Recommendation: The TSA Administrator should develop performance goals for its Insider Threat Program that assess progress achieving the strategic objectives in the insider threat strategic plan. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Homeland Security: Transportation Security Administration
Status: Open

Comments: In May 2020, TSA published its strategic framework, the TSA Insider Threat Roadmap, for mitigating insider threats in the transportation sector. The Roadmap contains three overarching strategic priorities and specific objectives for each of these priorities to refine and continue to improve its efforts to detect, deter, and mitigate insider threats. TSA described that its next steps will be to develop implementation plans for each of these priorities and objectives, including detailed plans of actions with timelines and performance measures to assess its progress achieving the Roadmap's priorities and objectives. We will continue to monitor TSA's efforts to implement our recommendation.

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

Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Status: Open

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

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

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

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

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

Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: The Secretary of 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 Veterans Affairs should ensure that the Under Secretary for Memorial Affairs update its cost-estimating procedures for cemetery construction projects to fully incorporate the 12 steps identified in the GAO Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide: Best Practices for Developing and Managing Capital Program Costs.

Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: The Secretary of Commerce should update the department's environmental justice strategic plan. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Commerce
Status: Open

Comments: The department did not provide comments on our report or recommendation. We will continue to review the department's actions and provide updated information.

Recommendation: The Assistant Secretary of Defense for Sustainment should update the department's environmental justice strategic plan. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Defense: Office of the Secretary of Defense: Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment: Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Sustainment
Status: Open

Comments: In its comments on our report, the department agreed with this recommendation. We will continue to review the department's actions and provide updated information.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Education should update the department's environmental justice strategic plan. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Education
Status: Open

Comments: In its comments on our report, Education stated that we did not sufficiently account for the limitations on its legal authority to carry out environmental justice activities. Education also stated that it does not believe this is the most appropriate course of action for the department or an efficient use of resources. We believe that Education can develop a strategic plan within its existing authorities. We will continue to review the department's actions to implement the recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Homeland Security should update the department's environmental justice strategic plan. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open

Comments: In comments on our report, the department agreed with this recommendation. We will continue to review the department's actions and update this information.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development should update the department's environmental justice strategic plan. (Recommendation 5)

Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development
Status: Open

Comments: In comments on our report, the department neither agreed nor disagreed with this recommendation. We will continue to review the department's actions and update this information.

Recommendation: The Attorney General of the United States should update the department's environmental justice strategic plan. (Recommendation 6)

Agency: Department of Justice
Status: Open

Comments: In April 2020, the department agreed to review its environmental justice strategy and to revise it if needed. It also stated that as part of that review, it will consider any guidance issued by the Interagency Working Group on Environmental Justice (EJ IWG) concerning what agencies should include in environmental justice strategic plans. The department stated that it anticipated receiving such guidance by the end of 2020. We will continue to review the department's actions and update this information.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Labor should update the department's environmental justice strategic plan. (Recommendation 7)

Agency: Department of Labor
Status: Open

Comments: In November 2019, the department stated that its role is tangential to achieving environmental justice goals, but it is committed to integrating environmental justice into its responsibilities to protect workers. It stated that it has no plans at this time to update its environmental strategic plan. We agree that Labor should develop an environmental plan that contains goals consistent with its mission and authorities. We will continue to review its actions to implement our recommendation.

Recommendation: The Administrator of the Small Business Administration should complete the agency's assessment of whether to participate in the 1994 Executive Order and the 2011 Memorandum of Understanding, and, if appropriate, develop an environmental justice strategic plan. (Recommendation 8)

Agency: Small Business Administration
Status: Open

Comments: In its comments on our report, the agency agreed with our recommendation. We will continue to review the agency's actions to update its progress in implementing the recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Veterans Affairs should update the department's environmental justice strategic plan. (Recommendation 9)

Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Status: Open

Comments: In April 2020, the department committed to updating its environmental justice strategic plan. It said that it will update its strategic plan pending the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) guidance on what agencies should include in their plans. It also set a goal of completing the update within 6 months of EPA's issuance of guidance. We will continue to review the department's actions and update this information.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Agriculture should issue a progress report on the department's environmental justice efforts each year. (Recommendation 10)

Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open

Comments: In comments on our report, USDA agreed with our recommendation. We will continue to review the department's actions and provide updated information.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Commerce should issue a progress report on the department's environmental justice efforts each year. (Recommendation 11)

Agency: Department of Commerce
Status: Open

Comments: The department did not provide comments on our report or recommendation. We will continue to review the department's actions and provide updated information.

Recommendation: The Assistant Secretary of Defense for Sustainment should issue a progress report on the department's environmental justice efforts each year. (Recommendation 12)

Agency: Department of Defense: Office of the Secretary of Defense: Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment: Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Sustainment
Status: Open

Comments: In its comments on our report, the Department of Defense (DOD) disagreed with this recommendation. First, DOD stated that it had achieved the intent of Executive Order 12898 by including environmental justice considerations in its decision-making processes, primarily by using the environmental review process. Second, the department stated that it is bound by its mission with limited opportunities to change where the department operates. DOD stated that these reasons make it a significant challenge for the department to meet our recommendation and therefore does not see a tangible benefit to additional reporting. As we stated in our report, DOD would be reporting on goals that it set within its mission and authorities. We will continue to review DOD's actions to carry out this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Education should issue a progress report on the department's environmental justice efforts each year. (Recommendation 13)

Agency: Department of Education
Status: Open

Comments: In its comments on our report, Education stated that we did not sufficiently account for the limitations on its legal authority to carry out environmental justice activities. Education also stated that it does not believe this recommendation is the most appropriate course of action for the department or an efficient use of resources. We believe that Education can develop a strategic plan within its existing authorities, and then it should report its progress on these activities annually. We will continue to review the department's actions to implement the recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Health and Human Services should issue a progress report on the department's environmental justice efforts each year. (Recommendation 14)

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open

Comments: In comments on our report, the department agreed with this recommendation. We will continue to review the department's actions and provide updated information.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Energy should issue a progress report on the department's environmental justice efforts each year. (Recommendation 15)

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: In January 2020, Department of Energy officials stated that they had issued progress reports for fiscal years 2017 and 2018 and would issue progress reports annually after this point. We will review the department's reports in upcoming years to determine that it has carried out this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development should issue a progress report on its environmental justice efforts each year. (Recommendation 16)

Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development
Status: Open

Comments: In comments on our report, the department agreed with this recommendation. We will continue to review the department's actions and update this information.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Interior should issue a progress report on the department's environmental justice efforts each year. (Recommendation 17)

Agency: Department of the Interior
Status: Open

Comments: In its comments on our report, the department agreed with our recommendation. We will continue to review the department's actions and update this information.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Labor should issue a progress report on the department's environmental justice efforts each year. (Recommendation 18)

Agency: Department of Labor
Status: Open

Comments: In November 2019, the department stated that its role is tangential to achieving environmental justice goals and therefore it has no real chance to update its progress reports. We agree that Labor should develop an environmental strategic plan containing goals consistent with its mission and authorities. It can develop progress reports annually related to these goals. We will continue to review its actions to implement our recommendation and update this information.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Transportation should issue a progress report on the department's environmental justice efforts each year. (Recommendation 19)

Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open

Comments: In February 2020, the department stated that it partially agreed with this recommendation. It stated that it would update its progress reports as needed. As we stated in our report, leading practices for performance management indicate that annual performance reporting helps an agency to keep track of and achieve its goals. We will continue to review the department's actions and update this information.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Veterans Affairs should issue a progress report on the department's environmental justice efforts each year. (Recommendation 20)

Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Status: Open

Comments: In April 2020, the department committed to issuing annual progress reports. The department also stated that it will use EPA or Interagency Working Group (IWG) guidance on methods agencies could use to assess progress towards their environmental justice goals. It stated that it would begin issuing progress reports following issuance of such guidance and per reporting schedule established by the Environmental Justice IWG. We will continue to review the department's actions and update this information.

Recommendation: The Administrator of EPA, as chair of the working group, should develop guidance for agencies on what they should include in their environmental justice strategic plans. (Recommendation 21)

Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Status: Open

Comments: In its comments on our report, EPA agreed with this recommendation. We will continue to review the agency's actions and update this information.

Recommendation: The Administrator of EPA, as chair of the working group, should develop guidance or create a committee of the working group to develop guidance on methods the agencies could use to assess progress toward their environmental justice goals. (Recommendation 22)

Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Status: Open

Comments: In its comments on our report, EPA agreed with this recommendation. We will continue to review the agency's actions to update its progress in implementing this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Administrator of EPA, as chair of the working group, and in consultation with the working group, should clearly establish, in its organizational documents, strategic goals for the federal government's efforts to carry out the 1994 Executive Order. (Recommendation 23)

Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Status: Open

Comments: In its comments on our report, EPA disagreed with this recommendation, but also stated that it would lead efforts to update the working group's fiscal year 2016-2018 Framework for Collaboration to include guidance for strategic plans, tracking progress toward goals, and defining alignment with the executive order. We believe that if the agency carries out these actions, it will meet the intent of the recommendation. We will continue to review the agency's actions to update its progress in implementing the recommendation.

Recommendation: The Administrator of EPA, as chair of the working group, and in consultation with the other working group members, should update the 2011 Memorandum of Understanding and renew the agencies' commitments to participate in the interagency collaborative effort and the working group. (Recommendation 24)

Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Status: Open

Comments: In its comments on our report, EPA disagreed with this recommendation and stated that it should be combined with the recommendation to update the Environmental Justice working group's strategic documents. We believe the agency misunderstood the recommendation. As we stated in the report, we believe that the MOU needs to be updated to address the matter of participation by the members who signed it but do not participate. We will continue to review the agency's actions to update its progress in implementing this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Chief Operating Officer of the Office of Federal Student Aid should integrate the TEPSLF request into the PSLF application, for example, by including a checkbox on the PSLF application, to provide borrowers a more seamless way to request TEPSLF consideration. (Recommendation 1)

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

Comments: Education agreed with this recommendation. To make the TEPSLF loan forgiveness process easier for borrowers, Education stated that it will integrate the TEPSLF request into the PSLF application as part of the improvements planned for the PSLF application under its new online interface for student borrowers. On April 15, 2020, Education published a notice in the Federal Register, seeking comments on its plans to consolidate the forms that borrowers must complete if they want to request either PSLF or TEPSLF loan forgiveness, so that borrowers would only need to submit a single form to obtain public service loan forgiveness. In June 2020, Education reported that its consolidated form to request PSLF or TESPLF loan forgiveness is in the final stages of the Office of Management and Budget clearance process, and they expect it to be finalized by October 2021. This consolidated form should provide borrowers a more seamless way to request public service loan forgiveness for whichever program they are eligible for. We will update the status of this recommendation once this consolidated loan forgiveness form is in place and borrowers are able to use it.

Recommendation: The Chief Operating Officer of the Office of Federal Student Aid should provide certain borrowers, for example, those who are denied TEPSLF for not having 120 qualifying payments, with more information about options available to contest TEPSLF decisions on the TEPSLF website and in their denial letters. (Recommendation 2)

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

Comments: Education agreed with this recommendation. In March 2020, Education reported that it will add language to the TEPSLF website to provide borrowers with information on available options for contesting TEPSLF decisions. With respect to including this information in denial letters, Education noted that it is creating a new student loan infrastructure (Next Gen) and that it is not worth the time and resources to update the denial letters in the old system. However, Education reported that it will incorporate this information in denial letters created in the new Next Gen infrastructure, which is expected to be in place in October 2021. We will consider closing this recommendation when Education provides documentation that it has included information about options available to contest TEPSLF decisions on the TEPSLF website and in denial letters, as recommended.

Recommendation: The Chief Operating Officer of the Office of Federal Student Aid should include TEPSLF information in its PSLF Online Help Tool. (Recommendation 4)

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

Comments: Education agreed with this recommendation and stated that it will include TEPSLF information in the PSLF Help Tool. In March 2020, Education noted that it is creating a new student loan infrastructure (Next Gen) and that it is not worth the time and resources to update the PLSF Online Help tool with TEPSLF information under the old system. However, Education reported that it will respond to this recommendation when the new Next Gen infrastructure is in place, which is expected to be in place in October 2021. We will consider closing this recommendation when Education provides documentation that it has included TEPSLF information in its PSLF Online Help Tool.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the CMO meets DOD's September 2019 deadline for review and approval of DOD's training curriculum for cross-functional team members and their supervisors. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. According to an OCMO official, as of April 2020, DOD's training curriculum for cross-functional team members and their supervisors had been approved. However, as of September 2020, DOD has not provided documentation of that approval.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the CMO meets DOD's September 2019 deadline for review and approval of DOD's training curriculum for presidential appointees. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. According to an OCMO official, as of April 2020, DOD's training curriculum for cross-functional team members and their supervisors had been approved, and the training had been provided to presidential appointees and their staffs. However, as of September 2020, DOD has not provided documentation of that approval or training.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the CMO meets DOD's November 2019 deadline for drafting, review, and approval of DOD's report on the success and failures of cross-functional teams and final submission to the Secretary for review and approval. (Recommendation 5)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. According to an OCMO official, as of April 2020, work on the report on the successes and failures of cross-functional teams was ongoing. We will continue to monitor DOD's process of developing its report; as of September 2020, DOD has not provided documentation of the report being drafted, reviewed, or approved.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the CMO and the electromagnetic spectrum operations cross-functional team clarify roles and responsibilities for providing administrative support and funding for the team beyond fiscal year 2019 in accordance with the memorandum establishing the team. (Recommendation 6)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. In its comments on a subsequent report on the department's implementation of section 911, the department stated that funding for all Secretary of Defense-empowered cross functional teams, including the electromagnetic spectrum operations cross-functional team, was in place through fiscal year 2020, and that they were exploring options for dedicated funding for cross-functional teams in future years. As of April 2020, according to an OCMO official, these dedicated funding sources had not been established. DOD has not provided evidence of their funding as of September 2020.

Recommendation: To improve VA's ability to plan for and align its facilities with estimated changes to veterans' needs and expectations, we recommend that the Secretary of Veterans Affairs ensure the appropriate offices and administrations develop and implement a process to assess veterans' changing expectations and disseminate this information to VAMCs. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Status: Open

Comments: VA concurred with this recommendation, but noted that it had already developed and implemented effective systems for obtaining Veterans' input in facility planning. However, we found that the information VA collects through these efforts may be limited based on our review of VA's surveys, including VSignals and the Survey of Enrollees, as well as our discussions with several Veterans Service Organizations. For example, we found that VA's efforts were limited because they either focused on overall veteran expectations without a means of assessing how they differed by demographics, or they focused on veteran satisfaction with their past experiences. Moreover, satisfaction with past experiences, as operationalized by VA for the surveys we reviewed, measured how someone is with what they received--while "expectations," as defined by VA, would measure or gain insight into what it is that someone would want, and which may or may not be what they are receiving. Thus, while satisfaction, as operationalized by VA, can be an indicator of an expectation, as defined by VA, the two are not synonymous. Although VA considers this recommendation closed, we are working with them to identify ways that expectations, as VA has defined the term, can be measured.

Recommendation: To improve VA's ability to plan for and align its facilities with estimated changes to veterans' needs and expectations, we recommend that the Secretary of Veterans Affairs ensure the appropriate offices and administrations instruct VAMCs on how to meet VA's strategic goal of incorporating veterans' changing needs and expectations into facility planning, such as by identifying certain resources or tools and directing VAMCs to use them. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: VA agreed with the recommendation and indicated that it would instruct users on what data to use in planning and updates, which would help ensure veterans' input is incorporated where appropriate. As of its fiscal year 2021 budget justification, VA still had not provided this guidance to the VAMCs, but noted that it would provide it in scheduled facility planning calls that were expected to start in the second quarter of fiscal year 2020.

Recommendation: To improve VA's ability to plan for and align its facilities with estimated changes to veterans' needs and expectations, we recommend that the Secretary of Veterans Affairs ensure the appropriate offices and administrations provide additional instruction to VAMCs on how to incorporate the concept of foundational health services into facility planning. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Status: Open

Comments: VA concurred with this recommendation and noted that it would clarify prior guidance on the foundational health services for VAMCs, which it expected to complete in June 2019. In November 2019, VA told us that it had reviewed this prior guidance from August 2017 that had defined foundational services, and has rescinded it. However, we are working with VA to determine if this decision to rescind the prior guidance was distributed to VAMCs.

Recommendation: To improve VA's ability to plan for and align its facilities with estimated changes to veterans' needs and expectations, we recommend that the Secretary of Veterans Affairs ensure the appropriate offices and administrations systematically gather feedback from facility planners and address (as necessary) their concerns with the reliability of the SCIP process, including providing additional information on how SCIP's space estimates are derived. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: VA agreed with this recommendation and indicated that it would update its training instructions to facility planners by adding an explanation of how SCIP space estimates are derived. In addition, VA noted that it would survey facility planners about their concerns with the SCIP space estimates, and use these results to either address the concerns or make improvements to SCIP. As of November 2019, VA had not completed the training or the survey, but noted that they are in the process of updating training materials for the FY22 SCIP planning process--which was targeted to start 2019. We will work with VA to obtain relevant documentation of these efforts.

Recommendation: As MHS governing bodies conduct their recurring reviews of quality measures selected for MHS's Core Dashboard and Purchased Care Dashboards, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs should direct those bodies to prioritize, as appropriate, the selection of measures that apply to both direct and purchased care at the provider level and that expand the range of quality measure types and medical conditions that are assessed. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Defense: Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Health Affairs)
Status: Open

Comments: As of January 2020, DOD officials described proposed actions to address key elements of our recommendation. Specifically, DOD officials described compiling a comprehensive library of existing inpatient and outpatient quality measures for both direct and purchased care; categorizing those measures by type and medical condition; and identifying 8 measures that are common across direct and purchased care. DOD stated it is considering expanding those 8 common measures to 12 measures. The new measures would cover three cancer screening measures and an additional inpatient satisfaction measure. However, DOD officials noted these 12 measures are not reported at the provider level for purchased care given current contract reporting requirements and would require contract modifications. DOD officials also said they are participating in an interagency partnership to use a common set of quality measures across federal programs, including under the Department of Veterans Affairs. Once those quality measures are determined, DOD may expand the range of quality measures common across direct and purchased care to be consistent with other federal programs. We will keep this recommendation open until DOD provides additional information on actions taken to select and expand quality measures across direct and purchased care.

Recommendation: The Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs should establish, as appropriate, performance standards related to the Purchased Care Dashboard measures that are consistent with the MHS's performance standards for direct care; ensure they are applied to individual purchased care providers; and take steps, such as amending its managed care support contracts, if necessary, to require corrective actions to be taken when providers do not meet those standards. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Defense: Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Health Affairs)
Status: Open

Comments: As of January 2020, DOD officials said that once a common set of quality measures is adopted to the extent possible across direct and purchased care (as discussed in Recommendation 1), DOD plans to establish consistent performance standards applied to individual providers and plans to develop processes to issue corrective actions for individual direct and purchased care providers who do not consistently meet established standards. We will update this recommendation as DOD provides progress updates on the implementation of these plans.

Recommendation: WMATA's General Manager should conduct a comprehensive assessment of the financial risks to which WMATA is exposed from its pension plans and communicate the results to its pension plan trustees and other stakeholders, such as its Board of Directors. This assessment should include information about WMATA's current and potential future required payments and unfunded liabilities, including under potentially adverse economic scenarios. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
Status: Open

Comments: As of June 2020, WMATA stated that the authority periodically evaluates the risks posed by the unfunded liabilities for its pension plans and other post-employment benefits. Specifically, WMATA officials stated that consulting agencies are used to conduct sensitivity analysis regarding the funded status of WMATA's five pension plans under various economic scenarios. However, WMATA has not yet provided GAO with these analyses to assess what information they contain and whether they include information on potential future required payments and unfunded liabilities under adverse scenarios. GAO will continue to work with WMATA to obtain these analyses and monitor WMATA's progress in addressing this recommendation.

Recommendation: WMATA's General Manager should develop a strategic workforce planning process that (1) sets a strategic direction for WMATA's workforce planning and involves employees and other stakeholders in developing and communicating the process, and (2) includes a data-driven assessment of the critical skill and competencies WMATA needs to fill any gaps. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
Status: Open

Comments: As of June 2020, WMATA officials stated that the Authority did not provide funding in 2019 to obtain a consultant to assist with authority-wide strategic workforce planning, as WMATA had previously planned. WMATA officials told us that the Authority is evaluating funding availability for this effort in the upcoming fiscal year, but in consideration to the impacts of the coronavirus crisis, broad economic uncertainties, and other challenges facing the Authority. WMATA did not provide information as to whether it would be conducting additional workforce planning efforts using its in-house staff and resources. GAO will continue to monitor WMATA's efforts to address this recommendation.

Recommendation: WMATA's General Manager should establish comprehensive policies and procedures for both of its performance management systems that document the goals of the systems and individuals' responsibilities for implementing these systems; align employee performance objectives with all of WMATA's strategic goals; and define performance objectives, rating categories, and competencies tailored to individual positions' responsibilities. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
Status: Open

Comments: As of June 2020, WMATA created documented procedures for managers and staff who are not represented by a union to use in the performance management cycles for fiscal years 2019 and 2020. These included guidance, instructional videos, or other tools for setting employee performance objectives in relation to WMATA's strategic priorities, and conducting mid-year reviews and end-of year performance evaluations. WMATA reported that it also intends to develop procedures to support performance management for some of its union-represented employees, starting in fiscal year 2021 with the Metro Transit Police Department. WMATA expects to implement changes for other represented employee groups beginning in fiscal year 2022. GAO will continue to monitor WMATA's progress in addressing this recommendation.

Recommendation: WMATA's General Manager should establish controls to ensure supervisors fully and accurately complete employee performance reviews and submit them to human resources within established timeframes. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
Status: Open

Comments: As of June 2020, WMATA has taken steps to establish controls for its employee performance management system. Specifically, WMATA developed an automated tool to track employee and supervisor compliance with WMATA's performance management requirements, and provided GAO with information on how WMATA used this tool to set employee performance objectives and complete mid-year reviews in the fiscal year 2020 performance cycle. WMATA reported that end-of-year performance evaluations would be completed by the end of July 2020. GAO will review WMATA's completion of the 2020 performance cycle to process to assess whether WMATA has fully implemented our recommendation.

Recommendation: WMATA's General Manager should develop a documented process to use employee performance management information to monitor progress toward WMATA's strategic goals. (Recommendation 5)

Agency: Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
Status: Open

Comments: As of June 2020, WMATA officials told us that its automated performance management tool will provide information on employee performance information across the organization and allow for data-driven decision making. Specifically, WMATA stated that managers can view year-end ratings and other information for every employee within their chain of command, and WMATA's senior leadership have a global view of the ratings to compare performance ratings distributions across departments. WMATA reported that it is currently completing its fiscal year 2020 performance cycle, which ends July 31, 2020. GAO will continue to follow WMATA's progress addressing this recommendation, including assessing whether the information in its automated performance management tool will help WMATA monitor progress toward achieving its strategic goals.

Recommendation: The Commissioner of FDA should ensure that the FVM Program develops performance measures with associated targets and time frames for all eight of FDA's food safety- and nutrition-related objectives. (Recommendation 2)

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

Comments: As of August 2020, FDA had not fully implemented our recommendation, although the agency reported taking several steps. For example, FDA stated that implementation of Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) based preventive controls standards is a top priority for the agency and a key component of the Foods and Veterinary Medicine Program's strategic plan, and for this reason, FSMA-related performance metrics have been prioritized. In addition, FDA reported that in September 2019, the agency published an online Food Safety Dashboard, whose purpose is to measure the progress of each of the FSMA rules, and FDA provides regular updates to the dashboard to promote transparency to the public. FDA also stated that as of June 2020, the dashboard contains measures related to Preventive Controls and Current Good Manufacturing Practice Rules and Imported Food Safety Program, and it includes data for human and animal food and, in some cases, data starting in FY 2017. FDA added that since the FSMA rules have staggered compliance dates, the measures associated with the rules are developed in phases, and over time, the Food Safety Dashboard will be populated with additional data to show more FSMA-related outcomes. However, the recommendation is not fully implemented since our recommendation included the related objectives within the Foods and Veterinary Medicine Program's strategic plan. In August 2020, FDA told us that given the agency's 2018 reorganization, FDA has aligned the performance measures and dashboard with the FSMA rules, and the current alignment covers most of the food safety objectives within the strategic plan. FDA also reported that it is reviewing the strategic plan to ensure alignment with FDA's current priorities and structure, including the recently released New Era of Smarter Food Safety Blueprint. We will follow up with FDA and provide an update in FY 2021.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Agriculture should ensure that USDA includes all key monitoring provisions specified by applicable guidance as part of agreements with inter-American organizations. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open

Comments: USDA concurred with our recommendation and said that they will implement it, but has not provided any update on their efforts to implement the recommendation as of August 2019.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Agriculture should ensure that USDA officials have full documentation of required monitoring activities in agreements with inter-American organizations. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open

Comments: USDA concurred with our recommendation and said that they will implement it, but has not provided any update on their efforts to implement the recommendation as of August 2019.

Recommendation: The Chairman of FCC should track the growth in high bandwidth IoT devices, such as video-streaming devices and optical sensors. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Federal Communications Commission
Status: Open

Comments: FCC said that it believes it is best to monitor growth of overall Internet traffic and will work with industry and its Technological Advisory Council to monitor growth and ensure that communications infrastructure is sufficient to support the needs of the growing Internet sector. As of October 2019, FCC has not changed its position.

Recommendation: The Chairman of FCC should track the growth in IoT devices relying on unlicensed spectrum. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Federal Communications Commission
Status: Open

Comments: FCC said that it believes the best way to track growth in IoT devices using unlicensed spectrum it to monitor relevant information, such as published papers and conferences, and work with industry. As of October 2019, FCC has not changed its position and stated that it will be taking no further action.

Recommendation: To clarify the desired results of the correspondence audit program and its linkages to IRS-wide activities, the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service should establish formal program objectives.

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

Comments: IRS correspondence audit program officials planned a working group to develop formal program objectives. In November 2016, IRS officials provided documents intended to define the program objectives, but the objectives were unclear. As of December 2019, IRS officials provided draft program objectives to GAO for discussion and are responding to comments from GAO. We will update the status when IRS provides any further supporting documentation, as we requested in March 2020.

Recommendation: To clarify the desired results of the correspondence audit program and its linkages to IRS-wide activities, the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service should ensure that the program measures reflect those objectives.

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

Comments: IRS officials said that, among other actions, they plan to review and update program documentation and guidance as warranted to ensure a clear link between correspondence audit program objectives and related measures. IRS officials provided documentation in November 2016, but program measures could not be clearly linked to objectives because the objectives were not clear. As of December 2019, IRS officials provided draft measures for their draft program objectives to GAO and are responding to comments from GAO. We will update the status when IRS provides any further supporting documentation, as we requested in March 2020.

Recommendation: To clarify the desired results of the correspondence audit program and its linkages to IRS-wide activities, the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service should clearly link those measures with strategic IRS-wide goals on ensuring compliance in a cost-effective way while minimizing taxpayer burden.

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

Comments: IRS officials said that, among other actions, they plan to review and update program documentation and guidance as warranted to ensure that program measures clearly link to IRS strategic goals. IRS officials provided documentation in November 2016,but measures for the program could not be clearly linked to either the program objectives or IRS goals because the objectives were not clear. As of December 2019, IRS officials provided GAO with draft linkages to IRS's strategic goals for the draft measures and program objectives and are responding to comments from GAO on those linkages. We will update the status when IRS provides any further supporting documentation, as we requested in March 2020.

Recommendation: To ensure that major steady state IT investments are being adequately analyzed, the Secretaries of Defense, Veterans Affairs, and the Treasury should direct appropriate officials to develop an OA policy, annually perform OAs on all investments, and ensure the assessments include all key factors.

Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Status: Open

Comments: For fiscal years 2013, 2014, and 2016, the Department of Veterans Affairs provided its operational analyses to GAO for its major information technology investments. These operational analyses addressed a majority of the key factors identified in Office of Management and Budget guidance. Nevertheless, in February 2019, the department was still in the process of finalizing its operational analysis policy and identified a target completion date of September 2019 for when the policy would be complete and ready for publication.