Recommendation: The Secretary of State, in consultation with the Administrator of USAID, should develop performance indicators that would enable State to assess progress toward the strategic objectives and goal of the U.S. conflict minerals strategy going forward. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of State
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: The U.S. commissioners of the International Joint Commission should work with the Canadian commissioners to update the Lake Ontario-St. Lawrence River Board communications plan and ensure that the plan incorporates best practices for public relations efforts, in particular defining target audiences and developing mechanisms to monitor and inform adjustments to strategies, and generally accepted principles for communicating risk-related information. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: International Joint Commission--United States and Canada
Status: Open

Comments: The International Joint Commission (IJC) agreed with our recommendation. IJC stated that it intends to develop an updated communications plan that incorporates best practices for public relations efforts by December 31, 2020. We will continue to monitor IJC's actions in response to this recommendation.

Recommendation: The U.S. commissioners of the International Joint Commission should work with the Canadian commissioners to develop and enter into written agreements with entities that the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Adaptive Management Committee identifies as having information or resources that the committee needs to effectively monitor and evaluate the impacts of Plan 2014. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: International Joint Commission--United States and Canada
Status: Open

Comments: The International Joint Commission (IJC) agreed with our recommendation. IJC is compiling a list of entities with which it shares information to explore formal data and information sharing arrangements with them. We will continue to monitor IJC's actions in response to this recommendation.

Recommendation: The U.S. commissioners of the International Joint Commission should work with the Canadian commissioners to ensure that IJC fully incorporates the key elements and essential characteristics of the adaptive management process into a comprehensive adaptive management strategic plan for Plan 2014. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: International Joint Commission--United States and Canada
Status: Open

Comments: The International Joint Commission (IJC) agreed with our recommendation. IJC plans to produce a comprehensive adaptive management strategic plan that fully incorporates the key elements and essential characteristics of the adaptive management process by December 31, 2020. We will continue to monitor IJC's actions in response to this recommendation.

Recommendation: Congress should consider establishing a pilot program with leadership from a defined federal organizational arrangement to identify and provide assistance to climate migration projects for communities that express affirmative interest in relocation as a resilience strategy. Such a pilot program could be designed for success by considering the key factors we identified in this report. (Matter for Consideration 1)

Agency: Congress
Status: Open

Comments: As of August 19, 2020, no action had been taken to establish a pilot program to identify and provide assistance to climate migration projects.

Recommendation: The Chairman of FCC should develop, in coordination with NTIA and other relevant stakeholders, specific and measurable performance goals—with related strategies and measures—to manage spectrum demands associated with 5G deployment. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Federal Communications Commission
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: The Chairman of FCC should develop specific and measurable performance goals—with related strategies and measures—to determine the effects 5G deployment and any mitigating actions may have on the digital divide. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Federal Communications Commission
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: The U.S. Committee on the Marine Transportation System should complete a government-wide assessment of the economic, environmental, and safety risks posed by gaps in maritime infrastructure in the U.S. Arctic to inform investment priorities and decisions. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Transportation: Committee on the Marine Transportation System
Status: Open

Comments: CMTS partially concurred with our recommendation but also noted several areas of disagreement with our conclusions, which we addressed directly in our report. For example, we note in our report that CMTS itself has previously noted the importance of evaluating risks on a government-wide basis, and that it previously proposed a model for determining risk that considered the likelihood of adverse events actually occurring, vulnerability to damage, and potential consequences. Given its previous work in the U.S. Arctic and its coordinating role with its member agencies, CMTS is well suited to conduct a government-wide assessment of the risks posed by gaps in maritime infrastructure in the U.S. Arctic. As such, we stand by our recommendation and will continue to report on steps taken by CMTS to address it.

Recommendation: The appropriate entities within the Executive Office of the President, including the Office of Science and Technology Policy should develop and publish a strategy for addressing U.S. Arctic maritime infrastructure that identifies goals and objectives, performance measures to monitor agencies' progress over time, and the appropriate responses to address risks. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Science and Technology Policy
Status: Open

Comments: OSTP neither agreed nor disagreed with the report's recommendations. OSTP acknowledged the Arctic is of critical national importance and noted interagency coordination can be implemented through the entities of the National Science and Technology Council, which is located within OSTP. As we note in our report, without a strategy for addressing U.S. Arctic maritime infrastructure that identifies goals and objectives, performance measures to monitor agencies' progress over time, and the appropriate responses to address risks, agencies lack assurance that their actions are effectively targeting priority areas and decision makers cannot gauge the extent of progress in addressing maritime infrastructure gaps. As such, we stand by our recommendation and will continue to evaluate OSTP's efforts to fully address it.

Recommendation: The appropriate entities within the Executive Office of the President, including the Office of Science and Technology Policy should designate the interagency group responsible for leading and coordinating federal efforts to address maritime infrastructure in the U.S. Arctic that includes all relevant stakeholders. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Science and Technology Policy
Status: Open

Comments: OSTP neither agreed nor disagreed with the report's recommendations. OSTP acknowledged the Arctic is of critical national importance and noted interagency coordination can be implemented through the entities of the National Science and Technology Council, which is located within OSTP. OSTP noted the need for, and role of additional federal coordination, such as the Arctic Executive Steering Committee, is under consideration by OSTP. We continue to believe that the appropriate entities within the Executive Office of the President, including OSTP, should designate the interagency group responsible for leading and coordinating federal efforts to address maritime infrastructure in the U.S. Arctic that includes all relevant stakeholders. As we note in our report, without an interagency collaboration mechanism designated to lead these efforts, it is unclear who has responsibility for whole-of-government efforts to address U.S. Arctic maritime infrastructure. We will continue to monitor OSTP's efforts to fully address our recommendation.

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

Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: The Secretary of Commerce should ensure that the Director of the Census Bureau identifies metrics on the extent to which governments participating in LUCA overlap in their coverage of residents, as well as the characteristics of participants such as type of government and geographic area, and reports on such metrics. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Commerce
Status: Open

Comments: Commerce agreed with this recommendation. In its April 2020 action plan, the Bureau indicated that its 2020 LUCA Assessment would identify the impacts, if any, of governments providing overlapping coverage in their submissions to the Bureau. In order to fully implement this recommendation, the Bureau will need to identify metrics on submissions from governments that describe both the participating governments and extent of their overlap in coverage.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Commerce should ensure that the Director of the Census Bureau takes steps to conduct in-office reviews of a greater share of addresses submitted by governments before the addresses are added to the Bureau's address list for potential field work. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Commerce
Status: Open

Comments: Commerce agreed with this recommendation. In its April 2020 action plan, the Bureau indicated that it would continue to identify improvements to address list-sharing programs so that more addresses submitted by governments are reviewed using in-office methods. In order to fully implement this recommendation, the Bureau will need to take steps that result in a greater share of addresses submitted by governments being reviewed in-office.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Commerce should ensure that the Director of the Census Bureau, as part of the Bureau's assessment of LUCA for 2020, consults with OMB to report on the factors that led to enumeration outcomes of addresses reinstated to the Bureau's master address list by the LUCA appeals process. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Commerce
Status: Open

Comments: Commerce agreed with this recommendation. In its April 2020 action plan, the Bureau indicated that it would research appeals-reinstated addresses to determine the factors that led to the initial rejection of those addresses, any reasons for their reinstatement upon appeal, and the enumeration outcomes of those addresses. In order to fully implement this recommendation, the Bureau will need to complete and report on this work.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Commerce should ensure that the Director of the Census Bureau identifies and tracks specific costs for related address list development efforts. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of Commerce
Status: Open

Comments: Commerce agreed with this recommendation. In its April 2020 action plan, the Bureau indicated that it would use existing systems to identify and report the costs of individual address list update-related activities. The Bureau also indicated that it would develop the means for capturing the cost of machine-based methods of updating the address list. In order to fully implement this recommendation, the Bureau will need to identify and track costs with sufficient detail to compare the relative cost-effectiveness of alternative efforts it considers and uses to build its address list.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Commerce should ensure that the Director of the Census Bureau improves the use of LUCA results to inform procedures of other decennial operations, such as sharing information on address update quality to inform NRFU planning or administrative records modeling. (Recommendation 5)

Agency: Department of Commerce
Status: Open

Comments: Commerce agreed with this recommendation. In its April 2020 action plan, the Bureau indicated that it would investigate how best to improve the flow of address data from governments into other census activities, such as research on administrative records or address canvassing. In order to fully implement this recommendation, the Bureau will need to establish and demonstrate the use of pathways for data on address collected from governments and their quality to inform the planning of other census activities that rely on address data.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Commerce should ensure that the Director of the Census Bureau realigns the schedule of LUCA-related programs to provide participants with more time to review addresses. (Recommendation 6)

Agency: Department of Commerce
Status: Open

Comments: Commerce agreed with this recommendation. In its April 2020 action plan, the Bureau indicated that it would look for opportunities to allow participants more time to review the address list for their areas, subject to the timing and design of LUCA 2030. In order to fully implement this recommendation, the Bureau will need to ensure that governments invited to review addresses are provided sufficient time to review them.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Commerce should ensure that the Director of the Census Bureau uses the Bureau's data on hard-to-count areas to inform geographic activities such as: targeting LUCA outreach to tribal, state, and local governments; planning additional rounds of in-office address canvassing; and providing feedback to tribal, state, and local governments on gaps in their respective address data. (Recommendation 7)

Agency: Department of Commerce
Status: Open

Comments: Commerce agreed with this recommendation. In its April 2020 action plan, the Bureau indicated that it would give participants access to the Bureau's data on hard-to-count areas so that participants could prioritize their address list review efforts. In order to fully implement this recommendation, the Bureau will need to demonstrate how it is using its data on hard-to-count areas to improve targeting of outreach to governments, planning other address-improvement activity, and providing feedback to governments.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Commerce should ensure that the Director of the Census Bureau, as part of the Bureau's strategic planning process for geographic programs, reexamines LUCA in conjunction with stakeholders, other federal agencies as appropriate, and Congress to address the issues we have identified, including but not limited to:

• Identifying and assessing alternatives and describing corresponding effects on the decennial census.
• Reporting out on the assessment of alternatives, including justifications.
• Developing legislative proposals, as appropriate, for any changes needed to LUCA and address data in order to implement preferred alternatives. (Recommendation 8)

Agency: Department of Commerce
Status: Open

Comments: Commerce agreed with this recommendation. In its April 2020 action plan, the Bureau indicated that it would reach out to stakeholders in the Summer of 2022 to discuss reexamining LUCA and other address frame initiatives. In order to fully implement this recommendation, the Bureau will need to carryout a reexamination with stakeholders on the issues identified in our report as well as identify and report on alternatives as well as legislative proposals as may be appropriate.

Recommendation: Congress should consider establishing a federal organizational arrangement to periodically identify and prioritize climate resilience projects for federal investment. Such an arrangement could be designed for success by considering the six key steps for prioritizing climate resilience investments and the opportunities to increase the climate resilience impact of federal funding options identified in our report. (Matter for Consideration 1)

Agency: Congress
Status: Open

Comments: As of July 2020, no action had been taken to establish a federal organizational arrangement to periodically identify and prioritize climate resilience projects for federal investment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recommendation: NNSA's Energetic Materials Enterprise Manager and relevant NNSA officials and contractor representatives at NNSA sites should take steps to improve the accuracy of FIMS data related to NNSA's infrastructure supporting explosives activities. These steps should include reviewing and updating information about associations of assets with primary and secondary explosives missions; ensuring that those who provide asset information to FIMS administrators understand the data they need to provide; and clarifying how to accurately enter information in FIMS for explosives assets that are not buildings. (Recommendation 1)

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

Comments: As of July 2020, we are currently reviewing agency information and plan to reach out as needed for additional information for this recommendation.

Recommendation: NNSA's Energetic Materials Enterprise Manager, in consultation with members of NNSA's Energetics Coordinating Committee, should, as the agency revises its Defense Programs Strategic Plan for Energetic Materials, include discussion of identified challenges related to explosives activities, such as data quality, workforce levels, and safety as well as any actions to address them, as appropriate, or document the rationale for why identified challenges were not included. (Recommendation 2)

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

Comments: Based on trade press reports, NNSA appears to be taking several actions that, collectively, may serve to close this recommendation as implemented. As of July 2020, we are awaiting information from agency officials and will update the status of this recommendation when the information is received.

Recommendation: NNSA's Energetic Materials Enterprise Manager, in consultation with members of NNSA's Energetics Coordinating Committee, should, as the agency revises its Defense Programs Strategic Plan for Energetic Materials, include fully developed elements of an effective strategic plan, such as a clearly identified mission statement and performance goals that are quantifiable, set time frames for completion, and list responsible parties to carry out specific activities for all strategic goals. (Recommendation 3)

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

Comments: Based on trade press reports, NNSA appears to be making progress implementing this recommendation. As of July 2020, we have requested additional information from agency officials and will update the recommendation status when the information is received.

Recommendation: The FTA Administrator should determine, in collaboration with transit stakeholders, whether additional transit workforce data are needed to identify potential future occupational shortages in the transit industry and whether the benefits of this collection would outweigh the cost of gathering it. (Recommendation 1)

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

Comments: On February 11, 2020 FTA stated that they anticipate issuing a notice of funding opportunity to establish a technical assistance center devoted to addressing the workforce development needs of the transit industry. They anticipate implementing this recommendation by January 31, 2021.

Recommendation: The FTA Administrator should develop and document a strategy that outlines how FTA will help address future transit workforce needs. (Recommendation 2)

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

Comments: On February 11, 2020 FTA stated that they anticipate issuing a notice of funding opportunity to establish a technical assistance center devoted to addressing the workforce development needs of the transit industry. They anticipate implementing this recommendation by January 31, 2021.

Recommendation: The FTA Administrator should develop and document clearly defined performance goals and measures for its transit workforce development efforts. (Recommendation 3)

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

Comments: DOT concurred with this recommendation and stated that FTA will enter into a cooperative agreement with a non-profit partner to develop and implement performance measures for FTA's workforce development efforts. FTA will coordinate with the Department of Labor on these measures. FTA plans to complete these actions by October 1, 2021.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Homeland Security should create corresponding processes and procedures to help implement the mission, roles, and responsibilities defined in the delegation of authority or similar document to help ensure predictability, repeatability, and accountability in departmentwide and crosscutting strategy and policy efforts. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Homeland Security agreed with GAO's recommendation, and finalized a delegation of authority, which is a requisite step in being able to complete this action, in December 2019. As of February 2020, however, the agency had not taken action that addresses GAO's September 2018 recommendation to create processes and procedures corresponding to the mission, roles, and responsibilities defined in the delegation of authority. To close this recommendation, PLCY will need to create such processes and procedures to help ensure predictability, repeatability, and accountability in department-wide and crosscutting strategy and policy efforts. Until DHS creates these processes and procedures, the Office of Strategy, Policy, and Plans' ability to lead and coordinate policy will continue to be limited. Taking this recommended action would enhance the department's efficiency and reduce risks associated with fragmentation in the development of department-wide and crosscutting strategies, policies, and plans

Recommendation: The Under Secretary for Strategy, Policy, and Plans should use the DHS Workforce Planning Guide to help identify and analyze any gaps in PLCY's workforce, design strategies to address any gaps, and communicate this information to DHS leadership. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open

Comments: On December 3, 2019, PLCY restated its concerns with this recommendation--specifically, that due to changes in administration and secretarial priorities, PLCY has to recalibrate and base budget and staffing projections on what officials expect will be needed, rather than current needs due to changing priorities. PLCY's ability to properly align resources with current needs must remain flexible and the workforce planning guidance that GAO references does not allow for that in whole. GAO maintains that utilizing the workforce planning guidance can be done while still maintaining the desired flexibility.

Recommendation: The Under Secretary for Strategy, Policy, and Plans should enhance the use of collaboration and communication mechanisms to connect with staff in the components with responsibilities for policy and strategy to better identify and address emerging needs. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open

Comments: On March 5, 2019, PLCY officials told us PLCY has instituted many cross-component efforts to more clearly define its roles and responsibilities. For example, PLCY convenes frequent engagements with components via the Immigration Policy Council, the Strategy and Policy Executive Steering Committee, the Deputies Management Action Group, and the Threat Prevention and Security Policy Council. On December 3, 2019, PLCY officials told us that the pending delegation of authority will help address this recommendation, and the delegation of authority is expected to be completed in calendar year 2020. To close this recommendation, PLCY must provide documentary evidence of collaboration and communication mechanisms to connect staff and better identify emerging needs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recommendation: The Administrator should direct the Chief Information Officer to address, in conjunction with the Chief Human Capital Officer, gaps in IT workforce planning by fully implementing the eight key IT workforce planning activities noted in this report. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Status: Open

Comments: NASA did not concur with this recommendation. As of October 2019, the agency reported that the Office of the Chief Information Officer was beginning its involvement with the agency's Mission Support Architecture Program which aims at re-aligning mission support functions from a decentralized model to an enterprise model. The office's participation in the re-alignment effort has an estimated completion date in fiscal year 2023.

Recommendation: The Administrator should direct the Chief Information Officer to address weaknesses in oversight practices and ensure routine oversight of all investments by taking action to document criteria for escalating investments among governance boards and establish procedures for tracking corrective actions for underperforming investments. (Recommendation 6)

Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Status: Open

Comments: NASA concurred with this recommendation. In July 2018, NASA reported that the agency intended to address this recommendation by documenting its approach for governing IT investments. In February 2020, NASA reported that the agency remained committed to taking action to address this recommendation and reported that the Office of the Chief Information Officer had established a process to govern IT investment funds and had planned additional modifications for that framework. The agency now expects to complete actions to address this recommendation by November 2020.

Recommendation: The Administrator should ensure that the Chief Information Officer fully defines policies and procedures for developing the portfolio criteria, creating the portfolio, and evaluating the portfolio. (Recommendation 7)

Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Status: Open

Comments: NASA concurred with this recommendation. In July 2018, NASA reported that it had begun updating policies and procedures for developing the portfolio criteria. In April 2019, NASA provided copies of its updated guidance. Among other things, the guidance described criteria for the portfolio and defined policies and procedures for creating the portfolio. As of April 2020, the agency had not yet provided evidence that it had developed policies and procedures for evaluating the portfolio. We plan to continue following up on the status of efforts to address this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Administrator should direct the Chief Information Officer to establish an agency-wide approach to managing cybersecurity risk that includes a cybersecurity strategy that, among other things, makes explicit the agency's risk tolerance, accepted risk assessment methodologies, a process for consistently evaluating risk across the organization, response strategies and approaches for monitoring risk over time, and priorities for risk management investments. (Recommendation 8)

Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Status: Open

Comments: NASA concurred with this recommendation. In July 2018, NASA reported that it had hired a Chief Cybersecurity Risk Officer in April 2018 and that it had also approved a charter for an agency-wide Cybersecurity Integration Team. As of September 2020, NASA reported that it intends to deliver a cybersecurity risk management strategy that addresses the elements outlined in this recommendation by 2021.

Recommendation: The Administrator should direct the Chief Information Officer to establish an agency-wide approach to managing cybersecurity risk that includes policies and procedures with well-defined roles and responsibilities that are integrated and reflect NASA's current security practices and operating environment. (Recommendation 10)

Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Status: Open

Comments: NASA concurred with this recommendation. As of September 2020, NASA reported that the Chief Information Officer had initiated a review of the agency's cyber policy management framework and that any related updates were expected to be completed by 2021.

Recommendation: The Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and Global Security, in coordination with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and other appropriate DOD components, should update the department's cyber incident coordination training to incorporate the tenets of PPD-41.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff should maintain a list of senior DOD officials from organizations that could represent DOD during a Cyber Unified Coordination Group and that are trained in the National Incident Management System.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: The Secretary of Transportation should develop and implement a comprehensive plan to better manage departmental initiatives related to automated vehicles. This plan should include leading principles such as goals, priorities, steps to achieve results, milestones, and performance measures to track progress. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: In July 2018, DOT released an initial plan related to this recommendation in response to congressional direction. This plan outlines DOT's overall approach for managing policy and research issues related to automated vehicles across DOT's modal administrations. In January 2020, DOT and the National Science and Technology Council released Ensuring American Leadership in Automated Vehicle Technologies (AV 4.0), building on prior policies that DOT has identified as actions regarding its implementation of GAO's recommendation. DOT has yet to identify, for example, performance measures to monitor and gauge results. Without a comprehensive plan, it continues to be unclear whether DOT is adequately tackling automated vehicle challenges.

Recommendation: The Administrator of PHMSA should ensure that PHMSA uses other data and information about budgetary resources as they become available to inform and refine its performance goals. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Transportation: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Status: Open

Comments: As of May 2019, we are following up with PHMSA regarding this recommendation and will provide updated information when we confirm agency actions.

Recommendation: The Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force should work with the Office of the Secretary of Defense to issue a requirement to their installations to systematically track the costs associated with extreme weather events and climate change. (Recommendation 1)

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

Comments: In October 2017, DOD non-concurred with our recommendation. In August 2018, an official from the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Energy, Installations & Environment) stated that because DOD non-concurred with this recommendation, the department has no plans to implement it. As of June 2020, DOD has not provided evidence that the department intends to implement it. Thus, the recommendation remains open and we will continue to follow up on it, if DOD decides to take relevant actions.

Recommendation: The Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force should work with the Office of the Secretary of Defense to issue a requirement to their installations to systematically track the costs associated with extreme weather events and climate change. (Recommendation 1)

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

Comments: In October 2017, DOD non-concurred with our recommendation. In August 2018, an official from the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Energy, Installations & Environment) stated that because DOD non-concurred with this recommendation, the department has no plans to implement it. As of June 2020, DOD has not provided evidence that the department intends to implement it. Thus, the recommendation remains open and we will continue to follow up on it, if DOD decides to take relevant actions.

Recommendation: The Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force should work with the Office of the Secretary of Defense to issue a requirement to their installations to systematically track the costs associated with extreme weather events and climate change. (Recommendation 1)

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

Comments: In October 2017, DOD non-concurred with our recommendation. In August 2018, an official from the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Energy, Installations & Environment) stated that because DOD non-concurred with this recommendation, the department has no plans to implement it. As of June 2020, DOD has not provided evidence that the department intends to implement it. Thus, the recommendation remains open and we will continue to follow up on it, if DOD decides to take relevant actions.

Recommendation: The Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force should take steps to administer the Screening Level Vulnerability Assessment Survey, or a similar instrument, to all relevant locations. (Recommendation 2)

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

Comments: In October 2017, DOD non-concurred with our recommendation. In August 2018, an official from the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Energy, Installations & Environment) stated that because DOD non-concurred with this recommendation, the department has no plans to implement it. As of June 2020, DOD has not provided evidence that the department intends to implement it. Thus, the recommendation remains open and we will continue to follow up on it, if DOD decides to take relevant actions.

Recommendation: The Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force should take steps to administer the Screening Level Vulnerability Assessment Survey, or a similar instrument, to all relevant locations. (Recommendation 2)

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

Comments: In October 2017, DOD non-concurred with our recommendation. In August 2018, an official from the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Energy, Installations & Environment) stated that because DOD non-concurred with this recommendation, the department has no plans to implement it. As of June 2020, DOD has not provided evidence that the department intends to implement it. Thus, the recommendation remains open and we will continue to follow up on it, if DOD decides to take relevant actions.

Recommendation: The Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force should take steps to administer the Screening Level Vulnerability Assessment Survey, or a similar instrument, to all relevant locations. (Recommendation 2)

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

Comments: In October 2017, DOD non-concurred with our recommendation. In August 2018, an official from the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Energy, Installations & Environment) stated that because DOD non-concurred with this recommendation, the department has no plans to implement it. As of June 2020, DOD has not provided evidence that the department intends to implement it. Thus, the recommendation remains open and we will continue to follow up on it, if DOD decides to take relevant actions.

Recommendation: The Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force should implement DOD goals and plans by incorporating climate change adaptation into service-level guidance and required training for the development of installation-level plans, including master plans and natural resource plans, at all locations. (Recommendation 3)

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

Comments: In October 2017, DOD partially concurred with our recommendation. According to a July 2018 Corrective Action Plan provided by DOD, it was continuing to review DOD Directive (DODD) 4715.21 on climate resilience; DOD reissued the directive in August 2018. The directive requires the military departments to incorporate adaptation to climate change impacts into their planning for facilities. Further, DOD has incorporated adaptation into other guidance that applies to each of the departments. For example, with revisions to DOD's Unified Facilities Criteria for Master Planning and High Performance and Sustainable Building Requirements, as well the issuance of the guide "Climate Adaptation for DOD Natural Resource Managers," DOD has instructed the military departments' planners to incorporate adaptation into installation-level plans. Further, in 2020 DOD issued guidance that requires the military departments to use a DOD database on sea level changes in their planning for coastal infrastructure (sea level change is one impact of climate change). However, as of June 2020, the Air Force had not provided evidence of required training for installation-level planners that incorporates the DOD guidance discussed in this summary. Thus, the recommendation remains open and we will review evidence of such training if that evidence becomes available.

Recommendation: The Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force should implement DOD goals and plans by incorporating climate change adaptation into service-level guidance and required training for the development of installation-level plans, including master plans and natural resource plans, at all locations. (Recommendation 3)

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

Comments: In October 2017, DOD partially concurred with our recommendation. According to a July 2018 Corrective Action Plan provided by DOD, it was continuing to review DOD Directive (DODD) 4715.21 on climate resilience; DOD reissued the directive in August 2018. The directive requires the military departments to incorporate adaptation to climate change impacts into their planning for facilities. Further, DOD has incorporated adaptation into other guidance that applies to each of the departments. For example, with revisions to DOD's Unified Facilities Criteria for Master Planning and High Performance and Sustainable Building Requirements, as well the issuance of the guide "Climate Adaptation for DOD Natural Resource Managers," DOD has instructed the military departments' planners to incorporate adaptation into installation-level plans. Further, in 2020, DOD issued guidance that requires the military departments to use a DOD database on sea level changes in their planning for coastal infrastructure (sea level change is one impact of climate change). However, as of June 2020, the Navy had not provided evidence of required training for installation-level planners that incorporates the DOD guidance discussed in this summary. Thus, the recommendation remains open and we will review evidence of such training if that evidence becomes available.

Recommendation: The Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force should implement DOD goals and plans by incorporating climate change adaptation into service-level guidance and required training for the development of installation-level plans, including master plans and natural resource plans, at all locations. (Recommendation 3)

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

Comments: In October 2017, DOD partially concurred with our recommendation. According to a July 2018 Corrective Action Plan provided by DOD, it was continuing to review DOD Directive (DODD) 4715.21 on climate resilience; DOD reissued the directive in August 2018. The directive requires the military departments to incorporate adaptation to climate change impacts into their planning for facilities. Further, DOD has incorporated adaptation into other guidance that applies to each of the departments. For example, with revisions to DOD's Unified Facilities Criteria for Master Planning and High Performance and Sustainable Building Requirements, as well the issuance of the guide "Climate Adaptation for DOD Natural Resource Managers," DOD has instructed the military departments' planners to incorporate adaptation into installation-level plans. Further, in 2020, DOD issued guidance that requires the military departments to use a DOD database on sea level changes in their planning for coastal infrastructure (sea level change is one impact of climate change). However, as of June 2020, the Army had not provided evidence of required training for installation-level planners that incorporates the DOD guidance discussed in this summary. Thus, the recommendation remains open and we will review evidence of such training if that evidence becomes available.

Recommendation: The Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force should integrate climate change data and projections into the Unified Facilities Criteria standards and periodically revise those standards based on any new projections, as appropriate. (Recommendation 4)

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

Comments: In October 2017, DOD partially concurred with our recommendation. According to a July 2018 Corrective Action Plan provided by DOD, the Office of the Secretary of Defense continues to work with the military departments to evaluate how best to incorporate resilience measures into Unified Facilities Criteria (UFCs), as appropriate. DOD also stated that UFCs are reviewed and revised on a rolling basis. As of June 2020, DOD has not provided evidence of climate change data and projections integrated into UFCs. Thus, the recommendation remains open and as UFCs are updated, we will assess the extent to which the revised versions addresses the recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force should integrate climate change data and projections into the Unified Facilities Criteria standards and periodically revise those standards based on any new projections, as appropriate. (Recommendation 4)

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

Comments: In October 2017, DOD partially concurred with our recommendation. According to a July 2018 Corrective Action Plan provided by DOD, the Office of the Secretary of Defense continues to work with the military departments to evaluate how best to incorporate resilience measures into Unified Facilities Criteria (UFCs), as appropriate. DOD also stated that UFCs are reviewed and revised on a rolling basis. As of June 2020, DOD has not provided evidence of climate change data and projections integrated into UFCs. Thus, the recommendation remains open and as UFCs are updated, we will assess the extent to which the revised versions addresses the recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force should integrate climate change data and projections into the Unified Facilities Criteria standards and periodically revise those standards based on any new projections, as appropriate. (Recommendation 4)

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

Comments: In October 2017, DOD partially concurred with our recommendation. According to a July 2018 Corrective Action Plan provided by DOD, the Office of the Secretary of Defense continues to work with the military departments to evaluate how best to incorporate resilience measures into Unified Facilities Criteria (UFCs), as appropriate. DOD also stated that UFCs are reviewed and revised on a rolling basis. As of June 2020, DOD has not provided evidence of climate change data and projections integrated into UFCs. Thus, the recommendation remains open and as UFCs are updated, we will assess the extent to which the revised versions addresses the recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should direct the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Policy), the geographic combatant commands, the sub-unified commands, and the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force to consider climate change adaptation as they develop DOD's position for future negotiations with host-nation governments on cost-sharing activities, when relevant or appropriate. (Recommendation 5)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: In October 2017, DOD partially concurred with our recommendation. According to a July 2018 Corrective Action Plan provided by DOD, the Department is continuing to review and update the processes and criteria governing host-nation cost-sharing negotiations to strengthen or incorporate resilience measures. Since each bilateral agreement is unique, these must be completed on a case-by-case basis. Further, DOD noted that any updates would occur on a "rolling basis." As of June 2020, DOD has not provided evidence that the department has engaged in such updates. Thus, the recommendation remains open and as we become aware of new or updated host-nation cost-sharing agreements, we will assess the extent to which they (or the processes and criteria governing them) address the recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force to issue guidance, as appropriate, that calls for more formal coordination mechanisms related to climate change adaptation, such as memorandums of understanding, between DOD installations and surrounding host-nation communities. (Recommendation 6)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: In October 2017, DOD partially concurred with our recommendation. According to a July 2018 Corrective Action Plan provided by DOD, the Department is continuing to review guidance for establishing agreements between host-nation communities and DOD installations. Further, DOD noted that any updates would occur on a "rolling basis." As of June 2020, DOD has not provided evidence that the department has engaged in such updates. Thus, the recommendation remains open and as we become aware of new or updated agreements between host-nation communities and DOD installations, we will assess the extent to which they (or the guidance governing them) address the recommendation.

Recommendation: GAO recommends that the Director of OMB consider developing a goal that addresses a coordinated federal approach to child well-being among its next set of cross-agency priority (CAP) goals, including working with relevant agencies to ensure their strategic plans include goals and objectives related to the CAP goal. (Recommendation 1)

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

Comments: OMB neither agreed nor disagreed with this recommendation. In November 2017, OMB staff noted that the agency was developing its next set of CAP goals, which are usually reserved for a limited set of priorities, and expects to announce these goals concurrent with the FY19 budget. As part of the process, agency staff said they consult relevant Congressional committees and other stakeholders. As of September 2019, OMB had not provided an update on its efforts.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recommendation: The Director of OMB should revise and publicly issue OMB guidance--through an update to its Circular No. A-11, a memorandum, or other means--to provide time frames and associated milestones for implementing the federal program inventory. (Recommendation 2)

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

Comments: As of October 2020, OMB has taken some actions toward addressing this recommendation. In its June 2019 and July 2020 updates to Circular No. A-11, OMB provided a time frame for implementing some of the federal program inventory requirements. In that guidance, OMB states that beginning with the 2021 budget cycle, agencies' program activities will be used for the inventory's program-level reporting requirements. This will allow OMB and agencies to leverage federal spending data reported on USASpending.gov as required by the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act. Those data can be presented at the program activity level, and therefore could meet the inventory requirements to present program-level spending data. However, OMB's guidance does not yet present any time frames or milestones for meeting other inventory requirements, such as describing the purpose of each program or how it contributes to the agency's mission and goals. We will continue to monitor OMB's actions to address this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Director of OMB should consider--as OMB determines its strategy for resumed implementation of the federal program inventory--using a systematic approach, such as the information architecture framework, to help ensure that GPRAMA requirements and our past recommendations for the inventory are addressed. (Recommendation 3)

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

Comments: As of October 2020, OMB has taken some actions toward addressing this recommendation. In its June 2019 and July 2020 updates to Circular No. A-11, OMB states that it and agencies will meet some of the federal inventory requirements by leveraging the spending data reported on USASpending.gov. The guidance notes that this information is provided in a structured information architecture format on USASpending.gov. In July 2019, OMB staff told us that they considered an information architecture approach in response to our past reports on the topic. However, OMB has not yet clarified in guidance or elsewhere how the information architecture format of USASpending.gov-which is currently focused on spending data-could be used to meet additional information reporting requirements and our past recommendations related to the inventory. We will continue to monitor OMB's actions to address this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Director of OMB should work with the Performance Improvement Council to identify and share among agencies practices for expanding the use of data-driven performance reviews beyond agency priority goals, such as for other performance goals and at lower levels within agencies, that have led to performance improvements. (Recommendation 4)

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

Comments: As of October 2020, OMB and the PIC have taken some actions toward addressing this recommendation. OMB and the PIC, in guidance provided through Circular No. A-11 and the Goal Playbook respectively, have encouraged agencies to expand their use of data-driven reviews beyond agency priority goals. In March 2019, OMB staff told us that they would work with the PIC to provide agencies with case studies and other resources that could help expand their use of data-driven reviews, should agencies choose to do so. However, as of October 2020, OMB and the PIC have not yet identified and shared practices related to expanding the use of those reviews as we recommended. We will continue to monitor OMB's actions to address this recommendation.

Recommendation: To more effectively and efficiently integrate virtual training devices into operational training, that the Secretary of Defense should direct the Commandant of the Marine Corps to develop guidance for the development and use of virtual training devices that includes (1) developing requirements for virtual training devices that consider and document training tasks and objectives, required proficiency, and available training time; (2) setting target usage rates and collecting usage data; and (3) conducting effectiveness analysis of virtual training devices that defines a consistent process for performing the analysis, including the selection of the devices to be evaluated, guidelines on conducting the analysis, and the data that should be collected and assessed.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) concurred with this recommendation. In December 2018, the Marine Corps had completed some actions and has other ongoing actions intended to address the recommendation. For example, in June 2017 the Marine Corps issued the Marine Corps Ground Training Simulations Implementation Plan. The plan provides a framework for the Marine Corps' use of current and future simulations technology and virtual training environments to align training efforts and resource requirements. In addition, the Marine Corps continues to revise its training and readiness program manuals to articulate requirements that document training tasks, objectives, and required proficiency and reemphasize the importance of more effectively integrating ground simulations within current ground training approaches. Further, the Marine Corps is currently staffing a comprehensive Ground Simulations Training Reference Guide and is testing a new process, termed the Ground Simulation Training Effectiveness Process. This process will provide guidelines on conducting effectiveness analysis, including the selection of the devices to be evaluated and an identification of the data to be collected and assessed. As of August 2020, these actions remain in progress. Once fully implemented, these actions should help the Marine Corps more effectively and efficiently integrate virtual training devices into operational training, as GAO recommended in September 2017.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Agriculture should ensure that the Department's Chief Information Officer completes efforts to identify future telecommunications needs and areas for optimization, identifies the costs and benefits of new technology, and aligns USDA's approach with its long-term plans. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open

Comments: The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) concurred with our recommendation and stated that it plans to, among other things, provide the EIS vendor community with USDA's future vision and requirements in order to enable each vendor to propose optimal solutions; and update the cost benefit analysis of new technologies while reviewing vendor proposals. However, USDA has not yet provided documentation demonstrating that it has completed these efforts. We will continue to monitor USDA's progress on these efforts.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Agriculture should ensure that the Department's Chief Information Officer identifies transition-related roles and responsibilities related to the management of assets, human capital, and information security, and legal expertise; develops a transition communications plan; and uses configuration and change-management processes in USDA's transition. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open

Comments: As we recommended, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) identified transition roles and responsibilities related to the management of assets, human capital, and information security, and legal expertise. USDA also developed a communications plan and change management plan for the transition. However, the department has not yet demonstrated that it has implemented change management, nor that it is using configuration management for the transition. We will continue to monitor USDA's progress in implementing this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Agriculture should ensure that the Department's Chief Information Officer documents the costs and benefits of transition investments, identifies staff resources needed for the remainder of the transition, and analyzes training needs for staff assisting with the transition. (Recommendation 5)

Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open

Comments: U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) officials stated that they are in the process of completing an Independent Government Cost Estimate for the transition. The officials also stated that the department is creating an EIS support organization that will address staffing needs for the transition. However, USDA has not yet provided documentation demonstrating that it has completed these efforts. We will continue to monitor USDA's progress in implementing this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Agriculture should ensure that the Department's Chief Information Officer demonstrates that the Department's transition goals and measures align with its mission, identifies transition risks related to critical systems and continuity of operations, and identifies mission-critical priorities in USDA's transition timeline. (Recommendation 6)

Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open

Comments: The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) concurred with our recommendation and stated that it plans to (1) incorporate mission-critical priorities into USDA's requests for quotes; (2) ensure that critical systems are inventoried and that their respective transition plans ensure continuity of operations; and (3) prioritize mission-critical functions within its transition timeline. However, USDA has not yet provided documentation demonstrating that it has completed these efforts. We will continue to monitor USDA's progress in implementing this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Labor should ensure that the Department's Chief Information Officer verifies the completeness of DOL's inventory of current telecommunications assets and services and establishes a process for ongoing maintenance of the inventory. (Recommendation 7)

Agency: Department of Labor
Status: Open

Comments: Department of Labor (DOL) officials stated that the agency is in the process of developing an inventory of its telecommunications assets and services that are associated with GSA's expiring contracts (e.g., Networx). The officials noted that, as part of the department's transition to EIS, DOL plans to include only limited non-GSA/commercial telecommunications assets and services in its initial transition efforts and inventory. The officials further stated that DOL will not focus on these non-GSA/commercial assets and services until the department completes its transition of assets and services associated with GSA's expiring contracts. We will continue to monitor the department's efforts to develop a complete telecommunications inventory, including assets and services associated with both GSA and non-GSA/commercial contracts, and associated maintenance processes for this inventory.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Labor should ensure that the Department's Chief Information Officer identifies the agency's future telecommunications needs, completes a strategic analysis of the agency's telecommunications requirements, and incorporates the requirements into transition planning. (Recommendation 8)

Agency: Department of Labor
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Labor (DOL) provided documentation demonstrating that it has identified certain future telecommunications needs for the department, but DOL did not identify these needs using a complete inventory of its current telecommunications assets and services. In addition, the department demonstrated that it had completed a draft strategic analysis of its telecommunications requirements, but this analysis was not yet finalized and approved. Further, the department has not yet demonstrated that it has aligned its identified telecommunications needs with its long-term plans and enterprise architecture. We will continue to monitor DOT's efforts to implement this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Labor should ensure that the Department's Chief Information Officer identifies transition-related roles and responsibilities related to the management of assets, human capital, and information security, and legal expertise; develops a transition communications plan; and uses project, configuration, and change-management processes in DOL's transition (Recommendation 9)

Agency: Department of Labor
Status: Open

Comments: Department of Labor (DOL) officials stated that the department is in the process of selecting a project manager to develop the Transition Project Plan and other supporting documentation for the transition, including a communications plan. DOL expects to develop this documentation around March 2020. We will continue to monitor the department's progress on these efforts.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Labor should ensure that the Department's Chief Information Officer identifies the resources needed for the full transition, develops justifications for the costs of changes to hardware and software, identifies staff resources needed for the remainder of the transition, and analyzes training needs for staff assisting with the transition. (Recommendation 10)

Agency: Department of Labor
Status: Open

Comments: Department of Labor (DOL) officials stated that the department is in the process of selecting a project manager to develop the Transition Project Plan and other documentation that would address this recommendation. The officials expect to develop this documentation around March 2020. We will continue to monitor the department's efforts to implement this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Labor should ensure that the Department's Chief Information Officer identifies transition risks related to information security, critical systems, and continuity of operations, and identifies mission-critical priorities in DOL's transition timeline. (Recommendation 11)

Agency: Department of Labor
Status: Open

Comments: Department of Labor (DOL) officials stated that the department is in the process of selecting a project manager to develop the Transition Project Plan and other documentation that would address this recommendation. The officials expect to develop this documentation around March 2020. We will continue to monitor the department's efforts to implement this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission should ensure that the Commission's Chief Information Officer identifies the agency's future telecommunications needs, areas for optimization, and the costs and benefits of new technology; completes a strategic analysis of the commission's telecommunications requirements; and incorporates the identified requirements into transition planning. (Recommendation 12)

Agency: United States Securities and Exchange Commission
Status: Open

Comments: The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) concurred with our recommendation. SEC stated that it plans to establish an EIS planning team comprised of key IT personnel from across the agency to identify, among other things, future needs and areas for improvement, so that SEC can incorporate the results into its transition planning. However, SEC has not yet provided documentation demonstrating that it has completed these efforts. We will continue to monitor SEC's progress implementing this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission should ensure that the Commission's Chief Information Officer identifies roles and responsibilities related to the management of assets and human capital and legal expertise for the transition; includes key local and regional officials in SEC's transition communications plan; and completes efforts to use configuration and change management processes in the transition. (Recommendation 13)

Agency: United States Securities and Exchange Commission
Status: Open

Comments: The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) concurred with our recommendation and stated that it plans to document the roles and responsibilities of key EIS transition team members across the agency. The agency also plans to develop a transition communications plan that includes configuration and change management practices. However, SEC has not yet provided documentation demonstrating that it has completed these efforts. We will continue to monitor SEC's progress implementing this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission should ensure that the Commission's Chief Information Officer identifies the resources needed for the full transition, justifies requests for transition resources, identifies staff resources needed for the full transition, and completes efforts to analyze training needs for staff assisting with the transition. (Recommendation 14)

Agency: United States Securities and Exchange Commission
Status: Open

Comments: In response to our recommendation, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) provided a high-level budget estimate for the transition. However, it was unclear what costs were included in this estimate and the agency did not provide documentation that justified the costs identified. In addition, SEC has not yet provided an analysis of the staff resources it needs for the transition, nor an analysis of the training needs for the staff assisting with the transition. We will continue to monitor SEC's efforts to implement this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission should ensure that the Commission's Chief Information Officer completes efforts to demonstrate that the commission's transition goals and measures align with its mission, identifies transition risks related to critical systems and continuity of operations, and identifies mission-critical priorities in SEC's transition timeline. (Recommendation 15)

Agency: United States Securities and Exchange Commission
Status: Open

Comments: The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has demonstrated that its transition goals and measures align with its mission. In addition, the commission has identified transition risks related to continuity of operations. However, SEC has not yet identified transition risks related to its critical systems, nor identified mission-critical priorities in its transition timeline. We will continue to monitor SEC's progress on these efforts.

Recommendation: The Commissioner of the Social Security Administration should ensure that the Administration's Chief Information Officer verifies the completeness of SSA's inventory of current telecommunications assets and services and establishes a process for ongoing maintenance of the inventory regarding services other than local and long-distance telecommunications. (Recommendation 16)

Agency: Social Security Administration
Status: Open

Comments: Social Security Administration (SSA) officials stated that the agency is in the process of making significant changes to its procedures and policy for its telecommunications inventory. The officials expect to have a complete inventory of their telecommunications assets and services by 2021. We will continue to monitor SSA's efforts to implement this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Commissioner of the Social Security Administration should ensure that the Administration's Chief Information Officer completes identification of the agency's future telecommunications needs and aligns its approach with the agency's enterprise architecture. (Recommendation 17)

Agency: Social Security Administration
Status: Open

Comments: Social Security Administration (SSA) officials stated that the agency's priority is to transition its telecommunications services on a like-for-like basis, in order to complete the transition before its existing contracts expire, as well as to receive immediate cost savings. Officials also stated that, once SSA has released its EIS solicitations, they plan to analyze the alignment of their future telecommunications needs with the agency's enterprise architecture. However, SSA has not yet provided documentation demonstrating that it has completed this analysis. We will continue to monitor SSA's progress on these efforts.

Recommendation: The Commissioner of the Social Security Administration should ensure that the Administration's Chief Information Officer uses configuration and change-management processes in its transition. (Recommendation 18)

Agency: Social Security Administration
Status: Open

Comments: The Social Security Administration (SSA) provided documentation demonstrating that it has implemented a change management process, including establishing a change control board that is scheduled to meet on a weekly basis and tracking change requests in its IT Service Management tool. However, SSA has not yet demonstrated that it has implemented configuration management processes for its transition. We will continue to monitor SSA's efforts to implement these processes.

Recommendation: The Commissioner of the Social Security Administration should ensure that the Administration's Chief Information Officer identifies the resources needed for the full transition, documents the costs and benefits of transition investments, identifies staff resources needed for the remainder of the transition, and analyzes training needs for all staff working on the transition. (Recommendation 19)

Agency: Social Security Administration
Status: Open

Comments: The Social Security Administration (SSA) provided documentation demonstrating that it has identified the staff resources and required training for staff working on the transition. However, SSA has not yet provided documentation demonstrating that it has identified the funding resources needed for the full transition, nor documented the costs and benefits of transition investments, such as for resource requests related to transition program management staff. We will continue to monitor SSA's efforts to fully implement this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Commissioner of the Social Security Administration should ensure that the Administration's Chief Information Officer completes efforts to identify measures of success for the transition, identifies transition risks related to critical systems and continuity of operations, and identifies mission-critical priorities in SSA's transition timeline. (Recommendation 20)

Agency: Social Security Administration
Status: Open

Comments: The Social Security Administration (SSA) has identified transition risks related to critical systems and continuity of operations. In addition, SSA officials stated that the agency is in the process of identifying (1) agency-specific measures of success for the transition and (2) mission-critical priorities that need to be incorporated into its transition timeline. However, SSA has not yet provided documentation demonstrating that it has completed these efforts. We will continue to monitor SSA's efforts to fully implement this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Transportation should ensure that the Department's Chief Information Officer verifies the completeness of DOT's inventory of current telecommunications assets and services and establishes a process for ongoing maintenance of the inventory. (Recommendation 21)

Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open

Comments: Department of Transportation (DOT) officials stated that the department has developed a comprehensive inventory of its telecommunications assets and services, and maintains this inventory on a regular basis. However, as of August 2020, the department has not yet provided documentation of its inventory or the associated maintenance processes. We will continue to monitor DOT's efforts to complete this inventory and establish a maintenance process for it.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Transportation should ensure that the Department's Chief Information Officer identifies the agency's future telecommunications needs, areas for optimization, and costs and benefits of new technology; and completes efforts to align DOT's approach with its long-term plans and enterprise architecture. (Recommendation 22)

Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open

Comments: Department of Transportation (DOT) officials stated that they conducted an assessment of the department's future telecommunication requirements. According to officials, the results of this analysis were included in an EIS Statement of Work. However, DOT has not demonstrated that it used its complete inventory of existing services to identify its future needs. DOT also stated that it has conducted extensive research to identify areas for optimization and sharing, but did not provide documentation of this research. Further, DOT has not provided evidence that the department has aligned its transition approach with its long-term plans and enterprise architecture. We will continue to follow-up with DOT regarding these efforts.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Transportation should ensure that the Department's Chief Information Officer identifies roles and responsibilities related to the management of assets and human capital and legal expertise for the transition; develops a transition communications plan; and fully uses configuration and change-management processes in DOT's transition. (Recommendation 23)

Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Transportation (DOT) developed a transition communications plan and identified roles and responsibilities related to legal expertise, the management of assets and human capital. DOT has also provided evidence that they are requiring the use of change management in the transition. However, DOT has not demonstrated that it is applying configuration management processes to DOT's transition efforts. We will continue to monitor DOT's efforts to implement this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Transportation should ensure that the Department's Chief Information Officer fully identifies the resources needed for the full transition, justifies requests for transition resources, identifies staff resources needed for the full transition, and fully analyzes training needs for staff assisting with the transition. (Recommendation 24)

Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open

Comments: Department of Transportation (DOT) developed a transition resource plan that identifies functional roles needed for the transition, such as network engineers and staff to place new telecommunications orders. However, the transition resource plan did not identify the staffing levels needed for each of the functional roles, such as how many network engineers are necessary, and DOT did not provide other documentation that fully identifies these resources needs. In addition, DOT has not yet provided documentation that it has identified the funding needed for the full transition, justified requests for transition resources, or fully analyzed training needs for staff assisting with the transition. We will continue to follow-up on DOT's efforts to implement this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Transportation should ensure that the Department's Chief Information Officer fully demonstrates that DOT's transition goals and measures align with its mission; completely identifies transition risks related to information security, critical systems, and continuity of operations; and fully identifies mission-critical priorities in the transition timeline. (Recommendation 25)

Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open

Comments: Department of Transportation (DOT) provided evidence that its transition goals and measures align with its mission and that it has identified the risks associated with the EIS transition. However, DOT has not yet provided documentation demonstrating that it has identified mission-critical priorities in its transition timeline. We will continue to monitor DOT's efforts to implement this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Chairman of the FCC should establish quantifiable goals and related measures--performance indicators, targets, and timeframes--for its enforcement program and annually publish the results to demonstrate the performance of this program and improve transparency regarding FCC's enforcement priorities. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Federal Communications Commission
Status: Open

Comments: In 2018, FCC included quantifiable goals and related measures for its enforcement program in FCC's Fiscal Year 2019 Performance Plan, which is included in FCC's Fiscal Year 2019 Budget Estimate to Congress. FCC plans to publish the results in its Fiscal Year 2019 Performance Report. FCC expects to release this report in March 2020.

Recommendation: The Chairman of the FCC should establish, and make publically available, a communications strategy outlining the agency's enforcement program for external stakeholders, to improve engagement with the telecommunications community on the purposes, objectives, and processes the Enforcement Bureau employs to achieve its mission. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Federal Communications Commission
Status: Open

Comments: As of April 2019, FCC has yet to take action on this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should develop a comprehensive plan for shipyard capital investment that establishes (1) the desired goal for the shipyards' condition and capabilities; (2) an estimate of the full costs to implement the plan, addressing all relevant requirements, external risk factors, and associated planning costs; and (3) metrics for assessing progress toward meeting the goal that include measuring the effectiveness of capital investments. (Recommendation 1)

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

Comments: The Navy concurred with this recommendation and said it would take steps to develop and implement a comprehensive plan. Naval Sea Systems Command produced a Shipyard Infrastructure Optimization Plan in February 2018 to guide the overhaul and improvement of the naval shipyards. This plan includes some of the recommended elements but not others. (1) The plan includes some goals for the desired shipyard condition and capabilities including to: recover almost 70 maintenance periods over the next 20 years, modernize capital equipment to industry standards, optimize facilities, and reduce travel time and movement for personnel and materiel during the maintenance process. Navy officials stated the program office is in the process of creating digital maps of the yards to use in modeling facility layouts to identify the optimal layout. The Navy states that the optimal layout will recover 328,000 man days per year, a 65 percent reduction of travel and movement. (2) The report includes a preliminary cost estimate, but work is underway to determine the full costs to address all relevant requirements, risk factors, and planning costs. The plan identifies risks that could increase costs, but does not identify solutions to address those risks. Program officials said they will develop plans to address the risks in subsequent phases of the planning effort. The risks Navy officials identified included historical preservation, environmental regulations, and the need for extra capacity. (3) The plan did not include metrics for assessing progress toward meeting each of the goals. Navy officials stated that they intend to develop metrics to meet this element during a second phase that will be complete in fiscal year 2020.To fully implement this recommendation, the Navy should complete its optimization plan, develop a reliable cost estimate addressing all relevant requirements, risks, and planning costs, and develop metrics to help it assess progress towards meeting its goal that include measuring the effectiveness of capital investments.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should conduct regular management reviews that include all relevant stakeholders to oversee implementation of the plan, review metrics, assess the progress made toward the goal, and make adjustments, as necessary, to ensure that the goal is attained. (Recommendation 2)

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

Comments: The Navy concurred with this recommendation and said it would take steps to conduct regular management reviews. To address this recommendation, the Navy issued NAVSEA Notice 5450 in June 2018. This notice established a new program management office responsible for planning, developing, scheduling, budgeting, and sustaining the replacement of shipyard facilities and equipment. By creating this office, the Navy has taken a first step toward establishing a result-oriented management approach and toward implementing our recommendation to conduct regular management reviews. In addition, the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development, and Acquisition, in September 2018, required this new program office to provide regular updates to an Executive Oversight Council. These updates could serve as a foundation to address this recommendation. However, as noted in GAO-20-64, the Navy has faced challenges involving all the relevant stakeholders in the plan's implementation, namely the shipyards. In the absence of clear direction, the shipyards have worked with the program office to develop several informal collaboration mechanisms. For example, the program office and the shipyards have begun several shipyard-specific working groups and hold regular telephone calls. However, until the shipyards are formally involved in the implementation and assessment of the plan, the Navy will be unable to fully meet the direction of this recommendation to involve "all relevant stakeholders."

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should provide regular reporting to key decision makers and Congress on the progress the shipyards are making to meet the goal of the comprehensive plan, along with any challenges that hinder that progress, such as cost. This may include reporting on progress to reduce their facilities restoration and modernization backlogs, improve the condition and configuration of the shipyards, and recapitalize capital equipment. (Recommendation 3)

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

Comments: The Navy concurred with this recommendation and said it would take steps to provide regular reporting to key decision makers and Congress. DOD officials stated in October 2018 that the Shipyard Infrastructure Optimization Plan, along with the creation of the Readiness Reform Oversight Council, address this recommendation. While the Readiness Reform Oversight Council does appear to involve some of the key stakeholders who should be receiving the regular reporting, the Navy has already made clear that it sees the shipyard optimization process as a 20-year-long effort. Given that, regular reporting on progress cannot be achieved with a single disclosure at the beginning of the effort. Both Congress and DOD decision makers need to receive regular updates on the implementation of the shipyard optimization plan, and while it is possible that the newly created Shipyard Program Management Office will be able to provide such reporting, that organization is still being developed and, as of August 2019, no progress reporting has yet begun.

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: To better ensure that agencies complete important DCOI planning documentation and that the initiative improves governmental efficiency and achieves intended cost savings, the Director of OMB should direct the Federal chief information officer to formally document a requirement for agencies to include plans, as part of existing OMB reporting mechanisms, to implement automated monitoring tools at their agency-owned data centers.

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

Comments: In June 2019, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued an updated Data Center Optimization Initiative (DCOI) policy that encouraged federal agencies to implement automated monitoring tools at agency-owned data centers using more than 100 kilowatt hours of electricity. However, the updated policy did not require agencies to document a plan for implementing the tools as we recommended. As of January 2020, we have not received further update from OMB and the recommended action has not yet been taken. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretaries of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Homeland Security, Energy, HHS, Interior, Labor, State, Transportation, Treasury, and VA; the Attorney General of the United States; the Administrators of EPA, GSA, and SBA; the Director of OPM; and the Chairman of NRC should take action to, within existing OMB reporting mechanisms, complete plans describing how the agency will achieve OMB's requirement to implement automated monitoring tools at all agency-owned data centers by the end of fiscal year 2018.

Agency: Department of Commerce
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Commerce (Commerce) agreed with our recommendation and described planned actions to address it. Specifically, the department noted that, as part of its effort to consolidate, define, and establish a plan to deploy an enterprise-wide automated monitoring tool, it had identified two component agencies that would offer a data center infrastructure management tool as a service. The department added that this approach would allow it to monitor and report cost savings and avoidances more efficiently. In November 2019, Commerce reported that it had 73 agency-owned data centers that the department planned to keep open. However, of those 73, only seven had implemented the required advanced monitoring tools. As of January 2020, we have not received a more recent update from the department about how it will meet the Data Center Optimization Initiative requirement to implement monitoring tools at the remaining 66 of its agency-owned data centers. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretaries of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Homeland Security, Energy, HHS, Interior, Labor, State, Transportation, Treasury, and VA; the Attorney General of the United States; the Administrators of EPA, GSA, and SBA; the Director of OPM; and the Chairman of NRC should take action to, within existing OMB reporting mechanisms, complete plans describing how the agency will achieve OMB's requirement to implement automated monitoring tools at all agency-owned data centers by the end of fiscal year 2018.

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Energy (Energy) concurred with our recommendation and described planned actions to implement it. Specifically, the department stated that it established plans to implement automated monitoring tools at its 78 department-owned tiered data centers and planned to evaluate whether its 68 department-owned non-tiered data centers should be consolidated or closed. In November 2017 correspondence to GAO, the department further stated that, for the non-tiered centers projected to remain open, it expected to complete plans for automated server utilization by September 30, 2019. In November 2019, Energy reported that it had 92 agency-owned data centers that the department planned to keep open, of which the Office of Management and Budget exempted three from optimization requirements by. However, of the remaining 89 data centers, only 37 had implemented the advanced monitoring tools. As of January 2020, we have not received a more recent update from the department about how it will meet the Data Center Optimization Initiative requirement to implement monitoring tools at the remaining 52 agency-owned data centers. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretaries of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Homeland Security, Energy, HHS, Interior, Labor, State, Transportation, Treasury, and VA; the Attorney General of the United States; the Administrators of EPA, GSA, and SBA; the Director of OPM; and the Chairman of NRC should take action to, within existing OMB reporting mechanisms, complete plans describing how the agency will achieve OMB's requirement to implement automated monitoring tools at all agency-owned data centers by the end of fiscal year 2018.

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) concurred with our recommendation and described planned actions to implement it. Specifically, the department stated that HHS would direct its operating and staff divisions to acquire and install automated monitoring tools in all agency-owned data centers by the close of fiscal year 2018. In November 2019, HHS reported that it had 35 agency-owned data centers that the department planned to keep open. Of those 35, 22 had implemented the advanced monitoring tools. As of January 2020, we have not received a more recent update from the department about how it will meet the Data Center Optimization Initiative requirement to implement monitoring tools at the remaining 12 of its agency-owned data centers. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretaries of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Homeland Security, Energy, HHS, Interior, Labor, State, Transportation, Treasury, and VA; the Attorney General of the United States; the Administrators of EPA, GSA, and SBA; the Director of OPM; and the Chairman of NRC should take action to, within existing OMB reporting mechanisms, complete plans describing how the agency will achieve OMB's requirement to implement automated monitoring tools at all agency-owned data centers by the end of fiscal year 2018.

Agency: Department of the Interior
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of the Interior (Interior) partially concurred with our recommendation. Specifically, the department stated that it was committed to completing its plan on schedule, but that its ability to meet the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) requirement to implement automated monitoring tools at all department-owned data centers by the end of fiscal year 2018 depended on many factors and variables, including the availability of funding and other resources. Nevertheless, in October 2017 correspondence to GAO, the department stated that it expected to complete planning for the deployment of automated monitoring in agency-owned data centers by September 30, 2018 and to complete implementation by December 31,2023. The letter noted that Interior would prioritize implementation at major tiered data centers, with implementation at other data centers as budgets permitted. In November 2019, Interior reported that it had 55 agency-owned data centers that the department planned to keep open, one of which OMB exempted from optimization requirements. However, of the remaining 54 data centers, only 17 had implemented the advanced monitoring tools. As of January 2020, we have not received a more recent update from the department about how it will meet the Data Center Optimization Initiative requirement to implement monitoring tools at the remaining 37 agency-owned data centers. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretaries of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Homeland Security, Energy, HHS, Interior, Labor, State, Transportation, Treasury, and VA; the Attorney General of the United States; the Administrators of EPA, GSA, and SBA; the Director of OPM; and the Chairman of NRC should take action to, within existing OMB reporting mechanisms, complete plans describing how the agency will achieve OMB's requirement to implement automated monitoring tools at all agency-owned data centers by the end of fiscal year 2018.

Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Transportation (Transportation) agreed with our recommendation and, in November 2017 correspondence to GAO, described planned actions to implement it. Specifically, the department stated that its Office of the Chief Information Officer would create a plan of action to address the multi-layer requirements applicable to the department. Transportation expected to develop a plan of action that addressed the Office of Management and Budget's August 2016 Data Center Optimization Initiative (DCOI) guidance memorandum. The department expected to implement its plan by September 30, 2018. In November 2019, Transportation reported that it had 17 agency-owned data centers that the department planned to keep open. However, of those 17 data centers, only one had implemented the advanced monitoring tools. As of January 2020, we have not received a more recent update from the department about how it will meet the Data Center Optimization Initiative requirement to implement monitoring tools at the remaining 17 agency-owned data centers. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretaries of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Homeland Security, Energy, HHS, Interior, Labor, State, Transportation, Treasury, and VA; the Attorney General of the United States; the Administrators of EPA, GSA, and SBA; the Director of OPM; and the Chairman of NRC should take action to, within existing OMB reporting mechanisms, complete plans describing how the agency will achieve OMB's requirement to implement automated monitoring tools at all agency-owned data centers by the end of fiscal year 2018.

Agency: Department of the Treasury
Status: Open

Comments: In November 2019, the Department of the Treasury reported that it had 16 agency-owned data centers that the department planned to keep open. However, of those 16 data centers, only four had implemented the advanced monitoring tools. As of January 2020, we have not received a more recent update from the department about how it will meet the Data Center Optimization Initiative requirement to implement monitoring tools at the remaining 12 agency-owned data centers. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretaries of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Homeland Security, Energy, HHS, Interior, Labor, State, Transportation, Treasury, and VA; the Attorney General of the United States; the Administrators of EPA, GSA, and SBA; the Director of OPM; and the Chairman of NRC should take action to, within existing OMB reporting mechanisms, complete plans describing how the agency will achieve OMB's requirement to implement automated monitoring tools at all agency-owned data centers by the end of fiscal year 2018.

Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) agreed with our recommendation, and in November 2017 correspondence to GAO, described completed and planned actions to address it. Specifically, the department stated that it's Office of Information and Technology (OI&T) was developing a plan to fully comply with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) requirements to implement automated monitoring tools at all agency-owned data centers by the end of fiscal year 2018. According to the department, OI&T had taken a series of actions such as determining a strategy to meet OMB reporting requirements and reviewing the existing automated tools in use at VA. As part of its planning effort, OI&T was analyzing its data centers, collecting data through a web-based portal and automated tools, and implementing change management processes to manage IT assets in VA data centers. According to the department, OI&T expected to complete a written comprehensive plan by November?30, 2017. In May 2018, VA indicated that it had engaged OMB in discussions regarding how to classify its data centers and that the comprehensive plan would be completed by October 2018. In November 2019, VA reported that it had 279 agency-owned data centers that the department planned to keep open, of which OMB exempted 67 from optimization requirements and another 204 were pending OMB review to determine whether they would also be exempt. However, of the remaining eight data centers, none had implemented the advanced monitoring tools. As of January 2020, we have not received a more recent update from the department about how it will meet the Data Center Optimization Initiative requirement to implement monitoring tools at the remaining eight agency-owned data centers. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretaries of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Homeland Security, Energy, HHS, Interior, Labor, State, Transportation, Treasury, and VA; the Attorney General of the United States; the Administrators of EPA, GSA, and SBA; the Director of OPM; and the Chairman of NRC should take action to, within existing OMB reporting mechanisms, complete plans describing how the agency will achieve OMB's requirement to implement automated monitoring tools at all agency-owned data centers by the end of fiscal year 2018.

Agency: Department of State
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of State agreed with our recommendation and described completed and planned actions to address it. Specifically, the department stated that it performed an analysis of tools, including shared services and commercial-off-the-shelf products. The department also stated that it was developing an acquisition strategy based on its research and planned to pursue a commercially available product. However, the department noted that budgetary constraints may delay the acquisition until fiscal year 2019 or later. In October 2019, staff from State's Office of the Chief Information Officer reported that 3,897 of the department's 4,137 servers (94.2 percent) had monitoring tools installed. In January 2020, the staff indicated that the department planned to continue installing tools as funds were available, with the goal of completing installation by the end of fiscal year 2020. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretaries of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Homeland Security, Energy, HHS, Interior, Labor, State, Transportation, Treasury, and VA; the Attorney General of the United States; the Administrators of EPA, GSA, and SBA; the Director of OPM; and the Chairman of NRC should take action to, within existing OMB reporting mechanisms, complete plans describing how the agency will achieve OMB's requirement to implement automated monitoring tools at all agency-owned data centers by the end of fiscal year 2018.

Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Status: Open

Comments: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) described planned actions to address our recommendation. Specifically, the agency detailed plans to address OMB's requirements, such as leveraging EPA's current investment in a network monitoring tool and the intent to procure and deploy a data center infrastructure management tool by the end of fiscal year 2018. However, in December 2018, EPA determined it will leverage its current network monitoring tool for server utilization monitoring. The agency expects to have most data center servers monitored by the end of CY 2019. Once servers are monitored, the agency said that it will follow the most current OMB guidance to report required metrics. In November 2019, EPA reported that it had four agency-owned data centers that the agency planned to keep open. However, of those four data centers, one had implemented the advanced monitoring tools. As of January 2020, we have not received a more recent update from the agency about how it will meet the Data Center Optimization Initiative requirement to implement monitoring tools at the remaining three agency-owned data centers. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretaries of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Homeland Security, Energy, HHS, Interior, Labor, State, Transportation, Treasury, and VA; the Attorney General of the United States; the Administrators of EPA, GSA, and SBA; the Director of OPM; and the Chairman of NRC should take action to, within existing OMB reporting mechanisms, complete plans describing how the agency will achieve OMB's requirement to implement automated monitoring tools at all agency-owned data centers by the end of fiscal year 2018.

Agency: Office of Personnel Management
Status: Open

Comments: The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) stated that it partially concurred with our recommendation and described plans to address it. Specifically, the agency stated that it plans to consolidate its remaining data centers into two main locations by the end of fiscal year 2018. OPM further stated that this consolidation will obviate the need to implement automated monitoring tools at the data centers that are closing. Finally, the agency noted that it is implementing automated monitoring tools at the designated core data centers. In November 2019, OPM reported that it had two agency-owned data centers that the agency planned to keep open. However, of those two data centers, only one had implemented the advanced monitoring tools. As of January 2020, we have not received a more recent update from the agency about how it will meet the Data Center Optimization Initiative requirement to implement monitoring tools at the remaining agency-owned data center. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Director of the National Gallery of Art should direct the Office of Protection Services to ensure that program goals and performance measures linked to those goals are included as part of the master security plan and develop a timeline for completion of this plan.

Agency: National Gallery of Art
Status: Open

Comments: The National Gallery concurred with this recommendation and said it would take steps to implement it. In February 2019, the National Gallery approved the Office of Protection Services' 5-year strategic plan, which included goals for security. However, as of June 2020, work to establish performance measures was not yet complete. We will continue to monitor the National Gallery's progress in implementing this recommendation

Recommendation: To improve the consistency and effectiveness of governmentwide efforts to reduce the unnecessary use of SSNs and thereby mitigate the risk of identity theft, the Director of OMB should specify elements that agency plans for reducing the unnecessary collection, use, and display of SSNs should contain and require all agencies to develop and maintain complete plans.

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

Comments: As of April 2020, we have not yet received information to validate the agency's actions on this recommendation. Subsequent to the agency stating that is has taken action, we plan to verify whether implementation has occurred.

Recommendation: To improve the consistency and effectiveness of governmentwide efforts to reduce the unnecessary use of SSNs and thereby mitigate the risk of identity theft, the Director of OMB should require agencies to modify their inventories of systems containing personally identifiable information to indicate which systems contain SSNs and use the inventories to monitor their reduction of unnecessary collection and use of SSNs.

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

Comments: As of April 2020, we have not yet received information to validate the agency's actions on this recommendation. Subsequent to the agency stating that is has taken action, we plan to verify whether implementation has occurred.

Recommendation: To improve the consistency and effectiveness of governmentwide efforts to reduce the unnecessary use of SSNs and thereby mitigate the risk of identity theft, the Director of OMB should provide criteria to agencies on how to determine unnecessary use of SSNs to facilitate consistent application across the federal government.

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

Comments: As of April 2020, we have not yet received information to validate the agency's actions on this recommendation. Subsequent to the agency stating that is has taken action, we plan to verify whether implementation has occurred.

Recommendation: To improve the consistency and effectiveness of governmentwide efforts to reduce the unnecessary use of SSNs and thereby mitigate the risk of identity theft, the Director of OMB should take steps to ensure that agencies provide up-to-date status reports on their progress in eliminating unnecessary SSN collection, use, and display in their annual Federal Information Security Modernization Act of 2014 reports.

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

Comments: As of April 2020, we have not yet received information to validate the agency's actions on this recommendation. Subsequent to the agency stating that is has taken action, we plan to verify whether implementation has occurred.

Recommendation: To improve the consistency and effectiveness of governmentwide efforts to reduce the unnecessary use of SSNs and thereby mitigate the risk of identity theft, the Director of OMB should establish performance measures to monitor agency progress in consistently and effectively implementing planned reduction efforts.

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

Comments: As of April 2020, we have not yet received information to validate the agency's actions on this recommendation. Subsequent to the agency stating that is has taken action, we plan to verify whether implementation has occurred.

Recommendation: The Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration should direct the agency to develop a long-term facility plan that explicitly links to SSA's strategic goals for service delivery, and includes a strategy for consolidating or downsizing field offices in light of increasing use of and geographic variation in remote service delivery.

Agency: Social Security Administration
Status: Open

Comments: In February 2020, SSA said its Space Acquisition Review Board (SARB) continues to meet periodically and focuses on efficiently using the agency's resources to reduce its real estate footprint and proactively addressing organizational and operational changes. In addition, SSA said its goals, results, and future plans of its real estate strategy are documented in its annual Real Property Efficiency Plan. GAO reviewed SSA's Real Property Efficiency Plan for 2019-2023 (dated September 2018). This plan states that SSA is using two model field offices to test how emerging technologies and service delivery methods could result in reductions to field office space agency-wide. However, it does not include specific plans for adjusting its overall physical footprint in light of expanding remote service delivery. To close this recommendation as implemented, SSA will need to demonstrate that it has developed a long-term facility plan--possibly building on its model field office pilot--that links to its strategic goals for service delivery and includes a plan for adjusting its field offices in light of increasing use of and geographic variation in remote service delivery.

Recommendation: The Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration should direct the agency to reassess and, if needed, revise its field office space standards to ensure they provide sufficient flexibility to accommodate both unexpected growth in the demand for services and new service delivery technologies.

Agency: Social Security Administration
Status: Open

Comments: In February 2020, SSA said it published its consolidated and revised Space Allocation Standards and Space Computation Worksheets in June 2019. It said the revised standards include standardized offices, work stations, and employee personal storage space. To close this recommendation as implemented, GAO will need to see evidence that the revised space allocation standards allow more flexibility for growth in demand and new service delivery methods, or at least that SSA considered incorporating such flexibility.

Recommendation: The Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration should direct the agency to develop a cost-effective approach to identifying the most common issues with online benefit claims that require staff follow-up with applicants, and use this information to inform improvements to the online claims process.

Agency: Social Security Administration
Status: Open

Comments: In February 2020, SSA said it has identified the most common reasons for technician follow-up on the iClaims system, and based on these reasons has developed a list of potential future enhancements to iClaim. SSA said it prioritized the enhancements based on which would provide the most relief, but is still determining if enhancements can be made. To close this recommendation as implemented, GAO will need to see evidence that SSA has in fact implemented changes to the iClaim system based on the data it collected on reasons for technician follow-up.

Recommendation: The Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration should direct the agency for its alternative customer services approaches, including desktop icons and video services in third-party sites, to develop performance goals and collect performance data related to these goals.

Agency: Social Security Administration
Status: Open

Comments: In February 2020, SSA said it has developed performance goals for its SSA Express Icons: 15,000 new visitors annually and 50 new partner sites annually. It also said it continues to work on a dashboard for behavioral based management information data collection for the Icon project. This effort will allow the agency to collect better data regarding customer usage. For GAO to close this recommendation as implemented, SSA will need to demonstrate that it has implemented performance measures for its full range of alternative service delivery methods and is collecting related performance information.

Recommendation: As DOD continues to improve the completeness and transparency of subsequent joint reports' methodologies in order to assist Congress in understanding the basis of the NC3 estimates by documenting the methodological assumptions and limitations affecting the report's estimates for sustaining and modernizing the NC3 system, as we previously recommended, for future joint reports, the DOD CIO should include explanations of how DOD (1) selects program elements for inclusion in its NC3 estimate, (2) determines its weighted analysis ratios, and (3) differentiates its methodology for calculating operation and maintenance estimates from its methodologies for calculating estimates for the other NC3 line items.

Agency: Department of Defense: Office of the Chief Information Officer
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation. As of the issuance of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2019 Joint Report, DOD has taken some steps to address this recommendation. For example, DOD provided more information on the methodologies used to develop NC3 budget estimates. However, the methodology reported for NC3 estimates is still not transparent and DOD must still provide additional information beyond what the methodology in the joint report to clarify differences with the FYDP. However, according to DOD officials, actions will be taken to incorporate a more robust methodology that takes into account these issues in the FY2020 Joint Report. We will re-evaluate DOD's implementation of this recommendation as we review future joint reports.

Recommendation: In order to assist Congress in comparing year-to-year cost estimates between joint reports, for future joint reports, the Secretary of the Air Force should provide information about any programmatic changes (i.e., programs being moved from one line item to another) in its estimates and include an explanation of the reasons for those changes and how those changes may affect year-to-year comparisons of the budget estimates.

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

Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation. In the Fiscal Year 2019 Joint Report issued in November 2018, the Air Force identified some instances of programmatic changes in its estimates. However, not all programmatic changes were identified in the report. We will continue to monitor DOD's response to this recommendation as we review future annual joint budget estimate reports.

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

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

Recommendation: To better understand the available opportunities for collecting inmate health care utilization data, BOP should conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis of potential solutions, and take steps toward implementation of the most effective solution.

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

Comments: BOP agreed with GAO's June 2017 recommendation and has begun to take steps to address it. In 2018, BOP contracted with a management consulting firm to improve organizational alignment and strengthen data analytics capabilities. This firm is also examining data analytics solutions and by late March 2020 is expected to make recommendations to BOP to support a request for purchase (RFP) for the most cost-effective one. BOP anticipates the RFP will then follow within the subsequent three months. This contracting work is a positive step that should help BOP identify the most cost-effective solution to collect health care utilization data. BOP is still in the early stages of implementing this action, therefore it is too soon to assess whether its efforts will fully address GAO's recommendation. However, once these actions are completed, BOP could be better positioned to find a solution for collecting the needed data.

Recommendation: To better understand the available opportunities for controlling health care costs, BOP should implement its guidance to conduct "spend analyses" of BOP's health care spending, using data sources already available

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

Comments: BOP agreed with GAO's June 2017 recommendation and has begun to take steps to address it. In 2018, BOP contracted with a management consulting firm to identify opportunities to improve organizational alignment and strengthen data analytics capabilities. As part of this effort, BOP also contracted with a health care finance expert, who began working with BOP Health Services Division in June 2019. The expert has met with subject matter experts across disciplines to identify reliable sources for medical cost data, including medical activities data, staffing data, and medical cost data to support conducting spend analyses. BOP expects this effort to be completed by late spring 2020. This contracting work is a positive step toward implementing BOP's spend analysis guidance; however, since BOP has not yet completed this effort, it is too soon to assess whether BOP's efforts will fully address GAO's recommendation. Once BOP has completed this effort, it could be better positioned to identify opportunities for controlling health care costs.

Recommendation: To determine the actual or likely effectiveness of its ongoing or planned health care cost control initiatives, BOP should evaluate the extent to which its initiatives achieve their cost control aim.

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

Comments: BOP agreed with GAO's June 2017 recommendation and has begun to take steps to address it. In 2018, BOP contracted with a management consulting firm to identify opportunities to improve organizational alignment and strengthen data analytics capabilities. As part of this effort, BOP also contracted with a health care finance expert, who began working with BOP Health Services Division in June 2019. BOP is working with this expert to validate existing financial data sources and apply a standardized cost accounting model to evaluate the cost effectiveness of key health care cost control initiatives. According to BOP, the model is being developed in phases with the initial phase expected to be completed by late March 2020. The second phase of the model is scheduled to launch in October 2020. This is a positive step that will better position BOP to evaluate its health care cost control initiations. Since BOP has not yet completed this effort, it is therefore too soon to assess whether its efforts will fully address GAO's recommendation. However, once BOP has completed this effort, it could help BOP evaluate the effectiveness of its health care cost control initiatives.

Recommendation: To enhance its strategic planning for and implementation of health care cost control efforts, BOP should incorporate elements of a sound planning approach and (1) establish a means of measuring progress toward and effectiveness of its activities for its current strategic objectives and goals related to controlling health care costs; and (2) identify the resources and investments necessary for implementation of its planned health care cost control initiatives.

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

Comments: BOP agreed with GAO's June 2017 recommendation and has begun to take steps to address it. In October 2018, BOP initiated a contract with an external group of public administration experts to examine BOP's organizational structure and its lines of authority. The group completed its study and issued a report in October 2019, which included recommendations for BOP. According to BOP, the Health Services Division is in the process of creating a Strategic Plan Advisory Group, which will implement recommendations in the October 2019 report, and will establish a 2020-2025 Strategic Plan. The Strategic Plan Advisory Group will also evaluate metrics, including those related to financial performance that will, according to BOP, enable it to identify the resources and investments to help control health care costs. This action is a positive step that could help BOP enhance its strategic planning for and implementation of health care cost control efforts. However, BOP is in the early stages of implementing this recommendation; thus it is too soon to assess if BOP will find the most effective method for enhancing its strategic planning.

Recommendation: To improve the reliability and utility of its Federal Medical Center mission analyses, BOP should document the analyses and findings that underlie its recommendations.

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

Comments: In June 2017, BOP agreed with GAO's recommendation. However, BOP decided to end the Federal Medical Center mission analyses process. Instead, in September 2018 BOP established a Medical Referral Center (MRC) Executive Advisory Board, made up of BOP's Health Services Division leadership and wardens from all seven MRCs. According to BOP, the Board plans to develop and implement dashboard metrics by the end of calendar year 2020 to monitor essential functions at the centers, which it hopes will improve management of the inmate health care system. In the meantime, BOP reports that the Board has already developed and implemented the MRC pipeline patient dashboard, which permits the MRC wardens to monitor incoming patients in advance of arrival and to maximize the best patient care and housing until treatment is complete. In addition, the Board has developed and implemented the Memory Disorder Unit at one if its MRCs. This resulted in BOP making more efficient use its inpatient beds, as inmates that were housed in community hospitals could return to a BOP inpatient setting. While these steps might not fulfill the recommendation as worded, they have already resulted in some improvements to the utility of the MRCs, and therefore the intent of the recommendation. We will continue to monitor progress on this effort to ensure BOP develops and implements the metrics as planned.

Recommendation: To help ensure DOD takes a strategic approach for its prototyping and innovation initiatives and overcomes funding and cultural barriers, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering to develop a high-level DOD-wide strategy, in collaboration with the military services and other appropriate DOD components, to communicate strategic goals and priorities and delineate roles and responsibilities among DOD's prototyping and innovation initiatives.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation, but its progress on addressing it has stalled. In November 2019, DOD's Prototyping Guidebook indicated that the department was developing policy and strategy documents pertaining to prototyping. As part of this effort, the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Research and Engineering was drafting a broad DOD Research and Engineering strategy that would include strategies pertaining to prototyping and innovation and address this recommendation. As of August 2020, DOD had not published this strategy.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Army should conduct a comprehensive assessment to better understand the resources necessary for the requirements development process and determine the extent to which the shortfalls can be addressed given other funding priorities.

Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Army
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: The Army concurred with our recommendation. Previously, Army officials told GAO that they planned to implement this recommendation after the new Army Futures Command-which currently manages capabilities development for the Army-became fully operational. Although this command became fully operational in July 2019, Army officials stated that more time is needed to fully coordinate and implement this recommendation. The Army Futures Command will work with the U.S. Army Manpower Analysis Agency to assess the capabilities development workforce focused on requirements prior to programs entering the system development phase. Army officials estimate that this assessment will be completed in March 2021. In June 2020, GAO staff received a brief status update from the Army PAO who confirmed that this is still the plan.

Recommendation: To assist VA in improving key IT management processes to ensure that investments support the delivery of health care services, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs should direct the Under Secretary for Health and the Chief Information Officer to ensure that the department-level investment review structure is implemented as planned and that guidance on the IT governance process is documented and identifies criteria for selecting new investments, and reselecting investments currently operational at VHA.

Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Status: Open

Comments: In its comments on our report, VA concurred with our recommendation and provided meeting minutes for its Portfolio Investment Management Board and documentation describing the proposed alignment and interdependencies between information technology (IT) governance boards. According to VA officials, as of September 2019, the department had continued to further evolve its IT governance framework, reworked the committee structure and related working groups that oversee IT investments, and refined the process for prioritizing investments. A draft IT Governance Policy that describes an updated governance structure intended to implement IT solutions and an agile workforce was to be implemented by March 2020. The department has yet to report on the status and results of this implementation. We will continue to monitor VA's actions to ensure that the implementation is consistent with planned actions.

Recommendation: To assist VA in improving key IT management processes to ensure that investments support the delivery of health care services, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs should direct the Under Secretary for Health and the Chief Information Officer to identify additional performance metrics to align with VHA's core business functions, and then use these metrics to determine the extent to which the department's IT systems support performance of VHA's mission.

Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Status: Open

Comments: In its comments on our report, VA concurred with our recommendation. In addition, the department outlined steps it intends to take to address our recommendation, including developing a set of metrics to provide continuous input into investment portfolio decisions and establishing a methodology for ensuring that IT investments are aligned to business needs and that expected outcomes are defined prior to making the investments. According to department officials, VA issues a Joint Business Plan that identifies annual milestones associated with initiatives agreed upon by both VHA and OIT. As of September 2020, we are reviewing additional documentation related to the underlying processes that support the compilation of the plan and any related metrics for the associated investments that are to support VHA's mission. We will continue to monitor progress in this area.

Recommendation: To assist VA in improving key IT management processes to ensure that investments support the delivery of health care services, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs should direct the Under Secretary for Health and the Chief Information Officer to ensure that unmet IT needs identified by key program areas--pharmacy benefits management, scheduling, and community care--are addressed appropriately and that related business functions are supported by IT systems to the extent required.

Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Status: Open

Comments: In its comments on our report, VA concurred with our recommendation. The department described its intention to ensure that unmet IT needs for the pharmacy benefits management, scheduling, and community care program areas were addressed appropriately during fiscal year 2018 budget formulation. In March 2020, we met with officials from the Pharmacy Benefits Management program office, the Office of Veterans Access to Care, and the Community Care program to discuss the status of new service requests and the extent to which IT needs have been met since our report. While there was a slight decrease in the total number of new service requests that remained open for 5 years or more, officials from each office did not consistently report improvements in how IT needs were being addressed. For example, Pharmacy Benefits Management officials still waited for improvements that may come with the deployment of the new electronic health record system, but they continued to report that updates to industry standards should be addressed sooner and often IT needs did not make it through the prioritization process at the Veterans Health Administration to be considered by the Office of Information and Technology. Community Care officials reported a general improvement in the IT governance process and a more engaged relationship with the Office of Information Technology; however, the list of open new service requests still included long-term VistA-related enhancements, some of which had not yet been prioritized by the department. The Office of Veterans Care has not yet provided an updated list of open new service requests, but officials were satisfied with a new maintenance contract that allowed them to address a number of IT issues. We will continue to monitor the number of new service requests in each program area and the extent to which the IT needs are being met by the IT governance process.

Recommendation: To improve insight into cost changes for individual ships in the Ford Class, the program office should prepare cost summary and funding summary sections for each individual ship in the class as part of the SAR for the overall Ford-Class program.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: In its comments on our draft report DOD disagreed with our recommendation, stating that it currently provides progress reports to Congress on costs for CVN 78 and CVN 79. In July 2020, Navy officials stated that the department continues to disagree with this recommendation. We continue to maintain that Selected Acquisition Reports represent the primary statutorily required means for DOD to report on program status. Grouping average unit costs for all Ford-class ships obscures individual ship cost growth and does not provide Congress with an adequate level of insight to monitor this over $55 billion program. Our recommendation would ensure that Congress receives insight into the costs of each existing and planned Ford-class ship. To fully implement this recommendation, the report should include cost information on individual ships.

Recommendation: To implement the goals and policy priorities of the 2020 Federal Youth Transition Plan, the Federal Partners in Transition (FPT) workgroup--the Secretaries of HHS, Education, Department of Labor, and the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration--should develop a long-term implementation plan that includes milestones and specific agency roles and assignments.

Agency: Department of Education
Status: Open

Comments: In June 2020, the Department of Labor (DOL) reported additional efforts by member federal agencies of the Federal Partners in Transition (FPT) to collaborate to make progress towards meeting the policy priorities outlined in the 2020 Federal Youth Transition Plan. In addition, DOL has reported that it has formalized and assigned certain FPT roles and responsibilities, is currently evaluating the 2020 plan priorities, is developing a charter to further define FPT milestones and federal agency roles and responsibilities, and will update the Office of Disability Employment Policy (ODEP) website to highlight FPT milestones and timelines. We are encouraged by this additional progress and anticipate we will close the recommendation once DOL provides the approved charter and updates the ODEP website as specified.

Recommendation: To implement the goals and policy priorities of the 2020 Federal Youth Transition Plan, the Federal Partners in Transition (FPT) workgroup--the Secretaries of HHS, Education, Department of Labor, and the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration--should develop a long-term implementation plan that includes milestones and specific agency roles and assignments.

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open

Comments: In July 2020, the HHS reported additional efforts by member federal agencies of the Federal Partners in Transition (FPT) to collaborate to make progress towards meeting the policy priorities outlined in the 2020 Federal Youth Transition Plan. In addition, HHS has reported that it has formalized and assigned certain FPT roles and responsibilities, is currently evaluating the 2020 plan priorities, is developing a charter to further define FPT milestones and federal agency roles and responsibilities, and the Office of Disability Employment Policy (ODEP) website will be updated to highlight FPT milestones and timelines. We are encouraged by this additional progress and anticipate we will close the recommendation once approved charter is provided and updates to the ODEP website are made as specified.

Recommendation: To implement the goals and policy priorities of the 2020 Federal Youth Transition Plan, the Federal Partners in Transition (FPT) workgroup--the Secretaries of HHS, Education, Department of Labor, and the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration--should develop a long-term implementation plan that includes milestones and specific agency roles and assignments.

Agency: Social Security Administration
Status: Open

Comments: In November 2019, SSA again reported that it meets on a monthly basis in both the Federal Partners in Transition (FPT) steering and general meetings, and that these meetings have created a working, structured, collaborative effort to address the audit recommendation and meet the policy priorities outlined in the FPT 2020 plan. SSA noted that the voluntary, ad-hoc nature of the FPT precludes definitive role assignments and implementation plans. We continue to maintain that being a voluntary initiative does not preclude the FPT from establishing long-term milestones and clarifying roles and responsibilities. Further, a long-term plan can be changed, and need not be definitive. Without a long-term implementation plan that includes milestones and specific agency roles and assignments, it is less likely that the priorities outlined in the 2020 Plan will be achieved.

Recommendation: To implement the goals and policy priorities of the 2020 Federal Youth Transition Plan, the Federal Partners in Transition (FPT) workgroup--the Secretaries of HHS, Education, Department of Labor, and the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration--should develop a long-term implementation plan that includes milestones and specific agency roles and assignments.

Agency: Department of Labor
Status: Open

Comments: In June 2020, the Department of Labor (DOL) reported additional efforts by member federal agencies of the Federal Partners in Transition (FPT) to collaborate to make progress towards meeting the policy priorities outlined in the 2020 Federal Youth Transition Plan. In addition, DOL has reported that it has formalized and assigned certain FPT roles and responsibilities, is currently evaluating the 2020 plan priorities, is developing a charter to further define FPT milestones and federal agency roles and responsibilities, and will update the Office of Disability Employment Policy (ODEP) website to highlight FPT milestones and timelines. We are encouraged by this additional progress and anticipate we will close the recommendation once DOL provides the approved charter and updates the ODEP website as specified.

Recommendation: To improve NRC's ability to strategically manage the size and composition of its workforce and respond to changes in the nuclear industry, the Chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission should set agencywide goals, which could be ranges, for overall workforce size and skills composition that extend beyond the 2-year budget cycle.

Agency: Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: NRC generally agreed with this recommendation. In July 2017, NRC started a three-office pilot of an Enhanced Strategic Workforce Planning process to better integrate workload projection, skills identification, and human capital management, among other areas. NRC completed its enhanced strategic workforce planning pilot and now forecasts its workload on a 5-year time frame. However, as of May 2020, NRC officials said they do not plan to set agencywide goals for the workforce size and skills composition beyond the 2-year budget cycle.

Recommendation: To help NNSA put forth more credible modernization plans, the NNSA Administrator should include an assessment of the affordability of NNSA's portfolio of modernization programs in future versions of the Stockpile Stewardship and Management Plan--for example, by presenting options NNSA could consider to bring its estimates of modernization funding needs into alignment with potential future budgets, such as potentially deferring the start of or canceling specific modernization programs.

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

Comments: NNSA included a new section in the Fiscal Year 2020 Stockpile Stewardship and Management Plan (SSMP) of its analysis of the affordability of its weapons modernization plans. However, this section still does not include details about, or an assessment of, the options NNSA might have to take in the future--such as adjusting the schedules or scopes of certain programs or projects--to address an apparent misalignment between the future budget estimates of its portfolio of nuclear modernization programs and the projections of potential future budgets. Therefore, we will continue to review future SSMPs to assess whether NNSA has included additional information or an assessment consistent with 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 help ensure that the pilot programs for disconnected youth can be effectively implemented over the lifetime of the initiative, the Director of OMB should coordinate with relevant federal agencies to identify and estimate expected annual financial and staff resource contributions from each agency, including during the implementation and evaluation phases of the pilots.

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

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

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

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

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

Recommendation: To help identify what domestic CVE efforts are to achieve and the extent to which investments in CVE result in measureable success, the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Attorney General--as heads of the two lead agencies responsible for coordinating CVE efforts--should direct the CVE Task Force to develop a cohesive strategy that includes measurable outcomes for CVE activities.

Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open

Comments: In April 2019, DHS provided the National Counterterrorism Strategy as evidence that the department is including terrorism prevention as a necessary tool to meet its missions. While the strategy discusses terrorism prevention, it does not include specific activities or efforts, identify the agencies that will lead these efforts, or describe measurable outcomes for these efforts. In June 2019, DHS indicated that CVE-style prevention work would fall under a newly formed Office for Targeted Violence and Terrorism Prevention under which it will be part of a broad counterterrorism strategy that DHS plans to have ready by this fall. We will continue to monitor DHS's progress in this area as it develops its plan.

Recommendation: To help identify what domestic CVE efforts are to achieve and the extent to which investments in CVE result in measureable success, the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Attorney General--as heads of the two lead agencies responsible for coordinating CVE efforts--should direct the CVE Task Force to develop a cohesive strategy that includes measurable outcomes for CVE activities.

Agency: Department of Justice
Status: Open

Comments: As of August 2019, DOJ has not provided a response to our recommendation. In June 2019, DHS indicated that CVE-style prevention work would fall under a newly formed Office for Targeted Violence and Terrorism Prevention under which it will be part of a broad counterterrorism strategy that DHS plans to have ready by this fall. We will continue to monitor DOJ's involvement in these efforts as DHS it develops its plan.

Recommendation: To help identify what domestic CVE efforts are to achieve and the extent to which investments in CVE result in measureable success, the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Attorney General--as heads of the two lead agencies responsible for coordinating CVE efforts--should direct the CVE Task Force to establish and implement a process to assess overall progress in CVE, including its effectiveness.

Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open

Comments: In April 2019, DHS provided a commissioned review of CVE programs and activities that was expected to help identify ways to measure their effectiveness. The report provides a broad assessment of past activities and suggestions for measures and metrics going forward, but does not establish a process for agencies to measure the success of their activities or overall progress of CVE efforts. In June 2019, DHS indicated that CVE-style prevention work would fall under a newly formed Office for Targeted Violence and Terrorism Prevention under which it will be part of a broad counterterrorism strategy that DHS plans to have ready by this fall. We will continue to monitor DHS's progress in this area as it develops its plan.

Recommendation: To help identify what domestic CVE efforts are to achieve and the extent to which investments in CVE result in measureable success, the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Attorney General--as heads of the two lead agencies responsible for coordinating CVE efforts--should direct the CVE Task Force to establish and implement a process to assess overall progress in CVE, including its effectiveness.

Agency: Department of Justice
Status: Open

Comments: As of August 2019, DOJ has not provided a response to our recommendation. In June 2019, DHS indicated that CVE-style prevention work would fall under a newly formed Office for Targeted Violence and Terrorism Prevention under which it will be part of a broad counterterrorism strategy that DHS plans to have ready by this fall. We will continue to monitor DOJ's involvement in these efforts as DHS develops its plan.

Recommendation: To enhance the ability of the Executive Office of the President to implement the Revitalize American Manufacturing and Innovation Act of 2014 requirements related to reporting on advanced manufacturing, the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, working through the National Science and Technology Council and agency leadership, as appropriate, should identify the information they will collect from federal agencies to determine the extent to which the objectives outlined in the National Strategic Plan for Advanced Manufacturing are being achieved.

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Science and Technology Policy
Status: Open

Comments: In October, 2018, the Subcommittee on Advanced Manufacturing, Committee on Technology of the National Science Technology Council released a Strategy for American Leadership in Advanced Manufacturing. This strategy provided some information on progress toward achieving the objectives of the prior National Strategic Plan for Advanced Manufacturing; however, it is unclear what information is to be collected from agencies and likewise how progress toward achieving the goals of the current strategy will be measured. We will update the status of this recommendation when the Office of Science and Technology Policy identifies the information to be collected from federal agencies and how this information will be used to assess progress in achieving the current goals, objectives, and priorities.

Recommendation: In collaboration with cognizant officials within DOD components, the Director of Human Capital Initiatives should ensure that components have processes in place to verify the accuracy and completeness of data on the execution of initiatives funded by DAWDF.

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

Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation and the Human Capital Initiatives office has taken several actions to address it, including establishing a more detailed reporting process and providing new guidance to DOD components on how to use the reporting tools. The DOD components, however, have not yet provided Human Capital Initiatives responses to the updated guidance requiring them to provide information on the processes they use to confirm that the data submitted to Human Capital Initiatives on DAWDF initiatives were reliable and complete. In addition, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2020 made changes to the way that the Defense Acquisition Workforce Development Fund (DAWDF) was funded. The NDAA for Fiscal Year 2021 proposes additional changes to the way that DAWDF is funded and managed. Some DAWDF funding may go directly to the DOD components and will not be overseen by Human Capital Initiatives. Once the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2021 is finalized, we will reassess to determine if the recommendation is still relevant.

Recommendation: To further align efforts to address appeals workload and improve timeliness of decisions, and reduce the risk that efforts will not go as planned, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs should direct the Under Secretary for Benefits; the Chairman, Board of Veterans' Appeals; and the Chief Information Officer, as appropriate, to develop a schedule for IT updates that explicitly addresses when and how any process reform will be integrated into new systems and when Caseflow will be ready to support a potential streamlined appeals process at its onset.

Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Status: Open

Comments: VA concurred in principle with this recommendation. Moreover, since our March 2017 report, Congress passed the Veterans Appeals Improvement and Modernization Act of 2017, which required VA to develop a comprehensive appeals plan that included, among other things, descriptions of modifications to, cost estimates of and timelines for information technology that the agency needs to carry out appeals reform. However, more than a year after implementation of appeals reform, VA's February 2020 updated plan and FY 2021 budget request indicate that Caseflow has "minimal functionality", with many functionalities yet to be implemented. Further, VA's February 2020 updated plan and its FY 2021 budget request do not include specific steps or goals related to achieving overall functionality, integrated testing, or IT training for staff on new functionality still to be implemented in 2020 or beyond. While the VA's use of the agile process for IT development can help mitigate risks and avoid cost overruns and delays, VA's plans do not signal when Caseflow will support all of the Board's workflow needs for processing appeals under the new process. Such longer-term planning also could help ensure that all potential changes are anticipated in the plans of various VA components. For example, VA's February 2020 updated plan states that VHA cannot use Caseflow to efficiently and effectively manage its appeals workload. Longer-term planning could also ensure more transparency around additional resources needed to fully implement Caseflow versus other appeals-related technologies enterprise wide. We will consider closing this recommendation when VA has produced a longer-term plan for developing, implementing and integrating Caseflow functionality in support of a streamlined appeals process, including clear definitions of initial/minimal operating capability and full operational capability.

Recommendation: To better understand whether appeals process reform, in conjunction with other efforts, has improved timeliness, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs should direct the Under Secretary for Benefits; the Chairman, Board of Veterans' Appeals; and the Chief Information Officer, as appropriate to develop a strategy for assessing process reform--relative to the current process--that ensures transparency in reporting to Congress and the public on the extent to which VA is improving veterans' experiences with its disability appeals process.

Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Status: Open

Comments: VA concurred in principle with this recommendation. Moreover, since our March 2017 report, Congress passed the Veterans Appeals Improvement and Modernization Act of 2017, which required VA to produce a comprehensive appeals plan that required VA, among other things, to periodically publish a range of metrics, including timeliness, related to the processing of appeals under the new and legacy system. As of February 2019, VA implemented appeals reform; however 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. We will consider closing this recommendation when the Board establishes timeliness goals for all new appeals options and VA has produced a plan for analyzing whether the new process is an improvement. Closure of this recommendation is related to recommendation 2 in GAO-18-352.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Interior should direct the Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals Management, who oversees BSEE, to establish a mechanism for BSEE management to obtain and incorporate input from bureau personnel and any external parties, such as Argonne, that can affect the bureau's ability to achieve its objectives.

Agency: Department of the Interior
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: In its June 9, 2017, response to our report, Interior indicated that BSEE is developing new strategies to improve trust and foster greater collaboration for consideration by the new Director. In September 2018, Interior provided documentation of several BSEE actions, including establishing an Employee Engagement Council, an Innovation Program, and Ombudsman position within the bureau. As of August 2020, BSEE indicated that these efforts remain ongoing. However, this recommendation remains open because BSEE has not yet demonstrated that these actions represent an enduring institutionalization of improved communication throughout the bureau.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Interior should direct the Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals Management, who oversees BSEE, to address leadership commitment deficiencies within BSEE, including by implementing internal management initiatives and ongoing strategic initiatives (e.g., Enterprise Risk Management and performance measure initiatives) in a timely manner.

Agency: Department of the Interior
Status: Open

Comments: In its June 2017 response to our report, Interior indicated that BSEE will incorporate lessons learned from its first enterprise risk management cycle in future cycles and that BSEE will incorporate a performance management dashboard in fiscal year 2018. In August 2019, BSEE provided documentation regarding actions it has taken to implement and institutionalize its enterprise risk management and performance measure initiatives. In August 2020, BSEE indicated that implementation of these processes remains ongoing. However, this recommendation remains open because BSEE has not yet demonstrated that these actions represent an enduring institutionalization of improved internal management initiatives and ongoing strategic initiatives throughout the bureau.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Interior should direct the BSEE Director to address trust concerns that exist between headquarters and the field, BSEE should expand the scope of its employee engagement strategy to incorporate the need to communicate quality information throughout the bureau.

Agency: Department of the Interior
Status: Open

Comments: In its June 2017 response to our report, Interior indicated that BSEE's response to this recommendation would be incorporated into its corrective actions for recommendation one. In September 2018, Interior provided documentation of several BSEE actions, including establishing an Employee Engagement Council, an Innovation Program, and Ombudsman position within the bureau. As of August 2020, BSEE indicated that these efforts remain ongoing. However, this recommendation remains open because BSEE has not yet demonstrated that these actions represent an enduring institutionalization of expanded employee engagement throughout the bureau.

Recommendation: To support the consistent application of agency telework policy throughout the agency, the Secretaries of the Departments of Education and Labor and the Chair of the Securities and Exchange Commission should implement controls to verify that supervisors have completed telework training prior to entering into telework agreements with their employees and that completion of this training is documented.

Agency: Department of Labor
Status: Open

Comments: In a letter to GAO dated May 26, 2017, the Department of Labor stated that the department currently offers interactive manager/supervisor telework training to all supervisors, the completion of which is documented in the manager and supervisor training records. However, officials said this training was strongly encouraged but not required. In fiscal year 2019, telework training was added as a mandatory course for all managers and supervisors, the completion of which is documented in manager and supervisor training records and reported to departmental leadership. As of August 2020, the Department of Labor was developing and testing a telework tracking application system that will require and document completion of manager/supervisor telework training through the Department's internal learning development system before a supervisor can use the system to approve telework agreements. The Department of Labor anticipates the system will be ready for implementation in FY 2021. We will continue to follow up with the Department of Labor on this and will provide an update when available.

Recommendation: To help ensure that telework agreements accurately reflect telework participation, and to further ensure the accuracy of telework data reported internally and externally, the Secretary of the Department of Labor, the Administrator of the General Services Administration, and the Chair of the Securities and Exchange Commission should require documentation of regular or periodic reviews of all telework agreements in agency telework policies.

Agency: Department of Labor
Status: Open

Comments: In a letter to GAO dated May 26, 2017, the Department of Labor stated that the current policy requires supervisors to conduct an annual review of telework agreements to ensure the arrangement is current and the needs of the agency are being met. In October 2019, Department of Labor officials stated the department is revising its telework processes to include a defined procedure for managers/supervisors to document and report the annual reviews. As of August 2020, the Department of Labor was developing and testing a telework tracking application system that will require and document annual telework agreement recertification for all telework program participants and their supervisors to ensure a regular review of telework agreements. The Department of Labor anticipates the system will be ready for implementation in FY 2021. When we confirm that Labor has fully completed these actions, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: To improve the accuracy of telework data transmitted to OPM, the Secretary of the Department of Labor should direct the Chief Human Capital Officer to work with the Telework Managing Officer to develop and implement a plan to modernize Labor's telework agreement tracking system to enable more timely access to accurate telework data.

Agency: Department of Labor
Status: Open

Comments: In a letter to GAO dated May 26, 2017, the Department of Labor stated that it will benchmark best practices used by other federal agencies to explore options for utilizing its existing telework agreement tracking system to facilitate more timely access to telework agreement data. As of October 2019, Labor is developing a telework tracking application to improve access to telework data and the quality of telework data reported by its agencies. It is projected this tracking application will be launched as part of a broader internal web-based collaborative platform in FY 2021. When we confirm that Labor has fully completed these actions, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: To provide additional guidance to agencies and encourage the elimination of barriers to increased telework opportunities consistent with the act, and to ensure the accuracy of telework information OPM annually reports to Congress, the Director of OPM should strengthen controls for reviewing, validating, and reporting telework data in annual Status of Telework in the Federal Government reports. Specifically, OPM should follow up with agency officials on data outliers, including significant changes in year-to-year data.

Agency: Office of Personnel Management
Status: Open

Comments: In a letter dated May 16, 2017, the acting director stated that OPM did not agree with the recommendation. While OPM recognizes the importance of data accuracy to effectively evaluate federal telework programs, OPM does not agree that the Telework Enhancement Act imposes any obligation on OPM to allocate significant resources necessary to validate telework data collected from agencies or that a year-over-year comparison of survey data is needed or advantageous to ensuring a reasonable and rigorous data analysis. We agree that OPM should not independently validate agency data, but OPM should take the steps necessary to identify and explain data outliers and limitations. Because OPM is the agency responsible for reporting telework data, OPM should ensure its annual reports to Congress include a clear discussion of data reliability limitations. Following up on data outliers and large year-to-year changes can help OPM identify data errors that could be corrected by agencies and provide OPM with the opportunity to discuss data limitations with agencies. Including such information clearly in the annual telework reports to Congress can make them more useful to Congress and to others. As of January 2020, OPM has not taken action on this recommendation. If we confirm that OPM does take action in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: To increase the likelihood that its IT investments develop reliable cost estimates, the Secretary of HUD should finalize, and ensure the implementation of, guidance that incorporates the best practices called for in the GAO Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide.

Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development
Status: Open

Comments: In April 2017, HUD reported that the department concurred with the recommendation and noted that the Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO) intended to establish cost estimation guidance for IT projects within its IT Management Framework Guide, incorporating appropriate best practices from the GAO Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide. In March 2019, HUD reported that, with contractor assistance, the department had begun to develop a standard methodology for investment lifecycle cost estimation; however, the methodology had not been fully institutionalized across all investments, and a policy for cost estimation had not been developed. Lacking an updated IT Management Framework and cost estimation policy, OCIO took additional interim action in the most recent budget cycle to reduce cost estimation risk by having the Chief Technology Officer standardize the cost estimates for IT investments. HUD continues to take action intended to address this recommendation; however, OCIO has not yet finalized a cost estimation methodology or the associated policy for IT investments or established a timeframe for implementing cost estimation practices departmentwide.

Recommendation: To enhance its ability to fulfill its role as the facilitator of cross-sector collaboration and best-practices sharing, the Secretary of Homeland Security should direct the Assistant Secretary of Infrastructure Protection, Office of Infrastructure Protection, to explore with key critical infrastructure partners, whether and what opportunities exist to harmonize federally-administered screening and credentialing access control efforts across critical infrastructure sectors.

Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open

Comments: As of 2/12/2020, awaiting additional evidence/clarification from DHS.

Recommendation: To help the Air Force in its effort to address UAS pilot shortfalls, and to help ensure that the Air Force strategies to address UAS pilot shortages are tailored to address remaining issues, such as the significant amount of pilots who are temporarily assigned to the UAS pilot career, the limited amount of cadet interest in the UAS pilot career, and the workload of UAS pilots, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretary of the Air Force to revise the Get Well Plan to address these issues.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: Although the Air Force has taken some steps to address issues such as the use of pilots temporarily assigned to the UAS pilot career and has accelerated its efforts to increase recruit interest in this particular field, high operational tempo, manning shortages and increased workload among UAS pilots still exist. As noted earlier, in July 2018, the Air Force established a new office within its headquarters a focal point for overseeing RPA personnel matters throughout the Air Force and it established a career field manager (CFM) specifically for RPA personnel, placing the career field on par with manned aircraft pilot career fields. These latest efforts show that the Air Force is taking actions to address challenges to the RPA community beyond the stated goals of the Get Well Plan that we identified and on an enterprise-wide level. Because the Air Force efforts are newly instituted and it remains to be seen how UAS aircrew workloads will be affected, we believe that as of November 2019 this recommendation should remain open until more progress is made.

Recommendation: To help the Air Force in its effort to address UAS pilot shortfalls, and to help the Air Force ensure that its strategies are having the intended effects, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretary of the Air Force to monitor the extent to which that achieving the human capital goals in its strategy helps the Air Force achieve its programmatic goals.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation. According to headquarters Air Force officials, the Air Force has three program goals that are related to addressing UAS pilot shortfalls: to (1) meet combat demand, (2) staff enough personnel to UAS units to allow UAS pilots time to train and take part in development activities, and (3) provide surge UAS combat capabilities when needed. As of September 2019, the Air Force does not have enough personnel in UAS units to allow UAS pilots time to train and take part in developmental activities-known as being in "dwell." As of November 2019, Air Force officials state that they are able to "meet combat demand" but are not able to provide enough manpower to "surge UAS combat capabilities when needed." Therefore, we believe this recommendation should remain open.

Recommendation: To help the Air Force in its effort to address UAS pilot shortfalls, and to help the Air Force ensure that it is poised to meet future needs for UAS pilots, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretary of the Air Force to explore the potential use of additional flexibilities that would enable it to increase the number of UAS pilots in its workforce.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation. In a March 2018 report to Congress, the Air Force stated it had developed a deliberate plan to integrate enlisted pilots in the RQ-4 Global Hawk UAS as it provided the ideal environment to expand mission flexibility. Further, as another way to build capability in support of human capital strategies by using flexibilities, an Air Force selection board met in July 2017 to consider total force officer as well as civilian candidates for various test pilot positions to include test UAS pilots. Finally, the Air Force is seeking legislative changes to allow the Air Reserve Component to perform full time, 24/7, 365 operational missions such as the UAS mission, in Active Guard Reserve status. Additionally, in July 2018, Air Force is in the process of establishing a new division to be the Headquarters focal point for overseeing RPA personnel matters throughout the Air Force and they also stated the Air Force established a career field manager (CFM) specifically for RPA personnel, placing the career field on par with manned aircraft pilot career fields. Further, the Air Force is working on an initiative that would enable it to provide UAS pilots with "dwell time"-a time during which servicemembers are at their home station during which they are able to take leave, attend training, and recuperate. As of November 2019, the Air Force had not implemented this initiative. Additionally, the Air Force has increased the maximum annual retention pay for UAS pilots (and all other pilots) to $35,000. While the Air Force has taken some steps, it is too early to tell whether these steps will result in effective workforce planning outcomes that reduce Air Force UAS pilot shortages. Therefore, we believe that this recommendation should remain open until more progress is made.

Recommendation: To help the Army in its effort to address UAS unit training shortfalls, and to help the Army identify challenges that UAS pilots face in completing their training, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretary of the Army to collect feedback from UAS pilots in UAS units, such as by surveying, or conducting focus groups with them.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation. In its initial comments, DOD stated that incorporating feedback from the field is already an element of the Army's strategy for improving the sustainability, maturity, and health of its UAS workforce. DOD stated that our findings will reinforce the importance of using feedback to improve and refine the Army's overall strategy. In September 2019, Army Headquarters officials reiterated previous statements that they made that the Army has multiple agencies and systems that gather feedback to refine and improve UAS programs. However, the Army has not collected feedback from UAS pilots in UAS units via surveys, focus groups, to help the Army identify challenges that UAS pilots face in completing their training.

Recommendation: To help the Army in its effort to address UAS unit training shortfalls, and to help the Army identify challenges that UAS pilots face in completing their training, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretary of the Army to incorporate such feedback into the Army's strategy to address UAS training shortfalls.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation, and in its initial comments, DOD stated that incorporating feedback from the field is already an element of the Army's strategy for improving the sustainability, maturity, and health of its UAS workforce. DOD stated that our findings will reinforce the importance of using feedback to improve and refine the Army's overall strategy. In July 2018, Army Headquarters officials stated that the Army has multiple agencies and systems that gather feedback to incorporate and improve UAS programs. The officials listed a number of the systems in place to gather feedback on UAS units. However, the Army did not describe any efforts to collect feedback from UAS pilots in UAS units such as by surveying them or conducting focus groups with them. In September 2019, Army officials reiterated their 2018 comments and stated that Army has a number of the systems in place to gather feedback on UAS units. However, the Army has not collected feedback from UAS pilots in UAS units such as by surveying them or conducting focus groups with them and incorporated such feedback into an Army strategy to address UAS training shortfalls.

Recommendation: To help the Army in its effort to address UAS unit training shortfalls, and to help ensure that Army Shadow units meet minimum training requirements, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretary of the Army to revise its strategy to address UAS training shortfalls to ensure that it is fully tailored to address training issues and address factors such as lack of adequate facilities, lack of access to airspace, and the inability to fly more than one UAS at a time.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with our recommendation that the Army revise its strategy to address UAS training shortfalls to ensure that it is fully tailored to address training issues and address factors such as lack of adequate facilities, lack of access to airspace, and the inability to fly more than one UAS at a time. DOD stated that the Army has already taken steps to continuously improve its training strategy and that our findings will underline the importance of those initiatives, but that additional direction related to our recommendation is not necessary. In their July 2018 written update, Army officials responded to this recommendation by discussing a regulation regarding readiness reporting; however, the response did not clarify how the regulation might address our recommendation. As of November 2019, the Army has not issued an updated UAS strategy that addresses UAS training shortfalls including a lack of adequate facilities, lack of access to airspace, and the inability to fly more than one UAS at a time.

Recommendation: To help the Army in its effort to address UAS unit training shortfalls, and to help the Army ensure that it is basing its decisions to select individuals for UAS pilot training on sound evidence and to help it take advantage of the key benefits associated with effective personnel selection that could include reducing training costs, improving job performance, improving retention of qualified personnel, enabling leadership development, and enhancing organizational effectiveness, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretary of the Army to validate that the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery is an effective predictor of UAS pilot candidate performance in UAS pilot training and job performance.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with our recommendation that the Army validate that the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery is an effective predictor of UAS pilot candidate performance in UAS pilot training and job performance. DOD stated that it believes that the current graduation rate of soldiers from its UAS pilot school of 98 percent is an indication that the existing personnel resource predictors and practices are sufficient. It also stated that periodic re-validation is prudent, but specific direction to do so is not necessary. In its July 2018 written update about this recommendation, Army officials stated that the successful graduation rate from UAS Advanced Individual Training and suggested that this graduation rate may indicate that the existing Army approach is adequate. As we stated in our report, Army officials told us that senior Army leaders pressure officials at the Army UAS pilot schoolhouse to ensure that UAS pilot candidates make it through training. As a result, graduation rates may not provide the Army with reliable evidence that its approach to selecting personnel to serve as UAS pilots is providing the Army with personnel who have the aptitude for this career. Validating that the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery is an effective predictor of training and job performance of UAS pilot is an important step that would help the Army ensure that it is basing its decisions to select individuals for the UAS pilot career field on sound evidence. As of November 2019, the Army continued to maintain that the successful graduation rate from UAS Advanced Individual Training and suggests that the existing Army approach is adequate.

Recommendation: To help the Army in its effort to address UAS unit training shortfalls, and to help the Army ensure that it is basing its decisions to select individuals for UAS pilot training on sound evidence and to help it take advantage of the key benefits associated with effective personnel selection that could include reducing training costs, improving job performance, improving retention of qualified personnel, enabling leadership development, and enhancing organizational effectiveness, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretary of the Army to assess existing research that has been performed that identifies UAS pilot competencies.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with our recommendations that the Army assess existing research that has been performed that identifies UAS pilot competencies. In its comments, DOD stated that incorporating findings regarding UAS pilot competencies is already an integral part of both workforce and community management and that effective and efficient resource management, as well as force shaping and management processes, will help ensure that the Army's selection of candidates is consistent with the findings of existing research in this area. DOD stated that it does not believe it is necessary to provide additional direction or guidance to the Army to leverage existing research that identifies UAS pilot competencies. In it's July 2018 written update about this recommendation, Army officials indicated that the Army will assess existing research on UAS operator competencies to improve UAS operator selection. As of November 2019, the Army continued to express interest in assessing existing research on UAS operator competencies to improve UAS operator candidate selection.

Recommendation: To help the Army in its effort to address UAS unit training shortfalls, and to help the Army ensure that it is basing its decisions to select individuals for UAS pilot training on sound evidence and to help it take advantage of the key benefits associated with effective personnel selection that could include reducing training costs, improving job performance, improving retention of qualified personnel, enabling leadership development, and enhancing organizational effectiveness, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretary of the Army to incorporate relevant findings from such research into the Army's approach for selecting UAS pilot candidates, as appropriate.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with our recommendations that the Army incorporate relevant findings from such research into the Army's approach for selecting UAS pilot candidates, as appropriate. DOD stated that incorporating findings regarding UAS pilot competencies is already an integral part of both workforce and community management and that effective and efficient resource management, as well as force shaping and management processes, will help ensure that the Army's selection of candidates is consistent with the findings of existing research in this area. DOD stated that it does not believe it is necessary to provide additional direction or guidance to the Army to leverage existing research that identifies UAS pilot competencies. In its July 2018 written update on this recommendation, Army officials indicated that the Army will consider a cost benefit analysis on techniques that would potentially improve a process, product, or result related to selecting UAS pilot candidates. Officials went on to state that once the assessment is complete, the Army will incorporate relevant findings into the approach for selecting UAS pilot candidates. As of November 2019, the Army expressed interest in incorporating findings from relevant research into processes for selecting UAS pilot candidates.

Recommendation: In order for drug sponsors to benefit from FDA's revised guidance on antibiotic development and take full advantage of the QIDP designation, FDA should develop and make available written guidance on the QIDP designation that includes information about the process a drug sponsor must undertake to request the fast track designation and how the agency is applying the market exclusivity incentive.

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

Comments: According to HHS, FDA issued draft guidance (a document of frequently asked questions) in January of 2018 that describes the QIDP designation. However, this document is in draft form and has not yet been finalized. As of August 2020, FDA reported it is working to finalize this guidance this year. GAO will revisit this recommendation when the final guidance is issued.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Commerce and Under Secretary for Economic Affairs should direct the Census Bureau to revise and test procedures on how to better leverage enumerator-collected information on the best time or day to conduct interviews, and ensure enumerators are properly trained on these procedures.

Agency: Department of Commerce
Status: Open

Comments: Commerce agreed with this recommendation. In the Bureau's March 2017 action plan, it reported that as the Census Bureau develops enhancements to the procedures and training for enumerators, it will reflect on what it has learned from 2016 Census Test experiences as well as from recommendations such as this. It reported a target completion of December 2018, following completion and analyses of the nonresponse follow-up operation for the 2018 End-to-End Census Test. In January 2018, Bureau officials told us that leveraging enumerator collected information on the best time to conduct an interview would not be a part of questionnaire design's functionality for 2020 and will most likely rely on the system optimizer to determine the best time to contact a household. Bureau officials indicated they may push this recommendation out to 2030. During the 2018 Test, we continued to observe that enumerator notes were not being systematically reviewed by supervisors and managers, such that information such as office hours for apartment managers among other information we reported on was not being used by the operation. In June 2019, the Bureau informed us that it had added functionality to the enumerator device for enumerators to alert supervisors of case notes of "high importance" and was revising training to explain its use. Additionally, in December 2019, the Bureau shared documentation that reiterated the importance of enumerators reviewing prior case notes but clarified that enumerators should not expect their supervisors to regularly review those case notes. In April 2020, Bureau officials indicated that it was not likely that the Bureau would revise CFS training to systematically review case notes for the 2020 cycle, though we are following up with the Bureau to see if this can be done given the revised census time frames stemming from the COVID-19 outbreak. To fully implement this recommendation for 2020 and for future fieldwork, the Bureau needs to make better use of the information collected by enumerators during interview attempts about when to make additional attempts, such as during reported working hours of property managers for large multi-unit structures that house a large number of non-respondents.

Recommendation: To guide the nation's efforts to improve the federal food safety oversight system and address ongoing fragmentation, the appropriate entities within the EOP should, in consultation with relevant federal agencies and other stakeholders, develop a national strategy that states the purpose of the strategy, establishes high-level sustained leadership, identifies resource requirements, monitors progress, and identifies short- and long-term actions to improve the food safety oversight system.

Agency: Executive Office of the President
Status: Open

Comments: As of March 2020, the Executive Office of the President had not acted on our recommendation. In January 2020, OMB told GAO there were no plans to develop a national strategy on food safety. Instead, OMB said that the administration planned to work toward greater efficiency and interagency coordination within the framework provided by the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act.

Recommendation: To better inform on the effectiveness of CDS implementation and border security efforts, the Chief of Border Patrol should strengthen the methodology for calculating recidivism such as by using an alien's apprehension history beyond one fiscal year and excluding aliens for whom there is no record of removal and who may remain in the United States.

Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Customs and Border Protection: Office of the Commissioner: U.S. Border Patrol
Status: Open

Comments: DHS did not concur with this recommendation. DHS noted that the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Consequence Delivery System Program Management Office (CDS PMO) uses annual recidivism rate calculations to measure annual change, which is not intended to be, or used, as a performance measure for CDS. We continue to believe that DHS should strengthen its methodology for calculating recidivism. DHS noted in its comments on our report that the recidivism rate is used as a performance measure by U.S. Border Patrol and DHS. Additionally, strengthening the recidivism rate methodology would not preclude its use for CDS as a measure of annual change, and would provide Border Patrol a more complete assessment of the rate of change in recidivism. In January 2018, CDS-PMO officials stated that the office started reporting nationwide the recidivism rates for multiple years to U.S. Border Patrol sectors for situational awareness. However, the methodology for this reported recidivism rate does not exclude aliens for who there is no record of removal. In May 2020, CDS-PMO reported that it has not taken any further steps to implement this recommendation. To fully implement this recommendation, DHS needs to further strengthen its recidivism rate methodology by excluding aliens for whom there is no record of removal. Further, DHS needs to demonstrate that it is using this updated methodology on a recurring basis and for CDS performance measurement purposes.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Homeland Security should direct the Assistant Secretary of Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Commissioner of Customs and Border Protection to collaborate on sharing immigration enforcement and removal data to help Border Patrol account for the removal status of apprehended aliens in its recidivism rate measure.

Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open

Comments: DHS concurred with the recommendation. In May 2017, U.S Immigration and Customs Enforcement's (ICE) Enforcement and Removal Operations directorate provided immigration enforcement and removal data on a one-time basis to U.S. Customs and Border Protection's U.S. Border Patrol. In March 2018, U.S. Border Patrol officials requested that ICE provide these data on a quarterly basis. As of July 2020, ICE stated that it had shared the data with U.S. Border Patrol on multiple occasions. To fully implement this recommendation, ICE and U.S. Border Patrol need to document and implement their plans to share the data on a recurring basis.

Recommendation: To help ensure that FDA's foreign offices are able to fully meet their mission of helping to ensure the safety of imported products, as the agency continues to test performance measures and evaluate its Office of International Programs (OIP) strategic workforce plan, the Commissioner of FDA should assess the effectiveness of the foreign offices' contributions by systematically tracking information to measure whether the offices' activities specifically contribute to drug safety-related outcomes, such as inspections, import alerts, and warning letters.

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

Comments: In June and July 2018 FDA reported on its recent efforts to assess the effectiveness of the foreign offices' contributions to drug-safety related outcomes. These efforts include the development of new performance measures for these offices along with a monitoring and evaluation plan; strengthened communications and collaboration between the foreign offices and FDA program centers and its Office of Regulatory Affairs; and an assessment of the foreign offices to help set their objectives and ensure the right balance of personnel, skillsets, and resources. However, FDA still had to develop intermediate outcomes to link with final outcomes. In an August 2020 written response, the agency reported that because of a reorganization and strategic planning effort for its Office of Global Policy and Strategy, it was still revising and updating its measures and its approach to evaluating impact in 2020 to align with a five-year strategic plan completed in March 2020. The agency indicated that the recommendation should remain open, and GAO will continue to monitor the implementation of this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Deputy Secretary of Defense, in his capacity as the CMO and in coordination with the DOD DCMO, should take action, as appropriate and necessary, to improve the monitoring of the military departments' performance on business transformation efforts. This could be done by revising the Defense Business Council's charter to make the council responsible for monitoring such performance to reflect the responsibilities of the DOD DCMO to monitor performance across the entire department.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. In response to an Office of Management and Budget (OMB) memorandum requiring agencies to develop a reform plan to improve the efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability, the Deputy Chief Management Officer issued a memorandum requiring each DOD component--including the military departments--to conduct a thorough review of business operations and to propose reform initiatives to improve the efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability within their respective organizations. For those initiatives selected for implementation, components were required to provide additional information on their initiatives, to include performance goals and measures. DOD submitted its agency reform plan to OMB in September 2017, which included military department-level reform initiatives. According to an Office of the Chief Management Officer (OCMO) official, OCMO was in the process of incorporating the military department-level reform initiatives into weekly updates to the Deputy Secretary of Defense and monthly reports to the Secretary of Defense. Once the military department-level reform initiatives are incorporated into these regular reporting mechanisms, we believe DOD's efforts will meet the intent of our recommendation. As of December 2019, DOD has not provided additional information related to this recommendation.

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

Agency: Department of Commerce
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

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

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

Agency: Department of the Treasury
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

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

Recommendation: To continue the agency's efforts to improve state and local emergency preparedness for rail accidents involving hazardous materials, the Secretary of Transportation should, after the rulemaking is finalized, develop a process for regularly collecting information from state emergency response commissions on the distribution of the railroad-provided hazardous-materials-shipping information to local planning entities.

Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open

Comments: DOT published the Oil Spill Response Plans and Information Sharing for High-Hazard Flammable Trains final rule in February 2019. As of September 2020, PHMSA indicated that it wanted to close out the recommendation by adding 2 questions to the Hazardous Materials Emergency Preparedness grant application asking SERCs whether they receive information on High-Hazard Flammable Train operations and whether they are disseminating this information to local planning entities. OMB is currently reviewing the additional information request. We will continue to monitor DOT's efforts to address the recommendation.

Recommendation: To inform DOT's development of its national freight strategy and associated freight efforts, such as states' development of freight plans, newly established freight funding programs, and advancing DOT's efforts to implement national freight policies, in the development of the freight data strategy, the Secretary of Transportation should include a specific plan to identify: (1) appropriate freight data sources, information, and analytic tools for transportation modes involved in the freight network and supply chains; (2) data gaps that could help both the agency and states and local governments in the development of their freight plans, and an approach for addressing obstacles to developing high-quality, reliable supply chain information; (3) current and planned efforts that can provide insights into supply chains and their impacts on freight networks; and (4) how DOT plans to use the supply chain information and analytical tools to inform freight planning and programming.

Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open

Comments: DOT concurred with this recommendation. As of March 2020, DOT had not issued the National Freight Strategic Plan, but DOT officials stated that they are planning to issue it in 2020. To fully implement this recommendation, in the national strategy, DOT should include plans to identify data sources, gaps, information on supply chains and freight networks, and on how DOT will use this information.

Recommendation: To provide agencies access to SSA's more complete set of death data, Congress should consider amending the Social Security Act to explicitly allow SSA to share its full death file with Treasury for use through the DNP working system.

Agency: Congress
Status: Open

Comments: In fiscal year 2020, the Senate passed S.4104, which included language to address the recommendation. In the context of the Do Not Pay (DNP) working system, the bill, if enacted, would authorize comparison of the Social Security Administration's (SSA) full death file with personally identifiable information reviewed through the working system and would allow redisclosure of such comparison of information to any federal or state agency authorized to use the working system. As of July 15, 2020, the House has not introduced a related bill for fiscal year 2020. Additionally, in February 2020, the administration released its President's 2021 Budget, which proposes legislation to allow the DNP Business Center full access to the SSA full death file. This proposal would include the Department of the Treasury and the SSA working together to determine the most efficient manner to make full death information available for use in preventing improper payment and fraud. We will continue to monitor congressional legislation to address this recommendation. .

Recommendation: To better monitor agency use of the DNP working system once a strategy has been developed, the Director of OMB should develop and implement monitoring mechanisms--such as goals, benchmarks, and performance measures--to evaluate agency use of the DNP working system.

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

Comments: OMB agreed with the concept of monitoring mechanisms and will continue to work with agencies to reduce improper payments and encourage agencies to establish goals to improve payment accuracy that will be monitored and evaluated by OMB. In fiscal year 2019, OMB provided us a status update on July 31, 2019, stating that Treasury does this monitoring and reports updates to OMB on a quarterly basis and that monitoring will occur in conjunction with the President's Management Agenda. In August 2020, Treasury provided us examples of reports that it provides to OMB to assist OMB with evaluating agency use of the DNP working system. We plan to meet with OMB to discuss how it uses these reports and will continue to monitor OMB's actions to address this recommendation.

Recommendation: To reasonably assure that agency-reported information on use of the DNP working system is reliable, the Director of OMB should develop a process for comparing agency reporting on the use of the DNP working system to available sources, such as OMB guidance and DNP working system adjudication reports.

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

Comments: The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) agreed with the concept of ensuring that data are reliable and will consider the feasibility of a process to compare agency submissions to available sources to reasonably assure that agency-reported information on use of the Do Not Pay working system is reliable. OMB provided us a status update on July 1, 2019, stating that OMB will work with Treasury to determine feasibility of doing this review and establishing a process during fiscal year 2019. As of February 2020, OMB has not provided any new status updates for this recommendation. We will continue to monitor the agency's actions to address this recommendation.

Recommendation: To reasonably assure that agency-reported information on use of the DNP working system is complete, the Director of OMB should revise its guidance to clarify whether agencies should report on their uses of all of the functionalities of the DNP working system in their agency financial reports.

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

Comments: The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) agreed with ensuring the completeness of data and will continue to work with agencies and the Chief Financial Officer community to ensure that agency-reported information on the use of the Do Not Pay (DNP) working system is complete. In fiscal year 2019, OMB provided us a status update on July 1, 2019, stating that this recommendation was addressed in OMB's Circular A-136. Additionally, we met with OMB officials on July 31, 2019. During the meeting, OMB officials informed us that the OMB Circular A-136, Section II.4.5 (bullet 3) (dated June 28, 2019) states that "Agencies should provide a brief narrative of the reduction in improper payments that is attributable to the DNP Initiative, as applicable. See OMB Circular A-123, Appendix C, Part V for a thorough overview of the roles and responsibilities of agencies to use centralized data sources such as the Treasury Working System and other government databases to prevent improper payments." We have reviewed OMB Circular A-136 and confirmed that the circular does contain the statements above. However, we do not believe that the OMB Circular A-136 meets the intent of our recommendation. GAO issued its recommendation, in part, because GAO found that OMB guidance does not indicate whether agencies should report on all uses of the DNP working system, including those outside payment integration that the DNP working system does not track. For this reason, GAO report concluded that without complete and reliable data and clear guidance on what information agencies should report, OMB cannot effectively monitor and evaluate the use of the DNP working system. Therefore, we do not believe that the OMB Circular A-136 sufficiently clarifies whether agencies should report on their uses of all of the functionalities of the DNP working system in their agency financial reports. As of February 2020, OMB has not provided any new status updates for this recommendation. We will continue to monitor OMB's actions to address this recommendation.

Recommendation: To fully assess the size and composition of the medical force, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Health Affairs) to conduct a new analysis of the required number of active-duty and civilian medical personnel that mitigates known limitations.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. As of August 2020, DOD has not addressed this recommendation. In response to a provision in Senate Report 115-125, we assessed DOD's interim and final draft responses to a requirement in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2017 to assess the required number of wartime medical and dental personnel. In our ensuing February 2019 report, we found that DOD had not determined the required size and composition of its operational medical and dental personnel who support the wartime mission or submitted a complete report to Congress. Specifically, leaders from the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) disagreed with the military departments' initial estimates of required personnel that were developed to report to Congress. OSD officials cited concerns that the departments had not applied assumptions for operating jointly in a deployed environment and for leveraging efficiencies among personnel and units. We found that the military departments applied different planning assumptions in estimating required personnel, such as the definition of "operational" requirements. Further, although not required by the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2017, DOD's assessment did not include civilian medical personnel. Until DOD completes such an analysis, it cannot be assured that its medical force is appropriately sized.

Recommendation: To strengthen ongoing efforts to analyze the costs of medical force readiness and establish clinical currency standards, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Health Affairs) to take steps to identify and mitigate limitations regarding the standard for maintaining providers' clinical skills, including improving the accuracy of information concerning providers' workload and conducting an analytically rigorous calculation of active-duty providers' time devoted to military-specific responsibilities.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. As of August 2020, DOD has taken steps to address this recommendation, but has not completed all necessary actions. In February 2019, we reported that DOD had begun work on a metric to assess the clinical readiness of providers, but noted that the department's methodology was limited. In particular, the methodology did not provide complete, accurate, and consistent data or fully demonstrate results. Further, although DOD provided documentation in February 2020 outlining the medical specialties to which its clinical readiness metric would apply, it has not fully budgeted for the cost of implementing the metric. DOD's July 2018 report in response to Section 703 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 notes steps taken to assess the accuracy of information concerning providers' workload, but does not address the time active-duty providers devote to military-specific responsibilities. Until DOD addresses these issues, its efforts to analyze the costs of medical force readiness and establish clinical currency standards will remain limited.

Recommendation: To help achieve DOD's goals for transferring health care into its own facilities and increasing the productivity of active-duty medical providers, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Health Affairs) to develop a strategy for achieving these goals that reflects the leading practices of effective federal strategic planning.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. As of September 2020, DOD has not yet addressed this recommendation.

Recommendation: To strengthen ongoing efforts within DOD to address the Study's recommendations to use the provider model outputs to inform execution of health care delivery and to refine the model for future use, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Health Affairs) to modify DOD's model to reflect the military service of the physicians and military treatment facilities included in the model.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. As of September 2020 DOD has not implemented this recommendation. In its July 2018 report in response to Section 703 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, DOD stated in response to this recommendation that facilities in several large Military Health System (MHS) markets are staffed in a multi-service manner. While this is an important point, it remains true that, as the report notes, DOD's model "assumed uniformed providers were interchangeable," and that such an approach does not reflect the single-service nature of most medical treatment facilities within the MHS. Until DOD's model reflects this, the results of its approach will continue to be limited.

Recommendation: To strengthen any future assessments of additional changes to DOD's network of military treatment facilities, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Health Affairs) to describe steps taken to assess the reliability of data supporting the assessment, including, at a minimum, the sources of data, data limitations, and efforts to test data reliability.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. As of September 2020, DOD has taken steps to address this recommendation, but has not completed all necessary actions. In its July 2018 report in response to Section 703 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, DOD included the sources of its data and some data limitations, but not efforts to test data reliability. Until DOD fully incorporates assessments of data reliability into its analysis of future changes to the Military Health System, such as its implementation plan Section 703, it will continue to lack assurance that its approach is fully supported by reliable information.

Recommendation: To strengthen any future assessments of additional changes to DOD's network of military treatment facilities, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Health Affairs) to include in any accompanying cost estimates an appropriate level of detail, all significant costs, and an assessment of the reliability of the data supporting the cost estimate.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. As of September 2020, DOD has not addressed this recommendation. As we reported in May 2020, DOD's plan to restructure MTFs in response to Section 703 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, DOD concluded that civilian health care was more cost-effective than care in its MTFs without considering other assumptions that could affect its conclusions. For example, DOD applied assumptions about the cost of military personnel salaries, MTF workloads, and reimbursement rates for TRICARE that likely underestimated the cost-effectiveness of MTFs. Until DOD's approach to assessing changes to its network of MTFs is accompanied by cost estimates with an appropriate level of detail, all significant costs, and an assessment of the reliability of the data supporting the cost estimate, its approach will remain limited.

Recommendation: To ensure that the department can implement readiness rebuilding efforts, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretaries of the Departments of the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force to establish comprehensive readiness rebuilding goals to guide readiness rebuilding efforts and a strategy for implementing identified goals, to include resources needed to implement the strategy.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: DOD partially concurred with the recommendation in our draft report. In our draft, we recommended that the Secretary of Defense provide direction to the U.S. Marine Corps, in addition to the Secretary of the Navy; DOD stated that separate guidance to the U.S. Marine Corps was unnecessary because the U.S. Marine Corps is part of the Department of the Navy. We agreed, and revised our recommendation as we finalized our report for publishing. Otherwise, in its comments on this recommendation, DOD noted that the department was currently working to define the "ready for what" for the military services which would provide the target for their readiness recovery goals. Since we reported in 2016, the military services established both readiness rebuilding goals and a strategy for implementing them. Through the department's Readiness Recovery Framework, the military services have identified key readiness issues that their respective forces face and actions to address these issues. These efforts are detailed every other quarter in reports to Congress. Since the establishment of the Readiness Recovery Framework, the military services have been revising their readiness rebuilding goals. GAO will continue to monitor their evolution, as well as the progress of DOD's Readiness Recovery Framework, before it closes this recommendation as implemented.

Recommendation: To fulfill the role assigned to it under the 1980 Act, the Secretary of Commerce should engage with industry stakeholders and continually identify and assess critical materials needs across a broad range of industrial sectors.

Agency: Department of Commerce
Status: Open

Comments: In December 2016, Commerce provided information on its implementation of the recommendation from GAO-16-699. Commerce stated that it had developed an action plan consisting of the following steps: (1) consulting with relevant offices and agencies, including: OSTP, DOD, the U.S. Geological Survey, DOE, the U.S. International Trade Commission, the Bureau of Industry and Security, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; (2) determining criteria to be used when it is necessary to collect information to identify and assess critical materials needs; (3) determining appropriate steps, which might include: (a) developing a summary of information that federal agencies currently collect on the domestic and international supply of critical raw materials; (b) soliciting input from a broad range of industries through a Federal Register notice; (c) assessing aggregate information, as allowable under law, that is submitted through the Miscellaneous Tariff Bill process over the course of fiscal year 2017; and (d) consulting with federal advisory groups for advice; (4) determining the audience for collected information and methodology for information dissemination; (5) determining the process for identifying further information collection needs and methodology for disseminating collected information; and (6) determining the timeline and responsibilities for information collection and distribution. In an April 2017 update, Commerce stated that it had identified points of contacts in seven of the eight agencies listed in its action plan and is in the process of contacting them for input. Commerce stated that it hoped to identify an appropriate contact in the eighth agency in the near future. Commerce stated that it had also drafted questions to ask the agencies in order to implement the action plan. Commerce did not provide a timeframe for when it expected to complete implementation of the action plan. In a June 2018 update, Commerce stated that since the change in Administration, Commerce has not been able to identify staff in all agencies to work with, but that Commerce is now in contact with several agencies who are aware of industry needs. Commerce did not provide a timeframe for when it expected to complete execution of its action plan. We requested additional information on Commerce's efforts to implement this recommendation, including plans to solicit industry input, and will update the status of the recommendation based on additional information received.

Recommendation: To enhance the ability of the Executive Office of the President to coordinate federal agencies to carry out the national materials policy outlined in the 1980 Act, and to broaden future applications of the early warning screening methodology, the Subcommittee should take the steps necessary to include potentially critical materials beyond minerals, such as developing a plan or strategy for prioritizing additional materials for which actions are needed to address data limitations.

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Science and Technology Policy
Status: Open

Comments: In September 2017, OSTP provided updated information on its efforts to implement recommendations from GAO-16-699. OSTP stated that "the Subcommittee shares GAO's interest in improving data availability and granularity. However, in some cases, private entities and foreign governments may be unwilling or unable to provide (or even collect) such data. Additionally, the Subcommittee member agencies' financial and personnel resources are limited, and significant additional resources would be required to prioritize and pursue the data for additional materials and critical materials beyond minerals. Without the appropriation of additional resources, the Subcommittee's work on these additional items will be necessarily circumscribed." In its February 2018 report on the updated application of the early warning screening methodology, the Subcommittee stated that it saw the value in analyzing more minerals and non-minerals to help inform policy decisions, but that fulfilling this need will require additional dedicated personnel and financial resources for data collection, analysis, and distribution. In March 2020, OSTP stated that the Subcommittee has explored the possibility of expanding the scope of the early warning screening methodology to include critical materials beyond minerals. According to OSTP, possible expansion candidates include carbon fiber and critical chemicals. OSTP stated that it has initiated a discussion with the Department of Interior (U.S. Geological Survey), who has been leading the methodology development, and the Department of Commerce (Bureau of Economic Analysis) with regard to possible data that would be needed for such an expansion. In August 2020, OSTP stated that the expertise to expand data collection to additional materials of interest exists in the National Minerals Information Center (NMIC) at the U.S. Geological Survey; however, the capacity to expand beyond the current portfolio is not available due to budgetary constraints. We will update this recommendation when we obtain additional information on these efforts.

Recommendation: The Director of the Office of Management and Budget, in consultation with the Performance Improvement Council and General Services Administration, should ensure the information presented on Performance.gov consistently complies with GPRAMA public reporting requirements for the website's content.

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

Comments: In February 2018, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and General Services Administration launched an updated version of Performance.gov. Our updated analysis of information presented on the site in August 2020 found that it does not meet all requirements. However, OMB continues to take action to address this recommendation. For example, Performance.gov does not include a required inventory of federal programs. In July 2020, OMB reported that it is working with agencies to address this requirement. Beginning with the fiscal year 2021 federal budget cycle, OMB and agencies plan to merge implementation of existing web-based reporting of performance and spending data to provide a more coherent picture of federal programs and activities. We will continue to monitor the status of actions taken to address this recommendation.

Recommendation: If DHS's proposed CBRNE program consolidation is approved by Congress, the Secretary of Homeland Security should direct the Assistant Secretary for the Office of Policy to use, where appropriate, the key mergers and organizational transformation practices identified in our previous work to help ensure that a CBRNE consolidated office benefits from lessons learned from other organizational transformations.

Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open

Comments: We found that key mergers and organizational transformation practices identified in previous GAO work could benefit the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) during implementation of the proposed CBRNE consolidation. As a result, we recommended that should Congress approve DHS's CBRNE consolidation plan, the department use these key mergers and organizational transformation practices. In December 2018, the Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction Act of 2018 was enacted into law (Public Law 115-387) authorizing the proposed consolidation of CBRNE functions into a new Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction Office (CWMD office). In a memo to Congress regarding the new CWMD office, DHS stated that it remained committed to evaluating GAO's identified practices when implementing the consolidation. In August 2019, DHS provided us with information outlining efforts to use the key mergers and organizational transformation practices during the CWMD implementation phase. However, we requested additional evidence that all practices were considered. For example, one of the key practices is to use the performance management system to define responsibility and assure accountability for change. DHS created position descriptions for CWMD office leadership but we did not receive evidentiary support to demonstrate that DHS has added CWMD office transition goals to relevant employee performance plans. In April 2020, DHS estimated June 2020 for completing steps responsive to this recommendation. We will update the status of this recommendation as additional information is made available.

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

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

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

Recommendation: To enhance the budget process and to improve transparency, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, to the extent feasible, should ensure that the CJ includes data by appropriation account on the amount of funding requested to maintain current services for each future state theme.

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

Comments: In its fiscal year 2017 congressional justification, IRS modified how its budget data were organized, including linking requested increases to future state themes, but did not clarify how current spending by themes relates to appropriation accounts. Information on current spending by theme and account is important to ensure transparency on the current funding levels to assist Congress in making informed budget decisions. As reported in October 2018 in GAO-19-108R, the themes under the Future State vision are now being pursued as part of IRS's strategic plan for fiscal years 2018 to 2022-issued in May 2018. IRS has been phasing out the use of the term Future State and did not include it in its fiscal year 2020 congressional justification. Including data on the themes in the strategic plan would provide additional transparency and improve the quality of the information available to Congress for budget deliberations.

Recommendation: As Treasury works with IRS to improve the quality and accuracy of budget data, the Secretary of the Treasury should ensure sufficient controls are in place to make certain that the information technology investment reports generated from the SharePoint Investment Knowledge Exchange are accurate. This includes, for example, taking steps to reduce the need for manual corrections to the data.

Agency: Department of the Treasury
Status: Open

Comments: As of November 2017, Treasury Department officials took steps to address the need to manually correct budget data for the fiscal year 2017 budget request. However, as of October 2019, we have not received documentation that they have done so for future budget years. Improved information would help Treasury and IRS better account for information technology resources. We will continue to monitor Treasury's progress.

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: To better position the Coast Guard to effectively plan its Arctic operations, the Commandant of the Coast Guard should develop measures, as appropriate, for gauging how the agency's actions have helped to mitigate the Arctic capability gaps.

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

Comments: In June 2016, we reviewed and reported on the U.S. Coast Guard's efforts in the Arctic. We found that the Coast Guard had taken actions to implement its Arctic strategy and conduct Arctic operations, which may help the Coast Guard to better understand and mitigate identified Arctic capability gaps. Further, we found that the Coast Guard was tracking, or had plans to track, its various activities in the Arctic, but that it had not developed measures to systematically assess how its actions have helped to mitigate Arctic capability gaps. We recommended that the Coast Guard develop measures, as appropriate, for gauging how the agency's actions have helped to mitigate the Arctic capability gaps. Since that time, the Coast Guard updated its Arctic strategy in April 2019. In February 2020, Coast Guard officials stated that they are revising the implementation plan for its Arctic Strategy and are working on a framework tool to measure the impacts of its actions in the Arctic. According to Coast Guard officials, they expect the implementation plan to include actionable items that can be measured and the framework tool to include outcome and success measures. In July 2020, officials estimated that the implementation plan would be finalized by the end of fiscal year 2020. Further, the Coast Guard issued a contract in August 2019 to help develop the framework tool by the end of fiscal year 2020. Officials stated that the tool may require revisions before it is finalized and implemented and that throughout fiscal year 2021 they will test, evaluate, and adjust the framework tool, as appropriate. To fully address this recommendation, the Coast Guard will need to finalize the development of its measures to gauge how its actions have helped to mitigate Arctic capability gaps, which we will continue to monitor.

Recommendation: To better position the Coast Guard to effectively plan its Arctic operations, the Commandant of the Coast Guard should design and implement a process to systematically assess the extent to which actions taken agency-wide have helped mitigate the Arctic capability gaps for which it has responsibility.

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

Comments: In June 2016, we reviewed and reported on the U.S. Coast Guard's efforts in the Arctic. We found that the Coast Guard had taken actions to implement its Arctic strategy and conduct Arctic operations, which may help the Coast Guard to better understand and mitigate identified Arctic capability gaps. Further, we found that the Coast Guard was tracking, or had plans to track, its various activities in the Arctic, but that it had not systematically assessed how its actions have helped to mitigate Arctic capability gaps. We recommended that the Coast Guard design and implement a process to systematically assess the extent to which actions taken agency-wide have helped mitigate the Arctic capability gaps for which it has responsibility, so that it will better understand the status of these gaps and be better positioned to effectively plan its Arctic operations. Since that time, the Coast Guard updated its Arctic strategy in April 2019. In February 2020, Coast Guard officials stated that they are revising the implementation plan for its Arctic Strategy and are working on a framework tool to measure the impacts of its actions in the Arctic. Officials estimated that the implementation plan would be finalized by the end of fiscal year 2020. Further, the Coast Guard issued a contract in August 2019 to help develop the framework tool by the end of fiscal year 2020. Officials stated that the tool may require revisions before it is implemented and utilized for assessment of its progress. In July 2020, Coast Guard officials stated that they plan to test, evaluate, and adjust the framework tool, as appropriate, throughout fiscal year 2021. To fully address this recommendation, the Coast Guard will need to assess how its actions have helped to mitigate Arctic capability gaps, and provide documentation that identifies the progress it has made in helping to mitigate Arctic capability gaps and its plans to systematically assess progress, which we will continue to monitor.

Recommendation: To better ensure that the Dashboard ratings more accurately reflect risk, the Secretaries of the Departments of Agriculture, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, the Interior, State, and Veterans Affairs; and the Director of the Office of Personnel Management should direct their CIOs to factor active risks into their IT Dashboard CIO ratings.

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) agreed with the recommendation and, in a written response, stated that it updated its CIO evaluation methodology to measure active risks in areas such as budget variance, performance, policy and governance compliance, risk management, and contract risk. HHS submitted a draft version of this methodology in June 2018. Upon reviewing this documentation, however, we did not see evidence that the department was factoring active risks into its CIO ratings. In May 2019, HHS officials stated that they planned to update their CIO rating methodology to focus on active risk; however, department documentation from August 2020 stated that the new CIO rating methodology is still in draft form and is not finalized. We will continue to monitor HHS's efforts in implementing this recommendation.

Recommendation: To better ensure that the Dashboard ratings more accurately reflect risk, the Secretaries of the Departments of Agriculture, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, the Interior, State, and Veterans Affairs; and the Director of the Office of Personnel Management should direct their CIOs to factor active risks into their IT Dashboard CIO ratings.

Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) agreed with the recommendation and, in a written response, stated that the department was amending its CIO rating review process to ensure that active risks are factored into its IT Dashboard CIO ratings. In August 2020, VA submitted documentation for this new process; however, this documentation did not state how the department incorporates active risks into its investments' CIO ratings. We will continue to monitor the implementation of this recommendation.

Recommendation: To better ensure that the Dashboard ratings more accurately reflect risk, the Secretaries of the Departments of Agriculture, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, the Interior, State, and Veterans Affairs; and the Director of the Office of Personnel Management should direct their CIOs to factor active risks into their IT Dashboard CIO ratings.

Agency: Department of State
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of State (State) agreed with the recommendation, and, in an October 2017 response, stated that it currently evaluates risk as part of its IT governance activities. In March 2019, State informed us that its Bureau of Information Resource Management was developing a new policy and associated guidance for calculating its CIO risk ratings; however, as of September 2020, we have not received this new documentation. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.

Recommendation: To better ensure that the Dashboard ratings more accurately reflect risk, the Secretaries of the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, State, Transportation, the Treasury, Veterans Affairs; the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency; and the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration should direct their CIOs to ensure that their CIO ratings reflect the level of risk facing an investment relative to that investment's ability to accomplish its goals.

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) agreed with the recommendation and, in a written response, stated that it updated its CIO evaluation methodology to measure active risks in areas such as budget variance, performance, policy and governance compliance, risk management, and contract risk. According to HHS, these risk areas reflect both internal and external risks that affect an investment's ability to accomplish its goals. HHS submitted a draft version of this methodology in June 2018. While this documentation showed that HHS factored investment qualities related to overall project riskiness, it did not specify that active investment risks were also being factored as part of the evaluation. Without an additional focus on active risk, this methodology is unlikely to ensure that HHS's CIO ratings reflect the level of risk facing an investment. In May 2019, HHS officials stated that they planned to update their CIO rating methodology; however, per HHS documentation dated August 2020, this new methodology is still in draft form and is not finalized. We will continue to monitor HHS's efforts in implementing this recommendation.

Recommendation: To better ensure that the Dashboard ratings more accurately reflect risk, the Secretaries of the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, State, Transportation, the Treasury, Veterans Affairs; the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency; and the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration should direct their CIOs to ensure that their CIO ratings reflect the level of risk facing an investment relative to that investment's ability to accomplish its goals.

Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) agreed with the recommendation and, in a written response, stated that it will ensure that CIO ratings reflect the level of risk facing its investments. In August 2020, VA submitted documentation for an updated CIO ratings process; however, this process documentation did not state how the department incorporates active risks into its investments' CIO ratings. Without a consideration of active risks, VA's CIO rating process may not produce ratings that reflect the level of risk facing VA's investments. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.

Recommendation: To better ensure that the Dashboard ratings more accurately reflect risk, the Secretaries of the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, State, Transportation, the Treasury, Veterans Affairs; the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency; and the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration should direct their CIOs to ensure that their CIO ratings reflect the level of risk facing an investment relative to that investment's ability to accomplish its goals.

Agency: Department of State
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of State (State) agreed with the recommendation and has provided information on how investment risk is evaluated as part of its IT governance activities. In March 2019, State informed us that its Bureau of Information Resource Management was developing a new policy and associated guidance for calculating its CIO risk ratings; however, as of September 2020, we have not received this new documentation. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.

Recommendation: To better ensure that FAMS uses its resources to cover the highest-risk flights, in addition to considering risk when determining how to divide FAMS's international flight coverage resources among international destinations, the Director of FAMS should incorporate risk into FAMS's method for initially setting its annual target numbers of average daily international and domestic flights to cover.

Agency: Department of Homeland Security: Transportation Security Administration: Office of Law Enforcement - Federal Air Marshal Service
Status: Open

Comments: In May 2016, we found that FAMS officials considered risk when selecting specific domestic and international flights to cover, but they did not consider risk when deciding how to initially divide their annual resources between domestic and international flights. Rather, each year FAMS considered two variables--travel budget and number of air marshals--to identify the most efficient way to divide the agency's resources between domestic and international flights. As a result, we recommended that FAMS incorporate risk into FAMS's method for initially setting its annual target numbers of average daily international and domestic flights to cover. In March 2018, FAMS revised its deployment methodology to no longer set an annual target number of average daily international and domestic flights to cover. Rather, FAMS now prioritizes deploying air marshals on as many flights as possible with passengers who have been identified as potentially higher risk because they match TSA's intelligence-based screening rules, among other risk-based priorities. In August 2020, FAMS officials explained that they were evaluating their concept of operations and planned to more fully develop a risk basis for dividing its resources between international and domestic flights. By doing so, FAMS could better ensure it is targeting its limited resources to the highest risk flights and better aligning with FAMS's stated goal of using risk-based decisions to guide mission operations. As a result, this recommendation remains open.

Recommendation: To enable a more effective approach in working with states to adopt the NDRF, the Secretary of Homeland Security should direct the Administrator of FEMA to clarify with regional offices and Federal Disaster Recovery Coordinators (FDRCs) the role of the regional implementation plans in FDRC performance plans and how they will be used to assess NDRF regional implementation efforts.

Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open

Comments: DHS concurred with this recommendation and said it would take steps to implement it. According to FEMA, to achieve greater integration of FEMA's field leadership components, FEMA's Field Operations Directorate (FOD) convened a Field Leadership Working Group of senior subject matter experts to conduct a mission analysis of FEMA's Field Leadership function (which includes Federal Disaster Recovery Coordinators as well as Federal Coordinating Officers and Incident Management Assistance Teams team leads). According to FEMA, the Working Group was preparing a Field Leader Manual (FLM) for review by FOD leadership. FEMA officials told us that the 2018 Hurricane season led to the deployment of many of FEMA's FOD leaders. These deployments allowed FOD leaders to experience first-hand the connection between regional implementation plans and FDRC performance plans and FEMA said that this knowledge is being integrated into edits of the FLM. In February 2020, FEMA told us that the FOD leadership responsible for the oversight of FDRCs is still determining the timeline to update the FLM based on a realignment of the Field Leadership Cadre. This update will integrate the Federal Coordinating Officers (FCOs) and FDRCs into a single FCO title with professional development specializations in response or recovery. This integration will support all FCOs in having a common baseline of training and experience in both response and recovery. In an August 2020 update, FEMA stated that while they continue to work toward implementing this recommendation, the FOD is currently focused on COVID-19 response efforts and planning for a more severe than average hurricane season. We will continue to monitor FEMA's efforts to see what additional actions the agency takes in response to this recommendation.

Recommendation: To enable a more effective approach in working with states to adopt the NDRF, the Secretary of Homeland Security should direct the Administrator of FEMA to align the annual FDRC performance expectations with clearly defined organizational goals and priorities, consistent with key management practices.

Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open

Comments: DHS concurred with this recommendation and said it would take steps to implement it. According to FEMA, the Field Leadership Working Group will implement the elements of this recommendation alongside efforts to clarify the role of the regional National Disaster Recovery Framework implementation plans. FEMA told us that the 2018 Hurricane season led to the deployment of many of FEMA's field leaders and these deployments allowed leaders to experience first-hand the connection between FDRC performance expectations and FEMA's organizational goals. According to FEMA, this knowledge is being integrated into edits of the Field Leader Manual (FLM). In February 2020, FEMA told us the FOD leadership responsible for the oversight of FDRCs is working with their partners in FEMA's Recovery and Resilience sections, as well as with the Regions to define performance expectations for steady-state recovery planning and preparedness under the NDRF. This will include identifying who is functionally accountable for these activities, any gaps, and best practices across Regions. In an August 2020 update, FEMA stated that while they continue to work toward implementing this recommendation, the FOD is currently focused on COVID-19 response efforts and planning for a more severe than average hurricane season. We will continue to monitor FEMA's efforts to see what additional actions the agency takes in response to this recommendation.

Recommendation: To improve transparency in allocating its limited resources, and to help ensure that its resource allocation decisions are the most effective ones for fulfilling its missions given existing risks, the Commandant of the Coast Guard should document how the risk assessments conducted were used to inform and support its annual asset allocation decisions.

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

Comments: In February 2018, the Coast Guard liaison stated that Coast Guard management made a decision to not to address this recommendation within the annual Strategic Planning Direction (SPD) or Operational Planning Direction (OPD) products as previously planned, but rather within the Standard Operational Planning Process/Global Force Management Process Guide. The liaison further stated that both of these documents are currently under revision and expected to be completed by March 31, 2018. On October 11, 2018, the Coast Guard liaison stated that The Standard Operational Planning Process/Global Force Management Instruction is in routing for edits, comment, and final approval. The new estimated completion date is the 2nd quarter of FY 2019. GAO sent an inquiry to the Coast Guard on April 24, 2019 and is awaiting a reply. On March 30, 2020, the Coast Guard liaison informed GAO that the update to the Standard Operational Planning Process (SOPP)/Global Force Management (GFM) Instruction, which includes the addition and test of Strategic Priorities Planning Guidance and the new Coast Guard Force Allocation Matrix, was further delayed due to recent discussions of changing to a 2-year SOPP planning cycle to align with the Department of Defense Global Force Management process. This change would further require an update of the SOPP/GFM Instruction. The COVID-19 crisis as well as the need to finalize the Strategic Planning Direction by June 2020 are also factors in this delay. New Estimated Completion Date (ECD): June 30, 2021.

Recommendation: To ensure that high priority mission activities are fully supported with the appropriate number of staff possessing the requisite mix of skills and abilities, the Commandant of the Coast Guard should develop a systematic process that prioritizes manpower requirements analyses for units that are the most critical for achieving mission needs.

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

Comments: On December 14, 2016, the Coast Guard noted that it submitted two FY 2019 Resource Proposals to staff and equip the Manpower Requirements Determination Division to conduct the analysis as described in the recommendation. In April, 2016, the Coast Guard liaison stated that, resources permitting, the Coast Guard is to address the following steps: (1) Validate the "unit-type" list so that it encompasses the vast majority of active duty and civilian billets in a logical framework that can be readily analyzed, review/update the list as changes (e.g., asset mix, organizations) occur. (2) Develop the requirements for the envisioned Manpower Analysis & Simulation Tool (MAST). (3) Prioritize unit list according to strategic alignment and risk assessment (4) Conduct the manpower requirements analyses (MRA) in accordance with established priorities. As of August 2020, the Coast Guard reported it had not implemented the actions. Specifically, the Coast Guard reported that in response to GAO's February 2020 modernization report (GAO-20-223, rec#2), it was developing new guidance for executing the manpower requirement determination process. Officials told us that the new guidance would include a systematic process for prioritizing manpower analysis. In this way, the actions for implementing the GAO-20-223 recommendation may also serve to meet the intent of the recommendation for GAO-16-379. Officials told us the Coast Guard estimated implementing the actions by December 31, 2020.

Recommendation: To improve the strategic allocation of assets, the Commandant of the Coast Guard should incorporate field unit input, such as information on assets' actual performance from Operational Performance Assessment Reports and Planning Assessments, to inform more realistic asset allocation decisions--in addition to asset performance capacities currently used--in the annual Strategic Planning Directions to more effectively communicate strategic intent to field units.

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

Comments: In February 2018, the Coast Guard liaison stated that Coast Guard management made a decision to not to address this recommendation within the annual Strategic Planning Direction (SPD) or Operational Planning Direction (OPD) products as previously planned, but rather within the Standard Operational Planning Process/Global Force Management Process Guide. The liaison further stated these documents are under revision and expected to be completed by March 31, 2018. On October 11, 2018, the Coast Guard liaison stated that The Standard Operational Planning Process/Global Force Management Instruction is in routing for edits, comment, and final approval. The new estimated completion date is the 2nd quarter of FY 2019. GAO sent an inquiry to the Coast Guard on April 24, 2019 asking for an update. On March 30, 2020, the Coast Guard liaison informed GAO that the update to the SOPP/GFM Instruction, which includes the addition and test of Strategic Priorities Planning Guidance and the new Coast Guard Force Allocation Matrix, was further delayed due to recent discussions of changing to a 2-year SOPP planning cycle to align with the Department of Defense Global Force Management process. The liaison stated that the COVID-19 crisis as well as the need to finalize the Strategic Planning Direction by June 2020 are also factors in this delay. The new estimated completion date for this recommendation is June 30, 2021.

Recommendation: To improve agency information security programs, Acting Director of the Office of Personnel Management should provide and track specialized training for all individuals, including contractors, who have significant security responsibilities.

Agency: Office of Personnel Management
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: OPM partially agreed with this recommendation. In December 2018, OPM stated that it is working with its learning management system vendor to develop requirements, but had not yet targeted an expected completion date. To fully implement the recommendation, OPM needs to complete its efforts to ensure that it provides and tracks training for individuals with significant security responsibilities. As of March 2020, OPM has not provided evidence that it has completed these actions.

Recommendation: To improve agency information security programs, the Secretary of the Department of Veterans should conduct security control assessments for the two selected systems and ensure the procedures comprehensively test technical controls.

Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Status: Open

Comments: VA concurred with our recommendation. The agency has conducted security control assessments for the two systems, but these assessments did not show that technical controls were comprehensively tested. According to VA, the agency will complete the next security control assessment in October 2019 and complete the system assessment report in December 2019. As of March 2020, the agency has not provided evidence that it has implemented this recommendation. Subsequent to VA informing us that it has completed implementation, we plan to verify the agency's actions.

Recommendation: To improve security over federal systems, including those considered to be high impact, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget should issue plan and practices specified in the Cybersecurity Strategy and Implementation Plan.

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

Comments: OMB concurred with our recommendation. On December 9, 2016, OMB issued memorandum M-17-09, Management of Federal High Value Assets, which lists some existing policies and guidance and other actions that agencies need to take to protect IT assets. Further information is needed to validate implementation of the recommendation. As of March 2020, the agency has not provided evidence that it has implemented this recommendation. Subsequent to OMB informing us that it has completed implementation, we plan to verify the agency's actions.

Recommendation: To help address Education's strategic goal of providing superior customer service to borrowers, and to strengthen oversight of the Direct Loan program, the Secretary of Education should develop a minimum standard that specifies core call center operating hours to provide borrowers, including those on the West Coast, with improved access to servicers.

Agency: Department of Education
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Education agreed with this recommendation and said it planned to establish core hours in the requirements for servicers to help borrowers access live customer service representatives. In May 2018, an Education official told us that the department is redesigning its loan servicing system, and one of the goals of this effort is to ensure a consistent experience for all borrowers. The official said all borrowers will have access to the same call center number and other customer service functions, but the specifics have not yet been decided. As Education completes its loan servicing redesign, it should ensure that borrowers have improved access to customer service representatives to aid them in managing their loans. In February 2020, Education officials said implementation of this recommendation was still in progress. The agency estimates a completion date of October 30, 2021, when the new system is expected to be fully operational.

Recommendation: To help address Education's strategic goal of providing superior customer service to borrowers, and to strengthen oversight of the Direct Loan program, the Secretary of Education should ensure the new unified borrower complaint tracking system includes comprehensive and comparable information on the nature and status of borrower complaints made to both Education and servicers, to allow Education to track trends and better manage the program to effectively meet borrower needs.

Agency: Department of Education
Status: Open

Comments: In May 2018, the Department of Education reported that as part of its redesigned loan servicing system, it plans to develop a single platform that maintains a record of all customer service interactions, including any complaints that borrowers submit. While the details have yet to be determined, the goal is to create a unified process consistent with the intent of this recommendation, according to Education. Education must ensure that it collects comprehensive and comparable information on borrower complaints in order to ensure the program meets borrower needs. In February 2020, Education officials said implementation of this recommendation was still in progress. The agency estimates completion in October 2021, when the new system is expected to be fully operational.

Recommendation: To help address Education's strategic goal of providing superior customer service to borrowers, and to strengthen oversight of the Direct Loan program, the Secretary of Education should evaluate and make needed adjustments to Direct Loan servicer performance metrics and compensation to improve assessment, including using baseline data, and alignment with Federal Student Aid's strategic goals aimed at superior customer service and program integrity, and to ensure that the assignment of new loans to servicers takes program compliance into account.

Agency: Department of Education
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Education agreed with this recommendation and stated that it would evaluate existing and alternative performance metrics and compensation strategies as part of its process for procuring a new loan servicing solution. In February 2020, an Education official told us that Education's new loan servicing system would eventually address this recommendation. However, the official said the metrics that will be used to evaluate loan servicers have not yet been determined. Unless Education better aligns its servicer performance metrics, borrowers will continue to be at risk of experiencing errors and poor customer service. In October 2019, Education officials said implementation of this recommendation was still in progress, pending completion in October 2021, when the new system is expected to be fully operational.

Recommendation: To ensure that FDA can effectively coordinate and integrate its medical product centers' programs and emerging issues, the Secretary of Health and Human Services should direct the Commissioner of FDA to engage in a strategic planning process to identify challenges that cut across the medical product centers and document how it will achieve measurable goals and objectives in these areas.

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open

Comments: FDA concurred with the recommendation and in September 2016 and January 2018 described steps it had taken toward strategic planning for its medical product centers. However, in June 2020, FDA informed GAO that there had been several senior leadership changes and its agency-wide strategic planning process was paused to focus on the covid-19 pandemic response. Officials also noted that FDA continues to address existing strategic priorities. We will update the status of this recommendation when we receive additional information.

Recommendation: In order to improve FDA's strategic planning for regulatory science efforts, the Secretary of Health and Human Services should direct the Commissioner of FDA to develop and document measurable goals, such as targets and time frames, for its regulatory science efforts so it can consistently assess and report on the agency's progress in regulatory science efforts.

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open

Comments: In September 2018, the agency described the actions of committees developed by each of the centers to oversee their regulatory science activities. In July 2019, the agency indicated that it was revisiting its strategic regulatory science priorities as part of its cyclical strategic planning process, and the centers and various offices have taken steps to address the recommendation. In an August 2020 written response, the agency reported that a committee had undertaken a review its 2011 regulatory science strategic plan that will result in the issuance of an accountability framework--an internal document outlining the type of information that FDA centers and offices will provide to the agency's Chief Scientist to demonstrate progress made in addressing relevant focus areas of regulatory science. FDA reported that its goal was to complete this work by the end of December 2020. However, FDA still needs to document steps taken by these centers to develop measurable goals, and the agency indicated that the recommendation should remain open. GAO will continue to monitor the implementation of this recommendation.

Recommendation: In order to improve FDA's strategic planning for regulatory science efforts, the Secretary of Health and Human Services should direct the Commissioner of FDA to systematically track funding of regulatory science projects across each of its priority areas.

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open

Comments: In September 2018 and July 2019, the agency described actions taken by each center to better track its regulatory science funding. However, FDA still needed to complete these activities and document that funds are systematically tracked across each of the priority areas. In an August 2020 written response, the agency reported that there continue to be efforts to improve tracking of funds for regulatory science projects in priority areas. Specifically, it described the development of an accountability framework-an internal document outlining the type of information that FDA centers and offices will provide to the agency's Chief Scientist to demonstrate progress made in addressing relevant focus areas of regulatory science. According to FDA, as part of the internal accountability framework, it will track regulatory science projects. FDA reported that its goal was to complete this work by the end of December 2020. The agency indicated that the recommendation should remain open, and GAO will continue to monitor the implementation of this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics to establish a strategic policy that incorporates key elements of leading practices for sound strategic management planning, such as a mission statement and long-term goals, to inform the military services' plans for retrograde and reset to support overseas contingency operations and to improve DOD's response to section 324 of the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2014.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with our recommendation in GAO-16-414. Although in its comments to that report DOD agreed that it should establish a strategic policy that incorporates key elements of leading practices for sound strategic management planning to inform the military services' plans for retrograde and reset to support overseas contingency operations, DOD did not agree with identifying the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics as the lead for this recommendation. In our August 2018 update (GAO-18-621R) we found that DOD had not yet developed a strategic policy, had not yet determined which DOD organization would lead that effort, and that there was no consensus among officials we spoke with regarding which organization should lead that effort. In is comments to this update, DOD generally concurred with these findings and stated that it had established standardized terms and definitions for the services to use to assess the cost of contingency operations and that the Air Force had recommended OSD form a working group to develop a unified strategic implementation plan and standard terminology, to include a common operating picture. We agree that these are steps in the right direction, but until the department establishes a strategic policy for the retrograde and reset of equipment that incorporates key elements of leading practices for sound strategic management as we recommended in May 2016, it will not be positioned to effectively manage the retrograde and reset of equipment. As of September 2020, DOD has not taken any action to address this recommendation; DOD is in the process of determining who the appropriate PAO should be.

Recommendation: To enhance the accuracy of budget reporting to Congress, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, in coordination with the DOD Comptroller, to develop and require the use of consistent information and descriptions of key terms regarding retrograde and reset in relevant policy and other guidance.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with our recommendation in GAO-16-414. In December 2017, DOD updated the relevant chapter of the its Financial Management Regulation (DOD 7000.14-R) to include definitions of "reset" and "retrograde." However, in our August 2018 update (GAO-18-621R) we found that despite this action, the terms retrograde and reset were not being used or defined consistently by the department and the military services. Specifically, while some services were using the term reset as defined in the regulation, others were not. In commenting on our 2018 update, DOD noted that the Under Secretary of Defense Comptroller had established standardized terms and definitions for the services to use to assess the cost of contingency operations, which allows for a common budget framework, while retaining service flexibility to fulfill their Title 10 responsibilities to man, train, and equip. DOD further stated that the Air Force recommended the Office of the Secretary of Defense form a working group to develop a unified strategic implementation plan and standard terminology, to include a common operating picture. We believe that these actions would be a step in the right direction, but to fully meet the intent of our May 2016 recommendation, DOD needs to take action to ensure that these terms are uniformly defined and consistently used throughout the services. As of September 2020, DOD has not taken any action to address this recommendation; DOD is in the process of determining who the appropriate PAO should be.

Recommendation: To improve Army, Navy, and Air Force planning, budgeting, and execution for retrograde and reset efforts, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force to develop service-specific implementation plans for retrograde and reset that incorporate elements of leading practices for sound strategic management planning, such as strategies that include how a goal will be achieved, how an organization will carry out its mission, and the resources required to meet goals.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: In its response to our recommendation in GAO-16-414, DOD partially concurred, stating that the department would determine the appropriate Principal Staff Assistant to lead the development and application of service-related implementation plans. However, in our August 2018 update (GAO-18-621R) we found that DOD had not yet identified a lead for this effort, and that the Army, Navy, and Air Force had not yet developed implementation plans for the retrograde and reset of their equipment. Navy and Air Force officials further cited the need for a DOD-wide policy before they can establish service-specific plans for resetting equipment for contingency operations while Army officials told us that the Army relies on multiple guidance documents for the reset of equipment and does not currently have plans to develop a unified reset implementation plan. In its response to GAO-18-621R, DOD notes that detailed guidelines and processes for the rotation of personnel in contingency and non-contingency operations are in place, and that if a strategic policy is developed for the retrograde and reset of equipment, consideration should be given to the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition and Sustainment) as the lead. We continue to believe that our recommendation remains valid and that DOD also needs to establish a strategic policy consistent with leading practices on sound strategic management planning to guide and inform the services' plans, as we also recommended in 2016. As of September 2020, DOD has not taken any action to address this recommendation; DOD is in the process of determining who the appropriate PAO should be.

Recommendation: As part of their ongoing efforts to strengthen oversight and improve the overall quality of information included in DOD's annual prepositioning reports in order to provide congressional decision makers with complete and relevant information, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, in coordination with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to disclose in the report the fact that reconstitution funding data are current as of the end of the fiscal year, identify significant changes reported in these data from year to year, and provide explanations as to the reasons for the changes.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with the recommendation. As of May 2020, DOD did state that the statutory requirement is for the department to provide information on the status of the prepositioned stocks as of the end of the fiscal year in its fiscal year 2019 prepositioning report, the most recent annual report. Also, DOD had an explanation that the reconstitution funding data may continue to be refined after the report's submission in the report. However, the report did not identify significant changes reported in the reconstitution data from year to year or provide explanations as to the reasons for the changes. In May 2020, DOD stated it would consider adding information in future reports about whether the reconstitution data changed and associated explanations. We will keep this recommendation open pending our review of the fiscal year 2020 prepositioning report.

Recommendation: As part of their ongoing efforts to strengthen oversight and improve the overall quality of information included in DOD's annual prepositioning reports in order to provide congressional decision makers with complete and relevant information, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, in coordination with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in its planned update to its War Reserve Materiel Policy document, to add language to clarify when and how risk assessments should be performed.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with the recommendation. At the time our report was issued, DOD stated that it would re-evaluate the need to perform risk assessments for prepositioned war reserve material during the update of DOD Instruction 3110.06 War Reserve Policy document, and that it will determine whether changes are needed in the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff risk assessment process. However, as of May 2020, DOD had not included information regarding when and how risk assessments should be performed in its DOD Instruction 3110.06 War Reserve Policy document, which it last revised in January 2019. Nor has DOD included this information in it Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction 4310.10E, which it last revised in January 2020. In May 2020, DOD stated it would consider issuing a Guidance Memorandum--to supplement existing policy--that clarifies when and how risk assessments should be performed. We will continue to monitor DOD's efforts in this area.

Recommendation: As part of their ongoing efforts to strengthen oversight and improve the overall quality of information included in DOD's annual prepositioning reports in order to provide congressional decision makers with complete and relevant information, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, in coordination with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to include in the annual prepositioned stock report a section that identifies omitted prepositioned stock information and indicates where that information can be found.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation. However, as of May 2020, DOD had no section that identifies omitted prepositioned stock information or indicates where that information can be found in its fiscal year 2019 prepositioning report, the most recent annual report.

Recommendation: To ensure that federal departments and agencies have comprehensive and up-to-date policies and stronger oversight mechanisms in place for managing hazardous biological agents in high-containment laboratories and are fully addressing weaknesses identified after laboratory safety lapses, the Secretary of Agriculture should revise existing department policies for managing hazardous biological agents in high-containment laboratories to contain specific requirements for reporting laboratory incidents to senior department officials, including the types of incidents that should be reported, to whom, and when, or direct the Administrator of the Food Safety and Inspection Service to develop agency policies that contain these requirements.

Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open

Comments: In October 2016, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) stated that its Joint Committee on Biorisk Management Policy (JCBMP) would oversee the revisions of existing policies to include department-wide incident reporting requirements and time frames. As of July 2020, USDA estimated that these revisions should be completed by October 2020. Officials stated that updates to component agency policies would be completed shortly after issuance of the departmental policy. We will update the status of this recommendation when we receive additional information.

Recommendation: To ensure that federal departments and agencies have comprehensive and up-to-date policies and stronger oversight mechanisms in place for managing hazardous biological agents in high-containment laboratories and are fully addressing weaknesses identified after laboratory safety lapses, the Secretary of Agriculture should review and update outdated department policies for managing hazardous biological agents in high-containment laboratories and direct the Administrators of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) and Agricultural Research Service to update their policies and, in the case of APHIS, establish a regular review schedule.

Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open

Comments: In October 2016, USDA stated that the JCBMP would oversee the revisions of existing outdated departmental policies. In addition, officials stated that APHIS reviews and updates agency policies every 3-5 years, and that this schedule will be reflected in the updated departmental policy. In October 2019, the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) updated its agency policy for its institutional biological safety committee, the entity responsible for ensuring biosafety in its laboratories. As of July 2020, USDA estimated that revisions to the departmental, APHIS, and Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) policies should be completed by December 2020. We will update the status of this recommendation when we receive additional information.

Recommendation: To ensure that federal departments and agencies have comprehensive and up-to-date policies and stronger oversight mechanisms in place for managing hazardous biological agents in high-containment laboratories and are fully addressing weaknesses identified after laboratory safety lapses, the Secretary of Agriculture should routinely analyze results of the department's laboratory inspections and incident reports to identify potential trends that may highlight recurring laboratory safety or security issues and share lessons learned with laboratory personnel.

Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open

Comments: In October 2016, USDA stated that the JCBMP would oversee efforts to collect and analyze laboratory inspection results and incident reports and share these reports and critical analyses with USDA senior leadership on an annual basis. As of July 2020, USDA estimated that revisions to its departmental policy-which would reflect the JCBMP's role in analyzing inspection results and incident reports, identifying potential trends, and sharing lessons learned-should be completed by October 2020. We will update the status of this recommendation when we receive additional information.

Recommendation: To ensure that federal departments and agencies have comprehensive and up-to-date policies and stronger oversight mechanisms in place for managing hazardous biological agents in high-containment laboratories and are fully addressing weaknesses identified after laboratory safety lapses, the Secretary of Agriculture should require routine reporting of the results of department, agency, and select agent laboratory inspections to senior department officials.

Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open

Comments: In October 2016, USDA stated that the JCBMP would oversee the revisions of existing policies to include requirements for routine reporting of inspection results to senior USDA officials. In July 2020, USDA estimated that these revisions should be completed by October 2020. We will update the status of this recommendation when we receive additional information.

Recommendation: To ensure that federal departments and agencies have comprehensive and up-to-date policies and stronger oversight mechanisms in place for managing hazardous biological agents in high-containment laboratories and are fully addressing weaknesses identified after laboratory safety lapses, the Secretary of Agriculture should require routine reporting of incidents at agency laboratories to senior department officials.

Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open

Comments: In October 2016, USDA stated that the JCBMP would oversee the revisions of existing policies to include requirements for routine reporting of laboratory incidents to senior USDA officials. In July 2020, USDA estimated that these revisions should be completed by October 2020. Officials stated that updates to component agency policies would be completed shortly after issuance of the departmental policy. We will update the status of this recommendation when we receive additional information.

Recommendation: To ensure that federal departments and agencies have comprehensive and up-to-date policies and stronger oversight mechanisms in place for managing hazardous biological agents in high-containment laboratories and are fully addressing weaknesses identified after laboratory safety lapses, the Secretary of Defense should revise existing department policies for managing hazardous biological agents in high-containment laboratories to contain specific requirements for inventory control for all of DOD's high-containment laboratories, not just for its select agent-registered laboratories, or direct the Secretaries of the Air Force, Army, and Navy to revise their existing, respective policies to contain these requirements.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation. In June 2018, DOD stated that it had completed evaluation of existing DOD and service level guidance related to inventory control. DOD also stated that it will continue to analyze the adequacy of existing policy and the need to expand that policy across the DOD Lab Enterprise as the draft Department of Defense Manual (DoDM) 6055.18 is finalized for publication. As of August 2019, DoD said the draft DoDM 6055.18 was still in review and the agency estimated it would complete work to respond to this recommendation in February 2020.

Recommendation: To ensure that federal departments and agencies have comprehensive and up-to-date policies and stronger oversight mechanisms in place for managing hazardous biological agents in high-containment laboratories and are fully addressing weaknesses identified after laboratory safety lapses, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretaries of the Air Force and Army to review and update their respective outdated policies for managing hazardous biological agents in high-containment laboratories.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation. DOD stated that it had updated the Air Force policy (AF Instruction 10-2611-0) as of January 19, 2017; this document updates the biological safety standards used in AF labs and implements the draft update to Department of Defense Manual 6055.18M: Safety Standards for Microbiological and Biomedical Laboratories. As of July 2019, DOD provided GAO with the updated Army policy AR 190-17; however DOD officials stated that as the draft Department of Defense Manual (DoDM) 6055.18 was still undergoing review, this recommendation should remain open. DOD estimated it would complete work to respond to this recommendation in February 2020.

Recommendation: To ensure that federal departments and agencies have comprehensive and up-to-date policies and stronger oversight mechanisms in place for managing hazardous biological agents in high-containment laboratories and are fully addressing weaknesses identified after laboratory safety lapses, the Secretary of Defense should require routine reporting of the results of Air Force, Army, and Navy inspections of non-select agent registered laboratories to senior department officials.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation. In August 2019, DOD reported that the Air Force is planning to close its BSAT program by the summer of 2019 and planning was underway to move the Air Force BSAT inventory to another DOD BSAT facility. Additionally, the Army was revising its AR 385-10, which contains biosafety criteria unique to the Army, and estimated the revision would be completed by December 2019. Finally, the draft Department of Defense Manual (DoDM) 6055.18 was still undergoing review, and DOD estimated it would complete work to respond to this recommendation in February 2020.

Recommendation: To ensure that federal departments and agencies have comprehensive and up-to-date policies and stronger oversight mechanisms in place for managing hazardous biological agents in high-containment laboratories and are fully addressing weaknesses identified after laboratory safety lapses, the Secretary of Defense should require routine reporting of laboratory incidents at Air Force, Army, and Navy non-select agent registered laboratories to senior department officials.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation. In August 2019, DOD reported that the Air Force is planning to close its BSAT program by the summer of 2019 and planning was underway to move the Air Force BSAT inventory to another DOD BSAT facility. Additionally, the Army was revising its AR 385-10, which contains biosafety criteria unique to the Army, to include a new mishap classification for biosafety mishaps to effect better reporting and analysis of these mishaps, and estimated the revision would be completed by December 2019. Finally, the draft Department of Defense Manual (DoDM) 6055.18 was still undergoing review, and DOD estimated it would complete work to respond to this recommendation in February 2020.

Recommendation: To ensure that federal departments and agencies have comprehensive and up-to-date policies and stronger oversight mechanisms in place for managing hazardous biological agents in high-containment laboratories and are fully addressing weaknesses identified after laboratory safety lapses, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretaries of the Army and Navy to require reporting of agency and select agent laboratory inspection results to senior agency officials.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation. As of June 2018, DOD stated that the draft directive DODD 5101.XXE, which is expected to be published in October 2018, formally designates the Executive Agent Responsible Official for Biosafety and Biosecurity and will establish roles and responsibilities including a role for reporting inspection results. Further, DOD stated that all inspection results of a joint inspection team are provided to the Executive Agent Responsible Official, and that the joint inspection team was established in September 2016. As of September 2019, DOD officials had provided updated documentation regarding this recommendation, and GAO was reviewing these updates.

Recommendation: To ensure that federal departments and agencies have comprehensive and up-to-date policies and stronger oversight mechanisms in place for managing hazardous biological agents in high-containment laboratories and are fully addressing weaknesses identified after laboratory safety lapses, the Secretary of Health and Human Services should develop department policies for managing hazardous biological agents in high-containment laboratories that contain specific requirements for reporting laboratory incidents to senior department officials, including the types of incidents that should be reported, to whom, and when, or direct the Director of CDC and the Commissioner of FDA to incorporate these requirements into their respective policies.

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open

Comments: In August 2016, HHS reported that both CDC and FDA were working to incorporate incident reporting requirements and time frames into formal agency policies and practices but did not provide an anticipated completion date. In summer 2017, CDC and FDA reported that they were continuing to incorporate incident reporting, which includes all laboratory incidents, accidents, injuries, infections, and near-misses, into formal agency policies. In August 2019, FDA reported that it continues to work with the Biosafety and Biosecurity Coordinating Council to establish a process for the routine reporting of these results but had not yet completed its actions. As of September 2019 we had not received an update from HHS on the status of CDC's implementation of this recommendation.

Recommendation: To ensure that federal departments and agencies have comprehensive and up-to-date policies and stronger oversight mechanisms in place for managing hazardous biological agents in high-containment laboratories and are fully addressing weaknesses identified after laboratory safety lapses, the Secretary of Health and Human Services should develop department policies for managing hazardous biological agents in high-containment laboratories that contain specific requirements for training and inspections for all high-containment component agency laboratories and not just for their select-agent-registered laboratories; or direct the Director of CDC to provide these requirements in agency policies.

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open

Comments: In August 2016, HHS reported that CDC plans to revise its policies to include training and inspection requirements for inspections for all high-containment laboratories but did not provide an anticipated completion date. In June 2017, HHS reported that CDC was in the process of revising its formal policies to ensure they included requirements for training and inspections for all of the agency's high-containment laboratories but did not provide an anticipated completion date. In December 2017, HHS reported that CDC's policies were in the initial stages of the clearance process and anticipated they would be finalized in fall 2018. As of September 2019, HHS had not provided an update on the status of these policies.

Recommendation: To ensure that federal departments and agencies have comprehensive and up-to-date policies and stronger oversight mechanisms in place for managing hazardous biological agents in high-containment laboratories and are fully addressing weaknesses identified after laboratory safety lapses, the Secretary of Health and Human Services should require routine reporting of the results of agency and select agent laboratory inspections to senior department officials.

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open

Comments: In August 2016, HHS reported that CDC was working with FDA and NIH to establish a process for notifying HHS leadership of inspection results through the department's Biosafety and Biosecurity Coordinating Council. HHS did not provide us with an anticipated time frame for implementing this notification practice or when the agencies plan to begin notifying HHS of inspection results. In August 2019, FDA reported that it continues to work with the Biosafety and Biosecurity Coordinating Council to establish a process for the routine reporting of these results but had not yet completed its actions. As of September 2019, HHS had not provided an update on the status NIH's actions.

Recommendation: To ensure that federal departments and agencies have comprehensive and up-to-date policies and stronger oversight mechanisms in place for managing hazardous biological agents in high-containment laboratories and are fully addressing weaknesses identified after laboratory safety lapses, the Secretary of Health and Human Services should direct the Director of NIH and the Commissioner of FDA to require routine reporting of the results of agency laboratory inspections--and in the case of FDA, require routine reporting of select agent inspection results--to senior agency officials.

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open

Comments: In August 2016, HHS reported that NIH's ongoing practice is to report the results of external inspections to senior agency officials and, in May 2016, developed a standard operating procedure that outlines this reporting process. In March 2017, NIH officials provided assurance that its Division of Occupational Safety and Health provides NIH's intramural governing body with information about NIH's safety performance at least annually; officials further assured that this information includes the overall results of annual inspections (or audits, as NIH calls them) of all NIH laboratories and discussion of the top 10 most report safety infractions for the year. GAO considers NIH to have implemented the recommended action. GAO will close the overall recommendation once FDA has taken equivalent, appropriate action. As of August 2019, FDA reported that the agency began piloting a standardized agency-wide laboratory safety inspection checklist to ensure that all laboratories are inspected rigorously and consistently. As part of the pilot, all laboratories were to be inspected during the first 3 quarters of the calendar year. The agency said it planned to aggregate the results of the inspections, and trends and significant findings would be reported to FDA senior leadership in the fourth quarter of 2019. GAO will continue to monitor FDA's actions to implement this recommendation.

Recommendation: To ensure that federal departments and agencies have comprehensive and up-to-date policies and stronger oversight mechanisms in place for managing hazardous biological agents in high-containment laboratories and are fully addressing weaknesses identified after laboratory safety lapses, the Secretary of Health and Human Services should require routine reporting of incidents at CDC, FDA, and NIH laboratories to senior department officials.

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open

Comments: In August 2016, HHS reported that its Biosafety and Biosecurity Council was working to establish incident reporting requirements for CDC, FDA, and NIH but did not provide an anticipated completion date. HHS noted that NIH formally adopted a standard operating procedure that lays out the agency's requirements for reporting incidents to senior officials. In August 2019, FDA reported that it continues to work with the Biosafety and Biosecurity Coordinating Council to establish a process for the routine reporting of these results but had not yet completed its actions. As of September 2019, HHS had not provided an update on the status of NIH or CDC actions.

Recommendation: To improve the effectiveness of federal efforts to monitor wild, native bee populations, the Secretary of Agriculture, as a co-chair of the White House Pollinator Health Task Force, should coordinate with other Task Force agencies that have monitoring responsibilities to develop a mechanism, such as a federal monitoring plan, that would (1) establish roles and responsibilities of lead and support agencies, (2) establish shared outcomes and goals, and (3) obtain input from relevant stakeholders, such as states.

Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open

Comments: As of October 2019, USDA had taken relevant and positive actions but had not yet fully implemented GAO's February 2016 recommendation for monitoring wild, native bees. According to a senior USDA official, a Native Bee Monitoring Steering Committee composed of representatives from four USDA agencies is developing a response to the recommendation. According to the official, the steering committee has taken or plans to take several steps regarding a monitoring plan. First, the steering committee held a stakeholder listening session in June 2017 to obtain public opinion regarding (1) why a native bee monitoring program is important, (2) the type of information and data needed to adequately conduct monitoring, and (3) how the public would like to see the monitoring data used. Highlights of the input received at the listening session and the goals of the national monitoring plan were discussed in a symposium held in November 2017 at the National Entomological Society of America Annual Meeting. USDA gathered additional recommendations from symposium participants based on monitoring programs for other declining species of concern, such as birds, bats, and butterflies. Second, the steering committee drafted a prospectus that will delineate activities being conducted by relevant federal agencies with responsibilities for surveying species of concern, including plans to coordinate activities and outline individual roles and responsibilities towards facilitating a national monitoring plan. According to the senior official, the committee worked with USDA officials to ask other federal agencies associated with the Pollinator Task Force to summarize their current and future activities in support of monitoring native bee populations. The committee completed its report entitled The Current State of Federal Agency Coordination in Monitoring Native Bee Health in January 2019. Third, the steering committee held a "Scientists' Summit" in April 2018 at the National Conservation Training Center. The purpose was to obtain scientific expert opinion regarding (1) why a native bee monitoring strategy is needed; (2) what such a monitoring strategy would measure and be used for; (3) standard minimum protocols that would improve data quality and sharing; and (4) databases that could be used to house data from a monitoring strategy. Participants included university and governmental experts on bees, statisticians, modelers and ecologists, and conservation biologists assessing other species in decline. Workshop discussion leaders subsequently drafted for publication in a scientific journal a whitepaper with recommendations on a U.S. national native bee monitoring strategy. However, as of October 2019, according to senior USDA officials, the white paper had not yet been accepted for publication. We support the agencies' efforts to date to implement the recommendation. However, we believe that the agencies must take additional steps to improve the effectiveness of federal efforts to monitor wild, native bee populations and will continue to monitor their actions. In 2020, according to a senior USDA official, a National Native Bee Monitoring Research Coordination Network is being formed to address GAO's recommendation to develop a federal monitoring plan for wild, native bees, with the project expected to begin in spring 2020. Some USDA officials told us that without a team to coordinate a monitoring plan, individual agency efforts may be ineffective in providing the needed information in trends on wild, native bees in the United States. The project is scheduled to be completed in 3 years.

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

Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: To improve the consistency and completeness of Amtrak's financial reporting and to provide Congress with accurate information to make funding decisions, the President of Amtrak should ensure that Amtrak's depreciation expenses are appropriately allocated to its lines of business once the underlying capital asset data are determined reliable.

Agency: National Railroad Passenger Corporation
Status: Open

Comments: As of April 2020, Amtrak had not allocated its depreciation costs to its lines of business, as we recommended. In 2019, Amtrak stated that federal law required Amtrak to allocate and report its capital spending by line of business. Amtrak further stated that depreciation expense is a good proxy for capital spending and that the changed reporting requirements eliminated the need to report depreciation by line of business. In addition, although Amtrak's external auditor did not find any material weaknesses or significant deficiencies in Amtrak's fiscal year 2019 audited financial statement-the most recent available-those statements do not allocate Amtrak's depreciation costs to its various business lines. We will update this recommendation's status with any new information from Amtrak.

Recommendation: In addition, to better inform congressional decision making regarding the funding of Northeast Corridor infrastructure improvements, the Northeast Corridor Commission should work with its members to establish criteria for its members to use in selecting and prioritizing capital projects to be included in future editions of its 5-year capital plan.

Agency: Northeast Corridor Commission
Status: Open

Comments: As of April 2020, the Northeast Corridor (NEC) Commission and its members had yet to establish criteria for selecting and prioritizing capital projects in its 5-year capital plan. The Commission staff told GAO that it had developed potential criteria for selecting projects for both regional and NEC-wide priorities to be included the Northeast Corridor Capital Investment Plan, Fiscal Years 2020 - 2024, published in April 2019 and updated in December 2019. However, those potential criteria were not formally adopted by the Commission members. Specifically, the Commission's proposed criteria for selecting NEC-wide priorities included projects that would prevent the potential severing of the Northeast Corridor and advance state-of-good repair. Proposed criteria for regional priorities included projects that would increase train capacity and improve passenger access to rail services. While the proposed criteria were not used to select or prioritize projects in the Capital Investment Plan, Fiscal Years 2020 - 2024, the plan presented the proposed criteria as "benefits" for the projects in that plan. While this information may be helpful to stakeholders in understanding some of the rationale for the inclusion of projects in the plan, it does not demonstrate that the Commission and its members have established formal criteria for selecting and prioritizing projects, as GAO recommended. GAO will continue to monitor the Commission's progress in addressing this recommendation.

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

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

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

Recommendation: To improve performance management of taxpayer services, the Secretary of the Treasury should update the Department's performance plan to include overage rates for handling taxpayer correspondence as a part of Treasury's performance goals.

Agency: Department of the Treasury
Status: Open

Comments: In May 2017, Treasury officials told us that they planned to include correspondence data as part of Treasury's fiscal year 2018 annual performance plan and fiscal year 2016 annual performance report. While the fiscal year 2016 performance report included data on correspondence overage rates, as of August 2019, Treasury has not included correspondence overage as part of its performance goals. We continue to believe this recommendation is valid.

Recommendation: To ensure that HHS workforce efforts meet national needs, the Secretary of Health and Human Services should develop a comprehensive and coordinated planning approach to guide HHS's health care workforce development programs--including education, training, and payment programs--that (1) includes performance measures to more clearly determine the extent to which these programs are meeting the department's strategic goal of strengthening health care; (2) identifies and communicates to stakeholders any gaps between existing programs and future health care workforce needs identified in the Health Resources and Services Administration's workforce projection reports; (3) identifies actions needed to address identified gaps; and (4) identifies and communicates to Congress the legislative authority, if any, the Department needs to implement the identified actions.

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open

Comments: In December 2016, HHS indicated that the agency had not yet taken steps to implement a comprehensive workforce planning effort. Officials said that for the FY2018 cycle, HHS had planned to expand its group developing legislative proposals to include budget issues and gaps that warrant attention. While it did not do so during that cycle, officials indicated that they would recommend this broader approach to workforce planning for future budget and legislative cycles. In an update presented in HHS's FY2021 budget justification, HHS did not address efforts to develop a comprehensive and coordinated planning approach to guide HHS's health care workforce development programs. Instead, it described its current legislative and budget development effort and proposal to restructure CMS Graduate Medical Education (GME) programs into a discretionary grant program. It noted that such a restructuring would allow the Department to set expectations for program performance in CMS GME and allow the kind of tracking HRSA has been able to implement in the Children's Hospital GME program and its Teaching Hospital GME program. It noted that Congress had not responded to this request. However, this recommendation stands on its own and is separate from any legislative efforts to modify how federal GME funds are distributed. Whether or not legislation is enacted to implement a consolidated federal GME grant program, HHS should take action to develop a comprehensive and coordinated planning approach. Such action is important for HHS to assure that federal programs fully meet workforce needs. Further, the CARES Act of 2020 requires HHS to develop a comprehensive and coordinated strategic plan for HHS health workforce programs. We will be monitoring HHS's implementation of this requirement to determine if it satisfies the intent of this recommendation.

Recommendation: To help federal, state, local, and private sector decision makers access and use the best available climate information, the Executive Office of the President should designate a federal entity to develop and periodically update a set of authoritative climate change observations and projections for use in federal decision making, which state, local, and private sector decision makers could also access to obtain the best available climate information.

Agency: Executive Office of the President
Status: Open

Comments: As of January 2020, the Executive Office of the President has yet to take action in response to this recommendation.

Recommendation: To help federal, state, local, and private sector decision makers access and use the best available climate information, the Executive Office of the President should designate a federal entity to create a national climate information system with defined roles for federal agencies and nonfederal entities with existing statutory authority.

Agency: Executive Office of the President
Status: Open

Comments: As of January 2020, the Executive Office of the President has yet to take action in response to this recommendation.

Recommendation: To strengthen management of the Direct Loan Program and ensure good customer service for borrowers, the Secretary of Education should direct the Office of Federal Student Aid's Chief Operating Officer to review its methods of providing instructions and guidance to servicers, identifying areas to improve clarity and sufficiency, and ensure consistent delivery of instructions and guidance to ensure program integrity and improve service to borrowers. For example, the Department could consider implementing a detailed, common servicing manual for the Direct Loan program.

Agency: Department of Education
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: The Department of Education agreed with this recommendation and reviewed its process for providing guidance to servicers. It has issued a few clarifications to servicers to help with consistency and reported that it intends to incorporate this recommendation into its acquisition plan for a new loan servicing system. To fully implement this recommendation, the agency needs to demonstrate that the new Direct Loan servicing system will provide clear and consistent instructions and guidance to servicers to ensure program integrity and improve service to borrowers. As of February 2020, Education officials said implementation of this recommendation was still in progress, pending completion in October 2021. At that time, the agency expects the re-design of its student loan financial services environment, which will include additional guidance to servicers, to be fully operational.

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

Agency: Office of Personnel Management
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: Office of Personnel Management
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. In January 2020, we received a memorandum from DOD requesting closure of this recommendation. It outlined several steps the department was taking to implement our recommendations and attached some Power Point slides as documentation. However, these slides do not provide sufficient documentation that would enable us to close the recommendations. Once we receive the documentation we are requesting, we will re-assess closure.

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD did not state whether it concurred with this recommendation. In January 2020, we received a memorandum from DOD requesting closure of this recommendation. It outlined several steps the department was taking to implement our recommendations and attached some Power Point slides as documentation. However, these slides do not provide sufficient documentation that would enable us to close the recommendations. Once we receive the documentation we are requesting, we will re-assess closure.

Recommendation: To improve the effectiveness of DOD's strategy for preventing sexual assault in the military, as part of the department's next biennial update to the 2014-16 sexual-assault prevention strategy, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, in conjunction with the Secretaries of the military departments, to identify risk and protective factors for all of its domains, including the military community and its leaders.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. In April 2019, DOD issued a Prevention Plan of Action (PPoA) that will serve as a framework for preventing sexual assault. The PPoA contains 29 actions DOD will take to implement the prevention strategy. In March 2020, DOD officials stated that they had chartered a Prevention Collaboration Forum, which consists of subject matter experts, to address destructive behaviors which may share the same risk and protective factors as sexual assault. Additionally, DOD officials stated that research had begun on identifying the department's risk and protective factors. The officials expected the completed risk studies to be published internally in April 2020 and June 2020. We will continue to monitor DOD's efforts and update the recommendation's status when more information becomes available.

Recommendation: To help improve DOD's ability to measure the effectiveness of the department's efforts in preventing sexual assault in the military, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, in collaboration with the Secretaries of the military departments, to fully develop the department's performance measures for the prevention of sexual assault so that the measures include all key attributes of successful performance measures.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. In April 2019, DOD issued a Prevention Plan of Action (PPoA) that will serve as a framework for a strategic approach to preventing sexual assault. The PPoA contains 29 actions DOD plans to take to implement the prevention strategy, and instructs DOD to continuously evaluate sexual assault prevention activities. In December 2019, DOD officials stated that they were in the process of conducting an assessment of each of the services' efforts to implement the prevention strategy. Additionally, DOD officials stated that they are developing a milestone report to be issued by the end of fiscal year 2020 that will include updates on all of the department's efforts to prevent sexual assault. DOD is also planning to issue a report in fiscal year 2023 that will include a complete evaluation of the department's efforts to prevent sexual assault. We will continue to monitor DOD's efforts and update the recommendation's status when more information becomes available.

Recommendation: To help ensure widespread adoption and implementation of DOD's sexual-assault prevention strategy and to fulfill its role as a framework that can assist leaders and planners in the development of appropriate tasks, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, in conjunction with the Secretaries of the military departments, to ensure the military services' Sexual Assault Prevention and Response policies are aligned with the department's prevention strategy.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. In April 2019, DOD issued a Prevention Plan of Action (PPoA) that will serve as a framework for a strategic approach to preventing sexual assault. The PPoA contains 29 actions DOD will take to implement the prevention strategy. The PPoA also directs the military services to review and revise their policies to reduce sexual assault and execute prevention activities. According to DOD officials, these efforts are currently underway. We will update the status of this recommendation when more information becomes available.

Recommendation: To help inform decision makers on the SAMP's progress as well as the decision regarding the extension of the SAMP's term, the Secretary of Defense should direct the SAMP to define timelines and measures to assess its progress in completing its major tasks.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD did not concur with this recommendation, stating that the department will submit its Fiscal Year 2015 National Defense Authorization Act report on military programs and controls regarding professionalism to Congress on September 1, 2015, thereby satisfying the requirements of this recommendation. DOD confirmed its position with regard to this recommendation on October 19, 2015. As of September 16, 2020, DOD has not responded to further inquiries regarding any actions it has taken to implement this recommendation. When we confirm what actions DOD has taken, we will update the status of this recommendation.

Recommendation: To increase assurance that commanders are conducting command climate assessments in accordance with statutory requirements and departmental guidance, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretaries of the Air Force, the Army, and the Navy, and the Commandant of the Marine Corps to modify existing guidance or develop new guidance to comply with requirements set forth in the Fiscal Year 2014 National Defense Authorization Act and internal DOD guidance.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation, stating that existing Army practice is consistent with the intent of departmental guidance for command climate survey utilization. DOD confirmed its position with regard to this recommendation on October 19, 2015. As of September 16, 2020, DOD has not responded to further inquiries regarding any actions it has taken to implement this recommendation. When we confirm what actions DOD has taken, we will update the status of this recommendation.

Recommendation: To better inform the department's approach to senior officers' professional development, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretary of the Navy, the Commandant of the Marine Corps, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to assess the need for and feasibility of implementing 360-degree assessments for all general and flag officers.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation, stating that it concurs with the recommendation to assess the need for and feasibility of implementing 360-degree assessments, or 360-degree-like feedback assessments, where they are not already being performed, but that it believes that it should only do so for general and flag officers at the three star ranks and below. DOD confirmed its position with regard to this recommendation on October 19, 2015. At that time, DOD also stated that it believes in a holistic approach to developing and assessing professionalism, noting, as an example, the Joint Staff's use of staff assistance visits and Senior Leader "roundtables" to complement the use of 360-degree assessments. In April 2018, DOD stated that each military department and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff had implemented a 360-degree assessment requirement for all general and flag officers. As of September 16, 2020, DOD has not responded to inquiries regarding documentation in support of these actions. When we confirm what actions DOD has taken, we will update the status of this recommendation.

Recommendation: To improve DOD's ability to assess its progress in addressing ethics and professionalism issues, the Secretary of Defense should direct the SAMP, through the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, or SAMP's successor organization(s), to identify information sources and develop intermediate goals and performance metrics. At minimum, these performance metrics should be clear, quantifiable, and objective, and they should include a baseline assessment of current performance.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred, with comment, with this recommendation, noting that the office of the Senior Advisor for Military Professionalism is a temporary office established by Secretary Hagel for a two year term ending no later than March of 2016. DOD confirmed its position with regard to this recommendation on October 19, 2015. In April 2018, DOD identified activities it had undertaken in the spirit and intent of the recommendation. As of September 16, 2020, DOD has not responded to inquiries for documentation in support of these actions and the related development of intermediate goals and performance metrics. When we confirm what actions DOD has taken, we will update the status of this recommendation.

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

Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

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

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

Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: To encourage plan sponsors to continue efforts to improve plan participation and overall retirement savings through the use of Qualified Default Investment Alternatives, the Secretary of Labor should direct the Assistant Secretary for the Employee Benefits Security Administration to assess the challenges that plan sponsors and stakeholders reported, including the extent to which these challenges can be addressed, and implement corrective actions through clarifying guidance or regulations, as appropriate.

Agency: Department of Labor
Status: Open

Comments: In 2015, DOL noted that the agency would assess the challenges that plan sponsors and stakeholders had reported to GAO, decide in FY 2016 whether a broader public comment process (such as a Request for Information) or a research project would aid that assessment, and determine whether other actions, such as issuing clarifying guidance or regulations, would be beneficial to its stakeholders. In 2016, DOL confirmed that the agency continues to plan to take the above action. As of July 2017, DOL had not added a public comment process to EBSA's 2017 regulatory agenda, and had no specific timeline for any next action. In an April 2018 update, DOL responded that it had convened the 2018 ERISA Advisory Council (EAC) to study lifetime income solutions in the context of QDIAs with a focus on decumulation issues and rollovers. Among other recommendations, the EAC recommended to DOL that it clarify that sponsors may default participants into different options based on participant demographics because plan populations may not be sufficiently similar for a single default to be universally appropriate. However, DOL noted that it has not added a public comment process on QDIA issues to EBSA's regulatory agenda, and had no specific timeline for any next action.

Recommendation: The EPA Administrator should direct OGD to develop a timetable with milestones and identify and allocate resources for adopting electronic records management for all 10 regional offices.

Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Status: Open

Comments: According to EPA officials, the Office of Grants and Debarment (OGD) established an agency-wide electronic grants record workgroup in fiscal year 2016. The workgroup identified the contents of the electronic grant file, technical options, and evaluation criteria. OGD completed its alternatives analysis for scope, general approach, and requirements in fiscal year 2017 and EPA expected this recommendation to be addressed by its new grants management system (GrantsSolutions). However, in January 2020, EPA officials told us that EPA had ceased its migration to GrantSolutions after determining the long-term costs were unsustainable and that the system lacked fundamental functionality necessary for core grant operations and to maintain appropriate internal controls. EPA is now migrating towards a modernized grants administration and management cloud solution. EPA expects this recommendation to be addressed when the new grants management system is fully implemented. EPA anticipates deployment of the new cloud solution in December 2020.

Recommendation: The EPA Administrator should direct OGD to implement plans for adopting an up-to-date and comprehensive IT system by 2017 that will provide accurate and timely data on agencywide compliance with grants management directives.

Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Status: Open

Comments: Implementation efforts are ongoing. According to EPA officials, OGD is conducting a multi-modular project to upgrade the agency's grants management IT system. EPA expected this recommendation to be addressed by its new grants management system (GrantsSolutions), which had been targeted for deployment in March 2020. However, in January 2020, EPA officials told us that EPA had ceased its migration to GrantSolutions after determining the long-term costs were unsustainable and that the system lacked fundamental functionality necessary for core grant operations and to maintain appropriate internal controls. EPA is now migrating towards a modernized grants administration and management cloud solution. EPA expects this recommendation to be addressed when the new grants management system is fully implemented. EPA anticipates deployment of the new cloud solution in December 2020.

Recommendation: To provide decision makers with better insight and additional context to identify any significant changes to the estimates in the joint report from the prior year and understand the reasons for such changes, and to improve the completeness and transparency of the budget estimates in the report, we recommend that, for future joint reports, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretary of the Air Force, the Secretary of the Navy, and the Department of Defense Chief Information Officer (DOD CIO), and the Secretary of Energy direct the Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) to provide more thorough documentation in the joint report on the methodologies used to develop the budget estimates, including information that may be available in related planning documents, and ensure the accuracy and completeness of the information included.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation. In the Fiscal Year 2019 Joint Report issued in November 2018, DOD had taken some steps to address this recommendation. For example, DOD provided more information on the methodologies used to develop budget estimates. However, DOD did not provide complete documentation of the methodologies used to determine budget estimates in the Joint Report. Specifically, DOD provided additional methodological information not included in the Joint Report to GAO in order to fully account for the estimates presented in the FY 2019 Joint Report. Both the Navy and the Air Force stated they would provide the additional methodological information in the FY 2020 Joint Report. In addition, we again identified some instances in which the Air Force's underlying budget information did not match its estimates in the Joint Report. Air Force officials explained that these discrepancies were due to an accounting error in the internal funding system and that the errors will be rectified in the FY 2020 Joint Report. We will continue to monitor DOD's response to this recommendation as we review future Joint reports.

Recommendation: To provide decision makers with better insight and additional context to identify any significant changes to the estimates in the joint report from the prior year and understand the reasons for such changes, and to improve the completeness and transparency of the budget estimates in the report, we recommend that, for future joint reports, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretary of the Air Force, the Secretary of the Navy, and the Department of Defense Chief Information Officer (DOD CIO), and the Secretary of Energy direct the Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) to provide more thorough documentation in the joint report on the methodologies used to develop the budget estimates, including information that may be available in related planning documents, and ensure the accuracy and completeness of the information included.

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Energy (DOE) concurred with our recommendation and has taken steps to address it. In both the fiscal year 2018 Joint Report and the fiscal year 2019 Joint Report, DOE included significantly more information on the methodologies used to develop its budget estimates. However, in the fiscal year 2019 Joint Report, DOE did not provide complete information on budget estimates over a 10-year period. Instead, it provided 5 years of budget estimates. We will re-evaluate DOE's implementation of this recommendation as we review future joint reports.

Recommendation: To provide decision makers with better insight and additional context to identify any significant changes to the estimates in the joint report from the prior year and understand the reasons for such changes, and to improve the completeness and transparency of the budget estimates in the report, we recommend that, for future joint reports, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretary of the Air Force, the Secretary of the Navy, and the DOD CIO, and the Secretary of Energy direct the Administrator of NNSA to provide comparative information on changes in the budget estimates from the prior year and explain the reasons for those changes.

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: DOE concurred with our recommendation. However, as of the issuance of the fiscal year 2019 Joint Report, DOE had not taken steps to address this recommendation. The fiscal year 2019 Joint Report did not provide comparative information on changes in NNSA program costs relative to costs in prior joint reports. We will re-evaluate DOE's implementation of this recommendation as we review future joint reports.

Recommendation: To help ensure that agency review processes provide frequent, regular opportunities to assess progress on agency priority goals (APG), and are conducted in a manner consistent with GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 (GPRAMA) requirements, OMB guidance, and leading practices, the Secretary of Defense should work with the COO and PIO to modify the Department's review processes to ensure that review meetings are led by the agency head or COO.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) partially concurred with this recommendation. DOD officials previously told us that they interpreted relevant guidance from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to provide them with flexibility to delegate responsibility for conducting these reviews. However, as of July 2020, OMB's guidance continues to clearly state that the agency head and/or Chief Operating Officer, with support of the Performance Improvement Officer, are responsible for leading agency reviews. In May and June 2020, DOD officials described to us meetings that agency officials used to review progress on each of the agency's priority goals. However, neither the Secretary nor Deputy Secretary of Defense were involved in those review meetings. We will continue to monitor DOD's actions to address this recommendation.

Recommendation: To help ensure that agency review processes provide frequent, regular opportunities to assess progress on agency priority goals (APG), and are conducted in a manner consistent with GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 (GPRAMA) requirements, OMB guidance, and leading practices, the Secretary of State should work with the COO and PIO to modify the Department's review processes to ensure that progress on each APG is reviewed in an in-person review meeting at least quarterly.

Agency: Department of State
Status: Open

Comments: The State Department concurred with this recommendation. In October 2019, State Department officials described to us actions the agency has taken to conduct reviews consistent with what we recommended. For example, they provided a document confirming that officials reviewed one of the priority goals in an in-person meeting. However, they did not provide documentation to demonstrate that review processes for the agency's other priority goals are held in-person or at least quarterly. We have requested, but as of April 2020 have not received, this additional documentation. We will continue to monitor the agency's progress.

Recommendation: To help ensure that agency review processes provide frequent, regular opportunities to assess progress on agency priority goals (APG), and are conducted in a manner consistent with GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 (GPRAMA) requirements, OMB guidance, and leading practices, the Secretary of State should work with the COO and PIO to modify the Department's review processes to ensure that the reviews are led by the agency head or COO.

Agency: Department of State
Status: Open

Comments: The State Department did not agree or disagree with this recommendation and, as of March 2020, has taken limited actions to address it. In October 2019, State Department officials described to us how the Chief Operating Officer (COO) is involved in reviewing progress on one of the agency's priority goals. However, as of April 2020, the State Department has not provided documentation we requested to corroborate the COO's involvement in this review, or reviews for the agency's other priority goals. We will continue to monitor the agency's progress.

Recommendation: To provide greater visibility over the extent to which Army UAS units have completed required training to leaders responsible for deployment decisions, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretary of the Army to require unit status reports to include information on the readiness levels of UAS pilots in UAS units.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. Since May 2016, the Commanding General of Forces Command (FORSCOM) has chaired a Monthly Aviation Readiness Review (MARR) in which review members assess aviation readiness across all aviation organizations including UAS. In August 2018, Army Headquarters officials stated that the Army plans to update Army Regulation 220-1, Army Unit Status Reporting and Force Registration to "bring UAS Operator reporting in line with other Army weapon systems, as UAS readiness was not previously captured." However, as of November 2019, the revision to the Army Regulation had not been published.

Recommendation: To help ensure that Army UAS pilots receive the highest caliber of training to prepare them to successfully accomplish UAS missions, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretary of the Army to take additional steps to mitigate potential risks posed by its waiver of course prerequisites for less experienced UAS pilots attending the course to become instructors, such as by providing additional preparation for current and future instructors who do not meet one or more course prerequisites to enhance their ability to successfully provide training.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. In October 2016, Army Headquarters officials stated that the Army had taken additional steps to mitigate potential risks posed by waiving course prerequisites for less experienced UAS pilots attending the course to become instructors. Specifically, by the end of fiscal year 2016, the Army had put 50 of 106 planned Universal Mission Simulators in place for active duty units and reduced the number of waivers granted for three of four course prerequisites. Army officials also provided documentation to show that the number of waivers granted had decreased in fiscal year 2016. However, an Army official from the Training and Doctrine Command stated that the Army had not provided additional training or preparation for instructors who had previously received a waiver of one of the course prerequisites to attend the instructor course as we had recommended. In July 2018, Army Headquarters officials indicated that the Army continued to use simulators to reduce the need for waivers but they also indicated that they continue to grant waivers to less experienced less experienced UAS pilots to enable them to enter the instructor operator course. In September 2019, the Army headquarters reported that the Army continues to use simulates to reduce the need for waivers to three of the four Army Instructor Operator (IO) course prerequisites (total hours, readiness level and aircraft currency). However as of November 2019 the Army had not provided additional training or preparation for instructors who had previously received a waiver of one of the course prerequisites to attend the instructor course as we had recommended.

Recommendation: To increase opportunities to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of UAS pilot training across DOD, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness to address how the services should coordinate with one another in the strategy on UAS pilot training that the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness is current drafting.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation and stated the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness was in the process of revising its draft "Department of Defense Training Strategy for Unmanned Aircraft Systems(UAS)" to address inter-service coordination to enable the department to train more efficiently and effectively as a whole. In October 2016, the Director stated that RAND had completed the draft strategy and that the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Readiness) had begun revising the strategy. An Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Readiness) official working on the revisions stated that the strategy would address our recommendation and coordination among the services. However, as of October 2016, the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Readiness) had not yet issued the department-wide UAS training strategy. In May 2018, the Director Military Training and Ranges in the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Readiness)/Force Training engaged a team to review the 2016 draft strategy to recommend a way forward. According to that official, the review was nearing completion and he anticipated presenting their recommendation to the current Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Force Education & Training in late July 2018. In September 2018 this official said that developing a new UAS strategy is not planned and he reiterated again in August 2019 that a UAS training strategy has not been issued. We continue to believe this is a valid recommendation and will keep it open in case the department eventually takes any relevant actions.

Recommendation: To help ensure that the Navy has adequate oversight of on-order excess inventory termination decisions and necessary performance measures consistent with DOD guidance, the Secretary of the Navy should direct the Commander, Naval Supply Systems Command, to incorporate the graduated management reviews and the ability to track and review the reasons for not canceling and modifying on-order excess items into its automated termination module that is under development.

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

Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation. As of August 2019, Naval Supply Systems Command has taken some steps, such as defining the requirement and piloting some aspects of the effort, to incorporate graduated management reviews and the ability to track and review the reason for not canceling and modifying on-order excess items into its automated termination module. However, this capability is not implemented into the automated termination module, according to Naval Supply Systems Command officials. Navy Supply Systems Command provided information on its plans to implement this capability in fiscal year 2020 and we will continue to monitor their efforts to address this implementation.

Recommendation: To further improve its production verification efforts and to provide greater assurance that BLM staff are consistently applying the new guidance to commingling agreement requests and determine whether the guidance corrected deficiencies and produced improvements, the Secretary should direct BLM to schedule and complete the internal review as expeditiously as possible.

Agency: Department of the Interior
Status: Open

Comments: In July 2019, Interior officials stated BLM will not be conducting a separate internal review of the guidance for commingling agreement requests issued in July 2013. However, officials stated they are committed to performing the internal review as part of the internal review on its inspection and enforcement program and believed their pending actions related to implementing the recommendations in the GAO report "Oil and Gas Development: Actions Needed to Improve Oversight of the Inspection and Enforcement Program" (GAO-19-7) would also address this recommendation. Interior officials stated the target date for implementing this recommendation is June 30, 2021.

Recommendation: To effectively plan and manage its acquisitions of IT systems and increase the likelihood of delivering promised system capabilities on time and within budget, the Librarian should establish and implement an organization-wide policy for developing cost estimates that includes key practices as discussed in this report.

Agency: Library of Congress
Status: Open

Comments: The Library of Congress generally agreed with, and has begun to take steps to implement, this recommendation. Specifically, in January 2017 the Library established a centralized Library-wide Project Management Office, located within the Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO). Additionally, in June 2017 the Library updated its regulations to give the Project Management Office the authority to establish organization-wide policy for developing cost estimates. Further, in August 2017 the Project Management Office finalized guidance for developing cost estimates that generally includes the key practices discussed in our report. However, none of the cost estimates for three key investments fully met the practices associated with a comprehensive estimate. In October 2019, the Library provided evidence of its Monte-Carlo risk assessment process. We are currently assessing whether this process is consistent with the practices found in our Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide. We will continue to evaluate the Library's progress in implementing this recommendation.

Recommendation: To effectively plan and manage its acquisitions of IT systems and increase the likelihood of delivering promised system capabilities on time and within budget, the Librarian should establish a time frame for finalizing and implementing an organization-wide policy for developing and maintaining project schedules that includes key practices as discussed in this report, and finalize and implement the policy within the established time frame.

Agency: Library of Congress
Status: Open

Comments: The Library of Congress generally agreed with, and has begun to take steps to implement, this recommendation. Specifically, in January 2017 the Library established a Project Management Office within the Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO) and tasked the office with communicating and enforcing Library requirements for project management and systems development. Additionally, in June 2017 the Library updated its regulations to give the Project Management Office the authority to establish organization-wide policy for developing and maintaining schedules. Further, in August 2017 the Project Management Offices finalized guidance for developing schedules that generally includes the key practices discussed in our report. However, none of the schedules for three key investments fully met the practices associated with a well-constructed schedule. In October 2019, the Library provided the schedules that it uses to manage select projects. We are currently reviewing this scheduling documentation to determine the extent to which the Library is implementing its scheduling guidance.

Recommendation: To enhance the usefulness of NNSA's future reports to Congress describing the costs and benefits of its competition of M&O contracts under the requirements contained in Section 3121 of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2013, as amended, the NNSA Administrator should take steps to ensure that future reports reflect DOE's information quality guidelines, federal cost accounting standards, and GAO's best practices guidance relevant to the clear and complete presentation of information on each of the required topics. In particular, future reports should clearly and completely describe costs and benefits, including the agency's expectations, as well as the associated analysis, assumptions, information sources, and key limitations and uncertainties about costs and benefits described. The description of uncertainties should include key excluded or unspecified costs and benefits, such as those that are anticipated but not fully known at the time of report writing.

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

Comments: NNSA believes it has met the requirements of the recommendation and considers it closed. In our March 2015 report--which examined NNSA's report on the contract to manage and operate the Pantex Plant and the Y-12 National Security Complex under a single management and operating (M&O) contract with Consolidated Nuclear Services (CNS)--we recommended that NNSA enhance the clarity and completeness of its future reports on the costs and benefits of M&O contract competitions. While NNSA demonstrated progress in implementing this recommendation in its September 2017, August 2018, and April 2019 reports to Congress on the costs and benefits of the contract competitions for the Sandia, Nevada, and Los Alamos sites respectively, NNSA did not provide clear and complete information on all required elements of these reports. Specifically, for the Sandia National Laboratories M&O contract, in our August 2018 report we found that NNSA addressed most but not all reporting requirements. For example, NNSA's report addressed all requirements pertaining to cost savings, other benefits, and disruptions or delays, but only partially addressed the reporting requirements on the limitations or uncertainties about cost savings and on the immediate costs of competition and over the life of the contract. NNSA issued a report in August 2018 on the costs and benefits of its competition of the M&O contract for the Nevada National Security Site. In our April 2019 report on NNSA's cost-benefit analysis of that contract competition, we found that, of the five required reporting elements, NNSA's report addressed one with detail but addressed the other four without detail. In April 2019 NNSA issued its cost-benefit analysis of the competition for the Los Alamos National Laboratory contract. In our January 2020 report on NNSA's cost-benefit report for that contract competition, we found that it addressed five reporting elements on costs and disruption during contract transition with detail, partially addressed two reporting elements on uncertainties and benefits, and did not address one reporting element on activities to be covered by the M&O contractor. Since our 2015 recommendation, NNSA's cost-benefit reports on M&O contract competitions have generally provided clearer and more complete information on most of the required reporting elements, but they have not provided clear and complete information on all required reporting elements. In June 2020, NNSA announced that it would end the current CNS contract for Pantex and Y-12 management and operations instead of awarding the contractor its final option term. This will result in a new contract competition and award by the end of the current contract's term on September 30, 2021. The NNSA report on the costs and benefits of that competition may give us another opportunity to assess the quality of NNSA's reports for clarity and completeness on the required reporting elements.

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

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

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

Recommendation: To increase coordination between various levels of government and reduce duplication of effort, resources, and costs associated with collecting and maintaining accurate address data, Congress should consider assessing the impact of the disclosure restrictions of Section 9 of Title 13 and Section 412 of Title 39 of the U.S. Code in moving toward a national geospatial address database. If warranted, Congress should consider revising those statutes to authorize the limited release of addresses, without any personally identifiable information, specifically for geospatial purposes. Such a change, if deemed appropriate, could potentially result in significant savings across federal, state, and local governments.

Agency: Congress
Status: Open

Comments: No legislative action had been identified as of December 2019. Addressing this action, which GAO suggested in February 2015, could increase coordination between various levels of government and reduce duplication of effort, resources, and costs associated with collecting and maintaining accurate address data.

Recommendation: To ensure that OPM builds the predictive capacity to identify emerging skills gaps across the government--including the ability to collect and use reliable information on the competencies of the federal workforce for government-wide workforce analysis--the Director of OPM should (1) establish a schedule specifying when OPM will modify its Enterprise Human Resources Integration database to capture staffing data that it currently collects from agencies through its annual workforce data reporting process; and (2) work with agency CHCOs to bolster the ability of agencies to assess workforce competencies by sharing competency surveys, lessons learned, and other tools and resources.

Agency: Office of Personnel Management
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: Although OPM did not initially concur with this recommendation, OPM has taken actions towards addressing it by using the EHRI database, in combination with other sources, to generate workforce data to assist agencies in their efforts to identify skills gaps. In March 2019, OPM reported that it believed that collecting staffing gap targets through an alternative system, MAX Collect, would provide a more efficient and accurate means to collect workforce data than EHRI. In February 2020, OPM officials reported that it has used MAX Collect to address a portion of the recommendation by sharing lessons learned to close skills gaps. MAX Collect also stores and makes relevant tools and training available to users. However, OPM still needs to collect and store a consistent set of staffing and competency data. Without the collection and sharing of this data, OPM cannot perform valuable government-wide analysis to predict and address skills gaps in occupations affecting multiple agencies.

Recommendation: If, in the next authorization for FAA, Congress chooses to mandate that FAA take actions to streamline and reform the agency, Congress may wish to consider requiring FAA to (1) track measures of and (2) report to Congress on the actual results of such efforts.

Agency: Congress
Status: Open

Comments: As of March 2019, Congress has passed several FAA authorization extensions and the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 that did not include any actions related to this matter. We will continue to monitor legislation, and when we determine what steps the Congress has taken regarding this matter, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: Because challenges associated with the fragmented federal food safety system are long-standing, decision makers do not have an integrated perspective on federal food safety performance, and centralized mechanisms for broad-based collaboration have not been sustained, Congress should consider directing OMB to develop a government-wide performance plan for food safety that includes results oriented goals and performance measures and a discussion of strategies and resources.

Agency: Congress
Status: Open

Comments: As of March 2020, Congress had not acted on this matter. OMB informed GAO in January 2020 that they had no plans to develop a government-wide performance plan for food safety. We continue to believe that such a plan is necessary for effective federal oversight of food safety.

Recommendation: Because challenges associated with the fragmented federal food safety system are long-standing, decision makers do not have an integrated perspective on federal food safety performance, and centralized mechanisms for broad-based collaboration have not been sustained, Congress should consider formalizing the FSWG through statute to help ensure sustained leadership across food safety agencies over time.

Agency: Congress
Status: Open

Comments: As of March 2020, Congress had not acted on this matter.

Recommendation: To improve the reliability of its cost estimates, as NRC revises its cost estimating procedures, the NRC Chairman should ensure that the agency aligns the procedures with relevant cost estimating best practices identified in the GAO Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide and ensure that future cost estimates are prepared in accordance with relevant cost estimating best practices.

Agency: Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: In August 2019, NRC staff reported that the Commission had directed them to revise the guidance and resubmit it to the Commission by January 2020. In February 2020, the NRC staff submitted the revised guidance to the Commission. NRC staff said that following Commission review and approval, they will publish the guidance. We will review the cost-benefit guidance when it is released and determine if it responds to this recommendation.

Recommendation: To promote and enhance federal, state, and local NEMT coordination activities, the Secretary of Transportation, as the chair of the Coordinating Council, should convene a meeting of the member agencies of the Coordinating Council and complete and publish a new or updated strategic plan that, among other things, clearly outlines a strategy for addressing NEMT and how it can be coordinated across federal agencies that fund NEMT service.

Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open

Comments: The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) concurred with this recommendation. The Department of Transportation (DOT), which chairs the Coordinating Council on Access and Mobility (Coordinating Council) and provides administrative support and staff, has made some progress to enhance coordination of NEMT programs through the development of a new or updated strategic plan, as GAO recommended in December 2014, but coordination at the federal level remains limited. In October 2019, the Coordinating Council adopted a new strategic plan as recommended by GAO. However, DOT indicated that strategies for coordinating NEMT across federal agencies would not be fully articulated until November 2020 when it plans to issue a report to the President and Congress. Until the report is finalized, the Coordinating Council may be missing an opportunity to identify and align goals and strategies for increased NEMT coordination with the benefits of coordination, such as increased program efficiency or reduced costs.

Recommendation: To promote and enhance federal, state, and local NEMT coordination activities, the Secretary of Transportation, as the chair of the Coordinating Council, should convene a meeting of the member agencies of the Coordinating Council and finalize and issue a cost-sharing policy and clearly identify how it can be applied to programs under the purview of member agencies of the Coordinating Council that provide funding for NEMT.

Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open

Comments: FTA concurred with this recommendation. The Department of Transportation (DOT), which chairs the Coordinating Council and provides administrative support and staff, has made minimal progress to develop and issue a cost-sharing policy, as GAO recommended in December 2014, which would allow agencies to identify and allocate costs among programs. In October 2019, the Coordinating Council adopted a new strategic plan. DOT plans to include a cost sharing policy as part of a report to the President and Congress in September 2020. According to DOT officials, they have begun the process of soliciting and including input from Coordinating Council agencies to develop the elements of the report, including the cost sharing policy, as of December 2019. The development of a cost sharing policy would provide federal guidance on how to address cost sharing issues across agencies and help facilitate ride and vehicle sharing. Until the Coordinating Council develops federal cost allocation principles for transportation providers, federal agencies may be unable to address cost-sharing issues across agencies such as ride and vehicle sharing.

Recommendation: To promote and enhance federal, state, and local NEMT coordination activities, the Secretary of Transportation, as the chair of the Coordinating Council, should convene a meeting of the member agencies of the Coordinating Council and using the on-going work of the Health, Wellness, and Transportation working group and other appropriate resources, (1) identify the challenges associated with coordinating Medicaid and VA NEMT programs with other federal programs that fund NEMT, (2) develop recommendations for how these challenges can be addressed while still maintaining program integrity and fraud prevention, and (3) report these recommendations to appropriate committees of Congress. To the extent feasible, the Coordinating Council should implement those recommendations that are within its legal authority.

Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open

Comments: FTA said they concurred in part with this recommendation. The Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act requires the Coordinating Council on Access and Mobility (Coordinating Council) to develop and publish a strategic plan. The Department of Transportation (DOT), which chairs the Coordinating Council and provides administrative support and staff, has made some but minimal progress to address the challenges associated with coordinating Medicaid and VA NEMT programs and other federal programs, as GAO recommended in December 2014. In October 2019, the Coordinating Council adopted a new strategic plan. According to DOT, it has made progress identifying challenges associated with coordinating Medicaid and VA NEMT programs, in part through the use of focus groups and a survey conducted by the National Center for Mobility Management. DOT expects it will include recommendations for addressing the challenges identified in a November 2020 report to the President and Congress. As of December 2019, DOT had begun the process of soliciting input from Coordinating Council agencies into these recommendations. Until DOT's assessment to identify and address coordination challenges is completed, agencies will be limited in coordinating Medicaid and VA NEMT programs with other federal programs that fund NEMT.

Recommendation: To promote and enhance federal, state, and local coordination activities, the Secretary of Transportation, as the chair of the Coordinating Council, should convene a meeting of the member agencies of the Coordinating Council and define and report on desired outcomes and collect related data to track and measure progress in achieving results, including the extent of coordination efforts that are under way, such as improved services for older adults. This effort could be conducted as a part of the Coordinating Council's process to update its strategic plan, which we have also recommended in a concurrent report.

Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open

Comments: The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has taken steps to enhance older adult mobility. As of September 2020, FTA stated they continued to make progress toward implementing the recommendation by November, 2020. The Coordinating Council for Access and Mobility plans to issue its report to Congress and the President on September 30, 2020, and we will continue monitor FTA's progress on its efforts when the report is released.

Recommendation: To better protect the retirement savings of individuals who change jobs, while retaining policies that provide 401(k) plans relief from maintaining small, inactive accounts, Congress should consider amending current law to repeal the provision that allows plans to disregard amounts attributable to rollovers when determining if a participant's plan balance is small enough to forcibly transfer it.

Agency: Congress
Status: Open

Comments: There has been no congressional action as of March 2020. Although bipartisan legislation proposed in February 2018 discussed changes to the amount of vested savings that could be forced out of a 401(k) plan, it did not address whether or not the definition of vested savings for this purpose would continue to exclude rollovers. As we reported in GAO-15-73, rollover savings are always vested when they are transferred into a plan account. If Congress looks further at amending rules related to the threshold for forced distributions, and particularly if that threshold is raised, it bears consideration whether all of an individuals' vested savings--including rollover amounts--should be included in the calculation of that threshold.

Recommendation: To ensure that individuals have access to consolidated online information about their multiple 401(k) plan accounts, the Secretary of Labor should convene a taskforce to consider establishing a national pension registry. The taskforce could include industry professionals, plan sponsor representatives, consumer representatives, and relevant federal government stakeholders, such as representatives from Social Security Administration, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, and Internal Revenue Service, who could identify areas to be addressed through the regulatory process, as well as those that may require legislative action.

Agency: Department of Labor
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: As of December 2019, the Department of Labor (DOL) has not allocated staff or other resources to look at convening a task force of stakeholders to consider the need for a national pension registry. The agency previously noted the PBGC's expansion of its registry of accounts left in closed defined benefit plans to include accounts in 401(k) plans. However, PBGC's expansion included only transfers from terminating 401(k) plans, not from active plans. In February 2018, bi-partisan legislation was proposed to create a national, online registry for much of Americans' retirement savings account information, particularly those accounts which might otherwise become lost. To create the proposed "Retirement Savings Lost and Found" or something similar would require coordinated regulatory action on the part of multiple agencies, which could only benefit from the initial work and findings of a pension registry task force. The need for access to consolidated online information about multiple 401(k) plan accounts is only growing. Therefore, we continue to recommend that DOL facilitate a task force of stakeholders to identify and discuss legal and other logistical issues critical to the potential creation of a national pension registry.

Recommendation: To ensure that 401(k) plan participants have timely and adequate information to keep track of all their workplace retirement accounts, the Social Security Administration's Acting Commissioner should make information on potential vested plan benefits more accessible to individuals before retirement. For example, the agency could consolidate information on potential vested benefits, currently sent in the Potential Private Retirement Benefit Information notice, with the information provided in the Social Security earnings and benefits statement.

Agency: Social Security Administration
Status: Open

Comments: SSA disagreed with this recommendation, but did seek legal guidance to determine if it is permissible to include a general statement encouraging potential beneficiaries to pursue any external pension benefits in its benefit Statement. SSA's Office of the General Counsel determined that it would be permissible as long as it includes information required by law and the information is accurate. However, as of March 2020, SSA continues to believe that adding such information would place SSA in a position to respond to issues or questions about ERISA and private pension plans, which SSA considers to be outside its mission and about which the agency has no firsthand legal or operational knowledge. While we appreciate SSA's concern about providing information or advice about private pension plans, the agency already has a procedure for responding to such inquiries. The agency's Notice of Potential Private Retirement Benefit Information directs recipients to contact DOL with any questions about private retirement savings. We would expect that any increase in individuals asking SSA about their retirement savings, which could result from making information on vested benefits more accessible, could be handled in the same way. SSA said it also believes that the current benefit Statement adequately covers the fact that people need other savings, pensions, and investments and the agency sends notices to people who may quality for other pensions. We welcome SSA's efforts to raise awareness about the role of private retirement savings in ensuring financial security and in to notify individuals of potential benefits. However, these efforts do not supplant the need for individuals to have early and ongoing access to complete information on their potential plan benefits. In February 2018, bipartisan members of Congress introduced legislation that would make this possible. The Retirement Savings Lost and Found Act of 2018 (S. 2474) would house SSA's data on potential private retirement benefits in a secure database, which would be searchable online by participants and beneficiaries prior to retirement. Whether the legislation is enacted or not, we continue to believe that SSA should work to make its valuable data on potential vested plan benefits more accessible to individuals before retirement.

Recommendation: To prevent forced-transfer IRA balances from decreasing due to the low returns of the investment options currently permitted under the Department of Labor's safe harbor regulation, the Secretary of Labor should expand the investment alternatives available. For example, the forced-transfer IRA safe harbor regulations could be revised to include investment options currently under the qualified default investment alternatives regulation applicable to automatic enrollment, and permit forced-transfer IRA providers to change the investments for IRAs already established.

Agency: Department of Labor
Status: Open

Comments: As of April 2020, DOL had not taken action on this recommendation. In 2019, DOL noted that it was engaged more generally with a range of stakeholders on issues surrounding missing and unresponsive participants with the goal of helping plans to locate and pay retirement benefits to missing participants and beneficiaries. We continue to encourage DOL to expand the safe harbor for IRAs created for forced transfers to include investment alternatives more likely to preserve principal and even increase it over time, such as what is permitted for qualified default investment alternatives under the safe harbor for automatic enrollment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recommendation: To improve consumers' access to relevant and understandable information on the cost and quality of health care services, the Secretary of HHS should direct the Administrator of CMS to include in the CMS Compare websites, to the extent feasible, estimated out-of-pocket costs for Medicare beneficiaries for common treatments that can be planned in advance.

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open

Comments: As of September 2019, HHS officials have not informed us of any actions taken to implement this recommendation. We will update the status of this recommendation when we receive additional information.

Recommendation: To improve consumers' access to relevant and understandable information on the cost and quality of health care services, the Secretary of HHS should direct the Administrator of CMS to organize cost and quality information in the CMS Compare websites to facilitate consumer identification of the highest-performing providers, such as by listing providers in order based on their performance.

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open

Comments: As of September 2019, HHS officials have not informed us of any actions taken to implement this recommendation. We will update the status of this recommendation when we receive additional information.

Recommendation: To improve consumers' access to relevant and understandable information on the cost and quality of health care services, the Secretary of HHS should direct the Administrator of CMS to include in the CMS Compare websites the capability for consumers to customize the information presented, to better focus on information relevant to them.

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open

Comments: As of September 2019, HHS officials have not informed us of any actions taken to implement this recommendation. We will update the status of this recommendation when we receive additional information.

Recommendation: To improve consumers' access to relevant and understandable information on the cost and quality of health care services, the Secretary of HHS should direct the Administrator of CMS to develop specific procedures and performance metrics to ensure that CMS's efforts to promote the development and use of its own and others' transparency tools adequately address the needs of consumers.

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open

Comments: As of September 2019, HHS officials have not informed us of any actions taken to implement this recommendation. We will update the status of this recommendation when we receive additional information.

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

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

Recommendation: In order to improve transparency and allow for more informed decision making by congressional leaders and DHS and GSA decision-makers, before requesting additional funding for the DHS headquarters consolidation project, the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Administrator of the General Services Administration should work jointly to conduct the following assessments and use the results to inform updated DHS headquarters consolidation plans: (1) a comprehensive needs assessment and gap analysis of current and needed capabilities that take into consideration changing conditions, and (2) an alternatives analysis that identifies the costs and benefits of leasing and construction alternatives for the remainder of the project and prioritizes options to account for funding instability.

Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: The Department of Homeland Security Headquarters Consolidation Accountability Act of 2015 (Pub. L. No. 114-150) was enacted on April 29, 2016. Among other things, the act requires DHS, in coordination with GSA, to submit information to Congress about DHS headquarters consolidation efforts not later than 120 days of enactment. As of April 2020, DHS and GSA had not submitted the information to Congress required by Pub. L. No. 114-150. Required information includes a comprehensive assessment of property and facilities utilized by DHS in the National Capital Region, and an analysis that identifies the costs and benefits of leasing and construction alternatives for the remainder of the consolidation project. DHS reported that DHS and GSA prepared a comprehensive response to P.L. No. 114-150, but that the consolidation plan and response needed to be revised based on changing budget circumstances, among other things. In April 2020, DHS estimated that the final consolidation plan will be completed and approved in 2020. GAO will review the latest information on DHS headquarters consolidation efforts when it is provided to Congress, and will assess the materials in the context of this recommendation at that time. Continued DHS and GSA attention to following leading capital planning practices is critical given the project's multi-billion dollar cost and impact on future departmental operations.

Recommendation: In order to improve transparency and allow for more informed decision making by congressional leaders and DHS and GSA decision-makers, before requesting additional funding for the DHS headquarters consolidation project, the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Administrator of the General Services Administration should work jointly to conduct the following assessments and use the results to inform updated DHS headquarters consolidation plans: (1) a comprehensive needs assessment and gap analysis of current and needed capabilities that take into consideration changing conditions, and (2) an alternatives analysis that identifies the costs and benefits of leasing and construction alternatives for the remainder of the project and prioritizes options to account for funding instability.

Agency: General Services Administration
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: The Department of Homeland Security Headquarters Consolidation Accountability Act of 2015 (Pub. L. No. 114-150), enacted on April 29, 2016, mirrors GAO recommendations in this area. Among other things, the act requires DHS, in coordination with GSA, to submit information to Congress about DHS's headquarters consolidation efforts not later than 120 days of enactment. As of April 2020, DHS and GSA had not submitted the information to Congress required by Pub. L. No. 114-150. Required information includes a comprehensive assessment of property and facilities utilized by DHS in the National Capital Region, and an analysis that identifies the costs and benefits of leasing and construction alternatives for the remainder of the consolidation project. DHS reported that DHS and GSA prepared a comprehensive response to P.L. No. 114-150, but that the consolidation plan and response needed to be revised based on changing budget circumstances, among other things. In April 2020, DHS estimated that the final consolidation plan will be completed and approved in 2020. We will review the latest information on DHS's headquarters consolidation efforts when it is provided to Congress, and will assess the materials in the context of these recommendations at that time. Continued DHS and GSA attention to following leading practices for capital planning and cost and schedule estimation is critical given the project's multi-billion dollar cost and impact on future departmental operations.

Recommendation: In order to improve transparency and allow for more informed decision making by congressional leaders and DHS and GSA decision-makers, before requesting additional funding for the DHS headquarters consolidation project, after revising the DHS headquarters consolidation plans, the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Administrator of the General Services Administration should work jointly to develop revised cost and schedule estimates for the remaining portions of the consolidation project that conform to GSA guidance and leading practices for cost and schedule estimation, including an independent evaluation of the estimates.

Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: The Department of Homeland Security Headquarters Consolidation Accountability Act of 2015 (Pub. L. No. 114-150) was enacted on April 29, 2016. Among other things, the act requires DHS, in coordination with GSA, to submit information to Congress about DHS headquarters consolidation efforts not later than 120 days of enactment. As of April 2020, DHS and GSA had not submitted the information to Congress required by Pub. L. No. 114-150. Required information includes updated cost and schedule estimates for the consolidation project that are consistent with GAO's recommendations in GAO-14-648. Furthermore, the act requires the Comptroller General to evaluate the cost and schedule estimates not later than 90 days after their submittal to Congress. DHS reported that DHS and GSA prepared a comprehensive response to P.L. No. 114-150, but that the consolidation plan and response needed to be revised based on changing budget circumstances, among other things. In April 2020, DHS estimated that the final consolidation plan will be completed and approved in 2020. GAO will review the latest DHS headquarters consolidation cost and schedule estimates when they are provided to Congress, and will assess the materials in the context of this recommendation at that time. Continued DHS and GSA attention to following leading cost and schedule estimation practices is critical given the project's multi-billion dollar cost and impact on future departmental operations.

Recommendation: In order to improve transparency and allow for more informed decision making by congressional leaders and DHS and GSA decision-makers, before requesting additional funding for the DHS headquarters consolidation project, after revising the DHS headquarters consolidation plans, the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Administrator of the General Services Administration should work jointly to develop revised cost and schedule estimates for the remaining portions of the consolidation project that conform to GSA guidance and leading practices for cost and schedule estimation, including an independent evaluation of the estimates.

Agency: General Services Administration
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: The Department of Homeland Security Headquarters Consolidation Accountability Act of 2015 (Pub. L. No. 114-150) was enacted on April 29, 2016. Among other things, the act requires DHS, in coordination with GSA, to submit information to Congress about DHS headquarters consolidation efforts not later than 120 days of enactment. As of April 2020, DHS and GSA had not submitted the information to Congress required by Pub. L. No. 114-150. Required information includes updated cost and schedule estimates for the consolidation project that are consistent with GAO's recommendations in GAO-14-648. Furthermore, the act requires the Comptroller General to evaluate the cost and schedule estimates not later than 90 days after their submittal to Congress. DHS reported that DHS and GSA prepared a comprehensive response to P.L. No. 114-150, but that the consolidation plan and response needed to be revised based on changing budget circumstances, among other things. In April 2020, DHS estimated that the final consolidation plan will be completed and approved in 2020. GAO will review the latest DHS headquarters consolidation cost and schedule estimates when they are provided to Congress, and will assess the materials in the context of this recommendation at that time. Continued DHS and GSA attention to following leading cost and schedule estimation practices is critical given the project's multi-billion dollar cost and impact on future departmental operations.

Recommendation: Congress should consider making future funding for the St. Elizabeths project contingent upon DHS and GSA developing a revised headquarters consolidation plan, for the remainder of the project, that conforms with leading practices and that (1) recognizes changes in workplace standards, (2) identifies which components are to be colocated at St. Elizabeths and in leased and owned space throughout the National Capital Region, and (3) develops and provides reliable cost and schedule estimates.

Agency: Congress
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Homeland Security Headquarters Consolidation Accountability Act of 2015 (Pub. L. No. 114-150) was enacted on April 29, 2016. Among other things, the act requires DHS, in coordination with GSA, to submit information to Congress about DHS headquarters consolidation efforts not later than 120 days of enactment. As of March 2019, DHS and GSA had not submitted the information to Congress required by Pub. L. No. 114-150. Required information includes: a comprehensive assessment of property and facilities utilized by DHS in the National Capital Region; an analysis that identifies the costs and benefits of leasing and construction alternatives for the remainder of the consolidation project; and updated cost and schedule estimates for the project that are consistent with GAO's recommendations in GAO-14-648. Furthermore, the act requires the Comptroller General to evaluate the cost and schedule estimates not later than 90 days after their submittal to Congress. DHS reported that DHS and GSA prepared a comprehensive response to P.L. No. 114-150, but that the consolidation plan and response needed to be revised based on changing budget circumstances, among other things. In April 2020, DHS estimated that the final consolidation plan will be completed and approved in 2020. A comprehensive report to Congress on DHS headquarters consolidation, along with reliable project cost and schedule estimates, could inform Congress's funding decisions.

Recommendation: In order to clarify the federal role related to freight-related local traffic congestion, in implementing MAP-21 and any subsequent reauthorization, the Secretary of Transportation should include in the National Freight Strategic Plan a written statement articulating the federal role in freight-related local congestion impacts, by clearly identifying potential objectives and goals (under the general area DOT has established for the Freight Transportation Conditions and Performance Report of reducing adverse environmental and community impacts) for mitigating local congestion caused by national freight movements and the type of role federal and state stakeholders could play in achieving each objective and goal, and including a written strategy for improving the availability of national data needed to quantify, assess, and establish measures on freight trends and impacts on local traffic congestion.

Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: DOT concurred with this recommendation. To fully implement this recommendation, DOT should complete and issue a National Freight Strategic Plan. As part of the development of the National Freight Strategic Plan, DOT should articulate the federal role, objectives, and goals in mitigating local congestion caused by national freight movements. DOT stated that it is continuing work on the National Freight Strategic Plan and intends to release the plan in 2020.

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

Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Status: Open

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recommendation: To better protect plan sponsors and participants who use managed account services, the Secretary of Labor should direct the Assistant Secretary for the EBSA to consider the fiduciary status of managed account providers when they offer services on an opt-in basis and, if necessary, make regulatory changes or provide guidance to address any issues.

Agency: Department of Labor
Status: Open

Comments: DOL concurred with this recommendation and agreed to review existing guidance and consider whether additional guidance is needed in light of the various business models we described. On April 8, 2016, DOL issued a final rule that clarified that anyone providing advice that is individualized or specifically directed to a participant pertaining to a decision to take, or refrain from taking, a distribution from the plan is a fiduciary. According to DOL, this final rule will better protect plan participants by requiring service providers who provide investment advice to act in their clients' best interest, preventing the erosion of their retirement savings by fees and substandard performance attributable to conflicts of interest. In 2018, a court ruling vacated this regulation; there is legal uncertainty surrounding the regulation and its effect regarding fiduciary duties,

Recommendation: To help sponsors who offer managed account services or who are considering doing so better protect their 401(k) plan participants, the Secretary of Labor should direct the Assistant Secretary for EBSA to require plan sponsors to request from record keepers more than one managed account provider option, and notify the Department of Labor if record keepers fail to do so.

Agency: Department of Labor
Status: Open

Comments: DOL agreed to consider this recommendation in connection with a regulatory project on standards for brokerage windows in participant-directed individual account plans. However, in Spring 2017, DOL removed this project as an active project on its regulatory agenda. GAO believes requiring plan sponsors to ask for more than one choice of a provider may be an effective method of broadening plan sponsors' choices of managed account providers. In April 2018, DOL reported that it was not able to allocate staff time and resources to this recommendation and does not yet have a specific timeline for any next action.

Recommendation: To help sponsors and participants more effectively assess the performance of managed accounts, the Secretary of Labor should direct the Assistant Secretary for EBSA to amend participant disclosure regulations to require that sponsors furnish standardized performance and benchmarking information to participants. To accomplish this, EBSA could promulgate regulations that would require sponsors who offer managed account services to provide their participants with standardized performance and benchmarking information on managed accounts. For example, sponsors could periodically furnish each managed account participant with the aggregate performance of participants' managed account portfolios and returns for broad-based securities market indexes and applicable customized benchmarks, based on those benchmarks provided for the plan's designated investment alternatives.

Agency: Department of Labor
Status: Open

Comments: DOL agreed to consider this recommendation in connection with (1) its regulatory project on standards for brokerage windows in participant directed individual account plans and (2) open proposed rulemaking project involving the qualified default investment alternative and participant-level fee disclosure regulations. In Spring 2017, the project on brokerage windows was removed as an active project on DOL's regulatory agenda, and the project on qualified default investment alternatives was moved to the long-term action category. In April 2018, DOL reported that it was not able to allocate staff time and resources to this recommendation and does not yet have a specific timeline for any next action.

Recommendation: To help sponsors and participants more effectively assess the performance of managed accounts, the Secretary of Labor should direct the Assistant Secretary for EBSA to amend service provider disclosure regulations to require that providers furnish standardized performance and benchmarking information to sponsors. To accomplish this, EBSA could promulgate regulations that would require service providers to disclose to sponsors standardized performance and benchmarking information on managed accounts. For example, providers could, prior to selection and periodically thereafter, as applicable, furnish sponsors with aggregated returns for generalized conservative, moderate, and aggressive portfolios, actual managed account portfolio returns for each of the sponsor's participants, and returns for broad-based securities market indexes and applicable customized benchmarks, based on those benchmarks provided for the plan's designated investment alternatives.

Agency: Department of Labor
Status: Open

Comments: DOL agreed to consider this recommendation in connection with (1) its regulatory project on standards for brokerage windows in participant directed individual account plans and (2) open proposed rulemaking project involving the qualified default investment alternative and participant-level fee disclosure regulations. In Spring 2017, the project on brokerage windows was removed as an active project on DOL's regulatory agenda, and the project on qualified default investment alternatives was moved to the long-term action category of DOL's regulatory agenda. In April 2018, DOL reported that it was not able to allocate staff time and resources to this recommendation and does not yet have a specific timeline for any next action.

Recommendation: To help sponsors who offer managed account services or who are considering doing so better protect their 401(k) plan participants, the Secretary of Labor should direct the Assistant Secretary for EBSA to provide guidance to plan sponsors for selecting and overseeing managed account providers that addresses: (1) the importance of considering multiple providers when choosing a managed account provider, (2) factors to consider when offering managed accounts as a Qualified Default Investment Alternative or on an opt-in basis, and (3) approaches for evaluating the services of managed account providers.

Agency: Department of Labor
Status: Open

Comments: DOL agreed to consider this recommendation in connection with a regulatory project on standards for brokerage windows in participant-directed individual account plans. However, in Spring 2017, DOL removed this project as an active project on its regulatory agenda. GAO continues to believe that plan sponsors would benefit from additional guidance for selecting and overseeing managed account providers. In April 2018, DOL reported that it was not able to allocate staff time and resources to this recommendation and does not yet have a specific timeline for any next action.

Recommendation: To help ensure that efforts to counter piracy and maritime crime are coordinated and prioritized to effectively address the evolving threat, the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, in collaboration with the Secretaries of Defense and State, should work through the Counter-Piracy Steering Group or otherwise collaborate with the Secretaries of Homeland Security, Transportation, and the Treasury, and the Attorney General to determine whether additional actions to address counterpiracy and maritime security, such as developing an action plan that includes elements of a strategic approach, are needed to guide and coordinate activities.

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs
Status: Open

Comments: In June 2014, the Executive Office of the President issued the United States Counter Piracy and Maritime Security Action Plan, which includes an annex specific to activities in and around the Gulf of Guinea. While the plan outlines some of the planned indicators of effectiveness for activities in and around the Gulf of Guinea, the extent to which the agencies have assessed or plan to assess costs and benefits are not explicitly addressed. The plan states that the Counter Piracy Steering Group will coordinate, implement, and monitor the objectives outlined in the plan and will assess methods and agency activities to reduce risk and protect the maritime industry from acts of piracy and related maritime crime. The plan identifies an increase in investigating and prosecuting cases and a reduction in the trend of piracy and related maritime crime as tangible indicators of successful implementation of the plan. However, GAO's past work on piracy off the Horn of Africa recommended that, as part of a strategic approach, agencies (1) identify the costs of U.S. counterpiracy efforts including operational, support, and personnel costs; and (2) assess the benefits, and effectiveness of U.S. counterpiracy activities. The 2014 plan and its Gulf of Guinea annex do not include a discussion of these elements of a strategic approach. In August 2018, officials from the State Department noted that the Action Plan has not been updated because the drafting of the U.S. National Strategy for Maritime Security-which was being led by the National Security Council staff and would have addressed the Action Plan-was indefinitely suspended in June 2018. As of September 2019, neither the Strategy nor the Action plan have been updated. Including these elements of a strategic approach in the plan can help assess the effectiveness of current efforts, prioritize future efforts, and leverage resources. GAO will continue to monitor progress in this area.

Recommendation: Because ROI provides insights on the productivity of a program and is one important factor in making resource allocation decisions, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue should calculate actual ROI for implemented initiatives, compare the actual ROI to projected ROI, and provide the comparison to budget decision makers for initiatives where IRS allocated resources.

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

Comments: No executive action taken as of December 2019. While IRS agreed that having actual ROI data for implemented initiatives would be useful, it did not believe it was feasible to produce such estimates, as GAO recommended in June 2014. GAO maintains that IRS should be able to provide some information on past initiatives, such as whether funds requested were used in the manner originally proposed. As of December 2016, IRS officials reported there is no timeline for full implementation. Comparing projected ROI to actual ROI can help hold managers and IRS accountable for the funding received.

Recommendation: To improve the quality of the Navy's future decommissioning decisions, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretary of the Navy to direct the Chief of Naval Operations to document the Navy's early decommissioning in decision memorandums in accordance with the General Policy for the Inactivation, Retirement, and Disposition of U.S. Naval Vessels prior to approving any future recommendations for early decommissioning of Navy ships.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation, stating that the Navy should have followed the policy that requires the decision memorandum, but did not do so because of "compressed timelines." DOD added that it would ensure the completion of decision memorandums for any future early decommissioning recommendations. We have been unable to determine whether DOD has implemented this recommendation since our report was issued. Most recently, DOD has not responded to our October 2019 request for an update. Given the significance of this recommendation, we will continue to leave it open until we are satisfied that DOD has or has not implemented it.

Recommendation: To enhance the likelihood that those decisions will be implemented, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretary of the Navy to direct the Chief of Naval Operations to update the Navy's General Policy for the Inactivation, Retirement, and Disposition of U.S. Naval Vessels to incorporate key elements of federal standards for internal control, such as communicating with and obtaining information from external stakeholders, comparing actual performance to planned or expected results, evaluating performance measures and indicators, such as risk, and comparing and assessing different sets of data to establish relationships and take appropriate action. In updating the policy, the Chief of Naval Operations should also consider requiring that its early decommissioning decision memorandums specifically address capacity as well as capability gaps.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation, stating that although it recognizes the importance of engaging with congressional stakeholders, it did not do so regarding its decommissioning decisions because those decisions were made in the context of budget development. DOD's comments added that until the Secretary of Defense and the President have approved the budget request, all such actions are predecisional and internal, and therefore are not discussed with Congress. DOD also disagreed with the part of our recommendation to require that its early decommissioning decision memorandums specifically address capacity as well as capability gaps, stating that by definition a decommissioning creates a capacity gap. Since our report was issued, we have been unable to determine the extent to which DOD has taken steps to implement this recommendation. Most recently, DOD has not responded to our October 2019 request for an update. Given the significance of this recommendation, we will continue to leave it open until we can determine whether DOD has or has not taken steps to implement it.

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

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

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

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

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments: NASA partially agreed with this recommendation, stating that it had established separate programs for SLS, Orion, and the ground systems and adopted a block upgrade approach for SLS. In January 2020, NASA stated that it plans to establish an agency baseline commitment for capability upgrades (e.g., Block 1B upgrades, such as Mobile Launcher-2 and Exploration Upper Stage) above the $250 million threshold. A joint confidence level analysis will be performed at key decision points and will include the cost and schedule range estimates for each of these upgrades. To address this recommendation, NASA needs to provide evidence that it established separate cost and schedule baselines for each additional SLS, Orion, and Ground Systems Development and Operations capability blocks that encompass all life-cycle costs, including operations and sustainment.

Recommendation: To develop an estimate of the scope of work remaining to address uranium contamination on or near the Navajo reservation, Congress should consider requiring that the Environmental Protection Agency take the lead and work with the other federal agencies to develop an overall estimate of the remaining scope of the work, time frames, and costs.

Agency: Congress
Status: Open

Comments: As of September 2020, we are not aware of any legislation being enacted to address this matter for congressional consideration.

Recommendation: In light of the problems BIA has encountered in managing the cleanup at the Tuba City Dump site, the Secretary of the Interior should direct the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs to employ best practices in creating the schedule and cost estimates for the remedial action cleanup phase.

Agency: Department of the Interior
Status: Open

Comments: As of September 2020, BIA and EPA had selected a cleanup option for Tuba City Dump, but BIA had not created schedule or cost estimates for the cleanup action. BIA stated it anticipated completing the cleanup design, which will include cost and schedule estimates, by September 2022. GAO will assess BIA's actions once they are complete.

Recommendation: In light of the problems BIA has encountered in managing the cleanup at the Tuba City Dump site, the Secretary of the Interior should direct the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs to identify and examine any lessons learned from managing the remedial investigation and feasibility study contract and consider these lessons as part of the acquisition planning process for the remedial action contract.

Agency: Department of the Interior
Status: Open

Comments: As of September 2020, BIA and EPA had selected a cleanup option for Tuba City Dump, but BIA had not initiated the acquisition planning process for the future cleanup contract. BIA stated it anticipated completing the cleanup design work, including the acquisition package, by September 2022. GAO will assess BIA's actions once they are complete.

Recommendation: To ensure appropriate levels of employees' supervision and guidance for the workforces of USDA's service center agencies, consistent with OPM guidance, the Secretary of Agriculture, through the Chief Human Capital Officer, should revise departmental policy targeting a uniform supervisory ratio so that the service center agencies can identify appropriate supervisory ratios based on a documented analysis of their specific customer needs and workload distribution.

Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open

Comments: As of May 2020, the Department of Agriculture has not taken action to implement this recommendation.

Recommendation: To improve the acquisition management of the Plan and the reliability of its cost estimates and schedules, assess the effectiveness of deployed technologies, and better inform CBP's deployment decisions, once data on asset assists are required to be recorded and tracked, the Commissioner of CBP should analyze available data on apprehensions and seizures and technological assists, in combination with other relevant performance metrics or indicators, as appropriate, to determine the contribution of surveillance technologies to CBP's border security efforts.

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

Comments: In 2014, CBP expanded its Arizona Border Surveillance Technology Plan to the Southwest Border Technology Plan. In February 2015, the Border Patrol took steps to address this recommendation by developing the Capability Gap Analysis Process (CGAP) with the support of Johns Hopkins University's Applied Physics Lab to examine the effects of technology and other assets. In May 2017, Border Patrol officials demonstrated a new system, intended to allow for more comprehensive analysis of the contributions of surveillance technologies to Border Patrol's mission during the CGAP process. As of March 2019, Border Patrol is now able to generate a performance report, using data collected from multiple systems, on how surveillance technologies have assisted agents during operations, including Border Patrol apprehensions. In February 2020 Border Patrol officials stated the data gathered in the report were reliable. They also provided examples of how they use available performance data to help identify gaps in capabilities and inform future investments in surveillance technologies. Border Patrol officials are also developing a surveillance capability score intended to represent the combined contributions of individual technology assets and agents on patrol to conduct surveillance in a given area. Border Patrol plans to report this score in fiscal year 2021, according to documentation provided by Border Patrol. We view these efforts, as described, as important progress toward fulfilling our recommendation, and will review the planned surveillance capability score once it is implemented to determine whether Border Patrol has fully implemented our recommendation.

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

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

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

Recommendation: In order to improve NMB's planning and make the most effective use of its limited resources, the Chairman of the National Mediation Board should develop and fully implement key components of an information security program in accordance with the Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002.

Agency: National Mediation Board
Status: Open

Comments: In February 2020, we determined that NMB had taken some steps to further implement key information security practices, but had not fully implemented this recommendation. We reported in GAO-20-236 that NMB continued to only partially follow the eight key information security practices in accordance with the Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA). NMB must take other steps, such as providing risk assessment documentation of its enterprise network for fiscal year 2019. NMB officials stated that the agency plans to address several of these practices by the end of fiscal year 2020. They further noted that they hired a Chief Information Officer and planned to hire additional staff and employ contractors to aid in these efforts.

Recommendation: In order to improve NMB's planning and make the most effective use of its limited resources, the Chairman of the National Mediation Board should establish a privacy program that includes conducting privacy impact assessments and issuing system of record notices for systems that contain personally identifiable information.

Agency: National Mediation Board
Status: Open

Comments: In February 2020, we reported in GAO-20-236 that NMB had taken some steps to implement information privacy practices, such as designating a privacy officer. However, NMB must take additional steps, such as specifying whether a system of records notice would be developed, as required by the Office of Management and Budget.

Recommendation: To help maintain a more thorough and insightful 2020 Census development schedule in order to better manage risks to a successful 2020 Census, the Secretary of Commerce and Undersecretary of Economic Affairs should direct the U.S. Census Bureau to improve the credibility of schedules, including conducting a quantitative risk assessment.

Agency: Department of Commerce
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: The Bureau agreed with this recommendation and stated that it had already begun maturing project schedules to ensure that the logical relationships between discrete schedules were put into place. Schedule integration sessions across projects and programs were held in late January 2014 and into February 2014 and periodically since then, where work was deconstructed into detailed schedules. The Bureau released its operational plan and other documentation in November 2015 and announced in June 2016 that it would finalize and release its 2020 Census schedule in July 2016. In 2015, the Bureau provided us with a preliminary output from its risk analysis software as a demonstration of the type of analysis it had committed to, but since then its officials have said that they will not be able to take all the steps needed to satisfy this recommendation for the 2020 Census. The Bureau took steps toward conducting quantitative schedule risk analyses with its master activity schedule for the 2020 Census, but effectively ran out of time to do so. Assigning resources to large complex schedules in order to conduct such analyses is easier to do early in schedule development process, as we recommended the Bureau do in 2009 for its 2020 Census schedule. This recommendation will remain open pending the Bureau taking steps to carry out quantitative risk assessments of its 2030 schedule with appropriate resources linked to it.

Recommendation: As DOL continues to review regulatory barriers to lifetime income options for 401(k) plan participants it should consider other countries' approaches to plans offering annuities, such as their reliance on existing solvency requirements and insurance industry standards to provide assurances rather than place responsibility on plan sponsors to make an assessment of an annuity provider's financial stability. As DOL considers the approaches of other countries and continues to work with the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, which facilitates interactions between insurance companies and state insurance regulators, DOL may wish to consult with the Federal Insurance Office, which coordinates federal efforts on prudential aspects of international insurance matters.

Agency: Department of Labor
Status: Open

Comments: DOL worked with the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) in 2013 and 2014 to consider possible options for easing plan sponsor concerns about the requirement to assess the financial solvency of annuity providers. DOL reported they will continue to work with NAIC, as well as the National Organization of Life & Health Insurance Guaranty Associations and Treasury's Federal Insurance Office as they consider potential regulatory approaches in this area. DOL also worked with the Federal Insurance Office in developing guidance on the selection and monitoring of annuity providers under the current annuity selection safe harbor regulation. In October 2017, Treasury recommended DOL work with Treasury to develop proposals on how establish or certify one or more expert, independent fiduciary entities to assess the long-term financial strength of annuity providers. Plan sponsors could use these assessments as a safe harbor in selecting annuity providers for their plan. As of 2017, DOL continued to cite its other regulatory and guidance priorities as taking precedence. In April 2018, DOL reported that in the development and clearance of the Spring 2018 regulatory agenda, the agency decided to continue to classify this project as a long-term action. We commend DOL's efforts on a more workable safe harbor, but continue to encourage DOL to review alternative approaches taken by other countries, such as their reliance on existing solvency requirements and insurance standards, which can ease the burden on plan sponsors.

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open

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

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

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

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: To ensure that IRS is meeting the stated goals of CAP, the Principal Deputy Commissioner of Internal Revenue and Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement should track savings from Compliance Maintenance and CAP overall and develop a plan for reinvesting any savings.

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

Comments: As of December 2019, IRS had taken some steps to implement this August 2013 recommendation, but had not developed a plan to track and reinvest any savings. IRS provided documents from October 2019 which discussed how portfolio management is used as a tool to prioritize and allocate time to eight compliance program areas, including CAP. IRS officials explained that any hours saved in a compliance program area are reallocated to the same or another compliance program area based on the division's strategic priorities rather than a plan focusing on CAP. Furthermore, CAP has not yet achieved the desired outcome of saving resources, according to IRS. If IRS finds any savings from CAP, it will need to develop a plan for reinvesting it to expand audit coverage. Without a plan for tracking savings and using them to increase audit coverage, IRS cannot be assured that the savings are effectively invested in either CAP or non-CAP taxpayers with a high compliance risk.

Recommendation: To better ensure that CBP's Office of Field Operations' (OFO) staffing processes are transparent and to help ensure CBP can demonstrate that these resource decisions have effectively addressed CBP's mission needs, the Commissioner of CBP should document the methodology and process OFO uses to allocate staff to land ports of entry on the southwest border, including the rationales and factors considered in making these decisions.

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

Comments: In May 2017, CBP's Office of Field Operations began working with a contractor to develop a comprehensive CBP position allocation methodology and tool. According to CBP officials, the purpose of this tool was to ensure a data driven, transparent process for allocating CBP resources--including staff--to land ports of entry on the southwest border. CBP officials stated that the contractor completed the tool in January 2018, CBP tested the tool in fiscal year 2018, and CBP planned to implement the tool in fiscal year 2019. However, CBP officials told us in September 2020 that a subsequent reorganization of the Office of Field Operations rendered the tool unusable without further modification. As a result, they used a manual method to allocate staff in fiscal year 2020 and plan to do the same in fiscal year 2021. As of September 2020, CBP officials planned to document the methodology and process they are now using to allocate staff to land ports of entry, including rationales and factors considered, by November 2020. This recommendation remains open.

Recommendation: To help SEC address identified personnel management challenges, and to help enhance the credibility of its performance management system, the Chairman of SEC should direct the COO and OHR to conduct periodic validations (with staff input) of the performance management system and make changes, as appropriate, based on these validations.

Agency: United States Securities and Exchange Commission
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: SEC management and the union agreed in November 2018 to implement a new performance management system and a new incentive bonus program in 2020. According to SEC officials, SEC plans to work with OPM to validate the new performance management system by conducting focus groups with staff at the midpoint of the 2020 appraisal period and surveying staff on the new system at the conclusion of the 2020 appraisal period. These plans are consistent with our 2013 recommendation that SEC should conduct periodic validations of its performance management system. In August 2020, SEC reported that it began implementation of the new 2-tier performance management program and will complete the annual rating cycle in December 2020, with feedback and appraisal closeout activities occurring in early calendar year 2021. According to SEC, OPM will assess the new program after calendar year 2020 performance cycle activities are completed. We will continue to monitor SEC's progress in validating the new performance management system.

Recommendation: To improve the consistency, comprehensiveness, and transparency of information provided to Congress and policymakers on the federal investment in export promotion programs, the Secretary of Commerce, as chair of the TPCC, should report in its National Export Strategies on how resources are allocated by agency and aligned with priorities.

Agency: Department of Commerce
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: The Export Enhancement Act [15 U.S.C. Section 4727(c)] states that the Trade Promotion Coordinating Committee's (TPCC) strategies should establish a set of priorities for federal export promotion activities and propose a unified federal trade promotion budget that supports the plan. In written comments on GAO's report, the Director of the TPCC Secretariat generally concurred with the recommendation on behalf of the Secretary. Nevertheless, the Director noted the TPCC's limited authority over budget reporting and resource allocations and gave examples of some challenges they faced, including shifts in the political and budgetary landscape and how different Administrations and Congresses have emphasized different priorities over time. In the years following GAO's 2013 report, the TPCC has not issued any National Export Strategies (NES), except in 2016; however this 2016 NES did not include any budget information on how resources were allocated by agency and aligned with the strategy's priorities. In August 2020 Commerce officials told GAO they had collected budget information from TPCC agencies related to trade promotion activities (FY19 actual and FY20 requested). They noted that the budget categories and agencies from which it was collected reflected changes in Administration priorities and new Congressional mandates. However, they said this information has not been transmitted to Congress.

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

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

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

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

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

Comments: On July 24, 2013, DOD reported that it non-concurred with our recommendation. DOD reported that the Military Department Corrosion Control and Prevention Executives are given the freedom to manage their programs in the most efficient and effective manner for their respective departments. Additionally, DOD reported that the Corrosion Control and Prevention Executives know the reporting requirements and are working closely with the Corrosion Policy and Oversight Office and the project managers to ensure reports are submitted in accordance with the DoD Corrosion Prevention and Mitigation Strategic Plan. Therefore, DOD reported that further guidance is not necessary as the requirements are already clearly stated in the DoD Corrosion Prevention and Mitigation Strategic Plan. Our audit work showed that DOD's strategic plan and guidance do not define a role for the Corrosion Executives in assisting the Corrosion Office in the project reporting process. Our recommendation was intended to fortify the role of Corrosion Executives in ensuring that project management offices within the Corrosion Executives' respective military departments submit project reports as required in the strategic plan. We continue to believe that the Corrosion Executives could provide the additional management oversight necessary to strengthen corrosion project reporting. In May 2016, the Senate Armed Services Committee informed us that it have included language in its National Defense Authorization Act Bill for fiscal year 2017. Specifically, the language reads: SEC. 312. REVISION OF GUIDANCE RELATED TO CORROSION CONTROL AND PREVENTION EXECUTIVES. Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, in coordination with the Director of Corrosion Policy and Oversight, shall revise corrosion-related guidance to clearly define the role of the corrosion control and prevention executives of the military departments in assisting the Office of Corrosion Policy and Oversight in holding the appropriate project management office in each military department accountable for submitting the report required under section 903(b)(5) of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417; 10 U.S.C. 2228 note) with an expanded emphasis on infrastructure, as required in the long-term strategy of the Department of Defense under section 2228(d) of title 10, United States Code. As of October 2016, legislation was not passed. As of March 2019, DOD has since decided to take action to implement this recommendation. According to Corrosion Office officials, they will include a definition of the military departments' Corrosion Executives' role in: an update to DOD Instruction 5000.67 (Prevention and Mitigation of Corrosion on DOD Military Equipment and Infrastructure), a new DOD manual on corrosion, an update to the DOD Corrosion Prevention and Mitigation Strategic Plan, and an update to the Corrosion Prevention Control Integrated Product Team charter. The Corrosion Office's goal is to complete these updates and create the new manual by the end of calendar year 2020. We will monitor the extent to which DOD implements this recommendation.

Recommendation: To ensure that EPA maximizes its limited resources and addresses the statutory, regulatory, and programmatic needs of EPA program offices and regions when IRIS toxicity assessments are not available, and once demand for the IRIS Program is determined, the EPA Administrator should direct the Deputy Administrator, in coordination with EPA's Science Advisor, to develop an agencywide strategy to address the unmet needs of EPA program offices and regions that includes, at a minimum: (1) coordination across EPA offices and with other federal research agencies to help identify and fill data gaps that preclude the agency from conducting IRIS toxicity assessments, and (2) guidance that describes alternative sources of toxicity information and when it would be appropriate to use them when IRIS values are not available, applicable, or current.

Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: As of February 2020, IRIS program officials indicated that they are building capacity for applying systematic review in chemical assessments. We reported in March 2019 that staff from the IRIS program were communicating more frequently with EPA program and regional offices about program and regional office needs and the IRIS program's ability to meet those needs. While ORD's newly-implemented survey process helps identify a limited number of the highest priority needs for program and regional offices, we also reported in March 2019 that program and regional officials told us that they still need far more chemical assessments than the IRIS program currently produces, and they do not have EPA-wide guidance on what sources to use when IRIS assessments are not available. One program office has developed its own prioritized list of sources for chemical assessments when IRIS assessments are not available, and other offices follow similar guidelines, though none officially. EPA leadership needs to provide documentation showing an agency-wide strategy that includes identifying data gaps and guidance on alternative sources of toxicity information when IRIS values are not available, applicable, or current.

Recommendation: To improve the resilience of the nation's infrastructure to climate change, the Executive Director of the United States Global Change Research Program or other federal entity designated by the Executive Office of the President should work with relevant agencies to identify for decision makers the "best available" climate-related information for infrastructure planning and update this information over time.

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

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

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

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

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

Recommendation: To more effectively implement SBA's expansion of OIT field staff as required by the SBJA, the Administrator of the SBA should update SBA's plan for additional OIT staff to include funding sources and time frames, as well as possible efficiencies from clearly defining roles and responsibilities and leveraging other entities' export assistance resources.

Agency: Small Business Administration
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: SBA concurred with our recommendations. In response to the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 (SBJA) requirement that a total of 30 export finance specialists be hired nationwide by September 2012, SBA noted resource constraints and filled only 19 positions at that time. In 2016, SBA reported progress toward the SBJA requirement despite agency staffing limitations and staffed a total of 21 or 70% of the 30 required export finance specialist (EFS) positions. SBA officials also reported that they had hired staff to replace retirements or other staff departures, but determined that because of finite funding resources it would not be feasible to hire additional OIT staff. They instead took steps to mitigate the shortfall by engaging other field office staff to more proactively market its international trade programs to small businesses. In particular, in 2017, as part a result of the new Administrations' Agency Reform plan, SBA undertook a Field Alignment Project. Specific to OIT, this project was intended to better leverage certain District office field staff such that they would increase outreach efforts to promote exports as required by the SBJA and in response to GAO's recommendations. This was done by assigning district staff new specific output goals intended to increase export promotion activities. In January 2020, OIT reported hiring four additional export finance specialists, bringing the total hired to 25. OIT also reported establishing a strategy for future hires to be assigned to existing Export Assistance Centers, and requesting fiscal year 2021 funding to hire individuals to fill the remaining five positions. While these steps partially mitigate the shortfall and are in the spirit of the SBJA requirement and GAO's recommendations, as of January 2020 SBA has not yet achieved the 30 export finance specialists required by the SBJA.

Recommendation: To help ensure the department maintains its critical skills and competencies, when planning for and implementing future civilian workforce actions, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness to involve functional community managers and to the extent possible, use information from gap assessments of its critical skills and competencies as they are completed to make informed decisions for possible future reductions or justify the size of the force that it has.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: As of September 2017, the Associate Director, Total Force Requirements & Sourcing Policies; OUSD(P&R), stated that the Department has taken some actions and that there are ongoing efforts in this area. As of November 2019, DOD has taken no further action. We will continue to monitor DOD's progress in implementing this recommendation.

Recommendation: In light of the agency's declining revenue associated with its basic statutory function and the charging for information that is often freely available elsewhere, Congress should consider examining the appropriateness and viability of the fee-based model under which NTIS currently operates for disseminating technical information to determine whether the use of this model should be continued.

Agency: Congress
Status: Open

Comments: Congress had taken a number of actions that affect the NTIS fee-based model for disseminating technical information. Specifically, for the past 5 fiscal years and in the current Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020, NTIS is prohibited from charging customers for reports generated by legislative branch offices unless the agency tells the customer how an electronic copy of the report can be accessed or downloaded for free online. The act further states that, if a customer still requires such a report from NTIS, the agency should not charge more than what is needed to recover the cost of processing, reproducing, and delivering the document requested. It remains to be seen whether these requirements will be continued under the yet to be introduced House and Senate bills making appropriations for the Department of Commerce (Commerce) for fiscal year 2021. Congress again has the opportunity to consider legislation that would ensure the assessment of the appropriateness or viability of NTIS functions.

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

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

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

Recommendation: To enhance FAA's efforts to improve general aviation safety, the Secretary of Transportation should direct the FAA Administrator to improve measures of general aviation activity by requiring the collection of the number of hours that general aviation aircraft fly over a period of time (flight hours). FAA should explore ways to do this that minimize the impact on the general aviation community, such as by collecting the data at regular events (e.g., during registration renewals or at annual maintenance inspections) that are already required.

Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open

Comments: In July 2019, GAO confirmed that FAA still does not plan to collect General Aviation (GA) flight hour data during registration renewals or annual maintenance inspections because this would require rulemaking and could have a significant economic and paperwork impact on the GA industry. While FAA has made changes to the GA Activity Survey to improve the accuracy of the flight hour data collected for a sample of GA populations, FAA still does not plan to collect all GA flight hour data as part of its GA Activity Survey. GAO maintains that without comprehensive GA flight hour data, estimates from the GA Activity Survey may not be sufficient for drawing conclusions about changes in crash rates over time and that more precise flight hour data could allow FAA to better target its safety efforts within the GA industry.

Recommendation: To enhance FAA's efforts to improve general aviation safety, and to ensure that ongoing safety issues are addressed, the Secretary of Transportation should direct the FAA Administrator to set specific general aviation safety improvement goals--such as targets for fatal accident reductions--for individual industry segments using a datadriven, risk management approach.

Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open

Comments: In July 2019, GAO confirmed that FAA still does not plan to develop safety targets for different segments of the General Aviation (GA) industry. While FAA's General Aviation Joint Steering Committee was exploring metrics for monitoring different GA industry segments, it was determined that developing credible metrics was not feasible using the GA Activity Survey. GAO maintains that FAA needs to develop specific general aviation safety improvement targets for individual industry segments to support a data-driven, risk management approach.

Recommendation: To enhance FAA's efforts to improve general aviation safety, and to determine whether the programs and activities underlying the 5-year strategy are successful and if additional actions are needed, the Secretary of Transportation should direct the FAA Administrator to develop performance measures for each significant program and activity underlying the 5-year strategy.

Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open

Comments: FAA reported it established performance measures for significant programs and activities underlying its 5-year strategy. However, as of July 2019 FAA has still not provided GAO with documentation of these performance measures. Without this documentation, GAO cannot confirm that the agency has developed performance measures for each significant program and activity underlying its 5-year strategy.

Recommendation: To improve federal training investment decision-making processes, the Director of OPM should include in existing or new OPM guidance or technical assistance additional information in the following areas: (1) Steps agencies should take and factors they should consider when prioritizing federal training investments agency-wide, including developing a process to rank training using criteria, such as expected demand for the investment from internal sources, availability of resources to support the effort, potential for increased revenue, and risk of unfavorable consequences if investments are not made. (2) Steps agencies should take and factors they should consider for comparing the merits of different delivery mechanisms and determining the mix of mechanisms to use, in order to ensure efficient and cost-effective delivery of federal training. Such guidance could include requesting that agencies consistently utilize Standard Form-182 to document and report training costs associated with the different delivery mechanisms employed.

Agency: Office of Personnel Management
Status: Open

Comments: On July 19, 2017, OPM officials provided a document that summarized efforts that are underway to address the recommendation. According to the document, proposed changes/recommendations to training elements and to the SF-182 were presented to the Chief Learning Officers Council at their monthly meeting on June 19, 2017. According to OPM, its ongoing connection with the CLO Council will include gathering information through focus groups in the Fall of 2017 on agencies' talent development processes, tools, and procedures. Questions on how an agency prioritizes training and tools used to do so will be included. OPM says it will use information gathered to develop criteria for ranking training. OPM provided a sample training summary it prepares for each agency. The summary contains a section on utilization of learning by source type and utilization of learning by delivery method. These sections also contain data that can be used when comparing the merits of different delivery mechanisms and determining future use. On June 11, 2020, OPM told us that program officials are gathering support for its implementation of the recommendation and would soon provide that information to GAO.

Recommendation: To improve federal training investment decision-making processes, the Director of OPM should, in line with statutory and regulatory provisions on maintenance and reporting of training information, work with the CHCO Council to improve the reliability of agency training investment information by: (1) ensuring that agencies are familiar with and follow guidance outlined in OPM's Guide for the Collection and Management of Training Information regarding which training events should be documented as training and reported to OPM; (2) developing policies to strengthen the utilization of Standard Form- 182 to document and report training costs; (3) encouraging agencies through guidance and technical assistance, to develop policies that require consistent reporting of training data to their learning management systems; and (4) encouraging each agency to assess its existing training information system(s) and identify whether it is providing complete and reliable data and, if not, to develop approaches to improve the system(s), in order to do so.

Agency: Office of Personnel Management
Status: Open

Comments: On July 19, 2017 OPM provided a document that summarized efforts that are underway to address the recommendation. According to the document, OPM provided a refresher to the Chief Learning Officers Council on OPM's guidance on Reporting of Training Data. This included reviewing OPM's and agencies' responsibilities for the collection and reporting of data and reviewing the process of how agency data is transmitted to EHRI. Further, OPM says it highlighted the Guide to Human Resources Reporting as the source for the required format for reporting training data to EHRI and provided the Guide for Collection and Management of Training Information. Both guides are also located on OPM's website. OPM's training data report summaries encourage agencies to review their data, to check for submission errors and consistencies in reporting, and to validate that all training events are included. OPM reported that 3 CHCO agencies that did not submit any data for FY 14 submitted data for FY 15 and that EHRI is assisting agencies with data quality transmission and PII issues. On June 11, 2020, OPM told us that program officials are gathering support for its implementation of the recommendation and would soon provide that information to GAO.

Recommendation: Congressmay wish to consider amending the Internal Revenue Code to authorize IRS to assess penalties on preparers for failure to comply with section 6011(e)(3).

Agency: Congress
Status: Open

Comments: A bill was introduced on June 28, 2011, which would have amended electronic filing requirements for paid preparers. This included language amending section 6695 of the Internal Revenue Code to include a penalty of $50 for failure to electronically file returns under section 6011 (e)(3). However, this bill was never enacted. As of January 2020, there are no bills pending that would provide IRS with authority to penalize paid preparers for failure to electronically file returns as GAO recommended

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

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

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

Recommendation: To improve EPA's ability to oversee the states' implementation of the Safe Drinking Water Act and provide Congress and the public with more complete and accurate information on compliance, the Administrator of EPA should resume data verification audits to routinely evaluate the quality of selected drinking water data on health-based and monitoring violations that the states provide to EPA. These audits should also evaluate the quality of data on the enforcement actions that states and other primacy agencies have taken to correct violations.

Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: As of July 2020 there has been no change in the status of this recommendation. EPA, as of September 2019, had not resumed data verification audits to routinely evaluate the quality of the data states provide to the agency. The Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS) Prime and the Compliance Monitoring Data Portal (CMDP) will replace the data verification audits in the future. EPA has made SDWIS Prime available through incremental interim releases to state drinking water agencies for exploring and testing but does not expect to fully release it until mid-2020. However, as of August 2019, SDWIS Prime was unavailable while EPA awaited progress on the SDWIS Modernization Project plan. According to EPA, the CMDP will enable utilities and laboratories to report data electronically to primacy agencies with fewer errors and in a more efficient manner; but it is not clear when it will be fully operational. According to data provided by EPA in September 2019, 10 states were using CMDP to varying degrees. EPA information identified another 6 states that plan to transition to CMDP between September and December 2019, 2 states that plan to transition in 2020, and 12 others that may transition in the future. In the meantime, EPA indicated that the agency will complete nine file reviews in 2019 to verify data in agencies that do not currently use CMDP. EPA's actions may improve its ability to oversee states' implementation of the act and provide more complete and accurate information on compliance, but because EPA's systems to replace data verification audits are not yet fully in place, we are keeping this recommendation open.

Recommendation: To improve EPA's ability to oversee the states' implementation of the Safe Drinking Water Act and provide Congress and the public with more complete and accurate information on compliance, the Administrator of EPA should work with the states to establish a goal, or goals, for the completeness and accuracy of data on monitoring violations. In setting these goals, EPA may want to consider whether certain types of monitoring violations merit specific targets. For example, the agency may decide that a goal for the states to completely and accurately report when required monitoring was not done should differ from a goal for reporting when monitoring was done but not reported on time.

Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Status: Open

Comments: As of July 2020 there has been no change in the status of this recommendation. EPA is developing the Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS) Prime, with several efforts underway as of September 2019 as we noted under recommendation 1, but until it is fully operational, EPA will not be able to work with states to establish a national goal for the quality of monitoring violations. EPA noted in 2017 that it expected SDWIS Prime to enable the agency and primacy agencies to better understand the nature of system violations and consider developing goals for monitoring and reporting violations. However, according to EPA, SDWIS Prime will not be released until mid-2020. EPA indicated plans to modify the Annual Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) Program Review requirements but the agency states that it is dependent on approval by the Office of the Inspector General. Despite the ongoing delays to address the call in the recommendation for establishing new goals, we are keeping this recommendation open while EPA continues its efforts to implement SDWIS Prime.

Recommendation: To promote an efficient use of resources and to better plan for the design of a new performance management system, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Civilian Personnel Policy to, in conjunction with the DOD Comptroller, help ensure that information identifying and supporting the costs of the NSPS termination and new performance management system is documented, reliable, traceable to a source document, and readily available for examination.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: GAO staff met with DOD officials in October 2019 to discuss the status of the department's new performance management system and any efforts to address this recommendation. DOD officials agreed to provide documentation related to these efforts, but, as of November 2019, this documentation. has not been received. Further updates will be made once that documentation is received and reviewed.

Recommendation: To address weaknesses in DCOE's strategic plan, the Secretary of Defense, through the Director of TMA, should direct the DCOE director to revisit and revise as necessary the organization's goals for completing statutorily required responsibilities.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: As of July 2017, DOD officials have not implemented this recommendation. GAO considers it to be open. We will update the status of this recommendation when we receive additional information.

Recommendation: To address weaknesses in DCOE's strategic plan, the Secretary of Defense, through the Director of TMA, should direct the DCOE director to require the directorates to align their day-to-day activities to support DCOE's mission and goals.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: As of July 2017, DOD officials have not implemented this recommendation. GAO considers it to be open. We will update the status of this recommendation when we receive additional information.

Recommendation: To address weaknesses in DCOE's strategic plan, the Secretary of Defense, through the Director of TMA, should direct the DCOE director to improve the performance measures in the plan to enable DCOE to determine if achievement of each measure fully supports attainment of its associated goal.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: As of July 2017, DOD officials have not implemented this recommendation. GAO considers it to be open. We will update the status of this recommendation when we receive additional information.

Recommendation: To ensure that DCOE obligations are properly classified and recorded in accordance with OMB guidance, the Secretary of Defense, through the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Health Affairs) (ASD(HA)), should direct TMA to develop written procedures with detailed steps to be performed for ensuring proper classification and recording of obligations in TMA's financial management systems.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: As of July 2017, DOD officials have not implemented this recommendation. GAO considers it to be open. We will update the status of this recommendation when we receive additional information.

Recommendation: To ensure that DCOE obligations are properly classified and recorded in accordance with OMB guidance, the Secretary of Defense, through the ASD(HA), should direct TMA to assign responsibility for updating and maintaining procedural guidance and systems codes to assure consistency with annual OMB guidance.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: As of July 2017, DOD officials have not implemented this recommendation. GAO considers it to be open. We will update the status of this recommendation when we receive additional information.

Recommendation: To gain efficiencies and improve taxpayer service, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue should direct the appropriate officials, based on the quality of service provided by comparable organizations and on what matters most to the customer, to determine a customer service telephone standard, and the resources required to achieve this standard based on input from Congress and other stakeholders.

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

Comments: As of August 2019, IRS finalized a customer service strategy identifying an optimal telephone level of service. According to the strategy, IRS has a process to compare major metrics with other agencies and private industry, and conducted two studies to look at industry practices. In response to our recommendation, IRS compared its telephone data with similar telephone environments, and determined that a telephone level of service between 70 and 80 percent provides an optimal balance for servicing customer service telephones and paper correspondence requests. However, IRS faced two significant challenges in managing the 2019 filing season: (1) implementing major tax law changes from the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), and (2) a lapse in appropriations that left IRS unfunded during five weeks leading up to the opening of the 2019 filing season. As a result of issues stemming from these challenges, IRS revised its 2019 filing season telephone service goals from 80 percent to 65 percent during the filing season, and from 75 percent to 63 percent for all of fiscal year 2019. By not maintaining the identified optimal level of service standard, IRS is missing opportunities to illustrate gaps between actual and desired levels of service that may have resulted from issues linked to TCJA implementation and the lapse in appropriations. IRS did outline steps it is taking to achieve the optimal range of 70-80 percent telephone level of service outlined in its customer service strategy. Specifically, IRS said that it is working to upgrade equipment for all IRS business units that provide telephone services to taxpayers. It also cited examples of these upgrades, such as implementing a customer callback system that allows callers to keep their place in queue without remaining on the phone. While IRS said it has allocated funding to begin the development and installation of the customer callback feature, it did not provide an estimate of the resources required to upgrade the equipment and otherwise achieve the optimum range of telephone level of service. By not providing sufficient information to Congress on resources needed to achieve an optimal level of service, IRS is missing opportunities to justify the resources it believes are needed to improve taxpayer service.

Recommendation: To ensure that the Department of Defense is taking full advantage of the cost savings that can be achieved by implementing CPC projects, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology and Logistics) to update applicable guidance, such as DOD Instruction 5000.67, Prevention and Mitigation of Corrosion on DOD Military Equipment and Infrastructure or the DOD Corrosion Prevention and Mitigation Strategic Plan to further define the responsibilities of the military departments' Corrosion Executives, to include more specific oversight and review of the project proposals before and during the project selection process.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD has not updated DOD Instruction 5000.67 - Prevention and Mitigation of Corrosion on DOD Military Equipment and Infrastructure, the DOD Corrosion Prevention and Mitigation Strategic Plan, or other applicable guidance since the publication of our report. DOD did not concur with this recommendation at the time of our report but as of March 2019, has since decided to take action to implement it. Corrosion Office officials agree that Corrosion Executives' responsibilities in the Corrosion Prevention Project selection process have to be further defined. They plan to clearly document the selection procedures and participation of the Corrosion Executive in an update to DOD Instruction 5000.67 (Prevention and Mitigation of Corrosion on DOD Military Equipment and Infrastructure) and in the new DOD manual on corrosion. The Corrosion Office's goal is to complete this instruction update and create the new manual by the end of calendar year 2020. We will monitor the extent to which DOD implements this recommendation.

Recommendation: To help ensure that FDA's overseas offices are able to fully meet their mission of helping to ensure the safety of imported products, the Commissioner of FDA should ensure, as it completes its strategic planning process for the overseas offices, that it develops a set of performance goals and measures that can be used to demonstrate overseas office contributions to long-term outcomes related to the regulation of imported products and that overseas office activities are coordinated with the centers and Office of Regulatory Affairs (ORA).

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

Comments: In June and July 2018 FDA reported on its recent efforts to assess the effectiveness of the foreign offices' contributions to drug-safety related outcomes. Among other things, the agency developed new performance measures for these offices along with a monitoring and evaluation plan and conducted an assessment of the foreign offices to help set their objectives and ensure the right balance of personnel, skillsets, and resources. However, FDA still had to develop intermediate outcomes to link with final outcomes. In August 2020, the agency indicated that because of a reorganization and strategic planning effort for its Office of Global Policy and Strategy, it was still revising and updating its measures and its approach to evaluating impact in 2020 to align with a five-year strategic plan completed in March 2020. The agency indicated that the recommendation should remain open, and GAO will continue to monitor the implementation of this recommendation.

Recommendation: To help ensure that CFTC and SEC are strategically positioned to implement the joint report's recommendations and address remaining harmonization opportunities, as CFTC and SEC continue to develop the charter for the Joint Advisory Committee, the Chairmen of CFTC and SEC should take steps to establish, with associated time frames, clearer goals for future harmonization efforts and requirements for reporting and evaluating progress toward these goals. Specifically, the agencies could benefit from formalizing a plan to assess implementation of the joint report's recommendations and harmonization opportunities that may not have been fully addressed by the joint report, such as differences in market structure and investor definitions. Such a plan could include goals for future harmonization efforts, such as time frames for implementing the recommendations; assessment of whether remaining differences in statutes and regulations result in inconsistent regulation of similar products and entities that could lead to opportunities for regulatory arbitrage; and periodic reports to Congress on their progress, including the implementation and impact of the recommendations.

Agency: Commodity Futures Trading Commission
Status: Open

Comments: In July 2018, the CFTC and SEC Chairmen signed an updated version of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) originally signed in 2008. The new MOU created an updated framework for information sharing to make it easier for the two agencies to share information. A CFTC official noted that the MOU underscored two agencies' commitment to addressing harmonization efforts. In addition, CFTC officials identified examples of harmonization areas where CFTC and SEC have made some additional progress. This recommendation remains open until CFTC identifies steps taken to create a plan for assessing progress on working with SEC on remaining harmonization opportunities.

Recommendation: To address USPS's financial viability in the short term, Congress may wish to consider providing financial relief to USPS, including modifying its retiree health benefit cost structure in a fiscally responsible manner. Congress may also wish to consider any and all options available to reduce USPS costs, including revising the statutory framework for collective bargaining to ensure that binding arbitration takes its financial condition into account. At the same time, to facilitate making progress in difficult areas, Congress may wish to consider establishing (1) a panel of independent experts, similar to a BRAC-like commission, to coordinate with USPS and stakeholders to develop a package of proposed legislative and operational changes needed to reduce costs and address challenges to USPS's business model and (2) procedures for the review and approval of these proposals by the President and Congress. These proposals could focus on adapting delivery and retail services to declining mail volumes; making postal operations, networks, and workforce more cost-efficient; and generating new revenue.

Agency: Congress
Status: Open

Comments: As of March 2020, Congress has taken no action on this matter.

Recommendation: To better ensure FDA's oversight of the safety of GRAS substances, the Commissioner of FDA should develop a strategy to minimize the potential for conflicts of interest in companies' GRAS determinations, including taking steps such as issuing guidance for companies on conflict of interest and requiring information in GRAS notices regarding expert panelists' independence.

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

Comments: On November 16, 2017, FDA published a notification of availability for the draft guidance "Best Practices for Convening a GRAS Panel: Guidance for Industry," with a request for comments on the draft guidance by May 15, 2018. FDA indicated that the draft guidance represents FDA's current thinking on strategies to minimize the potential for conflicts of interest in companies' GRAS determinations, including assessing potential GRAS panel members for conflicts of interest. As of July 2020, FDA had not yet finalized the guidance, so we are leaving the recommendation open.

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

Agency: Congress
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: To improve compliance with shareholder basis rules, Congress may wish to require S corporations to calculate and report shareholder's stock and debt basis as completely as possible. S corporations would report the calculation on the Schedule K-1 and send it to shareholders as well as IRS. If Congress judges that stock purchase price information that is currently only available to shareholders should not be transmitted to the S corporation due to privacy concerns, an alternative is to require that S corporations report less complete basis calculations using information already available to the S corporation.

Agency: Congress
Status: Open

Comments: As of January 2020, Congress had not enacted legislation to require S corporations--a federal business type that provides certain tax benefits like passing income and losses to shareholders' individual returns-- to calculate and report shareholder's stock and debt basis as completely as possible and report the calculation to shareholders and IRS, as GAO suggested in December 2009.

Recommendation: To help implement a fair, effective, and credible performance management system for its civilian employees--whether NSPS or another--the Secretary of Defense should review and evaluate the effectiveness of the department's training.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 which repealed the National Security Personnel System required that DOD (1) take all actions necessary for the orderly termination of NSPS and (2) transition of all employees and positions from NSPS to legacy personnel systems or, if applicable, to the personnel systems that would have applied if NSPS had never been established. The law also mandated that the transition be completed by no later than January 1, 2012 and required DOD to establish a new performance management system, among other things. DOD began to implement a new performance management system in 2016. GAO staff met with DOD officials in October 2019 to discuss the status of the new system and any efforts to address these recommendations. DOD officials agreed to provide documentation related to these efforts, but, as of November 2019, have not yet done so. Further updates will be made once that documentation is received and reviewed.

Recommendation: To help implement a fair, effective, and credible performance management system for its civilian employees--whether NSPS or another--the Secretary of Defense should ensure that guidance is in place for conducting a postdecisional analysis that specifies what process the components should follow to investigate and eliminate potential barriers to fair and equitable ratings.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 which repealed the National Security Personnel System required that DOD (1) take all actions necessary for the orderly termination of NSPS and (2) transition of all employees and positions from NSPS to legacy personnel systems or, if applicable, to the personnel systems that would have applied if NSPS had never been established. The law also mandated that the transition be completed by no later than January 1, 2012 and required DOD to establish a new performance management system, among other things. DOD began to implement a new performance management system in 2016. GAO staff met with DOD officials in October 2019 to discuss the status of the new system and any efforts to address these recommendations. DOD officials agreed to provide documentation related to these efforts, but, as of November 2019, have not yet done so. Further updates will be made once that documentation is received and reviewed.

Recommendation: To help implement a fair, effective, and credible performance management system for its civilian employees--whether NSPS or another--the Secretary of Defense should include, as part of the department's monitoring of the implementation of its system, efforts to monitor and evaluate how the safeguards specifically are implemented by lower-level organizations across the department.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 which repealed the National Security Personnel System required that DOD (1) take all actions necessary for the orderly termination of NSPS and (2) transition of all employees and positions from NSPS to legacy personnel systems or, if applicable, to the personnel systems that would have applied if NSPS had never been established. The law also mandated that the transition be completed by no later than January 1, 2012 and required DOD to establish a new performance management system, among other things. DOD began to implement a new performance management system in 2016. GAO staff met with DOD officials in October 2019 to discuss the status of the new system and any efforts to address these recommendations. DOD officials agreed to provide documentation related to these efforts, but, as of November 2019, have not yet done so. Further updates will be made once that documentation is received and reviewed.

Recommendation: To strengthen NNSA's oversight practices and current and future facility modernization efforts, and to improve the transparency and usefulness of cost analyses prepared for future NNSA nuclear facilities modernization projects, the Secretary of Energy should direct the Administrator of NNSA to ensure that life cycle cost analyses include a thorough and balanced evaluation of short- and long-term construction and financing alternatives. Such analyses should consider the full useful life of the facility rather than the 20-year requirement for GSA leases or any predetermined length of time that might produce results that favor one option over another.

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: NNSA provided evidence that it requires life cycle cost analyses for projects greater than $20 million. However, this is not fully responsive to GAO's recommendation. For example, the recommendation stated that each life cycle cost analysis performed includes short- and long-term construction and financing alternatives and that these analyses should consider the full life of the facility rather than the 20-year requirements for GSA leases or any predetermined length of time. NNSA's actions do not address this aspect of the life cycle cost analysis. Our work found that facility's life cycle cost analysis only covered 20 years and it failed to reflect cost savings over a longer useful life (possibly over 50 years) that could have been realized if the facility were purchased instead of leased. Nothing in the Order addresses how the life cycle cost period to be analyzed should be established (e.g., 20 years or 50 plus years). Although we requested additional information from NNSA on this recommendation in fiscal year 2019, the agency has not responded. As a result, as of June 2020, the recommendation remains open.

Recommendation: To strengthen NNSA's oversight practices and current and future facility modernization efforts, and because of the importance of mitigating the risks of outsourcing nuclear weapons components and other information that if exported, might allow potential adversaries to develop or advance their nuclear capabilities, the Secretary of Energy should direct the Administrator of NNSA to take immediate action to assess the effectiveness of NNSA's oversight of KCP's current export control and nonproliferation practices and, if appropriate, initiate corrective actions to strengthen that oversight.

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: As of August 2020, there has been no change in the status of this recommendation. While NNSA/contractor actions are commendable and appear to be beneficial, such as adding performance-based incentives, training 950 employees, and including new contract clauses in its supplier purchase orders, these actions do not fully satisfy the recommendation. GAO's recommendation was specifically directed at the effectiveness of NNSA's oversight of the KCP contractor's export control and nonproliferation practices and to initiate corrective actions to strengthen that NNSA oversight. While the Kansas City Site Office's addition of a performance based incentive seems to be a good improvement, NNSA has not demonstrated its own oversight effectiveness. Our review of NNSA's response provided in March 2014 was not persuasive. In addition, GAO-16-710 found that as of May 2016, the Secretary of Energy had not used the enhanced procurement authority to ensure supply chain integrity, and the Department of Energy (DOE) had not developed processes for using the authority, as it had not fully assessed the circumstances under which the authority might be useful. Although NNSA provided additional information on this recommendation in August 2019, these actions relied primarily on contractor self assessments and not on independent federal oversight. As a result, this recommendation will continue to remain open.

Recommendation: To better ensure the notice phase is achieving desired results at the lowest costs, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue should provide IRS collection managers and executives accessible, reliable information on what the business rules are.

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

Comments: In August 2017, IRS provided documentation of plans to periodically share with appropriate staff business rules information, along with related results of periodic evaluations of the business rules for the four highest-volume collection notices. In February 2018, IRS officials said that conducting the evaluations will depend on resources being available from the multiple functions involved. As of December 2019, IRS had not provided GAO with documentation of time frames for regularly sharing business rules information. We will update the status when IRS provides supporting documentation on actions taken, as we requested in December 2019.

Recommendation: To better ensure the notice phase is achieving desired results at the lowest costs, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue should periodically and regularly evaluate the business rules in terms of efficiency and effectiveness or other results and ensure the results are available to managers so the data and methodologies can be used or considered in future evaluations.

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

Comments: In August 2017, IRS provided documentation of plans to periodically evaluate the business rules for the four highest-volume collection notices and share evaluation results with appropriate staff. In February 2018, IRS officials said that conducting the evaluations will depend on resources being available from the multiple functions involved. As of December 2019, IRS had not provided GAO with documentation of any evaluation results or a date when IRS expects to complete the first such evaluation. Nor had IRS provided time frames for regularly conducting and sharing business rules evaluation results. We will update the status when IRS provides supporting documentation on actions taken, as we requested in December 2019.

Recommendation: In order to better assess whether changes are needed in the way IRS administers activities not engaged in for profit provisions, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue should take steps to estimate the extent of activities not engaged in for profit noncompliance from its ongoing research programs.

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

Comments: IRS agreed to research sole proprietor noncompliance, as GAO recommended in September 2009. It is focusing on those who improperly claim business losses (i.e., not profits). IRS's Office of Research, Analysis and Statistics is using the reporting compliance study of Form 1040 filers to gather the data on such noncompliant business losses. This research covered sampled tax returns filed for tax years 2009, 2010, and 2011 and used audits of the sampled tax returns that are filed for each tax year. In November 2016, IRS research officials provided the initial rough estimates of the percentage of disallowed losses and associated dollar amounts for all 3 tax years but as of December 2019, they had not yet indicated how these estimates helped IRS to understand the nature of the tax noncompliance. The officials cautioned that their ability to develop the estimates depends on the number of observations that can be applied from each tax year. This research, when completed, could help IRS to identify noncompliant sole proprietor issues and take action to reduce losses.

Recommendation: To strengthen formal collaboration efforts, the Secretary of Transportation should direct the Administrator of the Federal Transit Administration, and the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development should direct the appropriate program offices, to develop a plan to ensure that data collected on the various programs of the agencies related to affordable housing and transit are sufficient to measure the agencies' performance toward goals and outcomes established in the HUD-FTA action plan and the Partnership for Sustainable Communities.

Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development
Status: Open

Comments: On November 30, 2009, we received a response from HUD stating that actions were planned or underway to address this and the other recommendation in this report. As of July 2019, we are reviewing additional documentation provided by DOT and HUD on actions they have taken.

Recommendation: To strengthen formal collaboration efforts, the Secretary of Transportation should direct the Administrator of the Federal Transit Administration, and the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development should direct the appropriate program offices, to develop a plan to ensure that data collected on the various programs of the agencies related to affordable housing and transit are sufficient to measure the agencies' performance toward goals and outcomes established in the HUD-FTA action plan and the Partnership for Sustainable Communities.

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

Comments: On November 30, 2009, we received a response from HUD stating that actions were planned or underway to address this and the other recommendation in this report. As of July 2019, we are reviewing additional documentation provided by DOT and HUD on actions they have taken.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recommendation: Congress may wish to consider requiring the Departments of Justice, Homeland Security, and Treasury to collaborate on the development and implementation of a joint radio communications solution. Specifically, Congress may wish to consider requiring the departments to (1) establish an effective governance structure that includes a formal process for making decisions and resolving disputes, (2) define and articulate a common outcome for this joint effort, and (3) develop a joint strategy for improving radio communications.

Agency: Congress
Status: Open

Comments: Legislation has been enacted to provide funding for, among other things, the development of a nationwide, interoperable broadband network that is aimed at improving interoperable radio communications among public safety officials. However, the use of the broadband network by public safety users will be voluntary. In addition, officials from the Departments of Justice, Homeland Security, and the Treasury stated that, once mission-critical voice capabilities have been developed for the broadband network, their respective departments will determine whether they will use the network to support their mission-critical operations. Therefore, until the three departments have the information they need to make a decision to use the nationwide public safety broadband network to support mission critical voice capabilities, it is uncertain if the legislation will remedy these agencies' fragmented approaches to improving interoperable radio communications. As of March 2020, there has been no legislative action taken in the current Congress.