)

Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Status: Open

Comments: EPA did not concur with this recommendation and as of September 2020, the agency has not provided any evidence of its corrective actions. We will continue to monitor the agency's progress and update the recommendation's status when EPA provides its corrective actions.

Recommendation: The Administrator of EPA should develop guidance requiring that cloud service authorization letter be provided to the FedRAMP program management office. (Recommendation 23)

Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Status: Open

Comments: EPA did not concur with this recommendation and as of September 2020, the agency has not provided any additional evidence. We will continue to monitor the agency's progress and update the recommendation's status when EPA provides its corrective actions.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Transportation should direct the Administrator of FTA to identify and develop controls, such as methods to more easily identify transit expenses within applications submitted by larger entities, such as a city, county, or state government, to address the risk of duplicate funding. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Transportation
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 Homeland Security should direct the Administrator of FEMA to identify and develop controls, such as methods to more easily identify transit expenses within applications submitted by larger entities such as a city, county, or state government, to address the risk of duplicate funding. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Homeland Security
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 Agriculture should ensure that the agency fully implements each of the eight key IT workforce planning activities it did not fully implement. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Agriculture
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 Education should ensure that the agency fully implements each of the seven key IT workforce planning activities it did not fully implement. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of 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 Secretary of Energy should ensure that the agency fully implements each of the eight key IT workforce planning activities it did not fully implement. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: In July 2020, the department reported actions it had taken to fully implement the activities associated with assessing competencies and needs regularly; assessing gaps in competencies and staffing; monitoring the agency's progress in addressing competency and staffing gaps; and reporting to agency leadership on progress in addressing competency and staffing gaps. The department also reported actions it had taken to address the remaining four activities and provided estimated time frames for fully implementing them. As of August 2020, we were following up with the department to obtain supporting documentation for the activities it claimed it had fully implemented and status updates for the remaining activities.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Homeland Security should ensure that the agency fully implements each of the eight key IT workforce planning activities it did not fully implement. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of Homeland Security
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 Housing and Urban Development should ensure that the agency fully implements each of the seven key IT workforce planning activities it did not fully implement. (Recommendation 5)

Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development
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 the Interior should ensure that the agency fully implements each of the eight key IT workforce planning activities it did not fully implement. (Recommendation 6)

Agency: Department of the Interior
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: The Attorney General should ensure that the agency fully implements each of the eight key IT workforce planning activities it did not fully implement. (Recommendation 7)

Agency: Department of Justice
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 the agency fully implements each of the eight key IT workforce planning activities it did not fully implement. (Recommendation 8)

Agency: Department of Labor
Status: Open

Comments: In December 2019, Labor officials provided additional documentation on actions taken to address the recommendation. We plan to review the documentation, and when we confirm what actions the agency has taken, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The Secretary of State should ensure that the agency fully implements each of the seven key IT workforce planning activities it did not fully implement. (Recommendation 9)

Agency: Department of State
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 Veterans Affairs should ensure that the agency fully implements each of the five key IT workforce planning activities it did not fully implement. (Recommendation 10)

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 Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency should ensure that the agency fully implements each of the eight key IT workforce planning activities it did not fully implement. (Recommendation 11)

Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: The Administrator of the General Services Administration should ensure that the agency fully implements each of the seven key IT workforce planning activities it did not fully implement. (Recommendation 12)

Agency: General Services Administration
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 National Science Foundation should ensure that the agency fully implements each of the eight key IT workforce planning activities it did not fully implement. (Recommendation 13)

Agency: National Science Foundation
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: The Chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission should ensure that the agency fully implements each of the seven key IT workforce planning activities it did not fully implement. (Recommendation 14)

Agency: Nuclear Regulatory 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 Director of the Office of Personnel Management should ensure that the agency fully implements each of the eight key IT workforce planning activities it did not fully implement. (Recommendation 15)

Agency: Office of Personnel Management
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: In December 2019, OPM stated that it had partnered with the General Services Administration's IT Modernization Center of Excellence to assess the current state of its IT workforce planning activities, but had not yet implemented any of the eight key planning activities we recommended. We will continue to monitor OPM's efforts to implement the recommendation.

Recommendation: The Administrator of the Small Business Administration should ensure that the agency fully implements each of the seven key IT workforce planning activities it did not fully implement. (Recommendation 16)

Agency: Small Business Administration
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: The Commissioner of the Social Security Administration should ensure that the agency fully implements each of the five key IT workforce planning activities it did not fully implement. (Recommendation 17)

Agency: Social Security Administration
Status: Open

Comments: In November 2019, Social Security Administration officials provided the agency's recently issued IT workforce strategy for fiscal year 2019 to fiscal year 2022. We plan to review the strategy, and when we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The Administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development should ensure that the agency fully implements each of the seven key IT workforce planning activities it did not fully implement. (Recommendation 18)

Agency: United States Agency for International Development
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 Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment should ensure that the Air Force's finalized Space C2 program's acquisition strategy includes, at a minimum, the following elements:

• acquisition and contracting approach;
• program management structure, including authorities and oversight responsibilities;
• plans for platform and infrastructure development;
• requirements management and development approach, and plans for prioritization;
• risk management plans, including how the program will identify and mitigate risks;
• metrics for measuring quality of software, and how those results will be shared with external stakeholders;
• manpower assessment identifying program workforce needs and state of expertise in Agile methods;
• requirements for reporting program progress to decision makers; and
• yearly funding levels. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with the recommendation and stated that the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment directed the Air Force (this work has now been moved to the Space Force) to provide an Acquisition Strategy for approval in November 2019. DOD noted that a strategy template provided to the Air Force included the elements identified by GAO. As of July 2020, the Acquisition Strategy had been submitted to the office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment, but officials stated that the strategy is still in review and has not yet been finalized.

Recommendation: The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment should ensure that the Air Force's Space C2 program conducts periodic independent reviews to assess the program's approach to developing software and provide, as needed, advice to the program and recommendations for improving the program's development and progress. Participants could include, but are not limited to, officials from the Defense Innovation Board, the Defense Digital Service, the office of the Air Force Chief Software Advisor, and the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment's Special Assistant for Software Acquisition. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation and stated that the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment will assess the need for future periodic and independent reviews of the program. As of July 2020, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment stated that it had planned to direct an independent review of the program to be conducted by a Federally Funded Research and Development Center and to be completed by September 2020. However, lack of funding and restrictions related to COVID-19 impacted planning. The office still plans to direct this review, but details are pending.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Energy should direct DOE's Office of Environmental Management to revise EM's 2017 cleanup policy to establish how the EM program and DOE sites should apply the essential elements of a risk-informed decision-making framework into their current decision-making requirements and guidance. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: In April 2020, DOE officials told us that its Office of Environmental Management (EM) had recently reinvigorated efforts to develop a comprehensive program-wide strategy to address risks in a consistent manner to align cleanup plans and activities with programmatic priorities and available budgets. According to DOE officials, EM plans to revise and replace its 2017 Cleanup Policy with a Cleanup Project Management Protocol and and EM Cleanup Program Management Policy. Officials stated that the Cleanup Program Management Policy will establish an approach for the EM program and DOE sites to apply the essential elements of risk-informed decision-making framework. DOE officials estimated that this effort would be completed by December 31, 2020.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Energy should direct DOE's Office of Environmental Management, in the development of a program management plan, to incorporate essential elements of risk-informed decision-making. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: In April 2020, DOE officials told us that DOE's Office of Environmental Management (EM) is developing a new Cleanup Program Management Policy that will incorporate the essential elements of risk-informed decision-making, as appropriate, into EM program management policy. DOE officials estimated that this effort will be completed by December 31, 2020.

Recommendation: The Director of National Intelligence should establish and document results-oriented goals that include specific targets or milestones for the IC CAE program. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Office of the Director of National Intelligence
Status: Open

Comments: The Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) concurred with this recommendation. In its August 2020 response, ODNI noted that in preparation for the transition of the Intelligence Community Centers for Academic Excellence (IC CAE) program from the Defense Intelligence Agency to ODNI, the ODNI commissioned an independent study in 2019 to assess program performance and barriers to success. ODNI noted that this study, in conjunction with the GAO report, are informing the development of a program strategy and sound business practices that will prescribe goals and measurable objectives. These efforts are expected to be completed in late 2020, at which time ODNI plans to develop a companion Strategic Implementation Plan that will set the foundation for behavior and reporting criteria across all IC CAE grant-receiving institutions, legacy schools, and stakeholders. ODNI noted that the plan which is expected to be completed in the third quarter of fiscal year 2021, will include an annual evaluation process linked to survey results and documented lessons learned. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Director of National Intelligence should establish and document strategies to achieve the results-oriented goals that are established for the IC CAE program. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Office of the Director of National Intelligence
Status: Open

Comments: The Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) concurred with this recommendation. In its August 2020 response, ODNI noted that in preparation for the transition of the Intelligence Community Centers for Academic Excellence (IC CAE) program from the Defense Intelligence Agency to ODNI, the ODNI commissioned an independent study in 2019 to assess program performance and barriers to success. ODNI noted that this study, in conjunction with the GAO report, are informing the development of a program strategy and sound business practices that will prescribe goals and measurable objectives. These efforts are expected to be completed in late 2020, at which time ODNI plans to develop a companion Strategic Implementation Plan that will set the foundation for behavior and reporting criteria across all IC CAE grant-receiving institutions, legacy schools, and stakeholders. ODNI noted that the plan which is expected to be completed in the third quarter of fiscal year 2021, will include an annual evaluation process linked to survey results and documented lessons learned. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Director of National Intelligence should develop and document a process to identify and continuously evaluate external factors that could affect the program's ability to achieve identified goals. This should include, but not be limited to, a consideration of program branding and post-grant sustainment. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Office of the Director of National Intelligence
Status: Open

Comments: The Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) concurred with this recommendation. In its August 2020 response, ODNI noted that in preparation for the transition of the Intelligence Community Centers for Academic Excellence (IC CAE) program from the Defense Intelligence Agency to ODNI, the ODNI commissioned an independent study in 2019 to assess program performance and barriers to success. ODNI noted that this study, in conjunction with the GAO report, are informing the development of a program strategy and sound business practices that will prescribe goals and measurable objectives. These efforts are expected to be completed in late 2020, at which time ODNI plans to develop a companion Strategic Implementation Plan that will set the foundation for behavior and reporting criteria across all IC CAE grant-receiving institutions, legacy schools, and stakeholders. ODNI noted that the plan which is expected to be completed in the third quarter of fiscal year 2021, will include an annual evaluation process linked to survey results and documented lessons learned. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Director of National Intelligence should define and document comprehensive performance measures for the IC CAE program, collect and evaluate the completeness and reliability of information it receives from grant recipients and IC elements, and report this information on a regular basis. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Office of the Director of National Intelligence
Status: Open

Comments: The Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) concurred with this recommendation. In its August 2020 response, ODNI noted that it held virtual listening session in early fiscal year 2020 with Intelligence Community Centers for Academic Excellence (IC CAE) program managers and principal investigators to inform the development of meaningful performance measures and reporting criteria. ODNI noted that the criteria was collected using standardized, repeatable processes to ensure both accuracy and completeness during site visits and performance reviews for active grant recipients. ODNI further noted that it plans to integrate the criteria from the listening sessions into the Strategic Implementation Plan, which it expects to complete in the third quarter of fiscal year 2021. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Director of National Intelligence should establish a requirement for and develop a plan to periodically evaluate the IC CAE program's performance through objective measurement and systematic analysis. (Recommendation 5)

Agency: Office of the Director of National Intelligence
Status: Open

Comments: The Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) concurred with this recommendation. In its August 2020 response, ODNI noted that it held virtual listening session in early fiscal year 2020 with Intelligence Community Centers for Academic Excellence (IC CAE) program managers and principal investigators to inform the development of meaningful performance measures and reporting criteria. ODNI noted that the criteria was collected using standardized, repeatable processes to ensure both accuracy and completeness during site visits and performance reviews for active grant recipients. ODNI further noted that it plans to integrate the criteria from the listening sessions into the Strategic Implementation Plan, which it expects to complete in the third quarter of fiscal year 2021. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Director of National Intelligence should develop a process for assessing why some IC elements are not participating in the IC CAE program and address these reasons in order to ensure the program is structured to meet the needs of IC elements. (Recommendation 6)

Agency: Office of the Director of National Intelligence
Status: Open

Comments: The Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) concurred with this recommendation. In its August 2020 response, ODNI noted that was in the process of developing an engagement strategy for the reintegration of Intelligence Community Centers for Academic Excellence (IC CAE) legacy schools to ensure prior investments are capitalized on and to maximize outreach efforts. ODNI also noted that it is routinely leveraging multiple interagency IC-wide working groups to engage with IC elements and stakeholders to increase its understanding of barriers to engaging with IC CAE, as well as to develop a community-wide understanding of the benefits associated with engagement. ODNI plans to include the results in the Strategic Implementation Plan, which it expects to complete in the third quarter of fiscal year 2021, and noted that it will routinely update these efforts to ensure best practices are being implemented. The ODNI stated that it will use this ongoing process and dialogue to assess and seek to address such barriers and to improve ongoing IC element participation. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Director of National Intelligence should clearly define IC elements' roles and responsibilities for participation in the IC CAE program to better facilitate interagency collaboration in support of the program. (Recommendation 7)

Agency: Office of the Director of National Intelligence
Status: Open

Comments: The Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) concurred with this recommendation. In its March 2020 response, ODNI noted that it was leveraging multiple interagency forums in an effort to improve IC element participation in the IC CAE program. ODNI also noted that it would and encourage the standardization and use of common practices by leveraging IC CAE schools for recruitment and hiring within diverse communities. Together, ODNI noted that it will use input from these efforts to shape a collaborative way ahead for increased and improved IC engagement based on community roles and responsibilities. These efforts will also be integrated into the program's Strategic Implementation Plan, which is expected to be completed in late 2021 and will set the foundation for behavior and reporting criteria across all IC CAE institutions and stakeholders. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of State should work with IAEA and its member states through the Board of Governors to develop detailed guidelines for prioritizing nuclear security activities. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of State
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of State (State) agreed with this recommendation and it has identified several actions it has taken to implement this recommendation. State also has identified some progress resulting from its actions. Among other actions, State reported in its January 2020 letter to GAO that it is: working with the IAEA to identify ways to better develop and implement strategic planning across the Division of Nuclear Security, potentially including through dedicated staff; conveying to IAEA that it should do more to synthesize information from donor areas of emphasis, member state requests, and the contents of Integrated Nuclear Security Support Plans into a set of inputed priorities; and doing more to coordinate among the larger donors to the Nuclear Security Fund (NSF) to optimize and enhance the way the Division of Nuclear Security prioritizes and carries out its nuclear security activities funded via the NSF. State noted several positive results stemming from these actions, including: (1) an increased emphasis in IAEA's most recent Nuclear Security Report on internal coordination and a more collaborative approach within the IAEA in the implementation of its nuclear security activities, which State believes will help reduce duplication, streamline Agency activities, increase efficiency and effectiveness, and maximize the benefits to IAEA member states; and (2) participation by number of donors to the NSF in a series of informal coordination meetings with the IAEA that included discussing how the Agency views its priorities for its nuclear security activities, which State believes are more likely to result in positive outcomes than priorities negotiated at Board of Governors meetings. GAO will follow up with State in fiscal years 2020 and 2021 to determine the extent to which these efforts lead to more concrete prioritization guidelines for IAEA's nuclear security program.

Recommendation: The Secretary of State should work with IAEA and its member states through the Board of Governors to improve the nuclear security program's performance measures by developing baselines and measurable targets. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of State
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of State (State) agreed with this recommendation and agreed that more could be done by IAEA to define nuclear security program baselines and targets, especially on activities that are mostly or fully within the IAEA's remit. In its January 2020 letter to GAO, State noted that it has advocated for improved program management within the Division of Nuclear Security. State believed the advocacy is having an impact, as is evident in the most recent Nuclear Security Report, which included reference to the continued application of a results-based approach to nuclear security activities which help drive positive outcomes from Agency assistance. State also noted in its letter that it continues to pursue better performance measures during negotiations of the next IAEA Programme and Budget (for 2022-2023) and in the development of the next IAEA Nuclear Security Plan (for 2022-2025). State said that it will continue to encourage IAEA to apply program management best practices, including comprehensively establishing performance measures, documenting baselines, setting clear goals, and measuring outcomes. GAO will follow up with State officials in fiscal years 2020 and 2021 and review the next IAEA Programme and Budget and the 2022-2025 Nuclear Security Plan (which should be issued in September 2021) to assess whether IAEA has improved nuclear security program performance measures, including by incorporating baselines and measurable targets.

Recommendation: The Secretary of State should work with IAEA and its member states through the Board of Governors to improve how the Division of Nuclear Security (DNS) reports to member states by consistently including the results of performance measures in at least one of the reports. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of State
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of State (State) agreed with this recommendation and its January 2020 letter to GAO it indicated that it is working with the IAEA to improve its reporting. Specifically, State reported that in conjunction with its efforts to address recommendation 2, to improve nuclear security program performance measures, it has seen IAEA's Division of Nuclear Security make improvements in an effort to be more consistent and diligent about providing performance measures and reporting results to IAEA member states. In fiscal years 2020 and 2021, GAO will review available IAEA nuclear security reports and will follow up with State to clarify improvements it has observed in IAEA's nuclear security program reporting.

Recommendation: The Secretary of State should work with IAEA and its member states through the Board of Governors to analyze options to stabilize DNS's funding within current fiscal and political constraints to enhance the sustainability of IAEA's nuclear security program. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of State
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of State (State) agreed with this recommendation, and in its January 2020 letter to GAO, State noted that the sustainability of the Division of Nuclear Security's budget remains a major area of focus. State noted that many IAEA member states maintain a position of zero real growth in IAEA's budget and are reluctant to reapportion funding to nuclear security activities from other IAEA programs. State reported that it will advocate for priority areas in IAEA budget negotiations, such as nuclear security, to gain a greater share of any agreed budget increases as an alternative to shifting funds from other programs. State noted that this remains a challenge, but that it will continue to identify options to enhance the sustainability of the IAEA's nuclear security program, including how best to also strengthen governance of the Nuclear Security Fund. GAO will follow up with State in fiscal years 2020 and 2021 regarding the options it has identified and pursued to improve the sustainability of the nuclear security program and its funding.

Recommendation: The Secretary of State should work with IAEA and its member states through the Board of Governors to strengthen the agency's central coordinating role by following key practices for collaboration. (Recommendation 5)

Agency: Department of State
Status: Open

Comments: The State Department (State) agreed with this recommendation, and in its January 2020 letter to GAO it generally stated that it is working with IAEA and its member states to improve collaboration among nuclear security stakeholders and strengthen the Agency's central coordinating role. However, State's letter did not specify actions that State is undertaking in this regard. Instead, State's letter reiterated coordinating actions that IAEA had already been undertaking at the time of our report. GAO will follow up with State in fiscal years 2020 and 2021 to better understand the actions, if any, it is taking or has planned to strengthen IAEA's central coordinating role, as well as any actions IAEA is taking independently to improve its coordinating role consistent with key practices for effective collaboration.

Recommendation: We recommend the NASA Administrator ensure that the NASA Associate Administrator for Human Exploration and Operations direct the SLS program to calculate its development cost growth using a baseline that is appropriately adjusted for scope and costs NASA has determined are not associated with the first flight, and determine if the development cost growth has increased by 30 percent or more. (Recommendation 1)

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

Comments: NASA agreed with this recommendation. As of February 2020, NASA stated that it is conducting a rebaseline of the cost and schedule commitments for the SLS program and will document final decisions in an Agency Baseline Commitment decision memorandum. NASA officials anticipate they will complete this effort in Spring 2020. To fully implement this recommendation, NASA will need to measure cost growth using a baseline that reflects the scope of work currently planned for the first mission.

Recommendation: We recommend the NASA Administrator ensure that the NASA Associate Administrator for Human Exploration and Operations direct the Orion program to update its cost estimate to reflect its committed EM-2 baseline date of April 2023. (Recommendation 2)

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

Comments: NASA partially agreed with this recommendation, stating that providing the estimate to the forecasted launch date rather than to the committed baseline date of April 2023 is the most appropriate approach. In November 2019, program officials told us that they will consider this recommendation as part of updating the joint confidence level analysis for the program's 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 needs to provide an updated cost estimate through April 2023.

Recommendation: We recommend the NASA Administrator ensure that the NASA Associate Administrator for Human Exploration and Operations direct the EGS program to demonstrate design maturity by completing 3D product modeling of the basic and functional design of the second Mobile Launcher prior to construction start. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Status: Open

Comments: NASA agreed with this recommendation and stated that the acquisition strategy for the second mobile launcher requires the use of 3D product modeling and that it will be the source for all engineering activities including integrated design reviews to demonstrate design maturity. It is too soon to assess the design maturity prior to construction start and we will provide updated information on actions NASA has taken at that time.

Recommendation: We recommend the NASA Administrator ensure that the NASA Associate Administrator for Human Exploration and Operations direct the SLS and Orion programs to reevaluate their strategies for incentivizing contractors and determine whether they could more effectively incentivize contractors to achieve the outcomes intended as part of ongoing and planned contract negotiations. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Status: Open

Comments: NASA agreed with the intent of this recommendation and stated that the SLS and Orion program offices reevaluate their strategies for incentivizing contract performance as part of normal contracting activities including contract restructures, contract baseline adjustments, and new contract actions. The Orion program has awarded a long term contract for production of the Orion spacecraft that incorporates new strategies intended to reduce contract costs. The SLS program is in the process of negotiating long term production contracts for required hardware.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment to determine and identify in final guidance for middle-tier acquisition programs the metrics that will be used to assess the performance of middle-tier acquisition programs across the military departments, including whether programs are meeting statutory objectives. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation, and stated that it planned to determine performance metrics in coordination with its release of its final guidance on middle-tier programs, which DOD expected to release in late 2019. In December 2019, Congress passed the fiscal year 2020 National Defense Authorization Act. Section 837 in the Conference Report accompanying the Act requires DOD to submit a report to the congressional defense committees no later than December 15, 2019, that includes guidance on the use of middle-tier acquisition authority and the metrics required to assess the performance of such a program, among other topics. DOD's report, provided to Congress in January 2020, identified metrics that DOD planned to use to assess the performance of these programs. The Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment subsequently leveraged these metrics in its March 2020 bi-annual review of middle-tier acquisition programs to assess program execution. However, DOD has yet to identify these metrics in guidance as we recommended, which we continue to believe is important to facilitate consistent reporting across the military departments and DOD components.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should develop a plan for how the department will assess the effect of recent acquisition reforms, including identifying who will be responsible for the assessment and what data will be needed. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation, and stated that it has included a division in the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Acquisition to analyze the effect of recent acquisition reforms and other high-level oversight and policy issues. In December 2019, Congress took additional action. The Conference Report accompanying the fiscal year 2020 National Defense Authorization Act required DOD to submit a report with the budget for fiscal year 2021 on the progress of implementing acquisition reform initiatives. In response, DOD provided a report to Congress in March 2020 that includes how the Secretary will identify, quantify, assess and manage program risk, describes changes to DOD's data collection and sharing processes, and describes new acquisition frameworks to be implemented. However, the report does not address how DOD will assess the acquisition reforms, what data is needed, or who is responsible. Additionally, in August 2020, the Assistant Secretary of Defense approved a plan for assessing the implementation of new acquisition pathways at DOD. However, DOD is still identifying the specific data needed to assess each acquisition pathway, as well as determining how to assess the remaining acquisition reforms we covered in our June 2019 report. Therefore, we will continue to monitor DOD efforts to implement this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Administrator of GSA should take steps to reconcile G-REX and the Federal Real Property Profile to the extent practical. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: General Services Administration
Status: Open

Comments: GSA is taking steps to implement this recommendation. GSA staff summarized the agency's approach to addressing the recommendation in a January 2020 meeting. GAO agreed to check progress with GSA in the summer of 2020.

Recommendation: The Administrator of GSA should develop a process for assessing at regular intervals, such as annually, agencies' policies and procedures for managing their delegated leasing activities. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: General Services Administration
Status: Open

Comments: GSA is taking steps to implement this recommendation. GSA staff summarized the agency's approach to addressing the recommendation in a January 2020 meeting. GAO agreed to check progress with GSA in the summer of 2020.

Recommendation: The Administrator of GSA should develop a process that would allow GSA to track agencies' progress in meeting GSA management goals, such as cost effective lease rates, and avoiding holdovers. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: General Services Administration
Status: Open

Comments: GSA is taking steps to implement this recommendation. GSA staff summarized the agency's approach to addressing the recommendation in a January 2020 meeting. GAO agreed to check progress with GSA in the summer of 2020.

Recommendation: The Administrator of GSA should develop a systematic, risk-based process for monitoring a selection of submitted post award documents. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: General Services Administration
Status: Open

Comments: GSA is taking steps to implement this recommendation. GSA staff summarized the agency's approach to addressing the recommendation in a January 2020 meeting. GAO agreed to check progress with GSA in the summer of 2020.

Recommendation: The Assistant Secretary of the Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction Office (CWMD) should ensure that the office regularly collects detailed information from cities on expenditures made using program funds and compares that information to approved purchase plans to ensure that these funds were spent as approved, consistent with program goals, and that the expenditures are in keeping with the objectives of the program. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Homeland Security: Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction Office
Status: Open

Comments: The Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction Act of 2018 requires that CWMD develop an implementation plan for the Securing the Cities program that, among other things, identifies the goals of the program and provides a strategy for achieving those goals. The act requires CWMD to submit this implementation plan to Congress by December 2019. As of June 2020, DHS/CWMD had not yet completed its implementation plan for the Securing the Cities program. Depending on its content, this plan may contain key provisions that could address this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Assistant Secretary of CWMD should more fully assess cities' performance by collecting information from cities on achieving key performance metrics and program milestones and enforcing reporting requirements on performance during exercises. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Homeland Security: Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction Office
Status: Open

Comments: The Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction Act of 2018 requires that CWMD develop an implementation plan for the Securing the Cities program that, among other things, identifies the goals of the program and provides a strategy for achieving those goals. The act requires CWMD to submit this implementation plan to Congress by December 2019. As of June 2020, DHS/CWMD had not yet completed its implementation plan for the Securing the Cities program. Depending on its content, this plan may contain key provisions that could address this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Assistant Secretary of CWMD should analyze risks related to sustaining detection capabilities, work with cities to address these risks, and enforce sustainment planning requirements for future cities. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Homeland Security: Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction Office
Status: Open

Comments: The Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction Act of 2018 requires that CWMD develop an implementation plan for the Securing the Cities program that, among other things, identifies the goals of the program and provides a strategy for achieving those goals. The act requires CWMD to submit this implementation plan to Congress by December 2019. As of June 2020, DHS/CWMD had not yet completed its implementation plan for the Securing the Cities program. Depending on its content, this plan may contain key provisions that could address this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Assistant Secretary of CWMD should clearly communicate to cities how the existing program will operate until a new program is developed and implemented. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of Homeland Security: Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction Office
Status: Open

Comments: The Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction Act of 2018 requires that CWMD develop an implementation plan for the Securing the Cities program that, among other things, identifies the goals of the program and provides a strategy for achieving those goals. The act requires CWMD to submit this implementation plan to Congress by December 2019. As of June 2020, DHS/CWMD had not yet completed its implementation plan for the Securing the Cities program. Depending on its content, this plan may contain key provisions that could address this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Sustainment, in coordination with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, issue a more detailed implementation plan or include implementation plan details in identified formal department-wide guidance to include a description of the resources (i.e., relevant operational and financial information) required to implement the plan including dollar and personnel amounts. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. On February 25, 2020, DOD issued its revised Pre-Positioned War Reserve Materiel Strategic Implementation Plan. However, the updated plan did not include a description of the resources-- including dollar and personnel amounts--required to implement the plan. Instead, the updated plan states that no additional personnel or resources will be required to execute and manage the plan, and that those personnel executing and managing the plan are expected to do so in addition to their normal duties. In May 2020, DOD stated it intends to include additional information about the required resources in the plan's next revision. We will keep this recommendation open pending our review of the next iteration of the plan.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Sustainment, in coordination with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, take steps to fully implement joint oversight of DODs prepositioned stock programs, including providing detailed information on how to implement such an oversight approach in department guidance and reviewing other joint oversight efforts, in order to synchronize the military services' preposition stock strategies to avoid fragmentation. (Recommendation 5)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. On February 25, 2020, DOD issued its revised Pre-Positioned War Reserve Materiel Strategic Implementation Plan which lays out a method for joint oversight. While GAO is encouraged and will monitor DOD's implementation efforts, it is too soon to determine the extent to which these efforts-when completed-will address DOD's fragmented management of its prepositioned stock programs. To fully address this recommendation, DOD needs to fully implement the joint oversight method outlined in the plan.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Health and Human Services should revise HHS's process for conducting improper payment risk assessments for Head Start to help ensure that it results in a reliable assessment of whether the program is susceptible to significant improper payments. This should include preparing sufficient documentation to support its risk assessments. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) concurred with this recommendation. In fiscal year 2019, HHS reported that it utilized Microsoft SharePoint to facilitate and begin to automate the Improper Payment Risk Assessment process. According to HHS, the SharePoint risk assessment form included the added ability to track the status of submissions and collect any applicable supporting documentation. Also, HHS stated that the Assistant Secretary for Financial Resources staff discussed the importance of maintaining supporting documentation during the fiscal year 2019 Improper Payment Risk Assessment Kick-Off meeting with HHS's operating divisions, and also built this feature into the SharePoint form. In fiscal year 2020, HHS reported that the implementation of the long-term solution to conducting improper payment risk assessments, the Risk Assessment Portal (previously called the Automated Improper Payment Framework), is underway and went into production in March 2020. Additionally, HHS indicated that it has revised its improper payment questionnaire and scoring process to ensure HHS performs a reliable assessment of susceptibility to significant improper payments. Also, HHS stated that it will leverage the Risk Assessment Portal, new questionnaire, and revised scoring process in the fiscal year 2020 risk assessment reporting period. Further, HHS stated that it is reviewing GAO reports and resources, capturing best practices from other agencies, and soliciting feedback from HHS's operating divisions to further improve its processes. Last, HHS stated that it will continue to develop policies, procedures, and supporting tools throughout calendar year 2020. We will continue to monitor the agency's actions to address this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Health and Human Services should revise HHS's procedures for conducting improper payment risk assessments to help ensure that all programs and activities are assessed for susceptibility to significant improper payments at least once every 3 years, as required by IPIA. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) concurred with this recommendation. In fiscal year 2019, HHS reported that it utilized DATA Act information to create an inventory of programs and activities that could potentially be subject to improper payment risk assessment requirements. According to HHS, it developed a risk-based methodology for selecting programs and activities for review using the DATA Act files. Data fields within the DATA Act files allow HHS to further analyze the program and activity inventory. For example, the object class data enabled HHS to categorize the program's spending to provide insight into each program's unique risks. HHS stated that this methodology was used and documented in fiscal year 2019 but HHS plans to further refine and finalize this approach. In fiscal year 2020, HHS reported that its Office of the Inspector General (OIG) is currently reviewing the methodology as part of the Annual Inspector General review of HHS's improper payment reporting under the Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Act of 2020. HHS stated that it will implement any feedback from the OIG, as well as lessons learned from the fiscal year 2019 and fiscal year 2020 risk assessment reporting period, in fiscal year 2021. We will continue to monitor the agency's actions to address this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Attorney General should revise DOJ's process for conducting improper payment risk assessments for Law Enforcement to help ensure that it results in a reliable assessment of whether the program is susceptible to significant improper payments. This should include preparing sufficient documentation to support DOJ's risk assessments. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of Justice
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: The Department of Justice (DOJ) did not concur with this recommendation. In January 2020, DOJ reiterated that it continues to not concur with the recommendation. DOJ stated that its risk assessment methodology provides DOJ management with a reasonable basis for determining whether the law enforcement program, as well as DOJ's other four mission-aligned programs, are susceptible to significant improper payments. In addition, DOJ reiterated that it continues to not concur with GAO's conclusion that DOJ's risk assessment documentation is not adequate. DOJ stated that its documentation meets all of the requirements in the Improper Payments Information Act of 2002 (IPIA), as amended, and the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) implementing guidance. Therefore, DOJ stated that it does not believe it would be a prudent use of limited resources to expand on the documentation that already exists. DOJ stated that notwithstanding its differences from GAO on the recommendation, it will continue to examine its risk assessment methodology. Finally, DOJ stated that its goal has been, and continues to be, meeting the requirements of IPIA, as amended, and OMB's implementing guidance in a cost effective manner. We continue to believe this recommendation is appropriate because DOJ's risk assessment documentation did not adequately demonstrate how DOJ determined the weighting of the risk factors or the numerical risk level ranges or whether a program is or is not susceptible to significant improper payments. We will continue to monitor the agency's actions to address the 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 FNS should present the uncertainty around its retailer trafficking estimates in future reports by, for example, including the full range of the estimates in the report body and executive summary. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Agriculture: Office of the Secretary: Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services: Food and Nutrition Service
Status: Open

Comments: FNS generally agreed with this recommendation, and stated that it will present the uncertainty around the retailer trafficking estimates in the executive summary and main body of all future trafficking reports, instead of presenting the information in appendices, as it did in past reports. In August 2020, FNS stated that it has made this change to the next trafficking report, which is in clearance at USDA. GAO will consider this recommendation implemented when FNS issues its this report.

Recommendation: The Administrator of FNS should continue efforts to improve the agency's retailer trafficking estimates by evaluating (1) whether the factors used to identify stores for possible investigation could help address the bias in its sample, and (2) the accuracy of its assumption of the percentage of SNAP benefits that are trafficked by different types of stores. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Agriculture: Office of the Secretary: Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services: Food and Nutrition Service
Status: Open

Comments: FNS generally agreed with this recommendation. FNS stated that it will evaluate whether incorporating additional factors, such as the Watch List score used to identify stores for possible investigation, could improve its estimation methodology. FNS also stated that it will work with the USDA OIG to better understand the methodology the OIG uses to estimate the share of benefits that are trafficked by a retailer who is prosecuted for trafficking, and determine whether it is feasible to apply a similar methodology to the transaction data maintained by FNS in order to improve the accuracy of its assumptions about the percentage of SNAP benefits that are trafficked. In August 2020, FNS noted that it will evaluate the feasibility of this revised methodology for the trafficking estimates covering years 2018 through 2020. GAO will consider this recommendation implemented when FNS provides information on the results of this evaluation.

Recommendation: The Administrator of FNS should assess the benefits and costs of reauthorizing a sample of high-risk stores more frequently than other stores, use the assessment to determine the appropriate scope and time frames for reauthorizing high-risk stores moving forward, and document this decision in policy and on its website. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Agriculture: Office of the Secretary: Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services: Food and Nutrition Service
Status: Open

Comments: FNS generally agreed with this recommendation. In August 2020, FNS stated that it included a sample of 471 high-risk stores that had not yet reached their 5-year reauthorization cycle in its fiscal year 2020 reauthorization pool. Once fiscal year 2020 reauthorizations are complete, FNS will analyze the outcomes of these reauthorizations to determine the benefits and costs of reauthorizing some high-risk stores more frequently. At that point, FNS will determine the appropriate scope and time frames for reauthorizing high-risk stores moving forward. GAO will consider this recommendation implemented when FNS completes this work.

Recommendation: The Administrator of FNS should move forward with plans to increase penalties for retailer trafficking. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of Agriculture: Office of the Secretary: Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services: Food and Nutrition Service
Status: Open

Comments: FNS generally agreed with this recommendation. In August 2020, FNS reported that it has developed a proposed rule to accomplish this change. The agency expects the proposed rule to be published in December 2020.

Recommendation: The Administrator of FNS should establish performance measures for its trafficking prevention activities. (Recommendation 5)

Agency: Department of Agriculture: Office of the Secretary: Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services: Food and Nutrition Service
Status: Open

Comments: FNS generally agreed with this recommendation. In August 2020, FNS reported that the agency has assessed existing data to develop strategies for trafficking prevention, and is taking a two-pronged approach. First, the agency stated that it has updated training materials and guidance to make them more accessible for staff. Second, the agency stated that it is continuing to assess store applications and reauthorizations for business integrity, including prior fraud and other criminal offenses by store owners or managers, as described in regulations and policy. However, FNS did not indicate whether the agency currently has plans to establish performance measures for its trafficking prevention activities.

Recommendation: The Chief Operating Officer of the Office of Federal Student Aid should develop a timeline for issuing a comprehensive guidance and instructions document for PSLF servicing. This could involve developing a new servicing manual or expanding upon the PSLF servicer's existing processing handbook. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Education: Office of Federal Student Aid
Status: Open

Comments: Education agreed with this recommendation and reported in September 2019 that it was continuing its efforts to improve and streamline guidance for the PSLF servicer. While Education said it is working on developing its comprehensive PSLF servicing manual, it does not yet have a timeline for how it will complete this manual and has indicated that it intends to deliver completed chapters on an iterative basis based on servicing priorities. To implement this recommendation, Education needs to develop a timeline for completing the PSLF servicing manual and demonstrate that it will provide comprehensive guidance and instructions for PSLF servicing.

Recommendation: The Chief Operating Officer of the Office of Federal Student Aid should provide additional information to the PSLF servicer and borrowers to enhance their ability to determine which employers qualify for PSLF. This could involve Education developing an authoritative list of qualifying employers or improving the PSLF servicer's existing database, and making this information available to borrowers. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Education: Office of Federal Student Aid
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: Education agreed with this recommendation, and in December 2018, the agency released a new online tool to help borrowers better understand the PSLF eligibility requirements. Education has indicated that this tool could eventually be expanded to incorporate additional qualifying employer information. Education has also indicated that implementation of the recommendation is tied to the rollout of a new loan servicing system, which it expects to be fully operational in October 2021. To implement this recommendation, Education needs to demonstrate that it is providing information that will help the PSLF servicer and borrowers determine whether employment with specific employers will qualify borrowers for the program.

Recommendation: The Chief Operating Officer of the Office of Federal Student Aid should ensure that borrowers receive sufficiently detailed information from the PSLF servicer to be able to identify any errors in the servicer's counts of qualifying payments, including information on whether or not each payment qualified toward forgiveness. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of Education: Office of Federal Student Aid
Status: Open

Comments: Education agreed with this recommendation, and in June 2020, reported that it is reviewing communications from the PSLF servicer to ensure that borrowers receive sufficiently detailed information regarding payment counts and payment history. Education also indicated that implementation of the recommendation is tied to the rollout of a new loan servicing system, which it expects to be fully operational in October 2021. We will close the recommendation once Education provides documentation of the changes in communications from the PSLF servicer that demonstrate borrowers are receiving sufficiently detailed information regarding payment counts and payment history.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Director of DSCA takes steps to work with Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS)--DSCA's financial service provider--and other DOD components, as appropriate, to improve the reliability of the data the DSCA obtains on all DOD components' use of FMS administrative funds, including actual execution data, at an appropriate level of detail, such as by object class. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: In February and May 2019, DSCA informed us that it had taken some steps to implement this recommendation, including establishing an automatic interface with certain DOD components' accounting systems to provide DSCA with daily information and data on those components' actual spending of FMS administrative funds. DSCA noted that it is working toward establishing automatic interfaces for the other components that receive these funds. In October 2019, DSCA informed us that implementation is ongoing. As of August 2020, we continue to monitor DOD's ongoing actions to implement this recommendation .

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Director of DSCA works with DFAS to conduct regular reconciliations of the data that DSCA collects on DOD components' use of administrative funds, to help ensure that the data are reliable. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: In May 2019, DSCA noted that it is undertaking an initiative to incorporate reconciliation capabilities into its oversight of components' use of FMS administrative funds. In October 2019, DSCA informed us that efforts to implement this recommendation are ongoing. As of August 2020, we continue to monitor DOD's actions to implement this recommendation .

Recommendation: The Director of DSCA should follow its requirement to conduct at least two annual reviews of military department business processes for administrative funds. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Defense: Defense Security Cooperation Agency
Status: Open

Comments: In October 2019, DSCA informed us that it had conducted two business process reviews for military departments in 2019. As of August 2020, we continue to monitor DSCA's ongoing actions to implement this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Director of DSCA should conduct periodic (e.g., annual or biennial) reviews of other DOD components' (e.g., other than military departments) business processes for administrative funds, based on a risk-based approach. Such an approach could include consideration of whether an entity has received a prior review or representative sampling over time, as well as consideration of factors such as the results of prior audits or other identified risks. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of Defense: Defense Security Cooperation Agency
Status: Open

Comments: In October 2019, DSCA informed us that it planned to conduct one review for another DOD component (e.g., other than a military department) in fall 2019. In January 2019, it collaborated with other DOD components that receive FMS administrative funds to develop risk-based criteria for selecting components for periodic business process reviews . DSCA also provided updated policies and procedures for these reviews, which state that DSCA will conduct at least one review for another DOD component annually. As of August 2020, we continue to monitor DSCA's ongoing actions to implement this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Director of DSCA should create and maintain a complete list of military department organizations or offices that receive administrative funds and are subject to DSCA's business process reviews. (Recommendation 5)

Agency: Department of Defense: Defense Security Cooperation Agency
Status: Open

Comments: In May 2019, DSCA provided supporting documentation to show that, as part of its annual budget review cycle, it had required DOD components to provide a list of sub-components/organizations that receive FMS administrative funds. In October 2019, DSCA provided a list of sub-components/organizations that DSCA obtained as part of the 2019 annual budget cycle. As of August 2020, we continue to monitor DSCA's actions to implement this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Director of DSCA should update DSCA's policy for selecting military department organizations for reviews of their business processes for administrative funds, to better ensure that it reflects a risk-based approach. (Recommendation 6)

Agency: Department of Defense: Defense Security Cooperation Agency
Status: Open

Comments: In May 2019, DSCA provided updated standard operating procedures for selecting military department organizations for reviews of their business processes for administrative funds. As of August 2020, we are reviewing the documentation provided and following up with DSCA to determine the extent to which the new procedures reflect a risk-based approach.

Recommendation: The Director of DSCA should clarify guidance to ensure that the DSCA officials conducting reviews of business processes for administrative funds periodically track action items until they are completed. (Recommendation 7)

Agency: Department of Defense: Defense Security Cooperation Agency
Status: Open

Comments: In February 2019, DSCA noted that it had updated its policies and procedures to reflect that it will track action items from business process reviews every 30 days, until the action items area completed. DSCA needs to providing supporting documentation for its efforts to track action items. As of August 2020, we continue to monitor DSCA's ongoing actions to implement this recommendation .

Recommendation: The Director of DSCA should develop a process for conducting periodic (e.g., quarterly or annual), targeted reviews of DOD components' use of administrative funds, including transactions testing, to verify that actual costs incurred are allowable and approved. (Recommendation 8)

Agency: Department of Defense: Defense Security Cooperation Agency
Status: Open

Comments: In February 2019, DSCA noted that it was in the process of conducting "mock" audits of DOD components' use of FMS administrative funds, and that it was undergoing efforts to ensure that a process is in place for the financial review of components' actual spending of these funds. DSCA noted that these efforts were ongoing in October 2019. As of August 2020, we continue to monitor DSCA's ongoing efforts to implement this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Director of DSCA takes steps to work with DFAS and other DOD components, as appropriate, to improve the reliability of the data that DSCA obtains on all DOD components' use of CAS funds, including actual execution data, at an appropriate level of detail, such as by object class. (Recommendation 9)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: In February and May 2019, DSCA informed us that it had taken some steps to implement this recommendation, including establishing an automatic interface with certain DOD components' accounting systems to provide DSCA with daily information and data on those components' actual spending of FMS CAS funds. DSCA noted that it is working toward establishing automatic interfaces for the other components that receive these funds. In October 2019, DSCA informed us that implementation is ongoing. As of August 2020, we continue to monitor DOD's ongoing actions to implement this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Director of DSCA works with DFAS to conduct regular reconciliations of the data that DSCA collects on DOD components' use of CAS funds, to help ensure that the data are reliable. (Recommendation 10)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: In May 2019, DSCA noted that it is undertaking an initiative to incorporate reconciliation capabilities into its oversight of components' use of FMS CAS funds. In October 2019, DSCA informed us that efforts to implement this recommendation are ongoing. As of August 2020, we continue to monitor DOD's actions to implement this recommendation

Recommendation: The Director of DSCA should develop a process for conducting periodic (e.g., quarterly or annual), targeted reviews of DOD components' use of CAS funds, including transactions testing, to verify that actual costs incurred are allowable and approved. (Recommendation 11)

Agency: Department of Defense: Defense Security Cooperation Agency
Status: Open

Comments: In February 2019, DSCA noted that it was in the process of conducting "mock" audits of DOD components' use of FMS CAS funds, and that it was undergoing efforts to ensure that a process is in place for the financial review of components' actual spending of these funds. As of October 2019, DSCA noted that these efforts were ongoing. As of August 2020, we continue to monitor DSCA's ongoing efforts to implement this recommendation.

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 Administrator of the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) should improve its estimate of children's participation in the SFSP by focusing on addressing, at a minimum, data reliability issues caused by variations in the number of operating days of meal sites and in the months in which states see the greatest number of meals served. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Agriculture: Office of the Secretary: Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services: Food and Nutrition Service
Status: Open

Comments: In March 2019, Department of Agriculture's Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) submitted its 180-day letter and a subsequent response to report recommendations in GAO-18-369. In its response, FNS stated that it anticipates completing an evaluation of how they calculate SFSP participation by summer 2020. GAO will continue to monitor FNS actions to address this recommendation, including the status of its evaluation and steps taken to improve the agency's estimate of children participating in SFSP. GAO will consider this recommendation closed when FNS provides documentation that it has addressed, at a minimum, data reliability issues in the participation estimate caused by variations in the number of operating days of meal sites and in the months in which states see the greatest number of meals served. FNS plans to provide us with the status of its efforts by the end of FY 2020.

Recommendation: The Administrator of FNS should communicate to all SFSP stakeholders the circumstances it considers in approving requests for flexibility with respect to the requirement that children consume SFSP meals on-site in areas that have experienced crime and violence, taking into account the feasibility of accessing data needed for approval, to ensure safe delivery of meals to children. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Agriculture: Office of the Secretary: Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services: Food and Nutrition Service
Status: Open

Comments: In late May 2018, the Department of Agriculture's Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) provided guidance to states regarding changes in policies related to SFSP waivers and demonstration projects and held a webinar to clarify the changes. In March 2019, FNS reported that this guidance and the webinar provided information about participation in the demonstration for exceptional circumstances, which is the means through which FNS had granted states and program providers flexibility for children to consume SFSP meals off-site in areas that had experienced crime and violence. However, the guidance documents do not directly acknowledge that FNS includes areas with crime and violence as exceptional circumstances for purposes of the demonstration, and neither the guidance nor the webinar provided new information about the circumstances FNS considers when granting the flexibility for such areas. GAO will therefore continue to monitor FNS actions to address this recommendation and consider it closed when the agency communicates the circumstances it considers in approving such requests for flexibility with response to the requirement that children consume SFSP meals on-site in areas that have experienced crime and violence. FNS plans to provide us with the status of its efforts by the end of FY 2020.

Recommendation: The Administrator of FNS should evaluate and annually report to Congress, as required by statute, on its use of waivers and demonstration projects to grant states and sponsors flexibility with respect to the requirement that children consume SFSP meals on-site in areas experiencing crime or violence, to improve its understanding of the use and impact of granting these flexibilities on meeting program goals. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Agriculture: Office of the Secretary: Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services: Food and Nutrition Service
Status: Open

Comments: In March 2019, Department of Agriculture's Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) reported that it had drafted the report to Congress to meet its statutory requirement summarizing the use of waivers and demonstration projects. FNS also indicated that the report was being reviewed internally, and planned to submit the final report to Congress following that review. GAO will consider closing this recommendation when FNS submits the final report to Congress. FNS plans to provide us with the status of its efforts by the end of FY 2020.

Recommendation: The Administrator of FNS should disseminate information about existing flexibilities available to state agencies to streamline administrative requirements for sponsors participating in the SFSP and other child nutrition programs to help lessen the administrative burden. For example, FNS could re-distribute existing guidance to state agencies that explains available flexibilities and encourage information sharing. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of Agriculture: Office of the Secretary: Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services: Food and Nutrition Service
Status: Open

Comments: In March 2019, Department of Agriculture's Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) submitted its 180-letter and a subsequent response to recommendations in GAO-18-369. In its response, FNS stated that it plans to address streamlining flexibilities that impact the SFSP and other child nutrition programs in a future regulatory action. GAO will therefore continue to monitor FNS's progress with this rule-making and any other actions taken to address this recommendation. FNS plans to provide us with the status of its efforts by the end of FY 2020.

Recommendation: The Under Secretary for Management should require the Office of Program Accountability and Risk Management to assess the results of major acquisition programs' post-implementation reviews and identify opportunities to improve performance across the acquisition portfolio. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open

Comments: In providing comments on this report, DHS concurred with our recommendation and stated that it planned to update its policy to require more formal reporting requirements and execution criteria for post-implementation reviews. PARM also plans to initiate a study focused on assessing lessons learned and developing a tool to share them across components to improve performance of the acquisition portfolio. In February 2020, PARM approved guidance intended to standardize analysis elements for post-implementation reviews. As of July 2020, PARM was still in the process of developing a tool to share results across components, but in the interim, results from some post-implementation reviews have been shared during meetings with Component Acquisition Executives. GAO will review post-implementation reviews conducted under the new guidance and will monitor DHS's implementation of the tool to ensure the department's actions meet the intent of this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should direct the Office of Special Needs (OSN) to assess the extent to which each Service is (1) providing sufficient resources for an appropriate number of family support providers, and (2) developing services plans for each family with special needs, and to include these results as part of OSN's analysis of any gaps in services for military families with special needs in each annual report issued by the Department to the congressional defense committees. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD agreed with this recommendation. In April 2019, DOD officials noted they plan to pilot a staffing tool that will help the Services determine the number of family support providers needed at each installation. The pilot currently includes multiple Services and is expected to last two years. DOD officials also noted that DOD is in the process of standardizing its case management processes for military families with special needs through its family needs assessment form. Among other things, this form is meant to help family support providers address requirements for individualized services plans and gain a better understanding of each family's current needs and goals. In its 2018 annual report to the congressional defense committees, DOD noted the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 requirement to develop and continuously update an individualized services plan for each military family with special needs. However, DOD said OSN may propose legislative changes to this requirement that would require an individualized services plan to be developed and updated only for those families that request services from family support providers. As of June 2020, we will consider closing this recommendation when the staffing tool is finalized and OSN has assessed each Service's number of family support providers and efforts to develop services plans.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should direct the Office of Special Needs (OSN) to develop common performance metrics for assignment coordination and family support, in accordance with leading practices for performance measurement. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD agreed with this recommendation. In April 2019, DOD officials noted that each Service submits data for assignment coordination and family support to the EFMP data repository on a quarterly basis. According to DOD officials, in 2018, the data repository was expanded to include a full year of quarterly data for each Service, and OSN is currently developing additional performance metrics for assignment coordination and family support. DOD also noted that it will continue to use the data repository to identify gaps and trends related to assignment coordination and family support, including collecting data from each installation. As of June 2020, we await documentation that OSN has developed performance metrics for assignment coordination and family support and uses them to identify gaps and trends across the Services.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should implement a systematic process for evaluating the results of monitoring activities conducted by each Service's EFMP. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD agreed with this recommendation. In April 2019, DOD said the family support component is monitored and evaluated through the each Service's certification process which includes specific standards for the EFMP. In addition, OSN participated in a monitoring site visit to Marine Corps Base Quantico in December 2018 and plans to participate in additional site visits that are coordinated by each Service's certification team. As of June 2020, we will consider closing this recommendation when DOD implements a process to evaluate the results of each Service's certification process.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Homeland Security should work with Congress to include O&S data in monthly execution reports at a major acquisition program level within current program/project activity accounts. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open

Comments: DHS agreed with this recommendation and has indicated the OCFO budget division will develop a display that provides major acquisition program level data at the program project activity level by March 30, 2019. As of March 2020, DHS has developed these displays and is working to populate them with all components' data.

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: The Secretary of the Navy should take steps to address areas of civilian and military program manager training, mentoring, retention, and selection that do not align extensively with leading practices. This could include using approaches already used by the other military services or commercial companies. (Recommendation 6)

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

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation, and indicated the Department of the Navy plans to improve its civilian and military program manager training, mentoring, retention, and selection programs across the program management community and the acquisition workforce as a whole. Regarding training, in January 2019 the Navy sent its first cohort of participants to a DOD talent exchange program with industry, open to both civilian and military acquisition personnel, and including a focus on the program management workforce. Of the second Navy cohort that started in this program in early 2020, eight were civilians in the program management career field. Regarding mentoring, in October 2018 the Department of the Navy issued a program management career field guidebook that included career path roadmaps and descriptions of skills and competencies - such as mentoring individuals and teams - needed to advance for program management personnel across the Navy. Regarding selection, the Navy is developing a talent management system to enable talent identification, career development, and succession management across the acquisition workforce. A pilot of this system started in 2020, and includes the program management career field. The Navy expects to complete this pilot in fiscal year 2021, and to use data from the system to support the selection of key leadership positions including program managers and deputy program managers.

Recommendation: The Administrator of NNSA should require an independent entity to validate that contractor EVM systems used for LEPs meet the EVM national standard. (Recommendation 1)

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

Comments: In October 2018, NNSA stated that the integrated baseline reviews, internal reviews of earned value management (EVM) systems used by life extension programs (LEP), and other controls over data integration provide a practical and cost-beneficial approach to the validation of contractor EVM systems. However, in early 2019, NNSA conducted a lessons learned study to more fully assess the cost, benefit, mission impacts, and feasibility of implementing our recommendation for possible application to future LEPs. According to NNSA documentation, based on the results of the lessons learned study, NNSA concluded that the effort and expense needed to validate contractor EVM systems against the EVM national standard could be better used providing resources to improve the agency's ability to establish work breakdown structures, schedules, and integration of scope, cost, and schedule. As a result, as of September 2019, NNSA stated that its actions meet the intent of our recommendation. We disagree. As we stated in our report, without requiring an independent entity to validate that contractor EVM systems meet the EVM national standard, NNSA may not have assurance that its LEPs are obtaining reliable EVM data for managing their programs and reporting their status. We will continue to monitor NNSA's activities to address this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Administrator of NNSA should require an independent entity to conduct surveillance reviews of contractor EVM systems used for LEPs to ensure that they maintain compliance with the EVM national standard through program completion. (Recommendation 2)

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

Comments: In October 2018, NNSA stated that it conducts ongoing surveillance through integrated baseline reviews, internal reviews of EVM systems used by LEPs, and other assessments, which consider national standards. However, in early 2019, NNSA conducted a lessons learned study to more fully assess the cost, benefit, mission impacts, and feasibility of implementing our recommendation for possible application to future LEPs. According to NNSA documentation, based on the results of the lessons learned study, NNSA concluded that the effort and expense needed to conduct surveillance reviews of contractor EVM systems to ensure compliance with the EVM national standard could be better used providing resources to improve the agency's ability to establish work breakdown structures, schedules, and integration of scope, cost, and schedule. As a result, as of September 2019, NNSA stated that its actions meet the intent of our recommendation. We disagree. As we stated in our report, without requiring an independent entity to conduct surveillance reviews of contractor EVM systems through program completion, NNSA may not have assurance that its LEPs are obtaining reliable EVM data for managing their programs and reporting their status. We will continue to monitor NNSA's activities to address this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Administrator of NNSA should require its programs to ensure that LEP critical technologies meet specific technology readiness level benchmarks at decision points, or otherwise document with program executive approval their rationale for not meeting these benchmarks. (Recommendation 3)

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

Comments: In October 2018, NNSA stated that it has already incorporated specific benchmarks for technology readiness levels at decision points. As an example, it stated that it recommends a technology readiness level of 5 at the beginning of phase 6.3 for an LEP. As a result, NNSA stated that its actions meet the intent of our recommendation. We disagree. As we stated in our report, it is important for NNSA to establish a requirement, not just a recommendation, that LEP critical technologies meet specific technology readiness level benchmarks at decision points. We will continue to monitor NNSA's activities to address this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Administrator of CMS, in partnership with the states, should take additional steps to expedite the use of T-MSIS data for program oversight. Such steps should include, but are not limited to, efforts to (1) obtain complete information from all states on unreported T-MSISdata elements and their plans to report applicable data elements; (2) identify and share information across states on known T-MSIS datalimitations to improve data comparability; and (3) implement mechanisms, such as the Learning Collaborative, by whichstates can collaborate on an ongoing basis to improve thecompleteness, comparability, and utility of T-MSIS data.(Recommendation 1)

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

Comments: HHS concurred with this recommendation. As of February 2020, CMS has taken steps to improve T-MSIS data quality, but further efforts are needed to expedite the data's use in oversight. With regard to obtaining complete information from all states, CMS released additional guidance in March 2019, on state compliance with T-MSIS requirements. This guidance includes the need to resolve data issues associated with 12 top priority items and missing data elements, both of which are key for using T-MSIS data. Further, CMS identified an additional 11 top priority items, noting it also expected states to resolve data issues with these items. CMS reports that it has helped resolve data issues related to these 23 top priority items by sending states summary data on compliance with associated reporting requirements. CMS has notified states of their compliance status and asked non-compliant states to submit corrective action plans. However, CMS reports that the level of states' T-MSIS data completeness varies and agency state liaisons and technical assistants continue to work individually with states to identify, prioritize, and resolve key missing data elements. With regard to identifying and sharing information, CMS has made some T-MSIS data available for use through five T-MSIS analytical files, which include data on Medicaid and CHIP enrollment, demographics, service utilization, and payments. Further, CMS has created resources to support researchers in their use of these analytical files, including information on the completeness and accuracy of certain data elements. With regard to implementing mechanisms for collaboration across states, additional CMS action is needed. In particular, CMS's efforts to create a mechanism for states to disseminate information about T-MSIS data and its comparability across states remain limited and the agency has not launched its proposed Learning Collaborative to facilitate ongoing feedback and collaboration. While progress has been made, additional actions, such as establishing mechanisms for ongoing feedback and collaboration across states, are needed to consider this recommendation implemented.

Recommendation: The Administrator of CMS should articulate a specific plan and associated time frames for using T-MSIS data for oversight. (Recommendation 2)

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

Comments: HHS concurred with this recommendation. As of February 2020, CMS has taken steps to articulate guidance to states, but has not outlined a specific plan and associated time frames for using T-MSIS data for oversight. Until CMS takes these actions, the recommendation remains open.

Recommendation: The Director of National Intelligence should develop a plan for monitoring continuous evaluation performance, to include assessing continuous evaluation at various phases of implementation. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Office of the Director of National Intelligence
Status: Open

Comments: ODNI generally concurred with this recommendation. As of November 2019, ODNI has provided information that may allow us to close this recommendation. We are currently evaluating that information and will update this recommendation once that evaluation is complete.

Recommendation: The Director of National Intelligence should develop performance measures for continuous evaluation that agencies must track and determine a process and schedule for agencies to regularly report those measures to ODNI. At minimum, these performance measures should be clear, quantifiable, objective, and linked to measurable goals. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Office of the Director of National Intelligence
Status: Open

Comments: ODNI generally concurred with this recommendation. As of November 2019, ODNI provided information that may allow us to close this recommendation. We are currently evaluating this information and once that evaluation is complete, we will update the status.

Recommendation: The Director of National Intelligence should, in coordination with the Deputy Director for Management of the Office of Management and Budget in the capacity as Chair of the Security, Suitability, and Credentialing Performance Accountability Council, conduct an evidence-based review of the timeliness goal of 195 days for completing the fastest 90 percent of periodic reinvestigations and the associated goals for the different phases of periodic reinvestigations, and adjust the goal if appropriate, taking into consideration available resources, the additional workload of continuous evaluation, and the risks associated with individuals retaining access to classified information without determining their continued eligibility. (Recommendation 5)

Agency: Office of the Director of National Intelligence
Status: Open

Comments: ODNI generally concurred with this recommendation. As of November 2019, ODNI stated that with the advent of Trusted Workforce 2.0, discussions are being held about timeliness goals and the periodic reinvestigation model writ large. Once we confirm what actions have been taken, we will update the status of this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Director of National Intelligence should, once ODNI has further defined the continuous evaluation program, to include issuing a Security Executive Agent Directive and developing an implementation plan, in coordination with the Deputy Director for Management of the Office of Management and Budget in the capacity as Chair of the Security, Suitability, and Credentialing Performance Accountability Council, assess the potential effects of continuous evaluation on agency resources and develop a plan, in consultation with implementing agencies, to address those effects, such as modifying the scope of periodic reinvestigations, changing the frequency of periodic reinvestigations, or replacing periodic reinvestigations for certain clearance holders. (Recommendation 6)

Agency: Office of the Director of National Intelligence
Status: Open

Comments: ODNI generally concurred with this recommendation. As of November 2019, ODNI provided information that may allow us to close this recommendation. We are currently evaluating that information and once that evaluation is complete, we will update the status of this recommendation.

Recommendation: The FEMA Assistant Administrator for Recovery, in coordination with the Associate Administrator of the Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, should develop performance measures and associated objectives for the new delivery model to better align with FEMA's strategic goal for hazard mitigation in the recovery process. (Recommendation 5)

Agency: Department of Homeland Security: Directorate of Emergency Preparedness and Response: Federal Emergency Management Agency: Office of Response and Recovery: Assistant Administrator for Recovery
Status: Open

Comments: FEMA concurred with this recommendation and said it would take steps to implement it. As of September 2018, officials reported completing activities to develop disaster-specific mitigation performance measures that align with strategic goals and analyzed available data to identify the drivers of mitigation in events of various sizes. Due to hiring delays associated with the establishment of the 406 Mitigation Branch, officials have extended the expected completion date for all actions, including proposing refined performance measures to FEMA senior leadership, to the end of January 2019. As of December 2019, GAO is awaiting a response from FEMA on their progress completing these actions.

Recommendation: To improve technical expertise and overcome fragmentation, the CDC director of the Select Agent Program should work with APHIS to develop a joint workforce plan that assesses workforce and training needs for the program as a whole. This assessment should be done in conjunction with the development of the strategic plan. (Recommendation 10)

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Public Health Service: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Status: Open

Comments: CDC agreed with this October 2017 recommendation and, as of January 2020, CDC and APHIS were in the process of finalizing a joint workforce assessment focusing primarily on inspections, according to officials from the Select Agent Program. However, this joint assessment does not account for other aspects of the program, such as training, which was part of GAO's recommendation. According to Select Agent Program officials, the program is developing a new information system and officials plan to conduct a follow-up workload assessment once this new system is fully implemented, as they anticipate that the program will gain efficiencies once this new system is in place. Officials from the Select Agent Program said they did not have a definitive timeframe as to when the new system would be in place and a new workload assessment could be completed but, as of December 2019, they said it would be several years. Once the updated workforce assessment is completed, GAO will review it to determine if it fulfills the recommendation. Developing a joint workforce plan as recommended would help the program to better manage fragmentation by improving how it leverages resources, which in turn would help to ensure that all workforce and training needs are met.

Recommendation: To improve technical expertise and overcome fragmentation, the APHIS director of the Select Agent Program should work with CDC to develop a joint workforce plan that assesses workforce and training needs for the program as a whole. This assessment should be done in conjunction with the development of the strategic plan. (Recommendation 11)

Agency: Department of Agriculture: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Status: Open

Comments: APHIS agreed with this October 2017 recommendation and, as of January 2020, CDC and APHIS were in the process of finalizing a joint workforce assessment focusing primarily on inspections, according to officials from the Select Agent Program. However, this joint assessment does not account for other aspects of the program, such as training, which was part of GAO's recommendation. According to Select Agent Program officials, the program is developing a new information system and officials plan to conduct a follow-up workload assessment once this new system is fully implemented, as they anticipate that the program will gain efficiencies once this new system is in place. Officials from the Select Agent Program said they did not have a definitive timeframe as to when the new system would be in place and a new workload assessment could be completed but, as of December 2019, they said it would be several years. Once the updated workforce assessment is completed, GAO will review it to determine if it fulfills the recommendation. Developing a joint workforce plan as recommended would help the program to better manage fragmentation by improving how it leverages resources, which in turn would help to ensure that all workforce and training needs are met.

Recommendation: The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, in conjunction with the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) and the military departments, should assess whether risk mitigation actions have been identified in the event of a loss of each task critical assets (TCA) facility in the defense industrial base and, based on this assessment, develop risk mitigation actions with associated implementation plans and time lines, and provide this information to congressional and DOD decision makers. (Recommendation 1)

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

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. In June 2019, DOD provided follow up information and identified key corrective actions for recommendations from this report. The key corrective actions identified for this recommendation include the issuance of the mission assurance instruction in August 2018 that guides the identification, prioritization, and assessment of defense critical infrastructure. Further, Executive Order 13806 required that DOD perform a whole-of-government assessment of the manufacturing and the defense industrial base, assess risk, identify impacts, and propose mitigation strategies. DOD issued the resulting report in October 2018, which includes a focus on numerous single source and sole supply risks. Lastly, DOD officials stated that DOD senior leadership and Congress were briefed in May 2019 on investments planned to reduce risks and updates will be included in an annual Industrial Capabilities Report to Congress. DOD placed considerable focus on defense industrial base issues in the past year, we will review the next annual report to ensure this focus is continued and that detailed information on DOD's industrial base risks and task critical assets is provided to DOD and Congressional decision makers.

Recommendation: The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, in conjunction with DCMA and the military departments, should provide congressional and DOD decision makers with information on potential effects on defense capabilities in the event of a loss of each TCA facility in the defense industrial base. (Recommendation 2)

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

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. In June 2019, DOD provided follow up information and identified key corrective actions for recommendations from this report. The key corrective actions identified for this recommendation include a description of the mission assurance process and the annual report on the industrial capabilities that were already in place at the time of issuance of this report, therefore do not represent a change or response to this recommendation. Another key corrective action identified is the issuance of the report in response to the Executive Order 13806 in October 2018, which provides a whole of government assessment of the defense industrial base risks and impacts and associated Hill briefing. DOD placed considerable focus on defense industrial base issues in the past year as a result of the Executive Order, we will review the next annual report to ensure this focus is continued and that detailed information on DOD's industrial base risks and task critical assets is provided to DOD and Congressional decision makers.

Recommendation: The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, in conjunction with DCMA and the military departments, should provide congressional and DOD decision makers with information on DOD organic facilities that have been identified as TCAs, similar to the information provided previously on commercial facilities. This information also should include (1) the potential effects on defense capabilities in the event of a loss of the facility and (2) risk mitigation actions and associated implementation plans with time lines. (Recommendation 3)

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

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. In June 2019, DOD provided follow up information and identified key corrective actions for recommendations from this report. The key corrective actions identified for this recommendation include the mission assurance process that was already in place at the time of the issuance of this report, which does not reflect a change in response to this recommendation. However, other key corrective actions identified include the identification of several DOD-owned assets in the report DOD issued in response to Executive Order 13806 in October 2018. Further, DOD states that it will provide yearly updates to Congress in its Industrial Capabilities report. Lastly, the corrective actions state that DOD will continue to execute risk mitigation identified in its October 2018 report. DOD placed considerable focus on defense industrial base issues in the past year as a result of the Executive Order, we will review the next annual report to ensure this focus is continued and that detailed information on DOD's industrial base risks and task critical assets is provided to DOD and Congressional decision makers.

Recommendation: The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, in conjunction with DCMA and the military departments, should take steps to share information on risks identified through the annual Critical Asset Identification Process with relevant program managers or other designated service or program officials. At a minimum, relevant officials should receive information on the most critical facilities (such as TCAs) that produce parts supporting their programs. This information-sharing could occur through service-specific channels of communication or another method of internal communication deemed appropriate by DOD. (Recommendation 4)

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

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. As of August 2018, DOD officials stated that they are in the process of developing proactive steps to share information on risks identified through the annual CAIP with relevant program managers, or other designated service or program officials as necessary. However, in June 2019, DOD shared the key corrective actions identified for this recommendation, which include a description of the mission assurance process that was already in place at the time of issuance of this report, therefore do not represent a change or response to this recommendation. It further states that the Critical Asset Identification Process is addressed in semi-annual Joint Industrial Base Working Group meetings, which are attended by all service and agency industrial base representatives. As of November 2019, DOD officials did not respond to a request for more detail, we will continue to assess DOD's actions.

Recommendation: The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, in conjunction with the military departments, should develop a mechanism to ensure that program offices obtain information from contractors on single source of supply risks. (Recommendation 5)

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

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. As of August 2018, DOD officials stated that assessing the health of the defense industrial base and associated supply chains was the focus of an Executive Order issued in July 2017 and that the resulting inter-agency report will be released within the next year. DOD officials stated that the issuance of this report will provide significant information towards addressing this recommendation. However, in June 2019, DOD provided key corrective actions for this recommendation, which stated that multiple services and agencies began in 2018 to incorporate contracting language to require prime contractors to track and provide sub-tier data and that this effort will expand to cover more programs. Further, it states that in the Industrial Base Integrated Data System, suppliers are indicated as either single or sole source suppliers and that the services and agencies have access to this list. As of November 2019, DOD officials did not respond to a request for more detail, we will continue to assess DOD's actions.

Recommendation: The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, in conjunction with the military departments, should issue department-wide DMSMS policy, such as an instruction, that clearly defines requirements of DMSMS management and details responsibilities and procedures to be followed by program offices to implement the policy. (Recommendation 6)

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

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. The DOD official that is the lead for the Diminishing Manufacturing Sources and Material Shortages (DMSMS) program stated that as of July 2019, the department has completed the draft DMSMS instruction and accompanying manual that details program requirements, responsibilities, and procedures to be followed. The draft instruction is undergoing legal review and the official expects the instruction and manual to be issued by December 2019. As of November 2019, this recommendation will remain open and we will review the instruction once issued.

Recommendation: The Acting Director of DSCA should take steps to ensure the collection of data measuring the timeliness of the delivery of equipment and services to recipient countries. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: Based on the evidence DSCA has provided to date, this recommendation remains open. In March and September 2019, DSCA provided responses, including a copy of the October 2018 Memorandum eliminating 13-27, which was the requirement to provide the first item or service within 180 days of signing the LOA. DSCA also indicated that it had established an initiative to identify milestones. In order to close this recommendation, DSCA needs to provide evidence that this initiative resulted in the identification and implementation of metrics and targets to measure the cycle time of FMS sales from LOA implementation to delivery, and the collection of the appropriate data necessary to use the metrics to manage performance. In the absence of such measures, DSCA's elimination of the 180-day requirement is not consistent with GAO's recommendation to ensure the collection of data measuring the timeliness of the delivery and services to recipient countries. GAO is reviewing responses provided in late 2019 to see whether they satisfy the recommendation.

Recommendation: The Acting Director of DSCA should analyze data on all performance metrics to better identify deficiencies. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: In March 2019 DSCA indicated that it has not yet identified the most appropriate milestones to efficiently and effectively track FMS sales. In addition, pursuant to Recommendation #1, DSCA has eliminated the only performance metric for measuring the timeliness of the delivery of goods and services upon executing an LOA. This recommendation remains open until DSCA identifies the metrics, and collects and analyzes the data to measure performance, including the timeliness of the process. GAO is reviewing the responses provided in late 2019 to determine whether they satisfy the recommendation.

Recommendation: The Acting Director of DSCA should develop a workforce plan. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: In March 2019, DSCA officials informed GAO that DSCA will include a workforce plan in a Human Capital Strategy Plan. In June 2019, GAO was informed that the Human Capital Strategy had been completed, and requested a copy. In September 2019, DSCA informed us that the workforce plan should be completed by December 2020. GAO may be able to close this recommendation after receiving and reviewing the Strategy if it includes the promised workforce plan.

Recommendation: The Acting Director of DSCA should develop workload measures for its FMS workforce. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: In March 2019, DSCA informed GAO that it is currently establishing workload models. In order to close Recommendation 4, DSCA should provide, or make available for review, the workload models for the Country Portfolio Director and Country Financial Director positions, as well as the workload models for Title 10 equipping and end-use monitoring positions. In September 2019, DSCA provided information on the status of the efforts to develop workload measures. DSCA should also provide an explanation of why DSCA has determined that these functions lend themselves to a workload model, while other functions do not. GAO is reviewing the response provided in late 2019 to determine whether DSCA has satisfied the recommendation.

Recommendation: The Chief Executive Officer should direct the Chief Information Officer to take steps needed to ensure that system requirements are defined to align with the business needs of CNCS's future risk-based grants monitoring process (Recommendation 1).

Agency: Corporation for National and Community Service
Status: Open

Comments: In November 2018, CNCS officials stated that the agency made the decision to terminate the development of the Grants and Member Management (GMM) system. They subsequently awarded a contract to assess the state of development for the GMM system and to provide recommendations on the actions CNCS needed to take in order to implement a commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) application for core grants management functions. According to CNCS officials, based on the findings from that assessment, further investments in developing customized applications (even an implementation of a COTS application) were not likely to be successful. As of September 2019, CNCS officials stated that they were pursuing the option of a federal shared service as a solution to grants management. As of November 2019, according to CNCS officials, the agency had not yet defined requirements for the grant monitoring system project because the decision to pursue the federal shared services as a solution for grants management is very recent. CNCS officials agreed to provide GAO with an update as further progress is made on this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Chief Executive Officer should direct the Chief Information Officer to ensure that the system development project schedule identifies in the baseline both planned and actual dates for completing all project-level activities, and can be used to monitor and measure progress of the grant monitoring system project (Recommendation 2).

Agency: Corporation for National and Community Service
Status: Open

Comments: In November 2018, CNCS officials stated that the agency made the decision to terminate the development of the GMM system. They subsequently awarded a contract to assess the state of development for the GMM system and to provide recommendations on the actions CNCS needed to take in order to implement a COTS application for core grants management functions. According to CNCS officials, based on the findings from that assessment, further investments in developing customized applications (even an implementation of a COTS application) were not likely to be successful. As of September 2019, CNCS officials stated that they were pursuing the option of a federal shared service as a solution to grants management. As of November 2019, according to CNCS officials, the agency had not yet established a project schedule for completing the grant monitoring system project because the decision to pursue the federal shared services as a solution for grants management is very recent. CNCS officials agreed to provide GAO with an update as further progress is made on this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Chief Executive Officer should direct the Chief Information Officer to ensure that test plans are defined and implemented to include the second version of the grant monitoring system in all stages of testing during development, and results of initial stages are approved before conducting subsequent test stages (Recommendation 3).

Agency: Corporation for National and Community Service
Status: Open

Comments: In November 2018, CNCS officials stated that the agency made the decision to terminate the development of the GMM system. They subsequently awarded a contract to assess the state of development for the GMM system and to provide recommendations on the actions CNCS needed to take in order to implement a COTS application for core grants management functions. According to CNCS officials, based on the findings from that assessment, further investments in developing customized applications (even an implementation of a COTS application) were not likely to be successful. As of September 2019, CNCS officials stated that they were pursuing the option of a federal shared service as a solution to grants management. As of November 2019, according to CNCS officials, the agency had not yet established a timeframe to define test plans for the selected solution for the grant monitoring system project because the decision to pursue the federal shared services as a solution for grants management is very recent. CNCS officials agreed to provide GAO with an update as further progress is made on this recommendation.

Recommendation: To improve CMS's oversight of states' MLTSS programs, the Administrator of CMS should take steps to identify and obtain key information needed to oversee states' efforts to monitor beneficiary access to quality services, including, at a minimum, obtaining information specific to network adequacy, critical incidents, and appeals and grievances.

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

Comments: The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) agreed with this recommendation. In December 2017, HHS communicated its intent to review regulations and enhance its capacity to measure, monitor, and improve care and quality across a number of domains, including MLTSS. As of February 2020, HHS stated that it is developing guidance related to reporting on key information needed to oversee beneficiary access to care. GAO will continue to monitor the department's actions and any steps taken to address this recommendation.

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: 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 ensure that DOD is implementing the fraud, waste, and abuse prevention requirements to the OIGs, the Inspectors General of the Army, Navy, and Air Force should implement the requirements themselves or delegate the implementation of the requirements to the investigative services.

Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Navy: Naval Inspector General
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with the recommendation in its comments on the draft report. In June 2020, we requested information on the status of the recommendation. When we confirm the actions the Navy has taken, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: To help ensure that DOD is implementing the fraud, waste, and abuse prevention requirements to the OIGs, the Inspectors General of the Army, Navy, and Air Force should implement the requirements themselves or delegate the implementation of the requirements to the investigative services.

Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Army: Office of the Inspector General
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with the recommendation in its comments on the draft report. As of July 2020, the Army had drafted a memorandum that would delegate the requirements to the investigative services or program office. We will update the status of this recommendation after the Army issues the final memorandum.

Recommendation: To help ensure that the pilot programs for disconnected youth can be effectively implemented over the lifetime of the initiative, the Director of OMB should coordinate with relevant federal agencies to identify and estimate expected annual financial and staff resource contributions from each agency, including during the implementation and evaluation phases of the pilots.

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

Comments: As of May 2020, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and relevant federal agencies described steps they have taken that could address the intent of this recommendation. However, they have not yet shared documentation so that we can independently verify those actions. Since we issued our report in April 2017, federal agencies discontinued contributing financial resources to support joint pilot program activities, such as start-up grants, general technical assistance, or evaluations. According to OMB staff and officials at several agencies in August 2018, that change in contributions began with the fiscal year 2018 pilots. At that time, they all told us that relevant agencies would continue to provide staff support to the pilots, as needed. In April 2020, officials from the Department of Education (Education)-the lead agency for overall performance partnership efforts-informed us that six pilots remain active, through September 2020, and were able to provide information about staff resource contributions. For example, Education officials told us that two of the department's employees devote less than 10 percent of their time to support those six pilots. We have requested additional information from Education to better understand staff resource commitments and contributions from other agencies involved in those six pilots.

Recommendation: To ensure that federal agencies involved in the disconnected youth pilots are able to evaluate pilot outcomes and ultimately communicate to Congress whether and to what extent the flexibilities tested by the pilots should be integrated into broader efforts, the Director of OMB should coordinate with relevant federal agencies to identify criteria or standards for assessing scalability, and collect data needed to address those criteria or standards.

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

Comments: As of May 2020, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and relevant federal agencies described steps they have taken that could address this recommendation. However, they have not yet shared documentation so that we can independently verify those actions. In August 2018, OMB staff told us that they were coordinating relevant work with the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Department of Labor (DOL), which is leading the national evaluation for the disconnected youth pilot programs. OMB staff told us this group was studying specific criteria or standards that could be used for assessing the scalability of the disconnected youth pilot programs. In April 2020, DOL officials told us that the department was examining issues related to scalability in products it is developing as part of the national evaluation. For example, the officials informed us that DOL plans to publish a report in summer 2020 that examines the effects of flexibilities tested by individual pilot programs, and their potential to be scaled. Furthermore, DOL officials told us that the department, in coordination with OMB, HHS, and other relevant agencies, had drafted, but not yet finalized, a memorandum that identifies criteria for assessing scalability. We have requested copies of relevant DOL evaluation products and the memorandum. When provided, we will assess the extent to which they address our recommendation.

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 provide reasonable assurance that DOD's Pilot Mentor-Protege Program meets its mission, the Director, DOD's Office of Small Business Programs, should conduct periodic reviews of the processes DOD components follow to approve agreements and take oversight actions, as appropriate.

Agency: Department of Defense: Office of Small Business Programs
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) concurred with this recommendation and stated that it would implement a new standard operating procedure for DOD's Mentor-Protege Program component program managers. According to DOD, the new standard operating procedure would require each component program manager to provide quarterly program management review reports to DOD's Office of Small Business Programs, in addition to annual and monthly reporting, as required by Appendix I of DOD's policies and procedures for the Mentor-Protege Program. DOD's new Standard Operating Procedure would also centralize the implementation of the Mentor Protege Program and, according to DOD, would create process efficiency, and enhanced oversight of the program. The new Standard Operating Procedure would also include a new standardized checklist each Mentor-Protege Program component would utilize to approve mentor protege agreements. The standardized checklist would also include the company North American Industry Classification System code, a mentor approval letter, and a fully completed copy of the mentor protege agreement signed by both parties. Last, DOD would then determine program improvement, once the aforementioned controls are implemented and monitored for effectiveness. As of August 2018, DOD had not provided GAO with documentation of the new standard operating procedure. GAO will continue to monitor the department's progress in implementing this recommendation.

Recommendation: To provide reasonable assurance that DOD's Pilot Mentor-Protege Program meets its mission, the Director, DOD's Office of Small Business Programs, should complete actions to develop performance goals and related measures that are consistent with the program's stated purpose.

Agency: Department of Defense: Office of Small Business Programs
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) concurred with this recommendation and stated that Mentor-Protege Program components would establish goals for the Mentor Protege Program and those goals would be focused on the Industrial Base and Technology Transfer categories. In addition, DOD stated that it would establish additional surveillance requirements to ensure prime and subcontract opportunities are afforded to the proteges and that instituting a baseline performance goal for all components will ensure the Program achieves the intent desired by Congress. As of August 2018, DOD had not provided GAO with documentation of the new goals or standard operating procedure. GAO will continue to monitor the department's progress in implementing this recommendation.

Recommendation: To enhance interagency collaboration in the Manufacturing USA program, the Secretary of Commerce should direct the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology to work with all non-sponsoring agencies whose missions contribute to or are affected by advanced manufacturing to revise the Manufacturing USA governance system to ensure the roles and responsibilities for how these agencies could contribute to the Manufacturing USA program are fully identified.

Agency: Department of Commerce
Status: Open

Comments: In October 2019, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) reported that, working through the Manufacturing USA interagency team and the National Science and Technology Subcommittee on Advanced Manufacturing, it had revised the Manufacturing USA governance document to include a section defining roles related to facilitating information sharing for agencies who are not sponsoring Manufacturing USA institutes. We are seeking clarification from NIST on which non-sponsoring agencies are covered by the new section. We will revisit the status of this recommendation once we receive clarification.

Recommendation: To allow DOE management to effectively monitor invoice reviews and have assurance that this control activity is operating as intended, the Secretary of Energy should establish a DOE-wide invoice review policy that includes requirements for sites to establish well-documented invoice review operating procedures.

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: In its comments on a draft of the report in March 2017, DOE concurred in principle with this recommendation, stating that it already had an established, detailed DOE-wide invoice review policy provided in DOE's Financial Management Handbook and in the DOE Acquisition Guide. In February 2020, DOE issued an update to its Financial Management Handbook that included additional procedures to address intra-governmental payment and collection transactions. However, neither the prior version of the Financial Management Handbook nor the additional information includes invoice review procedures. The Financial Management Handbook refers users to the DOE Acquisition Guide for procedures for invoice review. However, the Acquisition Guide states that it is intended to offer general guiding principles for approving officials to consider when reviewing and analyzing cost elements included in contract invoices--as opposed to detailed procedures for invoice review--and does not require sites to establish well-documented invoice review operating procedures, as we recommended.

Recommendation: To help DOE take a more strategic approach to managing improper payments and risk, including fraud risk, the Secretary of Energy should implement leading practices for managing the department's risk of fraud, including creating a structure with a dedicated entity within DOE to design and oversee fraud risk management activities.

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: In its comments on a draft of the report in March 2017, DOE partially agreed with the recommendation. In its written comments on the report, DOE stated that it considered the recommendation to be closed without corrective action and that it would rely on the existing Office of Financial Policy and Internal Controls and on the DOE Office of Inspector General (OIG) to design and oversee financial fraud risk management activities. However, we disagree that relying in part on the OIG to design and oversee fraud risk management activities meets best practices because, according to GAO's Fraud Risk Framework, the dedicated entity should not include the OIG so that the OIG can maintain its independence. In May 2020, DOE officials said they were developing a fraud risk and data analytics framework. Among other steps, DOE expects to establish a new group in fiscal year 2020 that will oversee DOE's fraud risk management activities. We will continue to monitor DOE's progress in implementing this recommendation.

Recommendation: To help DOE take a more strategic approach to managing improper payments and risk, including fraud risk, the Secretary of Energy should implement leading practices for managing the department's risk of fraud, including conducting fraud risk assessments that are tailored to each program and use the assessments to develop a fraud risk profile

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: In its comments on a draft of the report in March 2017, DOE concurred with the substance of the recommendation; however they considered the recommendation to be closed without corrective action because DOE believed that its risk assessments met the requirements of the Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Improvement Act of 2012, as reported by the Office of Inspector General (OIG), and because it has implemented updates to OMB Circular A-123 that added requirements related to managing fraud risk and adherence to GAO's Fraud Risk Framework. However, we found that DOE has not conducted fraud risk assessments that were tailored to its programs and, therefore, do not allow the department to create a fraud risk profile. We also found that, although DOE updated its internal control assessment tools with a list of fraud risks as required by OMB Circular A-123, the list of risks were the same for all DOE sites and were not tailored to the sites' different programs. In May 2020, DOE officials said they were developing a fraud risk and data analytics framework. Among other steps, the framework is expected to include changes to DOE's process to develop its fraud risk profile, beginning in fiscal year 2020. We will continue to monitor DOE's progress in implementing this recommendation.

Recommendation: To help DOE take a more strategic approach to managing improper payments and risk, including fraud risk, the Secretary of Energy should implement leading practices for managing the department's risk of fraud, including developing and documenting an antifraud strategy that describes the programs' approaches for addressing the prioritized fraud risks identified during the fraud risk assessment.

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: In its comments on the draft report in March 2017, DOE concurred with this recommendation but considered the recommendation closed without corrective action because DOE had implemented the updated OMB Circular A-123 and because DOE's antifraud strategy was embedded in the DOE internal control program. However, DOE officials told us that they had not developed or documented a DOE-wide antifraud strategy or directed individual programs to develop program-specific strategies. Furthermore, DOE's implementation of OMB Circular A-123 included adding a list of potential risks to their internal control assessment tool that were the same for all DOE sites and were not tailored to the sites' different programs. In May 2020, DOE officials said they were developing a fraud risk and data analytics framework. Among other steps, DOE is planning to develop an antifraud strategy in fiscal year 2021. We will continue to monitor DOE's progress in implementing this recommendation.

Recommendation: To help DOE take a more strategic approach to managing improper payments and risk, including fraud risk, the Secretary of Energy should implement leading practices for managing the department's risk of fraud, including designing and implementing specific control activities, including fraud awareness training and data analytics, to prevent and detect fraud and other improper payments.

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: In its comments on the draft report in March 2017, DOE stated that it concurred in principle with the recommendation, but that it had implemented the recommendation. In May 2020, DOE officials said they were developing a fraud risk and data analytics framework. Among other steps, DOE is planning to begin in fiscal year 2022 to use data analytics across the agency to prevent fraud. We will continue to monitor DOE's progress in implementing this recommendation.

Recommendation: To help ensure that necessary data are available to employ data analytics as a tool to perform contractor cost-surveillance activities, the Secretary of Energy should require contractors to maintain sufficiently detailed transaction-level cost data that are reconcilable with amounts charged to the government, including (1) cost data that, at a minimum, represent a full data population and (2) the details necessary to determine the nature of each cost transaction, with such identifiers as transaction date, dollar amount, item or service description, and transaction codes to indicate the type of cost represented (e.g., construction materials, property lease, and office supplies).

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: In its comments on the draft report in March 2017, DOE did not agree to implement this recommendation because officials believe that the recommendation establishes agency-specific requirements for DOE contractors that are more prescriptive than current federal requirements. In May 2020, DOE officials said they were developing a fraud risk and data analytics framework. Among other steps, DOE is planning to begin in fiscal year 2022 to use data analytics across the agency to prevent fraud. We will continue to monitor DOE's progress in implementing 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: To facilitate the analysis of gaps between current skills and future needs, the development of strategies for filling the gaps, and succession planning, the Secretary of Commerce should require the Chief Information Officer, Chief Human Capital Officer, and other senior managers as appropriate to address the shortfalls in IT workforce planning noted in this report, including the following actions: (1) establish and maintain a workforce planning process; (2) develop competency and staffing requirements; (3) assess competency and staffing needs regularly; (4) assess gaps in competencies for all components of the workforce; (5) develop strategies and plans to address gaps in competencies and staffing; (6) implement activities that address gaps, including an IT acquisition cadre, cross-functional training of acquisition and program personnel, a career path for program managers, and special hiring authorities, if justified and cost-effective; (7) monitor the department's progress in addressing IT competency and staffing gaps; and (8) report to department leadership on progress in addressing competency and staffing gaps.

Agency: Department of Commerce
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: The department agreed with the recommendation and stated that it plans to fully implement it. In October 2019 (in GAO-20-129), we reported the results of our evaluation of the department's progress in implementing the eight IT workforce planning activities. Specifically, we reported that the department had substantially implemented the activity to develop competency and staffing requirements, minimally or partially implemented four activities, and not implemented the remaining three activities. In July 2020, the department provided a summary of actions it claimed it had taken to close the recommendation. The department also provided supporting documentation. We are reviewing the documentation to determine whether it fully addresses the recommendation.

Recommendation: To facilitate the analysis of gaps between current skills and future needs, the development of strategies for filling the gaps, and succession planning, the Secretary of Defense should require the Chief Information Officer, the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, and other senior managers as appropriate to address the shortfalls in IT workforce planning noted in this report, including the following actions: (1) develop competencies for all staff; (2) assess competency needs regularly for all positions; (3) assess gaps in competencies for all components of the workforce; (4) develop strategies and plans to address gaps in competencies; (5) implement activities that address gaps, including developing a program management career path, if justified and cost-effective; (6) monitor the department's progress in addressing competency gaps identified for IT staff; and (7) report to department leadership on progress in addressing competency gaps.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with our recommendation. In October 2019 (in GAO-20-129), we reported the results of our evaluation of the Department of Defense's progress in implementing the eight IT workforce planning activities. Specifically, we reported that the department had fully implemented the activities to develop competency and staffing requirements and assess competency and staffing needs regularly, substantially implemented four other activities, and partially implemented the remaining two activities. We will continue to monitor the department's efforts to address our recommendation.

Recommendation: To facilitate the analysis of gaps between current skills and future needs, the development of strategies for filling the gaps, and succession planning, the Secretary of Health and Human Services should require the Chief Information Officer, Chief Human Capital Officer, and other senior managers as appropriate to address the shortfalls in IT workforce planning noted in this report, including the following actions: (1) establish and maintain a workforce planning process inclusive of all staff; (2) develop staffing requirements for all positions; (3) assess staffing needs regularly; (4) assess gaps in competencies and staffing for all components of the workforce; (5) develop strategies and plans to address gaps in competencies and staffing; (6) implement activities that address gaps, including an IT acquisition cadre, if justified and cost-effective; (7) monitor the department's progress in addressing competency and staffing gaps; and (8) report to department leadership on progress in addressing competency and staffing gaps.

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open

Comments: The department agreed with our recommendation and identified plans for (1) collecting and analyzing additional workforce data and (2) conducting targeted recruitment, staff planning, career development, and training. In October 2019 (in GAO-20-129), we reported the results of our evaluation of the department's progress in implementing the eight IT workforce planning activities. Specifically, we reported that the department had substantially implemented the activity to develop competency and staffing requirements, partially implemented three other activities, and either minimally or not implemented the remaining four activities. We will continue to monitor the department's efforts to address our recommendation.

Recommendation: To facilitate the analysis of gaps between current skills and future needs, the development of strategies for filling the gaps, and succession planning, the Secretary of Transportation should require the Chief Information Officer, Chief Human Capital Officer, and other senior managers as appropriate to address the shortfalls in IT workforce planning noted in this report, including the following actions: (1) establish a time frame for when the department is to finalize its draft workforce planning process and maintain that process; (2) develop staffing requirements for all positions; (3) assess competency and staffing needs regularly for all positions; (4) assess gaps in staffing for all components of the workforce; (5) develop strategies and plans to address gaps in competencies and staffing; (6) implement activities that address gaps, including an IT acquisition cadre, cross-functional training of acquisition and program personnel, a career path for program managers, and use of special hiring authorities, if justified and cost-effective;e (7) monitor the department's progress in addressing competency and staffing gaps; and (8) report to department leadership on progress in addressing competency and staffing gaps.

Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: The department agreed with the recommendation and stated that it plans to fully implement it. In October 2019 (in GAO-20-129), we reported the results of our evaluation of the department's progress in implementing the eight IT workforce planning activities. Specifically, we reported that the department had fully implemented the activity to develop competency and staffing requirements, but had not yet fully implemented the remaining seven activities, including developing a workforce planning process. In January 2020, the department stated that its Office of the Chief Information Officer and Office of Human Resource Management had established a workgroup to lead and conduct workforce planning activities, and had defined the strategic goals and objectives for the department's IT workforce. The department also stated that the workgroup was planning on subsequently completing additional activities, including completing a workforce analysis with a competency gap assessment, by the end of calendar year 2020, and developing strategies to address any identified gaps by the end of 2021. We will continue to monitor the department's efforts to implement our recommendation.

Recommendation: To facilitate the analysis of gaps between current skills and future needs, the development of strategies for filling the gaps, and succession planning, the Secretary of the Treasury should require the Chief Information Officer, Chief Human Capital Officer, and other senior managers as appropriate to address the shortfalls in IT workforce planning noted in this report, including the following actions: (1) establish and maintain a workforce planning process; (2) develop competency and staffing requirements for all positions; (3) assess competency and staffing needs regularly; (4) assess gaps in competencies and staffing for all components of the workforce; (5) develop strategies and plans to address gaps in competencies and staffing for all components of the workforce; (6) implement activities that address gaps, including a career path for program managers and special hiring authorities, if justified and cost-effective; (7) monitor the department's progress in addressing competency and staffing gaps; and (8) report to department leadership on progress in addressing competency and staffing gaps for all components of the workforce.

Agency: Department of the Treasury
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: The department agreed with our recommendation and identified planned and ongoing efforts to address it. In October 2019 (in GAO-20-129), we reported the results of our evaluation of the department's progress in implementing the eight IT workforce planning activities. Specifically, we reported that it had fully implemented the activity to develop competency and staffing requirements, but had not yet fully implemented the remaining seven activities, including developing a workforce planning process. In January 2020, the department stated that its Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer and Office of the Chief Information Officer would be presenting a decision paper to the Human Capital Advisory Council that month to request approval and resources to complete an IT Competency Framework, conduct a competency assessment, and conduct a department-wide workforce planning study for the 2210 (IT management) occupation. We will continue to monitor the department's efforts to implement our recommendation.

Recommendation: To help ensure that NNSA effectively manages the performance of its programs, the Secretary of Energy should establish a program management policy that (1) assigns responsibilities and delegates authority to program managers and establishes expectations of competence for them, in accordance with federal internal control standards, and (2) addresses leading program management practices, such as developing program plans.

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: DOE stated that it will address our recommendation as part of its effort to meet the requirements of the Program Management Improvement Accountability Act of 2016 (Act). This Act requires the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to adopt government-wide standards, policies, and guidelines for program and project management for agencies. In June 2018, OMB issued guidelines requiring federal agencies to submit a 5-year plan for implementing the Act. In November 2018, DOE submitted a draft implementation plan to OMB that described DOE's strategy for developing a DOE program management policy. In particular, its draft plan stated that DOE has established a working group to help develop the department's program management policy. To address our recommendation, DOE needs to finalize and issue its program management policy. We will continue to monitor DOE's actions.

Recommendation: To help ensure that NNSA develops and maintains a cadre of professional, effective, and capable program managers in accordance with leading program management practices and federal internal control standards, the Secretary of Energy should establish a training program for program managers.

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: DOE stated that it will address our recommendation as part of its effort to meet the requirements of the Program Management Improvement Accountability Act of 2016 (Act). This Act requires the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to issue regulations identifying key program management skills and competencies, as well as to establish a new career path for program managers within an agency. In April and May of 2019, OPM issued guidance documents that identify competencies for program managers and update the job series classification for program managers. OPM officials also said that they have drafted a career path for program managers, which will highlight training and skills needed to progress in a program management career. In addition, DOE stated that it is holding working group meetings to develop strategies for program management training and certification. To address our recommendation, DOE needs to continue working with OPM and finalize its training program for program managers.

Recommendation: To better assess whether the LOP and LOPC are having a measurable impact in meeting their program objectives, the Director of EOIR should develop and implement a system of performance measures, including establishing a baseline, to regularly evaluate the effectiveness of LOP and LOPC and assess whether the programs are achieving their stated goals.

Agency: Department of Justice: Executive Office for Immigration Review
Status: Open

Comments: In January 2017, EOIR reported that the agency is working with a contractor to redesign EOIR's performance management system consistent with the principles outlined in the Government Performance and Results Modernization Act of 2010. In addition, EOIR reported that staff from its Office of Legal Access Programs (OLAP) plan to participate in strategic planning training, which will include how to establish performance measurements. In July 2018, EOIR reported to GAO that EOIR had developed program performance measures for both LOP and LOPC to assess the program of these programs in achieving their goals. EOIR then incorporated these program performance measures into the May 2017 blanket purchase agreement with the Vera Institute of Justice. In July 2018, EOIR reported to GAO that the agency has been working with its contractor to refine its performance measurement systems to align with these new measures. In March 2019, EOIR reported to GAO that the first reports on the new performance measures are expected later in fiscal year 2019. As of July 2020, EOIR told GAO that the agency is working to provide GAO with an update, but has nothing new to report at this time. To fully address the recommendation, EOIR should develop and implement a system to assess LOP and LOPC program performance against the new program performance measures.

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: To help the department achieve the benefits anticipated from JIE, the Secretary should direct the DOD CIO and other entities, as appropriate, to develop a reliable JIE cost estimate and baseline, consistent with the best practices described in this report.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with our recommendation; however, it has not yet implemented it. In its written response to our draft report, DOD stated that its partial concurrence was due to the language we used to introduce the recommendations. Specifically, we stated that the Secretary of Defense should direct the appropriate entities to implement the recommendations. In its comments, DOD stated that the DOD Chief Information Officer (CIO) was responsible for implementing JIE, and referred to a May 2013 memo from the Deputy Secretary of Defense directing DOD components to participate in and implement JIE under the direction of the DOD CIO. In response to DOD's comments, we revised the language used to introduce our recommendations. Specifically, we revised the language to call for the Secretary to direct the DOD CIO and other entities, as appropriate, to take the recommended actions. Since we made our recommendation, the department approved a cost baseline for one of the components of JIE, the Joint Regional Security Stacks (JRSS), and developed a cost estimate for another component, the Enterprise Collaboration and Productivity Services (ECAPS) program. The ECAPS cost estimate was substantially consistent with the practices described in the report. However, the JRSS cost estimate was not developed consistent with the best practices described in the report. Specifically, the department did not demonstrate that the cost estimate was well documented, comprehensive, accurate, and credible. In May 2019, officials in the Office of the DOD CIO stated that it would provide documentation to address the gaps in the JRSS cost estimate; however, as of July 2019, DOD had not provided the documentation. The officials also stated that planning for JIE components other than JRSS and ECAPS had not begun; therefore, there were no other JIE component cost estimates. We will continue to monitor the department's efforts to implement this recommendation.

Recommendation: To help the department achieve the benefits anticipated from JIE, the Secretary should direct the DOD CIO and other entities, as appropriate, to develop a JIE schedule management plan and reliable schedule, consistent with practices described in this report.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with our recommendation; however, it has not yet implemented it. In its written response to our draft report, DOD stated that its partial concurrence was due to the language we used to introduce the recommendations. Specifically, we stated that the Secretary of Defense should direct the appropriate entities to implement the recommendations. In its comments DOD stated that the DOD Chief Information Officer (CIO) is responsible for implementing JIE, and referred to a May 2013 memo from the Deputy Secretary of Defense directing DOD components to participate in and implement JIE under the direction of the DOD CIO. In response to DOD's comments we revised the language used to introduce our recommendations. Specifically, we revised the language to call for the Secretary to direct the DOD CIO and other entities, as appropriate, to take the recommended actions. In March 2017, the JIE Executive Committee approved a schedule baseline for the Non-secure Internet Protocol Router network part of the Joint Regional Security Stacks (JRSS) component; however, the schedule was not consistent with the practices described in our report. In addition, In May 2019, officials in the Office of the DOD CIO stated that another JIE initiative, the Enterprise Collaboration and Productivity Services program, had an approved baseline schedule. However, as of July 2019, DOD had not provided the schedule.

Recommendation: To help the department achieve the benefits anticipated from JIE, the Secretary should direct the DOD CIO and other entities, as appropriate, to develop a JRSS schedule management plan and reliable JRSS schedule and schedule baseline, consistent with practices described in this report.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with our recommendation; however, it has not implemented it. In its written response to our draft report, DOD stated that its partial concurrence was due to the language we used to introduce the recommendations. Specifically, we stated that the Secretary of Defense should direct the appropriate entities to implement the recommendations. In its comments DOD stated that the DOD Chief Information Officer (CIO) is responsible for implementing JIE, and referred to a May 2013 memo from the Deputy Secretary of Defense directing DOD components to participate in and implement JIE under the direction of the DOD CIO. In response to DOD's comments we revised the language used to introduce our recommendations. Specifically, we revised the language to call for the Secretary to direct the DOD CIO and other entities, as appropriate, to take the recommended actions. In March 2017, the JIE Executive Committee approved a schedule baseline for the Non-secure Internet Protocol Router network component of JRSS; however, the schedule was not consistent with the practices described in our report. In May 2019, officials in the Office of the DOD CIO said that the JRSS schedule had not been re-baselined and the department had not developed a schedule management plan. We will continue to monitor the department's efforts to implement the recommendation.

Recommendation: To help the department achieve the benefits anticipated from JIE, the Secretary should direct the DOD CIO and other entities, as appropriate, to complete an assessment to determine the number of staff and the specific skills and abilities needed to effectively achieve JIE, consistent with the workforce planning practices described in this report.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with our recommendation and has taken steps to implement it; however, more needs to be done. In its written response to our draft report, DOD stated that its partial concurrence was due to the language we used to introduce the recommendations. Specifically, we stated that the Secretary of Defense should direct the appropriate entities to implement the recommendations. In its comments, DOD stated that the DOD Chief Information Officer (CIO) is responsible for implementing the Joint Information Environment (JIE), and referred to a May 2013 memo from the Deputy Secretary of Defense directing DOD components to participate in and implement JIE under the direction of the DOD CIO. In response to DOD's comments, we revised the language used to introduce our recommendations. Specifically, we revised the language to call for the Secretary to direct the DOD CIO and other entities, as appropriate, to take the recommended actions. Since we made our recommendation, the department has developed an inventory of cybersecurity knowledge and skills of existing staff. Specifically, we reported in our June 2018 report Cybersecurity Workforce: Agencies Need to Improve Baseline Assessments and Procedures for Coding Positions (GAO-18-466) that the department had developed an assessment that included the percentage of cybersecurity personnel holding certifications and the level of preparedness of personnel without existing credentials to take certification exams. In August 2018, the office of the DOD CIO stated that the department planned to identify work roles of critical need and establish gap assessment and mitigation strategies by April 2019. However, as of July 2019, the department had not provided an update on the status of its efforts to address the recommendation.

Recommendation: To help the department achieve the benefits anticipated from JIE, the Secretary should direct the DOD CIO and other entities, as appropriate, to develop a strategy for conducting JIE security assessments that describes the resources needed to execute the strategy, responsible organizations, and a schedule to complete the assessments.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with our recommendation; however, as of August 2018, it has not provided evidence that it has addressed it. In its written response to our draft report, DOD stated that its partial concurrence was due to the language we used to introduce the recommendations. Specifically, we stated that the Secretary of Defense should direct the appropriate entities to implement the recommendations. In its comments, DOD stated that the DOD Chief Information Officer (CIO) is responsible for implementing the Joint Information Environment (JIE), and referred to a May 2013 memo from the Deputy Secretary of Defense directing DOD components to participate in and implement JIE under the direction of the DOD CIO. In response to DOD's comments, we revised the language used to introduce our recommendations. Specifically, we revised the language to call for the Secretary to direct the DOD CIO and other entities, as appropriate, to take the recommended actions. In May 2019, the office of the DOD CIO stated that it had developed a schedule to complete JIE security assessments. However, as of July 2019, the office had not provided the schedule or demonstrated that it has a strategy for conducting JIE security assessments that includes the rest of the elements of our recommendation.

Recommendation: To help the department achieve the benefits anticipated from JIE, the Secretary should direct the DOD CIO and other entities, as appropriate, to develop a reliable Joint Regional Security Stacks (JRSS) cost estimate and baseline, consistent with practices described in this report.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with our recommendation; however it has not fully implemented it. In its written response to our draft report, DOD stated that its partial concurrence was due to the language we used to introduce the recommendations. Specifically, we stated that the Secretary of Defense should direct the appropriate entities to implement the recommendations. In its comments, DOD stated that the DOD Chief Information Officer (CIO) is responsible for implementing JIE, and referred to a May 2013 memo from the Deputy Secretary of Defense directing DOD components to participate in and implement JIE under the direction of the DOD CIO. In response to DOD's comments, we revised the language used to introduce our recommendations. Specifically, we revised the language to call for the Secretary to direct the DOD CIO and other entities, as appropriate, to take the recommended actions. Since we made our recommendation, in April 2017, the JRSS program office documented the methodology, ground rules and assumptions, among other things, used to develop the cost estimate we reviewed in our report, and the JIE Executive Committee established the estimate as its JRSS cost baseline. However, the cost estimate documentation was not sufficient to address our recommendation. Specifically, it did not demonstrate that the cost estimate was well documented, comprehensive, accurate and credible. In May 2019, officials in the Office of the DOD CIO stated that it would provide documentation to address the gaps. However, as of July 2019, DOD had not provided the documentation.

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: In order to better ensure proper Medicare payments and protect Medicare funds, CMS should seek legislative authority to allow the RAs to conduct prepayment claim reviews.

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: In April 2016, we recommended that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) should seek legislative authority to allow the Recovery Auditors (RAs) to conduct prepayment claim reviews. The Department of Health and Human Services did not concur with this recommendation, and the President's fiscal year 2021 budget did not include a proposal for such authority. We continue to believe CMS should seek legislative authority to allow RAs to conduct these reviews. Until CMS seeks and implements this authority, it will be missing an opportunity to help identify improper payments before they are made.

Recommendation: To enable FEMA to and more effectively respond to disasters, the Secretary of Homeland Security should direct the FEMA Administrator to develop a workforce strategy to manage and improve retention that includes a process for systematically gathering attrition data and a plan to retain IMAT Cadre-of On-Call Response Employees.

Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open

Comments: In August 2019, FEMA provided an update on the status of actions taken in response to our report. As of April 2019, FEMA stated that they are continuing to work on two actions. One, the development of a new organizational structure. FEMA is still refining and assessing the impact of the new IMAT structure. Two, in April 2019, FEMA delivered a new IMAT Program Orientation to nineteen new IMAT members. FEMA plans to analyze the impact of these changes along with attrition information. It plans to develop a high-level blueprint of the actions taken by FEMA to better manage the IMAT program and retain staff. Until completion of the action items, this recommendation will remain open. FEMA officials plan to provide a status update and finalize their efforts by September 2019. As of July 2020, FEMA officials have not completed steps to implement a revised IMAT structure. FEMA anticipates completing several actions by September 2020 and finalizing their plan by December 2020. However, due to COVID-19, the agency may face additional delays in doing so.

Recommendation: To help ensure that FDA's IT strategic planning activities are successful in supporting the agency's mission, goals, and objectives, the Commissioner of FDA should require the CIO to implement the plan to ensure that expected outcomes of the agency's key IT initiatives are achieved.

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Food and Drug Administration
Status: Open

Comments: According to agency officials, FDA's CIO met with the FDA Commissioner in 2016 where the updated IT strategic plan was reviewed and approved. The Commissioner identified key IT initiatives to be implemented within FY2017 and incorporated them into the CIO's performance management appraisal program. According to officials, the Commissioner requires the CIO to implement a plan to ensure that expected outcomes of the agency's key IT initiatives are achieved. Although FDA provided us with an excel spreadsheet that identifies IT initiatives at the agency's weekly FDA project meeting, we requested additional documentation regarding the plan the CIO is required to implement to ensure that expected outcomes of the agency's key IT initiatives are fulfilled. We contacted FDA in September and December 2019 and January 2020 to obtain additional information on the actions taken to implement the recommendation, but have not received a response. We will update the recommendation when additional information is obtained.

Recommendation: To improve the data on tracked safety issues and postmarket studies that are needed for required reporting and for systematic oversight of postmarket drug safety, the Secretary of HHS should direct the Commissioner of FDA to work with stakeholders within FDA to identify additional improvements that could be made to FDA's current database or future information technology investments to capture information in a form that can be easily and systematically used by staff for oversight purposes.

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open

Comments: FDA has made changes intended to improve its process for overseeing tracked safety issues, but as of August 2020, FDA was still working on changes to its process for postmarket study data. For tracked safety issues, FDA held a one-day workshop to solicit input from staff on changes to its tracked safety issue process and collect user requirements for a new IT system to support tracking safety issues. In April 2020, FDA finalized new policies and procedures and implemented a new IT system for tracking safety issues. The new IT system allows anyone within FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research to enter new safety signals and has integrated product and adverse event dictionaries. FDA stated that integrating standardized data will support consistent regulatory decisions and improve the quality of analysis. For postmarket studies, FDA has indicated that it intends to formally assess the IT needs of users as part of the planned transfer of postmarket data to its new informatics platform. As of August 2020, FDA anticipated creating a project team to address specific concerns related to postmarket study data by the end of calendar year 2020 or the beginning of calendar year 2021. GAO is keeping this recommendation open until FDA has completed its planned improvements to its process for tracking postmarket study data.

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

Agency: Office of Personnel Management
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: Office of Personnel Management
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: To help ensure the IRS collection program meets its mission and selects cases fairly, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue should establish, document, and implement objectives for the collection program and ACS, and define the key term of "fairness" as it applies to collection activities, which can be communicated to IRS staff.

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

Comments: In January 2017, IRS supplied documentation on how it had established a fairness policy statement, which is incorporated into the Internal Revenue Manual, communicated to staff in email, and provided via a powerpoint presentation to staff. IRS also established and documented collection program objectives as part of its FY2017 Collection Program Letter. In October 2017, IRS shared additional draft documentation with GAO that would align SB/SE objectives with objectives from its FY2017 Collection Program Letter as well as other information such as performance measures. Following our assessment and request for more information, in November 2017, IRS provided a document intended to define certain collection program objectives, but it did not clearly define fairness or collection program and ACS objectives. We provided IRS feedback on the document in November 2017, January 2018, and July 2018. In June 2019, IRS officials provided information on an ongoing IRS initiative to identify objectives for various programs, but the collection program with its automated case processes was not among the pilot programs. As a result, any actions to implement the recommendation will be stalled until the initiative's pilot programs are complete. As of December 2019, IRS had not provided a planned date when it expects to complete them. We will update the status of IRS's plans and actions to implement the recommendation after we complete review of any documents IRS provides, as we requested in December 2019.

Recommendation: To improve VA's efforts to effectively complete the development and implementation of VBMS, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs should direct the Under Secretary for Benefits and the Chief Information Officer to develop an updated plan for VBMS that includes (1) a schedule for when VBA intends to complete development and implementation of the system, including capabilities that fully support disability claims, pension claims, and appeals processing and (2) the estimated cost to complete development and implementation of the system.

Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) concurred with our recommendation and as of January 2020, is continuing to develop requirements for VBMS in order to develop functionality to replace legacy information systems. In addition, the department subsequently provided us with expected completion dates for implementation of claims and appeals processing, but has not provided a schedule for the implementation of pension claims processing. To fully implement this recommendation, the department needs to provide the expected completion date for pension claims processing and an estimate of the cost to complete remaining development and implementation of VBMS.

Recommendation: To improve VA's efforts to effectively complete the development and implementation of VBMS, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs should direct the Under Secretary for Benefits and the Chief Information Officer to reduce the incidence of high- and medium-priority level defects that are present at the time of future VBMS releases.

Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) concurred with this recommendation and reiterated its plans and procedures for decreasing the incidences of defects in each system release. However, while the most recent VBMS release (i.e., May 2019) showed a decrease in the number of high- and medium-priority level defects, the release in February 2019 showed an increase in the number of high- and medium-priority defects. In addition, both the February 2019 and May 2019 releases showed the presence of the highest severity defects--critical--which have extensive user impact and workarounds do not exist. We will continue to monitor VA's actions and progress in response to this recommendation.

Recommendation: To help ensure the IRS collection program meets its mission and selects cases fairly, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue should establish, document, and implement clear objectives for the collection program and enterprise-wide case categorization and routing processes, and define key terms, such as "fairness" and "risk."

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

Comments: IRS agreed with the recommendation. In March 2017, IRS provided documentation of actions taken on the recommendation, but the documents did not clearly define and communicate program objectives sufficient for internal control to support the collection program mission, including fairness in case selection. In November 2017, IRS provided additional documentation but it did not address case selection fairness or other objectives for the collection program and enterprise-wide case categorization and routing processes. In June 2019, IRS officials provided information on an ongoing IRS initiative to identify objectives for various programs, but the collection program with its case processes was not among the pilot programs. As a result, any actions to implement the recommendation will be stalled until the initiative's pilot programs are complete. As of November 2019, IRS had not provided a planned date when it expects to complete them. We will update the status of IRS's plans and actions to implement the recommendation after we complete review of any documents IRS provides, as we requested in December 2019.

Recommendation: To help ensure the IRS collection program meets its mission and selects cases fairly, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue should build upon existing Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) guidance to help managers identify internal and external risks to collection program objectives, and better understand how long-standing risk processes integrate with new ERM approaches; incorporate this guidance into existing or future ERM or collection program risk assessment processes.

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

Comments: IRS agreed with the recommendation. In November 2016, IRS provided documentation of risk management training for managers intended to assist them in understanding their responsibilities for identifying internal and external risks to collection program objectives. However, since objectives for the collection program and fairness were not yet clearly defined, such guidance could not be effectively incorporated into risk assessment processes. In March 2017, IRS provided documentation of further actions taken, but the documents did not clearly define and communicate program objectives sufficient for internal control, including risk assessment. In November 2017, IRS provided additional documentation but it did not address case selection fairness or other objectives for the collection program. In June 2019, IRS officials provided information on an ongoing IRS initiative to identify objectives for various programs, but the collection program was not among the pilot programs. As a result, any actions to implement the recommendation will be stalled until the initiative's pilot programs are complete. As of November 2019, IRS had not provided a planned date when it expects to complete them. We will update the status of IRS's plans and actions to implement the recommendation after we complete review of any documents IRS provides, as we requested in December 2019.

Recommendation: To strengthen BLM's controls and reasonably assure accountability over mining law program expenditures, both payroll and nonpayroll, the Secretary of the Interior should direct the Director of the Bureau of Land Management to establish procedures for regular and timely communication to all BLM employees on policy and procedural changes affecting the mining law program's expenditure-related processes.

Agency: Department of the Interior
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Interior's (DOI) Bureau of Land Management (BLM) agreed with our recommendation. In support of closing this recommendation, officials from BLM re-iterated their policy about sending updates regarding guidance changes, which is included in its directives handbook. They also provided us with an example of its timely communication to BLM employees to announce the issuance of its revised Fund Code Handbook. We reviewed the directives handbook and verified that it contains guidance for communicating policy and procedural changes affecting the mining law program's expenditure-related processes. While the guidance in the directives handbook is a good start towards meeting the intent of our recommendation, we communicated to BLM in fiscal year 2019 that the findings in the report were caused in part by inadequate communication processes and the accessibility of the guidance to staff. To address the recommendation, we would like to see evidence that BLM has established procedures to ensure proper communication of changes or policies to the staff using BLM guidance, which includes having written procedures on how BLM publishes updates or communicates policy information, where guidance should be published in BLM's internal page, and the BLM officials who are in charge of that process. In fiscal year 2020, we have sent additional follow-up questions to the agency and are currently waiting for a response. We will continue to monitor the agency's actions to address this recommendation.

Recommendation: To improve performance management of the Telecommunications Relay Service, following the establishment of TRS's performance goals, the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission should conduct a robust risk assessment that can help FCC design a comprehensive internal-control system.

Agency: Federal Communications Commission
Status: Open

Comments: FCC indicated that a draft document was under review to implement this recommendation and would be approved before the end of FY-19. However, in September 2019, when we asked FCC for an update, we did not receive one. We will continue to communicate with FCC about the status of this recommendation.

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: 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 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 participation in and strengthen management of federal student aid programs for teachers, the Secretary of Education should direct Federal Student Aid's Chief Operating Officer to review the underlying cause of the known erroneous conversions to ensure steps Education has taken are sufficient to address the problem, and establish time frames for transferring the approximately 2,600 loan conversions currently with other loan servicers.

Agency: Department of Education
Status: Open

Comments: In its initial response, Education noted it has already taken steps to implement this recommendation, such as a comprehensive assessment to identify the causes of the conversions and the grants affected. After identifying the reasons, the agency worked with current grant servicer to ensure accuracy and make sure they understood program requirements. Regarding time frames for transferring the converted loans, in September 2017, Education provided documentation that the loan conversions were transferred to one servicer in December 2014. In 2018, Education provided additional information on the comprehensive assessment it conducted including the results, a work plan to address the erroneous conversions, and sample letters to recipients they deemed eligible for reconversion. Two changes, however, are currently underway which could affect past and future erroneous conversions. In December 2018, Education announced a process for grant recipients to request reconsideration if their grant was converted in error. Additionally, in 2018, Education's Negotiated Rulemaking Committee began discussing TEACH Grant requirements and ways to reduce and correct the inadvertent conversion of grants to loans, among other things. In April 2019, the subcommittee reached consensus on the proposed rule language, which allowed for erroneous loan conversions to be reversed under certain conditions. As of November 2019, Education has not yet published proposed rules for the TEACH Grant program, and it is unclear the extent to which all eligible recipients will be provided adequate opportunity to have the errors corrected. Given the substantial and ongoing changes to the program administration this recommendation remains open.

Recommendation: To improve SBA's administration and oversight of the HUBZone program and reduce the risk that firms that no longer meet program eligibility criteria receive HUBZone contracts, the Administrator of SBA should establish a mechanism to better ensure that firms are notified of changes to HUBZone designations that may affect their participation in the program, such as ensuring that all certified firms and newly certified firms are signed up for the broadcast e-mail system or including more specific information in certification letters about how location in a redesignated area can affect their participation in the program

Agency: Small Business Administration
Status: Open

Comments: In response to this recommendation, SBA improved its notifications to newly certified firms but not to other certified firms. For example, SBA's certification letter to firms with principal offices in a redesignated area specifically states that the firm is in a redesignated area, explains the implications of the designation, and notes when the redesignated status will expire. However, we found in March 2016 that SBA had not yet implemented changes to better ensure that all currently certified firms would be notified of changes that could affect their program eligibility. It is important that all certified firms potentially affected by such changes receive information about the changes or are made aware in a timely fashion of any effects on their program eligibility. As of February 2017, SBA had begun to improve its notifications to all firms. According to SBA officials, the agency has started sending program notices to all the firms in its portfolio. They told us that for its most recent notice in February 2017, the agency copied all the e-mail addresses in its HUBZone database and placed them in the e-mail distribution system. In March 2018, SBA officials informed us that they obtain monthly lists of certified firms generated by an Oracle system process and that analysts compare the new list to the prior list and add any new firms to the list. In July 2019, SBA officials told us that they informed HUBZone firms of their responsibility to stay up to date on HUBZone geographical designations and program eligibility, through updated language in its HUBZone certification letters and two notices issued to HUBZone firms. While it is helpful that SBA now includes language in its certification letters notifying firms located in a redesignated area of the implications of that designation, SBA's current process does not inform firms when their status may change.

Recommendation: To improve SBA's administration and oversight of the HUBZone program and reduce the risk that firms that no longer meet program eligibility criteria receive HUBZone contracts, the Administrator of SBA should conduct an assessment of the recertification process and implement additional controls, such as developing criteria and guidance on using a risk-based approach to requesting and verifying firm information, allowing firms to initiate the recertification process, and ensuring that sufficient staff will be dedicated to the effort so that a significant backlog in recertifications does not recur.

Agency: Small Business Administration
Status: Open

Comments: In response to this recommendation, SBA officials told us that they began automating the process to notify firms that were due for recertification. According to the officials, since September 2015, notification e-mails have been sent daily (compared with the former cycle of two times a year). Each firm due for recertification within the next 30 days would receive the notice. SBA sends a second e-mail to firms that have not responded within 45 days of the first notification. According to SBA officials, as of February 2017, this change has not yet eliminated the backlog. SBA officials informed GAO in May 2017 that they have developed risk-based guidance for conducting recertification reviews and requesting supporting documentation. According to SBA, any certified HUBZone small business concern that has received $1 million or more in HUBZone contract dollars since its initial certification (or its most recent recertification) must submit the following: (a) a list of all current employees, identifying the name of the employee, the employee's address, the number of hours worked per month, and the location where the employee performs his/her work; and (b) payroll documentation. While SBA officials stated that they had completed a risk assessment of their HUBZone recertification process, SBA had not provided GAO with documentation on when SBA performed the risk assessment, which risks were identified and considered, or what analysis established the $1 million threshold as of August 2018. In July 2019, SBA provided a rationale for its risk-based approach to recertification, but the analysis for establishing the $1 million threshold remained unclear. SBA officials told us that the agency plans to conduct a risk assessment in accordance with GAO guidance for all government contracting and business development programs, including the HUBZone program. GAO continues to believe that such a risk assessment of the recertification process would help inform a risk-based approach to reviewing and verifying information from firms that appear to pose the most risk to the program.

Recommendation: To achieve greater efficiency and effectiveness, Congress should consider transferring the oversight of the markings of toy and imitation firearms in 15 U.S.C. 5001 from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (within the Department of Commerce) to the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

Agency: Congress
Status: Open

Comments: This matter is an action identified in GAO's annual Duplication and Cost Savings reports. No legislative action identified. The Gun Look-Alike Case Act, H.R. 3224, which was introduced on July 27, 2015, in the 114th Congress, would transfer the authority to regulate the markings of toy, look-alike, and imitation firearms in section 5001 of title 15 of the U.S. Code from NIST to CPSC, as GAO suggested in November 2014. This bill was referred to the Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade of the Committee on Energy and Commerce in the United States House of Representatives, and did not pass out of committee. This bill was not reintroduced in the 115th Congress and, as of March 2020, has not been reintroduced by the 116th Congress. Continued regulation of the marking of toy and imitation firearms by NIST rather than CPSC does not leverage each agency's expertise and therefore may not be the most efficient use of scarce federal resources.

Recommendation: To improve existing coordination of oversight for consumer product safety, Congress should consider establishing a formal comprehensive oversight mechanism for consumer product safety agencies to address crosscutting issues as well as inefficiencies related to fragmentation and overlap such as communication and coordination challenges and jurisdictional questions between agencies. Different types of formal mechanisms could include, for example, creating a memorandum of understanding to formalize relationships and agreements or establishing a task force or interagency work group. As a starting point, Congress may wish to obtain agency input on options for establishing more formal coordination.

Agency: Congress
Status: Open

Comments: This matter is an action identified in GAO's annual Duplication and Cost Savings reports. As of March 2020, no legislation was identified that would establish a collaborative mechanism to facilitate communication across the relevant agencies and to help enable them to collectively address crosscutting issues, as GAO suggested in November 2014. Some of the agencies with direct regulatory oversight responsibilities for consumer product safety reported that they continue to collaborate to address specific consumer product safety topics. However, without a formal comprehensive oversight mechanism, the agencies risk missing opportunities to better leverage resources and address challenges, including those related to fragmentation and overlap.

Recommendation: To ensure the effective implementation of federal program inventory requirements and to make the inventories more useful, the Director of OMB should, to better present a more coherent picture of all federal programs, revise relevant guidance to direct agencies to collaborate with each other in defining and identifying programs that contribute to common outcomes.

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

Comments: As of October 2020, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) had not taken any actions in response to our recommendations related to the federal program inventory. Although OMB published an initial inventory covering the programs of 24 federal agencies in May 2013, OMB decided to postpone further development of the inventory in order to coordinate with the implementation of the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 2014 (DATA Act). In its June 2019 and July 2020 updates to Circular No. A-11, OMB provided a time frame for doing so. OMB's guidance states that beginning with the 2021 budget cycle, agencies' program activities will be used for the inventory's program-level reporting requirements. This will allow OMB and agencies to present program-level spending data, by leveraging what is reported on USASpending.gov as required by the DATA Act. However, OMB's guidance does not cover other inventory information reporting requirements, nor the actions we recommended. We will continue to monitor progress.

Recommendation: To ensure the effective implementation of federal program inventory requirements and to make the inventories more useful, the Director of OMB should, to better present a more coherent picture of all federal programs, revise relevant guidance to provide a time frame for what constitutes "persistent over time" that agencies can use as a decision rule for whether to include short-term efforts as programs.

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

Comments: As of October 2020, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) had not taken any actions in response to our recommendations related to the federal program inventory. Although OMB published an initial inventory covering the programs of 24 federal agencies in May 2013, OMB decided to postpone further development of the inventory in order to coordinate with the implementation of the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 2014 (DATA Act). In its June 2019 and July 2020 updates to Circular No. A-11, OMB provided a time frame for doing so. OMB's guidance states that beginning with the 2021 budget cycle, agencies' program activities will be used for the inventory's program-level reporting requirements. This will allow OMB and agencies to present program-level spending data, by leveraging what is reported on USASpending.gov as required by the DATA Act. However, OMB's guidance does not cover other inventory information reporting requirements, nor the actions we recommended. We will continue to monitor progress.

Recommendation: To ensure the effective implementation of federal program inventory requirements and to make the inventories more useful, the Director of OMB should, to better present a more coherent picture of all federal programs, define plans for when additional agencies will be required to develop program inventories.

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

Comments: As of October 2020, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) had not taken any actions in response to our recommendations related to the federal program inventory. Although OMB published an initial inventory covering the programs of 24 federal agencies in May 2013, OMB decided to postpone further development of the inventory in order to coordinate with the implementation of the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 2014 (DATA Act). In its June 2019 and July 2020 updates to Circular No. A-11, OMB provided a time frame for doing so. OMB's guidance states that beginning with the 2021 budget cycle, agencies' program activities will be used for the inventory's program-level reporting requirements. This will allow OMB and agencies to present program-level spending data, by leveraging what is reported on USASpending.gov as required by the DATA Act. However, OMB's guidance does not cover other inventory information reporting requirements, nor the actions we recommended. We will continue to monitor progress.

Recommendation: To ensure the effective implementation of federal program inventory requirements and to make the inventories more useful, the Director of OMB should, to better present a more coherent picture of all federal programs, include tax expenditures in the federal program inventory effort by designating tax expenditure as a program type in relevant guidance.

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

Comments: No executive action has been taken. As of October 2020, OMB had not taken action to include tax expenditures in the federal program inventory, as GAO recommended in October 2014. The GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 requires OMB to publish a list of all federal programs on a central, government-wide website. The federal program inventory is the primary tool for agencies to identify programs that contribute to their goals, according to OMB's guidance. Although OMB published an initial inventory covering the programs of 24 federal agencies in May 2013, OMB decided to postpone further development of the inventory in order to coordinate with the implementation of the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 2014 (DATA Act). In June 2019 and July 2020, OMB issued guidance (Circular No. A-11) that states that beginning with the 2021 budget cycle, agencies' program activities will be used for the inventory's program-level reporting requirements. According to OMB, this will allow OMB and agencies to present program-level spending data, by leveraging what is reported on USASpending.gov as required by the DATA Act. However, OMB's guidance does not cover other inventory information reporting requirements nor the actions GAO recommended including designating tax expenditures as a program type. By including tax expenditures in the inventory, OMB could help ensure that agencies are properly identifying the contributions of tax expenditures to the achievement of their goals.

Recommendation: To ensure the effective implementation of federal program inventory requirements and to make the inventories more useful, the Director of OMB should, to better present a more coherent picture of all federal programs, include tax expenditures in the federal program inventory effort by developing, in coordination with the Secretary of the Treasury, a tax expenditure inventory that identifies each tax expenditure and provides a description of how the tax expenditure is defined, its purpose, and related performance and budget information.

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

Comments: No executive action has been taken. As of October 2020, OMB had not taken action to include tax expenditures in the federal program inventory, as GAO recommended in October 2014. The GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 requires OMB to publish a list of all federal programs on a central, government-wide website. The federal program inventory is the primary tool for agencies to identify programs that contribute to their goals, according to OMB's guidance. Although OMB published an initial inventory covering the programs of 24 federal agencies in May 2013, OMB decided to postpone further development of the inventory in order to coordinate with the implementation of the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 2014 (DATA Act). In June 2019 and July 2020, OMB issued guidance (Circular No. A-11) that states that beginning with the 2021 budget cycle, agencies' program activities will be used for the inventory's program-level reporting requirements. According to OMB, this will allow OMB and agencies to present program-level spending data, by leveraging what is reported on USASpending.gov as required by the DATA Act. However, OMB's guidance does not cover other inventory information reporting requirements nor the actions GAO recommended including designating tax expenditures as a program type. By including tax expenditures in the inventory, OMB could help ensure that agencies are properly identifying the contributions of tax expenditures to the achievement of their goals.

Recommendation: To ensure the effective implementation of federal program inventory requirements and to make the inventories more useful, the Director of OMB should, to help ensure that the information agencies provide in their inventories is useful to federal decision makers and key stakeholders, and to provide greater transparency and ensure consistency in federal program funding and performance information, revise relevant guidance to direct agencies to consult with relevant congressional committees and stakeholders on their program definition approach and identified programs when developing or updating their inventories.

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

Comments: As of October 2020, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) had not taken any actions in response to our recommendations related to the federal program inventory. Although OMB published an initial inventory covering the programs of 24 federal agencies in May 2013, OMB decided to postpone further development of the inventory in order to coordinate with the implementation of the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 2014 (DATA Act). In its June 2019 and July 2020 updates to Circular No. A-11, OMB provided a time frame for doing so. OMB's guidance states that beginning with the 2021 budget cycle, agencies' program activities will be used for the inventory's program-level reporting requirements. This will allow OMB and agencies to present program-level spending data, by leveraging what is reported on USASpending.gov as required by the DATA Act. However, OMB's guidance does not cover other inventory information reporting requirements, nor the actions we recommended. We will continue to monitor progress.

Recommendation: To ensure the effective implementation of federal program inventory requirements and to make the inventories more useful, the Director of OMB should, to help ensure that the information agencies provide in their inventories is useful to federal decision makers and key stakeholders, and to provide greater transparency and ensure consistency in federal program funding and performance information, revise relevant guidance to direct agencies to identify in their inventories the performance goal(s) to which each program contributes.

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

Comments: As of October 2020, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) had not taken any actions in response to our recommendations related to the federal program inventory. Although OMB published an initial inventory covering the programs of 24 federal agencies in May 2013, OMB decided to postpone further development of the inventory in order to coordinate with the implementation of the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 2014 (DATA Act). In its June 2019 and July 2020 updates to Circular No. A-11, OMB provided a time frame for doing so. OMB's guidance states that beginning with the 2021 budget cycle, agencies' program activities will be used for the inventory's program-level reporting requirements. This will allow OMB and agencies to present program-level spending data, by leveraging what is reported on USASpending.gov as required by the DATA Act. However, OMB's guidance does not cover other inventory information reporting requirements, nor the actions we recommended. We will continue to monitor progress.

Recommendation: To ensure the effective implementation of federal program inventory requirements and to make the inventories more useful, the Director of OMB should, to help ensure that the information agencies provide in their inventories is useful to federal decision makers and key stakeholders, and to provide greater transparency and ensure consistency in federal program funding and performance information, ensure, during OMB reviews of inventories, that agencies consistently identify, as applicable, the strategic goals, strategic objectives, agency priority goals, and cross-agency priority goals each program supports.

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

Comments: As of October 2020, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) had not taken any actions in response to our recommendations related to the federal program inventory. Although OMB published an initial inventory covering the programs of 24 federal agencies in May 2013, OMB decided to postpone further development of the inventory in order to coordinate with the implementation of the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 2014 (DATA Act). In its June 2019 and July 2020 updates to Circular No. A-11, OMB provided a time frame for doing so. OMB's guidance states that beginning with the 2021 budget cycle, agencies' program activities will be used for the inventory's program-level reporting requirements. This will allow OMB and agencies to present program-level spending data, by leveraging what is reported on USASpending.gov as required by the DATA Act. However, OMB's guidance does not cover other inventory information reporting requirements, nor the actions we recommended. We will continue to monitor progress.

Recommendation: To ensure that the Family Caregiver Program is able to meet caregivers' demand for its services, the Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs should expedite the process for identifying and implementing an IT system that fully supports the program and will enable VHA program officials to comprehensively monitor the program's workload, including data on the status of applications, appeals, home visits, and the use of other support services, such as respite care.

Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Status: Open

Comments: VA concurred with our recommendation and the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) and the Office of Information and Technology (OIT) have been working jointly on projects since 2015 to improve and replace the IT system for the Family Caregiver Program. However, two of these projects were terminated without delivering viable software improvements or a replacement system. According to two independent assessments, these prior efforts lacked both effective leadership and implementation of the processes needed for requirements management. In March 2019, VA began a third project, the Caregiver Record Management Application (CARMA), in which OIT and VHA began to acquire and implement a commercial product to replace the program's existing IT system. In February 2020, VA reported that to support the administrative needs of the Family Caregiver Program it had transitioned from its previous IT system to CARMA, its new IT system, in two stages: 1) In October 2019, VA deployed an initial release of CARMA for data entry of veterans and caregivers newly participating in the program, and 2) On December 2, 2019 the transition of existing veterans and caregivers to CARMA occurred. VA also reported in February 2020 that further enhancements and improvements to CARMA would be released over the coming months. However, the department has not yet fully committed to a date by which it will certify that CARMA fully supports the program. As of July 2020, this recommendation remains open pending further updates.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs should direct the Undersecretary for Health to use data from the IT system, once implemented, as well as other relevant data to formally reassess how key aspects of the program are structured and to identify and implement modifications as needed to ensure that the program is functioning as envisioned so that caregivers can receive the services they need in a timely manner.

Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Status: Open

Comments: VA concurred with this recommendation. VA transitioned in late 2019 to a new IT system, the Caregiver Record Management Application (CARMA). However, the Department has not yet certified the readiness of CARMA to fully support the needs of the Program of Comprehensive Assistance for Family Caregivers (Family Caregiver Program). Prior to the transition to CARMA, VA had developed manual processes to obtain and monitor key data points, allowing it to reassess policies and procedures for the Family Caregiver Program. In its September 2019 update, VA reported that it anticipates being able to certify the IT system when proposed regulatory changes to enable the expansion of the Family Caregiver Program are finalized and the necessary changes which have an impact on IT are implemented. VA also reported that following certification, IT development will continue on IT requirements that do not directly impact VA's ability to expand the program, such as improving the program's ability to track and report on clinical appeals. As of July 2020, this recommendation remains open pending further updates on how VA plans to use data from the IT system to monitor and assess the program's performance.

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 provide the Congress with the necessary insight into program affordability, ensure its ability to effectively monitor total program costs and execution, and to facilitate investment decisions, the NASA's Administrator should direct the Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate to establish a separate cost and schedule baseline for work required to support the SLS Block I Exploration Mission-2 (EM-2) and report this information to the Congress through NASA's annual budget submission. If NASA decides to fly the SLS Block I beyond EM-2, establish separate life cycle cost and schedule baseline estimates for those efforts, to include funding for operations and sustainment, and report this information annually to Congress via the agency's budget submission.

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

Comments: NASA partially agreed with this recommendation, stating that it defined and documented life-cycle costs for SLS to a first demonstrated capability, consistent with cost estimating best practices and NASA project and program management policy and that it would report costs associated with the second exploration mission via its annual budget submission. In January 2020, NASA stated that it is evaluating changes to NASA Procedural Requirements 7120.5E, "NASA Space Flight Program and Project Management Requirements," to better enable the necessary insight into program affordability and efficient monitoring of total program costs and execution for multi-year, multi-cadence type programs. Further, NASA stated that it is investigating plans to redefine performance expectations for multi-decade programs' formal commitments while maintaining visibility to the entire plan. To address this recommendation, NASA needs to establish separate cost and schedule baselines for work required to support SLS for EM-2, which is now known as Artemis II.

Recommendation: To provide the Congress with the necessary insight into program affordability, ensure its ability to effectively monitor total program costs and execution, and to facilitate investment decisions, because NASA intends to use the increased capabilities of the SLS, Orion, and Ground Systems Development and Operations efforts well into the future and has chosen to estimate costs associated with achieving the capabilities, the NASA's Administrator should direct the Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate to establish separate cost and schedule baselines for each additional capability that encompass all life cycle costs, to include operations and sustainment. When NASA cannot fully specify costs due to lack of well-defined missions or flight manifests, forecast a cost estimate range -- including life cycle costs -- having minimum and maximum boundaries. These baselines or ranges should be reported to Congress annually via the agency's budget submission.

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

Comments: NASA partially agreed with this recommendation, stating that it had established separate programs for SLS, Orion, and the ground systems and adopted a block upgrade approach for SLS. In January 2020, NASA stated that it plans 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 address this recommendation, NASA needs to provide evidence that it established separate cost and schedule baselines for each additional SLS, Orion, and Ground Systems Development and Operations capability blocks that encompass all life-cycle costs, including operations and sustainment.

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 proactively prepare for oversight of future disaster relief funding, the Director of OMB should develop standard guidance for federal agencies to use in designing internal control plans for disaster relief funding. Such guidance could leverage existing internal control review processes and should include, at a minimum, the following elements: (1) robust criteria for identifying and documenting incremental risks and mitigating controls related to the funding and (2) requirements for documenting the linkage between the incremental risks related to disaster funding and efforts to address known internal control risks.

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

Comments: To address the recommendation, OMB should issue guidance on internal control for disaster relief funding, including criteria for identifying additional risks and mitigating controls related to the funding and a requirement to link these incremental risks to ongoing efforts to address known internal control risks. On July 15, 2016, OMB issued the revised Circular No. A-123, Management's Responsibility for Enterprise Risk Management and Internal Control. The Circular requires agencies to implement enterprise risk management, which includes the development of a risk profile that analyzes the risks faced in achieving strategic objectives and identifies options for addressing them. In April 2017, OMB staff stated that they believe that the implementation of enterprise risk management through Circular No. A-123 satisfies the intent our recommendation. Because the responsibility for implementing enterprise risk management lies with agency management, Circular No. A-123 does not include specific guidance for identifying risks related to disaster funding. Further discussion and documentation to support OMB's position that the revised Circular addresses our recommendation will be necessary. The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, Sec. 21208(c) requires OMB to issue standard guidance for Federal agencies to use in designing internal control plans for disaster relief funding in order to proactively prepare for oversight of future disaster relief funds. The Act states this guidance shall leverage existing internal control review processes and shall include, at a minimum, (1) robust criteria for identifying and documenting incremental risks and mitigating controls related to the funding, and (2) guidance for documenting the linkage between the incremental risks related to disaster funding and efforts to address known internal control risks. GAO reviewed OMB's actions to implement the law. On June 28, 2019, GAO, 2017 Disaster Relief Oversight: Strategy Needed to Ensure Agencies' Internal Control Plans Provide Sufficient Information, GAO-19-479 (Washington, D.C.: Jun 28, 2019) reported the 2013 recommendation remains open and that we plan to continue monitoring OMB's progress in implementing this priority recommendation. Further, the report stated that OMB did not have an effective strategy to ensure that agencies timely submitted internal control plans; and OMB's Memorandum M-18-14, Implementation of Internal Controls and Grant Expenditures for the Disaster-Related Appropriations lacked specific instructions to agencies on what to include in their internal control plans. As such, a new recommendation was warranted. As of February 2020, OMB has not provided any new status updates for this recommendation.

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

Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: To help improve its ability to oversee M&O contractor costs, including indirect costs, for its laboratories and make more effective use of DOE and contractor resources, the Secretary of Energy should take--or, as appropriate, direct the Administrator of NNSA to incorporate more specific benchmarking requirements into future laboratory contracts--similar to the benchmarking requirements used by DOE to assess and manage pension and post-retirement benefit costs--including which costs should be benchmarked, how frequently benchmarking should occur, and what process should be used to ensure corrective actions are taken, as needed.

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: In April 2017, the Director of NNSA Office of Policy issued guidance to NNSA Laboratory Field Office Managers to update contracts to include a new clause requiring laboratory contractors to submit a strategic plan every year in accordance with guidance. Part of the annual plan requires contractors to discuss the costs of doing business and cost-increase factors at the sites, including overhead dollars. The annual strategic plan is due to the NNSA Office of Policy by August 15 each year. The annual strategic plans included information on indirect costs and cost drivers, but did not include benchmarking. We again requested information on the benchmarking requirements, if any, in July 2020.

Recommendation: Further, to provide greater assurance that the military departments will meet reporting milestones for future projects, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics--in coordination with the Director of the Office of Corrosion Policy and Oversight-- should revise corrosion-related guidance to clearly define a role for the military departments' Corrosion Control and Prevention Executives to assist the Office of Corrosion Policy and Oversight in holding their departments' project management offices accountable for submitting infrastructure-related reports in accordance with the DOD Corrosion Prevention and Mitigation Strategic Plan.

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

Comments: On July 24, 2013, DOD reported that it non-concurred with our recommendation. DOD reported that the Military Department Corrosion Control and Prevention Executives are given the freedom to manage their programs in the most efficient and effective manner for their respective departments. Additionally, DOD reported that the Corrosion Control and Prevention Executives know the reporting requirements and are working closely with the Corrosion Policy and Oversight Office and the project managers to ensure reports are submitted in accordance with the DoD Corrosion Prevention and Mitigation Strategic Plan. Therefore, DOD reported that further guidance is not necessary as the requirements are already clearly stated in the DoD Corrosion Prevention and Mitigation Strategic Plan. Our audit work showed that DOD's strategic plan and guidance do not define a role for the Corrosion Executives in assisting the Corrosion Office in the project reporting process. Our recommendation was intended to fortify the role of Corrosion Executives in ensuring that project management offices within the Corrosion Executives' respective military departments submit project reports as required in the strategic plan. We continue to believe that the Corrosion Executives could provide the additional management oversight necessary to strengthen corrosion project reporting. In May 2016, the Senate Armed Services Committee informed us that it have included language in its National Defense Authorization Act Bill for fiscal year 2017. Specifically, the language reads: SEC. 312. REVISION OF GUIDANCE RELATED TO CORROSION CONTROL AND PREVENTION EXECUTIVES. Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, in coordination with the Director of Corrosion Policy and Oversight, shall revise corrosion-related guidance to clearly define the role of the corrosion control and prevention executives of the military departments in assisting the Office of Corrosion Policy and Oversight in holding the appropriate project management office in each military department accountable for submitting the report required under section 903(b)(5) of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417; 10 U.S.C. 2228 note) with an expanded emphasis on infrastructure, as required in the long-term strategy of the Department of Defense under section 2228(d) of title 10, United States Code. As of October 2016, legislation was not passed. As of March 2019, DOD has since decided to take action to implement this recommendation. According to Corrosion Office officials, they will include a definition of the military departments' Corrosion Executives' role in: an update to DOD Instruction 5000.67 (Prevention and Mitigation of Corrosion on DOD Military Equipment and Infrastructure), a new DOD manual on corrosion, an update to the DOD Corrosion Prevention and Mitigation Strategic Plan, and an update to the Corrosion Prevention Control Integrated Product Team charter. The Corrosion Office's goal is to complete these updates 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 improve the resilience of the nation's infrastructure to climate change, the Executive Director of the United States Global Change Research Program or other federal entity designated by the Executive Office of the President should work with relevant agencies to identify for decision makers the "best available" climate-related information for infrastructure planning and update this information over time.

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Science and Technology Policy: U.S. Global Change Research Program
Status: Open

Comments: The Executive Office of the President did not comment on this recommendation. As of January 2020, no federal entity has identified the best available climate-related information for infrastructure planning.

Recommendation: To improve the resilience of the nation's infrastructure to climate change, the Executive Director of the United States Global Change Research Program or other federal entity designated by the Executive Office of the President should work with relevant agencies to clarify sources of local assistance for incorporating climate-related information and analysis into infrastructure planning, and communicate how such assistance will be provided over time.

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Science and Technology Policy: U.S. Global Change Research Program
Status: Open

Comments: The Executive Office of the President did not comment on this recommendation. As of January 2020, no federal entity has comprehensively clarified sources of local assistance for incorporating climate-related information and analysis into infrastructure planning.

Recommendation: In order to demonstrate compliance across the program with the statutory limit on funds that can be used for administration, the Secretary of HUD should direct the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development to develop a process for generating annual reports on compliance across the program, including making any requisite changes to IDIS to better ensure that the agency has complete and analyzable data to support such reporting.

Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development
Status: Open

Comments: In May 2020, a HUD official told us that the agency did not have the funding necessary to make any changes to IDIS. According to this official, HUD was willing to create the recommended across-program report, but did not have the information technology funding required to make other, higher-priority changes to IDIS (such as fixing identified defects) or the change GAO recommended.

Recommendation: To reduce the incentive for facilities to restrict their service provision to avoid reaching the LVPA treatment threshold, the Administrator of CMS should consider revisions such as changing the LVPA to a tiered adjustment.

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

Comments: As of February 2020, CMS had not implemented this recommendation. CMS stated in February 2020 that the agency had extensive discussions with the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission regarding the Commission's suggestions for modifying the LVPA. CMS also stated that the agency was analyzing the design of the LVPA as part of its evaluation of the ESRD Prospective Payment System. This recommendation remains open because CMS has not provided documentation of steps such as those described above that the agency has taken to consider revisions to the LVPA. We will update the status of this recommendation upon receipt of additional information from CMS.

Recommendation: To further the integration of operational contract support into all areas of the operation planning process, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to focus its training about operational contract support, which is currently focused on the logistics planners, on training all planners at the combatant commands and components as necessary.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation. As of September 2019, DOD has taken steps to focus OCS training to all planners, including those outside the logistics directorate. In December 2015, the Joint Staff J7 certified the Joint OCS Planning and Execution (JOPEC) course of instruction for Joint training. The Joint Staff, per this training certification, is working with the Joint Deployment Training Center and the Joint Force Staff College to provide student administrative and course catalog support for future JOPEC training. Additionally, OSD officials stated in August 2019 that the updated OCS instruction will also address training for planners beyond the logistics directorate; officials anticipated the instruction being issued in 2020 but as of September 2020, it had not yet been issued. We will continue to monitor these efforts and this recommendation will remain open at this time.

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: 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 improve leadership's commitment to preventing and responding to incidents of sexual harassment, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness to develop a strategy for holding individuals in positions of leadership accountable for promoting, supporting, and enforcing the department's sexual harassment policies and programs.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation and stated that leadership accountability is essential to the success of the department's efforts to prevent sexual harassment. In February 2018, DOD took action toward addressing this recommendation and released an update to DOD Instruction 1020.03, Harassment Prevention and Response in the Armed Forces, that directs the Director, Office of Diversity Management and Equal Opportunity (ODMEO), to ensure that DOD components' harassment prevention and response programs incorporate, at a minimum, compliance standards for promoting, supporting, and enforcing polices, plans, and programs. The updated instruction also directs the Commandant, Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute (DEOMI), to tailor training materials to servicemember professional development levels and associated leadership duties and responsibilities. As of February 2020, DOD had not completed development of the compliance standards or training materials. We will monitor DOD actions on this issue.

Recommendation: To improve implementation of the department's sexual harassment policies and programs, the Secretary of Defense should direct the service secretaries to verify or track military commanders' compliance with existing requirements that commanders periodically determine their organizational health and functioning effectiveness by periodically assessing their equal opportunity climate through "command climate" assessments.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD has updated its guidance on sexual harassment, including a requirement for sharing the results of command climate assessments with the next higher level of command, but has not yet implemented an oversight mechanism to verify and track commanders' compliance with requirements to conduct such assessments. DOD concurred with this recommendation and stated that it would implement the recommendation through revisions to its guidance. According to DOD, a 2013 memorandum from the Secretary of Defense on sexual assault prevention and response outlined requirements addressing leadership accountability for preventing sexual harassment. The memorandum included a requirement that the results of command climate surveys be provided to the next level up in the chain of command, and it directed service chiefs, through their respective military department secretaries, to develop methods to assess the performance of commanders in establishing command climates of dignity and respect. The Secretary of Defense also issued a memorandum addressing prevention and response of sexual harassment in 2014, and DOD updated its guidance on sexual harassment in 2015. In 2016, DOD stated that further revisions to guidance were forthcoming to provide a framework for oversight of sexual harassment. This framework, among other things, would address standards for holding leaders accountable for promoting, supporting, and enforcing sexual harassment policies. DOD issued a new DOD Instruction 1020.03, Harassment Prevention and Response in the Armed Forces, in February 2018 but has not implemented an oversight framework as of February 2020. We will continue to monitor DOD's actions.

Recommendation: To enhance oversight of the department's program to help prevent and to address incidents of sexual harassment involving servicemembers, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness to ensure that the Office of Diversity Management and Equal Opportunity develops and aggressively implements an oversight framework to help guide the department's efforts. At a minimum, such a framework should contain long-term goals, objectives, and milestones; strategies to accomplish goals; criteria for measuring progress; and results-oriented performance measures to assess the effectiveness of the department's sexual harassment policies and programs. Such a framework should also identify and include a plan for ensuring that adequate resources are available to carry out the office's oversight responsibilities.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation and stated that as part of its revised guidance it proposed to strengthen and institutionalize the responsibilities and authorities needed for successful implementation of the department's sexual harassment policies. In February 2018, DOD took action toward addressing this recommendation and issued an update to DOD Instruction 1020.03, Harassment Prevention and Response in the Armed Forces, that directs the Director, Office of Diversity Management and Equal Opportunity, to ensure that DOD components' harassment prevention and response programs incorporate , at a minimum, (1) long-term goals, objectives, and milestones; (2) results-oriented performance measures to assess effectiveness; and (3) compliance standards for promoting, supporting, and enforcing policies, plans, and programs. As of February 2020, DOD has not developed and aggressively implemented an oversight framework, as we recommended. We will continue to monitor DOD's actions.

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

Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open

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

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

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

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

Recommendation: To 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 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 improve the management of the stockpile life extension program, the Administrator of NNSA should direct the Deputy Administrator for Defense Programs to develop a realistic schedule for the W76 warhead and future life extension programs that allows NNSA to (1) address technical challenges while meeting all military requirements and (2) build in time for unexpected technical challenges that may delay the program.

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

Comments: In past and ongoing work, GAO has identified areas where NNSA's modernization plans may not align with planned funding requests over the Future Years Nuclear Security Plan (FYNSP) and post-FYNSP periods. Based on the FY 2014 Stockpile Stewardship and Management Plan (SSMP), (GAO-14-45) NNSA plans to work on five life extension programs (LEP) or major alterations through 2038. The FY 2014 SSMP states that the LEP workload represents a resource and production throughput challenge that requires improvements in LEP planning and execution. GAO's analysis indicates there is limited contingency time built into the LEP schedules, all of which are technically ambitious. Any delays in schedules could lead to an increase in program costs or a reduction in the number built for any of the LEPs, both of which have occurred in prior and ongoing LEPs. While NNSA has acknowledged issues and identified some steps to improve the LEP process, this recommendation will remain open and unimplemented until NNSA demonstrates successful LEP and refurbishment execution. We reconfirmed this finding in GAO-17-341 where we found the following: In some cases, NNSA's FY 2017 nuclear security budget materials do not align with the agency's modernization plans, both within the 5-year FYNSP for fiscal years 2017 through 2021 and beyond, raising concerns about the affordability of NNSA's planned portfolio of modernization programs. As of June 2020, this situation has not been fully addressed as evidenced by cost increases and likely delays in the B61-12 and W88 ALTV programs; an aggressive schedule in the W80-4 program, and a large scope in the W87-1 warhead replacement. In addition, new programs contained in the 2018 Nuclear Posture Review and the announcement of a new development effort, the W93, may further stress NNSA's program.

Recommendation: To improve the management of the stockpile life extension program, the Administrator of NNSA should direct the Deputy Administrator for Defense Programs to ensure that the program managers responsible for overseeing the construction of new facilities directly related to future life extension programs coordinate with the program managers of such future programs to avoid the types of delays and problems faced with the construction and operation of the Fogbank manufacturing facility for the W76 program.

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

Comments: A number of Stockpile Stewardship and Management Plans (SSMP) state that the life extension program (LEP) workload represents a resource and production throughput challenge that requires improvements in LEP planning and execution. The officials elaborated that the main area that will be strained is pit production. NNSA's plutonium strategy needs to be resourced fully and implemented successfully by 2030 to support the W87 warhead replacement. Additionally, the officials said that the UPF project and an arrange of associated programmatic efforts need to be operational by 2025 or there will be challenges in completing all of the planned LEPs. In addition, NNSA needs to re-establish depleted uranium operations, construct a new lithium facility and establish a domestic uranium enrichment function for tritium production by the late 2020s to meet stockpile needs. As such, this recommendation remains open and, given the aggressive warhead and bomb modernization efforts proceeding in parallel with infrastructure modernization efforts, will likely remain open for some time.

Recommendation: To improve the management of the stockpile life extension program, the Administrator of NNSA should direct the Deputy Administrator for Defense Programs to ensure that program managers for the construction of new facilities for future life extensions base their schedule for the construction and start-up of a facility on the life extension program managers' needs identified in their risk mitigation strategies.

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

Comments: NNSA has generally improved its management of construction projects, to include requirements setting, Analysis of Alternatives, and independent cost estimates, among other items. However, it is too soon to tell if these positive developments will help--or hinder--LEPs that are underway or are being conducted. Key uranium activities, to include construction and operating funds will not be complete until 2025; key tritium and lithium programs and facilities will not complete until the 2030s; key plutonium activities are underway as well, but will not be complete until the late 2020s. As of June 2020, there are no significant changes related to this recommendation, and it will continue to remain open.

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: 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 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.