Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should develop and, as appropriate, implement options for collecting reliable information on the ANDSF conventional forces' ability to operate and maintain U.S.-purchased equipment. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: In commenting on the report, DOD concurred with the recommendation and stated DOD advisors will continue to work with their Afghan counterparts to build their capacity to reliably report information on equipment status. As of September 2020, DOD had not provided an update on actions taken in response to this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of State should determine the estimated effects of cost inflation on planned CSCP embassy construction capacity and time frames and update this information for stakeholders on a regular basis, such as through the annual budgeting process. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of State
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: State concurred with this recommendation. As of March 2020, State/OBO had developed a worldwide construction inflation rate and had integrated this rate into its bureau budget request for fiscal year 2021. According to OBO officials, OBO is working to update its budget guidance to ensure the inflation rate is updated and integrated into future bureau budget requests on a regular basis. We will continue to monitor State's implementation of this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of State should ensure that the Director of OBO conducts an OBO-wide workforce analysis to assess staffing levels and workload capacity needed to carry out the full range of OBO's mission goals, to include the CSCP. Such an assessment could provide a basis for broader stakeholder discussion of OBO's human capital needs and potential prioritization of activities. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of State
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: State concurred with this recommendation. As of March 2020, State/OBO was working with the Institute for Defense Analysis to conduct an OBO-wide workforce analysis, with initial findings and recommendations planned for early 2020. We will continue to monitor State's implementation of this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Administrator of NNSA should require an independent entity to validate that contractor EVM systems used for LEPs meet the EVM national standard. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Energy: National Nuclear Security Administration
Status: Open

Comments: In October 2018, NNSA stated that the integrated baseline reviews, internal reviews of earned value management (EVM) systems used by life extension programs (LEP), and other controls over data integration provide a practical and cost-beneficial approach to the validation of contractor EVM systems. However, in early 2019, NNSA conducted a lessons learned study to more fully assess the cost, benefit, mission impacts, and feasibility of implementing our recommendation for possible application to future LEPs. According to NNSA documentation, based on the results of the lessons learned study, NNSA concluded that the effort and expense needed to validate contractor EVM systems against the EVM national standard could be better used providing resources to improve the agency's ability to establish work breakdown structures, schedules, and integration of scope, cost, and schedule. As a result, as of September 2019, NNSA stated that its actions meet the intent of our recommendation. We disagree. As we stated in our report, without requiring an independent entity to validate that contractor EVM systems meet the EVM national standard, NNSA may not have assurance that its LEPs are obtaining reliable EVM data for managing their programs and reporting their status. We will continue to monitor NNSA's activities to address this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Administrator of NNSA should require an independent entity to conduct surveillance reviews of contractor EVM systems used for LEPs to ensure that they maintain compliance with the EVM national standard through program completion. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Energy: National Nuclear Security Administration
Status: Open

Comments: In October 2018, NNSA stated that it conducts ongoing surveillance through integrated baseline reviews, internal reviews of EVM systems used by LEPs, and other assessments, which consider national standards. However, in early 2019, NNSA conducted a lessons learned study to more fully assess the cost, benefit, mission impacts, and feasibility of implementing our recommendation for possible application to future LEPs. According to NNSA documentation, based on the results of the lessons learned study, NNSA concluded that the effort and expense needed to conduct surveillance reviews of contractor EVM systems to ensure compliance with the EVM national standard could be better used providing resources to improve the agency's ability to establish work breakdown structures, schedules, and integration of scope, cost, and schedule. As a result, as of September 2019, NNSA stated that its actions meet the intent of our recommendation. We disagree. As we stated in our report, without requiring an independent entity to conduct surveillance reviews of contractor EVM systems through program completion, NNSA may not have assurance that its LEPs are obtaining reliable EVM data for managing their programs and reporting their status. We will continue to monitor NNSA's activities to address this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Administrator of NNSA should require its programs to ensure that LEP critical technologies meet specific technology readiness level benchmarks at decision points, or otherwise document with program executive approval their rationale for not meeting these benchmarks. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Energy: National Nuclear Security Administration
Status: Open

Comments: In October 2018, NNSA stated that it has already incorporated specific benchmarks for technology readiness levels at decision points. As an example, it stated that it recommends a technology readiness level of 5 at the beginning of phase 6.3 for an LEP. As a result, NNSA stated that its actions meet the intent of our recommendation. We disagree. As we stated in our report, it is important for NNSA to establish a requirement, not just a recommendation, that LEP critical technologies meet specific technology readiness level benchmarks at decision points. We will continue to monitor NNSA's activities to address this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Chair of the EEOC should develop a timeline to complete the planned effort to clean Integrated Mission System data for a one-year period and add missing industry code data. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Status: Open

Comments: As part of an effort to overhaul its IMS data system, EEOC has begun developing an Employer Master List that will provide a source of employer information, including industry codes, but EEOC told us that it has not yet completed this effort. It anticipates this system will be more fully developed by spring 2020. It is important for EEOC to collect sufficient information through its Employer Master List and use it to analyze charge data by industry.

Recommendation: The Director of OFCCP should analyze internal process data from closed evaluations to better understand the cause of delays that occur during compliance evaluations and make changes accordingly. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Labor: Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs
Status: Open

Comments: In June 2019, OFCCP officials reported that OFCCP's procedures outlined in the Active Case Enforcement Directive (DIR 2011-01) caused delays in case closures, but OFCCP did not indicate that this conclusion resulted from the recommended analysis of internal process data from closed evaluations. OFCCP officials reported that the agency's aged case rate-defined as a case which is open for more than 730 days and has not been referred for further enforcement-has dropped from 27.7 percent in fiscal year 2017 to 20.9 percent in fiscal year 2019. However, it did not report on changes in case outcomes. In September 2019, OFCCP officials told us they continue to look for ways to address delays with effective policies that make the agency more efficient. We maintain that OFCCP should determine the root causes of delays based on data analysis of actual evaluations to demonstrate that its policy changes are accurately targeting the causes of these delays.

Recommendation: The Director of OFCCP should assess the quality of the methods used by OFCCP to incorporate consideration of disparities by industry into its process for selecting contractor establishments for compliance evaluation. It should use the results of this assessment in finalizing its procedures for identifying contractor establishments at greatest risk of noncompliance. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of Labor: Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs
Status: Open

Comments: In its agency response to our November 2017 report, OFCCP officials reported that the agency was exploring the use of U.S. Census Bureau and administrative data to refine its selection process to focus on industries with a greater likelihood of noncompliance. In January 2019, DOL officials reported that DOL had revised its scheduling methodology to include industries with the highest rates of violations. OFCCP published the scheduling list in March 2019 and its field offices started scheduling cases in May 2019. OFCCP stated it will continue to monitor results from this revised scheduling methodology to determine its effectiveness. It will be important for OFCCP to refine these methods based on its experiences with them. This new process is a step toward focusing efforts on industries at greater risk of potential noncompliance with nondiscrimination or affirmative action requirements. We will consider closing this recommendation when these efforts are complete.

Recommendation: The Director of OFCCP should evaluate the current approach used for identifying entities for compliance review and determine whether modifications are needed to reflect current workplace structures and locations or to ensure that subcontractors are included. (Recommendation 5)

Agency: Department of Labor: Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs
Status: Open

Comments: In fiscal year 2019, OFCCP evaluated its current approach for identifying subcontractors for review. OFCCP stated that the current approach does not reliably include subcontractors in the pool from which contractors are scheduled because there is no government or public database that captures the complete universe of subcontractors and other important data. In June 2019, OFCCP submitted revisions to its process to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval. We will consider closing this recommendation when these efforts are complete.

Recommendation: The Director of OFCCP should evaluate the Functional Affirmative Action Program to assess its usefulness as an effective alternative to an establishment-based program, and determine what improvements, if any, could be made to better encourage contractor participation. (Recommendation 6)

Agency: Department of Labor: Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs
Status: Open

Comments: OFCCP has taken steps to encourage contractors to use the FAAP program without fully evaluating it as an alternative to the establishment-based program. Evaluating the FAAP could help OFCCP improve its ability to achieve its objectives and may provide broader insight for OFCCP's overall enforcement approach. We will consider closing this recommendation when these efforts are complete.

Recommendation: The DOD Inspector General should implement a process to document employee recusals and impairments to independence and incorporate such information into an aggregate-level evaluation of threats to DODIG's independence. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Defense: Office of the Inspector General
Status: Open

Comments: The DOD Inspector General concurred with this recommendation and stated in July 2020 that the DOD Office of Inspector General was in the process of implementing it.

Recommendation: To address demonstrated noncompliance with section 15(k) of the Small Business Act, as amended, the Director of the Defense Logistics Agency should comply with sections 15(k)(2), (k)(7), (k)(11), and (k)(17) or report to Congress on why the agency has not complied, including seeking any statutory flexibilities or exceptions believed appropriate.

Agency: Department of Defense: Defense Logistics Agency
Status: Open

Comments: For section 15(k)(2), related to the compensation and seniority of the person heading the OSDBU office, DOD concurred with this part of the recommendation. Agency officials stated that the agency requested that DOD seek Congressional approval to authorize a new Senior Executive Service position for the OSDBU director, and the agency has been waiting for this authorization to make this change. An agency official said that DLA recently hired a new Office of Small Business Programs director at the GS-15 equivalent level. This hire is not consistent with the requirements of section 15(k)(2). We will continue to monitor DOD's efforts to address this recommendation. For section 15(k)(7), related to supervisory duties, DOD did not concur with this part of the recommendation. An agency official said that the management structure of DLA and its subordinate elements precludes assigning supervisory authority by the DLA OSBP over all agency personnel involved in small business functions. The official said that DOD OSDP is working to submit legislative proposals for the fiscal year 2020 National Defense Authorization Act. These proposals may address DLA's compliance with section 15(k)(7). For section 15(k)(11), related to advise on insourcing, DOD concurred with this part of the recommendation and said that future insourcing actions will be coordinated with the DLA OSBP as required. The agency official said that as of August 10, 2018, there have not been any insourcing actions. DOD provided a memo documenting that a future update of DOD policy will include language about complying with section 15(k)(11) requirement. The information provided is sufficient to close this part of the recommendation. For section 15(k)(17), related to responding to undue restrictions on the ability of small businesses to compete, DOD concurred with this part of the recommendation. DOD provided a memo that includes information on how the agency will comply with the section 15(k)(17) requirements and that these procedures will be included in a future DOD policy update. The information provided is sufficient to close this part of the recommendation as implemented.

Recommendation: To address demonstrated noncompliance with section 15(k) of the Small Business Act, as amended, the Secretary of Agriculture should comply with sections 15(k)(2), (k)(15), and (k)(17) or report to Congress on why the agency has not complied, including seeking any statutory flexibilities or exceptions believed appropriate.

Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open

Comments: For section 15(k)(2), related to the compensation and seniority of the person heading the OSDBU office, and for section 15(k)(15), related to collateral duties, on September 13, 2018, an agency official stated that the agency currently does not have an OSDBU director. The official stated that the agency does not have an estimate for when this would occur because the director is appointed by the White House. We will continue to monitor USDA's efforts to address this part of the recommendation. For section 15(k)(17), related to undue restriction on the ability of small businesses to compete, an agency official stated that the OSDBU is working on an internal policy which will include guidelines for action. The official stated that the estimated completion date is January 2019. We will continue to monitor USDA's efforts to address this part of the recommendation.

Recommendation: To address demonstrated noncompliance with section 15(k) of the Small Business Act, as amended, the Secretary of the Army should comply with section 15(k)(8) or report to Congress on why the agency has not complied, including seeking any statutory flexibilities or exceptions believed appropriate.

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

Comments: DOD did not concur with this recommendation, related to assigning small business technical advisors, because it said that the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement delegates the authority to appoint small business technical advisers to the head of the contracting activity. We continue to believe that the recommendation is valid because when a statutory provision such as section 15(k) and regulations such as the acquisition regulation conflict, the statute controls. An agency official said that the DOD OSBP recommended, as part of the legislative proposal process, changes to the National Defense Authorization Act to align with the DOD OSBP's interpretation of the statute, but it did not make it out of DOD. We will continue to monitor DOD's efforts to address this recommendation.

Recommendation: To address demonstrated noncompliance with section 15(k) of the Small Business Act, as amended, the Secretary of Defense should comply with sections 15(k)(5) and (k)(8) or report to Congress on why the agency has not complied, including seeking any statutory flexibilities or exceptions believed appropriate.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: For section 15(k)(5), related to identifying and addressing bundling of contract requirements, DOD did not concur with this part of the recommendation because it said that no contracting or bundling occurs at the level of the Office of the Secretary of Defense. We continue to believe that the recommendation is valid because if DOD believes that the situation of this office supports that it is in compliance with section 15(k)(5), the agency should report to Congress on how it believes it is in compliance, and seek any statutory flexibilities or exceptions believed appropriate. We will continue to monitor DOD's efforts to address this part of the recommendation. For section 15(k)(8), related to assigning small business technical advisors, DOD did not concur with this part of the recommendation because it said that the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement delegates the authority to appoint small business technical advisers to the head of the contracting activity. We continue to believe that the recommendation is valid because when a statutory provision such as section 15(k) and regulations such as the acquisition regulation conflict, the statute controls. An agency official said that the DOD OSBP recommended, as part of the legislative proposal process, changes to the National Defense Authorization Act to align with the DOD OSBP's interpretation of the statute, but it did not make it out of DOD. We will continue to monitor DOD's efforts to address this part of the recommendation.

Recommendation: To address demonstrated noncompliance with section 15(k) of the Small Business Act, as amended, the Secretary of Education should comply with sections 15(k)(3) and (k)(11) or report to Congress on why the agency has not complied, including seeking any statutory flexibilities or exceptions believed appropriate.

Agency: Department of Education
Status: Open

Comments: For section 15(k)(3), related to reporting to the agency head or deputy head, an agency official stated that a deputy secretary was confirmed in May 2018 but that the previous OSDBU director was no longer with the agency and a new director would be appointed to the OSDBU director position. The agency official also said that once a new OSDBU director is assigned, the deputy secretary will provide oversight to the OSDBU director including signing the director's performance appraisal. We will continue to monitor the Department of Education's efforts to address this part of the recommendation. For section 15(k)(11), related to advise on insourcing, on July 20, 2018, an agency official provided guidance on insourcing which states that the OSDBU will review and advise on any decision to convert an activity performed by a small business concern to an activity performed by a federal employee. The information provided is sufficient to close as implemented this part of the recommendation.

Recommendation: To address demonstrated noncompliance with section 15(k) of the Small Business Act, as amended, the Secretary of Energy should comply with sections 15(k)(3), (k)(8), and (k)(17) or report to Congress on why the agency has not complied, including seeking any statutory flexibilities or exceptions believed appropriate.

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: To address demonstrated noncompliance with section 15(k) of the Small Business Act, as amended, the Secretary of the Interior should comply with sections 15(k)(11) and (k)(17) or report to Congress on why the agency has not complied, including seeking any statutory flexibilities or exceptions believed appropriate.

Agency: Department of the Interior
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: To address demonstrated noncompliance with section 15(k) of the Small Business Act, as amended, the Secretary of the Navy should comply with section 15(k)(8) or report to Congress on why the agency has not complied, including seeking any statutory flexibilities or exceptions believed appropriate.

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

Comments: DOD did not concur with this recommendation, related to assigning small business technical advisors, because it said that the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement delegates the authority to appoint small business technical advisers to the head of the contracting activity. We continue to believe that the recommendation is valid because when a statutory provision such as section 15(k) and regulations such as the acquisition regulation conflict, the statute controls. An agency official said that the DOD OSBP recommended, as part of the legislative proposal process, changes to the National Defense Authorization Act to align with the DOD OSBP's interpretation of the statute, but it did not make it out of DOD. We will continue to monitor DOD's efforts to address this recommendation.

Recommendation: To address demonstrated noncompliance with section 15(k) of the Small Business Act, as amended, the Secretary of the Treasury should comply with sections 15(k)(8) and (k)(11) or report to Congress on why the agency has not complied, including seeking any statutory flexibilities or exceptions believed appropriate.

Agency: Department of the Treasury
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: To address demonstrated noncompliance with section 15(k) of the Small Business Act, as amended, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs should comply with sections 15(k)(3), (k)(8), and (k)(11) or report to Congress on why the agency has not complied, including seeking any statutory flexibilities or exceptions believed appropriate.

Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Status: Open

Comments: For section 15(k)(3), related to reporting requirement (head of agency or deputy head), a VA official stated that the agency has changed the reporting relationship of the OSDBU director. The official stated that the Deputy Secretary will now act as rating Official for the Executive Director, OSDBU, and will sign the initial draft rating. The official also provided a Senior Executive Leaders FY 2018 Rating Scheme (dated January 2018) which shows that the Deputy Secretary rates and reviews the OSDBU director. The information provided is sufficient to close as implemented this part of the recommendation. For section 15(k)(8), related to assigning small business technical advisors, an agency official stated that VA has circulated a draft Memorandum of Understanding for concurrence which would address among other things, the extent of supervisory authority to be exercised over the Small Business Technical Advisor personnel by the Executive Director, OSDBU, while the advisor personnel remain employees of the contracting activity. The official stated that VA's revised target completion date for this effort is September 30, 2019. We will continue to monitor VA's efforts to address this part of the recommendation. For section 15(k)(11), related to advise on in-sourcing, as of January 18, 2018, VA updated its Small Business Procurement Review Program Policy to include language about the role of the OSDBU as it relates to the requirements for section 15(k)(11). A VA official also stated that the policy was distributed by email to VA's acquisition workforce and was also posted to the agency's intranet on February 12, 2018. The official stated that this policy has been distributed to OSDBU staff and provided a copy to GAO. The information provided is sufficient to close as implemented this part of the recommendation.

Recommendation: To address demonstrated noncompliance with section 15(k) of the Small Business Act, as amended, the Director of the Office of Personnel Management should comply with sections 15(k)(2), (k)(8), and (k)(17) or report to Congress on why the agency has not complied, including seeking any statutory flexibilities or exceptions believed appropriate.

Agency: Office of Personnel Management
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: To address demonstrated noncompliance with section 15(k) of the Small Business Act, as amended, the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration should comply with sections 15(k)(2), (k)(3), (k)(6), (k)(8), (k)(11), and (k)(15) or report to Congress on why the agency has not complied, including seeking any statutory flexibilities or exceptions believed appropriate.

Agency: Social Security Administration
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: The Chief Executive Officer should direct the Chief Information Officer to take steps needed to ensure that system requirements are defined to align with the business needs of CNCS's future risk-based grants monitoring process (Recommendation 1).

Agency: Corporation for National and Community Service
Status: Open

Comments: In November 2018, CNCS officials stated that the agency made the decision to terminate the development of the Grants and Member Management (GMM) system. They subsequently awarded a contract to assess the state of development for the GMM system and to provide recommendations on the actions CNCS needed to take in order to implement a commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) application for core grants management functions. According to CNCS officials, based on the findings from that assessment, further investments in developing customized applications (even an implementation of a COTS application) were not likely to be successful. As of September 2019, CNCS officials stated that they were pursuing the option of a federal shared service as a solution to grants management. As of November 2019, according to CNCS officials, the agency had not yet defined requirements for the grant monitoring system project because the decision to pursue the federal shared services as a solution for grants management is very recent. CNCS officials agreed to provide GAO with an update as further progress is made on this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Chief Executive Officer should direct the Chief Information Officer to ensure that the system development project schedule identifies in the baseline both planned and actual dates for completing all project-level activities, and can be used to monitor and measure progress of the grant monitoring system project (Recommendation 2).

Agency: Corporation for National and Community Service
Status: Open

Comments: In November 2018, CNCS officials stated that the agency made the decision to terminate the development of the GMM system. They subsequently awarded a contract to assess the state of development for the GMM system and to provide recommendations on the actions CNCS needed to take in order to implement a COTS application for core grants management functions. According to CNCS officials, based on the findings from that assessment, further investments in developing customized applications (even an implementation of a COTS application) were not likely to be successful. As of September 2019, CNCS officials stated that they were pursuing the option of a federal shared service as a solution to grants management. As of November 2019, according to CNCS officials, the agency had not yet established a project schedule for completing the grant monitoring system project because the decision to pursue the federal shared services as a solution for grants management is very recent. CNCS officials agreed to provide GAO with an update as further progress is made on this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Chief Executive Officer should direct the Chief Information Officer to ensure that test plans are defined and implemented to include the second version of the grant monitoring system in all stages of testing during development, and results of initial stages are approved before conducting subsequent test stages (Recommendation 3).

Agency: Corporation for National and Community Service
Status: Open

Comments: In November 2018, CNCS officials stated that the agency made the decision to terminate the development of the GMM system. They subsequently awarded a contract to assess the state of development for the GMM system and to provide recommendations on the actions CNCS needed to take in order to implement a COTS application for core grants management functions. According to CNCS officials, based on the findings from that assessment, further investments in developing customized applications (even an implementation of a COTS application) were not likely to be successful. As of September 2019, CNCS officials stated that they were pursuing the option of a federal shared service as a solution to grants management. As of November 2019, according to CNCS officials, the agency had not yet established a timeframe to define test plans for the selected solution for the grant monitoring system project because the decision to pursue the federal shared services as a solution for grants management is very recent. CNCS officials agreed to provide GAO with an update as further progress is made on this recommendation.

Recommendation: To enable the department to enhance its visibility over contractor personnel for whom it may become responsible in the event of contingency and other applicable operations, the Secretary of Defense should, in coordination with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, update accountability guidance clarifying the types of contractor personnel that are to be accounted for in a steady-state environment.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation, but as of September 2020, has not yet taken steps to implement it. DOD stated that DOD Instruction 3020.41, Operational Contract Support, is being updated, and will include guidance on the types of contractor personnel that are to be accounted for. The department also stated it would update Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Manual 3150.13C, Joint Personnel Reporting Structure-Personnel Manual, to clarify the types of contractor personnel that are to be accounted for. As of September 2020, neither of these guidance documents had been updated. This recommendation will remain open.

Recommendation: To ensure that combatant commands are not contracting with entities that may be connected to or supporting prohibited organizations, the Secretary of Defense should, in coordination with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, develop and issue guidance that clarifies the foreign-vendor vetting steps or process that should be established at each combatant command, including the operational conditions under which a foreign-vendor vetting cell should be established.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with our recommendation but as of September 2020, has not implemented it. In its response to our report, DOD agreed that the development and issuance of overarching guidance and partially concurs with the development and issuance of guidance that clarifies the foreign vendor vetting steps or process that should be established at each combatant command, including operational conditions under which a foreign vendor vetting cell should be established. In April 2018, DOD issued Directive-Type Memorandum 18-002, Prohibition on Providing Funds to the Enemy and Authorization of Additional Access to Records. In August 2020, DOD officials said that they had drafted department-wide vendor vetting guidance (now known as vendor threat mitigation), but had not yet issued it. Since the guidance has not been issued, the recommendation will remain open at this time.

Recommendation: To ensure that PACOM is not contracting with entities that may be connected to or supporting prohibited organizations, while awaiting DOD guidance on vendor vetting, the Secretary of Defense should direct the PACOM commander to consider developing vendor vetting guidance as other combatant commands have done, to prepare for the event that PACOM becomes actively engaged in hostilities.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation, but as of September 2019, has not yet taken the steps necessary to implement it.. When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: To ensure that federal contractors are complying with equal employment opportunity requirements, the Secretary of Labor should direct the Director of OFCCP to make changes to the contractor scheduling list development process so that compliance efforts focus on those contractors with the greatest risk of not following equal employment opportunity and affirmative action requirements.

Agency: Department of Labor
Status: Open

Comments: In 2018, in consultation with technical experts, DOL revised its scheduling list methodology to address this recommendation. The agency's new scheduling approach aims to strike an appropriate balance for addressing recidivism and noncompliance. The new scheduling list methodology, deployed in FY 2019, examined closed cases for FY 2014 through 2018 and grouped them by industries using the 2-digit NAICS code. Within each year, OFCCP identified cases that closed with discrimination findings and included a conciliation agreement to make the victims whole. The percentage of cases with discrimination findings over the total number of cases closed for that year was computed for each industry. This process was repeated for each of the five fiscal years and identified Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Wholesale Trade as three industries with the highest rate of discrimination violations. One-third of 3,500 establishments on the fiscal 2019 scheduling list were selected from these three industries; the remainder of the list included establishments from other industries. Field offices began scheduling from this list in May 2019 and continue to do so. OFCCP will evaluate the efficacy of this methodology once all establishments on the list are scheduled and resulting cases are closed. The agency has made significant effort to revise its scheduling list methodology to reflect potential risk of noncompliance. However, the methodology relies on the results of prior scheduling lists that were nonrandom and did not produce a generalize sample of contractors. Consequently, the results of those scheduling lists do not allow OFCCP to draw accurate conclusions about noncompliance risk. While DOL has made considerable efforts to implement this recommendation, the process described does not necessarily identify those contractors with the greatest risk of not following equal employment opportunity and affirmative action requirements.

Recommendation: To ensure that federal contractors are complying with equal employment opportunity requirements, the Secretary of Labor should direct the Director of OFCCP to develop a mechanism to monitor AAPs from covered federal contractors on a regular basis. Such a mechanism could include electronically collecting AAPs and contractor certification of annual updates.

Agency: Department of Labor
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: Since 2018, OFCCP issued Directive 2018-07, AAP Verification Initiative, publicly committing to a comprehensive program to verify that federal contractors are complying with AAP obligations on a yearly basis. The program included development of an online portal whereby contractors would certify on a yearly basis compliance with AAP requirements; inclusion of a criterion in the neutral scheduling methodology increasing the likelihood of compliance reviews for contractors that have not certified compliance with the AAP requirements; compliance checks to verify contractor compliance with AAP requirements; requesting proffer of the AAP by contractors when requesting extensions of time to provide support data in response to a scheduling letter; and development of information technology to collect and facilitate review of AAPs provided by federal contractors. OFCCP senior leadership initiated a public campaign by emphasizing AAP certification as an agency priority in meetings with contractors and other external stakeholders. In addition, OFCCP also changed its criteria for granting extensions of time for the submission of support data in response to a scheduling letter and made it contingent upon timely submission of an AAP, within 30 days of receiving the scheduling letter. OFCCP reflected this change in an FAQ on its website. The Task Order to develop the portal expired on September 30, 2019 without fully completing the project. A new contract was awarded in September 2019 to continue this work and delivery of the completed portal is anticipated in the third quarter of fiscal year 2020. Concurrently, OFCCP anticipates obtaining approval from the Office of Management and Budget to collect annual certifications using this portal. When launched, the portal will allow all contractors to certify annually that they have developed and maintain compliant AAPs for each of their establishments or functional/business units. Those contractors who fail to certify, or who certify that they do not have compliant AAPs for each of their establishments or business/functional units, will be more likely to be scheduled for compliance evaluations. Further, OFCCP anticipates having contractors that are scheduled for compliance evaluations use the portal to submit their AAPs for review. While the agency has made considerable efforts to implement this recommendation, the processes described have not been fully implemented. Once implemented, GAO will close the recommendation.

Recommendation: In order to ensure that contracting officers have clear and effective policies as soon as possible, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs should direct the OAL to identify measures to expedite the revision of the Veterans Affairs Acquisition Regulation (VAAR), which has been ongoing for many years, and the issuance of the VA Acquisition Manual.

Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: VA concurred with this recommendation and has made progress in finalizing the update to its acquisition regulations and manual. In August 2020, VA reported that 31 of the 41 parts in its new acquisition regulations had been issued as draft or final rules. The remainder are at an earlier stage of the rulemaking process. VA also stated that it remains on track to release the final VA Acquisition Regulations in April 2021.

Recommendation: In order to better ensure proper Medicare payments and protect Medicare funds, CMS should seek legislative authority to allow the RAs to conduct prepayment claim reviews.

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: In April 2016, we recommended that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) should seek legislative authority to allow the Recovery Auditors (RAs) to conduct prepayment claim reviews. The Department of Health and Human Services did not concur with this recommendation, and the President's fiscal year 2021 budget did not include a proposal for such authority. We continue to believe CMS should seek legislative authority to allow RAs to conduct these reviews. Until CMS seeks and implements this authority, it will be missing an opportunity to help identify improper payments before they are made.

Recommendation: The Commissioner of IRS should direct the appropriate IRS officials to establish procedures to monitor whether non-IRS contractors with unescorted physical access to IRS facilities are receiving unauthorized access awareness training.

Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open

Comments: During fiscal year 2018, Facilities Management and Security Services (FMSS) established training requirements for non-IRS contractors with unescorted physical access to IRS facilities and communicated these requirements to its employees. However, FMSS did not establish procedures to monitor whether these non-IRS contractors receive the required unauthorized access awareness training. In addition, during our fiscal year 2019 audit, we found instances in which non-IRS contractors with unescorted physical access to an IRS facility did not complete the required training.

Recommendation: The Commissioner of IRS should direct the appropriate IRS officials to determine why staff did not consistently comply with IRS's existing requirements for the final candling of receipts at service center campuses and lockbox banks, including logging remittances found during final candling on the final candling log at the time of discovery, safeguarding the remittances at the time of discovery, transferring the remittances to the deposit unit promptly, and passing one envelope at a time over the light source, and based on this determination, establish a process to better enforce compliance with these requirements.

Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open

Comments: IRS's actions to address this recommendation are ongoing. During fiscal year 2017, IRS held a meeting with Submission Processing executives, staff, and the Receipt and Control Operation managers from all five service center campuses (SCC), and as a result of the meeting, IRS developed an action plan to resolve the residual risks associated with candling at the SCCs. IRS officials stated that during fiscal year 2020, it will complete the developed action plan.

Recommendation: To help mitigate confusion about the use of reverse auctions in federal acquisitions, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget should take steps to amend the FAR to address agencies' use of reverse auctions.

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

Comments: In providing comments on this report, OMB generally concurred with this recommendation. The FAR Council members issued a timetable in Spring 2020 for the proposed regulatory changes to address the use of reverse auctions in response to GAO's recommendations and 2015 guidance released by the Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP). The notice of proposed rulemaking was planned for August 2020. As of August 10, 2020, the notice of proposed rulemaking had not been published. OMB officials did not provide a revised date when they planned to publish the notice.