Recommendation: The FTA Administrator should take steps to provide information to Congress and sponsors to better clarify how FTA applies the methods and factors it considers when performing its review of sponsors' projects. Clarification could include how FTA uses documents, such as project roadmaps, to help sponsors advance through the development process; estimated time frames for reviewing submissions and responding to sponsors' requests; and how FTA considers geographic diversity of projects in its decision-making. (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 FTA Administrator should take steps to review all agency guidance pertaining to the Capital Investment Grants program's development process and identify aspects that may be outdated or confusing for sponsors, and communicate to Congress and sponsors the steps needed to update FTA's guidance or otherwise provide sponsors with more current information on the Capital Investment Grants program. As part of FTA's efforts, FTA could obtain feedback from sponsors and the industry on these issues as appropriate. (Recommendation 2)

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 FTA Administrator should take steps to ensure its staff communicates information, such as the reason why a project is not advancing, to sponsors in a timely manner and in writing upon the sponsor's request. (Recommendation 3)

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 Assistant Secretary of DOL's Employment and Training Administration should include detailed information on the methodology used to identify centers for proposed closure in its notices for public comment.

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

Comments: The agency concurred with the purpose and intent of this recommendation, stating that the level of information it included in notices for public comment concerning such matters complied with WIOA requirements and provided a meaningful opportunity for public comment: it did not indicate that it would provide more detailed information in the future. While we acknowledge that DOL is not required to publish its methodology in public notices, we believe that including such information can provide greater transparency in assisting the public and the Congress in understanding the agency's decision-making used to select centers for closure. DOL included detailed information on the methodology used to identify centers for proposed closure in its 2014 and 2016 public notices. As such, we believe ETA should take action to implement this recommendation in the event that the agency proposes Job Corps centers for closure in the future.

Recommendation: The Executive Director for Operations of NRC should ensure relevant NRC program offices develop policy and guidance for when to communicate information on work progress to licensees, such as through communications to licensees at specified timeframes or thresholds. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Nuclear Regulatory Commission: Directorate for Operations
Status: Open

Comments: In January 2020, in its written response to our report, NRC neither agreed nor disagreed with our recommendation but did describe actions that it intends to take in response to our recommendation. NRC stated that it will review its current practice of providing information on work progress to licensees and develop or revise any policy and guidance where necessary. We believe our review sufficiently demonstrated that by implementing our recommendation NRC could further enhance transparency and facilitate planning and budgeting for licensees. We will continue to monitor NRC's actions to address this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Chief Financial Officer of NRC should, in consultation with NRC program offices, develop guidance to ensure NRC staff clearly define what costs—such as project management—are included in its public cost estimates. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Nuclear Regulatory Commission: Office of the Chief Financial Officer
Status: Open

Comments: In January 2020, in its written response to our report, NRC neither agreed nor disagreed with our recommendation but did describe actions that it intends to take in response to our recommendation. NRC stated that it will review its current web-based cost estimates to determine if changes are necessary and implement those changes as appropriate. We believe our review sufficiently demonstrated that by implementing our recommendation NRC could further enhance transparency and facilitate planning and budgeting for licensees. We will continue to monitor NRC's actions to address this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Treasury should ensure that information about the 90-day delay for displaying DOD procurement data on USAspending.gov is transparently communicated to users of the site. Approaches for doing this could include prominently displaying this information on the DOD agency profile page, in the unreported data section, and in search results that include DOD data. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of the Treasury
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 Treasury should ensure that information regarding how the Primary Place of Performance Address for Medicare payment data are reported is transparently communicated to the users of USAspending.gov. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of the Treasury
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 Defense should ensure that the Director of the Defense Finance and Accounting Service provides customers with more complete information on the agency's rate-setting methodologies in rate documentation, briefings, and other forums where rates are discussed, including the costs included in rates, how those costs are calculated, and how changes in DFAS's workload affect customers' overall costs. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Defense: Defense Finance and Accounting Service
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) concurred with GAO's recommendation and stated that the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) provides detailed cost and rate information to customers each year in multiple venues and would reach out to customers to obtain additional details to understand how to fill the information gap regarding rate transparency. In April 2020, DOD provided to GAO DFAS's corrective action plan, which stated that DFAS Client Executives would ask the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps lead Financial Managers for feedback on additional details needed to better plan for the DFAS bill. DFAS would then incorporate this additional detail into the customer bill briefings for the President's Budget Request for fiscal year 2022. DFAS also stated that the Air Force had indicated that DFAS provides appropriate transparency, but had requested that DFAS provide its bill estimate earlier, which DFAS had agreed to do.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Director of the Defense Information Systems Agency provides customers with more complete information on the agency's rate-setting methodologies in rate documentation, briefings, and other forums where rates are discussed, including the costs included in rates, how those costs are calculated, and how changes in DISA's workload affect customers' overall costs. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Defense: Defense Information Systems Agency
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) concurred with GAO's recommendation and stated that the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) will make every effort to improve dialogue with customers to ensure the correct people have a full understanding of DISA's methodologies used to develop their rates. In April 2020, DOD provided to GAO DISA's corrective action plan, which stated that DISA would continue to make every effort to improve dialogue with customers to ensure an increased understanding of methodologies used to develop the rates. In this plan, DISA reported that, in February and March 2020, its Chief Financial Officer (CFO) coordinated with the communications and financial management senior leadership for the military services to discuss Defense Working Capital Fund (DWCF) rate methodology and transparency. In May 2020, DOD provided an updated status on this recommendation, stating that a result of the DISA CFO outreach was that DISA would use the regular and recurring DISA Drumbeat engagements with the military departments to present and maintain an open and transparent dialogue on DISA DWCF rates. GAO requested documentation for the recent Navy and Air Force Drumbeat meetings and the pending Army meeting, as well as recent rate briefings that document that DISA is providing this more complete rate-setting information to its customers. GAO will update the status of this recommendation once this documentation is received.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Director of the Defense Logistics Agency provides customers with more complete information on the agency's rate-setting methodologies in rate documentation, briefings, and other forums where rates are discussed, including the costs included in its rates, how it calculates those costs, and how and when proposed changes to its rate-setting methodologies will affect customers' overall costs. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Defense: Defense Logistics Agency
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) concurred with GAO's recommendation and stated that the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) would include more detailed information in its annual rate briefing to the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) and the services regarding what is in its costs, how it calculates costs, and how and when changes would impact customers' overall costs. In addition, DLA stated that it conducts semiannual Cost Summits and periodic DLA/Service Days with customers. DLA said it would include discussions, as appropriate, of topics such as potential pricing methodology changes and estimated cost impacts to customers, well in advance of implementation. In March 2020, DLA notified GAO that it had discussed cost rates with the military services during the January 2020 DLA Cost Summit and the Service Days with each of the military services that it held in June and November 2019. GAO requested documentation for these five meetings that includes the more complete information on DLA's rate-setting methodologies that GAO identified in the recommendation. GAO will update the status of this recommendation once this documentation is received.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure the department implements the pilot program by releasing at least 20 percent of newly custom-developed code as open source software (OSS). (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Defense did not concur with this recommendation and as of July 2020 has not yet implemented it. According to a December 2019 department letter provided to GAO, the 20 percent software release target is unlikely achievable due to the nature of code that is custom developed by the department. However, the department is mandated by law to implement the open source software pilot program established by the Office of Management and Budget's memorandum M-16-21. Releasing at least 20 percent of newly custom-developed code is a requirement of this program. GAO will continue to follow-up on the status of the pilot program.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure the department identifies a measure to calculate the percentage of code released to gauge its progress on implementing the pilot program. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Defense partially agreed with this recommendation and as of July 2020 has not yet implemented it. According to a December 2019 department letter sent to GAO, the department intends to release updated guidance on the release of custom-developed code as open-source software and will include metrics. The department estimated that the updated policy will be completed in the 3rd quarter of fiscal year 2020. GAO will follow-up with the agency to obtain the status of the updated guidance.

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

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

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: Department of State
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: During the next reauthorization for surface transportation programs, Congress should consider including language in the reauthorization bill that would require DOT to develop and implement transparency measures for DOT's review and selection process for discretionary grants. Such measures should, at a minimum, help to ensure that the evaluation process is clearly communicated, that applications are consistently evaluated, and that the rationale for DOT's decisions are clearly documented. Such measures should be developed in line with Office of Management and Budget guidance, federal internal control standards, and recommended practices for evaluating and selecting discretionary grant awards (Matter for Consideration 1)

Agency: Congress
Status: Open

Comments: As of November 2019, Congress has not enacted a reauthorization measure for surface transportation programs. The current authorization expires on September 30, 2020.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Transportation should ensure that DOT, in its notice of funding opportunity and evaluation plan for each remaining INFRA-funding cycle, clarify the circumstances under which DOT may select applicants to receive requests for additional information. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open

Comments: As of November 2019, DOT told us that, for the fiscal year 2020 INFRA awards, it plans to provide information in the Notice of Funding Opportunity and evaluation plan explaining under the circumstances under which additional information may be sought from applicants. DOT stated that it plans to complete these actions by March 2020. We will continue to monitor DOT's actions.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Transportation should develop procedures for each remaining INFRA-funding cycle to ensure that when additional information is requested from an applicant, the specific rationale behind the request is documented (for example, to promote geographic diversity among projects), as well as to ensure that DOT documents the rationale if similar projects were not afforded an opportunity to provide additional information. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open

Comments: As of November 2019, DOT told us it will document the basis for seeking additional information from applicants and describe the procedures for doing so in the evaluation plan for the FY 2020 INFRA awards, which it expects to conclude by September 2020. We will continue to monitor DOT's actions.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Transportation should ensure that DOT provides information to applicants in its notice of funding opportunity for each remaining INFRA-funding cycle regarding: (1) how scores on merit criteria are used, if at all, to determine whether projects advance to the Secretary for selection, and (2) how, if at all, DOT plans to use merit scores to determine which projects should receive an award. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open

Comments: As of November 2019, DOT told us that, for the fiscal year 2020 INFRA awards, it plans to provide information in the Notice of Funding Opportunity that will more clearly state (1) that projects are advanced to the Secretary based on how they are evaluated against the selection criteria and (2) how evaluations against the selection criteria are used to determine which projects should receive awards. DOT stated that it plans to issue the Notice of Funding Opportunity by March 2020. We will continue to monitor DOT's actions.

Recommendation: The Director of OMB should ensure that information is collected regarding how centralized reporting of procurement requirements might reduce recipient reporting burden—including input from stakeholders such as contractors through an iterative and ongoing process—to inform OMB's planned expansion of the Central Reporting Portal.

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

Comments: In an October 2019 written response to the recommendation contained in GAO-19-299, OMB acknowledged the importance of collecting stakeholder input and described some steps that it has taken to do so in the past. The letter also stated OMB's intention to engage key stakeholders moving forward but was not specific regarding steps it planned to take related to the potential expansion of the Central Reporting Portal. GAO will continue to monitor this issue including what specific actions, if any, OMB takes in response to this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Administrator of CMS should develop and communicate a policy that defines when changes to a pending section 1115 demonstration application are considered major and should prompt a new review of the application against the transparency requirements applicable to the pending application. (Recommendation 1)

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

Comments: In response to this recommendation, HHS stated that existing regulations permit CMS at its discretion to direct an additional public comment period when states make a modification to an application that substantially changes the design. In July 2020, CMS officials said the agency would continue to exercise its regulatory discretion as needed and planned no further action in response to this recommendation. In light of past CMS decisions to not require states to first seek public comment before submitting major changes to their demonstration applications, we maintain that a policy is needed defining when changes are considered major and should prompt a new review of the application against transparency requirements. We will continue to monitor CMS's actions in this area.

Recommendation: The Administrator of CMS should develop and communicate a policy whereby applications for section 1115 demonstration amendments that may have significant impact are subject to transparency requirements comparable to those for new demonstrations and extensions. (Recommendation 2)

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

Comments: HHS stated that it plans to implement a policy applying state public input processes and application criteria to amendments proposing significant or substantial changes in the same manner as for new demonstrations. In July 2020, CMS stated the agency plans to develop criteria for determining whether an amendment application proposes a substantial change to an existing demonstration and to include this in guidance by early 2021. We will continue to monitor CMS's actions in this area and will close this recommendation once this policy guidance is issued.

Recommendation: The Director of OMB should clarify and document OMB's procedure for changing official data definition standards for DATA Act reporting, for example, by explicitly describing how change procedures developed for other government-wide initiatives apply to DATA Act definition standards in a public source of guidance or information. (Recommendation 1)

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

Comments: OMB has taken steps to restructure the federal data ecosystem, including issuing government-wide guidance covering all federal data and creating a Business Standards Council. However, given the complexity of recent changes, OMB needs to explicitly and publicly describe how those changes-developed in the context of other government-wide initiatives-apply to DATA Act data element definitions.

Recommendation: The Director of OMB should ensure that the June 2018 policy changes regarding DATA Act data definition standards are clearly identified and explained in the official repository or another authoritative public source of DATA Act standards and guidance, such as by including a revision history along with the current version of the definitions. (Recommendation 2)

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

Comments: In January 2020, OMB staff cited its Federal Spending Transparency Data Standards website and specifically notations on that site regarding the dates of revisions made to those standards as being responsive to this recommendation. However, the specific notations cited by OMB only show changes made back in 2015 and do not reflect nor explain some of the more recent revisions that led to GAO making this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for OJP should consistently document CEBR program-wide goals to clarify intended program results. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Justice: Office of Justice Programs
Status: Open

Comments: In September 2019, OJP reported that it is building a logic model for the CEBR program that will provide the basis for addressing this recommendation. According to OJP, this logic model will more clearly align CEBR program goals and objectives with permitted program activities and associated performance measures. OJP had originally planned to finalize this logic model by March 2020 and share it--including any resulting changes in how program goals are articulated--with the CEBR stakeholder community in advance of the fiscal year 2021 grant cycle, beginning October 1, 2020. In June 2020, OJP reported that the CEBR program was transferred from OJP's National Institute of Justice to OJP's Bureau of Justice Assistance. As a result, OJP reported that plans to finalize and communicate the CEBR logic model have been postponed. GAO will follow-up with OJP in the winter of 2020-2021 to obtain documentation on the logic model and how they are communicating it. This will enable GAO to determine if the model--and OJP's efforts to communicate it to stakeholders--meets the intent of the recommendation by consistently documenting CEBR program-wide goals and clarifying intended results.

Recommendation: The Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for OJP should ensure that performance measures for each CEBR program-wide goal fully reflect appropriate attributes of successful performance measures. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Justice: Office of Justice Programs
Status: Open

Comments: In September 2019, OJP reported that it is reviewing each CEBR program performance measure as part of its process for creating a CEBR program logic model. According to OJP, the purpose of this review is to ensure the measures are meaningful and have the right attributes. In June 2020, OJP reported that, as appropriate, updated performance measures will be included in the fiscal year 2021 CEBR grant program solicitation--which they anticipate releasing in early 2021. GAO will follow-up with OJP in the spring of 2021 to obtain documentation of changes to performance measures, and to determine whether updated performance measures meet the intent of the recommendation.

Recommendation: The Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for OJP should document which employee positions have been delegated certification (final signature) authority for confidential financial disclosure reports and specify required levels of review and approval. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Justice: Office of Justice Programs
Status: Open

Comments: In June 2020, OJP provided a memo sent by the Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for OJP to OJP components, dated March 2020. This memo states that supervisors are to review and sign reports, and notes that secondary supervisors may review and sign reports as Final Reviewing Officials, but it is not mandatory. This is a positive step, but does not fully meet the intent of the recommendation because it is not clear if immediate supervisors have been delegated final signature authority. Specifically, there are two places for signature on the reports (1) "Signature and Title of Supervisor/Other Intermediate Reviewer," and (2) "Signature and Title of Agency's Final Reviewing Official" (certification). According to Office of Government Ethics' regulation and guidance, review and signature of a supervisor or other intermediate reviewer is optional, but review and signature of a Final Reviewing Official-who has been delegated authority to certify reports-is required. OJP's memo states that secondary supervisors may sign as Final Reviewing Officials (i.e. have been delegated this authority), but OJP's memo is not clear if immediate supervisors have also been delegated authority to certify reports as Final Reviewing Officials. To address this discrepancy and enable GAO to close this recommendation as "implemented," OJP needs to clarify who has been delegated authority to certify reports as Final Reviewing Officials.

Recommendation: The Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for OJP should (1) clarify its guidance to grantees to specify what their requirements are under 28 C.F.R. pt. 69 with regard to obtaining lobbying certification documents, and obtaining and forwarding to OJP lobbying disclosure forms, from tiers beneath them; and (2) design a control to follow-up with grantees to help ensure they are meeting these requirements. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of Justice: Office of Justice Programs
Status: Open

Comments: In September 2020, OJP reported that it plans to (1) issue guidance to all OJP funding recipients to remind them of lobbying disclosure requirements and provide instructions for how to submit the disclosures, and (2) implement an updated in-depth monitoring checklist whereby OJP can ensure applicable lobbying disclosure forms are collected and submitted to OJP. OJP stated that it plans to take these steps by October 1, 2020. GAO will follow-up in late 2020 to obtain and review all relevant documentation and ensure that these steps meet the intent of the recommendation.

Recommendation: The Director of OMB should make available more disaggregated data on fees, fines, and penalties that it maintains in its OMB MAX database. For example, OMB could report data on fee collections by agency in Analytical Perspectives. (Recommendation 1)

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

Comments: The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) did not provide comments on our draft report and therefore neither agreed nor disagreed with this recommendation. As of October 2020, OMB had not provided evidence of any actions taken to implement this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Director of OMB should instruct agencies to regularly review the application of the user fee designation in the OMB MAX data and update the designation, as needed, to meet the criteria in OMB Circular No. A-11. (Recommendation 3)

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

Comments: OMB did not provide comments on our draft report and therefore neither agreed nor disagreed with this recommendation. As of October 2020, OMB had not provided evidence of any actions taken to implement this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Treasury should fully comply with OMB's requirements by providing metadata in a single location that are easy to find on the USAspending.gov website. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of the Treasury
Status: Open

Comments: Treasury agreed with the recommendation. As of September 2020, metadata are not available on USAspending.gov.

Recommendation: The Commissioner of Internal Revenue should direct the Chief of Appeals, in coordination with the IRS Human Capital Office, to conduct a skills gap analysis specific to Appeals mission needs and develop a strategy for mitigating any identified gaps. (Recommendation 1)

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

Comments: IRS agreed with this recommendation. As of April 2020, the Office of Appeals stated that it is working with the IRS Human Capital Office to design a questionnaire for all Appeals managers to identify the technical and organizational skills necessary to meet organizational short and long-term needs for the Appeals Officer position. This information will be used to conduct a skills gap analysis on the current Appeals workforce and to enhance the selection/hiring process to ensure future hires possess necessary skills. IRS plans to complete these actions by October 2020, and Appeals stated that time frame for this corrective action may be affected by budgetary and resource constraints. GAO will continue to monitor IRS's implementation of this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Commissioner of Internal Revenue should evaluate the existing monitoring for collection due process appeal requests and address deficiencies in collection staff meeting the requirement for timely transfer to the Office of Appeals. (Recommendation 2)

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

Comments: IRS agreed with this recommendation. In July 2019, IRS evaluated the existing monitoring for collection due process appeal requests to identify any impediments to collection staff timely transferring these requests to the Office of Appeals and provided the studies and related recommendations to GAO. The affected IRS collection units have developed action plans to address deficiencies in case transfer time. These plans include modifying inventory software to alert both staff and managers on the number of days collection due process requests have been under review. IRS also plans to update relevant IRM documentation in early 2020 to ensure that receipt dates of collection due process appeal requests are recorded for all cases and that there is appropriate notation of reasons why certain cases exceed established timeframes for transfer to the Office of Appeals. To fully implement this recommendation, IRS will need to provide GAO copies of the updated IRM as well as evidence of other corrective actions outlined in its evaluations of its monitoring procedures for collection due process appeal requests. GAO will continue to monitor the implementation of this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Commissioner of Internal Revenue should establish timeframes and monitoring procedures for timely transfer of taxpayer appeals requests by examination compliance units to the Office of Appeals. (Recommendation 3)

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

Comments: IRS agreed with this recommendation. All four IRS business operating divisions have a corrective action plan and established and documented time frames for timely appeal transfer as of February 2020. While three business operating divisions have reporting procedures planned for monitoring timely appeal transfer, one division has not provided a plan for monitoring its timeliness in transferring cases to the Office of Appeals. To fully implement this recommendation, IRS needs to assess whether the planned monitoring actions will result in timely transfer of examination appeals. As of February 2020, data tracking the time from taxpayer request for appeal to when it is received by the Office of Appeals indicated that the actual transfer times are longer than the established time frames. Delays in transferring such requests can result in increased interest costs for taxpayers because interest continues to accumulate on the tax liability during the appeal process. Further, taxpayers unsure of their appeal status may call or write to IRS, tying up other IRS staff to respond to inquiries about appeals delayed in transfer. GAO will continue to monitor IRS's implementation of this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Commissioner of Internal Revenue should direct the Chief of Appeals to regularly report and share with each compliance unit the data on the time elapsed between when a taxpayer requests an appeal to when it is received in the Office of Appeals. (Recommendation 4)

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

Comments: IRS agreed with this recommendation. In February 2019, IRS stated that the Chief of Appeals will share with each compliance unit data on the time elapsed between when a taxpayer requests an appeal to when it is received in the Office of Appeals. Appeals will also conduct an assessment with IRS compliance units of the time elapsed between when a taxpayer requests an appeal to when it is received in the Office of Appeals and implement improvements based on that assessment. As of February 2020, Appeals demonstrated that it provided to compliance units initial example data that tracks the time from taxpayer request for appeal to when it is received by the Office of Appeals. As of April 2020, it continues to refine the format of these reports. Appeals said it plans to do an assessment of the data with compliance units and will provide an example of this analysis when it is complete. IRS plans to complete these actions by October 2020, and GAO will continue to monitor IRS's implementation of this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Commissioner of Internal Revenue should provide more transparency to taxpayers on historical average total appeal resolution times. This could include publishing average total resolution times by workstream on an Office of Appeals web page as well as including total expected times in the Appeals welcome letter. (Recommendation 5)

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

Comments: IRS agreed with this recommendation. In February 2019, IRS stated that the Chief of Appeals will review appeal resolution times and participate in IRS-wide efforts to improve transparency of resolution timeframes. As of June 2019, the Office of Appeals explained that IRS was beginning to simplify its website, including the Appeals website, with a focus on making it more customer friendly. IRS plans to complete these actions by June 2020, and GAO will continue to monitor IRS's implementation of this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Treasury, consistent with its responsibilities under GPRAMA and Executive Orders for customer service, should ensure that the Commissioner of Internal Revenue takes action to make Appeals customer service standards and performance results more transparent to the public. This could include publishing customer service standards and related performance measure results on the Office of Appeals web page on IRS.gov. (Recommendation 6)

Agency: Department of the Treasury
Status: Open

Comments: Treasury agreed with this recommendation and plans to monitor IRS implementation. In February 2019, IRS stated that it will publish customer service standards and related performance measure results on the Office of Appeals web page on IRS.gov. As of April 2020, the Office of Appeals stated it plans to use information from its redesigned customer satisfaction survey to address this recommendation and is determining how to include the performance information on its website. IRS plans to complete these actions by June 2020, and GAO will continue to monitor IRS's implementation of this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Treasury, consistent with its responsibilities under GPRAMA and Executive Orders for customer service, should ensure that the Commissioner of Internal Revenue takes action to develop a mechanism to solicit and consider public input and customer feedback on a regular basis on current and proposed IRS appeal policies and procedures. This could include leveraging existing IRS advisory bodies or establishing an Office of Appeals advisory body representing the taxpaying public, the tax practitioner community, and businesses to solicit customer perspectives. (Recommendation 7)

Agency: Department of the Treasury
Status: Open

Comments: Treasury agreed with this recommendation and will monitor IRS implementation. In February 2019, IRS stated that it will leverage existing IRS advisory bodies to solicit customer perspectives. In January 2020, the Office of Appeals reported that it had begun to meet with the IRS Advisory Committee (IRSAC) to solicit customer perspectives, with its first interactions beginning in November 2019. The Office of Appeals stated that, in addition to this action, its leadership continues to meet with other external bodies to capture public input and customer feedback on an ad hoc basis. As of April 2020, the Office of Appeals stated it plans to participate in IRSAC's public meetings. Since the Office of Appeals has only begun leveraging IRSAC to solicit customer perspectives in November 2019 in a working session, GAO will continue to monitor the implementation of this recommendation to ensure sustained interaction with IRSAC through working sessions, as well as public meetings.

Recommendation: The Commandant of the Coast Guard should either develop new performance goals to address mission activity gaps, or explain in the Coast Guard's Annual Performance Report (APR) why certain aspects of mission performance are measured while others are not. (Recommendation 1)

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

Comments: In October 2017, the Coast Guard concurred with our recommendation and stated that it would add new measures in future Annual Performance Reports (APRs) and explain what is measured and what is not, as appropriate. In May 2020, the Coast Guard provided GAO with its updated fiscal year 2019 APR. After reviewing the fiscal year 2019 APR, we found that the Coast Guard made revisions to the goals for the Ports, Waterways, and Coastal Security (PWCS) and Marine Environmental Protection-prevention activities (MEP) missions and added a goal for the Search and Rescue mission. However, the APR did not include additional goals or an explanation why certain aspects of mission performance are measured while others are not for the other performance goals we previously identified as not fully addressing all related mission activities. In its July 2020 update to this recommendation, the Coast Guard reported that the metrics published in the APR are measures of Coast Guard performance and not performance goals. The Coast Guard also noted that it continually evaluates the utility of its performance measures, and makes changes to individual measures, as well as its suite of measures, when doing so provides meaningful improvement. In its July 2020 update, the Coast Guard added that targets established for performance measures are intended to be realistic expectations of future performance and targets are continually evaluated and changed when current performance modify expectations. However, we continue to believe that in the absence of documentation explaining how existing performance goals address each mission, the extent to which the Coast Guard's performance goals encompass all of its mission activities is unclear. Either developing new goals to address mission activity gaps, or describing in the APR how existing goals sufficiently assess the performance of each mission could provide more meaningful information on progress in achieving Coast Guard's missions to executive branch decision makers, Congress, and the public. In order to fully implement the recommendation as intended, in instances in which performance goals do not fully address all of the respective mission activities, the Coast Guard's APR should include an explanation of the Coast Guard's rationale for why certain aspects of mission performance are measured while others are not. We will continue to follow-up on the Coast Guard's efforts to address this recommendation.

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

Agency: Department of the Treasury
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

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

Recommendation: To improve the completeness and accuracy of data submissions to the USASpending.gov website, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, in collaboration with Treasury's Fiscal Service, should clarify guidance on (1) agency responsibilities for reporting awards funded by non-annual appropriations; (2) the applicability of USASpending.gov reporting requirements to non-classified awards associated with intelligence operations; (3) the requirement that award titles describe the award's purpose (consistent with our prior recommendation); and (4) agency maintenance of authoritative records adequate to verify the accuracy of required data reported for use by USASpending.gov.

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

Comments: OMB has taken several steps related to this recommendation as of December 2019, but have not fully addressed it. Specifically, working with the Department of the Treasury to implement the DATA Act, OMB took partial action on two aspects of the recommendation and are still considering actions on two others. 1) OMB staff said they continue to deliberate on agency responsibilities for reporting awards funded by non-annual appropriations. 2) OMB staff provided a Frequently Asked Question (FAQ) addressing the applicability of USASpending.gov reporting requirements for recipient information related to classified or sensitive information. GAO reviewed the FAQ and determined that additional guidance is still needed to ensure complete reporting of unclassified awards as required by FFATA. 3) OMB staff have agreed that it will be important to clarify guidance on how agencies can report on award titles that appropriately describes the awards' purposes and noted that they are working on providing additional guidance to agencies as part of their larger DATA Act implementation efforts. 4) OMB released policy guidance in May 2016 (MPM 2016-03) that identifies the authoritative sources for reporting procurement and award data. However, GAO's review of this policy guidance determined that it does not address the underlying source that can be used to verify the accuracy of non-financial procurement data or any source for data on assistance awards.