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: FirstNet's Chief Executive Officer should take steps to ensure that the integrated master schedule for the program is developed and maintained in accordance with the best practices provided in GAO's Schedule Assessment Guide. (Recommendation 1)

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

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

Recommendation: FirstNet's Chief Executive Officer should identify additional information about the program, including FirstNet's oversight and monitoring activities, that can be shared with public-safety stakeholders and periodically communicate and report this information to them. (Recommendation 2)

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

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

Recommendation: FirstNet's Chief Executive Officer should share relevant portions of the accepted state-specific commitment reports with the states, as specified in the contract. (Recommendation 3)

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

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

Recommendation: FirstNet's Chief Executive Officer should, in consultation with public-safety stakeholders and its contractor, as appropriate, identify and obtain periodic information or meaningful indicators on end-users' satisfaction that would serve as a metric to gauge performance quality, including the effect of the FirstNet network and products on public-safety operations. (Recommendation 4)

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

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

Recommendation: The Executive Director of OCWR, in collaboration with relevant managers, should establish a policy that requires a schedule of tasks to be developed, documented, and updated throughout the lifetime of IT system projects. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Office of Congressional Workplace Rights
Status: Open

Comments: The agency agreed with the recommendation. OCWR officials stated that they will be implementing a policy to ensure that project planning steps, including a schedule of tasks, will be included and documented for future IT projects.

Recommendation: The Executive Director of OCWR should identify and assess risks in establishing and maintaining a permanent records retention program, and develop policies and procedures to ensure that risks are properly addressed. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Office of Congressional Workplace Rights
Status: Open

Comments: The agency agreed with the recommendation. OCWR officials stated that they have hired a contractor to assist with various risk management activities related to OCWR's permanent records retention program, including identifying and assessing risks and developing policies and procedures to address any risks.

Recommendation: The Executive Director of OCWR should identify desired performance results, develop performance measures that demonstrate the degree to which the desired results were achieved, and report progress toward those results in OCWR's annual reports. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Office of Congressional Workplace Rights
Status: Open

Comments: The agency agreed with the recommendation. OCWR officials stated that they are reassessing desired performance results, developing new performance measures to monitor progress towards those results, and will clearly report OCWR's progress in future annual reports.

Recommendation: The Executive Director of OCWR should collect relevant data through a survey or other mechanisms, and use the information to evaluate the effectiveness of education and outreach efforts and the extent to which they are reaching all covered legislative branch populations. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Office of Congressional Workplace Rights
Status: Open

Comments: The agency agreed with the recommendation. According to OCWR officials, they are working with congressional oversight committees and covered legislative branch offices to obtain data through surveys or other methods that will enable them to evaluate the effectiveness and coverage of OCWR's education and outreach efforts.

Recommendation: The Executive Director of OCWR should integrate IT planning and implementation into the agency's strategic planning process. (Recommendation 5)

Agency: Office of Congressional Workplace Rights
Status: Open

Comments: The agency agreed with the recommendation. OCWR officials stated that they intend to revise the agency's strategic plan, including integrating IT planning and implementation into the strategic planning process, after they gain more experience with the new procedures required by the Congressional Accountability Act (CAA) Reform Act of 2018.

Recommendation: The Executive Director of OCWR should incorporate key strategic human capital management practices, such as developing strategies to recruit and retain staff with mission-critical skills, into the strategic planning process. (Recommendation 6)

Agency: Office of Congressional Workplace Rights
Status: Open

Comments: The agency agreed with the recommendation. OCWR officials reported that they hired a contractor to better incorporate key management practices, such as developing strategies for recruiting and retaining staff with mission-critical skills, into OCWR's human capital plan and strategic planning process.

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 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 Administrator of the GSA should report for Congress and the public—for example, on GSA's prospectus website—the extent to which completed projects' construction costs and schedules were rebaselined and final construction costs, to include any additional funding tenant agencies may have provided to GSA for changes. (Recommendation 1)

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

Comments: The General Services Administration (GSA) partially concurred with this recommendation. On February 6, 2020, GSA stated that it will publish summary schedule and budget results for completed projects on GSA's public-accessible prospectus website. GAO will continue to monitor GSA's actions related to this recommendation and update information accordingly.

Recommendation: The Administrator of the GSA should update its 2005 Commissioning Guide—or replace it with appropriate industry-recognized standards and guidance—to be consistent with GSA's current design standards and industry practices. (Recommendation 2)

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

Comments: GSA concurred with this recommendation, and on February 6, 2020, stated that GSA will publish updated Commissioning Guidance. GAO will continue to monitor GSA's actions related to this recommendation and update information accordingly.

Recommendation: The Administrator of the GSA should identify and communicate—such as through policy, guidance, or other appropriate mechanism—(a) when and how Post Occupancy Evaluations should be conducted for completed projects considering resource constraints and (b) how recommendations or lessons learned from those evaluations are effectively communicated to future project teams. (Recommendation 3)

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

Comments: GSA concurred with this recommendation, and on February 6, 2020, stated that GSA will publish program guidance on how and when Post Occupancy Evaluations are conducted and communicate recommendations or lessons learned to future project teams. GAO will continue to monitor GSA's actions related to this recommendation and update information accordingly.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Energy should direct the Assistant Secretary of EM to develop cost estimates for the IWTU reengineering project and the SBW treatment operations that meet best practices for being comprehensive (e.g., account for all costs). (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: In an update provided in April 2020, DOE said that it had taken steps to ensure the cost estimates will meet best practices for being comprehensive (e.g., account for all costs) as part of contract negotiations for the cleanup project. GAO has requested additional information from DOE and will update the status of this recommendation after it has received and analyzed this information.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Energy should direct the Assistant Secretary of EM to develop schedule estimates for the IWTU reengineering project and the SBW treatment operations that meet best practices for being well-constructed. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: In an update provided by DOE in April 2020, DOE said that in negotiating the Idaho Cleanup Project contract it had taken steps to ensure the schedule estimates for the IWTU reengineering project and the SBW treatment operations will meet best practices for being well constructed. Further, DOE stated that the remaining baseline scope and schedule estimate received an external review by its contractor's parent corporation and DOE's Office of Environmental Management to ensure that the schedule meets best practices for being well-constructed. GAO has requested additional information from DOE and will update the status of this recommendation after it has received and analyzed this information.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Energy should direct the Assistant Secretary of EM to follow best practices for ensuring the reliability for the IWTU reengineering project's earned value management system. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: In an update provided by DOE in April 2020, DOE said that cost and performance data for the IWTU is being tracked against the cost and schedule baselines incorporated in the core contract for the Idaho Cleanup Project, and that the data meets best practices for reliability. GAO has requested additional information from DOE and will update the status of this recommendation after it has received and analyzed this information.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Energy should direct the Assistant Secretary of EM to develop a strategy, including a timeline, for implementing the actions required to achieve its preferred disposal pathway, or an alternative, for the SBW. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: In an update provided by DOE in April 2020, DOE said that EM will assess the range of potential strategies and pathways for disposal of the treated SBW. Once this effort is completed, GAO will review EM's strategy and timeline for achieving its preferred disposal pathway, or an alternative, and update the status of this recommendation accordingly.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Energy should direct the Assistant Secretary of EM to develop a strategy, including a timeline, to identify and develop a treatment approach for the disposal of the calcine waste to ensure that EM meets the milestone for completing the treatment of this waste by the target date of December 31, 2035. (Recommendation 5)

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: In an update provided by DOE in April 2020, DOE said that DOE's Idaho Operations Office is in the process of chartering a team of subject matter experts to update an analysis of alternatives for calcine treatment and disposal. DOE said that this evaluation will be completed by September 30, 2020. GAO will request additional information from DOE on this analysis once completed and will update the status of this recommendation after it has received and analyzed this information.

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: The FTA administrator should ensure that FTA's cost estimating information for project sponsors is consistent with all 12 steps found in GAO's Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide and needed for developing reliable cost estimates. [Recommendation 1]

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

Comments: As of March 2020, FTA had posted GAO's Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide to its website. However, FTA has yet to update its cost estimating information, which does not align with GAO's best practices in five areas: (1) risk and uncertainty analysis; (2) sensitivity analysis; (3) identifying ground rules and assumptions; (4) obtaining the data; and (5) presenting cost estimates to management. GAO continues to believe that because FTA's cost estimating information does not align with all 12 steps found in GAO's Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide, FTA lacks reasonable assurance that sponsors have developed and communicated high-quality cost estimates. We will continue to monitor FTA's actions.

Recommendation: The FTA Administrator should provide a central, easily accessible source with all of FTA's cost estimating information to help project sponsors improve the reliability of their cost estimates. [Recommendation 2]

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

Comments: As of March 2020, FTA had developed a webpage with some cost estimating information for project sponsors. However, the website did not include key information for project sponsors which FTA had previously provided to GAO for its analysis of cost estimating information. We continue to believe that providing a centralized location to share existing FTA documentation with sponsors, and ensuring that the documentation incorporates best practices from GAO's Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide, such as sensitivity analyses, could improve the reliability of sponsors' cost estimates and could reduce the risk of cost overruns for Capital Investment Grant (CIG) New Starts applicants and grantees. We will continue to monitor FTA's actions to address this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Director of NSF should assess the agency's large facilities oversight workforce to identify any project management competency gaps, develop a plan to address any gaps and time frames for doing so, and monitor progress in closing them. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: National Science Foundation
Status: Open

Comments: NSF agreed with this recommendation and, as of September 2019, had awarded a contract for a proficiency assessment and workforce gap analysis. NSF anticipated finishing the proficiency assessment and workforce gap analysis by the second quarter calendar year 2020 and planned to consider options to address any identified gaps, such as identifying workforce development training opportunities. We will continue to monitor and provide updates on NSF's actions to address this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Director of NSF should establish criteria for the project management expertise of award recipients for large facilities projects and incorporate the criteria in project requirements and external panel reviews. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: National Science Foundation
Status: Open

Comments: NSF agreed with this recommendation and, as of November 2019, had drafted but not finalized new language for the Major Facilities Guide and related supplemental award terms and conditions for major facilities. The new language would require award recipients to document their plans for meeting project management competencies. We will continue to monitor and provide updates on NSF's actions to address this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Director of NSF should ensure, through a requirement or other means, that award recipients for large facilities projects provide information to NSF on any lessons learned or best practices. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: National Science Foundation
Status: Open

Comments: NSF agreed with this recommendation and, as of November 2019, had drafted but not finalized supplemental award terms and conditions for major facilities to require recipients to participate in NSF's process for identifying and sharing lessons learned on projects - for example, by sending appropriate staff to the annual major facilities workshop that NSF hosts to provide a collaborative forum for continuous learning and information-sharing or by presenting lessons learned or good practices at the workshop. We will continue to monitor and provide updates on NSF's actions to address this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Under Secretary of Transportation for Policy should ensure that the Build America Bureau develop a detailed implementation plan that sets goals and a timeline for the Bureau's continued efforts, fills vacancies in the Bureau, and prioritizes and sequences work to carry out the multiple responsibilities given to the Bureau in the FAST Act. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open

Comments: As of July 2020, DOT is planning to develop a strategy with goals and objectives to guide the Bureau's work and to complete this action by August 2020. DOT stated it does not plan to create a detailed implementation plan as that would detract from higher priority efforts. We will continue to monitor DOT's actions and the extent to which they fulfill our recommendation.

Recommendation: The Under Secretary of Transportation for Policy should ensure that the Build America Bureau develop performance indicators to assess the Bureau's progress toward meeting its guiding principles or mission as a "one-stop shop." (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open

Comments: As of July 2020, DOT is planning to establish a baseline that tracks the average amount of time that projects spend in each of the key developmental phases to assess how long projects take to reach financial close and to complete this action by August 2020. This planned baseline and measure would align with one of the Bureau's four guiding principles, but additional measures would be needed to gauge its overall progress in meeting the Bureau's other guiding principles. We will continue to monitor DOT's actions and the extent to which they fulfill our recommendation.

Recommendation: The Under Secretary of Transportation for Policy should ensure that the Build America Bureau develop a mechanism to assess the Bureau's application evaluation process for TIFIA and RRIF and identify and address opportunities to improve and further streamline the process. This evaluation should include mechanisms to solicit feedback from project sponsors that sought financing. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open

Comments: As of July 2020, the Bureau is planning to develop a survey to solicit feedback from project sponsors on their experience with the Bureau and to have an approved survey ready for use by August 2020. We will continue to monitor DOT's actions and the extent to which they fulfill our recommendation.

Recommendation: The Under Secretary of Transportation for Policy should ensure that the Build America Bureau develop and adopt a public statement that outlines DOT's and the Bureau's policy goals and appetite for risk for the TIFIA and RRIF financing programs. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open

Comments: As of July 2020, DOT is planning to develop a strategy that outlines the Bureau's policy goals, but does not intend to issue a public statement that outlines DOT's and the Bureau's appetite for risk. According to DOT, a risk appetite statement would not be feasible given that the loan programs in the Bureau cover a diverse portfolio of publicly and privately funded projects covering a range of transportation modes that range widely in size, complexity, and financial structure. We informed DOT that we continue to believe that a risk appetite statement is both feasible and needed. DOT plans to provide an updated response in October 2020. We will review the Department's response and continue to monitor its actions and determine the extent to which they fulfill our recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Energy should direct the Director of the Office of Project Management and the Assistant Secretary of the Office of Environmental Management to work together to establish requirements for classifying cleanup work as capital asset projects or operations activities. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: DOE partially concurred with this recommendation. In August 2019, in a letter to GAO on how EM will address our recommendation, the Senior Advisor for Environmental Management to the Under Secretary for Science stated that DOE developed a draft Cleanup Project Management Policy to clarify the expectations for EM's management of discrete work, such as operations activities that could be considered projects. In February 2020, EM officials stated that they are addressing this recommendation in two steps. First, EM is working with DOE's Office of Project Management to draft a Cleanup Project Management Policy (expected to be completed in spring 2020) to address the Decommissioning and Deactivation (D&D) 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: The Secretary of Energy should direct the Director of the Office of Project Management and the Assistant Secretary of the Office of Environmental Management to work together to asses EM's ongoing operations activities to determine if they should be reclassified as capital asset projects based on the newly established requirements. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: DOE partially concurred with this recommendation. In August 2019, in a letter to GAO on how EM will address our recommendation, the Senior Advisor for Environmental Management to the Under Secretary for Science stated that DOE developed a draft Cleanup Project Management Policy to clarify the expectations for EM's management of discrete work, such as operations activities that could be considered projects. In February 2020, EM officials stated that they are addressing this recommendation in two steps. First, EM is working with DOE's Office of Project Management to draft a Cleanup Project Management Policy (expected to be completed in spring 2020) to address the Decommissioning and Deactivation (D&D) 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: The Secretary of Energy should direct the Assistant Secretary of the Office of Environmental Management to review and revise EM's 2017 cleanup policy to include program management leading practices related to scope, cost, schedule performance, and independent reviews. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: DOE concurred with this recommendation. In August 2019, in a letter to GAO on how EM will address our recommendation, the Senior Advisor for Environmental Management to the Under Secretary for Science stated that EM intends to replace its current EM Cleanup Policy with two separate project and program management policies that will incorporate leading practices related to scope, cost, and schedule, and independent reviews, as appropriate. In February 2020, EM officials stated that EM is working on a Cleanup Project Management Policy (expected to be completed in spring 2020) that will cover the Decommissioning and Deactivation (D&D) phase of cleanup. EM plans to develop an additional Cleanup Program Management Policy (expected to be completed by the end of fiscal year 2020), which will supersede EM's current cleanup policy and include leading program management practices-and possibly also project management practices-related to scope, cost, schedule performance, and independent reviews.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Energy should direct the Assistant Secretary of the Office of Environmental Management to review and revise EM's 2017 cleanup policy to include project management leading practices related to scope, cost, schedule performance, and independent reviews. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: DOE concurred with this recommendation. In August 2019, in a letter to GAO on how EM will address our recommendation, the Senior Advisor for Environmental Management to the Under Secretary for Science stated that EM intends to replace its current EM Cleanup Policy with two separate project and program management policies that will incorporate leading practices related to scope, cost, and schedule, and independent reviews, as appropriate. In February 2020, EM officials stated that EM is working on a Cleanup Project Management Policy (expected to be completed in spring 2020) that will cover the Decommissioning and Deactivation (D&D) phase of cleanup. EM plans to develop an additional Cleanup Program Management Policy (expected to be completed by the end of fiscal year 2020), which will supersede EM's current cleanup policy and include leading program management practices-and possibly also project management practices-related to scope, cost, schedule performance, and independent reviews.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Energy should direct the Assistant Secretary of the Office of Environmental Management to update its cleanup policy to require that earned value management (EVM) systems be maintained and used in a way that follows EVM best practices. (Recommendation 5)

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: DOE concurred with this recommendation. In August 2019, in a letter to GAO on how EM will address our recommendation, the Senior Advisor for Environmental Management to the Under Secretary for Science stated that EM intends to replace its current EM Cleanup Policy with two separate project and program management policies that will incorporate earned value management best practices, as appropriate. In February 2020, EM officials stated that EM's forthcoming Cleanup Project Management Policy (expected to be completed in spring 2020) will require capital asset projects covered under the policy to use earned value management (EVM) systems that have been independently certified, which is an EVM best practice. However, EM officials told us that this policy will not require operations activities to follow EVM best practices. EM officials stated that EM is also considering including this requirement in its forthcoming Cleanup Program Management Policy (expected to be completed by the end of fiscal year 2020). In addition, EM officials told is that EM plans to require future end-state contracts to use EVM systems that have either been certified by the DOE Office of Project Management or been subject to a "compliance review" conducted by EM itself, depending on the dollar value of the contract.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Energy should direct the Assistant Secretary of the Office of Environmental Management to develop a policy to ensure that work is categorized as level of effort only in appropriate, specified circumstances, such as when work is not measurable or when measurement is impractical. (Recommendation 6)

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: DOE concurred with this recommendation. In August 2019, in a letter to GAO on how EM will address our recommendation, the Senior Advisor for Environmental Management to the Under Secretary for Science stated that EM intends to include requirements related to the categorization of level of effort work in the project and program management policies EM is developing.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Energy should direct the Assistant Secretary of the Office of Environmental Management to integrate EVM data into EM's performance metrics for operations activities. (Recommendation 7)

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: DOE partially concurred with this recommendation. In August 2019, in a letter to GAO on how EM will address our recommendation, the Senior Advisor for Environmental Management to the Under Secretary for Science stated that DOE is in the process of developing a Cleanup Program Management Policy that will, among other things, incorporate changes relative to the integration of EVM data into performance metrics as appropriate. As of February 2020, EM officials told us that the new policy is expected to be completed by the end of fiscal year 2020. In February 2020, EM officials stated that EM plans to begin a new performance review process for operations activities that will include EVM-based performance metrics as part of annual reporting to the Assistant Secretary. The new process is expected to begin in October 2020, but EM officials have not determined whether this will be a requirement included in EM's forthcoming Cleanup Program Management Policy.

Recommendation: The Assistant Secretary of DOE's Office of Environmental Management should update EM's policies and procedures to establish a standard definition of milestones and specify requirements for both including and updating information on milestones across the complex. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: DOE agreed with the recommendation, but as of March 2020, DOE has not fully implemented this recommendation. DOE officials told us that they established an Integrated Project Team (IPT) to review GAO's recommendation. The IPT recommended that DOE continue to use DOE's Integrated Planning, Accountability and Budgeting System (IPABS) for tracking compliance with milestones, accompanied by a new policy providing direction to the field to use IPABS, a new data dictionary for the use of IPABS, guidance, and training. Using recommendations from the IPT, DOE has drafted policy and guidance documents for tracking compliance and is in the process of testing the draft policy using a pilot site. DOE officials told us that they plan to update the schedule for completing the final policy and guidance by September 30, 2020.

Recommendation: The Assistant Secretary of DOE's Office of Environmental Management should track original milestone dates as well as changes to its cleanup milestones. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: DOE agreed with the recommendation, but as of March 2020, DOE has not fully implemented the recommendation. DOE officials told us they have completed an options analysis to identify the costs and benefits of conducting root cause analyses of historical milestone changes. DOE officials said they recognized a benefit to a developing a more complete root cause analysis and considered whether an analysis of historical milestone changes could provide best practices in negotiating milestone changes. DOE said they have initiated a pilot project with a major DOE site to determine the benefit of additional analyses and that the analysis of historical milestone changes will be completed by December 2020.

Recommendation: The Assistant Secretary of DOE's Office of Environmental Management should comply with the requirements in the National Defense Authorization Act by reporting annually to Congress on the status of its cleanup milestones and including a complete list of cleanup milestones for all sites required by the act. The annual reports should also include, for each milestone, the original date along with the currently negotiated date. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: DOE agreed with the recommendation, but as of March 2020, DOE has not fully implemented the recommendation. DOE officials told us that DOE completed an options analysis to identify the costs and benefits of conducting root cause analyses of historical milestone changes. DOE officials added that they will identify what historical analyses are appropriate to conduct based on value to the government. According to DOE officials, the results of this analysis are being incorporated into a pilot project, and they plan to complete a final reporting methodology by the end of that pilot project.. DOE officials noted that they have analyzed options for reporting on regulatory compliance and the results will be part of DOE policy and guidance to be issued by June 2021.

Recommendation: The Assistant Secretary of DOE's Office of Environmental Management should conduct root cause analyses of missed or postponed milestones. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: DOE agreed with the recommendation, but as of March 2020, DOE has not fully implemented the recommendation. DOE officials told us that they established an Integrated Project Team (IPT) to review GAO's recommendation. DOE officials told us that the IPT identified root causes for missed or delayed milestones, which according to DOE officials, will be used in a pilot test of the draft policy. DOE officials told us that they plan to develop an appropriate list of root causes after the pilot project is completed, and officials noted that they plan to revisit the list of root causes on a recurring basis to verify that the options are still valid. According to DOE officials, DOE plans to issue a final policy and guidance, which will include the list of root causes that sites will input into the tracking system (the Integrated Planning, Accountability and Budgeting System, or IPABS) when milestones are modified or cancelled. DOE plans to issue this guidance no later than June 30, 2021.

Recommendation: The Program Director for Financial Integration should collect and document requirements to define project scope and meet project objectives. These requirements should be updated periodically throughout the life of the project. (Recommendation 2)

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

Comments: As of August 2020, NNSA provided a project plan for tasks to be completed for common financial reporting through 2021. However, NNSA has not developed requirements that define specific or detailed requirements for successful implementation of common financial reporting, such as the types of information that program managers need.

Recommendation: The Program Director for Financial Integration should develop a detailed project schedule. The detailed schedule should be documented as part of the annual report to Congress required in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017. (Recommendation 3)

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

Comments: As of August 2020, NNSA established a detailed project schedule for the common financial reporting effort through fiscal year 2021. However, NNSA should communicate this detailed project schedule for the effort to Congress on an annual basis.

Recommendation: The Program Director for Financial Integration should develop a formal process to identify risks, document those risks, and plan how to minimize risk exposure. (Recommendation 6)

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

Comments: In June 2020, NNSA developed a risk management plan for common financial reporting which established a framework for identifying and managing risks. GAO will continue to monitor NNSA's efforts to implement the plan, including how NNSA identifies and documents risks and mitigates risk exposure using its management plan.

Recommendation: The Program Director for Financial Integration should develop an approach to effectively engage with all project stakeholders that incorporates their expectations into project decisions. (Recommendation 7)

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

Comments: As of September 2020, NNSA has continued to engage on a regular basis with its M&O contractors. However, similar efforts have not continued with stakeholders of the program offices.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Energy, in coordination with DOE's Office of Project Management and NNSA's Office of Acquisition and Project Management, should develop requirements that clearly define how and where project management lessons learned for capital asset projects should be documented and saved to make them readily accessible across the department. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: DOE concurred with the recommendation and as of July 2020, continues to work on developing a policy memorandum in advance of revising DOE Order 413.3B, Program and Project Management for the Acquisition of Capital Assets, to identify the project management lessons learned and outline the kinds of information the repository will collect. We will monitor DOE's effort and evaluate the action once it is complete.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Energy, in coordination with DOE's Office of Project Management and NNSA's Office of Acquisition and Project Management, should develop requirements for sharing project management lessons learned for capital asset projects from the beginning of a project (i.e., prior to the start of construction at CD-3) routinely and in a timely manner to improve DOE's ability to identify and evaluate problematic practices and positive experiences. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: DOE concurred with the recommendation and as of July 2020, continues to work on developing a policy memorandum in advance of revising DOE Order 413.3B, Program and Project Management for the Acquisition of Capital Assets, to have those conducting peer reviews elicit project management lessons learned with department-wide applicability and submit any discerned, as well as replace the order's definition of project management lessons learned with a standard industry definition. We will monitor DOE's efforts and evaluate the actions once they are complete.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Energy, in coordination with DOE's Office of Project Management and NNSA's Office of Acquisition and Project Management, should develop requirements for evaluating the effectiveness of corrective actions taken in response to project management problems for capital asset projects, with a focus on those lessons that necessitate the need for department-wide improvements. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: DOE concurred with the recommendation and as of July 2020, plans to revise the Project Management Risk Committee charter by assigning it the responsibility to qualitatively evaluate the effectiveness of corrective actions taken in response to project management lessons learned from projects with a total project cost greater than $750 million having department-wide implications. This action, however, may not fully address the recommendation, in part because there may be some lessons learned with applicability department-wide from projects that do not meet this cost threshold. We will monitor DOE's effort and evaluate the action once it is complete.

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

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

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

Recommendation: The Secretary of Veterans Affairs should clearly articulate in VA's appeals plan how VA will monitor and assess the new appeals process compared to the legacy process, including specifying a balanced set of goals and measures--such as timeliness goals for all VBA appeals options and Board dockets, and measures of accuracy, veteran satisfaction, and cost--and related baseline data. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: VA concurred with this recommendation and, as of March 2020, addressed some but not all aspects of it. Regarding monitoring, VA has made progress in monitoring and addressing workload changes in its new and legacy appeals processes. For example, VA has developed sensitivity models and other analyses to monitor and forecast future VBA and Board workloads, production, and staffing requirements to help VA manage the new and legacy appeals processes. Further, the Board is aiming to complete non-remanded legacy appeals by December 2022 by first addressing hearing-requested appeals. However, VBA and the Board have yet to specify a complete set of balanced goals for monitoring the new and legacy appeals processes (e.g., timely and accurate processing of appeals while ensuring veteran satisfaction). For example, the Board will not establish timeliness goals for all new Board options until after collecting additional data during implementation of the new appeals process, thus delaying VA's vision for what successful implementation should look like and hindering awareness of resources required to achieve that vision. Regarding comparing the performance of the new and legacy appeals processes, VA officials have previously reported that they intend to use timeliness and productivity metrics from section 5 of the Appeals Modernization Act. Further, VBA and Board officials have articulated steps they are taking to collect, through surveys, comparable information on veterans' satisfaction with the new and legacy appeals processes. However, VA has not fully articulated detailed steps and timeframes for assessing the relative performance of the new and legacy appeals processes. For example, VA has not indicated how it will assess whether or the extent to which the new process, which also allows for multiple appeal opportunities, will achieve final resolution of veterans' appeals sooner, on average, than the legacy process, as we recommended in GAO-17-234. We will consider closing this recommendation when VA provides documentation indicating how it will assess the new appeals process against the legacy process vis a vis balanced measures.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Veterans Affairs should augment the master schedule for VA's appeals plan to reflect all activities--such as modifications to information technology (IT) systems--as well as assigned responsibilities, interdependencies, start and end dates for key activities for each workgroup, and resources, to establish accountability and reduce overall risk of implementation failures. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Status: Open

Comments: VA concurred with this recommendation. Since our report was issued, VA took significant action on its project plan and in February 2019, implemented the Veterans Appeals Improvement and Modernization Act of 2017. VA provided increasingly more details in updates to its plan about sub-activities related to processing legacy appeals, monitoring implementation, drafting Board policies, training, and testing of the new process. For example, VA added activities related to the Rapid Appeals Modernization Program (RAMP) test of the VBA-only options as well as the test of the new Board options. In spring and summer 2018, according to VA officials, VA set a baseline schedule for implementing appeals reform in response to the potential February 2019 implementation date established in the Act. In October 2018, VA provided us with lower-level schedules and other related information that allowed us to conduct a more detailed assessment of VA's IMS against applicable best practices criteria. However, as of December 2018, VA's schedule did not fully align with best practices. For example, VA's schedule did not contain a work breakdown structure that defines the work, activities, and resources necessary to accomplish implementation-details that would inform resources and time needed for the project. (For details on this assessment, see GAO-19-272T.) While VA fully implemented appeals reform in February 2019, incorporating such lessons learned into future project planning could help VA improve its project scheduling capabilities. Specifically, in February 2020 VA reported that Caseflow-VA's replacement system intended to support appeals reform-had "minimal functionality," with many functionalities yet to be implemented. We will consider closing this recommendation when VA has produced a more complete plan for-and that establishes accountability and reduces risk of failure related to-developing, implementing, and integrating remaining key functionality envisioned under Caseflow. We will also continue tracking whether the Board addresses long-term Caseflow planning under recommendation 2 in GAO-17-234.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Veterans Affairs should ensure that the appeals plan more fully addresses risk associated with appeals reform--for example, by assessing risks against a balanced set of goals and measures, articulating success criteria and an assessment plan for RAMP, and testing or conducting sensitivity analyses of all appeals options--prior to fully implementing the new appeals process. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) concurred with our recommendation to more fully address risks associated with implementing a new appeals process. As of March 2020, VA has taken many steps to address our recommendation, although key steps are remaining for VA to better assess risks associated with implementing appeals reform and managing appeals workloads in the legacy process. Specifically, since May 2018, VBA and Board officials reported developing and using new sensitivity analyses that would allow the agency to project potential budget needs and staffing requirements. Further, VBA is using these analyses to more accurately predict resolution of legacy appeals given certain assumptions. Furthermore, in addition to testing two appeal options available within VBA through its Rapid Appeals Modernization Program (RAMP), VA conducted small-scale testing of the three new Board appeals options through the Board's Early Applicability of Appeals Modernization (BEAAM) pilot, testing that was missing from VA's original November 2017 plan. VA also reported using lessons learned from testing all appeals options to update the implementation process. However, as designed, RAMP and BEAAM lacked well-defined, measurable criteria for assessing lessons learned from its testing, and the agency did not fully test all aspects of the appeals options before moving to full implementation in February 2019. Even though VA has fully implemented the new disability appeals process without addressing these aspects of our recommendation, many of the other principles of sound planning practices that informed our recommendation remain relevant, even after implementation, to ensure the new process meets veterans' needs. Specifically, VA has not developed mitigation strategies for all identified risks, such as veterans appealing to the Board at higher rates than expected or choosing more resource-intensive Board options, such as those involving new evidence or a hearing. As of January 2020, the more resource-intensive hearing option accounted for over 50 percent of new appeals inventory. At the same time, the Board reported it plans to prioritize resources on reducing the legacy appeals inventory and on the least resource intensive appeal option for which it established a timeliness goal. Although the Board has increased productivity, addressing legacy hearings will take several years as veterans may continue choosing the new hearing option at high rates and the Board prioritizes other workloads. This circumstance could subject veterans to longer wait times and increasing backlogs under the hearing option. As of March 2020, VA also has not established a complete and balanced set of goals and measures for the new appeals options, which are a necessary pre-condition to effectively assessing risk. Lacking a complete set of goals and measures, VA may not have comprehensively identified key risks.

Recommendation: The Chief Financial Officer of NRC should formally communicate to all licensees that supplemental billing information--including biweekly reports and monthly status reports on contractor charges--is available and how to request it. Formal communication that would reach all licensees could include adding information to their quarterly invoices. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Status: Open

Comments: According to officials, NRC plans to provide licensees with access to biweekly reports in the summer 2020, with an enhancement to the eBilling system expected in May 2020 and communicating to licensees about the availability of the information in July 2020. Additionally, NRC developed a form for licensees to request additional information on contractor charges on their bill and notified licensees that they may request additional information on contractor charges by submitting this form to NRC.

Recommendation: In developing the project plan for electronic billing, the Chief Financial Officer of NRC should include steps to assess the results of implementing electronic billing, which includes comparing the actual performance to intended outcomes. (Recommendation 5)

Agency: Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Status: Open

Comments: According to NRC, about 10 percent of licensees are currently participating in eBilling. We requested information on how NRC plans to assess the results of eBilling. We will update the status of this recommendation when we receive additional information.

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: The DHS Under Secretary for Management should develop and implement effective processes and improve guidance to reasonably assure that future AAs fully follow AOA process best practices and reflect the four characteristics of a reliable, high-quality AOA process. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open

Comments: DHS stated that it remains committed to its financial system modernization program and agrees that effective processes and guidance are necessary to assure best practices. In September 2020, DHS officials informed us that they did not have any updates to report on efforts to address this recommendation. We will continue to follow-up with DHS on actions to address this recommendation.

Recommendation: The DHS Under Secretary for Management should improve the Risk Management Planning Handbook and other relevant guidance for managing risks associated with financial management system modernization projects to fully incorporate risk management best practices, including (1) defining thresholds to facilitate review of performance metrics to determine when risks become unacceptable; (2) identifying and analyzing risks to include periodically reconsidering risk sources, documenting risks specifically related to the lack of sufficient, reliable cost and schedule information needed to help properly manage and oversee the project, and timely disposition of IV&V contractor-identified risks; (3) developing risk mitigation plans with specific risk-handling activities, the costs and benefits of implementing them, and contingency plans for selected critical risks; and (4) implementing risk mitigation plans to include establishing periods of performance for risk-handling activities and defining time intervals for updating and certifying the accuracy and completeness of information on risks in DHS's risk register. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open

Comments: DHS stated that it is committed to its financial system modernization program and agrees that effective processes and guidance are necessary to assure best practices. In September 2019, DHS provided documentation that cross walked DHS' Risk Management Training Aide to the Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) for acquisition risk management best practices. However, the optional nature of the language used in the Training Aide does not reasonably assure that program offices will follow the suggested guidance. Also, the Training Aide does not specifically require the linking of thresholds to cost, schedule, and performance elements of identified risks. Based on our review of the information provided, DHS's corrective actions were not sufficient for addressing the intent of our recommendation. We will continue to evaluate DHS actions to address this recommendation.

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

Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: To ensure future large-scale rehabilitation projects are in line with leading project management practices, WMATA should develop a policy that requires and includes relevant procedures specifying that, prior to starting large-scale projects, WMATA should use detailed data on the conditions of assets to develop project objectives and scope.

Agency: Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
Status: Open

Comments: As of July 2020, WMATA is managing three efforts focused on improving WMATA's asset inventory and condition assessment processes. Specifically, WMATA reported that it is developing Data Governance and Standards rules and working with contractors to improve WMATA's asset inventory and condition assessment processes. These efforts should all be complete by the end of 2020. GAO will continue to monitor WMATA's efforts to address this recommendation.

Recommendation: To ensure future large-scale rehabilitation projects are in line with leading project management practices, WMATA should develop a policy that requires and includes relevant procedures specifying that, prior to starting large-scale projects, WMATA should evaluate and compare alternative ways of accomplishing the project objectives, including estimates for the alternatives' costs and impacts.

Agency: Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
Status: Open

Comments: As of July 2020, WMATA has implemented a new process to evaluate major projects. More specifically, WMATA's new initiative includes a process for assessing and presenting alternative strategies for selected major projects. WMATA currently has a number of cases moving through this process for the first time, and GAO will assess the outcomes of these cases as well as the extent to which this process is codified in WMATA policies later in 2020.

Recommendation: To ensure future large-scale rehabilitation projects are in line with leading project management practices, WMATA should develop a policy that requires and includes relevant procedures specifying that, prior to starting large-scale projects, WMATA should develop a comprehensive project management plan for the selected alternative--to include key elements such as detailed plans for managing the project's scope, schedule, and cost--for those projects that may not be designated major capital projects.

Agency: Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
Status: Open

Comments: As of July 2020, WMATA is updating its Infrastructure Project Implementation Manual, which would cover projects such as new construction and rehabilitation of facilities and systems. WMATA is planning to issue the update for the Project Implementation Manual by end of September 2020. GAO will continue to monitor WMATA's progress in addressing this 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.