Recommendation: The Secretary of the Army should direct the MPF program to update its cost estimate to include analyses to support the development of a range of possible cost outcomes for decision makers in a manner consistent with GAO's Cost Estimation Guide. (Recommendation 1)

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

Comments: The Army concurred with this recommendation and stated that it plans to provide decision makers a range of possible cost outcomes to support future program milestone decisions. When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Army should direct the OMFV program to update its cost estimate to include analyses to support the development of a range of possible cost outcomes for decision makers in a manner consistent with GAO's Cost Estimation Guide. (Recommendation 2)

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

Comments: The Army concurred with this recommendation and stated that it plans to provide decision makers a range of possible cost outcomes to support future program milestone decisions. When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Army should direct the OMFV program to inform requirements by conducting systems engineering reviews at key decision points consistent with our leading practices for acquisition, as the program office finalizes its acquisition approach. (Recommendation 3)

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

Comments: The Army concurred with this recommendation and stated that it plans to perform system and design reviews to inform the development of final requirements. When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The Commandant of the Coast Guard should ensure that the Deputy Commandant for Mission Support assesses and addresses the causes of data errors and inconsistent entries in MISLE as identified by program offices and MISLE users, including reviewing MISLE training and data validation processes. (Recommendation 1)

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

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

Recommendation: The Commandant of the Coast Guard should ensure that the Deputy Commandant for Mission Support uses the results of its 2019 Standardization Team assessment of command centers to develop a plan for improving the consistency and accuracy of MISLE data identified in its report. (Recommendation 2)

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

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

Recommendation: The Commandant of the Coast Guard should ensure that the Deputy Commandant for Mission Support and the Deputy Commandant for Operations use the processes outlined in the SELC to identify needed enhancements across the MISLE system by developing an updated mission needs statement. (Recommendation 3)

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

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

Recommendation: The Commandant of the Coast Guard should ensure that the Deputy Commandant for Mission Support and the Deputy Commandant for Operations use the processes outlined in the SELC to identify and analyze alternatives, and objectively select the preferred solution for MISLE to meet approved mission needs. (Recommendation 4)

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

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

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment, in consultation with the F-35 Program Executive Officer, develops a program-wide process for measuring, collecting, and tracking information on how ALIS is affecting the performance of the F-35 fleet to include, but not be limited to, its effects on mission capability rates. (Recommendation 1)

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

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

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment, in consultation with the F-35 Program Executive Officer, develops and implements a strategy for the re-design of ALIS. The strategy should be detailed enough to clearly identify and assess the goals, key risks or uncertainties, and costs of re-designing the system. (Recommendation 2)

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

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

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

Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Status: Open

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

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

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

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

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

Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: The Secretary for Homeland Security should direct the Director of OTE to revise T&E policy or guidance as necessary to fully meet the key practice for programs to test that components and subsystems work together as a system in a controlled setting before finalizing a system's design. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open

Comments: In providing comments on this report DHS concurred with our recommendation and stated that it planned to update its T&E policy to specify that acquisition programs demonstrate that components and subsystems work together before finalizing a system's design. In July 2020, DHS Test and Evaluation Division (TED) officials said they were in the process of updating the policy and that it was undergoing management review with an anticipated completion in fall 2020. Once finalized, GAO will evaluate the revised policy to determine whether DHS has met the intent of this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary for Homeland Security should direct the Director of OTE, in coordination with OCPO, to develop an assessment process-including establishing performance measures-to help ensure T&E training achieves desired results. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open

Comments: In providing comments on this report, DHS concurred with our recommendation and stated that it planned to assess the knowledge and skill requirements for the T&E workforce and establish performance goals for the training. DHS Test and Evaluation Division (TED), in coordination with OCPO, also plan to develop strategies to address any deficiencies with the current training that do not meet the identified requirements. In April 2020, TED officials said that they developed a new survey process to obtain recurring feedback from participants on the training's impact on their ability to perform T&E duties as assigned over time to inform the annual review of the T&E curriculum. However, this effort is still in a piloting stage so the extent to which this information is used to assess the training is still unknown at this time. As of July 2020, TED was still in the process of executing these efforts.

Recommendation: The Secretary for Homeland Security should direct the Director of OTE to revise T&E policy or guidance as necessary to specify when in the acquisition life cycle a major acquisition program manager should designate a level III certified T&E manager. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open

Comments: In providing comments on this report DHS concurred with our recommendation and stated that it planned to update its T&E policy to specify when in the acquisition lifecycle acquisition program managers should designate a qualified T&E manager. In July 2020, DHS Test and Evaluation Division (TED) officials said they were in the process of revising the policy to include this specification and that it was undergoing management review with an anticipated completion in fall 2020. Once finalized, GAO will evaluate the revised policy to determine whether DHS has met the intent of this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary for Homeland Security should direct the Director of OTE to establish an internal control process to ensure that data collected and maintained on major acquisition programs' T&E managers are reliable. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open

Comments: In providing comments on this report, DHS concurred with our recommendation and stated that it planned to establish an internal control process to reliably collect and maintain data on acquisition programs' assigned test and evaluation managers. In April 2020, DHS Test and Evaluation Division (TED) reported taking steps to ensure the validity of this data including establishing points of contacts within each component to cross-check collected information for accuracy and having the Director review collected data on a quarterly basis beginning in third quarter fiscal year 2020. As of July 2020, TED was still in the process of improving its internal collection process, but had not completed these efforts.

Recommendation: The Secretary for Homeland Security should direct the Under Secretary for Science and Technology to assess OTE's workforce to ascertain the extent to which it has the appropriate number of staff with the necessary skills to fulfill its responsibilities. (Recommendation 5)

Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open

Comments: In providing comments on this report, DHS concurred with our recommendation and stated that it planned to assess the Test and Evaluation Division's (TED) workforce by reviewing current staffing levels and vacancies against the division's roles and responsibilities. The Senior Official Performing the Duties of the Under Secretary for Science and Technology plans to use the results of this review to inform strategic hiring in future years, if needed. In February 2020, DHS released its fiscal year 2020 strategic guidance memorandum for the Science and Technology (S&T) Directorate which included a statement pertaining to resourcing S&T's test and evaluation capabilities. However, as of July 2020, S&T had not yet conducted its review of TED's workforce.

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 enhance program oversight and provide more robust input to budget deliberations, Congress should consider requiring DOD to report on each major acquisition program's systems engineering status in the department's annual budget request, beginning with the budget requesting funds to start development. The information could be presented on a simple timeline--as done for the case studies in this report--and at a minimum should reflect the status of a program's functional and allocated baselines as contained in the most current version of the program's systems engineering plan.

Agency: Congress
Status: Open

Comments: As of August 2020, Congress has not yet taken action on the matter for consideration. The Department of Defense (DOD) non-concurred and as of March 16, 2018, DOD officials reported they had closed this recommendation because they did not agree that the systems engineering plan was the most effective means to provide Congress insight into program risk. DOD officials stated that the timing of the systems engineering plan and any updates are not aligned to inform a budget decision that could occur as much as 18 months prior to program initiation; and existing statutory certifications and reports, such as 2366a and 2366b requirements, submitted to Congress contain adequate information regarding program risk and technical maturity. GAO initiated work in 2020 to examine recent congressionally mandated changes in DOD's acquisition and requirements processes and will assess whether those changes meet the intent of this recommendation.

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

Agency: Federal Communications Commission
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

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

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

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments: NASA partially agreed with this recommendation, stating that it had established separate programs for SLS, Orion, and the ground systems and adopted a block upgrade approach for SLS. In January 2020, NASA stated that it plans to establish an agency baseline commitment for capability upgrades (e.g., Block 1B upgrades, such as Mobile Launcher-2 and Exploration Upper Stage) above the $250 million threshold. A joint confidence level analysis will be performed at key decision points and will include the cost and schedule range estimates for each of these upgrades. To address this recommendation, NASA needs to provide evidence that it established separate cost and schedule baselines for each additional SLS, Orion, and Ground Systems Development and Operations capability blocks that encompass all life-cycle costs, including operations and sustainment.

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

Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: To help ensure that the Federal Railroad Administration manages its limited resources and provides flexibility to railroads in implementing PTC, Congress should consider amending RSIA as requested in the FRA's August 2012 PTC Implementation Status Report to Congress, including granting FRA the authority to approve the use of alternative safety technologies in lieu of PTC to allow railroads to improve safety and meet many of the functions of PTC through other means.

Agency: Congress
Status: Open

Comments: As of August 2019, Congress had not taken any action regarding this Matter for Congressional Consideration.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretaries of the Air Force, Army, and Navy to assess their respective service-level and program office capabilities relating to an open systems approach and work with the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Systems Engineering to develop short-term and long-term strategies to address any capability gaps identified. Strategies could include the Navy's cross-cutting approach where a team of a few technical experts within the Naval Air Systems Command could be available to work with program offices, as necessary, to help develop open systems plans.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with our recommendation. A DOD official noted that the department's understanding of an open systems approach has evolved since our recommendation was made and each military service has established working groups and communities of practice related to the implementation of a modular open systems approach. In addition, the official noted that Defense Acquisition University (DAU) curriculum addresses both open systems approaches and intellectual property, and that its course on open systems approaches was updated in 2018. DOD Human Capital Initiatives officials also indicated that DOD would be conducting a competency assessment of the the engineering workforce across the department, which would provide an indication of the open system capabilities at the service and program office level. However, as of August 2020, that assessment has yet to be conducted and therefore it remains unclear the extent to which capability gaps exist.

Recommendation: In order to strengthen investment decisions, place the chosen investments on a sound acquisition footing, provide a better means of tracking investment progress, and improve the management and transparency of the U.S. missile defense approach in Europe, the Secretary of Defense should direct MDA's new Director to include in its resource baseline cost estimates all life cycle costs, specifically the operations and support costs, from the military services in order to provide decision makers with the full costs of ballistic missile defense systems.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: DOD partially concurred with our 2013 recommendation that decisionmakers should have insight into the full lifecycle costs of MDA's weapon systems outlined in the Ballistic Missile Defense System Accountability Report (BAR), including the military services' operations and sustainment (O&S) costs. This is especially important, as after more than a decade MDA has yet to transfer weapon systems in production and sustainment to the military services, as originally intended. Consequently, MDA is becoming responsible for an increasing amount of the costs associated with these weapon systems. DOD and Congress have expressed concerns over this situation and are exploring a path forward; however, in the mean time, determining the O&S costs can help decisionmakers fully understand the financial responsibility for these weapon systems, be it with the military services or MDA. MDA cited beginning to report aspects of this information in the BAR and also establishing joint cost estimates (JCE) for O&S with the military services for some weapon systems, both of which could potentially serve as a means of providing decisionmakers with insight into the full lifecycle costs. We have an ongoing assessment that will evaluate both of MDA's cited efforts and the extent to which these are providing decisionmakers with a comprehensive understanding of the depth and breadth of each weapon system's full lifecycle costs.

Recommendation: In order to strengthen investment decisions, place the chosen investments on a sound acquisition footing, provide a better means of tracking investment progress, and improve the management and transparency of the U.S. missile defense approach in Europe, the Secretary of Defense should direct MDA's new Director to stabilize the acquisition baselines, so that meaningful comparisons can be made over time that support oversight of those acquisitions.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: DOD concurred with our 2013 recommendation regarding the need for MDA to stabilize its acquisition baselines, but also noted MDA's need to adjust its baselines to remain responsive to evolving requirements and threats; both of which are beyond MDA's control. Further, DOD highlighted the MDA Director's authority to make adjustments to the agency's programmatic baselines, within departmental guidelines. Our recommendation, however, is not designed to limit the Director's authority to adjust baselines or to prevent adjusting the baselines, as appropriate. Rather, our recommendation is designed to address traceability issues we have found with MDA's baselines, which are within its control. Specifically, for MDA to be able to effectively report longer-term progress of its acquisitions and provide the necessary transparency to Congress, it is critical that the agency stabilize its baselines so that once set, any revisions can be tracked over time. We have an ongoing assessment to update MDA's progress.

Recommendation: FSOC and OFR should clarify responsibility for implementing requirements to monitor threats to financial stability across FSOC and OFR, including FSOC members and member agencies, to better ensure that the monitoring and analysis of the financial system are comprehensive and not unnecessarily duplicative.

Agency: Department of the Treasury: Financial Stability Oversight Council
Status: Open

Comments: In October 2019, Treasury staff said that steps continue to be taken to clarify roles and responsibilities across FSOC and OFR for monitoring threats to financial stability. Treasury staff said that they are working with OFR to reorganize and restructure the organization to better fulfill its mission and support FSOC. That work is still underway and will include additional clarification of roles and responsibilities. In June 2019, the Senate confirmed a new OFR Director. Treasury published a report in response to the President's executive order (13772) on Core Principles for Regulating the United States Financial System that recommended the structure and mission of the Office of Financial Research should be reformed to improve its effectiveness and to ensure greater accountability. We will continue to monitor progress in implementing these steps.

Recommendation: FSOC and OFR should clarify responsibility for implementing requirements to monitor threats to financial stability across FSOC and OFR, including FSOC members and member agencies, to better ensure that the monitoring and analysis of the financial system are comprehensive and not unnecessarily duplicative.

Agency: Department of the Treasury: Financial Stability Oversight Council: Office of Financial Research
Status: Open

Comments: In October 2019 Treasury staff said that steps are being taken to clarify roles and responsibilities across FSOC and OFR for monitoring threats to financial stability. Treasury staff said that they are working with OFR to reorganize and restructure the organization to better fulfill its mission and support FSOC. That work is still underway as staff from both entities meet on a weekly basis and will include additional clarification of roles and responsibilities. The Senate confirmed a new OFR director in June 2019. In June 2017, Treasury published a report in response to the President's executive order (13772) on Core Principles for Regulating the United States Financial System that recommended the structure and mission of the Office of Financial Research should be reformed to improve its effectiveness and to ensure greater accountability. We continue to monitor FSOC and OFR actions that would be responsive to clarifying responsibilities for monitoring threats to financial stability.

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 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 help ensure that Medicare beneficiaries have access to high-quality dialysis care, the Administrator of CMS should assess the extent to which the bundled payment for dialysis care will be sufficient to cover an efficient dialysis organization's costs to provide such care when the bundled payment expands to cover oral-only ESRD drugs. The Administrator should conduct this assessment before implementing this expanded bundled payment.

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

Comments: CMS, as required by the Protecting Access to Medicare Act of 2014 (PAMA), delayed until 2024 when the bundled payment for dialysis care is expanded to cover oral-only ESRD drugs. Because PAMA requires CMS to use the most recent year of data available to implement this payment change, CMS has been unable to implement our recommendation. We will update the status of this recommendation upon receipt of additional information from CMS.

Recommendation: To ensure sufficient follow-up to DOD's corrosion study, the Secretary of Defense should direct the USD (AT&L) to document program-specific recommendations flowing from the corrosion study with regard to the other weapon systems identified--specifically, the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle, CH-53K helicopter, Joint High Speed Vessel, Broad Area Maritime Surveillance Unmanned Aircraft System, and the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle--and establish a process for monitoring and assessing the effectiveness of the CPC programs for these systems.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: As of September 2015, DOD had not documented program-specific recommendations from the corrosion study for the other weapon systems identified in its report. However, DOD updated its Corrosion Prevention and Control Planning Guidebook in 2014 and, according to officials, is working to update DOD Instruction 5000.67, Prevention and Mitigation of Corrosion on DOD Military Equipment and Infrastructure. These actions may improve the corrosion prevention and control planning for the weapon systems identified in DOD's study. DOD partially concurred with this recommendation at the time of our report but as of March 2019, has since decided to take action to implement it. According to Corrosion Office officials, they interacted with two of five weapon-systems programs on corrosion-related matters. One of these weapon-system programs, per Corrosion Office officials, was eventually canceled. In addition to updating the Corrosion Prevention and Control Planning Guidebook for Military Systems and Equipment in 2014, officials stated that they are planning to further update DOD Instruction 5000.67 (Prevention and Mitigation of Corrosion on DOD Military Equipment and Infrastructure). Also, according to Corrosion Office officials, procedures for evaluating acquisition programs will be included in the new DOD manual on corrosion. The Corrosion Office's goal of completing this instruction update and creating the new manual is by the end of calendar year 2020. We will monitor the extent to which DOD implements this recommendation.

Recommendation: To ensure sufficient follow-up to DOD's corrosion study, the Secretary of Defense should direct the USD (AT&L) to document Air Force-and Navy-specific recommendations flowing from the corrosion study and establish a process for monitoring and assessing the effectiveness of these services' corrective actions.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: As of September 2015, DOD had not documented Air Force- and Navy-specific recommendations flowing from the corrosion study. However, DOD updated its Corrosion Prevention and Control Planning Guidebook in 2014 and, according to officials, is working to update DOD Instruction 5000.67, Prevention and Mitigation of Corrosion on DOD Military Equipment and Infrastructure. Further, the Air Force and the Navy have both taken actions to address the DOD-wide recommendations from the corrosion study. These actions may improve corrosion prevention and control planning for Air Force and Navy programs. As of March 2019, Corrosion Office officials stated that they are planning to further update DOD Instruction 5000.67 (Prevention and Mitigation of Corrosion on DOD Military Equipment and Infrastructure) or other appropriate guidance related to the process or procedures for monitoring and assessing the effectiveness of Corrosion Prevention Control planning for weapon systems, particularly related to how the military services will accomplish this within their increased weapon system oversight role. In addition, per Corrosion Office officials, this information will be addressed in the new DOD manual on corrosion. The Corrosion Office's goal 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 improve the Bureau's use of its master schedule to manage the 2020 decennial census, the Secretary of Commerce should require the Director of the U.S. Census Bureau to include estimates of the resources, such as labor, materials, and overhead costs, in the 2020 integrated schedule for each activity as the schedule is built, and prepare to carry out other steps as necessary to conduct systematic schedule risk analyses on the 2020 schedule.

Agency: Department of Commerce
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: Commerce neither agreed nor disagreed with this recommendation. Regarding GAO's 2013 assessment of the Bureau's schedule (GAO-14-59), Bureau officials stated that they hoped to begin identifying the resources needed for each activity in their schedules by early 2014. Bureau officials announced they had completed the 2020 Census schedule in July 2016, and have since periodically described their intent to link resources to activities within their schedules. However, as of May 2018, when the Bureau had not taken these steps. Senior Bureau officials stated that it would require additional staffing in order to plan for and implement this recommendation. In July 2018 (GAO-18-589) we reported again on the status of the Bureau's scheduling, stating that when the Bureau has resource loaded its schedule, it will be able to use the schedule more effectively as a management tool. The Bureau took steps toward assigning resources to its master activity schedule for the 2020 Census, but effectively ran out of time to do so. Assigning resources to large complex schedules 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 in developing its 2030 schedule with appropriate resources linked to it.

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: 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.