Recommendation: The Commandant of the Coast Guard should ensure that the Program Manager of the Vessel Response Plan Program establishes a process to analyze incidents where VRPs have been activated to determine whether or how the Coast Guard should improve its VRP review processes—including its approach to verifying plan information, contracts, and the quality of data used in review processes-- to assure VRP effectiveness. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Coast Guard
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: The Commandant of the Coast Guard should ensure that the Vessel Response Plan Program, in developing the charter and plan of action for the Maritime Oil Spill Response Plan Advisory Group, adopts key practices of program management. These practices include—outlining the (1) systems and methods to be used by the group to carry out its work and monitor progress on achieving desired outcomes, (2) roles and responsibilities of stakeholders involved, (3) mechanisms by which potential improvements identified by the group will be incorporated by the Vessel Response Plan Program into its processes and how such progress will be measured, (4) time frames and milestones for carrying out actions under the plan, and (5) mechanisms by which the group will obtain and incorporate feedback from the maritime industry. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Coast Guard
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: The Director of DLA should include a step for the opportunity for PCR review of the proposed contract and subcontracting plan in agency procedures and memorandums, and develop a mechanism for documenting whether the opportunity for PCR review was provided. (Recommendation 1)

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

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

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should include a step for the opportunity for PCR review of the proposed contract and subcontracting plan in agency procedures and memorandums, and develop a mechanism for documenting whether the opportunity for PCR review was provided. (Recommendation 2)

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.

Recommendation: The Director of DLA should take steps to fulfill the requirement that contracting officers ensure that subcontracting reports are submitted by contractors in a timely manner. For example, the agency could require contracting officers to verify that prior reports were submitted when reviewing current submissions. (Recommendation 3)

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

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

Recommendation: The NASA Administrator should take steps to fulfill the requirement that contracting officers ensure that subcontracting reports are submitted by contractors in a timely manner. For example, the agency could require contracting officers to verify that prior reports were submitted when reviewing current submissions. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: National Aeronautics and Space 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 Secretary of the Navy should take steps to fulfill the requirement that contracting officers ensure that subcontracting reports are submitted by contractors in a timely manner. For example, the agency could require contracting officers to verify that prior reports were submitted when reviewing current submissions. (Recommendation 5)

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.

Recommendation: The Director of DLA should take steps to ensure contracting officers compare subcontracting goals in contractor report submissions to goals in the approved subcontracting plan and address any discrepancies. (Recommendation 6)

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

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

Recommendation: The Administrator of the GSA should take steps to ensure contracting officers compare subcontracting goals in contractor report submissions to goals in the approved subcontracting plan and address any discrepancies. (Recommendation 7)

Agency: General Services 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 NASA Administrator should take steps to ensure contracting officers compare subcontracting goals in contractor report submissions to goals in the approved subcontracting plan and address any discrepancies. (Recommendation 8)

Agency: National Aeronautics and Space 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 Secretary of the Navy should take steps to ensure contracting officers compare subcontracting goals in contractor report submissions to goals in the approved subcontracting plan and address any discrepancies. (Recommendation 9)

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.

Recommendation: The SBA Administrator should ensure Commercial Market Representatives clearly and consistently document compliance reviews and maintain these records. (Recommendation 10)

Agency: Small Business 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 Director of the DOE Office of Acquisition Management should clearly define—in guidance or other documents—which subcontracts should be audited, how an audit is defined, and how to meet subcontract audit requirements if Defense Contract Audit Agency is unable to conduct the audit.(Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: In its comments on a draft of the report, DOE partially concurred with the recommendation, but stated that there is no government-wide requirement that defines an audit or prescribes the auditing of subcontracts. According to officials, DOE reviewed existing regulations, guidance, and contract provisions on audit requirements and determined that a need exists for additional guidance or contract provisions on audits for major contracts. As of June 2020, DOE was working with the Civilian Agency Acquisition Council to recommend a government-wide requirement to define audit and prescribe when to obtain audits of subcontracts. Additionally, DOE included in its Acquisition Guide information on audit options when the Defense Contract Audit Agency is unable to conduct an audit.

Recommendation: The Director of the DOE Office of Acquisition Management should require local officials to independently review subcontractor ownership information as part of DOE consent reviews and assess potential conflicts of interest to ensure contractors are mitigating them. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: DOE did not concur with our recommendation; instead, they plan to issue guidance emphasizing the importance of contracting officers reviewing contractors' disclosing and dealing with issues created by close working relationships, conflicts of interest, or ownership affiliations between prime and subcontractor. We have identified complex relationships among DOE contractors and subcontractors that were not documented by DOE, as well as incidents involving subcontractors related to conflicts of interest that were not disclosed to DOE. We noted that DOE officials--including those in local offices--have access to several databases and other sources of information that would allow them to independently verify ownership information that could allow the local offices to identify potential conflicts of interest that were not disclosed. In July 2020, DOE issued guidance summarizing and reiterating existing regulations, policy and procedures that require DOE contracting officers to perform independent analyses when reviewing subcontract consent packages, contractor purchasing systems, and potential organizational conflicts of interest. However, this is the same as previous guidance and it does not include direction to review subcontractor ownership information.

Recommendation: The Director of the DOE Office of Acquisition Management should require contracting officers to include assessments of the contractors' management of subcontractors as part of annual Performance Evaluation and Measurement Plans, as appropriate. (Recommendation 6)

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: DOE partially concurred with the recommendation and agreed to review existing guidance and determine if additional guidance is needed to conduct an assessment of the contractors' management of subcontractors in annual Performance Evaluation and Measurement Plans. As of June 2020, DOE officials said they have reviewed existing federal and departmental policies, procedures, and available tools and determined sufficient guidance exists for contracting officers to make informed decisions on whether to include contractor management of subcontractors in annual Performance Evaluation and Measurement Plans based on the characteristics, circumstances, and requirements of a specific contract. DOE's Performance Evaluation and Measurement Plan template provides a subcontractor management evaluation factor for use by contracting officers who have determined it is appropriate for their contracts. Although we recognize the value in deferring to contracting officers to determine whether the factor is appropriate based on the characteristics, circumstances, and requirements of the contract, we continue to believe that DOE should place additional emphasis on the contractors' oversight of subcontracts by assessing the contractors on this factor.

Recommendation: To provide reasonable assurance that DOD's Pilot Mentor-Protege Program meets its mission, the Director, DOD's Office of Small Business Programs, should conduct periodic reviews of the processes DOD components follow to approve agreements and take oversight actions, as appropriate.

Agency: Department of Defense: Office of Small Business Programs
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) concurred with this recommendation and stated that it would implement a new standard operating procedure for DOD's Mentor-Protege Program component program managers. According to DOD, the new standard operating procedure would require each component program manager to provide quarterly program management review reports to DOD's Office of Small Business Programs, in addition to annual and monthly reporting, as required by Appendix I of DOD's policies and procedures for the Mentor-Protege Program. DOD's new Standard Operating Procedure would also centralize the implementation of the Mentor Protege Program and, according to DOD, would create process efficiency, and enhanced oversight of the program. The new Standard Operating Procedure would also include a new standardized checklist each Mentor-Protege Program component would utilize to approve mentor protege agreements. The standardized checklist would also include the company North American Industry Classification System code, a mentor approval letter, and a fully completed copy of the mentor protege agreement signed by both parties. Last, DOD would then determine program improvement, once the aforementioned controls are implemented and monitored for effectiveness. As of August 2018, DOD had not provided GAO with documentation of the new standard operating procedure. GAO will continue to monitor the department's progress in implementing this recommendation.

Recommendation: To provide reasonable assurance that DOD's Pilot Mentor-Protege Program meets its mission, the Director, DOD's Office of Small Business Programs, should complete actions to develop performance goals and related measures that are consistent with the program's stated purpose.

Agency: Department of Defense: Office of Small Business Programs
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) concurred with this recommendation and stated that Mentor-Protege Program components would establish goals for the Mentor Protege Program and those goals would be focused on the Industrial Base and Technology Transfer categories. In addition, DOD stated that it would establish additional surveillance requirements to ensure prime and subcontract opportunities are afforded to the proteges and that instituting a baseline performance goal for all components will ensure the Program achieves the intent desired by Congress. As of August 2018, DOD had not provided GAO with documentation of the new goals or standard operating procedure. GAO will continue to monitor the department's progress in implementing this recommendation.

Recommendation: To ensure consistent implementation of the Buy Indian Act procurement authority across the agencies and to enhance oversight of implementation of the Act at regional offices, the Secretaries of the Interior and Health and Human Services should direct the Bureau of Indian Affairs and Indian Health Service respectively, to clarify and codify their policies related to the priority for use of the Buy Indian Act, including whether the Buy Indian Act should be used before other set-aside programs.

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Health and Human Services concurred with this recommendation. The Indian Health Service (IHS) informed GAO that in order to clarify and codify the policies related to priority for use of the Buy Indian Act, formal rulemaking was required. IHS published the intent to promulgate the regulation in the Fall 2019 and Spring 2020 Unified Agendas. According to IHS officials, the timeline for completion of the new regulation is December 31, 2020.

Recommendation: To ensure consistent implementation of the Buy Indian Act procurement authority across the agencies and to enhance oversight of implementation of the Act at regional offices, the Secretaries of the Interior and Health and Human Services should direct the Bureau of Indian Affairs and Indian Health Service respectively, to collect data on regional offices' implementation of key requirements, such as challenges to self-certification.

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Health and Human Services concurred with this recommendation. The Indian Health Service (IHS) informed GAO that in order to clarify and codify policies related to priority for use of the Buy Indian Act, formal rulemaking was required. IHS published the intent to promulgate the regulation in the Fall 2019 and Spring 2020 Unified Agendas. Further, the officials stated that once the new Buy Indian regulation is promulgated, IHS plans to identify a plan to collect data on area office implementation of key policy requirements, including monitoring authentication of contractor credentials. According to IHS officials, due to limitations within the Federal Procurement Data System- Next Generation IHS is unable to collect the necessary data until the rule is promulgated.

Recommendation: To help ensure contracting officers carry out the requirements of Section 802, the Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State, and Administrator of USAID should revise the processes and guidance governing management reviews of procurements to ensure that such reviews assess whether contracting officers are complying with the provisions of Section 802.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with GAO's recommendation. Following a May 2015 Federal Acquisition Regulation update to reflect the requirements of Section 802 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, the Office of Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy drafted supplementary information for an update of the agency's Procedures, Guidance, and Information (PGI) that was considered and rejected by Defense Acquisition Regulation Council. In July 2019, the Office of Defense Pricing and Contracting reported that new PGI guidance would be drafted that will require management reviews to consider compliance with Section 802 requirements included in the Federal Acquisition Regulation. As of August 2020, we have been unable to determine the status of this guidance.