Reports & Testimonies
Recommendations Database
GAO’s recommendations database contains report recommendations that still need to be addressed. GAO’s priority recommendations are those that we believe warrant priority attention. We sent letters to the heads of key departments and agencies, urging them to continue focusing on these issues. Below you can search only priority recommendations, or search all recommendations.
Our recommendations help congressional and agency leaders prepare for appropriations and oversight activities, as well as help improve government operations. Moreover, when implemented, some of our priority recommendations can save large amounts of money, help Congress make decisions on major issues, and substantially improve or transform major government programs or agencies, among other benefits.
As of October 25, 2020, there are 4812 open recommendations, of which 473 are priority recommendations. Recommendations remain open until they are designated as Closed-implemented or Closed-not implemented.
Browse or Search Open Recommendations
Have a Question about a Recommendation?
- For questions about a specific recommendation, contact the person or office listed with the recommendation.
- For general information about recommendations, contact GAO's Audit Policy and Quality Assurance office at (202) 512-6100 or apqa@gao.gov.
Results:
Subject Term: "Urban development programs"
GAO-15-234, Feb 12, 2015
Phone: (202) 512-8678
Agency: Small Business Administration
Status: Open
Comments: In response to this recommendation, SBA improved its notifications to newly certified firms but not to other certified firms. For example, SBA's certification letter to firms with principal offices in a redesignated area specifically states that the firm is in a redesignated area, explains the implications of the designation, and notes when the redesignated status will expire. However, we found in March 2016 that SBA had not yet implemented changes to better ensure that all currently certified firms would be notified of changes that could affect their program eligibility. It is important that all certified firms potentially affected by such changes receive information about the changes or are made aware in a timely fashion of any effects on their program eligibility. As of February 2017, SBA had begun to improve its notifications to all firms. According to SBA officials, the agency has started sending program notices to all the firms in its portfolio. They told us that for its most recent notice in February 2017, the agency copied all the e-mail addresses in its HUBZone database and placed them in the e-mail distribution system. In March 2018, SBA officials informed us that they obtain monthly lists of certified firms generated by an Oracle system process and that analysts compare the new list to the prior list and add any new firms to the list. In July 2019, SBA officials told us that they informed HUBZone firms of their responsibility to stay up to date on HUBZone geographical designations and program eligibility, through updated language in its HUBZone certification letters and two notices issued to HUBZone firms. While it is helpful that SBA now includes language in its certification letters notifying firms located in a redesignated area of the implications of that designation, SBA's current process does not inform firms when their status may change.
Agency: Small Business Administration
Status: Open
Comments: In response to this recommendation, SBA officials told us that they began automating the process to notify firms that were due for recertification. According to the officials, since September 2015, notification e-mails have been sent daily (compared with the former cycle of two times a year). Each firm due for recertification within the next 30 days would receive the notice. SBA sends a second e-mail to firms that have not responded within 45 days of the first notification. According to SBA officials, as of February 2017, this change has not yet eliminated the backlog. SBA officials informed GAO in May 2017 that they have developed risk-based guidance for conducting recertification reviews and requesting supporting documentation. According to SBA, any certified HUBZone small business concern that has received $1 million or more in HUBZone contract dollars since its initial certification (or its most recent recertification) must submit the following: (a) a list of all current employees, identifying the name of the employee, the employee's address, the number of hours worked per month, and the location where the employee performs his/her work; and (b) payroll documentation. While SBA officials stated that they had completed a risk assessment of their HUBZone recertification process, SBA had not provided GAO with documentation on when SBA performed the risk assessment, which risks were identified and considered, or what analysis established the $1 million threshold as of August 2018. In July 2019, SBA provided a rationale for its risk-based approach to recertification, but the analysis for establishing the $1 million threshold remained unclear. SBA officials told us that the agency plans to conduct a risk assessment in accordance with GAO guidance for all government contracting and business development programs, including the HUBZone program. GAO continues to believe that such a risk assessment of the recertification process would help inform a risk-based approach to reviewing and verifying information from firms that appear to pose the most risk to the program.
GAO-13-174, Apr 18, 2013
Phone: (202)512-3236
Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open
Comments: As of October 2020, OMB has not yet taken action to address this recommendation. According to information provided by OMB and PIC staff in June 2015, although OMB revised its guidance as we recommended, it did not work with the PIC to test implementation of these provisions. Instead, they told us that both PIC and OMB staff ensure agencies are implementing these provisions of their guidance when reviewing agency priority goal (APG) quarterly update submissions. However, our analyses of agencies' APG updates since that time has continued to find that implementation of these provisions is mixed. We will continue to monitor progress.
Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open
Comments: As of October 2020, OMB has taken limited actions to address this recommendation. In July 2017, OMB staff said that they planned on highlighting the requirement for congressional consultation as they updated the 2018-2019 APGs, which were first published in February 2018 and were updated quarterly. However, our periodic analyses of Performance.gov showed that neither the updated version of the site, nor the reporting templates for individual APGs, contained a space for providing a description of input from Congress. In its July 2020 guidance, OMB directed agencies to highlight congressional input, if such input was relevant to setting a specific goal, in the APG overview section of the template. We will continue to monitor progress.
GAO-13-247, Mar 21, 2013
Phone: (202) 512-8678
Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development
Status: Open
Comments: In May 2020, a HUD official told us that the agency did not have the funding necessary to make any changes to IDIS. According to this official, HUD was willing to create the recommended across-program report, but did not have the information technology funding required to make other, higher-priority changes to IDIS (such as fixing identified defects) or the change GAO recommended.
GAO-09-871, Sep 9, 2009
Phone: (202) 512-3000
Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development
Status: Open
Comments: On November 30, 2009, we received a response from HUD stating that actions were planned or underway to address this and the other recommendation in this report. As of July 2019, we are reviewing additional documentation provided by DOT and HUD on actions they have taken.
Agency: Department of Transportation: Federal Transit Administration
Status: Open
Comments: On November 30, 2009, we received a response from HUD stating that actions were planned or underway to address this and the other recommendation in this report. As of July 2019, we are reviewing additional documentation provided by DOT and HUD on actions they have taken.