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: Commodities
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-18-610, Sep 5, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-2834
Agency: Department of Transportation: Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation
Status: Open
Comments: As of August 2020, DOT reported that the St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation (SLSDC) is in the process of completing development of its new risk management program and anticipates having a final product that will be implemented by the end of 2020. GAO will continue to monitor the SLSDC's progress in implementing this recommendation.
GAO-17-635, Jul 26, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-2834
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Army: Office of the Assistant Secretary (Civil Works)
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation. As of December 2019, officials from the Corps stated that they are working to develop additional metrics for dredging decisions and will brief congressional committees on the results. We will continue to follow the Corps' progress in addressing this recommendation.
GAO-17-449, Jun 21, 2017
Phone: (213) 830-1011
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with the recommendation. DOD began reviewing its secondary item inventory warehousing in July 2017 to consolidate underused distribution centers. In February 2018, DOD officials stated that the department will conduct three site studies by fiscal year 2019 to assess the viability and any potential savings from consolidation at these locations. In April 2019, DOD officials stated that the site studies had been completed and they anticipate a final report in late May 2019.
GAO-17-224, Mar 9, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-9601
including 1 priority recommendation
Agency: United States Agency for International Development
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: In December 2017, USAID informed us that new Title II development awards would require partners to adhere to a requirement that it added in July 2017 to the Food for Peace development award template, which requires programs to provide quarterly performance reports on actual cash transfers, food vouchers, and local and regional procurement activities. USAID also noted that it had developed a new WFP emergency award template with reporting requirements for monitoring data on cash transfers, food vouchers, and local and regional procurement activities. In February 2018, USAID provided support that it has developed training and standardized oversight staff roles and responsibilities to help ensure that complete and consistent monitoring data is collected for Title II development and emergency projects. However, USAID still needs to provide evidence that it collects complete and consistent monitoring data from implementing partners for Title II projects, in accordance with established requirements. As of September 2020, we continue to monitor USAID's ongoing actions taken in response to this recommendation.
GAO-15-38, Oct 7, 2014
Phone: (202) 512-3841
including 1 priority recommendation
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: In February 2020, FDA said that the recommendation should be closed as not implemented. FDA has previously said that it remained concerned that the disclosure of pesticides for which FDA does not test would enable users to more easily circumvent the pesticide monitoring program, which could jeopardize public health and, at a minimum, would undermine FDA's law enforcement efforts. In addition, FDA said that it discloses in its annual reports all pesticides tested for within the reports' annual scope as required by the Pesticide Monitoring Improvements Act of 1988. FDA's annual reports also clarify that not all pesticides for which EPA has established tolerances were analyzed. FDA said that the Pesticide Monitoring Improvements Act of 1988 does not specifically direct the agency to report information on untested pesticides with EPA-established tolerances. We continue to believe that disclosing the pesticides that are not included in FDA's testing program would be consistent with OMB best practices for reporting limitations relevant to analyzing and interpreting results from a data collection effort. In particular, we continue to believe that FDA should be more transparent about the potential effect of not testing for all pesticides for which EPA has established tolerances. We also note that the Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service implemented a similar recommendation to disclose information about its pesticide monitoring program. As a result, we are keeping this recommendation open.
GAO-14-65, Nov 6, 2013
Phone: (202)512-9286
Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open
Comments: As of April 2019, OMB had taken steps to improve transparency of and accountability for PortfolioStat, as GAO recommended in November 2013. In October 2015, the agency started displaying actual data consolidation savings data on the federal information technology (IT) dashboard. As of April 2018, however, OMB was not requiring that agencies report planned PortfolioStat cost savings stating this was as a result of agency feedback, and streamlining of data collection efforts based upon the decision that reporting on realized cost savings is more valuable than reporting on planned or projected cost savings.In March 2019, OMB stated that it was "exploring better approaches to cost savings as reported by agencies to the IT Dashboard." We are following up with OMB to determine whether these approaches include publicly disclosing planned and actual data consolidation efforts and related cost savings by agency.
Agency: Department of Commerce
Status: Open
Comments: In October 2018, the Commerce described its process for updating its IT asset inventory as part of the budget formulation process and provided a mapping of investments to its enterprise architecture as evidence that it had implemented this recommendation. However, the department did not provide any policies and procedures supporting the process it described to us. In addition, it did not provide any evidence of controls to ensure that all investments had been captured in the enterprise architecture. In January 2020, the department told us that its Office of the Chief Information Officer had new leadership and as a result the department was expected to make significant progress in addressing the recommendation this year.
Agency: Department of Commerce
Status: Open
Comments: In October 2018, Commerce officials told GAO about actions taken that they believed addressed the recommendation and provided supporting documentation. Specifically, they stated that they send out an annual data call for bureaus to provide their IT asset inventory as part of the budget submission process. They stated they also perform department-level validation of the bureaus' inventories and aggregate them into a single department inventory. As evidence, they provided a data call memo with supporting instructions and a template for bureaus to establish an IT asset inventory. They also provided examples of three bureau inventories received in response to data calls. In addition, they provided the final aggregated inventory (for fiscal year 2017) and department-level validation of bureau submissions. However, the department did not provide any policies or procedures documenting the process they described. In addition, we could not determine whether the creation of the department-wide inventory was a one-time effort or a recurring activity. In January 2020, the department told us that its Office of the Chief Information Officer had new leadership and as a result the department was expected to make significant progress in addressing the recommendation this year.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Defense partially concurred with the recommendation and stated that it had efforts underway to further define the department's commodity IT baseline. In January 2019, our contact from the Office of the Chief Information Officer told us that the department had recently established an IT Purchase Request (ITPR) process for controlling spending that had a built-in IT asset inventory process that would address the recommendation. In August 2019, we received documentation on the ITPR process as part of an ongoing engagement. We are reviewing the documentation to determine whether it is sufficient to close the recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Defense did not concur with the recommendation, stating that the commodity IT construct implemented by OMB with PortfolioStat did not work with the department's federated management process. However, the department agreed that a strategy, consistent with the intent of achieving better buying power and control of commodity IT items, should be developed and implemented within the department using existing authorities and stated that it was in the process of implementing this strategy. In January 2019, the Office of the Chief Information Officer's Director for Performance Management stated that while the CIO did not have the authority to consolidate commodity IT spending, the department had taken actions he believed addressed the intent of the recommendation to gain visibility into IT spending. Specifically, he stated that the department established a policy to leverage its buying power for commodity IT purchases (for example for software licenses). In addition, the department recently established an IT Purchase Request (ITPR) process for controlling IT spending. In August 2019, we received documentation related to those actions as part of an ongoing engagement. We are reviewing the documentation to determine whether it is sufficient to close the recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: The department of Defense concurred with the recommendation and stated that it already reported data center consolidation savings and would continue to realize savings from the Enterprise Software Initiative, other strategic sourcing efforts and the implementation of the General Fund Enterprise Business System initiatives. Through other engagements, in August 2016, we had collected support for data center consolidation and Enterprise Software Initiative savings for fiscal years 2013 to 2015. In January 2019, the Office of the Chief Information Officer's Director for Performance Management told us that the department had not been tracking savings generated by other commodity IT initiatives due to the difficulty in doing so, however, it was tracking an "other" category of savings through OMB's integrated data collection instrument (IDC) process which he believed the intent of our recommendation. He noted that the "other" category tracks savings from various OMB IT reform initiatives. Mr. Johnson said he had sent a recent IDC report along with supporting documentation to GAO to address a recommendation made in GAO-15-296. We are reviewing the documentation to determine whether it is sufficient to close the recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Defense concurred with the recommendation and stated that, in the future, USACE would fully describe the four action plan elements when reporting to OMB. In August 2016, the department reported that it had addressed and closed the recommendation in February 2015 and cited policies, procedures, and other supporting documentation as evidence. However, the department did not provide the supporting documentation. In April 2018, the department provided several documents as evidence of its efforts to address this recommendation, including an order outlining the capital planning investment management process for the fiscal year 2017. We determined that the documents did not support the department's claims. In January 2019, the department told us it would provide an update on the status of actions to address the recommendation. As of August 2019, the department had not yet provided any update.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Defense partially concurred with the recommendation and stated that it had efforts underway to further define the department's commodity IT baseline. In August 2016, the department reported that it had addressed and closed the recommendation in October 2014 and described several actions that it believed contributed to addressing the recommendation, including, continued improvements to data center reporting, and greater understanding of IT infrastructure costs. However, the department did not provide any documentation to support its claims. In January 2019, the department told us it would provide an update on the status of actions to address the recommendation. As of August 2019, the department had not yet provided any update.
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Status: Open
Comments: In September 2016, we reported that the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Registry of Environmental Protection Agency Applications, Models and Databases (READ) system had a complete inventory of enterprise IT and business systems-two of three categories of IT assets that make up a commodity IT baseline-and that the agency had processes in place to regularly update this inventory to ensure its completeness (see GAO-16-511). We have been following up with EPA to obtain its inventory of IT infrastructure systems-the third commodity IT category--and determine the agency's process to ensure the completeness of this inventory. In a December 2019 update, EPA told us that it was working on a response to the recommendation.
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Status: Open
Comments: In November 2016, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reported making progress in addressing the three action plan elements through implementation of the Federal Information Technology Acquisition Reform Act (FITARA) and efforts to assess applications in its inventory. In June 2019, the agency provided supporting documentation. We are reviewing the documentation to determine whether it fully addresses the recommendation.
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Status: Open
Comments: Between July and December 2016, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reported that it had implemented a managed print service contract for headquarters in 2014 and was preparing to award a new contract to also cover its regions. The agency also reported that it plans to use one of the government-wide contracts identified in OMB's policy on improving the acquisition and management of common IT for its end user computing needs. EPA, however, did not provide documentation supporting these efforts. In a December 2019 update, EPA told us that it was working on a response to the recommendation.
Agency: Department of Justice
Status: Open
Comments: In October 2019, the department stated that its budget formulation process ensures that all investments are included in its enterprise architecture (EA). Specifically, the department stated that, as part of the budget formulation process, the EA group reviews investments and aligns them to the business areas within the EA framework by assigning them business reference model codes. To support its claims, in November 2019, the department provided a list of investments showing their alignment with the business reference model codes for the fiscal year 2021 budget formulation process. However, the department did not provide evidence of the EA group's review process. As of January 2020, we were following up with the department to obtain this evidence.
Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Status: Open
Comments: In February 2018, NASA reported that it was making revisions to its enterprise architecture policy that would assist with ensuring that 100 percent of the agency's information technology investments are in the enterprise architecture. In July and December 2018, the agency provided updates on its efforts along with supporting documentation, though not enough to fully address the recommendation. In July 2019, the agency stated it also had efforts underway to centralize IT governance under the Chief Information Officer and this would contribute to reflect all investments in the enterprise architecture. The agency stated it would continue to update us on the status of its efforts to address the recommendation.
Agency: Office of Personnel Management
Status: Open
Comments: In February 2020, OPM stated that it was developing a service catalog with cost information and allocation components which together with the agency's software inventory would be used for cost avoidance moving forward. However, OPM did not provide supporting documentation. In addition, it was not clear whether the service catalog and software inventory would together include enterprise IT, IT infrastructure, and business systems, the three categories of IT assets that comprise a commodity IT baseline. We will continue to monitor OPM's efforts to address the recommendation.
Agency: Office of Personnel Management
Status: Open
Comments: In October 2018, OPM provided evidence that it had addressed the action plan element regarding the migration of two commodity IT areas to shared services. Specifically, OPM provided an August 2016 interagency agreement showing plans to migrate its financial management system to a shared service and a May 2018 interagency agreement showing plans to migrate its human resources and time and attendance system to a shared service. However, the interagency agreements were not signed. Regarding the action plan element to target duplicative systems or contracts that support common business functions for consolidation, OPM stated did that it had targeted laptops and mobile phones for consolidation. In addition, OPM did not provide any evidence of reporting to OMB for either action plan element. In February 2020, OPM stated that, in addition to entering into an interagency agreement for its financial management system and consolidating the procurement of agency-wide laptops and cellphones using an enterprise wide contract, it was also working to close two of its five major data centers to consolidate to three. OPM said that it was gathering the documentation to support its claims.
Agency: Office of Personnel Management
Status: Open
Comments: In February 2020, OPM stated that its IT help desk function had become a shared service starting in October 2019. However, OPM did not provide supporting documentation. In addition, OPM stated it did not have any updates on the IT asset inventory. We will continue to monitor the agency's efforts to address this recommendation.
Agency: Department of the Treasury
Status: Open
Comments: In September 2014, the Department of the Treasury reported that it did not plan to consolidate commodity IT spending under the agency CIO. Specifically, the department stated that commodity IT investment decisions were consolidated under the Treasury Technology Investment Review Board which is co-chaired by the agency CIO and Assistant Secretary for Management; and that it did not see the benefit of combining the budget authorities of the various bureau infrastructure investments. In regards to establishing criteria to identify wasteful, low-value, and duplicative investments, in September 2014, the department stated that the Treasury Technology Investment Review Board and Technology Advisory Working Group had established an approach that considers risk, value and cost in reviewing investment requests to identify wasteful, low-value, and duplicative investments. As of May 2019, we were reviewing documentation we received from the department in September 2018 to determine whether the recommendation has been fully addressed.
Agency: Department of the Treasury
Status: Open
Comments: In September 2014, the Department of the Treasury described several examples of processes it had established to identify opportunities to reduce duplicative, low-value or wasteful investments, including annual reviews of each major IT investment and monthly portfolio reviews. As of May 2019, we were reviewing updated information we received in September 2018 to determine whether the recommendation has been fully addressed.