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: Budgets
GAO-20-669, Sep 30, 2020
Phone: (202) 512-7114
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
GAO-20-602, Aug 19, 2020
Phone: (202) 512-8678
Agency: United States Interagency Council on Homelessness
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
GAO-20-362, Feb 28, 2020
Phone: (202) 512-3841
Agency: Nuclear Regulatory Commission: Directorate for Operations
Status: Open
Comments: In January 2020, in its written response to our report, NRC neither agreed nor disagreed with our recommendation but did describe actions that it intends to take in response to our recommendation. NRC stated that it will review its current practice of providing information on work progress to licensees and develop or revise any policy and guidance where necessary. We believe our review sufficiently demonstrated that by implementing our recommendation NRC could further enhance transparency and facilitate planning and budgeting for licensees. We will continue to monitor NRC's actions to address this recommendation.
Agency: Nuclear Regulatory Commission: Office of the Chief Financial Officer
Status: Open
Comments: In January 2020, in its written response to our report, NRC neither agreed nor disagreed with our recommendation but did describe actions that it intends to take in response to our recommendation. NRC stated that it will review its current web-based cost estimates to determine if changes are necessary and implement those changes as appropriate. We believe our review sufficiently demonstrated that by implementing our recommendation NRC could further enhance transparency and facilitate planning and budgeting for licensees. We will continue to monitor NRC's actions to address this recommendation.
GAO-20-243, Feb 19, 2020
Phone: (202) 512-3841
Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open
Comments: In January 2020, USDA officials agreed with our recommendation and stated that the department is evaluating options for the development of performance metrics and inclusion of these metrics and related information as part of the regular and recurring reviews by the department's Deputy Secretary who is identified as the Chief Operating Officer.
GAO-20-126, Dec 12, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-6244
including 1 priority recommendation
Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget: Office of the Director
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: OMB neither agreed nor disagreed with this recommendation and as of September 2020, the office has not provided information on its actions to implement our recommendation. To fully implement this recommendation, OMB needs to collect data on the extent to which federal agencies are using cloud services authorized outside of FedRAMP and oversee agencies' compliance with using the program. According to an OMB Associate General Counsel, the agency does not have a mechanism for enforcing agencies' compliance with its guidance on FedRAMP. However, we believe that OMB can and should hold agencies accountable for complying with its policies. By implementing this recommendation, OMB could substantially improve participation in the FedRAMP program, which is intended to standardize security requirements for federal agencies' authorizations of cloud services. We will update the status of this recommendation when OMB provides information on its corrective actions.
Agency: General Services Administration: Office of the Administrator
Status: Open
Comments: As of September 2020, GSA has not provided evidence to close this recommendation. We will continue to monitor the agency's progress and update the recommendation's status when GSA provides its corrective actions.
Agency: General Services Administration: Office of the Administrator
Status: Open
Comments: As of September 2020, GSA has not provided evidence to close this recommendation. We will continue to monitor the agency's progress and update the recommendation's status when GSA provides its corrective actions.
Agency: General Services Administration: Office of the Administrator
Status: Open
Comments: As of September 2020, GSA has not provided evidence to close this recommendation. We will continue to monitor the agency's progress and update the recommendation's status when GSA provides its corrective actions.
Agency: General Services Administration: Office of the Administrator
Status: Open
Comments: As of September 2020, GSA has not provided evidence to close this recommendation. We will continue to monitor the agency's progress and update the recommendation's status when GSA provides its corrective actions.
Agency: General Services Administration: Office of the Administrator
Status: Open
Comments: As of September 2020, GSA has not provided evidence to close this recommendation. We will continue to monitor the agency's progress and update the recommendation's status when GSA provides its corrective actions.
Agency: General Services Administration: Office of the Administrator
Status: Open
Comments: As of September 2020, GSA has not provided evidence to close this recommendation. We will continue to monitor the agency's progress and update the recommendation's status when GSA provides its corrective actions.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Comments: In June 2020, CDC stated it has taken actions to address our recommendations, but we have not received evidence of its corrective actions. We will continue to monitor the agency's progress and update the recommendation's status when CDC provides its corrective actions.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Comments: In June 2020, CDC stated it has taken actions to address our recommendations, but we have not received evidence of its corrective actions. We will continue to monitor the agency's progress and update the recommendation's status when CDC provides its corrective actions.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Comments: In June 2020, CDC stated it has taken actions to address our recommendations, but we have not received evidence of its corrective actions. We will continue to monitor the agency's progress and update the recommendation's status once CDC provides its corrective actions.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Comments: In June 2020, HHS stated CMS took actions to close this recommendation, but CMS has not yet provided evidence of its corrective actions. We will continue to monitor the agency's progress and update the recommendation's status when CMS provides its corrective actions.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Comments: In June 2020, HHS stated CMS took actions to close this recommendation, but CMS has not yet provided evidence of its corrective actions. We will continue to monitor the agency's progress and update the recommendation's status when CMS provides its corrective actions.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Comments: In June 2020, HHS stated CMS took actions to close this recommendation, but CMS has not yet provided evidence of its corrective actions. We will continue to monitor the agency's progress and update the recommendation's status when CMS provides its corrective actions.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Comments: In June 2020, HHS stated CMS took actions to close this recommendation, but CMS has not yet provided evidence of its corrective actions. We will continue to monitor the agency's progress and update the recommendation's status when CMS provides its corrective actions.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Comments: In June 2020, NIH stated it is taking actions to address this recommendation, but the agency did not provide evidence of its corrective actions. NIH stated it will provide an update in December 2020. We will continue to monitor the agency's progress and update the recommendation's status when NIH provides its corrective actions.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Comments: In June 2020, NIH stated it is taking actions to address this recommendation, but the agency did not provide evidence of its corrective actions. NIH stated it will provide an update in December 2020. We will continue to monitor the agency's progress and update the recommendation's status when NIH provides its corrective actions.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Comments: In June 2020, NIH stated it is taking actions to address this recommendation, but the agency did not provide evidence of its corrective actions. NIH stated it will provide an update in December 2020. We will continue to monitor the agency's progress and update the recommendation's status when NIH provides its corrective actions.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Comments: In June 2020, NIH stated it is taking actions to address this recommendation, but the agency did not provide evidence of its corrective actions. NIH stated it will provide an update in December 2020. We will continue to monitor the agency's progress and update the recommendation's status when NIH provides its corrective actions.
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Status: Open
Comments: In June 2020, EPA stated it is taking actions to address this recommendation, but the agency did not provide evidence of its corrective actions. We will continue to monitor the agency's progress and update the recommendation's status when EPA provides its corrective actions.
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Status: Open
Comments: EPA did not concur with this recommendation and as of September 2020, the agency has not provided any evidence of its corrective actions. We will continue to monitor the agency's progress and update the recommendation's status when EPA provides its corrective actions.
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Status: Open
Comments: In June 2020, EPA stated it is taking action to address this recommendation, but the agency did not provide evidence of its corrective actions. We will continue to monitor the agency's progress and update the recommendation's status when EPA provides its corrective actions.
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Status: Open
Comments: EPA did not concur with this recommendation and as of September 2020, the agency has not provided any evidence of its corrective actions. We will continue to monitor the agency's progress and update the recommendation's status when EPA provides its corrective actions.
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Status: Open
Comments: EPA did not concur with this recommendation and as of September 2020, the agency has not provided any additional evidence. We will continue to monitor the agency's progress and update the recommendation's status when EPA provides its corrective actions.
GAO-20-130, Dec 10, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-2834
Agency: General Services Administration: Office of the Administrator
Status: Open
Comments: GSA concurred with this recommendation and has developed an action plan to implement it. In January 2020, GSA officials told us that GSA will change the method for calculating the average cost per square foot performance measure by now using the actual rent agencies paid to GSA in the calculation. GSA officials also stated that GSA will post this information annually to performance.gov. We will continue to monitor GSA's implementation of these efforts.
GAO-20-148, Oct 16, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-3604
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Navy
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Navy
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
GAO-19-233, Apr 8, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-2775
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Navy
Status: Open
Comments: As of August 2020, the Navy has informed GAO that efforts to address this recommendation are underway. The Marine Corps has in process a Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution (PPBE) reform initiative that it expects to provide visibility and traceability throughout the budget cycle, to include enabling the tracking of unit-level training funds throughout the budget cycle. DOD expects to complete implementation by the end of fiscal year 2025. We will continue to monitor actions taken related to this recommendation and provide updates as appropriate.
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Navy
Status: Open
Comments: As of August 2020, the Navy has informed GAO that efforts to address this recommendation are underway through its Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution (PPBE) reform initiative. The initiative is expected to result in the addition of an "Assessment" phase to the PPBE process, which will be known as "PPBEA." The new phase is expected to include a system that incorporates campaign planning against traceability of funding, among other factors, and will be documented in a new Marine Corps Order to replace existing PPBE guidance. The Marine Corps expects to complete this process by the end of fiscal year 2025. We will continue to monitor actions taken related to this recommendation and provide updates as appropriate.
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Navy
Status: Open
Comments: As of August 2020, the Navy has informed GAO that efforts to address this recommendation are underway. The Marine Corps' Programs and Resources Department is supporting the transition of the Cost to Run a MEF (C2RAM) from a stand-alone database to a web-enabled platform within the Marine Corps Training Information Management System (MCTIMS) program. The Marine Corps expects this platform to provide the ability to track ground unit-level training costs as they pertain to readiness goals and provide data to more effectively assess readiness investments for subsequent budget cycles. The Marine Corps expects the platform to attain initial operational capability for data input and data management by the end of fiscal year 2020, and to support analytics reporting and predictive resourcing functions by the end of fiscal year 2021. We will continue to monitor actions taken related to this recommendation and provide updates as appropriate.
GAO-19-49, Nov 13, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-4456
Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open
Comments: DOE agreed with our recommendation. The department has provided documentation regarding its IT budget procedures. However, DOE has not yet developed procedures that explicitly require that all transactions with an IT component be included in the expenditure reporting to the CIO. We will continue to monitor the department's progress in implementing our recommendation.
Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open
Comments: DOE agreed with our recommendation. The department has provided documentation regarding its IT budget procedures. However, DOE has not yet documented procedures for ensuring the CIO is included in budget decisions for all programs with IT resources, including those within NNSA and the national laboratories. We will continue to monitor the agency's progress in implementing our recommendation.
Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open
Comments: DOE agreed with our recommendation. The department has provided charters that included the CIO as a member of department-level governance boards that inform IT decisions. However, DOE has not provided charters that include the CIO as a member of component-level IT governance boards. We will continue to monitor the department's progress in implementing our recommendation.
Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open
Comments: DOE agreed with our recommendation. The department has provided IT governance board and budget procedures. However, DOE has not documented procedures by which the CIO is to work with program leadership in planning IT resources for all programs, including those within NNSA and the national laboratories. We will continue to monitor the department's progress in implementing our recommendation.
Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open
Comments: The department has provided IT budget procedures. However, DOE has not documented procedures by which the CIO is to review and approve all major IT investments, including those within NNSA and the national laboratories. We will continue to monitor the department's progress in implementing our recommendation.
Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open
Comments: DOE agreed with our recommendation. The department has provided IT budget procedures. However, DOE has not documented procedures for the CIO's review of IT resources that are to support major program objectives and significant increases and decreases in IT resources for department and component agency budget requests. We will continue to monitor the department's progress in implementing our recommendation.
Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open
Comments: DOE agreed with our recommendation. The department has provided IT budget procedures. However, DOE has not developed procedures for documenting steps the CIO is to take to ensure that the IT portfolio includes appropriate estimates of all IT resources. We will continue to monitor the department's progress in implementing our recommendation.
Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open
Comments: DOE agreed with our recommendation. When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open
Comments: DOE agreed with our recommendation and is planning to take steps towards implementing it. Specifically, DOE plans to implement the Technology Business Management Framework by December 2021. Additionally, the department is coordinating internally to update its financial and procurement systems to better identify IT spending. DOE anticipates that its updates will allow the agency to compare actual IT spending against estimates in the portfolio. We will continue to monitor the department's progress in implementing our recommendation.
Agency: Department of Energy: National Nuclear Security Administration
Status: Open
Comments: NNSA agreed with this recommendation and plans to develop relevant policies and procedures by June 2020. We will continue to monitor the agency's progress towards implementing our recommendation.
Agency: Department of Energy: National Nuclear Security Administration
Status: Open
Comments: NNSA agreed with this recommendation and plans to develop relevant policies and procedures by June 2020. We will continue to monitor the agency's progress towards implementing our recommendation.
Agency: Department of Energy: National Nuclear Security Administration
Status: Open
Comments: NNSA agreed with this recommendation and plans to develop relevant policies and procedures by June 2020. We will continue to monitor the agency's progress towards implementing our recommendation.
Agency: Department of Energy: National Nuclear Security Administration
Status: Open
Comments: NNSA agreed with this recommendation and plans to develop relevant policies and procedures by June 2020. We will continue to monitor the agency's progress towards implementing our recommendation.
Agency: Department of Energy: National Nuclear Security Administration
Status: Open
Comments: NNSA agreed with this recommendation and plans to develop relevant policies and procedures by June 2020. We will continue to monitor the agency's progress towards implementing our recommendation.
Agency: Department of Energy: National Nuclear Security Administration
Status: Open
Comments: NNSA agreed with this recommendation and plans to develop relevant policies and procedures by June 2020. We will continue to monitor the agency's progress towards implementing our recommendation.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: HHS agreed with this recommendation and is planning to take steps to implement it. Specifically, the agency intends to update its IT investment planning policy to include requirements for reporting expenditures that apply to all transactions with an IT component. We will continue to monitor the department's progress towards implementing our recommendation.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: HHS agreed with the recommendation and is planning to take steps to implement it. Specifically, the agency intends to update its IT investment planning policy to amplify the CIO's role in the planning and budgeting stages for all programs with IT resources. Also, HHS intends to document procedures for ensuring that all delegated authorities are carried out. We will continue to monitor the department's progress towards implementing our recommendation.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: HHS agreed with the recommendation. The department has provided charters that included the CIO as a member of department-level governance boards that inform IT decisions. However, HHS has not provided charters that include the CIO as a member of component-level IT governance boards. We will continue to monitor the department's progress in implementing our recommendation.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: HHS agreed with the recommendation and is planning to take steps to implement it. For example, HHS plans to develop an asset management policy and introduce a pilot program to manage inventories across the agency. However, the department has not developed policies and procedures that incorporate the processes by which the program leadership are planning the IT portfolio with the CIO for existing investments greater than or equal to $20 million annually and for investments delegated to components. We will continue to monitor the department's progress in implementing our recommendation.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: HHS agreed with the recommendation and is planning to take steps to implement it. Specifically, the department intends to update its IT investment planning policy to amplify the CIO's role in reviewing major investments. We will continue to monitor the department's progress in implementing our recommendation.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: HHS agreed with this recommendation and has taken steps towards implementing it. Specifically, HHS documented procedures that require the CIO to hold annual IT investment review meetings with components to review changes in IT resources. However, HHS has not documented procedures for the CIO's role in reviewing major program objectives. We will continue to monitor the department's progress toward implementing our recommendation.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: HHS agreed with the recommendation and is planning to take steps to implement it. Specifically, the department intends to assess and update its existing policies and procedures to document the steps the CIO is to take to review the IT portfolio for appropriate estimates of all IT resources. We will continue to monitor the department's progress toward implementing our recommendation.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: HHS agreed with the recommendation and is planning to take steps to implement it. Specifically, the department intends to develop an IT governance policy to define the accountability of the CIO over all IT projects and establish processes detailing quality reviews and the level of rigor that should be applied by its IT governance board. We will continue to monitor the department's progress towards implementing our recommendation.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: HHS agreed with the recommendation and is planning to take steps to implement it. Specifically, the agency intends to update its IT acquisition program policy and related processes. HHS also plans to document standard operating procedures for agency wide dissemination to ensure the effectiveness and efficiency of IT investment governance through transparent and repeatable procedures. We will continue to monitor the agency's progress in implementing our recommendation.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: HHS agreed with the recommendation and are planning to take steps towards implementing it. Specifically, HHS established a working group and developed a roadmap for implementing the Technology Business Management Framework by fiscal year 2022. The agency anticipates that its strategy and approach will enable HHS to, among other things, link IT portfolio data, procurement system data, and financial system data. We will continue to monitor the department's progress towards implementing our recommendation.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
Status: Open
Comments: CMS agreed with our recommendation. When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
Status: Open
Comments: CMS agreed with our recommendation. When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
Status: Open
Comments: CMS agreed with our recommendation. When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
Status: Open
Comments: CMS agreed with our recommendation. When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Justice
Status: Open
Comments: The department agreed with the recommendation and has taken steps towards implementing it. Specifically, in October 2019, the DOJ CIO issued a memorandum requiring component CIOs to establish a process for providing IT investment information to the DOJ CIO. The component CIO's process is to either include the DOJ CIO as a member of component investment review boards or provide an alternative mechanism for obtaining the DOJ CIO's input on component IT investments. We will continue to monitor the department's progress in implementing our recommendation.
Agency: Department of Justice: Federal Bureau of Investigation
Status: Open
Comments: FBI agreed with our recommendation. When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of the Treasury
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the department has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of the Treasury
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the department has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of the Treasury
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the department has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of the Treasury
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the department has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of the Treasury
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the department has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of the Treasury
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the department has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of the Treasury
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the department has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of the Treasury
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the department has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
GAO-19-20, Nov 7, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-2834
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Army: Corps of Engineers
Status: Open
Comments: As of December 2019, the Corps has developed a definition for "deferred maintenance" for civil works and plans to request funding to establish a team to review maintenance data. The Corps anticipates implementing this recommendation by the end of 2020.
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Army: Corps of Engineers
Status: Open
Comments: As of December 2019, the Corps is working to review existing authorities, funding, and contracting mechanisms to identify potential courses of action to address GAO's recommendation. The Corps anticipates implementing this recommendation in 2021.
GAO-18-523, Aug 2, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-4841
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Defense agreed with this recommendation, stating that the Navy would develop and submit additional cost, schedule, and contract information to supplement existing budget exhibits and continue this reporting through completion of the CVN 65 dismantlement and disposal. Congress subsequently addressed our recommendation to the department as part of the Fiscal Year 2019 National Defense Authorization Act enacted on August 13, 2018. Specifically, the act requires the Secretary of the Navy to include information on each dismantlement and disposal of a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier occurring or planned to occur during the period of the future years defense program submitted to Congress with that budget. For each ship, this includes (1) a summary of activities and significant developments in connection with the dismantlement and disposal; (2) a detailed description of cost and schedule performance against the baseline for the dismantlement and disposal, including a description of and explanation for any variance from such baseline; and (3) a description of the funding amounts requested, or expected to be requested, for the dismantlement and disposal for prior, current, and future fiscal years. In August 2020, a Naval Reactors official stated that the draft environmental impact statement (EIS) for the carrier disposal will be published in the summer of 2021. The final EIS is planned for fall 2022 with an accompanying record of decision announcing the Navy's intended course of action for CVN 65 dismantlement and disposal. The official also confirmed that the Navy anticipates developing a schedule of work and requesting funding for CVN 65 dismantlement and disposal plans in 2023 if the commercial dismantlement option is selected. If the Navy elects to have the dismantlement performed by the government, these activities will occur at a later date. We will continue to monitor the Navy's activities in order to document any action taken to implement this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Defense agreed with this recommendation and stated that the Navy would obtain independent cost estimates through the Office of Cost Analysis and Program Evaluation (CAPE) for both the naval shipyard and full commercial CVN 65 dismantlement and disposal options before a final decision is made on which option the Navy will pursue. In August 2020, a Naval Reactors official stated that the draft environmental impact statement (EIS) for the carrier disposal will be published in the summer of 2021. The final EIS is planned for fall 2022 with an accompanying record of decision announcing the Navy's intended course of action for CVN 65 dismantlement and disposal. The official also said the Navy is working directly with the Center for Naval Analyses, Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, and CAPE to gather and review independent cost estimates for commercial dismantlement and updated naval shipyard cost estimates. The commercial and naval shipyard estimates will be reviewed and assessed by CAPE prior to the Navy making a decision on which option to pursue. CAPE's written report assessing the commercial and naval shipyard estimates is expected to combine with the ongoing EIS to directly inform the Navy's decision for CVN 65. We will continue to monitor the status of independent cost estimate activities for CVN 65 until the estimates have been completed.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Defense agreed with this recommendation and stated that the Navy would prepare a risk management plan for the CVN 65 dismantlement and disposal before the award of a contract or the provision of funds. In August 2020, a Naval Reactors official stated that the draft environmental impact statement (EIS) for the carrier disposal will be published in the summer of 2021. The final EIS is planned for fall 2022 with an accompanying record of decision announcing the Navy's intended course of action for CVN 65 dismantlement and disposal. The official also confirmed that if the Navy selects the commercial dismantlement option for CVN 65, the Navy anticipates identifying potential risks and mitigations in February 2021 for CVN 65 dismantling to support independent cost estimate development, with risk management plan approval to follow in July 2022. If the Navy elects to have the dismantlement performed by the government, these activities will occur at a later date. We will continue to monitor the Navy's efforts to complete a risk management plan as the department works toward a decision for the CVN 65 dismantlement and disposal.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Defense agreed with this recommendation and stated that the Navy would prepare and approve a cost and schedule baseline for the CVN 65 dismantlement and disposal before the award of any contract or the provision of funds for the effort. Congress subsequently addressed our recommendation to the department on August 13, 2018, as part of the Fiscal Year 2019 National Defense Authorization Act. Specifically, the act requires the Secretary of the Navy to provide a report to the congressional defense committees that provides a cost and schedule baseline for the dismantlement and disposal of nuclear powered aircraft carriers approved by Navy leadership. In August 2020, a Naval Reactors official stated that the draft environmental impact statement (EIS) for the carrier disposal will be published in the summer of 2021. The final EIS is planned for fall 2022 with an accompanying record of decision announcing the Navy's intended course of action for CVN 65 dismantlement and disposal. The official also confirmed that the Navy anticipates developing a cost and schedule baseline for CVN 65 dismantlement and disposal in 2022 if the commercial dismantlement option is selected. If the Navy elects to have the dismantlement performed by the government, these activities will occur at a later date. We will continue to monitor the Navy's activities in order to document any action taken to implement this recommendation.
GAO-18-454, Jul 24, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-4841
Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Coast Guard
Status: Open
Comments: The Coast Guard agreed with this recommendation and in August 2019 officials reported that the Coast Guard is working with DHS to include additional information that addresses how trade-off decisions made could affect other major acquisition programs in future CIP reports. It anticipates including this information in the FY 2021-2025 CIP, which it expects to release in late summer 2020.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Coast Guard
Status: Open
Comments: The Coast Guard disagreed with this recommendation stating that other bodies within the Coast Guard--such as the Investment Board, Deputies Council, and Investment Review Board--are responsible for making decisions regarding out-year funding, while the Executive Oversight Council works outside of the annual budget process. DHS also stated that, to meet the spirit of our recommendation, the Coast Guard will update the Executive Oversight Council's charter to require a review of the collective acquisition portfolio, specifically evaluating long-term planning. We believe that updating the Executive Oversight Council's charter to include long-term-planning is a positive step. However, we continue to believe that in addition to long-term planning, the Executive Oversight Council should include the major acquisition portfolio's budget realities faced by the Coast Guard in its reviews, or long-term affordability. If the planning accounts for long-term funding considerations to achieve the Coast Guard's acquisition goals and objectives, we believe the intent of our recommendation would be met. The Coast Guard expects to complete the update of the EOC charter by by late summer 2020.
GAO-18-415, May 17, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-3149
Agency: Department of the Interior
Status: Open
Comments: Upon the report's publication, Interior concurred with our report's recommendations and set a target date for implementation of October 1, 2023. In July 2018, Interior stated that the trust fund committees were in discussions related to identifying the parameters and principles for a distribution policy and formula(s) to calculate the distribution prior to preparing the text of a distribution policy, and that representatives from Interior and the State Department would discuss our recommendations with the trust fund committees. According to the Trust Fund Administrator and Interior, the distribution policy was discussed at subsequent trust fund committee meetings, and trust fund representatives met with FSM representatives in January 2019 to discuss the status of the trust fund and future scenarios for its management. GAO observed the FSM trust fund committee's September 2019 meeting. At the meeting, the trust fund adviser presented a presentation to the committee that discussed issues associated with the distribution policy, fiscal procedures, and timing of the calculation of amounts available for disbursement. However, the FSM compact trust fund committee did not make any decisions regarding steps to address our recommendations. At the meeting, an FSM representative on the FSM compact trust fund committee stated that the FSM's Joint Compact Review and Planning Committee (JCRP) had appointed a chief negotiator and, in light of this appointment, the FSM compact trust fund members would not be taking a position on a distribution policy on behalf of the FSM. The FSM's position is that the distribution policy and other future compact trust fund-related issues should be discussed as part of future negotiations between the FSM and the United States. The December 2019 trust fund committee meeting again included post-2023 issues on the agenda, but the committee did not take actions at that time.
Agency: Department of the Interior
Status: Open
Comments: Upon the report's publication, Interior concurred with our report's recommendations and stated that discussions to address them are ongoing within the trust fund committees. In July 2018, Interior stated that discussions among the trust fund committees and others were ongoing and the fiscal procedures applicable to the trust fund disbursements will be determined prior to October 1, 2023. In February 2019, Interior stated that discussions about policies and controls were frequent and ongoing among Committee members and staffers along with the trust fund manager and investment advisers. GAO observed the FSM trust fund committee's September 2019 meeting. At the meeting, the trust fund adviser presented a presentation to the committee that discussed issues associated with the distribution policy, fiscal procedures, and timing of the calculation of amounts available for disbursement. However, the FSM compact trust fund committee did not make any decisions regarding steps to address our recommendations. At the meeting, an FSM representative on the FSM compact trust fund committee stated that the FSM's position is that future compact trust fund-related issues should be discussed as part of future negotiations between the FSM and the United States. The December 2019 trust fund committee meeting again included post-2023 issues on the agenda, but the committee did not take actions at that time.
Agency: Department of the Interior
Status: Open
Comments: Upon the report's publication, Interior concurred with our report's recommendations and stated that discussions to address them are ongoing within the trust fund committees. In July 2018, Interior stated that the trust fund committees have been discussing options for ensuring that the timing of the calculation of compact trust fund disbursements align with the budget process of the FSM and that, of the options reviewed thus far, using a multi-year rolling average was the favored option. Interior added that the final determination on the timing of the calculation of the trust fund disbursements will be addressed in the distribution policy. Interior set a target date for implementation of the recommendation to develop a distribution policy of October 1, 2023. In February 2019, Interior stated that discussions about policies and controls were frequent and ongoing among Committee members and staffers along with the trust fund manager and investment advisers. GAO observed the FSM trust fund committee's September 2019 meeting. At the meeting, the trust fund adviser presented a presentation to the committee that discussed issues associated with the distribution policy, fiscal procedures, and timing of the calculation of amounts available for disbursement. However, the FSM compact trust fund committee did not make any decisions regarding steps to address our recommendations. At the meeting, an FSM representative on the FSM compact trust fund committee stated that the FSM's position is that future compact trust fund-related issues should be discussed as part of future negotiations between the FSM and the United States. The December 2019 trust fund committee meeting again included post-2023 issues on the agenda, but the committee did not take actions at that time.
Agency: Department of the Interior
Status: Open
Comments: Upon the report's publication, Interior concurred with our report's recommendations and set a target date for implementation of October 1, 2023. In July 2018, Interior stated that the trust fund committees were in discussions related to identifying the parameters and principles for a distribution policy and formula(s) to calculate the distribution prior to preparing the text of a distribution policy, and that representatives from Interior and the State Department would discuss our recommendations with the trust fund committees. According to the Trust Fund Administrator and Interior, the distribution policy was discussed at subsequent trust fund committee meetings, and trust fund representatives met with RMI representatives in January 2019 to discuss the status of the trust fund and future scenarios for its management. GAO observed the RMI trust fund committee's September 2019 meeting. At the meeting, the committee received written information from the trust fund adviser that discussed issues associated with the distribution policy, fiscal procedures, and timing of the calculation of amounts available for disbursement, but the scheduled adviser presentation did not occur. At the meeting, an RMI representative on the RMI compact trust fund committee stated that the RMI government has determined that using the original distribution structure, with disbursements in the amount of annual grant assistance and full adjustment for inflation, remains the RMI's position. In addition, any adjustments to the distribution policy and trust fund structure will be made as a result of government to government negotiation. The December 2019 trust fund committee meeting again included post-2023 issues on the agenda, but the committee did not take actions at that time.
Agency: Department of the Interior
Status: Open
Comments: Upon the report's publication, Interior concurred with our report's recommendations and stated that discussions to address them are ongoing within the trust fund committees. In July 2018, Interior stated that discussions among the trust fund committees and others were ongoing and the fiscal procedures applicable to the trust fund disbursements will be determined prior to October 1, 2023. In February 2019, Interior stated that discussions about policies and controls were frequent and ongoing among Committee members and staffers along with the trust fund manager and investment advisers. GAO observed the RMI trust fund committee's September 2019 meeting. At the meeting, the committee received written information from the trust fund adviser that discussed issues associated with the distribution policy, fiscal procedures, and timing of the calculation of amounts available for disbursement, but the scheduled adviser presentation did not occur. At the meeting, an RMI representative on the RMI compact trust fund committee stated that any adjustments to the distribution policy and trust fund structure will be made as a result of government to government negotiation. The December 2019 trust fund committee meeting again included post-2023 issues on the agenda, but the committee did not take actions at that time.
Agency: Department of the Interior
Status: Open
Comments: Upon the report's publication, Interior concurred with our report's recommendations and stated that discussions to address them are ongoing within the trust fund committees. In July 2018, Interior stated that the trust fund committees have been discussing options for ensuring that the timing of the calculation of compact trust fund disbursements align with the budget process of the RMI and that, of the options reviewed thus far, using a multi-year rolling average was the favored option. Interior added that the final determination on the timing of the calculation of the trust fund disbursements will be addressed in the distribution policy. Interior set a target date for implementation of the recommendation to develop a distribution policy of October 1, 2023. In February 2019, Interior stated that discussions about policies and controls were frequent and ongoing among Committee members and staffers along with the trust fund manager and investment advisers. GAO observed the RMI trust fund committee's September 2019 meeting. At the meeting, the committee received written information from the trust fund adviser that discussed issues associated with the distribution policy, fiscal procedures, and timing of the calculation of amounts available for disbursement, but the scheduled adviser presentation did not occur. At the meeting, an RMI representative on the RMI compact trust fund committee stated that any adjustments to the distribution policy and trust fund structure will be made as a result of government to government negotiation. The December 2019 trust fund committee meeting again included post-2023 issues on the agenda, but the committee did not take actions at that time.
GAO-18-56, Jan 31, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-9869
Agency: Department of Agriculture: Forest Service
Status: Open
Comments: The Forest Service generally agreed with this recommendation and stated that its financial policies concerning budget execution have been revised to address our concerns with allotments, unliquidated obligations, commitments, and administrative control of funds as prescribed by OMB Circular A-11. Further, the Forest Service stated that it has undertaken an in-depth review of its unliquidated obligations and modified the certification process to comply with the USDA requirement. However, the Forest Service has not yet provided support for the review and approval of the administrative control of funds by USDA and OMB. GAO will continue to follow up on the status of this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Agriculture: Forest Service
Status: Open
Comments: The Forest Service generally agreed with this recommendation and stated that it has made significant progress to address this recommendation. Specifically, the Forest Service stated that its financial policies concerning budget execution have been revised to address allotments, unliquidated obligations, commitments, and administrative control of funds as prescribed by OMB Circular A-11. Further, the Forest Service stated that it has undertaken an in-depth review of its unliquidated obligations and modified the certification process to comply with the USDA requirement. However, as of August 2020, the Forest Service has not provided support for the training provided to implement the revised procedures. GAO will continue to follow up on the status of this recommendation.
GAO-17-557, Jul 20, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-9971
Agency: Department of Defense: Office of the Chief Information Officer
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation. As of the issuance of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2019 Joint Report, DOD has taken some steps to address this recommendation. For example, DOD provided more information on the methodologies used to develop NC3 budget estimates. However, the methodology reported for NC3 estimates is still not transparent and DOD must still provide additional information beyond what the methodology in the joint report to clarify differences with the FYDP. However, according to DOD officials, actions will be taken to incorporate a more robust methodology that takes into account these issues in the FY2020 Joint Report. We will re-evaluate DOD's implementation of this recommendation as we review future joint reports.
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Air Force
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation. In the Fiscal Year 2019 Joint Report issued in November 2018, the Air Force identified some instances of programmatic changes in its estimates. However, not all programmatic changes were identified in the report. We will continue to monitor DOD's response to this recommendation as we review future annual joint budget estimate reports.
GAO-17-85, Feb 9, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-9869
including 5 priority recommendations
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Army
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: The Army concurred with this recommendation. The Army stated that the Accountability and Audit Readiness Directorate has completed actions to enhance its current standard operating procedures to include (1) updating its corrective action plan (CAP) database and reporting tool, (2) documenting its reporting procedures, and (3) updating its CAP template to include additional elements recommended by the Implementation Guide for OMB Circular A-123. In addition, the Army stated that its policies and procedures include steps to incorporate external financial management-related audit findings assigned to the Accountability and Audit Readiness Directorate by the Internal Review Directorate and that the existing process the Army uses to prioritize findings and the related CAPs and to monitor the progress and status of CAPs has been documented. We reviewed Army's documentation that was provided in January 2020. Army's documentation did not show that it has a process for ensuring that all financial management related findings and recommendations are identified and tracked. To implement this recommendations Army needs to enhance their policies and procedures related to tracking and monitoring the status of these audit findings.
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Air Force
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: The Air Force concurred with this recommendation. In January 2018, the Air Force stated that it continues to develop a process for identifying and tracking financial management-related findings and recommendations from all audit sources by updating its process guidance. In August 2019, we received draft guidance that Air Force is developing as guidance and procedures for a universe of financial management-related findings and recommendations. In January 2020, we also received a list of the Air Force deficiencies being tracked in the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) (OUSD(C)) database. After assessing the provided documentation, we found that the draft does not include procedures for identifying GAO, DODOIG, and Air Force Audit Agency (AFAA) findings and the database did not include deficiencies identified by those external auditors. As a result of our review of the documentation provided, we determined that the actions taken were not sufficient to close the recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Air Force
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: The Air Force concurred with this recommendation. In January 2018, the Air Force stated that its Air Force Deficiency Remediation Tracking processes and guides were being refined. In December 2019, Air Force provided a document titled "NFR Prioritization Process." We found that this document included Air Force's priority categories. However, the document does not include information on determining the priority level or applying the priority levels when addressing the deficiencies. We also received a copy of Air Force's guide for the Corrective Action Plan (CAP) process dated July 2019. We found that this guide does not fully incorporate CAP development for deficiencies from all sources. Additionally, the guide does not provide information on the process for (1) determining resources and other requirements for remediating the deficiency, (2) conducting a cost benefit analysis, and (3) developing criteria for validating that the deficiency has been remediated. The guide also includes a template for conducting a root cause analysis. However, the instructions for conducting a root cause analysis are somewhat limited for determining the initial cause or underlying reason for the deficiency. Per the guide, the Air Force uses the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) (OUSD(C)) database to monitor and report on Air Force's deficiencies and remediation CAP status. We obtained a listing of the NFRs and related CAPS in the database as of December 2019. We found that deficiencies from all audit sources were not included in the listing, only the independent public accountant's NFRs. The results of our review of a limited number of CAPs indicate that Air Force staff does not always comply with the Air Force's CAP requirements. As a result of our assessment of the Air Force documentation, we determined that the actions taken were not sufficient to close the recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. DOD stated that it solicits input on a bi-monthly basis, on critical capability corrective action plans (CAPs) at a summary level. This information is provided routinely at regularly scheduled FIAR Governance Board meetings. DOD also stated that an updated notice of finding and recommendation (NFR) form template is being developed and will be provided to the military services to use for reporting this information so that it will include the recommended standard data elements outlined in OMB Circular A-123 to provide greater transparency into the nature of remediation plans. DOD also stated that FIAR Guidance will be updated to explicitly state that military services should include the OMB recommended standard data elements in CAPs. To implement this recommendation, DOD needs to provide documentation that shows that the military services are able to provide a summary of key information in the corrective action plans that at a minimum contains data elements recommended by the Implementation Guide for OMB Circular A-123. .
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation. According to DOD, the military services already provide summary-level updates on their critical capability corrective action plans (CAPs) at FIAR Governance Board meetings. It also stated that the template that is used to present CAPs to the FIAR Governance Board meetings at the summary level has been updated to align CAPs to critical capabilities. DOD still needs to address how all of the data elements from the Implementation Guide for OMB Circular A-123 will be summarized or otherwise reported for all CAPs pertaining to critical capabilities across the Department. In addition, DOD stated that because the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) takes responsibility for maintaining, monitoring, and reporting on the status of CAPs for the service providers and other defense organizations and of DOD-wide issues, the Comptroller will also summarize this information. However, DOD has not clarified what information from the military services will be summarized. To implement this recommendation, DOD needs to provide documentation that shows the Comptroller has prepared a consolidated CAP management summary on a bimonthly basis.
GAO-17-38, Nov 9, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-4523
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. As of October 2019, DOD has not completed actions to implement our recommendations. When we confirm what actions DOD has taken, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. As of October 2019, DOD has not completed actions to implement our recommendations. When we confirm what actions DOD has taken, we will provide updated information. In 2017, DOD officials told us that they would include information about assumptions, a methodology, cost estimates, and timelines for achieving alternative reductions, but they were unable to provide any documentation of progress made.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. As of October 2019, DOD has not completed actions to implement our recommendations. When we confirm what actions DOD has taken, we will provide updated information.
GAO-16-695, Jul 21, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-9110
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: In its fiscal year 2017 congressional justification, IRS modified how its budget data were organized, including linking requested increases to future state themes, but did not clarify how current spending by themes relates to appropriation accounts. Information on current spending by theme and account is important to ensure transparency on the current funding levels to assist Congress in making informed budget decisions. As reported in October 2018 in GAO-19-108R, the themes under the Future State vision are now being pursued as part of IRS's strategic plan for fiscal years 2018 to 2022-issued in May 2018. IRS has been phasing out the use of the term Future State and did not include it in its fiscal year 2020 congressional justification. Including data on the themes in the strategic plan would provide additional transparency and improve the quality of the information available to Congress for budget deliberations.
Agency: Department of the Treasury
Status: Open
Comments: As of November 2017, Treasury Department officials took steps to address the need to manually correct budget data for the fiscal year 2017 budget request. However, as of October 2019, we have not received documentation that they have done so for future budget years. Improved information would help Treasury and IRS better account for information technology resources. We will continue to monitor Treasury's progress.
GAO-16-168, Mar 15, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-3841
Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open
Comments: As of June 2020, GAO is working with the agency to determine what actions the agency has taken related to this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open
Comments: As of June 2020, GAO is working with the agency to determine what actions the agency has taken related to this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open
Comments: As of June 2020, GAO is working with the agency to determine what actions the agency has taken related to this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open
Comments: As of June 2020, GAO is working with the agency to determine what actions the agency has taken related to this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open
Comments: As of June 2020, GAO is working with the agency to determine what actions the agency has taken related to this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open
Comments: As of June 2020, GAO is working with the agency to determine what actions the agency has taken related to this recommendation.
GAO-16-37, Nov 23, 2015
Phone: (202) 512-3841
Agency: Executive Office of the President
Status: Open
Comments: As of January 2020, the Executive Office of the President has yet to take action in response to this recommendation.
Agency: Executive Office of the President
Status: Open
Comments: As of January 2020, the Executive Office of the President has yet to take action in response to this recommendation.
GAO-14-529, Jun 17, 2014
Phone: (202) 512-3604
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation, but did not elaborate as to why. As of November 2019, DOD has not implemented an administrative furlough since our 2014 report nor has it produced any guidance regarding the recommendation. We will continue to monitor for the development of guidance or a potential DOD administrative furlough.
GAO-12-806, Jul 31, 2012
Phone: (202) 512-3841
Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open
Comments: According to DOE's audit tracking system report, for the period ending 1/28/16, DOE Office of Budget was evaluating and revising DOE Order 130.1 as necessary to include planning, programming, budgeting, and evaluation (PPBE). The report states that the Office of Budget will communicate revisions to NNSA as appropriate with an estimated completion date of 9/30/16. According to a previous tracking system report, Order 130.1 was updated and placed in the management review process some time between 6/30/13, and 9/30/13. According to DOE, the Office of the Chief Financial Officer implemented a new funding execution system on 10/1/16. The development and implementation of the new system has delayed revision of DOE Order 130.1. The new system will impact the budget practices, planning, policies and processes content that will be outlined in the revised DOE 130.1. As of 6/30/20, DOE's Directives Review Board established an Integrated Project Team to revise the Department's Budget Formulation and Budget Execution Directives. Final approval of the revised guidance is anticipated by 9/30/20.
GAO-12-623, Jun 7, 2012
Phone: (202)512-3000
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation and said that it would establish a process to review the mission and requirements for the Selective Service System. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 established the National Commission on Military, National and Public Service (i.e., the Commission) to, among other things, review the military selective service process. The Commission is to submit a report to the President and Congress no later than March 2020 with recommendations concerning the need for a military draft and means by which to foster a greater ethos of public service among American youth. Further, the Commission was directed to conduct hearings and meetings open to the public in various locations throughout the country to provide maximum opportunity for public comment and participation in order to help develop its recommendations. In January 2019, the Commission released an Interim Report. The Interim Report shared what the Commission learned throughout its first year, explored options the Commission is considering to increase service participation among all Americans, and outlined issues involved in the Commission's review of the military selective service process. In March 2020, the Commission issued its final report, and it recommended that (1) the Congress require the Secretary of Defense to update the personnel requirements and timeline for obtaining draft inductees in the event of an emergency requiring mass mobilization and (2) the President direct the Secretary of Defense to include in future Quadrennial Defense Reviews and National Defense Strategies a section on the state of the Selective Service System and the ability of the United States to rapidly mobilize personnel in the event of an emergency. The Commission's report reinforced our recommendation; however, until DOD takes action to respond to our recommendation to take actions to establish a process to periodically review the mission and requirements of the Selective Service System, this recommendation should be left open.
GAO-12-482, May 3, 2012
Phone: (202) 512-5257
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. In January 2019, according to DOD officials, the Navy was still revising its policies and guidance documents to include information on sharing UII data enterprise wide. They expected a revised Secretary of the Navy instruction to undergo review in Fiscal Year 2019 and an OPNAV supporting instruction to follow, once the Secretary of the Navy instruction is released. However, as of September 2019, the relevant Secretary of the Navy instruction had not been updated.
GAO-09-647, Jul 31, 2009
Phone: (202)512-7029
Agency: Congress
Status: Open
Comments: Congress has exempted savings from the implementation of multiple procedure payment reductions (MPPR) for certain diagnostic imaging and therapy services from the budget neutrality requirement, as GAO suggested in July 2009. However, as of January 2020, other policies that may result in a reduction in payments for the professional component for imaging services remained subject to budget neutrality; "savings" from these services are redistributed to other services and do not accrue to the Medicare program. The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2016 revised the payment reduction for the professional component of multiple diagnostic imaging services from 25 percent to 5 percent beginning on January 1, 2017, and exempted the reduced expenditures attributable to this MPPR from the budget neutrality provision. MPPRs or other policies that may result in a reduction to payments for the technical component for diagnostic cardiovascular and ophthalmology services continue to be subject to budget neutrality for 2020. Unless Congress exempts from the budget neutrality requirement savings realized from the implementation of all MPPRs or other policies that reflect efficiencies occurring when services are furnished together, these savings will not accrue to the Medicare program.