A letter report issued by the Government Accountability Office with an abstract that begins "Indian tribes and tribally designated housing entities face both external and internal challenges in carrying out affordable housing activities under the Indian Housing Block Grant (IHBG) program, which was authorized by the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 (NAHASDA). The most commonly identified external challenges included the often remote location of tribal lands and lack of infrastructure such as running water and sewer systems. Meeting these challenges can significantly increase development costs. For example, one Arizona tribe saw its costs double because materials had to be brought in by helicopter. Tribes also identified differing federal agency requirements, particularly for environmental reviews, as a challenge that delayed projects and increased costs when IHBG and other funds were combined. Further, tribes were concerned that recent changes in federally authorized training and technical assistance could reduce their quality and frequency, in part because of the reduced role of a longstanding provider. The most commonly identified internal challenges were recipients' limited administrative capacity, conflicts within tribes that impact housing priorities and planning, and cultural preferences for certain types of housing. The Navajo Nation's housing entity, the largest …

A letter report issued by the Government Accountability Office with an abstract that begins "Of the approximately $608 million spent by the Department of Commerce's (Commerce) National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in fiscal years 2009 through 2013 on the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) program, NIST used most of the funds to directly support MEP centers. Specifically, NIST spent about $495 million on awards to centers and spent the rest on contracts, staff, agency-wide overhead charges, and other items, some of which NIST considered direct support and some of which NIST considered administrative spending. Although NIST is not required to track, and has not historically tracked, administrative spending, NIST officials told GAO the agency developed definitions of direct support and administrative spending in fiscal year 2013 in response to congressional interest, then conducted an analysis of fiscal year 2013 federal MEP program spending using those definitions. NIST defines direct support spending as spending that directly supports the MEP center system's work with manufacturing firms, such as awards to centers or contracts to train MEP center staff on how to quickly assess innovative ideas for new products. NIST considers all other spending to be administrative, including spending on performance evaluations …

Correspondence issued by the Government Accountability Office with an abstract that begins "GAO found that the independent public accountant's (IPA) audit of the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute's (PCORI) 2013 and 2012 financial statements was performed in accordance with professional standards, in all material respects. PCORI's IPA provided an unmodified audit opinion on its 2013 and 2012 financial statements and found that PCORI's financial statements were presented fairly, in all material respects. Further, the IPA did not identify any deficiencies in internal control that it considered to be material weaknesses nor any reportable noncompliance with the selected provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements it tested. PCORI did not disagree with the IPA report's conclusions."

Correspondence issued by the Government Accountability Office with an abstract that begins "GAO's review found that DOD's July 2013 report addressed the four elements specified in the House Committee on Armed Services' report. Specifically, the report by the Director of DOD's Corrosion Office addressed the following elements related to corrosion of facilities and infrastructure: (1) identification of key drivers of corrosion costs and recommended strategies for reducing their effect; (2) review of a sampling of facilities that are representative of facility type, military department, and facility age; (3) assessment of at least one planned facility construction program; and (4) inclusion of information from 30 locations (15 site visits and 15 teleconferences) and the examination of program documentation from all the locations, including maintenance and facility engineering processes."

A letter report issued by the Government Accountability Office with an abstract that begins "Of the 15 selected Department of Defense (DOD) major automated information system (MAIS) programs, 13 had cost information available (2 did not, due to revisions to requirements and changes in scope). Of these 13 programs, 11 experienced changes in their cost estimates, including 7 that experienced increases ranging from 4 to 2,233 percent and 4 that experienced decreases ranging from 4 to 86 percent. Two programs remained unchanged in their cost goals. Additionally, of 14 programs that had schedule information available (1 did not due to revisions to requirements), 13 experienced schedule changes—including 12 that had slippages ranging from a few months to 6 years, and 1 that accelerated its schedule. One program remained on schedule. Further, of 11 programs that had system performance data available, 3 programs met their system performance targets, while 8 did not fully meet their targets."

A letter report issued by the Government Accountability Office with an abstract that begins "Cancellation of a major Department of Defense (DOD) weapon program can have broad effects. Cancellation of one program can affect the schedules or budgets for related programs as well as the industrial base and local economies. For example, the cancellation of one program has impacted the schedule for the Army's network modernization efforts. DOD stakeholders can provide input to program officials on the potential effects of a cancellation."