Correspondence issued by the Government Accountability Office with an abstract that begins "DHS reported taking some steps to assess the realignment of its regional/field office structure. Since submitting an initial plan to Congress in 2004 that outlined regionalization, consolidation, and colocation opportunities, DHS officials said the agency considered the potential implementation of a unified regional field office structure through two major initiatives--the 2004 I-Staff review and the department's 2010 BUR. However, the I-Staff Regional Concept of Operations was not finalized or adopted, and in April 2012 a senior DHS official involved in the BUR effort stated that DHS no longer intends to implement the BUR recommendation related to regionalization because it is no longer the department's preferred approach. DHS had limited or no documentation related to either of these reviews, including the resulting key decisions from the efforts. As a result, we are unable to determine the extent to which DHS has fully considered the realignment of its regional/field office structure, including costs and benefits, since 2004. Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government calls for clear documentation of significant events, which include assumptions and methods surrounding key decisions, and the standards also state that this documentation should be …

A letter report issued by the Government Accountability Office with an abstract that begins "Department of Homeland Security (DHS) employees reported having lower average morale than the average for the rest of the federal government, but morale varied across components and employee groups within the department. Data from the 2011 Office of Personnel Management (OPM) Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS)--a tool that measures employees' perceptions of whether and to what extent conditions characterizing successful organizations are present in their agencies--showed that DHS employees had 4.5 percentage points lower job satisfaction and 7.0 percentage points lower engagement in their work overall. Engagement is the extent to which employees are immersed in their work and spending extra effort on job performance. Moreover, within most demographic groups available for comparison, DHS employees scored lower on average satisfaction and engagement than the average for the rest of the federal government. For example, within most pay categories DHS employees reported lower satisfaction and engagement than non-DHS employees in the same pay groups. Levels of satisfaction and engagement varied across components, with some components reporting scores above the non-DHS averages. Several components with lower morale, such as Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement …

A letter report issued by the Government Accountability Office with an abstract that begins "We identified five major actions the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is to complete under the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) to establish a reliable system that uses third-party audits conducted by foreign governments or other third parties to help ensure food safety. FDA officials and others report that each of these actions presents challenges that must be addressed. First, FDA is to develop new preventive controls and related guidance for all of the foods under its jurisdiction--such as produce, milk, cheese, spices, soft drinks, and processed foods--and will need to develop appropriate training, particularly for foreign producers and processors, which poses a challenge because FDA is responsible for a variety of food industries. Second, FDA is to establish a voluntary user fee program for importers that encourages the use of third-party certifications, and it faces a challenge in developing a program that encourages importers to participate. Third, FDA has to develop a system for recognizing accreditation bodies that can accredit third parties to certify foreign food facilities and is likely to face a challenge in addressing foreign governments' concerns about being evaluated by an …

A letter report issued by the Government Accountability Office with an abstract that begins "While their views varied to some degree, federal agency officials and advocacy groups GAO contacted identified a number of challenges that small, minority-owned businesses may face in pursuing federal government contracts. For example, officials and advocacy groups pointed to a lack of performance history and knowledge of the federal contracting process as significant barriers. Officials from advocacy groups cited additional challenges, such as difficulty gaining access to contracting officials and decreased contracting opportunities resulting from contract bundling—the consolidation of two or more contracts previously performed under smaller contracts, into a single contract. Officials from agencies that accounted for 70 percent of federal contracting with small, minority-owned businesses—(the Departments of Defense, Health and Human Services, and Homeland Security, and the General Services Administration) told GAO that they conducted outreach to help small, minority-owned businesses with these challenges. Their outreach efforts include one-on-one interviews between contracting office staff and businesses seeking federal contracts. Linguistic and cultural barriers were identified as a challenge on a limited basis."

A letter report issued by the Government Accountability Office with an abstract that begins "From 2004 through 2010, the number of self-referred and non-self-referred advanced imaging services--magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and computed tomography (CT) services--both increased, with the larger increase among self-referred services. For example, the number of self-referred MRI services increased over this period by more than 80 percent, compared with an increase of 12 percent for non-self-referred MRI services. Likewise, the growth rate of expenditures for self-referred MRI and CT services was also higher than for non-self-referred MRI and CT services."

A letter report issued by the Government Accountability Office with an abstract that begins "As part of Medicare's Part D Coverage Gap Discount Program (Discount Program), the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), located within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), oversees the provision of discounts by plan sponsors to eligible beneficiaries when they purchase brand-name drugs and monitors that discounts are paid for by drug manufacturers. CMS checks prescription drug data to verify that sponsors provide accurate discounts at the point-of-sale to eligible beneficiaries in the coverage gap. These checks include verifying whether a beneficiary has reached the coverage gap and that the plan sponsor has calculated the discount amount correctly. CMS also tracks that manufacturers pay plan sponsors for the discounts sponsors have provided to beneficiaries and has implemented a dispute resolution process for manufacturers disputing discount payment amounts. CMS also performs other activities such as monitoring beneficiary complaints related to the program."

A letter report issued by the Government Accountability Office with an abstract that begins "The Department of Labor (Labor) was challenged to process the substantial increase in petitions filed for the Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) for Workers program after related legislation was enacted in 2009. Labor initially had insufficient capacity to handle this increased workload, leading to processing delays and data recording errors. For example, in the quarter after the 2009 legislation took effect, Labor took an average of 153 days to process a petition—nearly four times the statutory limit. Labor responded with corrective action, including hiring new staff and adding additional quality control steps for processing petitions. Partly as a result of these efforts, processing times fell substantially. Moreover, GAO found that Labor's petition investigation process, as of June 2012, generally conformed to best practices for internal controls."

A letter report issued by the Government Accountability Office with an abstract that begins "The Department of Labor (Labor) designed and awarded the grants following its standard competitive award process by developing and publishing an announcement, screening applicants, and convening expert panels to score applications. It also collaborated with the Department of Education to develop the announcement and identify panelists. Though they varied in terms of target populations, as permitted by the grant, the applications GAO reviewed addressed trade impact, as required. However, the law’s requirement that every state receive a minimum amount of funding created challenges for Labor and certain grantees when applicants in 17 states scored below the cutoff score for grant awards. In these instances, Labor’s process stipulated that states designate an eligible institution. States, however, were given a 3-day deadline—over a weekend—to designate a grantee. As a result, these states had little time to identify an institution. The states that GAO contacted said that they found this process challenging or confusing and that they received no guidance from Labor. Moreover, state-designated grantees experienced delays in implementing their grants and required assistance from Labor to modify their original proposals and comply with grant requirements. Labor has identified …

A letter report issued by the Government Accountability Office with an abstract that begins "The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and Department of Defense (DOD) do not require that all collaboration sites--locations where the two departments share health care resources through hundreds of agreements and projects--develop and use performance measures to assess their effectiveness and efficiency. Officials cited several reasons for this, including not wanting to overburden sites with measures and monitoring requirements. Although VA and DOD require some limited performance information--such as the return on investment for pilot projects--without comprehensive performance measures, they lack information that could help decision makers assess collaboration sites' overall progress in meeting the departments' shared goals of improved health care access, quality, and costs; identify areas for improvement; and make informed decisions. Also, the departments cannot document the overall cost effectiveness of their collaboration efforts. In the absence of required measures for all sites, some have developed their own, but these fragmented efforts do not provide sufficient information about the overall results of collaborations."

A letter report issued by the Government Accountability Office with an abstract that begins "The military services have a degree of discretion regarding whether and how to apply Department of Defense (DOD) acquisition guidance for their uniform development and they varied in their usage of that guidance. As a result, the services had fragmented procedures for managing their uniform development programs, and did not consistently develop effective camouflage uniforms. GAO identified two key elements that are essential for producing successful outcomes in acquisitions: 1) using clear policies and procedures that are implemented consistently, and 2) obtaining effective information to make decisions, such as credible, reliable, and timely data. The Marine Corps followed these two key elements to produce a successful outcome, and developed a uniform that met its requirements. By contrast, two other services, the Army and Air Force, did not follow the two key elements; both services developed uniforms that did not meet mission requirements and had to replace them. Without additional guidance from DOD on the use of clear policies and procedures and a knowledge-based approach, the services may lack assurance that they have a disciplined approach to set requirements and develop new uniforms that meet operational needs."