Question:
Why GAO Did This Study

A key component of mitigating and responding to cyber threats is having a qualified, well-trained cybersecurity workforce. The act requires OPM and federal agencies to take several actions related to cybersecurity workforce planning. These actions include categorizing all IT, cybersecurity, and cyber-related positions using OPM personnel codes for specific work roles, and identifying critical staffing needs.
The act contains a provision for GAO to analyze and monitor agencies' workforce planning. GAO's objectives were to (1) determine the extent to which federal agencies have assigned work roles for positions performing IT, cybersecurity, or cyber-related functions and (2) describe the steps federal agencies took to identify work roles of critical need. GAO administered a questionnaire to 24 agencies, analyzed coding data from personnel systems, and examined preliminary reports on critical needs. GAO selected six of the 24 agencies based on cybersecurity spending levels to determine the accuracy of codes assigned to a random sample of IT positions. GAO also interviewed relevant OPM and agency officials.

What GAO Found

The 24 reviewed federal agencies generally assigned work roles to filled and vacant positions that performed information technology (IT), cybersecurity, or cyber-related functions as required by the Federal Cybersecurity Workforce Assessment Act of 2015 (the act). However, six of the 24 agencies reported that they had not completed assigning the associated work role codes to their vacant positions, although they were required to do so by April 2018. In addition, most agencies had likely miscategorized the work roles of many positions. Specifically, 22 of the 24 agencies assigned a “non-IT” work role code to 15,779 (about 19 percent) of their IT positions within the 2210 occupational series. Further, the six agencies that GAO selected for additional review had assigned work role codes that were not consistent with the work roles and duties described in corresponding position descriptions for 63 of 120 positions within the 2210 occupational series that GAO examined (see figure).
Human resource and IT officials from the 24 agencies generally reported that they had not completely or accurately categorized work roles for IT positions within the 2210 occupational series, in part, because they may have assigned the associated codes in error or had not completed validating the accuracy of the assigned codes. By assigning work roles that are inconsistent with the IT, cybersecurity, and cyber-related positions, the agencies are diminishing the reliability of the information they need to improve workforce planning.
The act also required agencies to identify work roles of critical need by April 2019. To aid agencies with identifying their critical needs, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) developed guidance and required agencies to provide a preliminary report by August 2018. The 24 agencies have begun to identify critical needs and submitted a preliminary report to OPM that identified information systems security manager, IT project manager, and systems security analyst as the top three work roles of critical need. Nevertheless, until agencies accurately categorize their positions, their ability to effectively identify critical staffing needs will be impaired.

What GAO Recommends

GAO is making 28 recommendations to 22 agencies to review and assign the appropriate codes to their IT, cybersecurity, and cyber-related positions. Of the 22 agencies to which GAO made recommendations, 20 agreed with the recommendations, one partially agreed, and one did not agree with one of two recommendations. GAO continues to believe that all of the recommendations are warranted.


Question:
Why GAO Did This Study

DOD's defense labs help sustain, among other things, U.S. technological superiority and the delivery of technical capabilities to the warfighter. Over time Congress has granted unique flexibilities—such as the ability to hire qualified candidates who meet certain criteria using direct hire authorities—to the defense labs to expedite the hiring process and facilitate efforts to compete with the private sector.
Senate Report 114-255 included a provision for GAO to examine the labs' hiring structures and effective use of hiring authorities. This report examines (1) the defense labs use of existing hiring authorities and officials' views on the benefits of authorities and challenges of hiring; (2) the extent to which DOD evaluates the effectiveness of hiring, including hiring authorities at the defense labs; and (3) the extent to which DOD has time frames for approving and implementing new hiring authorities. GAO analyzed DOD hiring policies and data; conducted a survey of 16 defense lab officials involved in policy-making; interviewed DOD and service officials; and conducted nongeneralizable interviews with groups of officials, supervisors, and new hires from 6 labs—2 from each of the 3 military services, selected based on the labs' mission.

What GAO Found

The Department of Defense's (DOD) laboratories (defense labs) have used the laboratory-specific direct hire authorities more than any other category of agency-specific or government-wide hiring authority for science, technology, engineering, and mathematics personnel. As shown below, in fiscal years 2015—2017 the labs hired 5,303 personnel out of 11,562 total hires, or 46 percent using these direct hire authorities. Lab officials, however, identified challenges to hiring highly qualified candidates, such as delays in processing security clearances, despite the use of hiring authorities such as direct hire.
Source: GAO analysis of Department of Defense data. | GAO-18-417 .
a Other includes all other defense laboratory-specific direct hiring authorities used.
b All other includes remaining five categories of hiring authorities.
c Percentages may not sum to total due to rounding.
DOD and the defense labs track hiring data, but the Defense Laboratories Office (DLO) has not obtained or monitored these data or evaluated the effectiveness of the labs' hiring, including the use of hiring authorities. While existing lab data can be used to show the length of time of the hiring process, effectiveness is not currently evaluated. According to lab officials, timeliness data do not sufficiently inform about the effectiveness of the authorities and may not reflect a candidate's perception of the length of the hiring process. Further, the DLO has not developed performance measures to evaluate the effectiveness of hiring across the defense laboratories. Without routinely obtaining and monitoring hiring data and developing performance measures, DOD lacks reasonable assurance that the labs' hiring and use of hiring authorities—in particular, those granted by Congress to the labs—result in improved hiring outcomes.
DOD does not have clear time frames for approving and implementing new hiring authorities. The defense labs were unable to use a direct hire authority granted by Congress in fiscal year 2015 because it took DOD 2½ years to publish a federal register notice—the process used to implement new hiring authorities for the labs—for that authority. DOD officials identified coordination issues associated with the process as the cause of the delay and stated that DOD is taking steps to improve coordination—including meeting to formalize roles and responsibilities for the offices and developing a new approval process—between offices responsible for oversight of the labs and personnel policy. However, DLO's new federal register approval process does not include time frames for specific stages of coordination. Without clear time frames for its departmental coordination efforts related to the approval and implementation of new hiring authorities, officials cannot be certain they are taking action in a timely manner.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that DOD (1) routinely obtain and monitor defense lab hiring data to improve oversight; (2) develop performance measures for evaluating the effectiveness of hiring; and (3) establish time frames to guide hiring authority approval and implementation. DOD concurred with the recommendations.


Question:
Why GAO Did This Study

The Department of Defense and NNSA have sought for nearly a decade to replace the capabilities of the aging W78 nuclear warhead used by the U.S. Air Force. NNSA undertakes LEPs to refurbish or replace the capabilities of nuclear weapons components. In fiscal year 2014, NNSA was directed to suspend a program that was evaluating a capability that could replace the W78 and also be used by the U.S. Navy. NNSA's most recent estimate—reported in October 2018—was that the combined program would cost about $10 billion to $15 billion. NNSA has been directed by the 2018 Nuclear Posture Review to restart a program to replace the W78 for the Air Force in fiscal year 2019. The 2018 Nuclear Posture Review also directed NNSA and the Navy to further evaluate whether the Navy could also use the warhead.
Senate report 115-125 included a provision for GAO to review NNSA's progress on the program to replace the W78.
GAO's report describes NNSA's steps in key early planning areas—including program management, technology assessment, and coordination with facilities and capabilities—to prepare to restart a program to replace the W78. GAO reviewed documentation on areas such as program management, technologies, and facilities needed for the program, and interviewed NNSA and DOD officials.

What GAO Found

The Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) has taken steps to prepare to restart a life extension program (LEP) to replace the capabilities of the Air Force's W78 nuclear warhead—a program which was previously suspended. According to NNSA officials, these steps are typically needed to conduct any LEP. Therefore, they can be undertaken despite the current uncertainty about whether the final program will develop the warhead for the Air Force only or for both the Air Force and the Navy. Specifically, NNSA has taken the steps described below:
Program management. NNSA has begun to establish the program management functions needed to execute a W78 replacement program, as required by NNSA's program execution instruction. For example, NNSA has started to develop a risk management plan to define the process for identifying and mitigating risks. In addition, NNSA has created a preliminary schedule to restart the program in fiscal year 2019 in the feasibility and design options phase with the goal of producing the first unit in fiscal year 2030. (See figure)
Technology assessment. In May 2018, NNSA completed an assessment of 126 technologies for potential use in a W78 replacement. These included nine technologies that are needed to replace obsolete or no longer available technologies or materials. These are considered “must-do” because they are the only technologies or materials available to meet minimum warhead requirements established by the Department of Defense and NNSA. NNSA officials said that in fiscal year 2019 they will use the assessment to further evaluate technologies for potential use in the warhead.
Coordination with facilities and capabilities. NNSA's program manager is identifying the facilities and capabilities needed to provide components for the warhead. This information will be used to produce a report that identifies aspects of the program—including facilities and capabilities to support it—that could affect the program's schedule and technical risk. However, several of the needed facilities must be built or repaired, and these activities are separately managed and supported outside the W78 replacement program—representing a critical external risk to the program. As mitigation, the program intends to coordinate with the offices that oversee these facilities to draft agreements that describe the work to be performed and timeframes, among other things.

What GAO Recommends

GAO is not making recommendations. NNSA and DOD provided technical comments, which GAO incorporated as appropriate.


Question:
Why GAO Did This Study

Education programs in STEM fields are intended to enhance the nation's global competitiveness. GAO reported in 2012 that there were more than 200 federal STEM education programs in fiscal year 2010. Since then, this portfolio of programs has changed. GAO was asked to review the landscape of federal STEM education programs.
This report examines (1) how the federal investment in STEM education programs changed from 2010 to 2016, and (2) the extent to which the STEM education portfolio has been assessed.To answer these questions, GAO administered a web-based questionnaire to all federal STEM education programs funded in fiscal year 2016 and analyzed the results. GAO also reviewed relevant federal laws and agency documents, examined the implementation of relevant assessment requirements, and interviewed officials from relevant federal agencies.

What GAO Found

The federal investment in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education programs remained relatively stable from fiscal years 2010 to 2016, although the number of programs declined from 209 to 163 (see figure). While agencies reported that many of the same STEM education programs existed during this time period, the portfolio underwent various changes, including program consolidations, creations, and terminations. Nearly all STEM education programs in fiscal year 2016 overlapped to some degree with at least one other program in that they offered similar services to similar groups in similar STEM fields to achieve similar objectives. The Committee on STEM Education, an interagency body responsible for implementing the federal STEM education strategic plan, reported it managed this overlap through coordination with agencies administering these programs.
The Committee on STEM Education has not fully met its responsibilities to assess the federal STEM education portfolio. Specifically, the Committee has not reviewed programs' performance assessments, as required by its authorizing charter, nor has it documented those assessments in its inventory, as required by law. Such efforts could encourage the use of evidenced-based practices across the portfolio—a key national goal of the STEM education strategic plan. These efforts could also enhance public awareness of the administering agencies' efforts to assess programs' performance. In addition, the Committee has not reported the participation rates of underrepresented groups in federal STEM education programs, as required by law. By reporting this information, the Committee could better assess whether programs are broadening access to groups historically underrepresented in STEM fields—another key goal of the strategic plan.

What GAO Recommends

GAO is making four recommendations, including three to the Committee on STEM Education to review performance assessments of STEM education programs, document those assessments, and report programs' participation rates of underrepresented groups. The Committee on STEM Education agreed with GAO's recommendations.


Question:
Why GAO Did This Study

The federal government is the largest real property owner in the United States and spends billions of dollars to operate and maintain these assets, which include buildings, roads, bridges, and utility systems. Federal agencies are responsible for developing asset management policies, processes, and plans. In 2014, the ISO 55000 asset management standards were issued.
GAO was asked to examine federal agencies' real property asset management practices and the applicability of ISO 55000. This report discusses: (1) key characteristics of an effective asset management framework and how selected federal agencies' frameworks reflect these characteristics, and (2) whether government-wide asset management guidance and information reflect standards and key characteristics of an effective asset management framework, among other objectives.
To conduct this work, GAO reviewed the ISO 55000 standards, relevant studies and literature, and interviewed 22 experts and 10 practitioners. GAO selected six federal agencies as case studies, including agencies with the largest real property portfolio and some agencies that were using the ISO 55000 standards. GAO reviewed documentation and interviewed officials from these six agencies, GSA, and OMB.

What GAO Found

GAO identified six key characteristics of an effective asset management framework (see table 1) that can help federal agencies manage their assets and resources effectively. GAO identified these key characteristics through reviews of the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 55000 standards—an international consensus standard on asset management—studies and articles on asset management practices, and interviews with experts. GAO reviewed the asset management practices of six federal agencies: the U.S. Coast Guard (Coast Guard); U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps); General Services Administration (GSA); National Park Service (Park Service); National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA); and U.S. Forest Service (Forest Service). Each of the six federal-agency frameworks GAO reviewed included some of the key characteristics.
Source: GAO analysis of ISO 55000 standards, asset management literature, and comments from experts. | GAO-19-57
While the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has issued guidance to inform federal agencies' real property management efforts, the existing guidance does not reflect an effective asset management framework because it does not fully align with ISO 55000 standards and the key characteristics. For example, this guidance does not direct agencies to develop a comprehensive approach to asset management that incorporates strategic planning, capital planning, and operations, or maintaining leadership support, promoting a collaborative organizational culture, or evaluating and improving asset management practices. In addition, the guidance does not reflect information on successful agency asset management practices, information that officials from three of the six agencies GAO spoke with said would be helpful to them. OMB staff said that they did not plan to update existing government-wide guidance because OMB's real property management focus has shifted to the Reduce the Footprint initiative, which emphasizes efficiently managing and using buildings and warehouse space, rather than all assets. Without a more comprehensive approach, as described above, federal agencies may not have the knowledge needed to maximize the value of their limited resources.

What GAO Recommends

OMB should take steps to improve information on asset management to reflect leading practices. OMB had no comments on this recommendation.


Question:
Why GAO Did This Study

According to the Surgeon General, adolescence and young adulthood are critical at-risk periods for illicit substance use, and such use can harm the developing brain. Congress included a provision in law for GAO to review how federal agencies, through grants, are addressing substance use prevention, treatment, and recovery among adolescents and young adults.
Related to prevention, treatment, and recovery targeting adolescents (aged 12 to 17) and young adults (aged 18 to 25), this report describes (1) grant programs to provide services; (2) NIDA grant-funded research, and (3) gaps stakeholders identified in related services or research.
GAO selected four agencies to review—HHS, ONDCP, DOJ, and Education—the key agencies that fund grant programs for services for adolescents and young adults. GAO analyzed documents on grant programs and on research funded by NIDA. GAO interviewed officials from the four agencies and 20 stakeholder groups (including advocacy and education, and research organizations, as well as a non-generalizable selection of state substance abuse, education, and judicial agencies in four states) about gaps in services or research and agency efforts to help address them. States were selected for variation in geography and overdose rates.
HHS, DOJ, and ONDCP provided technical comments on a draft of this report, which GAO incorporated as appropriate.

What GAO Found

GAO identified 12 federal grant programs within three federal agencies that funded substance use prevention, treatment, and recovery services in fiscal year 2017 and targeted adolescents' and young adults' use of illicit substances such as marijuana and nonmedical use of prescription opioids. The three agencies included the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), and the Department of Justice (DOJ). While the Department of Education (Education) has grant programs that can fund prevention services for adolescents, they do not specifically target such services.
Eight programs targeted substance use prevention. In total, they had 1,146 active grantees in fiscal year 2017 and provided about $266 million in awards that year.
Four programs targeted treatment and recovery services. In total, they had 57 active grantees in fiscal year 2017. Two of the 4 grant programs awarded about $23 million in funding in that year (the other two awarded funding in prior years).
In addition, other grant programs beyond these 12 also fund substance use prevention, treatment, and recovery services across age groups, but are not specifically targeted to adolescents and young adults.
HHS's National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA)—the agency that is the primary funder of research on illicit substance use—also had 186 active grant-funded research projects focused on substance use prevention, treatment, and recovery among adolescents and young adults as of October and November 2017.
Most of these research projects—126—were examining prevention, 45 were examining treatment, 4 were examining recovery, and 11 were examining a combination of research categories.
In total, these 186 research projects received about $61 million from NIDA in fiscal year 2017.
Most of the 20 stakeholders GAO interviewed identified gaps in services for adolescents and young adults, including insufficient access to recovery services and a shortage of treatment providers, and described financial and other reasons that likely contribute to these gaps. Federal agency officials GAO interviewed agreed that these gaps exist, and described grant programs and other efforts to help address them, such as a grant program that HHS established in 2018 to expand recovery services for these age groups. Stakeholders also identified gaps in research, such as too few treatment studies with adolescent participants, and described reasons for these gaps, including too few federal grants focused on adolescent research. NIDA officials agreed that these gaps exist, and stated that NIDA had eight grant opportunities (as of May 2018) that focused on these age groups or included them as a population of interest, three of which were new in 2018.


Question:
Why GAO Did This Study

Military families with special medical and educational needs face unique challenges because of their frequent moves. To help assist these families, DOD provides services plans, which document the support a family member requires. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 included a provision for GAO to review the Services' EFMPs, including DOD's oversight of these programs.
This report examines the extent to which (1) each Service provides family support and (2) the Services monitor and DOD evaluates assignment coordination and family support.
GAO analyzed DOD and Service-specific EFMP guidance and documents; analyzed fiscal year 2016 EFMP data (the most recent available); visited seven military installations, selected for their large numbers of military-connected students; and interviewed officials responsible for implementing each Service's EFMP, as well as officials in OSN that administer DOD's EFM policy.

What GAO Found

The support provided to families with special needs through the Department of Defense's (DOD) Exceptional Family Member Program (EFMP) varies widely for each branch of Military Service. Federal law requires DOD's Office of Special Needs (OSN) to develop a uniform policy that includes requirements for (1) developing and updating a services plan for each family with special needs and (2) resources, such as staffing, to ensure an appropriate number of family support providers. OSN has developed such a policy, but DOD relies on each Service to determine its compliance with the policy. However, Army and Navy officials said they have not received feedback from OSN about the extent to which their Service-specific guidance complies. Federal internal control standards call for developing clear policies to achieve agency goals. In addition, DOD's most recent annual reports to Congress do not indicate the extent to which each Service provides services plans or allocates sufficient resources for family support providers. According to GAO's analysis, the Military Services have developed relatively few services plans, and there is wide variation in the number of family support providers employed, which raises questions about potential gaps in services for families with special needs (see table).
Each Service uses various mechanisms to monitor how servicemembers are assigned to installations (assignment coordination) and obtain family support, but DOD has not established common performance measures to assess these activities. DOD has taken steps to better support families with special needs, according to the DOD officials GAO interviewed. For example, DOD established a working group to identify gaps in services. However, OSN officials said that DOD lacks common performance measures for assignment coordination and family support because the Services have not reached consensus on what those measures should be. In addition, OSN does not have a process to systematically evaluate the results of the Services' monitoring activities. Federal internal control standards call for assessing performance over time and evaluating the results of monitoring activities. Without establishing common performance measures and assessing monitoring activities, DOD will be unable to fully determine the effect of its efforts to better support families with special needs and the adequacy of the Services' EFMPs as required by federal law.

What GAO Recommends

GAO makes a total of three recommendations to DOD. DOD should assess and report to Congress on the extent to which each Service provides sufficient family support personnel and services plans, develop common performance metrics for assignment coordination and family support, and evaluate the results of the Services' monitoring activities. DOD agreed with these recommendations and plans to develop performance metrics for assignment coordination and develop plans to evaluate the Services' monitoring activities.


Question:
Why GAO Did This Study

The United States has undertaken several efforts, including DOD's Global Train and Equip program, to help foreign partners strengthen their security capacity. Presidential Policy Directive 23 states that agencies should target security assistance where it can be effective and highlights the importance of addressing several planning elements in project proposals. DOD develops proposals, using guidance implementing the directive, and selects projects with the Department of State.
The fiscal year 2015 National Defense Authorization Act included a provision for GAO to review the Global Train and Equip program. In this report, GAO examines (1) the status of funding DOD allocated for Global Train and Equip projects in fiscal years 2009 through 2017, (2) the extent to which DOD addressed key security assistance planning elements in project proposals in fiscal years 2016 and 2017, and (3) DOD's reporting on the achievement of Global Train and Equip project objectives and any factors affecting its ability to achieve those objectives. GAO analyzed agency data and program documents and interviewed DOD and State Department officials in Washington, D.C., and at selected combatant commands and embassies.

What GAO Found

The Department of Defense (DOD) obligated $3.7 billion of $4.1 billion allocated for the Global Train and Equip program in fiscal years 2009 through 2017 to build partner nations' capacity to counter terrorism. DOD increased allocations for the program in 2016, responding to an influx of funding from appropriations to the Counterterrorism Partnerships Fund. As of December 2017, DOD had disbursed about $2.5 billion of the obligated funds.
Global Train and Equip project proposals for fiscal years 2016 and 2017 consistently addressed only one of four elements of security assistance planning outlined in Presidential Policy Directive 23 . GAO found all 72 proposals in those years included the first element, project objectives. From 2016 to 2017, the percentage of proposals addressing the second element—absorptive capacity—rose from 32 percent to 84 percent. Most 2016 and 2017 proposals included the third element, baseline assessments, but less than three-quarters included complete sustainment plans, the fourth element. DOD guidance for 2016 and 2017 did not include instructions for addressing project sustainment when sustainment was not anticipated, though the 2017 guidance included instructions for addressing the other three planning elements. According to DOD officials, they have developed an informal quality review process to better ensure that 2018 project proposals address all four planning elements. However, DOD has not formalized this informal process as written policy. Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government calls for documenting internal control activities and policies. Formalizing the proposal review process would help DOD provide consistent oversight of project development and ensure access to complete information about each planning element, including sustainment needs. Such information is critical in helping decision makers ensure efficient use of funding to build partners' capacity.
DOD reporting for 2016 and 2017 indicates progress in building partner capacity to combat terrorism and conduct stability operations as well as factors affecting the progress achieved. According to DOD documents, partner nation recipient units' overall capabilities were greater after implementation of 8 of 21 Global Train and Equip projects, and some of the remaining 13 projects produced some positive results. DOD documents and officials also identified factors—such as equipment suitability and procurement issues—that may have limited the achievement of project objectives.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends DOD (1) update project proposal guidance to include instructions for documenting sustainment planning and (2) formalize as written policy its informal process for ensuring Global Train and Equip project proposals fully document the four required planning elements. DOD agreed with the recommendations.


Question:
Why GAO Did This Study

The Treasury Judgment Fund, managed by Fiscal Service, annually pays billions of dollars of claims on behalf of federal agencies. Transparent and reliable information is important for Congress to provide effective oversight of the Judgment Fund. In May 2017, the Committee requested that Treasury provide (1) Schedules of the Judgment Fund for fiscal years 2010 to 2016 prepared in accordance with U.S. GAAP, including appropriate disclosures to answer nine questions, and (2) information on processes and procedures used when paying claims.
GAO was asked to review the information that Treasury provided to the Committee. This report (1) evaluates the extent to which the Treasury-prepared information responds to the Committee's request and reconciles to financial information included in annual, audited financial reports and other reports and (2) describes Fiscal Service's documented procedures and related control activities for processing agency claims. To address these objectives, GAO compared the information provided by Treasury to other Treasury reports, conducted interviews with agency officials, and reviewed documented procedures for processing claims.

What GAO Found

The Department of the Treasury (Treasury) did not provide the House Committee on the Judiciary (Committee) with the information the Committee requested on the Treasury Judgment Fund. Specifically, Treasury did not provide the Committee the Schedules of the Judgment Fund Non-Entity Assets, Non-Entity Costs, and Custodial Revenues that were prepared in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (U.S. GAAP). Treasury also did not include appropriate note disclosures or Management's Discussion and Analysis, as requested by the Committee. Rather, Treasury provided nine exhibits containing selected Judgment Fund information to answer nine questions included in the Committee's request.
In addition, GAO identified numerous differences between amounts included in Treasury's exhibits and its annual Judgment Fund transparency reports to Congress and certain audited financial reports. GAO requested explanations for these differences, and Treasury provided explanations for some of them. Subsequently, Treasury officials discovered and explained that the exhibits were created in a faulty manner, resulting in an increased risk that they may contain unreliable information. Treasury officials stated that rather than expending resources to further explain differences and reconcile the exhibits with the other information, Bureau of the Fiscal Service (Fiscal Service) staff planned to submit new exhibits to the Committee; however, they did not provide a date by which they would do so.
GAO found that Treasury did not take appropriate steps consistent with its existing guidance for disseminating information to the public, such as performing appropriate reviews of information in the exhibits prior to providing them to the Committee, to ensure the quality and responsiveness of the information provided. The lack of reliable information on the Judgment Fund impairs the Committee's ability to provide effective oversight, including considering whether enacting new legislation would benefit the American people by ensuring better management of the Judgment Fund.
Fiscal Service has policies and procedures to help ensure that it only certifies payments for awards, judgments, and compromise settlements (claims) from the Judgment Fund that meet the following four tests: (1) claims are final, (2) claims are monetary, (3) one of the authorities specified in the Judgment Fund statute permits payment, and (4) payment is not legally available from any other source of funds (e.g., claims are only paid from the Judgment Fund when payment is not otherwise provided for in a specific appropriation or by another statutory provision).

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that Fiscal Service take steps to ensure that information provided to Congress undergoes a documented review to ensure the quality and responsiveness of the information provided. Fiscal Service did not concur or nonconcur with the recommendation but agreed with GAO concerns regarding the reliability of information provided to the Committee.


Question:
Why GAO Did This Study

VHA has designated patient advocates at each VAMC to receive and document feedback from veterans or their representatives, including requests for information, compliments, and complaints. In recent years, the importance of a strong patient advocacy program has taken on new significance given concerns with VHA's ability to provide veterans timely access to health care, among other issues.
The Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act of 2016 included a provision for GAO to review VHA's patient advocacy program. This report examines the extent to which VHA has (1) provided guidance on the governance of the program; (2) provided guidance on staffing the program; (3) assessed the training needs of patient advocates and monitored training completion; and (4) monitored patient advocacy program data-entry practices and reviewed program data. GAO reviewed VHA and VAMC documents, including summaries of program data. GAO interviewed VHA officials about the program, as well as officials from a non-generalizable selection of eight VAMCs and five VISNs selected based on the volume of veteran complaints and other factors. GAO also compared VHA policies and practices to federal internal control standards.

What GAO Found

The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) provided limited guidance to Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical centers (VAMC) on the governance of its patient advocacy program and its guidance, a program handbook, has been outdated since 2010. VAMCs are still expected to follow the outdated handbook, which does not provide needed details on governance, such as specifying the VAMC department to which patient advocates should report. Officials from most of the VAMCs that GAO reviewed noted that the VAMC department to which patient advocates report can have a direct effect on the ability of staff to resolve veterans' complaints. The lack of updated and complete guidance may impede the patient advocacy program from meeting its expectations, to receive and address complaints from veterans in a convenient and timely manner.
VHA also has provided limited guidance to VAMCs on staffing the patient advocacy program. VHA's handbook states that every VAMC should have at least one patient advocate and appropriate support staff; however, it did not provide guidance on how to determine the number and type of staff needed. Officials at all but one of the eight VAMCs in GAO's review stated that their patient advocacy program staff had more work to do than they could accomplish. This limited guidance on staffing could impede VAMCs' efforts to ensure that they have the appropriate number and type of staff to address veterans' complaints in a timely manner.
Further, VHA has recommended training for patient advocates, but it has not developed an approach to routinely assess their training needs or monitored training completion. VHA officials stated that they relied on VAMC and Veterans Integrated Service Network (VISN) staff to conduct these activities. However, GAO found that for the eight VAMCs in its review, the training needs of patient advocates were not routinely assessed, and training completion was not always monitored. Without conducting these activities, VHA increases its risk that staff may not be adequately trained to advocate on behalf of veterans.
Finally, VHA has not monitored patient advocacy program data-entry practices or reviewed the data to assess program performance. VHA officials stated that they relied on VISN and VAMC officials to ensure that all complaints were consistently entered into VHA's Patient Advocate Tracking System (PATS). However, GAO identified inconsistencies in the extent to which VAMC officials did so. VHA's lack of monitoring may pose a risk that not all complaints are entered into this tracking system—a goal of the program. Additionally, VHA officials stated they did not systemically review data in the system to assess program performance and identify potential system-wide improvements because VHA considered this the responsibility of VAMCs. As a result, VHA officials may miss opportunities to improve veterans' experiences.
VHA is beginning to address many of these governance, staffing, training, and data issues, including directing a workgroup to provide recommendations by spring of 2018. However, because the recommendations will be advisory, and because program deadlines have slipped in the past, the nature and timing of the actions needed to resolve these issues remain unclear.

What GAO Recommends

GAO is making 6 recommendations to improve guidance for and oversight of the patient advocacy program, focusing on governance, staffing, training, and PATS data entry and assessment. VA concurred with GAO's recommendations.


Question:
Why GAO Did This Study

Following Hurricane Katrina, Congress required FEMA to establish advance contracts for goods and services to enable the government to quickly and effectively mobilize resources in the aftermath of a disaster, like those that affected the United States in 2017.
GAO was asked to review the federal government's response to the three 2017 hurricanes and California wildfires. This report assesses, among other things, (1) FEMA and USACE's use of advance contracts, (2) FEMA's planning and reporting of selected advance contracts, and (3) challenges, if any, with FEMA's use of these contracts.
GAO analyzed data from the Federal Procurement Data System-Next Generation through May 31, 2018; selected a non-generalizable sample of 14 FEMA and USACE advance contracts that were competed and obligated over $50 million, or non-competed and obligated over $10 million, in response to the 2017 disasters; and interviewed FEMA and USACE officials.

What GAO Found

In response to Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria, as well as the 2017 California wildfires, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) relied heavily on advance contracts. As of May 31, 2018, FEMA and USACE obligated about $4.5 billion for various goods and services through these contracts, see figure below.
GAO found limitations in FEMA's use of some advance contracts that provided critical goods and services to survivors, including
an outdated strategy and unclear guidance on how contracting officers should use advance contracts during a disaster, and
challenges performing acquisition planning.
FEMA also did not always provide complete information in its reports to congressional committees. Specifically, GAO found 29 advance contract actions that were not included in recent reports due to shortcomings in FEMA's reporting methodology, limiting visibility into its disaster contract spending.
FEMA identified challenges with advance contracts in 2017, including federal coordination with states and localities on their use. FEMA is required to coordinate with states and localities and encourage them to establish their own advance contracts with vendors. However, GAO found inconsistencies in that coordination and the information FEMA uses to coordinate with states and localities on advance contracts. Without consistent information and coordination with FEMA, states and localities may not have the tools needed to establish their own advance contracts for critical goods and services and quickly respond to future disasters.

What GAO Recommends

GAO is making nine recommendations to FEMA, including that it update its strategy and guidance to clarify the use of advance contracts, improve the timeliness of its acquisition planning activities, revise its methodology for reporting disaster contracting actions to congressional committees, and provide more consistent guidance and information to contracting officers to coordinate with and encourage states and localities to establish advance contracts. FEMA concurred with our recommendations.


Question:
Why GAO Did This Study

The Forest Service, an agency within USDA, performs a variety of tasks as steward of 193 million acres of public forests and grasslands. Its budget execution process for carrying out its mission includes (1) allotments, which are authorizations by an agency to incur obligations within a specified amount, and (2) unliquidated obligations, which represent budgetary resources that have been committed but not yet paid. Deobligation refers to an agency's cancellation or downward adjustments of previously incurred obligations, which may result in funds that may be available for reobligation.
GAO was asked to review the Forest Service's internal controls over its budget execution processes. This report examines the extent to which the Forest Service properly designed control activities over (1) allotments of budgetary resources, its system for administrative control of funds, and any fund transfers between Forest Service appropriations; (2) reimbursables and related collections; and (3) review and certification of unliquidated obligations.
GAO reviewed the Forest Service's policies, procedures, and other documentation and interviewed agency officials.

What GAO Found

In fiscal years 2015 and 2016, the Forest Service received discretionary no-year appropriations of $5.1 billion and $5.7 billion, respectively. It is critical for the Forest Service to manage its budgetary resources efficiently and effectively. While the Forest Service had processes over certain of its budget execution activities, GAO found the following internal control deficiencies:
Budgetary resources . The purpose statute requires that amounts designated in appropriations acts for specific purposes are used as designated. The Forest Service did not have an adequate process and related control activities to reasonably assure that amounts were used as designated. In fiscal year 2017, GAO issued a legal opinion that the Forest Service had failed to comply with the purpose statute with regard to a $65 million line-item appropriation specifically provided for the purpose of acquiring aircraft for the next-generation airtanker fleet. Further, the Forest Service lacked a process and related control activities to reasonably assure that unobligated no-year appropriation balances from prior years were reviewed for their continuing need; did not have a properly designed system for administrative control of funds, which keeps obligations and expenditures from exceeding limits authorized by law; and had not properly designed control activities for fund transfers to its Wildland Fire Management program. These deficiencies increase the risk that the Forest Service may make budget requests in excess of its needs.
Reimbursable agreements . To carry out its mission, the Forest Service enters into reimbursable agreements with agencies within the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), other federal agencies, state and local government agencies, and nongovernment entities. The Forest Service (1) did not have adequately described processes and related control activities in manuals and handbooks for its reimbursable agreement processes and (2) lacked control activities related to segregating incompatible duties performed by line officers and program managers. For example, line officers may be responsible for initiating cost sharing agreements, modifying cost settlement packages, and changing or canceling the related receivable, which represent incompatible duties. As a result, programs and resources may not be protected from waste, fraud, and mismanagement.
Unliquidated obligations . The Forest Service's processes and control activities over the review and certification of unliquidated obligations were not properly designed to reasonably assure the best use of funds and that unliquidated obligations would be efficiently and effectively deobligated and made available for other program needs. Further, the current process, as designed, was inconsistent with USDA and Forest Service policy.
In addition, the Forest Service's manuals and handbooks, which provide directives for the areas that GAO reviewed, had not been reviewed by management in accordance with the Forest Service's 5-year review policy. Further, standard operating procedures and desk guides prepared by staff to supplement the manuals and handbooks were not issued as directives and therefore were not considered official policy. This increases the risk that control activities may not be consistently performed across the agency.

What GAO Recommends

GAO is making 11 recommendations to improve processes and related internal control activities over the management of the Forest Service's budgetary resources, reimbursable receivables and collections, and its process for reviewing unliquidated obligations. The Forest Service generally agreed with the report and stated that it has made significant progress to address the report findings.


Question:
Why GAO Did This Study

Medicare paid $7.1 billion for 433 million laboratory tests in 2017. These tests help health care providers prevent, diagnose, and treat diseases.
PAMA included a provision for GAO to review CMS's implementation of new payment rates for these tests. This report addresses, among other objectives, (1) how CMS developed the new payment rates; (2) challenges CMS faced in setting accurate payment rates and what factors may have mitigated these challenges; and (3) the potential effect of the new payment rates on Medicare expenditures. GAO analyzed 2016 Medicare claims data (the most recent data available when GAO started its work and the year on which new payment rates were based) and private-payer data CMS collected. GAO also interviewed CMS and industry officials.

What GAO Found

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) revised the Clinical Laboratory Fee Schedule (CLFS) for 2018, establishing new Medicare payment rates for laboratory services. Prior to 2018, these rates were based on historical laboratory fees and were typically higher than the rates paid by private payers. The Protecting Access to Medicare Act of 2014 (PAMA) required CMS to develop a national fee schedule for laboratory tests based on private-payer data. To revise the rates, CMS collected data on private-payer rates from approximately 2,000 laboratories and calculated median payment rates, weighted by volume. GAO found that the median private-payer rates were lower than Medicare's maximum payment rates in 2017 for 88 percent of tests. CMS is gradually phasing in reductions to Medicare payment rates, limited annually at 10 percent over a 3-year period (2018 through 2020), as outlined in PAMA.
CMS relied on laboratories to determine whether they met data reporting requirements, but agency officials told GAO that CMS did not receive data from all laboratories required to report. CMS did not estimate the amount of data it should have received from laboratories that were required to report but did not. CMS took steps to exclude inaccurate private-payer data and estimated how collecting certain types and amounts of additional private-payer data could affect Medicare expenditures. However, it is not known whether CMS's estimates reflect the actual risk of incomplete data resulting in inaccurate Medicare payment rates. GAO found that PAMA's phased in reductions to new Medicare payment rates likely mitigated this risk of inaccurate Medicare payment rates from 2018 through 2020. However, GAO found that collecting incomplete data could have a larger effect on the accuracy of Medicare payment rates in future years when PAMA allows for greater payment-rate reductions.
CMS's implementation of the new payment rates could lead Medicare to pay billions of dollars more than is necessary and result in CLFS expenditures increasing from what Medicare paid prior to 2018 for two reasons. First, CMS used the maximum Medicare payment rates in 2017 as a baseline to start the phase in of payment-rate reductions instead of using actual Medicare payment rates. This resulted in excess payments for some laboratory tests and, in some cases, higher payment rates than those Medicare previously paid, on average. GAO estimated that Medicare expenditures from 2018 through 2020 may be $733 million more than if CMS had phased in payment-rate reductions based on the average payment rates in 2016. Second, CMS stopped paying a bundled payment rate for certain panel tests (groups of laboratory tests generally performed together), as was its practice prior to 2018, because CMS had not yet clarified its authority to do so under PAMA, according to officials. CMS is currently reviewing whether it has the authority to bundle payment rates for panel tests to reflect the efficiency of conducting a group of tests. GAO estimated that if the payment rate for each panel test were unbundled, Medicare expenditures could increase by as much as $10.3 billion from 2018 through 2020 compared to estimated Medicare expenditures using lower bundled payment rates for panel tests.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that the Administrator of CMS (1) collect complete private-payer data from all laboratories required to report or address the estimated effects of incomplete data, (2) phase in payment-rate reductions that start from the actual payment rates rather than the maximum payment rates Medicare paid prior to 2018, and (3) use bundled rates for panel tests. HHS concurred with GAO's first recommendation, neither agreed nor disagreed with the other two, and has since issued guidance to help address the third. GAO believes CMS should fully address these recommendations to prevent Medicare from paying more than is necessary.


Question:
Why GAO Did This Study

Using sunscreen as directed with other sun protective measures may help reduce the risk of skin cancer—the most common form of cancer in the United States. In the United States, sunscreen is considered an over-the-counter drug, which is a drug available to consumers without a prescription. Some sunscreen active ingredients not currently marketed in the United States have been available in products in other countries for more than a decade. Companies that manufacture some of these ingredients have sought to market them in the United States by applying to add the ingredients to the sunscreen monograph, which lists ingredients that can be used in sunscreens without FDA's premarket approval. FDA reviews the applications and corresponding safety and effectiveness data for the ingredients.
The Sunscreen Innovation Act includes a provision for GAO to examine FDA's implementation of the act. This report examines (1) the extent to which FDA implemented requirements for reviewing applications for sunscreen active ingredients within mandated time frames, and (2) the status of the sunscreen applications. GAO reviewed FDA regulations and guidance documents, Federal Register notices, and FDA and sponsor documents for all eight sunscreen applications. GAO also interviewed FDA officials; sponsors of sunscreen applications; and stakeholders with interests in sunscreen, including health care providers, researchers, and industry groups. Stakeholders were selected based on knowledge of the monograph process and sunscreen active ingredients. The perspectives of these stakeholders are not generalizable.

What GAO Found

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), within the Department of Health and Human Services, implemented requirements for reviewing applications for sunscreen active ingredients within time frames set by the Sunscreen Innovation Act, which was enacted in November 2014. For example, the agency issued a guidance document on safety and effectiveness testing in November 2016.
As of August 2017, all applications for sunscreen active ingredients remain pending after the agency determined more safety and effectiveness data are needed. By February 2015, FDA completed its initial review of the safety and effectiveness data for each of the eight pending applications, as required by the act. FDA concluded that additional data are needed to determine that the ingredients are generally recognized as safe and effective (GRASE), which is needed so that products using the ingredients can subsequently be marketed in the United States without FDA's premarket approval. To make a GRASE determination, FDA requested that the application sponsors provide additional data, including human clinical studies, animal studies, and efficacy studies.
Sponsors of some of the sunscreen applications and some stakeholders GAO interviewed questioned FDA's requests, stating, for example, that the agency's recommended absorption test has never been conducted on sunscreen ingredients and there is a lack of knowledge on how to conduct it. At the same time, other stakeholders support the additional testing FDA requested. FDA reports that the increase in the amount and frequency of sunscreen usage, coupled with advances in scientific understanding and safety evaluation methods, has informed the agency's perspective that it needs additional data to determine that sunscreen active ingredients are GRASE. However, none of the sponsors reported current plans to provide the requested information—that is, they are either still considering whether to conduct the additional tests or they do not plan to do so. They cited the following reasons:
Return on investment. The testing FDA requested is extensive, would cost millions of dollars, or take several years to conduct, according to sponsor representatives. Some stakeholders and sponsor representatives said that sponsors are currently working to develop newer sunscreen ingredients and are therefore reluctant to invest in the testing FDA requested for the older ingredients covered by the pending applications.
Alternatives not accepted. Some sponsor representatives and stakeholders said that when they proposed alternative testing methods for absorption, for example, the agency rejected the alternatives.
Animal testing. One stakeholder and some sponsor representatives reported concerns about the effect that the animal testing requested by FDA may have on companies' marketing of sunscreen products worldwide. Additionally, one stakeholder and representatives from one sponsor expressed concern that sunscreen manufacturers may face backlash from animal rights groups and shareholders if animal testing is conducted.
The Department of Health and Human Services provided technical comments on a draft of this report, which GAO incorporated as appropriate.


Question:
Why GAO Did This Study

Wildlife trafficking—the poaching and illegal trade of plants, fish, and wildlife—is a multibillion-dollar, global criminal activity that imperils thousands of species. FWS and NOAA enforce laws prohibiting wildlife trafficking that authorize the agencies to pay financial rewards for information about such illegal activities.
GAO was asked to review FWS's and NOAA's use of financial rewards to combat wildlife trafficking. This report examines (1) laws that authorize FWS and NOAA to pay rewards for information on wildlife trafficking and the extent to which the agencies paid such rewards from fiscal years 2007 through 2017, (2) the agencies' reward policies, (3) information available to the public on rewards, and (4) the extent to which the agencies reviewed the effectiveness of their use of rewards.
GAO reviewed laws, examined FWS and NOAA policies and public communications on rewards, analyzed agency reward data for fiscal years 2007 through 2017 and assessed their reliability, interviewed FWS and NOAA officials, and compared agency policies and public communications on rewards to federal internal control standards.

What GAO Found

Multiple laws—such as the Endangered Species Act and Lacey Act—authorize the Departments of the Interior's U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and Commerce's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to pay rewards for information on wildlife trafficking. FWS and NOAA reported paying few rewards from fiscal years 2007 through 2017. Specifically, the agencies collectively reported paying 27 rewards, totaling $205,500. Agency officials said that the information was complete to the best of their knowledge but could not sufficiently assure that this information represented all of their reward payments.
FWS and NOAA have reward policies that outline the general process for preparing reward proposals, but FWS's policy does not specify factors for its agents to consider when developing proposed reward amounts. Some FWS agents GAO interviewed said that in developing proposals, they did not know whether their proposed reward amounts were enough, too little, or too much. By augmenting its policy to specify factors for agents to consider, FWS can better ensure that its agents have the necessary quality information to prepare proposed reward amounts, consistent with federal internal control standards.
FWS and NOAA communicate little information to the public on rewards. For example, most agency websites did not indicate that providing information on wildlife trafficking could qualify for a reward. This is inconsistent with federal standards that call for management to communicate quality information so that external parties can help achieve agency objectives. FWS and NOAA officials said they have not communicated general reward information because of workload concerns, but they said it may be reasonable to provide more information in some instances. By developing plans to communicate more reward information to the public, the agencies can improve their chances of obtaining information on wildlife trafficking that they otherwise might not receive.
FWS and NOAA have not reviewed the effectiveness of their use of rewards. The agencies have not done so because using rewards has generally not been a priority. FWS and NOAA officials agreed that such a review would be worthwhile but provided no plans for doing so. By reviewing the effectiveness of their use of rewards, FWS and NOAA can identify opportunities to improve the usefulness of rewards as a tool for combating wildlife trafficking.

What GAO Recommends

GAO is making seven recommendations, including that FWS and NOAA track reward information, FWS augment its reward policy to specify factors for agents to consider when developing proposed reward amounts, FWS and NOAA develop plans to communicate more reward information to the public, and FWS and NOAA review the effectiveness of their reward use. Both agencies concurred with these recommendations.


Question:
Why GAO Did This Study

RRB collects payroll taxes and administers retirement, disability, and Medicare benefits for rail workers and their families. A financial interchange exists between RRB, SSA, and HHS in order to put the trust funds for these benefits in the same financial position as if Social Security covered rail workers. RRB generally transfers to the Social Security and Hospital Insurance trust funds the taxes that would be collected from rail workers and employers, while SSA provides RRB the benefits that would otherwise be paid directly to rail workers. GAO was asked to review the financial interchange calculation process.
This report examines (1) the steps taken to calculate financial interchange amounts, (2) factors that could account for trends in transfers over time, and (3) the extent to which RRB, SSA, and HHS provide oversight to ensure calculations are accurate. GAO reviewed agency policies, procedures, and regulations; observed RRB staff calculating four cases selected for beneficiary type; reviewed data on payment and beneficiary trends; and interviewed agency officials.

What GAO Found

Established in 1937, the Railroad Retirement Board (RRB) administers retirement and disability benefits for rail workers and their families. A financial interchange between RRB and the Social Security Administration (SSA) was created in 1951, which as GAO previously reported, helped finance RRB benefits as they increased over time to keep pace with growing Social Security benefits to individuals. Through its financial interchange calculation, RRB takes steps each year to estimate the amount of funds that would have flowed in and out of Social Security's trust funds if rail beneficiaries were covered by Social Security instead of RRB. Five key steps go into the annual calculation:
RRB is credited for (1) the estimated amount of benefits it would have paid to beneficiaries under SSA rules, (2) administrative costs, and (3) interest accrued on the financial interchange amount.
SSA is credited for the revenues it would have received from rail workers if they paid into Social Security; specifically, (4) payroll taxes and (5) income taxes paid on benefits received.
The determined net amounts are transferred between the agencies, which since 1958 have been from SSA to RRB each year. RRB received $4.1 billion in fiscal year 2016, almost one-third of the $12.4 billion in retirement and disability benefits it paid that year. The financial interchange was expanded to Medicare in 1965 to facilitate funding of Medicare benefits to rail workers; RRB transfers Medicare payroll taxes collected, income taxes paid on benefits received, and interest, minus administrative costs to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
A high ratio of beneficiaries to active railroad workers primarily explains the net transfers from Social Security's trust funds to RRB each year since 1958. Rail employment has fallen steadily since World War II, and the number of beneficiaries has exceeded the number of workers since 1961. RRB had 2.7 beneficiaries for every worker in 2015. As a result, RRB has paid out more in benefits than it has collected in payroll taxes and projects this to continue for the foreseeable future.
RRB takes a number of steps each year to ensure the accuracy of its calculations, such as checking that the sample of cases used to estimate benefit payments is complete, reviewing the work of new employees, and using electronic alerts to help prevent staff from entering incorrect information into its computer system. SSA and HHS also conduct high-level reviews of the calculation results to identify any significant changes from one year to the next. However, RRB's process includes manual data entry and its electronic edit checks cannot flag entries that are incorrect but plausible, which could lead to calculation errors. RRB also has limited documentation of its calculation process, and does not have formal policies on how staff should address some potential calculation errors and on how supervisors should review staff work. This is contrary to internal control standards for having quality data and documenting procedures. In terms of SSA and HHS, they do not currently review case-level calculations made by RRB, and cannot reasonably ensure that work used to determine the transfers they made and received is correct.

What GAO Recommends

GAO makes eight recommendations, including that RRB create formal policies and improve documentation of its processes, work with SSA to obtain data electronically, and that SSA and HHS increase their oversight. RRB and SSA agreed, while HHS did not, asserting that statute limits its authority; however, HHS continues to review this issue. HHS should seek this authority if it determines it necessary.


Question:
Why GAO Did This Study

The MOX project, located at DOE's Savannah River Site in South Carolina and overseen by NNSA, experienced significant cost increases and schedule delays following the start of construction in 2007. After spending nearly $6 billion, NNSA terminated the project in October 2018. While DOE and NNSA have made some recent progress, they have historically struggled to complete, within their original cost and schedule estimates, other major construction projects intended to help maintain the nuclear security complex.
GAO was asked to review issues related to oversight of the MOX project. This report examines (1) when NNSA's project management oversight processes recognized cost and schedule problems at the MOX project and the actions the agency took to address them and (2) the extent to which DOE requires that project management lessons learned from MOX and other projects be documented and shared. GAO reviewed agency documents, visited the MOX project, and interviewed DOE and NNSA officials and representatives of the MOX contractor.

What GAO Found

The Department of Energy's (DOE) National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) has strengthened its oversight of the Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility (MOX) project since 2011 and, as a result, began recognizing cost and schedule problems. The project, begun in 1997, was intended to dispose of large quantities of weapons-grade plutonium no longer required for national security. Prior to 2011, NNSA's project staff failed to recognize signs that the project would not be completed on time or within its approved cost. An independently conducted analysis, prepared in 2014 in response to a GAO recommendation, determined that NNSA staff did not recognize early problems because they were inexperienced in project management. To strengthen oversight, NNSA in late 2010 and 2011 began actions, such as conducting additional reviews and transferring oversight of the project to a newly established office specializing in project management. NNSA continued to identify the contractor's performance problems, such as the lack of credible, reliable cost and schedule data. These continued problems contributed to NNSA's decision to terminate the project.
DOE requires that project staff document and share project management lessons learned on capital asset projects like the MOX project, but not all lessons are to be documented consistently or shared in a timely manner. GAO found that DOE's and NNSA's offices document project management lessons learned differently and that not all of the documented lessons learned are readily accessible to other staff. Additionally, GAO found that DOE does not require that project staff share lessons learned for capital asset projects until the start of construction, which can occur many years after the start of the project. Under key practices, such lessons should be stored in a logical, organized manner, be easily retrievable, and be submitted in a timely manner (see fig.). By developing requirements that clearly define how and where project management lessons learned should be documented and requiring that the lessons be shared in a timely manner, DOE could improve its lessons-learned process and help improve the success of future capital asset projects. Also, for capital asset projects, DOE does not require the evaluation of the results of all corrective actions to respond to lessons learned to ensure that problems are resolved, consistent with key practices. By developing requirements to evaluate the effectiveness of corrective actions, DOE could better verify whether the actions had the intended outcome.

What GAO Recommends

GAO is making three recommendations, including that DOE and NNSA develop requirements for defining how and where project management lessons learned for capital asset projects should be documented and shared routinely and in a timely manner, and for evaluating the effectiveness of corrective actions taken in response to lessons learned. DOE agreed with GAO's recommendations.


Question:
Why GAO Did This Study

The San Francisco Bay Delta watershed—which drains a vast area of California from the Sierra Nevada Mountains to the Pacific Ocean—supplies drinking water for 25 million people and provides irrigation for about half the nation's fruit and vegetable production. Decades of development and agriculture have led to large reductions in water quality and supply, natural flood protection, and habitats across the watershed's three major regions: the Bay, the Delta, and the upper watershed. Federal entities have been working with nonfederal entities for decades to protect and restore the watershed. GAO was asked to review restoration efforts in the watershed.
This report examines, among other objectives, (1) the extent to which federal and nonfederal entities coordinate watershed restoration efforts and (2) information on the status of these efforts and related expenditures for fiscal years 2007 through 2016, the most recent data available. GAO reviewed laws; regional databases, plans, and reports; and budget documents. It also surveyed the 72 members of interagency groups (48 responded) and interviewed federal and nonfederal officials.

What GAO Found

Federal entities, including the Department of the Interior, and nonfederal entities, such as California state agencies and nonprofits, carry out and coordinate a wide range of restoration efforts in the San Francisco Bay Delta watershed. These efforts have multiple benefits, such as improved water quality and habitat in restored marshland (see fig. below). The entities coordinate comprehensive efforts in the San Francisco Bay area (Bay) and Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (Delta) through two groups. Federal efforts across the watershed are to be led and coordinated by Interior and the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) through a 2009 Interim Federal Action Plan, but not all federal entities are using the plan. Interior officials said the plan is no longer relevant because state and federal roles have changed. For example, they said a state-led committee acts as the coordinating body for federal entities; however, this committee focuses on one region of the watershed, while federal funding supports efforts in all three regions. By updating or revising the Interim Action Plan, Interior and CEQ could help clarify federal roles in supporting restoration efforts in the watershed.
Information on the status of all restoration efforts across the watershed, including their accomplishments, is unknown because information is not being fully collected or reported. Also, related expenditures for fiscal years 2007 through 2016 are unknown, in part because federal reports do not include complete or reliable data for restoration efforts in the watershed. The 2004 CALFED Bay-Delta Authorization Act requires Interior and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to report annually to Congress on restoration accomplishments and federal and state expenditures in the watershed, respectively. Interior has not issued these reports since 2009, when the state agency from which Interior had obtained the state data was abolished. OMB has issued its reports with federal, but not state, data for the same reason. However, Interior and OMB have not reached out to other state entities for this information. Without obtaining and reporting available information, as required by law, Interior and OMB will not have reasonable assurance that they are providing Congress with the information needed to monitor federal and nonfederal restoration efforts and expenditures.

What GAO Recommends

GAO made seven recommendations, including that Interior and CEQ update or revise the Interim Federal Action Plan and that Interior and OMB coordinate with the state to meet the CALFED Act's reporting requirements. Interior partially concurred with the recommendations, and CEQ and OMB neither agreed nor disagreed with them. GAO maintains its recommendations are valid.


Question:
Why GAO Did This Study

FOIA requires federal agencies to provide the public with access to government records and information based on the principles of openness and accountability in government. Each year, individuals and entities file hundreds of thousands of FOIA requests for information on numerous topics that contribute to the understanding of government actions. In the last 9 fiscal years, federal agencies subject to FOIA have received about 6 million requests.
GAO was asked to summarize its draft report on federal agencies' compliance with FOIA requirements. GAO's objectives, among others, were to (1) determine the extent to which agencies have implemented selected FOIA requirements; (2) describe the methods established by agencies to reduce backlogged requests and the effectiveness of those methods; and (3) identify any statutory exemptions that have been used by agencies as the basis for withholding (redacting) information from requesters.
To do so, GAO selected 18 agencies based on their size and other factors and assessed their policies against six FOIA requirements. GAO also reviewed the agencies' backlog reduction plans and developed a catalog of statutes that agencies have used to withhold information.

What GAO Found

In its draft report, GAO determined that all 18 selected agencies had implemented three of six Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requirements reviewed. Specifically, all agencies had updated response letters to inform requesters of the right to seek assistance from FOIA public liaisons, implemented request tracking systems, and provided training to FOIA personnel. For the three additional requirements, 15 agencies had provided online access to government information, such as frequently requested records, 12 agencies had designated chief FOIA officers, and 5 agencies had published and updated their FOIA regulations to inform the public of their operations. Until these agencies address all of the requirements, they increase the risk that the public will lack information that ensures transparency and accountability in government operations.
The 18 selected agencies had backlogs of varying sizes, with 4 agencies having backlogs of 1,000 or more requests during fiscal years 2012 through 2016. These 4 agencies reported using best practices identified by the Department of Justice, such as routinely reviewing metrics, as well as other methods, to help reduce their backlogs. Nevertheless, these agencies' backlogs fluctuated over the 5-year period (see figure). The 4 agencies with the largest backlogs attributed challenges in reducing their backlogs to factors such as increases in the number and complexity of FOIA requests. However, these agencies lacked plans that described how they intend to implement best practices to reduce backlogs. Until agencies develop such plans, they will likely continue to struggle to reduce backlogs to a manageable level.
Agencies used various types of statutory exemptions to withhold information when processing FOIA requests during fiscal years 2010 to 2016. The majority of these fell into the following categories: personally identifiable information, national security, law enforcement and investigations, and confidential and commercial business information.

What GAO Recommends

GAO's draft report contains recommendations to selected agencies to post records online, designate chief FOIA officers, update regulations consistent with requirements, and develop plans to reduce backlogs.


Question:
Why GAO Did This Study

Long Island Sound, an estuary bordered by Connecticut and New York, provides numerous economic and recreational benefits. However, development and pollution have resulted in environmental impacts, such as the degradation of water quality. EPA partnered with both states to create the Study to restore and protect the Sound. The Study developed a comprehensive conservation and management plan in 1994 and updated the plan in 2015.
GAO was asked to examine federal efforts to restore the Sound. This report examines, among other objectives, (1) what is known about the progress made toward achieving the 1994 plan, (2) how Study members plan to measure and report on progress toward achieving the 2015 plan, and (3) estimated costs of the restoration. GAO reviewed Study plans, reports, and data. GAO also interviewed 12 Study members—including federal and state agency officials—and representatives of 5 Study work groups about restoration efforts and progress made.

What GAO Found

The Long Island Sound Study (the Study) is a federal-state partnership formed in 1985 to restore Long Island Sound. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and officials from Connecticut and New York provide oversight for the Study, which includes federal and state agencies, nonprofit organizations, and other groups. GAO found the following:
Progress toward 1994 Plan. The Study established an initial plan for the Sound in 1994 and has collected data on certain indicators of the Sound's health and published progress reports on its website. However, the Study has not comprehensively assessed progress against the 1994 plan. In the absence of such an assessment, GAO interviewed Study members who generally agreed that moderate progress has been made in achieving goals for five of the six problem areas in the 1994 plan. Without a comprehensive assessment, it is not possible to determine the extent these views reflect actual progress.
Reporting Progress for the 2015 Plan. The Study's 2015 management plan identifies 20 long-term targets and associated numerical indicators that will be used to measure future progress. The Study has also updated the format for pages on its website to provide more consistent progress reports for these targets. However, the reports do not yet fully incorporate leading practices for performance reporting that GAO has previously identified. For example, they do not include evaluations of goals that are not met for 15 targets. By ensuring that leading practices are fully incorporated into the Study's performance reporting efforts, EPA can help the Study better assess and report on future progress.
Estimating Costs of Restoration. The Study has estimated that the future costs of restoration will be at least $18.9 billion through 2035. However, the current estimates are understated because they do not include the costs of all activities that will be needed to accomplish the 2015 plan, and they do not reflect the uncertainty associated with some of the costs. By capturing the full costs and uncertainties in cost estimates, the Study can provide decision makers critical information needed to allocate resources effectively.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that EPA work with the Study to ensure that it fully incorporates leading practices into its performance reporting efforts and that its cost estimates include the full range of activities as well as those for which there is uncertainty. EPA agreed with GAO's recommendations and highlighted steps the agency will take to meet the recommendations.


Question:
Why GAO Did This Study

FMD is a highly contagious viral disease that causes painful lesions on the hooves and mouths of some livestock, making it difficult for them to stand or eat, thus greatly reducing meat and milk production. The United States has not had an FMD outbreak since 1929, but FMD is present in much of the world. An FMD outbreak in the United States could have serious economic impacts, in part because trade partners would likely halt all imports of U.S. livestock and livestock products until the disease was eradicated. These imports were valued at more than $19 billion in 2017.
GAO was asked to review USDA's efforts to prepare for an FMD outbreak. This report examines (1) USDA's planned approach for responding to an FMD outbreak; (2) challenges USDA would face in pursuing its response goals; and (3) how USDA identifies, prioritizes, and monitors corrective actions to mitigate the challenges. GAO observed a USDA FMD preparedness exercise; reviewed agency documents and nongeneralizable questionnaire responses from 29 respondents from federal and state government, livestock industries, and universities; and interviewed officials from federal and state governments and representatives of livestock industries and universities.

What GAO Found

The U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) planned approach for responding to an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) includes several strategies. These strategies generally rely on killing infected and susceptible animals, vaccinating uninfected animals, or a combination of both approaches. USDA would implement one or more of the strategies, depending on factors such as the outbreak's size and the resources available, according to agency documents.
USDA would likely face significant challenges in pursuing its response goals of detecting, controlling, and containing FMD quickly; eradicating FMD while seeking to stabilize industry and the economy; and facilitating continuity of commerce in uninfected animals. GAO identified challenges in 11 areas—including allocating a limited supply of FMD vaccine—based on its review of USDA documents, responses to GAO's questionnaire, and interviews with agency officials and others with expertise on FMD. According to USDA, the agency may not have a sufficient supply of FMD vaccine to control more than a small outbreak because of limited resources to obtain vaccine. As shown below, the current vaccine supply would be sufficient to protect about 14 percent of Texas's cattle or about 4 percent of Iowa's swine; these states' cattle and swine populations are the nation's largest. The Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 includes a provision to increase the FMD vaccine supply.
USDA has identified dozens of corrective actions to mitigate the challenges of responding to an FMD outbreak, as called for in USDA procedures, but has not prioritized these corrective actions or monitored their completion, as also called for in its procedures. USDA has identified the corrective actions through exercises simulating FMD outbreaks, surveys, and lessons learned from other foreign animal disease outbreaks. However, USDA has not completed all of the corrective actions, including actions related to vaccination. Agency officials stated that they have not completed such corrective actions because they have been responding to outbreaks of other animal diseases and have limited resources. Without following agency procedures to prioritize and monitor corrective actions, USDA cannot ensure that it is allocating its resources to the most beneficial actions to prepare for a possible FMD outbreak.

What GAO Recommends

GAO is recommending that USDA follow its procedures to prioritize and monitor the completion of corrective actions that the agency has identified for FMD preparedness. USDA agreed with these recommendations, and described actions it will take to implement them.


Question:
Why GAO Did This Study

Foreign acquisitions of U.S. companies can pose challenges for the U.S. government as it balances the economic benefits of foreign direct investment with the need to protect national security. CFIUS is an interagency group, led by Treasury, that reviews certain transactions—foreign acquisitions or mergers of U.S. businesses—to determine their effect on U.S. national security and whether the transaction may proceed.
GAO was asked to review DOD's ability, as a member of CFIUS, to address defense issues. This report assesses factors, if any, that affect DOD's ability to identify and address national security concerns through the CFIUS process, among other objectives. GAO analyzed data on DOD co-led transactions from January 2012 through December 2017, the most recent data available. GAO also interviewed DOD and Treasury officials and reviewed documentation to identify DOD's CFIUS processes, resources, and responsibilities and selected a non-generalizable sample of nine DOD component reviewers, based on their participation in the CFIUS process.

What GAO Found

The Department of Defense (DOD) faces challenges identifying and addressing evolving national security concerns posed by some foreign investments in the United States.
Resources: DOD's Office of Manufacturing and Industrial Base Policy represents the department and coordinates DOD's participation on the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS). As a committee member, DOD co-leads CFIUS's review and investigation of transactions between foreign acquirers and U.S. businesses where it has expertise. DOD co-led 99 transactions in calendar year 2017, or 57 percent more transactions than it co-led in 2012, while the annual authorized positions increased from 12 to 17 during that same time period. DOD's workload has also been affected by the volume and complexity of the transactions it is responsible for co-leading, in addition to other CFIUS responsibilities, such as identifying transactions that foreign acquirers do not voluntarily file with CFIUS. DOD has taken some steps to address its resource limitations, but has not fully assessed the department-wide resources needed to address its growing workload.
Emerging Technology and Proximity: DOD officials identified some investments that pose national security concerns from foreign acquirers gaining access to emerging technologies or being in close proximity to critical military locations, which, according to officials, cannot always be addressed through CFIUS because the investments would not result in foreign control of a U.S. business. DOD and Department of the Treasury (Treasury) officials said addressing these investments may require legislative action. DOD is taking steps to identify critical emerging technologies and military locations that should be protected from foreign investment. However, DOD has not fully assessed risks from these types of foreign investment or what additional authorities, if any, may be necessary for it to address them.
Policy: DOD's CFIUS Instruction does not clearly identify some reviewer responsibilities or processes for identifying transactions that foreign acquirers do not voluntarily file with CFIUS. The policy is also outdated and inconsistent with current practices.
DOD's CFIUS Instruction and federal internal control standards emphasize the importance of assessing organizational structures, policies, and procedures to respond to risks. Without assessing resources needed to address its CFIUS workload and risks from foreign investment in emerging technologies or in proximity to critical military locations, and ensuring its policies and processes clearly reflect the issues facing the department, DOD is at risk of being unable to respond to evolving national security concerns.
This is a public version of a sensitive report that GAO issued in April 2018. Information that DOD and Treasury deemed sensitive has been omitted.

What GAO Recommends

GAO is making eight recommendations, including that DOD assess resources needed to address workload, assess risks from foreign investment in emerging technologies and in close proximity to critical military locations, and update its policies and processes to better reflect the evolving national security concerns facing the department. DOD and Treasury agreed with GAO's recommendations, and have identified some actions to address them.


Question:
Why GAO Did This Study

Under the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, as amended, federal judges and certain judicial employees must file financial disclosure reports that can be made available to the public. Federal law accounts for the potential security risks of the judiciary and authorizes the redaction of information from judicial officials' reports if the Judicial Conference, in consultation with the United States Marshals Service (USMS), finds that revealing certain information could endanger judicial officials or members of their families.
This report addresses the following for calendar years 2012 through 2016, the most recent years for which full data were available: (1) Actions taken by the Judicial Conference to ensure judicial officials file financial disclosure reports, and the number of reports filed; (2) The judiciary's compliance with procedures for responding to requests for financial disclosure reports and the number of reports released; and (3) The number of redaction requests made, the types of information requested to be redacted, and the judiciary's consistency in reporting results to Congress in a timely manner.
GAO interviewed AOUSC and USMS officials, reviewed relevant laws and guidance, and analyzed data on redaction requests.

What GAO Found

The Judicial Conference, the federal judiciary's principle policy-making body, developed an electronic filing system, guidance, and a compliance process to help ensure judicial officials file financial disclosure reports that adhere to applicable laws and regulations, and data provided by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AOUSC) show that more than 4,000 reports were required to be filed annually from 2012 through 2016. According to AOUSC officials, as of March 2018, all financial disclosure reports required to be filed from 2012 through 2016 were filed, except for one in 2015 and one in 2016. AOUSC officials are working with the filers to ensure these reports will be filed.
The Judicial Conference established procedures for responding to requests for copies of financial disclosure reports, and the number of reports released has varied. From 2012 through 2016, AOUSC annually received, on average, about 70 requests for copies of judicial officials' reports and released approximately 16,000 reports during this time. Each request can vary—from a request for a single judicial official's report to a request for multiple judicial officials' reports.
From 2012 through 2016, a small percentage of judicial officials requested redactions from their financial disclosure reports. On average, 3.2 percent of financial disclosure reports filed included a redaction request and about 85 percent of those requests were granted. Of the information requested to be redacted, about 76 percent was related to the unsecured location of a judicial official's spouse, child, or residence. AOUSC is required by federal law to submit annual reports to Congress on use of the judicial redaction authority, such as the number of reports with redactions and types of information redacted, but AOUSC has not consistently submitted the reports on an annual basis in recent years. GAO found that AOUSC does not have a formal process for preparing and submitting the reports to Congress. Implementing a more formal process, with specified steps and timeframes, would better position AOUSC to provide Congress with more timely reports.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that AOUSC develop and implement a formal process, with steps and timeframes, to better ensure that required annual reports are submitted to Congress within the following year. AOUSC concurred with the recommendation.


Question:
Why GAO Did This Study

The Navy's Columbia class ballistic missile submarines will replace the 14 Ohio class that currently provide the sea-based leg of the U.S. nuclear triad, slated to begin retiring in 2027. The first Columbia must begin patrols in 2031 to prevent a gap in deterrent capabilities; the class will ultimately carry up to 70 percent of the nation's strategic nuclear capability. The program is a top Navy priority with an expected cost of $267 billion over its life cycle, including $128 billion to research, develop, and buy 12 submarines.
House Report 114-102 included a provision for GAO to examine the Columbia class program. Among other things, this review examines (1) the status of key Columbia class technologies; and (2) potential risks with the Navy's planned approach for design and construction.
GAO reviewed the Navy's technology readiness assessment, technology development plan, and the status of key prototyping efforts, and compared efforts with GAO's identified best practices for shipbuilding programs and technology readiness assessments. GAO also assessed the status of design maturity and the Navy's acquisition strategy and interviewed relevant officials.

What GAO Found

Additional development and testing are required to demonstrate the maturity of several Columbia class submarine technologies that are critical to performance, including the Integrated Power System, nuclear reactor, common missile compartment, and propulsor and related coordinated stern technologies (see figure). As a result, it is unknown at this point whether they will work as expected, be delayed, or cost more than planned. Any unexpected delays could postpone the deployment of the lead submarine past the 2031 deadline.
Further, the Navy underrepresented the program's technology risks in its 2015 Technology Readiness Assessment (TRA) when it did not identify these technologies as critical. Development of these technologies is key to meeting cost, schedule, and performance requirements. A reliable TRA serves as the basis for realistic discussions on how to mitigate risks as programs move forward from the early stages of technology development. Not identifying these technologies as critical means Congress may not have had the full picture of the technology risks and their potential effect on cost, schedule, and performance goals as increasing financial commitments were made. The Navy is not required to provide Congress with an update on the program's progress, including its technology development efforts, until fiscal year 2020—when $8.7 billion for lead ship construction will have already been authorized. Periodic reporting on technology development efforts in the interim could provide decision makers assurances about the remaining technical risks as the Navy asks for increasing levels of funding.
Consistent with GAO's identified best practices, the Navy intends to complete much of the submarine's overall design prior to starting construction to reduce the risk of cost and schedule growth. However, the Navy recently awarded a contract for detail design while critical technologies remain unproven—a practice not in line with best practices that has led to cost growth and schedule delays on other programs. Proceeding into detail design and construction with immature technologies can lead to design instability and cause construction delays. The Navy plans to accelerate construction of the lead submarine to compensate for an aggressive schedule, which may lead to future delays if the technologies are not fully mature before construction starts, planned for 2021.

What GAO Recommends

GAO had suggested a matter for congressional consideration related to additional reporting on the Columbia class technologies, but removed it because of recent legislation that implements this requirement. Department of Defense comments on the draft were incorporated as appropriate in this report.