Recommendation: The TSA Administrator should direct T&D and Security Operations to monitor for instances of TSO non-compliance by individual commercial airports across fiscal years that could potentially warrant corrective action at the headquarters level. (Recommendation 2)

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

Comments: In January 2020, TSA's formal comment letter in response to our draft report stated that T&D will begin recording instances of noncompliance and work with Security Operations to monitor trends at individual airports and with specific courses. TSA also reported that T&D had developed a repository in its iShare database for this information at the end of 2019 and the agency is currently testing various options for reporting and pulling data. Once options are chosen and incorporated into its standard operating procedures, TSA reports that T&D will begin sharing the reports with Security Operations on a monthly basis. In July 2020, TSA officials told us that T&D had begun sharing training compliance reports from their database with Security Operations and discussing the results with them on a monthly basis. This database allows T&D to recognize trends at individual airports and specific courses throughout the fiscal year. Going forward, this process will enable T&D to identify noncompliance trends across fiscal years. We will continue to montior these efforts to verify that the T&D is montioring trends across fiscal years and work with TSA towards closure of this recommendation.

Recommendation: We recommend that the Secretary of the Navy ensure that the Commander, Naval Surface Forces, in coordination with Surface Warfare Officers School Command, develop a method to regularly collect feedback from SWOs across the fleet, such as in a survey, regarding the quality of their classroom, simulator, and at-sea training on Division Officer performance; and evaluates trends in the feedback received for the purpose of improving SWO training. (Recommendation 1)

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

Comments: The Navy concurred with our recommendation. In March 2020, the Navy provided an estimated implementation date of March 2023, noting that it was considering a fleet-wide survey, timed for a later date when more Surface Warfare Officers have completed new training courses and implemented their training. In addition, the Navy listed other means it employs to collect feedback, such as student surveys at the end of training courses, leadership visits and conferences, and Commanding Officer updates. Our emphasis on collection of fleet-wide feedback from all Surface Warfare Officers and trend analysis remains critical to help the Navy understand the value of its training programs at various career stages and in the diverse operating environments across the fleet.

Recommendation: We recommend that the Secretary of the Navy ensure that the Commander, Naval Surface Forces, routinely conduct regular Officer of the Deck competency assessments using samples of sufficient size and using selection methods to gauge the level of fleet-wide ship-driving proficiency trends following the implementation of the planned ship-driving training programs. (Recommendation 2)

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

Comments: The Navy concurred with our recommendation. In March 2020, the Navy provided an estimated implementation date of March 2023, noting that it was conducting the planned fleet-wide Officer of the Deck competency checks in 2020, and that it intends to use a system of ten career milestone assessments for future performance measurement. The Navy stated that it may or may not hold subsequent rounds of the Officer of the Deck competency assessments depending on performance indicated in other career milestone assessments. In our report we identified the importance of continuing the current Officer of the Deck competency assessments through at least 2024 because that is when new officers that complete the full set of new initial ship-driving training courses will be eligible for assessment. The Navy used the Officer of the Deck competency assessments in 2018 to establish a performance baseline, and we believe that the Navy should apply the same standard to measure performance changes for Surface Warfare Officers that complete new training courses moving forward.

Recommendation: We recommend that the Secretary of the Navy ensure that the Commander, Naval Surface Forces, in coordination with Surface Warfare Officers School Command, provide Commanding Officers with standard criteria to inform their evaluation of candidates for their Officer of the Deck qualification and incorporates these criteria into surface fleet guidance. (Recommendation 3)

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

Comments: The Navy concurred with our recommendation. In March 2020, the Navy provided an estimated implementation date of March 2023. However, in its official comments on the report and in subsequent correspondence, the Navy indicated that its existing policies already meet the intent of the recommendation. Specifically, the Navy stated that its Officer of the Deck Underway Personnel Qualification Standards provide standard evaluation criteria for Officer of the Deck qualification. In our report, we noted that while the Personnel Qualification Standards provide a common list of required experiences, they do not provide a common understanding of proficiency in completing these experiences. Instead, proficiency determination is left to the discretion of the ship's Commanding Officer, which has led to wide variation in ship-driving proficiency across the fleet. Therefore, we continue to believe that the Navy should provide Commanding Officers with standard criteria to inform their evaluation of candidates for their Officer of the Deck qualification and incorporate these criteria into surface fleet guidance.

Recommendation: We recommend that the Secretary of the Navy ensure that the Commander, Naval Surface Forces, in coordination with Surface Warfare Officers School Command, develop a plan to analyze and use Mariner Skills Logbook information to inform decision-making. (Recommendation 4)

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

Comments: The Navy concurred with our recommendation. In March 2020, the Navy provided an estimated implementation date of March 2023. In official comments on the report and in subsequent correspondence the Navy stated that its Surface Warfare Career Manual establishes guidance for the implementation and use of the Mariner Skills Logbook, and that the logbook will contribute information to allow proficiency trend analysis over time. However, while the Surface Warfare Career Manual identifies the offices responsible for logbook activities, it does not include a specific plan for the use of logbook data to analyze proficiency trends over time or to benefit individual officers. Our emphasis that the Navy develop a plan to analyze and use Surface Warfare Mariner Skills Logbook data to aid decision-making remains valid, and when implemented should assist the Navy in determining the relationship between SWO experience and ship-driving proficiency.

Recommendation: The Administrator of CMS should require states to submit and make public projections of administrative costs when seeking approval of demonstrations, including those with work requirements and all other demonstrations. (Recommendation 1)

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

Comments: HHS did not concur with this recommendation in its September 2019 comments on the report. We maintain that the recommendation is valid because requiring states to make public information about administrative costs would help to ensure that demonstration proposals provide sufficient information to ensure meaningful public input.

Recommendation: The Administrator of CMS should account for the administrative costs of demonstrations, including those with work requirements and all other demonstrations, when assessing whether demonstrations are budget neutral. (Recommendation 2)

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

Comments: HHS did not concur with this recommendation in its September 2019 comments on the report. We maintain that the recommendation is valid because including administrative costs in its assessments will help HHS ensure that demonstrations are budget neutral.

Recommendation: The Administrator of CMS should assess the risks of providing federal funds for costs to administer work requirements that are not allowable and should respond to risks by improving oversight procedures, as warranted. This assessment should consider risks related to costs for information systems, beneficiary supports, and managed care. (Recommendation 3)

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

Comments: HHS did not concur with this recommendation in its September 2019 comments on the report. We maintain that the recommendation is valid and that assessing these risks of providing federal funds for costs that are not allowable and improving oversight, as warranted, would help HHS to ensure the integrity of the Medicaid program.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Army, in coordination with CYBERCOM and the National Cryptologic School, where appropriate, establish a time frame to validate all of the phase two foundational training courses for which it is responsible. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD agreed with the recommendation. According to a DOD status report on implementing the recommendations for GAO-19-362 that was provided to us in February 2020, the Army is performing a validation pilot for its Cyberspace Operations Planners Course. After that validation pilot is complete, the Army will establish a time frame for validating its other courses.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Air Force, in coordination with CYBERCOM and the National Cryptologic School, where appropriate, establish a time frame to validate all of the phase two foundational training courses for which it is responsible. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD agreed with the recommendation. According to a DOD status report on implementing the recommendations for GAO-19-362 that was provided to us in February 2020, the Air Force is coordinating with U.S. Cyber Command to obtain a final determination on the validated knowledge, skills, and abilities; proficiency standards, and skills for the various work roles supported by this training. The Air Force is responsible for developing curriculum for seven of the Cyber Mission Force workroles. DOD estimates that it will take 2 to 4 years to complete validation for all of the courses supporting these workroles.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Army should ensure that Army Cyber Command coordinate with CYBERCOM to develop a plan that comprehensively assesses and identifies specific CMF training requirements for phases two (foundational), three (collective), and four (sustainment), in order to maintain the appropriate sizing and deployment of personnel across the Army's CMF teams. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: 3. DOD agreed with the recommendation. According to a DOD status report on implementing the recommendations for GAO-19-362 that was provided to us in February 2020, the Army's implementation of this recommendation is dependent upon U.S. Cyber Command establishing master training task lists for phases 2 and 3 of the training. The Army estimates it will complete all required actions to validate phase 2 of its Cyber Mission Force training requirements by June 2020, phase 3 by October 2020, and phase 4 by January 2021.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should ensure that Fleet Cyber Command coordinate with CYBERCOM to develop a plan that comprehensively assesses and identifies specific CMF training requirements for phases three (collective) and four (sustainment) in order to maintain the appropriate sizing and deployment of personnel across the Navy's CMF teams. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: DOD agreed with the recommendation. According to a DOD status report on implementing the recommendations for GAO-19-362 that was provided to us in February 2020, the Navy plans to identify the specific training requirements for phase 3 Cyber Mission Force training by October 31, 2020. Additionally, the Navy reported that it published a policy memorandum establishing a 24-month continuous training and certification cycle for its Cyber Mission Force Teams to address its phase 4 training requirements.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Air Force should ensure that Air Forces Cyber coordinate with CYBERCOM to develop a plan that comprehensively assesses and identifies specific CMF training requirements for phases two (foundational), three (collective), and four (sustainment), in order to maintain the appropriate sizing and deployment of personnel across the Air Force's CMF teams. (Recommendation 5)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: DOD agreed with our recommendation. According to a DOD status report on implementing the recommendations for GAO-19-362 that was provided to us in February 2020, the Air Force's phase 2 training plan is contingent upon the completion of U.S. Cyber Command validating the tasks, knowledge, skills, abilities, and proficiency levels that establish the training baseline. Those products are still in coordination and are not finalized. The Air Force did not provide timeframes by which it would be able to develop training plans for its phase 2, 3, and 4 training requirements.

Recommendation: The Commandant of the Marine Corps should ensure that Marine Corps Forces Cyberspace coordinate with CYBERCOM to develop a plan that comprehensively assesses and identifies specific CMF training requirements for phases two (foundational), three (collective), and four (sustainment), in order to maintain the appropriate sizing and deployment of personnel across the Marine Corps' CMF teams. (Recommendation 6)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: DOD agreed with our recommendation. According to a DOD status report on implementing the recommendations for GAO-19-362 that was provided to us in February 2020, the Marine Corps is still developing its response to comprehensively assess and identify Cyber Mission Force training requirements for phases two , three, and four.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the commander of CYBERCOM develops and documents a plan for establishing independent assessors to evaluate CMF phase three collective training certification events. (Recommendation 7)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD agreed with our recommendation. According to a DOD status report on implementing the recommendations for GAO-19-362 that was provided to us in February 2020, U.S. Cyber Command established procedures for assessing teams participating in Joint Exercise Program collective training events. These procedures include the use of highly skilled and independent assessors from deployable training teams and other units to conduct standard assessments using U.S. Cyber Command criteria. DOD reports that the command has captured lessons learned from these procedures and will promulgate a command-wide instruction to further standardize assessments across the force and guide the development of automated assessments conducted with the Persistent Cyber Training Environment. DOD further reports that the procedures described above were first used in the CYBERFLAG 19-1 exercise in June 2019. We are in the process of obtaining documentation from that exercise to verify these procedures.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the commander of CYBERCOM establishes and disseminates the master training task lists covered by each phase two foundational training course and convey them to the military services, in accordance with the CMF Training Transition Plan. (Recommendation 8)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD agreed with our recommendation. According to a DOD status report on implementing the recommendations for GAO-19-362 that was provided to us in February 2020, U.S. Cyber Command will complete this task in September 2020. DOD reports that U.S. Cyber Command has established and made individual training standards available through the Joint Cyber Training and Certification Standards to all services prior to the training transition in October 2018. In October 2019, DOD approved a new organizational structure and new Mission Essential Tasks for Cyber Protection Teams. The training standards were updated and provided to the services, who are using them to validate and develop Joint Curriculum. DOD is currently reviewing a U.S. Cyber Command proposal for the organization and mission essential tasks for Cyber Mission Teams and Cyber Support Teams. Pending DOD approval, U.S. Cyber Command will update and publish revisions to the individual training standards.

Recommendation: The Director of OMB, working with CFOC, should (1) collect data metrics regularly on the Career Roadmap Builder online tool and Grants Training 101 to determine how widely the resources are being used, and (2) obtain periodic feedback from federal agencies on the usefulness of these tools and any needed improvements. (Recommendation 2)

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

Comments: OMB staff provided us with oral comments stating that the agency partially concurred with our recommendations. For our second recommendation, OMB agreed that user feedback data regarding the Career Roadmap Builder and Grants Training 101 is useful. However, OMB stated that while it will continue to collect data on the number of users, it believes that federal agencies should be responsible for collecting specific, detailed user data if they are using those resources. We continue to believe that OMB and CFOC would benefit from collecting specific, detailed user data on these tools, which they devoted time and multiple resources to developing. Collecting detailed data metrics that go beyond the number of users can help OMB and CFOC to better evaluate the effectiveness of these grants training tools. Additionally, OMB stated the agency is committed to working with CFOC to review the Grants Training 101 module to determine how useful it is and if any improvements or adjustments are needed. In May 2019, OMB staff said that no action had been taken to date in response to this recommendation. In January 2020, OMB responded in writing to this recommendation stating that it was continuing to collect data on usage for both training tools on the CFO.gov site. OMB specified, however, that the usage data was for the number of visitors on the two sites and on users by agency. OMB went on to say that each agency is responsible for the professional development of its own workforce, and that Federal agencies can, at their discretion, collect user data if the Roadmap and Grant Training 101 are part of their official training program. In addition, OMB stated it had made the Grants Training 101 available publicly for federal and non-federal personnel on CFO.Gov, and that collecting specific user data is not considered by them to be beneficial to demonstrate the usefulness of the materials. Based on this response, we will continue to inquire as to the availability and use of metrics and effectiveness measures for the Career Roadmap and the Grants Training 101 modules.

Recommendation: The Secretary of HHS should establish a process to monitor and evaluate HHS's grants training at the central office level. This process should include (1) a method for identifying all employees working on grants across the agency, and (2) oversight procedures to evaluate the sufficiency of sub-agencies' grants training efforts including the incorporation of leading practices related to assessing competencies, training approaches, accountability, and training results. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open

Comments: HHS concurred with our findings and recommendation. In its comment letter, HHS stated that its Office of Grants Policy, Oversight, and Evaluation, within the Office of Grants and Acquisition Policy and Accountability, Division of Grants, in conjunction with the HHS ReInvent Grants Initiative would be developing and implementing a department-wide financial assistance training and certification program to improve the functional effectiveness of the financial assistance management workforce in the areas of internal controls and risk mitigation. The program is designed to support the professional development of the HHS grants management workforce through both instructor-led and online courses. HHS' ReInvent Grants Management (RGM) staff and GAO held a conference call on November 30th, 2018 to discuss how RGM intended to address the recommendation in GAO-18-491 by developing a generalized framework for the Grants Management Training and Certification (GMTC) program for HHS. An HHS official reported that at its December 2019 quarterly meeting, the HHS Division of Workforce Development (DWD) reported they had in the past quarter: briefed the HHS Executive Committee on Grants Administration Policy (ECGAP) on the DWD mission and goals for training the grants workforce; developed briefing documents and presentations based on a RGM developed framework to develop competencies and outline curriculum of the GMTC program; continued to review and refine the program framework to incorporate DWD mission and goals; drafted the initial policy to further inform the structure and procedures of the GMTC program (e.g. certification levels, required coursework, career development requirements), which should be issued by HHS Office of Grants within Federal Fiscal Year 2020; and collaborated with the HHS Grants Closeout Business Process Reengineering Team to discuss current grants closeout status and how DWD can support grant staff and grant recipient closeout training efforts. Given the ongoing nature of HHS efforts, GAO will continue to monitor progress on a quarterly basis.

Recommendation: The Secretary of HHS should coordinate with federal agencies, including VA, that fund GME training to identify information needed to evaluate the performance of federal programs that fund GME training, including the extent to which these programs are efficient and cost-effective and are meeting the nation's health care workforce needs. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open

Comments: In January 2020, HHS indicated that the agency had not yet taken steps to identify information needed to evaluate the performance of federal programs that fund GME training, including the extent to which these programs are efficient and cost-effective and are meeting the nation's health care workforce needs. HHS reiterated its comments on GAO's report, noting that the President's fiscal year 2020 budget for HHS proposed consolidating federal spending from Medicare, Medicaid, the Teaching Health Center Graduate Medical Education Program, and the Children's Hospitals Graduate Medical Education Payment Program into a single grant program for teaching hospitals. The President's fiscal year 2021 budget for HHS also included this proposal. It noted that such a restructuring would allow the Department to set expectations for program performance in Medicare and Medicaid GME programs 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. As GAO noted in its 2018 report, 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 identify information needed to evaluate the performance of federal programs that fund GME training. Such action is important for HHS to assure that federal programs fully meet workforce needs. However, HHS did not otherwise indicate whether it had coordinated with federal agencies that fund GME training. As of January 2020, this proposal had not been adopted.

Recommendation: The Secretary of HHS should coordinate with federal agencies to identify opportunities to improve the quality and consistency of the information collected within and across federal programs, and implement these improvements. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open

Comments: In January 2020, HHS indicated that the agency had not yet taken steps to identify opportunities to improve the quality and consistency of the information collected within and across federal programs, and implement these improvements. HHS reiterated its comments on GAO's report, noting that the President's fiscal year 2020 budget for HHS proposed consolidating federal spending from Medicare, Medicaid, the Teaching Health Center Graduate Medical Education Program, and the Children's Hospitals Graduate Medical Education Payment Program into a single grant program for teaching hospitals. The President's fiscal year 2021 budget for HHS also included this proposal. It noted that such a restructuring would allow the Department to set expectations for program performance in Medicare and Medicaid GME programs 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. As GAO noted in its 2018 report, 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 identify information needed to evaluate the performance of federal programs that fund GME training. Such action is important for HHS to assure that federal programs fully meet workforce needs. However, HHS did not otherwise indicate whether it had coordinated with federal agencies that fund GME training. As of February 2020, this proposal had not been adopted.

Recommendation: To help ensure that NNSA effectively manages the performance of its programs, the Secretary of Energy should establish a program management policy that (1) assigns responsibilities and delegates authority to program managers and establishes expectations of competence for them, in accordance with federal internal control standards, and (2) addresses leading program management practices, such as developing program plans.

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: DOE stated that it will address our recommendation as part of its effort to meet the requirements of the Program Management Improvement Accountability Act of 2016 (Act). This Act requires the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to adopt government-wide standards, policies, and guidelines for program and project management for agencies. In June 2018, OMB issued guidelines requiring federal agencies to submit a 5-year plan for implementing the Act. In November 2018, DOE submitted a draft implementation plan to OMB that described DOE's strategy for developing a DOE program management policy. In particular, its draft plan stated that DOE has established a working group to help develop the department's program management policy. To address our recommendation, DOE needs to finalize and issue its program management policy. We will continue to monitor DOE's actions.

Recommendation: To help ensure that NNSA develops and maintains a cadre of professional, effective, and capable program managers in accordance with leading program management practices and federal internal control standards, the Secretary of Energy should establish a training program for program managers.

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: DOE stated that it will address our recommendation as part of its effort to meet the requirements of the Program Management Improvement Accountability Act of 2016 (Act). This Act requires the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to issue regulations identifying key program management skills and competencies, as well as to establish a new career path for program managers within an agency. In April and May of 2019, OPM issued guidance documents that identify competencies for program managers and update the job series classification for program managers. OPM officials also said that they have drafted a career path for program managers, which will highlight training and skills needed to progress in a program management career. In addition, DOE stated that it is holding working group meetings to develop strategies for program management training and certification. To address our recommendation, DOE needs to continue working with OPM and finalize its training program for program managers.

Recommendation: To enhance DOD's efforts to better integrate and improve intelligence support to major defense acquisition programs, and to better enable personnel to provide intelligence inputs to their portfolios of acquisition programs, the Secretary of Defense should direct--as appropriate--the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics; the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence; and/or the Secretaries of the military departments, in coordination with one another, to establish certifications that include having these personnel complete required training.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) concurred with the recommendation. DOD provided corrective action plans that show they expect to complete efforts that will address this recommendation in 2019. We will continue to monitor the status of DOD's actions and whether these actions address the intent of our recommendations.

Recommendation: To enhance DOD's efforts to better integrate and improve intelligence support to major defense acquisition programs, and to facilitate implementation of improved processes and procedures developed by the Acquisition Intelligence Requirements Task Force and by the Air Force for the integration of intelligence into major defense acquisition programs, the Secretary of Defense should direct--as appropriate--the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics; the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence; and/or the Secretaries of the military departments, in coordination with one another, to revise relevant guidance and procedures--including DOD Instruction 5000.02 and DOD Directive 5250.01-- require that intelligence mission data at the acquisition program, service, and department levels be prioritized.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) concurred with the recommendation. DOD provided corrective action plans that show they expect to complete efforts that will address this recommendation in 2019. We will continue to monitor the status of DOD's actions and whether these actions address the intent of our recommendations.

Recommendation: To enhance DOD's efforts to better integrate and improve intelligence support to major defense acquisition programs, and to better ensure that DOD obtains useful feedback from stakeholders and the intended users of the Validated Online Lifecycle Threat tool, the Secretary of Defense should direct--as appropriate--the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics; the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence; and/or the Secretaries of the military departments, in coordination with one another, to instruct the Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency to develop a communication plan for the tool that includes plans for communicating with and obtaining feedback from stakeholders and intended users such as acquisition program offices and personnel providing intelligence support to acquisition programs.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) concurred with the recommendation. DOD provided corrective action plans that show they expect to complete efforts that will address this recommendation by the end of 2018. We will continue to monitor the status of DOD's actions and whether these actions address the intent of our recommendations.

Recommendation: To enhance DOD's efforts to better integrate and improve intelligence support to major defense acquisition programs, and to ensure that it fulfills the needs of acquisition programs and the intelligence community and works as intended, the Secretary of Defense should direct--as appropriate--the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics; the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence; and/or the Secretaries of the military departments, in coordination with one another, to assess the need for the Acquisition Intelligence Support Assessment tool and, if validated by this assessment, define this tool's requirements for development and identify the entity responsible for providing oversight and funding for its continued development, implementation, and operation.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) concurred with the recommendation. DOD provided corrective action plans that show they expect to complete efforts that will address this recommendation sometime in the future. We will continue to monitor the status of DOD's actions and whether these actions address the intent of our recommendations.

Recommendation: To help ensure Interior can hire, retain, and train staff it needs to provide effective oversight of oil and gas activities on federal lands and waters, the Secretary of the Interior should direct the Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management and Budget to annually evaluate the bureaus' training programs, including: (1) staff training needs, (2) training effectiveness, and (3) potential opportunities for the bureaus to share training resources.

Agency: Department of the Interior
Status: Open

Comments: In January 2017, Interior officials said the bureaus were developing, or had developed, the means by which they would assess their training needs and review, evaluate, and update their training programs for technical staff. Interior also told GAO that as part of its quarterly review of performance data, the Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management and Budget will ensure that BLM, BSEE and BOEM are coordinating their training needs. Interior officials said that their Office of Strategic Employment and Organizational Development will validate the bureaus' active engagement in this activity and provide support in the fulfillment of this recommendation where needed. In February 2018, Interior officials said the agency had examined results from the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey to gauge how the bureaus' training program activities were being perceived by their workforce. In July 2019, Interior officials said they were looking at opportunities to share training resources, and that they would add in their scope an evaluation of training needs and effectiveness. However, as of March 2020, Interior had not provided us with evidence that it has conducted an evaluation of training needs, training effectiveness and sharing training resources.

Recommendation: In order to better integrate virtual training devices into operational training, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretary of the Army to specify in Army guidance for developing virtual training device requirements that training developers consider and document the time available to train with the devices and intended usage rates to achieve training tasks and proficiency goals during operational training.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) concurred with this recommendation. As of December 2019, the Army had taken some steps to improve its guidance, as GAO recommended in August 2016, but did not plan to fully address the recommendation until 2021. Officials stated that the Army established target usage rates for existing virtual training devices and issued guidance and tracking tools for recording device usage. However, the Army had not modified the guidance, cited in GAO's August 2016 report, to require that training developers consider the amount of time available to train with or expected usage rates of new virtual training devices. According to Army officials, they will implement GAO's recommendation in a planned update to guidance on the justification and validation of new virtual training devices scheduled for 2021. By updating this guidance, the Army will have the information it requires to evaluate the amount of virtual training capabilities needed to achieve training tasks and proficiency goals during operational training.