Question:
Why GAO Did This Study

HUD has encouraged PHAs to balance resident safety with the housing needs of persons with criminal records when administering its rental assistance programs. PHAs are responsible for screening program applicants. The HUD OIG and the FBI implement the Fugitive Felon Initiative to identify and apprehend wanted persons receiving rental assistance.
GAO was asked to review HUD's criminal history policies and the Fugitive Felon Initiative. This report examines (1) federal requirements for PHAs' criminal history policies, (2) HUD guidance and monitoring of these requirements, and (3) implementation of the Fugitive Felon Initiative. GAO reviewed federal statutes and regulations and interviewed officials from HUD, the HUD OIG, and the FBI; analyzed Fugitive Felon Initiative data from 2013 through 2017; and interviewed staff at a nongeneralizable sample of 10 PHAs (selected based on size and other factors).

What GAO Found

Federal requirements for public housing agencies. Federal statutes and Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) regulations require public housing agencies (PHA) to conduct criminal history checks on individuals applying for rental assistance under HUD's public housing and Housing Choice Voucher programs and deny assistance for six types of offenses. Mandatory denials include convictions for producing methamphetamine on the premises of federally-assisted housing and lifetime sex offender registrants. Otherwise, PHAs generally have discretion in establishing their criminal history policies and may deny assistance for other offenses or factor in mitigating circumstances.
HUD monitoring of public housing agencies. From 2011 through 2016, HUD issued new guidance to PHAs on criminal history policies, but these changes are not reflected in HUD's program guidebooks for PHAs. These guidebooks serve as key reference tools, but have not been updated in over 15 years. Updating them would help HUD more accurately communicate its criminal history policies. While HUD officials said their current efforts to update the guidebooks will reflect recent criminal history policy notices, documentation provided by the agency on these updates did not specifically address criminal history guidance. In addition, HUD's compliance reviews of high-risk PHAs do not address some criminal history policy requirements, such as the prohibition on using arrest records as the basis for determining eligibility. Further, these reviews are largely limited to examining PHAs' written policies and do not cover how PHAs implement those policies. More comprehensive compliance reviews would improve HUD's ability to identify areas of noncompliance with criminal history policy requirements.
Fugitive Felon Initiative. From fiscal years 2013 through 2017, the HUD Office of Inspector General (OIG) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) shared data through the Fugitive Felon Initiative, which led to the apprehension of more than 1,200 wanted persons who may have lived in HUD-assisted housing. However, GAO found that the HUD OIG had not defined its regional office responsibilities under the initiative and that four of the seven HUD OIG regions did not participate from 2012 through 2016. The HUD OIG revised its procedures for the initiative in April 2018 to include regional office responsibilities, such as coordinating with law enforcement agencies. According to HUD OIG officials, regional offices are now required to coordinate with law enforcement agencies on a priority list of investigative leads, which include warrants for violent felonies, sexual assault, and narcotics distribution. However, the HUD OIG does not plan to assess regional office implementation of several requirements. Collecting and assessing more comprehensive information on regional office activities would help the HUD OIG determine the extent to which regions are undertaking required activities. In addition, the HUD OIG and the FBI have not consistently shared information on the initiative's results—such as apprehension statistics and program savings—which could help evaluate the effectiveness of the initiative. Further, the HUD OIG's and the FBI's current activities to implement the initiative differ in some areas from the agreed-upon responsibilities listed in their 2012 memorandum of understanding. Updating the memorandum to reflect current responsibilities under the initiative could help improve collaboration between the agencies and improve implementation.

What GAO Recommends

GAO is making seven recommendations, including that HUD update PHA guidebooks and improve monitoring procedures; that the HUD OIG assess more comprehensive information on the implementation of the Fugitive Felon Initiative; and that the HUD OIG and the FBI consistently share information on the initiative's results and update their memorandum of understanding to reflect current responsibilities. HUD and the FBI generally agreed. The HUD OIG did not agree with two of our recommendations. GAO maintains the recommendations, as discussed in the report.


Question:
Why GAO Did This Study

A severe GMD or HEMP event could potentially have significant impacts— including power outages—on the nation's electric grid, which could affect other sectors that depend on electricity, such as communications. In response, NERC created two regulatory standards requiring certain U.S. and Canadian suppliers to assess their vulnerability to GMD and take appropriate steps in response.
GAO was asked to review electricity industry actions to prepare for and mitigate electromagnetic risks. This report examines, among other things, (1) to what extent U.S. and Canadian electricity suppliers have identified information about GMD and HEMP effects on the grid, (2) what steps selected U.S. and Canadian suppliers have taken to protect against GMD and HEMP, and (3) what opportunities exist for U.S. suppliers to recover costs for protecting against GMD and HEMP.
GAO examined government and industry studies and interviewed federal and industry officials about potential GMD and HEMP effects on grid infrastructure; reviewed regulatory standards, monitoring processes, and NERC compliance audit data from April 2015 through August 2017; reviewed federal regulations and interviewed state regulators on cost recovery issues; and interviewed officials from a nongeneralizable sample of 13 U.S. and Canada electricity suppliers, selected based on factors such as GMD experience and preparation for GMD and HEMP events.
GAO provided a draft of this report to five federal agencies and NERC. Technical comments provided were incorporated as appropriate.

What GAO Found

U.S. and Canadian electricity suppliers—electricity generation and transmission owners and operators—have identified information on the potential effects of a severe geomagnetic disturbance (GMD), resulting from a solar storm, but have identified less information about the potential effects of a high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP), resulting from the detonation of a nuclear device, on the electric grid. There is general agreement that more research is needed on both GMD and HEMP. Government and industry have publicly reported on the potential impacts of GMD on the grid. For example, one study identified two main risks: (1) potential voltage instability, causing power system collapse and blackouts; and (2) possible damage to key system components. However, these studies do not address the unique aspects of individual suppliers' networks. Recognizing this, 11 of the 13 selected suppliers GAO contacted said they had assessed their network vulnerability; of these 11, 6 expected GMD effects to be relatively small. In contrast, Department of Energy (DOE) and industry officials told GAO that information on HEMP effects is limited in that suppliers lack key information to fully understand HEMP effects on their networks. Historically, study of HEMP effects focused on impacts to military equipment rather than the commercial electric grid. Recently, DOE and industry began research to better understand HEMP effects. Of the 11 suppliers who responded to GAO about their HEMP efforts, 3 reported having studied the impact of HEMP on their networks and 2 of the 11 had integrated, or planned to integrate, HEMP-resistant features into new control centers.
Of the 13 selected suppliers GAO contacted, 10 reported making technological and operational improvements to enhance overall network reliability that also provided some protection against GMD and HEMP risks. For example, suppliers reported making technological improvements such as replacement of some older transformers and unprotected control centers. As of May 2017, all 13 suppliers stated they had complied with a GMD regulatory standard issued by the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC)—the federally designated regulatory authority responsible for developing and enforcing reliability standards–-to develop operating procedures to mitigate GMD effects. A second regulatory standard—which is to be implemented in phases through 2022—will generally require suppliers to further assess their vulnerability to GMD.
Selected U.S. suppliers told GAO that costs they have incurred to protect against GMD and HEMP have been relatively small so far and they expect to recover those costs through customer rates. Suppliers could face future increased costs depending on corrective actions needed to comply with the second GMD regulatory standard. Federal and state regulators indicated that regulated U.S. suppliers' costs for protecting against GMD are generally recoverable through customer rates, but recovery is less certain for protection against HEMP because less is known about HEMP risks. Further, some suppliers could face challenges to cost recovery. Specifically, independent owners of power plants—those that sell power in wholesale electricity markets and are not part of an integrated utility—must recover reliability improvement costs through their sales of electricity and are not assured of cost recovery; federal regulators told GAO they are aware this could be a challenge for these independent owners.


Question:
Why GAO Did This Study

Between fiscal years 2005 and 2016, Congress annually appropriated between $2.5 to $9.6 billion in MILCON funding for the active component of the U.S. military to use for projects worldwide. Reliable project construction cost estimates are of great importance, since those estimates drive these appropriations.
House Report 114-537 accompanying a proposed bill authorizing national defense activities for fiscal year 2017 included a provision for GAO to report on DOD's MILCON cost estimating. This report examines the extent to which (1) the active component obligated and expended the MILCON appropriations received during fiscal years 2005-2016, (2) the active component reprogrammed MILCON appropriations during fiscal years 2010 through 2016, and (3) DOD's MILCON cost estimates are reliable for selected projects and DOD's guidance for developing estimates fully incorporates the steps needed for developing reliable estimates. GAO analyzed the active components' MILCON execution data and reviewed DOD's guidance for cost estimating and compared it with the best practices identified in GAO's Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide .

What GAO Found

During fiscal years 2005 through 2016, Congress appropriated about $66 billion in military construction funds (MILCON) to the active duty Army, Navy, and Air Force (referred to as the active component) for projects. As of September 30, 2016, the active component had obligated all but about $5.1 billion and expended all but about $11 billion of those funds. Of the $5.1 billion remaining unobligated, about $4.6 billion was still available to be obligated because MILCON appropriations are generally available for new obligations for 5 years. According to Department of Defense (DOD) officials, available but unobligated amounts no longer needed may be either taken back by Congress or reprogrammed to other MILCON projects that the active component identifies as needing additional funding.
During fiscal years 2010 through 2016, the active component reprogrammed about $1.6 billion in MILCON appropriations to fund emergency projects, projects that were authorized but did not receive specific appropriations, and projects needing additional funding. Of this amount, the Army reprogrammed about $789 million; the Navy, about $535 million; and the Air Force, about $295 million.
DOD's guidance does not fully incorporate the steps needed for developing reliable estimates and the estimates for three projects that GAO reviewed were not reliable. Specifically, two of the three high-value projects GAO examined experienced a more than 30-percent increase from the initial cost estimates submitted to Congress. GAO determined that DOD cost estimators did not follow all the best practices associated with the four characteristics—comprehensive, well-documented, accurate, and credible—of a reliable estimate for these projects. GAO's Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide identifies 12 steps that, if used, are more likely to result in reliable and valid cost estimates. However, as shown below, DOD's construction guidance—the Unified Facilities Criteria—does not include all of these steps. Until DOD incorporates these steps, DOD and congressional decision-makers may not have reliable estimates to inform their decisions regarding appropriations and the oversight of projects.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that DOD ensure that its cost estimating guidance fully incorporate the steps needed for developing reliable cost estimates. DOD partially concurred with GAO's recommendation and stated that it will issue revised cost guidance in fiscal year 2019 that more fully incorporates those steps that would benefit the military construction program.


Question:
Why GAO Did This Study

Recent data breaches have highlighted the importance of ensuring the security of health information, including Medicare beneficiary data. Such data are created, stored, and used by a wide variety of entities, such as health care providers, insurance companies, financial institutions, researchers, and others.
GAO was asked to conduct a study of CMS efforts to protect Medicare beneficiary data accessed by external entities. GAO's objectives were to (1) identify the major external entities that collect, store, and process Medicare fee-for-service beneficiary data; (2) determine whether requirements for the protection of Medicare beneficiary data align with federal guidance; and (3) assess CMS oversight of the implementation of those requirements. GAO analyzed information about how external entities access data, reviewed CMS documentation on who they share data with, compared federal standards with CMS security requirements for external entities, and analyzed results of independent security reviews. GAO also interviewed CMS officials about their oversight activities.

What GAO Found

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) shares Medicare beneficiary data with three major types of external entities: (1) Medicare Administrative Contractors (MAC) that perform processing and distribution functions that support the payment of Medicare benefits; (2) research organizations (researchers) that use Medicare beneficiary data to study how health care services are provided to beneficiaries; and (3) qualified public or private entities that use claims data to evaluate the performance of Medicare service providers and equipment suppliers.
CMS has developed requirements for implementing security controls that align with federal guidance for two of the three types of external entities that access Medicare beneficiary data. While CMS has developed guidance for MACs and qualified entities, it has not developed equivalent guidance for researchers. Researchers must adhere to broad governmentwide standards, but are not given guidance on which specific controls to implement. According to CMS, the lack of specific guidance gives the researchers more flexibility to independently assess their security risks and determine which controls are appropriate to implement; however, without providing comprehensive, risk-based security guidance to researchers, CMS increases the risk that external entities possessing agency data may not have applied security controls that meet CMS standards.
Additionally, CMS has established an oversight program for the security of MAC data, but has not established a corresponding program to oversee security implementation by researchers and qualified entities. Without effective oversight measures in place for researchers and qualified entities, CMS cannot fully ensure that the security of Medicare beneficiary data is being adequately protected. Regarding MACs, although they are subject to two types of independent annual assessments, which have regularly identified weaknesses in their implementation of security controls, the weaknesses that have been assessed as low-risk have not been consistently tracked in the CMS finding tracking system. Without more consistent tracking of these low-risk weaknesses, it may be difficult for CMS to determine if all weaknesses are being addressed in a timely manner. Examples of categories of recurring weaknesses that have been identified during annual assessments are listed in the table.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that CMS develop additional guidance for researchers on implementing security controls required by CMS, consistently track results of independent assessments, and provide oversight of researchers and qualified entities. CMS concurred with GAO's three recommendations and described actions it has planned or taken to address them.


Question:
Why GAO Did This Study

The Presidential Policy Directive on United States Cyber Incident Coordination states that significant cyber incidents are occurring with increasing frequency impacting public and private infrastructure in the United States. Section 1648 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 included a provision that DOD develop a comprehensive plan for CYBERCOM to support civil authorities in responding to cyberattacks by foreign powers against the United States. Section 1648 also included a provision that GAO review DOD's plan.
This review assesses the extent to which DOD's Section 1648 report addressed the statutorily required submission elements. To conduct this work, GAO assessed DOD's Section 1648 report against the elements outlined in the statute. GAO also discussed the Section 1648 report with DOD policy, Joint Chiefs of Staff, combatant commands, and military service officials.

What GAO Found

The Department of Defense (DOD) did not develop a comprehensive plan for U.S. Cyber Command (CYBERCOM); instead, the department submitted a report consisting of a collection of documents that fully addressed two of the six statutorily required elements; partially addressed three elements; and did not address the sixth element on DOD training activities.
Legend:
○ Did not address: Submission does not include required element.
GAO also found that, in addition to not addressing the training element in the report, DOD had not ensured that staff are trained as required by the Presidential Policy Directive on United States Cyber Incident Coordination or DOD's Significant Cyber Incident Coordination Procedures, which were included DOD's Section 1648 report. Taking action to improve these areas should help DOD sustain progress it has already made. With the President's decision to elevate CYBERCOM to a unified combatant command, such actions will also help as DOD continues to plan to support civil authorities in response to a cyber incident and where CYBERCOM has a significant role.

What GAO Recommends

GAO has previously recommended that DOD take actions on elements of the Section 1648 report that were partially addressed. GAO is making two new recommendations that DOD update cyber incident coordination training and maintain a list of officials trained in the National Incident Management System. DOD concurred with maintaining a list of trained officials and partially concurred on updating cyber training. GAO continues to believe the updating recommendation is warranted.


Question:
Why GAO Did This Study

The National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2016 contains provisions for GAO to review DOD's plans to (1) improve the experience of beneficiaries who receive care through military hospitals and clinics or from civilian providers and (2) reduce variation in the quality of care.
In this report, GAO examines (1) measures DOD uses to assess the quality of direct and purchased care, and (2) the extent to which DOD has established performance standards related to the measures and corrective action requirements for providers who do not meet those standards.
GAO reviewed the measures in DOD's Core Dashboard for direct care and Purchased Care Dashboard for purchased care. It also reviewed DOD documents and reports to Congress, and interviewed MHS officials, including officials from the Army, Navy, and Air Force. GAO also compared the quality measures DOD uses to those used in Medicare and by private insurers, which have been vetted by multiple stakeholders. GAO assessed DOD's use of performance standards and corrective action requirements in the context of federal internal control standards.

What GAO Found

The National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2016 (NDAA 2016) directed the Department of Defense (DOD) to align its measures of health care quality used in the Military Health System (MHS) to improve beneficiary experience and reduce variation in the quality of care. GAO reviewed the quality measures DOD identified in March 2017 in response to the NDAA 2016; DOD senior leadership tracks these measures on dashboards to gauge progress on MHS strategic goals. GAO found that DOD does not use a common set of measures on its dashboards to assess the quality of care provided by either military hospitals and clinics—known as direct care—or networks of civilian hospitals and other providers, known as purchased care. (See figure.) As a result, DOD's senior leadership has limited information on the extent to which MHS beneficiaries receive consistently high quality care across the MHS.
Furthermore, for both direct and purchased care, DOD uses measures on its dashboards that track a limited range of quality care areas and medical conditions compared to the measures adopted by Medicare and by private health insurers. For example, whereas civilian hospitals report to Medicare information on 11 measures of patients' self-reported experience in hospitals, Military hospitals report only 1 such measure. By using a limited range of quality measures, DOD may not detect key quality issues. Further, when selecting quality measures, the MHS does not prioritize using common measures across direct and purchased care or expanding the range of measures it uses.
GAO also found that for direct care DOD has established performance standards and corrective action requirements for military hospitals or clinics that do not meet those standards in direct care. The performance standards indicate the level of performance providers should meet on the various quality measures DOD tracks on its dashboards, and the corrective action requirements instruct providers to take steps to improve care. However, for purchased care, DOD has not established similar performance standards for individual providers. Without consistent performance standards and corrective action requirements, DOD is limited in its ability to address variation in the quality of care delivered and help ensure that its beneficiaries receive consistent high quality care across the MHS.

What GAO Recommends

The MHS should (1) prioritize, as appropriate, selecting quality measures common for both direct and purchased care that expand the range of quality areas covered by the measures and (2) establish consistent performance standards and corrective action requirements for direct and purchased care providers. DOD concurred with both recommendations.


Question:
Why GAO Did This Study

The Department of Defense (DOD) budgets about $25 billion annually to operate and support its installations. GAO has designated DOD support infrastructure management as a high-risk area since 1997, in part because DOD has needed to reduce its installation support costs. In 2013, Congress authorized the military services to enter into IGSAs with local and state governments to receive installation services, if an agreement will provide financial benefits or enhance mission effectiveness. As of July 2018, the military services had approved 45 IGSAs at 33 installations.
In this report, GAO, among other objectives, evaluated the extent to which the military services have (1) realized and monitored the benefits from IGSAs and (2) supported the use of IGSAs and monitored whether installations are evaluating opportunities to use IGSAs.
GAO reviewed the IGSA statute and policies and procedures; evaluated a nongeneralizable sample of 8 IGSAs, selected based on factors including the military service involved, the amount of expected financial benefits, and the length of time in place; compared the services' processes and actions against standards for internal control; and interviewed service, installation, and local government officials.

What GAO Found

Based on analysis of 8 selected intergovernmental support agreements (IGSAs) and interviews with officials, GAO found that the military services have realized financial and nonfinancial benefits from using IGSAs with local or state governments to obtain installation services such as waste removal, grounds maintenance, and stray animal control.
Financial benefits. Of the 8 selected IGSAs, 5 resulted in cost savings, in which the actual cost of each IGSA during its first year was lower than the expected cost of a contract the installation had previously used to obtain the installation service. For example, Moody Air Force Base realized an estimated cost savings of $270,000 by using an IGSA for water and wastewater treatment services, versus continuing to obtain this service via contract. Installation officials stated that the other 3 selected IGSAs resulted in cost avoidances, in which the installations used the IGSAs to obtain a service they were not previously paying for at a lower cost than other alternatives.
Nonfinancial benefits. According to officials from all four services, IGSAs have provided nonfinancial benefits such as enhanced mission effectiveness and readiness, reduced administrative time, and improved relationships with local communities.
However, the military services are not fully monitoring benefits being realized from implemented IGSAs because they have not established formal processes to do so. For example, Navy and Marine Corps officials stated that they are not monitoring the financial and nonfinancial performance of implemented IGSAs in part because they are in the early stages of using IGSAs. The Air Force monitors some information on realized IGSA financial benefits, but this information is not complete because reporting by installations is voluntary. Developing and documenting processes to monitor any realized benefits of implemented IGSAs would provide the services with useful information on IGSA performance as they make decisions on devoting resources to developing and implementing these agreements in other locations.
The military services have developed various approaches for supporting the use of IGSAs to reduce costs or enhance mission effectiveness. For example, the services have issued policies and procedures for their installations to follow in order to develop, obtain approval for, and implement IGSAs. However, officials from each of the military services told us they are not fully monitoring whether installations are evaluating opportunities to use IGSAs. For example, Army policy states that installations are to review current, soon-to-expire contracts for possible transition to an IGSA, but Army officials said they are not yet monitoring whether installations are doing so. Without a process in place to monitor whether installations are evaluating opportunities to use IGSAs, the military services do not know the extent to which this is occurring and thus may be missing opportunities to further reduce costs or enhance mission effectiveness.

What GAO Recommends

GAO is making eight recommendations to monitor both the benefits realized from implemented IGSAs and whether installations are evaluating IGSA opportunities. DOD concurred with six recommendations and non-concurred with two, but plans to implement them all.


Question:
Why GAO Did This Study

The F-35 aircraft represents the future of tactical aviation for the U.S. military, and is DOD's most expensive weapon system, with sustainment costs alone estimated at more than $1 trillion over a 60-year life cycle. As the F-35 program approaches full-rate production, DOD is working to deliver an affordable sustainment strategy that is able to meet the needs of the military services. This strategy is being tested as DOD stands up military depots, trains personnel, and supports its first operational squadrons—with plans to establish multi-year, performance-based contracts by 2020.
The National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2017 includes a provision for GAO to review the F-35 program's sustainment support structure. This report assesses (1) the status of DOD's efforts to sustain the F-35 fleet and any challenges it has faced; (2) the extent to which DOD is positioned to enter into multi-year, performance-based F-35 sustainment contracts; and (3) the progress, if any, DOD has made toward reducing F-35 sustainment costs and the extent to which costs are transparent. GAO reviewed DOD and contractor documentation, analyzed data, and interviewed relevant officials.

What GAO Found

The Department of Defense (DOD) is sustaining over 250 F-35 aircraft (F-35) and plans to triple the fleet by the end of 2021, but is facing sustainment challenges that are affecting warfighter readiness (see table). These challenges are largely the result of sustainment plans that do not fully include key requirements or aligned (timely and sufficient) funding. DOD is taking steps to address some challenges, but without more comprehensive plans and aligned funding, DOD risks being unable to fully leverage the F-35's capabilities and sustain a rapidly expanding fleet.
DOD's plan to enter into multi-year, performance-based F-35 sustainment contracts with the prime contractor has the potential to produce costs savings and other benefits, but DOD may not be well positioned to enter into such contracts by 2020. To date, DOD has not yet achieved its desired aircraft performance under pilot (i.e., trial) performance-based agreements with the prime contractor. In addition, the level of performance DOD has contracted for is generally below what the services desire (see figure 2 for Marine Corps example). Also, the three performance metrics DOD is using to incentivize the contractor under these pilot agreements may not be the appropriate metrics to achieve desired outcomes, in part because they are not fully reflective of processes for which the contractor has control. This can make it difficult for DOD to hold the contractor accountable. Further, due to system immaturity, DOD does not have full information on F-35 sustainment costs and technical characteristics such as reliability and maintainability, which could hinder its ability to effectively negotiate performance-based contracts with the contractor by 2020. Without examining whether it has the appropriate metrics to incentivize the contractor or a full understanding of the actual costs and technical characteristics of the aircraft before entering into multi-year, performance-based contracts, DOD risks overpaying the contractor for sustainment support that does not meet warfighter requirements.
DOD has taken actions to reduce F-35 sustainment costs, but estimated life cycle costs have increased and are not fully transparent to the military services (see figure 3). Specifically, the services do not fully understand how the costs they are being charged by the program office are linked to the capabilities they are receiving, citing unexplained cost increases and difficulty in tracking their requirements to contracts. For example, the Marine Corps received an initial funding requirement for fiscal year 2017 sustainment of $293 million, which then increased to $364 million in the execution year. This lack of transparency is due in part to insufficient communication between the program office and the services, and it puts the services in a difficult position as they consider critical trade-offs that may make F-35 sustainment more affordable. Without improving communication with the services about the costs they are being charged, the services may not be able to effectively budget for long-term sustainment.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that DOD revise sustainment plans, re-examine metrics and ensure that it has sufficient knowledge of costs and technical characteristics before entering into performance-based contracts, and improve communication with the services about sustainment costs. DOD concurred with these recommendations.


Question:
Why GAO Did This Study

The United States is a member of the OAS, PAHO, IICA, and PAIGH, which promote democracy, health care, agricultural development, and scientific exchange.
GAO was asked to review U.S. assistance to these four organizations. In this report, GAO (1) assesses the extent to which the organizations' strategic goals align with those of U.S. agencies; (2) examines how the organizations oversee the use of their funds and the extent to which U.S. agencies have supported those efforts; (3) assesses the extent to which U.S. agencies included key monitoring provisions as part of assistance agreements; and (4) assesses the extent to which U.S. agencies had documentation of monitoring activities, including those called for by these provisions. GAO analyzed documents and interviewed officials from State, USAID, HHS, USDA, and the organizations. GAO also analyzed a nongeneralizable sample of 12 of the 60 assistance agreements that were awarded by State, USAID, HHS, and USDA to OAS, PAHO, and IICA and were active during calendar years 2014 through 2016. For each agency, GAO selected three agreements with the lowest, median, and highest dollar value.

What GAO Found

GAO found that strategic goals of the Organization of American States (OAS), the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO), the Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture (IICA), and the Pan-American Institute of Geography and History (PAIGH) are predominantly aligned with the strategic goals of the Department of State (State), the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). For example, IICA's strategic goals of a productive agricultural sector, enhancing agricultural development, and food security are aligned with USDA's foreign assistance goals. State, USAID, HHS, and USDA fund activities in the form of assistance agreements (e.g., grants and cooperative agreements) with OAS, PAHO, and IICA, which in 2016 totaled $32 million. According to agency officials, the agencies employ mechanisms to ensure that these agreements align with U.S. strategic goals.
OAS, PAHO, IICA, and PAIGH have established mechanisms for overseeing their use of funds, such as external auditors, internal audit boards, and anti-fraud and ethics policies. State and USDA have directly supported these mechanisms. For example, State engaged in the selection process for OAS's Inspector General.
GAO's review of 12 selected assistance agreements found that USDA included no financial or performance monitoring provisions in one of its agreements and that State did not include two key monitoring provisions in one of its agreements, called for by applicable guidance. GAO found that the remaining 10 agreements it reviewed contained all key monitoring provisions and that State has since taken corrective action.
GAO found that U.S. agencies did not have full documentation of 18 of the 42 monitoring activities required by the 12 assistance agreements GAO reviewed (see table). For example, USDA did not have full documentation, such as for financial reports, of any of its 10 required monitoring activities and USDA officials did not explain their lack of documentation. USAID officials explained that their lack of full documentation was due, in part, to grant officers not always following their document management policies. State and HHS have since taken corrective action. If an agency does not have full documentation of monitoring activities, it may lack information needed to make appropriate budgetary and programmatic decisions.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that (1) USDA ensure inclusion of all monitoring provisions as part of agreements and (2) USAID and USDA ensure full documentation of monitoring activities. USDA and USAID concurred with GAO's recommendations.


Question:
Why GAO Did This Study

For more than 4 decades, federal Indian policy has promoted tribal self-government—the practical exercise of Indian tribes and nations' inherent sovereign authority. Under ISDEAA, federally recognized tribes may request to enter into self-determination contracts and self-governance compacts with Interior, transferring the administration of federal programs to the tribe. Under the HEARTH Act, tribes may issue certain leases on their lands without Interior approval if such leases are executed under approved tribal regulations.
GAO was asked to evaluate issues related to tribal self-government. This report examines factors affecting tribes' use of self-determination contracts, self-governance compacts, and tribal leasing authority under the HEARTH Act. GAO reviewed key legislation and regulations, relevant literature, federal and tribal documents; analyzed agency data; and interviewed federal officials at 12 BIA regional offices, 29 tribes that used at least one of these mechanisms, and 7 tribal organizations.

What GAO Found

GAO found that various factors can affect tribes' use of self-determination contracts and self-governance compacts under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975 (ISDEAA), as amended, and tribal leasing under the Helping Expedite and Advance Responsible Tribal Home Ownership Act of 2012 (HEARTH Act). A key factor that helps tribes use these self-governance mechanisms is tribal government capacity to administer a federal program or manage these resources. Federal efforts that have helped build this capacity have included training, such as that offered by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) in 2014 and 2015 to educate tribes on the benefits of developing tribal leasing regulations under the HEARTH Act. In contrast, GAO found that other factors can hinder tribes' use of these mechanisms including:
Inadequate Information Sharing. The Department of the Interior's (Interior) policy and guidance states that tribes should be provided necessary information to design programs they would like to self-administer, such as the amount of funding available to the tribes for the programs and the amount retained by Interior for inherently federal functions. However, according to several tribal stakeholders and some BIA regional officials GAO spoke to, some of this information is not made available to the tribes prior to self-determination contract negotiations, such as information on funding calculations and determinations of inherently federal functions. Without this information, according to a tribal stakeholder, tribes may be at a disadvantage when negotiating with BIA and designing programs for self-determination contracts.
Delays in Disbursing Funds. According to tribal stakeholders, Interior's process does not ensure that funds associated with their self-determination contracts and self-governance compacts are disbursed in a timely manner. These funding delays can therefore be a factor that hinders their use of self-government mechanisms. Some tribal stakeholders said that disbursement delays have ranged from weeks to months. GAO was unable to determine the extent to which Interior disburses funds in accordance with ISDEAA or within agreed-upon time frames with the tribes, because Interior does not systematically track and monitor the disbursement of these funds.
Lengthy Review of Proposed Tribal Leasing Regulations. Interior does not have a clearly documented process for reviewing proposed tribal leasing regulations submitted under the HEARTH Act with identified time frames associated with each step of the process. As a result, tribal stakeholders told GAO that they are uncertain about how long the process will take and how it aligns with the 120 day requirement in the Act. According to tribal stakeholders and GAO's analysis of proposed regulations submitted from 2012 through 2017, Interior's review process has resulted in lengthy review times—in some cases, multiple years. Some tribal officials told GAO that Interior's lengthy review process had delayed the tribe's ability to make decisions about the use of their resources. By developing a clearly documented process that includes established time frames for each step in the review, Interior can help eliminate uncertainty and improve the transparency of the review process for the tribes.

What GAO Recommends

GAO is making four recommendations, including that Interior develop processes to share how it makes funding and inherently federal function determinations with tribes, to track and monitor the disbursement of funds within agreed upon time frames, and for the review of proposed tribal leasing regulations including review time frames. Interior concurred with GAO's recommendations.


Question:
Why GAO Did This Study

In 2003, the United States approved amended compacts of free association with the FSM and RMI, providing a total of $3.6 billion in economic assistance in fiscal years 2004 through 2023 and access to several U.S. programs and services. Compact grant funding, overseen by the Department of the Interior, generally decreases annually. However, the amount of the annual decrease in grants is added to the annual U.S. contributions to the compact trust funds, managed by joint U.S.-FSM and U.S.-RMI trust fund committees. Trust fund earnings are intended to provide a source of income after compact grants end in 2023, but GAO and others have previously found that the trust funds may not provide sustainable income.
GAO was asked to examine preparations for the transition in 2023. This report examines (1) the use and role of U.S. funds and programs in FSM and RMI budgets, (2) projected trust fund disbursements and potential strategies to address risks to those disbursements, and (3) FSM and RMI plans to prepare for grant decreases and the transition to trust fund income. GAO reviewed compact agreements, audit reports, and U.S. law; modeled trust fund performance under existing conditions and using potential strategies; and reviewed FSM and RMI plans. GAO visited each country and interviewed FSM, RMI, and U.S. officials.

What GAO Found

The Federated States of Micronesia (FSM) and the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI) continue to rely on U.S. grants and programs, including several that are scheduled to end in 2023. U.S. compact sector and supplemental education grants, both scheduled to end in 2023, support a third of the FSM's and a quarter of the RMI's expenditures. Agreements providing U.S. aviation, disaster relief, postal, weather, and other programs and services are scheduled to end in 2024, but some agencies may provide programs and services similar to those in the agreements under other authorities. FSM and RMI eligibility for some other U.S. grants and programs is expected to continue after 2023.
Disbursements from the compact trust funds face risks that the trust fund committees have not addressed. GAO found that the trust funds are increasingly likely to provide no annual disbursements in some years and to not sustain their value. Potential strategies such as reduced trust fund disbursements or additional contributions from the countries or other sources could help address these risks. Changing the trust fund disbursement policies could also address these risks but may require revising the trust fund agreements with each country. However, the trust fund committees have not prepared distribution policies, required by the agreements, which could assist the countries in planning for the 2023 transition to trust fund income. The committees also have not prepared the required fiscal procedures for oversight of the disbursements or addressed differences between the timing of their annual determination of the disbursement amounts and the FSM's and RMI's annual budget cycles.
The FSM and RMI did not implement planned budget reductions to address decreasing compact grants owing to increased revenues from other sources that offset the grant decreases. Current FSM and RMI infrastructure plans address the 2023 transition, while health and education plans focus on strategic goals. Both countries have established new compact planning committees to identify future challenges and develop plans for the 2023 transition to trust fund income.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that Interior work with the compact trust fund committees to develop distribution policies and fiscal procedures for the funds and to address disbursement timing. Interior concurred with the recommendations.


Question:
Why GAO Did This Study

The southwest border has long been vulnerable to cross-border illegal activity. In fiscal year 2016, Border Patrol apprehended over 409,000 illegal entrants. Border Patrol has employed a variety of land-based surveillance technologies to assist in securing the border. GAO has reported regularly on CBP's progress and challenges deploying surveillance technologies.
GAO was asked to review CBP's use of surveillance technology. This report examines (1) the deployment status of surveillance technology programs and the extent to which CBP has developed plans for future technology deployments and (2) what data are available on the contributions of deployed technologies to CBP's border security efforts and the extent to which CBP has assessed technology performance.
GAO analyzed technology program documents; interviewed CBP and Border Patrol officials; and conducted site visits to Arizona and south Texas to observe the operation of various land-based technologies. We selected these locations because CBP has deployed or has plans to deploy a mix of technologies there, among other factors.

What GAO Found

The U.S. Border Patrol, within the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), has made progress deploying surveillance technology along the southwest U.S. border under its 2011 Arizona Technology Plan (ATP) and 2014 Southwest Border Technology Plan. The ATP called for deployment of a mix of radars, sensors, and cameras in Arizona; the 2014 plan expanded these deployments to the rest of the southwest border. As of October 2017, Border Patrol had completed the planned deployment of select technologies to Arizona, Texas, California, and New Mexico. For example, in Arizona, Border Patrol deployed all planned Remote Video Surveillance Systems (RVSS) and Mobile Surveillance Capability (MSC) systems, and 15 of 53 planned Integrated Fixed Tower (IFT) systems. Border Patrol also deployed all planned MSC systems to Texas, California, and New Mexico and completed contract negotiations to deploy RVSS to Texas. These technology programs have experienced delays, but are currently on track against revised program schedules and cost baselines. To plan for future technology deployments, Border Patrol reports it will use its Requirements Management Process (RMP)––a process designed to facilitate planning by, among other things, identifying capability gaps and collecting agents' feedback––and other initiatives. Border Patrol is currently developing written guidance for the RMP to ensure station officials understand their roles and responsibilities in the process.
Border Patrol agents collect and report data on asset assists, which are instances in which technologies or other assets (such as canine teams) contributed to an apprehension or seizure; however, Border Patrol has not provided sufficient guidance to ensure the accuracy and reliability of that data. For example, agents incorrectly attributed some apprehensions or seizures to certain technologies rather than others. Stations in the Rio Grande Valley sector recorded assists from IFTs in about 500 instances from June through December 2016; however, this sector does not have IFTs. Data integrity and quality checks are the responsibility of individual sectors, but Border Patrol has provided limited guidance on how to ensure data quality. Without sufficient guidance to ensure the quality of asset assist data, Border Patrol is limited in its ability to determine the mission benefits of its surveillance technologies and use information on benefits to inform resource allocation decisions.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that Border Patrol issue guidance to improve the quality and usability of its asset assist information. DHS concurred with GAO's recommendation.


Question:
Why GAO Did This Study

The SFSP, a federal nutrition assistance program, is intended to provide food to children in low-income areas during periods when area schools are closed for vacation. In the last decade, federal expenditures for SFSP have increased as the program has expanded, according to USDA data. GAO was asked to review the SFSP.
This report examines (1) what is known about SFSP participation, (2) other programs that help feed low-income children over the summer, and (3) challenges, if any, in providing summer meals to children and the extent to which USDA provides assistance to address these challenges. GAO reviewed relevant federal laws, regulations, and guidance; analyzed USDA's SFSP data for fiscal years 2007 through 2016; surveyed state agencies responsible for administering the SFSP in 50 states and the District of Columbia; visited a nongeneralizable group of 3 states and 30 meal sites, selected based on Census data on child poverty rates and urban and rural locations; analyzed meal site data from the 3 states; and interviewed USDA, state and national organization officials, and SFSP providers, including sponsors and site operators.

What GAO Found

Nationwide, the total number of meals served to children in low-income areas through the Summer Food Service Program (SFSP) increased from 113 to 149 million (about 32 percent) from fiscal year 2007 through 2016. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) directs states to use the number of meals served, along with other data, to estimate the number of children participating in the SFSP. However, participation estimates have been calculated inconsistently from state to state and year to year. In 2017, USDA took steps to improve the consistency of participation estimates, noting they are critical for informing program implementation and strategic planning. However, GAO determined that the method USDA directs states to use will continue to provide unreliable estimates of participation, hindering USDA's ability to use them for these purposes.
Other federal and nonfederal programs help feed low-income children over the summer to some extent, according to states GAO surveyed and SFSP providers and others GAO interviewed. For example, in July 2016, USDA data indicate about 26 million meals were served through a separate federal program that allows school meal providers to serve summer meals. Some children also received summer meals through nonfederal programs operated by faith-based organizations and foodbanks, though GAO's state survey and interviews with providers and national organizations indicate the reach of such efforts is limited.
States and SFSP providers reported challenges with meal sites, participation, and program administration; USDA has taken steps to address these areas. Specifically, in GAO's survey, a majority of states reported challenges with availability and awareness of meal sites, as well as limited program participation and administrative capacity. National, state, and local officials have taken steps to address these issues, such as increasing outreach and offering activities to attract participation. In addition, 17 states in GAO's survey and providers in the states GAO visited reported a challenge with ensuring meal sites are in safe locations. To address this safety issue, USDA has granted some states and sponsors flexibility from the requirement that children consume meals on-site. However, USDA has not broadly communicated the circumstances it considers when granting this flexibility. Further, some states and sponsors that have requested this flexibility reported difficulty obtaining data to show these circumstances exist, hampering their ability to ensure safe meal delivery.

What GAO Recommends

GAO is making four recommendations, including that USDA improve estimates of children's participation in SFSP and communicate the circumstances it considers when granting flexibilities to ensure safe meal delivery. USDA generally agreed with GAO's recommendations.


Question:
Why GAO Did This Study

NSF has identified potential benefits and challenges associated with its use of rotators. Benefits include fresh perspectives and close connections to the scientific community, while challenges include staffing turnover and higher costs for some rotators compared with permanent employees.
GAO was asked to review NSF's use and management of the IPA and VSEE rotator programs, among other things. This report examines (1) the number, costs, and uses of NSF rotators for fiscal year 2008 through fiscal year 2017; (2) the strategies NSF has used to manage rotator costs and the results of these efforts; and (3) the extent to which NSF has a workforce strategy for using rotators and has evaluated the results of its rotator programs. GAO analyzed summary-level data on NSF's rotators; reviewed key documents; interviewed NSF officials; conducted semistructured interviews with a nongeneralizable sample of rotators and permanent federal employees selected from different scientific directorates within NSF; and compared NSF's management of the program to key principles for effective strategic workforce planning.

What GAO Found

The numbers of rotators—outside scientists, engineers, and educators on temporary assignment—at the National Science Foundation (NSF) and their costs in proportion to other staff remained relatively stable in fiscal years 2008 through 2017. Most rotators joined NSF under its Intergovernmental Personnel Act (IPA) mobility program. IPA rotators comprised about 12 percent of NSF's workforce and 17 percent of staff costs on average and were not subject to a federal salary cap. They remain employees of their home institutions, with NSF reimbursing the institutions for most of their salaries and benefits. The remaining rotators are considered temporary federal employees under the Visiting Scientist, Engineer, and Educator (VSEE) program; their salaries could not exceed the federal maximum for their positions.
Beginning in fiscal year 2017, NSF adopted IPA rotator program cost management strategies expected to achieve the greatest savings with the least harm to recruitment, but NSF officials said it is too soon to determine the full results. For example, for new IPA rotators who had not yet begun negotiating their assignments, NSF began requiring their home institutions to pay for 10 percent of the rotators' salary and benefits. NSF officials told GAO they expect to issue a report evaluating the strategies in December 2018.
NSF's IPA program steering committee recommended developing a workforce strategy for balancing the agency's use of rotators with federal staff, but as of June 2018, NSF had not developed a strategy or fully evaluated the IPA and VSEE rotator programs' results, as called for by GAO's key principles for effective strategic workforce planning. NSF officials said they recognized the value of a workforce strategy but were focusing instead on other workforce planning efforts, and they had not fully evaluated program results in part because rotators are blended into the agency's permanent workforce, making a separate evaluation difficult. Without a workforce strategy and evaluation of results, NSF is limited in its ability to manage and, if warranted, adjust its use of rotators.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that NSF develop an agency-wide strategy for balancing the agency's use of rotators with permanent staff and evaluate the contributions of its rotator programs toward NSF's human capital goals and programmatic results. NSF agreed with GAO's recommendations.


Question:
Why GAO Did This Study

Each year, millions of Americans call 911 for help during emergencies. However, the nation's legacy 911 system relies on aging infrastructure that is not designed to accommodate modern communications technologies. As a result, states and localities are upgrading to NG911, which offers improved capabilities, such as the ability to process images, audio files, and video. While deploying NG911 is the responsibility of state and local entities, federal agencies also support implementation, led by NHTSA's National 911 Program, which facilitates collaboration among federal, state, and local 911 stakeholders.
GAO was asked to review NG911 implementation nationwide. This report examines: (1) state and local progress and challenges in implementing NG911 and (2) federal actions to address challenges and planned next steps. GAO reviewed relevant statutes, regulations, and federal agency reports and plans. GAO also analyzed NHTSA's survey data on state 911 implementation for calendar year 2015, the most recent year for which data were available, and interviewed federal officials, state and local officials from nine states (selected to represent different regions and various phases of NG911 implementation), and officials from industry and advocacy groups.

What GAO Found

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) National 911 Program's most recent national survey on Next Generation 911 (NG911) implementation indicated that about half of states were in some phase of transition to NG911 in 2015, but that state and local progress varied. Specifically, 10 states reported that all 911 authorities in their state processed calls using NG911 systems; however, 18 states reported having no state or local NG911 transition plans in place—which may indicate these states were in the early phases of planning for the transition to NG911 or had not yet begun. GAO spoke with state and local 911 officials in 9 states, which were in various phases of implementing NG911, and found that none of the 9 selected states were accepting images, audio files, or video. State and local 911 officials identified a number of challenges to implementing NG911. Such challenges are related to funding, evolving technology and operations, and governance. For example, officials in 3 states said that the current funding they collect from telephone service subscribers may not be sufficient to support NG911's transition costs while simultaneously funding the operation of existing 911 systems.
Federal agencies—including NHTSA, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, the Federal Communications Commission, and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security—have responsibilities to support NG911 implementation, such as through coordinating activities and administering grants, and are taking actions to assist state and local entities in addressing challenges to NG911's implementation. Such actions include developing resources, offering technical assistance, and convening stakeholders to explore emerging NG911 issues. For example, as the lead entity for coordinating federal NG911 efforts, NHTSA's National 911 Program is developing resources on NG911 topics, such as federal funding and governance structures. While the National 911 Program is taking steps to facilitate the state and local transition to NG911, the program lacks specific performance goals and measures to assess its progress. Without such goals and measures, it is not clear to what extent the program is effectively achieving its mission.
In 2018, the National 911 Program plans to establish an interagency initiative tasked with creating a National NG911 Roadmap. This roadmap is intended to identify next steps for the federal government in supporting the creation of a national, interconnected NG911 system. While the National 911 Program is taking steps to develop a list of national-level tasks as part of its roadmap initiative, the program does not have a plan to identify: (1) roles or responsibilities for federal entities to carry out these tasks or (2) how the program plans to achieve the roadmap's objectives. Collaborating with the appropriate federal agencies to determine federal roles and responsibilities to carry out the roadmap's national-level tasks could reduce barriers to agencies effectively working together to achieve those tasks. Furthermore, developing an implementation plan that details how the roadmap's tasks will be achieved would place the National 911 Program in a better position to effectively lead interagency efforts to implement NG911 nationwide.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that NHTSA's National 911 Program develop performance goals and measures and, for the National NG911 Roadmap, determine agencies' roles and responsibilities and develop an implementation plan. NHTSA agreed with GAO's recommendations.


Question:
Why GAO Did This Study

SNAP is the nation's largest federally funded nutrition assistance program. In fiscal year 2017, it provided about $64 billion in benefits. To maintain eligibility for benefits, certain SNAP recipients must comply with the program's work requirements, which may include participating in a state's SNAP E&T program if required by the state.
This report examines (1) what is known about SNAP E&T program participants and outcomes over time and (2) the extent to which state SNAP E&T programs have partnered with other programs offering similar services. GAO reviewed relevant federal laws, regulations, and guidance; analyzed USDA data on SNAP recipients, work registrants, and SNAP E&T participants from fiscal years 2008 through 2016, the most recent data available; reviewed states' fiscal year 2017 SNAP E&T plans and outcome reports; and interviewed USDA officials and state officials in five states selected, in part, to reflect a range of SNAP E&T program characteristics.

What GAO Found

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program's (SNAP) Employment and Training (E&T) programs, which are overseen by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and administered by states, have served a small percentage of SNAP recipients over time, and information on participant characteristics and outcomes is limited. In an average month of fiscal year 2016, SNAP E&T served about 0.5 percent of the 43.5 million SNAP recipients. Further, since 2008, the percentage of SNAP recipients served by SNAP E&T has declined. Participation in SNAP E&T may be low, in part, because most SNAP recipients were exempt from work requirements, according to USDA data. In addition, SNAP recipients may participate in other activities to comply with work requirements. Although data on the number of recipients served in SNAP E&T are generally reliable, USDA lacks reliable data on participant characteristics and outcomes because of imprecise instructions on data collection forms and staff confusion at the state level. USDA has taken some steps to address these issues, but data reliability issues persist. As a result, USDA's ability to assess whether agency goals are being met through the SNAP E&T program is limited, as is the department's ability to monitor states' implementation of work requirements and ensure program integrity.
In fiscal year 2018, most state SNAP agencies partnered with workforce development system entities, such as community colleges and workforce agencies, to provide services to SNAP E&T participants, according to USDA data. Regional and state officials reported that state SNAP agencies often have used these partnerships to leverage non-federal funding sources and provide additional capacity and expertise to help expand SNAP E&T services. However, 3 states operated their own SNAP E&T programs without partnering with any other program, and a total of 20 states lacked partnerships with workforce agencies, according to USDA data for fiscal year 2018. Federal regulations require that SNAP E&T services be delivered through the state's workforce development system unless the services are not available locally through this system. USDA and state officials described challenges to forming effective partnerships with workforce agencies, including perceived disincentives to serving SNAP recipients. However, states that are not fully leveraging resources available through the workforce development system may miss opportunities to provide a wider variety of services to SNAP E&T participants and serve a greater number of SNAP recipients through SNAP E&T.

What GAO Recommends

GAO is making four recommendations, including that USDA take additional steps to address SNAP E&T data reliability issues and to help states leverage available workforce development system resources. USDA officials generally agreed with our recommendations.


Question:
Why GAO Did This Study

Weapons in the U.S. nuclear stockpile are aging. To refurbish or replace nuclear weapons' aging components, NNSA and DOD undertake LEPs. The B61-12 LEP is the most complex and expensive LEP to date. In October 2016, NNSA formalized a program cost estimate of about $7.6 billion, which is lower than an independent cost estimate of about $10 billion.
Senate Report 113-44 included a provision for GAO to periodically assess the status of the B61-12 LEP. This report assesses (1) the extent to which NNSA followed best practices for cost estimation in producing the program cost estimate for the B61-12 LEP; (2) the reasons for differences between the program cost estimate and the independent cost estimate and how the differences were reconciled; and (3) the extent to which NNSA and DOD have identified and managed program risks. GAO assessed the program cost estimate against best practices, reviewed NNSA and DOD documents, conducted site visits to four NNSA and Air Force sites responsible for design, production, and management activities, and interviewed NNSA and DOD officials.

What GAO Found

The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) incorporated most cost estimating best practices to develop the program cost estimate for the B61-12 Life Extension Program (LEP), which seeks to consolidate four versions of a nuclear weapon—the B61 bomb—into a bomb called the B61-12. As shown in the figure below, the program substantially met best practices for ensuring the estimate was comprehensive, well-documented, accurate, and credible.
The B61-12 LEP's program cost estimate differs from an estimate prepared by another NNSA office independent of the program primarily because the program used different methods and assumptions than the independent office. The program developed its estimate by compiling cost and schedule estimates for activities at each of the NNSA contractor sites participating in the LEP. In contrast, the independent office evaluated program activities completed to date and applied a historical model to estimate costs and durations for remaining activities. NNSA management met with officials from both offices to reconcile the estimates but did not document the rationale for adopting the program estimate unchanged. GAO recommended in a January 2018 report that NNSA document and justify such decisions, in part because GAO's prior work has shown that independent cost estimates historically are higher than programs' cost estimates because the team conducting the independent estimate is more objective and less prone to accept optimistic assumptions. In response to the January 2018 report, NNSA agreed to establish a protocol to document management decisions on significant variances between program and independent cost estimates, but it has not yet provided evidence that it has done so.
NNSA and the Department of Defense (DOD) have identified and are managing risks that could complicate efforts to meet the LEP's fiscal year 2025 completion date. Risks within the program's areas of responsibility include an aggressive flight test schedule for bomb delivery aircraft. The program is managing these and other risks with a formal risk management process. The program has also taken steps to address risks outside its direct control, such as risks related to the readiness and certification of the weapon's F-35 delivery aircraft, by providing information to the responsible DOD organizations.

What GAO Recommends

GAO is making no new recommendations but discusses a prior recommendation that NNSA document and justify decisions regarding independent cost estimates. NNSA provided technical comments, which GAO incorporated as appropriate. DOD did not have any comments.


Question:
Why GAO Did This Study

The Bureau is required by law to count the population as of April 1, 2020; deliver state apportionment counts to the President by December 31, 2020; and provide redistricting data to the states within 1 year of Census Day, April 1, 2021. To meet these statutory deadlines, the Bureau carries out hundreds of projects, which it manages with an integrated master schedule. Because census operations need to proceed in concert with one another, significant delays could propagate to other activities resulting in increased costs, reduced operational quality, or changes to the design of the census in order to compensate for lost time.
This report determines the extent to which the Bureau is using leading practices for scheduling key projects.
GAO selected three projects for review based on their cost and in-progress status. GAO analyzed schedules and their supporting documents against GAO's Schedule Assessment Guide. GAO also spoke with relevant Bureau officials regarding the three selected projects.
GAO provided a draft of this report to the Department of Commerce, which agreed with the findings.

What GAO Found

The three census project schedules GAO reviewed better reflect characteristics of a reliable schedule compared to a GAO schedule assessment performed in 2013, but weaknesses remain. GAO reviewed three projects that contribute to two of the Census Bureau's (Bureau) largest field operations—address canvassing and nonresponse follow-up. The schedules for all three projects are better constructed and more credible than previously reviewed project schedules. For example, the Bureau has improved the logic of the relationship between activities, and better ensured that all schedules are linked together in a master schedule so that their interactions can be better managed.
However, the three selected schedules have some of the same weaknesses GAO identified in other Bureau schedules in 2009 and 2013. For example, none of the selected schedules contain information on resource needs and availability. GAO has reported that such information assists program offices in forecasting the likelihood that activities will be completed as scheduled. It can also help management compute total labor and equipment hours, calculate total project and per-period cost, resolve resource conflicts, and establish the reasonableness of the plan. If the schedule does not allow insight into current or projected allocation of resources, then the likelihood is significantly increased that the program may slip or need additional resources to complete on time.
In GAO's 2009 review of the Bureau's schedule, GAO recommended that the Bureau include in the 2020 master schedule estimates of the resources, such as labor, materials, and overhead costs for each activity as the 2020 schedule was built. The Department of Commerce did not respond to the recommendation at that time. Then, regarding GAO's 2013 assessment of the Bureau's schedule, Bureau officials stated that they hoped to begin identifying the resources needed for each activity in their schedules by early 2014. However, as of May 2018, the Bureau had not taken these steps. Senior Bureau officials have now stated that it would require additional staffing in order to plan for and implement this recommendation.
Additionally, the Bureau has not conducted risk assessments for the project schedules GAO assessed. Schedule risk analysis—the systematic analysis of “what if” scenarios—is an established leading practice. Risk assessments are needed to determine the likelihood of the project's completion date; how much schedule risk contingency is needed to provide an acceptable level of certainty for completion by a specific date; risks most likely to delay the project; how much contingency reserve each risk requires; and the paths or activities that are most likely to delay the project.
In 2013, GAO recommended the Bureau conduct risk assessments for its schedules. The Bureau said it had no disagreement with this recommendation. However, while Senior Bureau officials stated that a schedule risk assessment plan and process were approved by Bureau management in late May 2018, it has not yet implemented this recommendation.
GAO believes that these prior recommendations still apply and can help the Bureau improve the reliability of its 2020 schedule.


Question:
Why GAO Did This Study

On August 31, 2016, as part of a shift in U.S. policy toward Cuba, air carriers resumed scheduled commercial flights between the United States and Cuba, a route previously only open to public and private charter carrier operations. In June 2017, travel restrictions were revised to require U.S. travelers going to Cuba to travel as part of a licensed group. TSA, the agency responsible for securing the nation's civil aviation system, assesses Cuban airports and inspects air carriers operating U.S-bound flights to ensure they have effective security measures in place.
GAO was asked to review TSA's assessments of Cuban aviation security. This report examines (1) the extent to which TSA followed its standard operating procedures when assessing aviation security at Cuban airports in fiscal years 2012 through 2017; (2) the results of TSA's Cuban airport assessments in fiscal years 2012 through 2017; and (3) the results of TSA's air carrier inspections for Cuba in fiscal years 2016—when commercial scheduled air service between the United States and Cuba resumed—and 2017. GAO reviewed TSA policies and procedures, observed TSA air carrier inspections in Cuba, and compared TSA data on assessments and inspections to data from the Department of Transportation.

What GAO Found

The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) generally followed its standard operating procedures when documenting and resolving findings from its foreign airport assessments and air carrier inspections at Cuban airports in fiscal years 2012 through 2017. However, TSA did not perform all the required inspections of air carriers operating U.S.-bound public charter flights from Cuba. Specifically, GAO found that for the five air carriers selected for analysis, TSA performed approximately half of air carrier inspections in Cuba at the frequency established in its standard operating procedures in fiscal years 2012 through 2016. Of the inspections TSA did not perform, over half were not performed because TSA was not able to identify or reliably track U.S.-bound public charter operations from Cuba. Improving TSA's ability to identify public charters requiring inspection in Cuba and implementing a tool it is currently developing that more reliably tracks air carrier operations would better position TSA to meet its goal of inspecting all air carriers operating U.S.-bound public charter flights from Cuba at the frequency established in its standard operating procedures.
Several of the Cuban airports TSA assessed in fiscal years 2012 through 2017 were fully compliant with International Civil Aviation Organization Standards at the time of assessment. The remaining airport assessments reported instances of noncompliance within the five categories: access control, quality control, aircraft and inflight security, passenger and baggage screening, and fencing.
The majority of air carrier inspections TSA performed for Cuba in fiscal years 2016 and 2017 resulted in no findings, meaning that TSA determined air carriers operating these flights fully implemented all requirements in their TSA-approved security program at the time of inspection. The remaining inspections resulted in findings, which TSA closed after air carriers took corrective action.
This is a public version of a sensitive report issued in May 2018. Information that TSA deemed to be sensitive is omitted from this report.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that TSA improve its ability to identify all public charters requiring inspection in Cuba and develop and implement a tool that more reliably tracks public charter operations between the United States and Cuba. TSA concurred with our recommendation.


Question:
Why GAO Did This Study

Thousands of shipments containing radiological material enter the United States each year through airports across the country. Radiological material is used in various medical and industrial applications, and possession requires a license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) or one of the 37 states to which NRC has relinquished licensing authority. Failure to verify the licenses could allow terrorists to acquire radiological material for a dirty bomb, which uses explosives to disperse the material.
GAO was asked to review CBP policies and procedures related to license verification. This report examines, among other things, (1) the extent to which CBP follows its policies and procedures, and (2) the effectiveness of these policies and procedures. GAO reviewed relevant policies and procedures, analyzed CBP data related to radiological material shipments and license verification, interviewed CBP and NRC officials, and selected four airports to visit based on expected traffic of radiological shipments.

What GAO Found

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agency officials at U.S. airports have not verified the legitimacy of all licenses for imported radiological materials as required by CBP's policy. The policy requires CBP officials, when alerted, to verify licenses by calling experts in a centralized CBP office. CBP officials at two of four airports GAO visited said they were calling as required. However, CBP officials at the other two airports did not verify many licenses from January 1, 2015, through September 30, 2016, and headquarters officials were unaware of non-compliance with CBP policy. Also, GAO found that during this time frame nationwide, CBP officials were alerted to verify licenses for a significant number of shipments of licensable radiological material for all U.S. airports, but they did not make all the required calls—leaving numerous shipments potentially unverified over this 21-month period. This situation occurred because CBP does not have a monitoring system to ensure that officials make license verification calls as required. Until CBP develops a monitoring system for license verification, it will not have reasonable assurance that it can identify activities inconsistent with its policy and take corrective action.
CBP procedures cannot effectively implement the agency's policy that its officials verify all radiological material shipments imported into the United States. The procedures are not effective for this policy in part because they rely on automated alerts that are based on some but not all relevant information that could indicate potentially dangerous radiological material. Consequently, CBP's current system and procedures cannot ensure that all such materials will be identified. Under federal internal control standards, agencies are to design control activities to achieve objectives and respond to risks. However, CBP does not have the information it needs to develop a robust system or revise its procedures because it has not conducted a comprehensive assessment of the information not included in its automated alert system. In particular, CBP has not assessed relevant information not currently included in the automated alert or how to create a more risk-based approach that distinguishes between higher- and lower-risk quantities of radiological materials. Without such an assessment, CBP may be unable to develop a system or procedures that best support its policy for verifying imported radiological materials.
This is a public version of a sensitive report GAO issued in September 2017. Information CBP deemed sensitive has been omitted.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that CBP develop a monitoring system to help ensure that CBP officials comply with the agency's license verification policy, conduct an assessment to determine relevant information that is not included in the automated alerts, and develop a system that allows it to identify shipments of greatest risk. CBP concurred with GAO's three recommendations and outlined actions to implement those recommendations.


Question:
Why GAO Did This Study

DHS and GSA have been managing efforts to consolidate DHS executive leadership, operational management, and other personnel at one secure headquarters location rather than at multiple locations throughout the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area. The consolidation is to include the development of multi-billion dollar headquarters facilities at the St. Elizabeths campus in Washington, D.C.
In September 2014, GAO issued a report entitled: Federal Real Property: DHS and GSA Need to Strengthen the Management of DHS Headquarters Consolidation (GAO-14-648). This statement summarizes the key findings and recommendations from this report, and provides a status update as of April 2018 on DHS and GSA implementation of GAO's recommendations.
To complete the September 2014 report, GAO compared DHS and GSA capital planning efforts against applicable leading practices, interviewed officials, and reviewed cost and schedule estimates for the St. Elizabeths project. To assess subsequent DHS and GSA actions to implement GAO's September 2014 recommendations, GAO conducted periodic follow-up with agency officials.

What GAO Found

In its September 2014 report, GAO found that Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and General Services Administration (GSA) planning for the DHS headquarters consolidation at the St. Elizabeths campus in Washington, D.C. did not fully conform with leading capital decision-making practices intended to help agencies effectively plan and procure assets. Specifically, GAO found that DHS and GSA had not conducted a comprehensive assessment of current needs, identified capability gaps, or evaluated and prioritized alternatives that would help officials adapt consolidation plans to changing conditions and address funding issues as reflected in leading practices. GAO recommended that DHS and GSA conduct various assessments and analyses and use the results to inform updated DHS headquarters consolidation plans. The agencies concurred with this recommendation.
In its September 2014 report, GAO also found that DHS and GSA cost and schedule estimates for the headquarters consolidation project at St. Elizabeths did not conform or, only minimally or partially conformed, with leading estimating practices, and were therefore unreliable. Thus, GAO recommended that DHS and GSA develop revised cost and schedule estimates for the remaining portions of the consolidation project in accordance with leading practices, and the agencies concurred with this recommendation.
The DHS Headquarters Consolidation Accountability Act of 2015, enacted in April 2016 would, according to the accompanying Senate committee report, ensure that DHS and GSA fully address the recommendations from GAO's September 2014 report and provide Congress the information needed to make sound decisions regarding the project. Among other things, the Act required DHS, in coordination with GSA, to submit information to Congress, including various assessments and updated cost and schedule estimates related to the DHS headquarters consolidation. As of April 2018, however, DHS and GSA had not submitted the information to Congress that would either meet the requirements of the Act or address GAO's recommendations. DHS and GSA officials cited funding instability as one challenge to updating consolidation plans and cost and schedule estimates.

What GAO Recommends

Among other things, GAO recommended in its September 2014 report that DHS and GSA develop revised DHS headquarters plans that reflect leading practices for capital decision making and also reliable cost and schedule estimates. DHS and GSA concurred with our recommendations.


Question:
Why GAO Did This Study

The Buy American Act of 1933, as amended, is the main U.S. law promoting domestic purchasing. The Act permits agencies to buy foreign end products only under certain exceptions, such as when domestic items are not available at a reasonable cost. Further, U.S. trade agreements waive the Buy American restrictions for certain products.
GAO was asked to review implementation of the Buy American Act. This report assesses the extent to which (1) the federal government procures foreign products through Buy American Act exceptions and waivers; and (2) selected agencies provide training and guidance to implement the Act.
GAO reviewed laws, regulations, and policies related to the Buy American Act and analyzed data for fiscal year 2017 from FPDS-NG. GAO also analyzed a non-generalizable sample of 38 contracts from DOD, HHS, DHS, and VA—the agencies with the most obligations for products in fiscal year 2017. The 38 awards selected include a mix of foreign and domestic products, as well as dollars obligated. Finally, GAO interviewed cognizant contracting and policy officials from the selected agencies.

What GAO Found

According to data reported in the Federal Procurement Data System-Next Generation (FPDS-NG) in fiscal year 2017, foreign end products accounted for less than 5 percent—about $7.8 billion—of federal obligations for products potentially subject to the Buy American Act. Federal agencies procured foreign products using exceptions to Buy American Act requirements, as well as through waivers or when the Buy American Act did not apply, as shown in the figure.
The amount of foreign end products purchased could be greater than reported in FPDS-NG, however, due to reporting errors and system limitations. GAO found that 6 of the 38 contracts reviewed from the Departments of Defense (DOD), Health and Human Services (HHS), Homeland Security (DHS), and Veterans Affairs (VA) inaccurately recorded waiver or exception information. FPDS-NG system limitations compound these errors because it does not fully capture Buy American Act data. Among other things, the database does not always enable agencies to report the use of exceptions or waivers on contracts for both foreign and domestic products, reducing data accuracy. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is considering strategies to improve Buy American Act data.
The four agencies GAO reviewed varied in their approaches to Buy American Act training and guidance. DOD reports that it will have trained more than 18,000 personnel by the end of 2018. DHS reports training almost 1,400 people—approximately 94 percent of its contracting staff—as of April 2018. Some VA courses mention the Act, but none is focused specifically on implementing its requirements. HHS does not have agency-level training or guidance on the Act. GAO found that contracting officers for the contracts it reviewed face challenges implementing Buy American Act requirements. Having specific and targeted Buy American Act guidance and training can better ensure that agencies meet the Act's requirements.

What GAO Recommends

GAO is recommending that OMB take steps to improve Buy American Act data and that HHS, DHS, and VA improve agency guidance and training on implementing the Act. All of the agencies either concurred or generally concurred with GAO's recommendations.


Question:
Why GAO Did This Study

The federal government plans to spend almost $96 billion on IT investments in fiscal year 2018; however, as GAO has previously found, too often these investments have cost overruns and schedule delays. To enhance oversight of IT programs, for 2015, Congress directed OMB to identify the 10 highest priority IT programs that are under development across federal agencies and report on their status each quarter. Further, for 2016, Congress directed USDS to provide a quarterly report of current USDS projects, including the top 10 high priority programs.
GAO was asked to review OMB's oversight of high priority programs. This review evaluated (1) OMB's process for identifying, overseeing, and reporting on the high priority IT investment programs and (2) USDS's process for identifying and prioritizing its projects, including its consideration of the high priority programs, and its reporting on the projects. GAO analyzed OMB memorandums and reports to Congress and interviewed OMB staff, including from USDS. In addition, GAO compared USDS's processes with IT management best practices.

What GAO Found

The Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Office of E-Government and Information Technology (E-Gov) reported that it undertook a structured approach to identify the top 10 high priority IT programs in reports to Congress in June 2015 and June 2016. Specifically, OMB staff stated that they chose the top 10 programs from a longer list of agency programs requiring additional oversight (referred to as high impact programs). E-Gov staff reported that the high priority programs were already receiving greater oversight than what was provided to the other major programs due to their high impact designation. This additional oversight included frequent meetings with agency Chief Information Officer (CIO) leadership and quarterly meetings with OMB staff. However, the Federal CIO was not directly involved in this oversight. According to E-Gov staff, the Federal CIO does not typically get involved in individual programs due to the large number of programs. However, past experience has shown that Federal CIO involvement has had a significant impact. For example, Federal CIO-led reviews of troubled projects, known as TechStat reviews, resulted in $3 billion in savings in 2010. Until OMB ensures that the Federal CIO is more directly involved in the oversight of these high priority programs, it may be missing a key opportunity to improve accountability and achieve positive results.
OMB's 2015 and 2016 reports to Congress on the top 10 high priority programs identified the status of the programs and major milestones. However, the reports were not issued on a quarterly basis, as directed. E-Gov staff stated that they were unable to do so because of other competing reporting requirements and the limited resources available to draft and fully review the report on a quarterly basis. In addition, OMB stopped issuing the reports on the top 10 high priority IT programs after June 2016. OMB stated that Congress' 2016 direction to the U.S. Digital Service (USDS)—an OMB component—to provide a quarterly report that described the status of USDS teams and projects, including the top 10 high priority programs, meant that OMB should only report on USDS projects considered to be high priority. However, continued identification and reporting on the top 10 high priority programs, and not just USDS projects, would further enhance congressional oversight by providing congressional stakeholders information that is not readily available on those programs in the greatest need of attention.
USDS issued reports to Congress on the status of its key projects in December 2016 and July 2017; however, the reports did not address the top 10 high priority programs as directed by Congress, according to OMB staff, because of OMB's interpretation of Congress's direction. In addition, the reports were not issued quarterly, as directed. USDS staff attributed this to the time and effort needed to review and prepare the report. However, continuing to identify and report on the top 10 high priority programs while also reporting on USDS's projects would help to enhance congressional oversight and current administration IT governance entities' efforts by providing stakeholders with information that is not readily available.

What GAO Recommends

GAO is making three recommendations to OMB for enhancing the oversight of high priority programs and continuing to report on both these programs and USDS projects. OMB neither agreed nor disagreed with the recommendations but disagreed with several of GAO's conclusions, which GAO continues to believe are valid as discussed in the report.


Question:
Why GAO Did This Study

GPS provides positioning, navigation, and timing data to civilian and military users who depend on this satellite-based system. Since 2000, DOD—led by the Air Force—has been working to modernize GPS and to keep the current system of satellites—known as the GPS constellation—operational, although these efforts have experienced cost and schedule growth.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 contained a provision that the Air Force provide reports to GAO on GPS acquisition programs and that GAO brief the congressional defense committees. GAO briefed the committees in 2016 and 2017. This report summarizes and expands on information presented in those briefings.
This report assesses the extent to which DOD faces acquisition challenges (1) sustaining the GPS constellation; (2) developing a new ground control system; and (3) developing and fielding modernized receivers. GAO analyzed GPS quarterly acquisition reports and data, acquisition strategies, software and test plans, and other documents, and interviewed DOD and contractor officials.

What GAO Found

The Department of Defense's (DOD) acquisition of the next generation Global Positioning System (GPS) satellites, known as GPS III, faces a number of acquisition challenges, but these challenges do not threaten DOD's ability to continue operating the current GPS system, which DOD refers to as the constellation, in the near term. Projections for how long the current constellation will be fully capable have increased by nearly 2 years to June 2021, affording some buffer to offset any additional satellite delays. While the first GPS III satellite has a known parts problem, six follow-on satellites—which do not—are currently scheduled to be launched by June 2021.
DOD is relying on a high-risk acquisition schedule to develop a new ground system, known as OCX, to control the broadcast of a modernized military GPS signal. OCX remains at risk for further delays and cost growth. To mitigate continuing delays to the new ground control system, the Air Force has begun a second new program—Military-code (M-code) Early Use—to deliver an interim, limited broadcast encrypted GPS signal for military use by modifying the current ground system. GAO will continue to monitor OCX progress.
DOD has made some progress on initial testing of the receiver cards needed to utilize the M-code signal. However, additional development is necessary to make M-code work with over 700 weapon systems that require it. DOD has begun initial planning for some weapon systems, but more remains to be done to understand the cost and schedule needed to transition to M-code receivers. The preliminary estimate for integrating and testing a fraction of the weapon systems that need the receiver cards is over $2.5 billion through fiscal year 2021 with only 28 fully and 72 partially funded (see figure). The cost will increase by billions when as yet unfunded weapon systems are included.
The level of development and procurement effort beyond the initial receiver cards is significant and will require close coordination across DOD. After the Air Force develops initial cards, the breadth and complexity of this acquisition will multiply, as the offices responsible for upgrading hundreds of weapon systems begin their own individual efforts to further develop and test the cards. However, DOD does not have an organization assigned to collect test data, lessons learned, and design solutions so that common design solutions are employed to avoid duplication of effort as multiple entities separately mature receiver cards. DOD therefore risks paying to repeatedly find design solutions to solve common problems because each program office is likely to undertake its own uncoordinated development effort.

What GAO Recommends

DOD should assign responsibility to an organization to collect test data, lessons learned, and design solutions so they may be shared. DOD concurred with the recommendation.