prompt_front: You are given two reports by the government agency.



Question: Write a one-page summary of the report 1.

Report 1: As part of the annual budget formulation process for each fiscal year, DOD establishes for each of nine foreign currencies, a foreign currency budget rate (units of foreign currency per one United States (U S ) Dollar) to use when developing O&M and MILPERS funding requirements for overseas expenditures  Foreign currency budget rates for a particular fiscal year are established approximately 18 months prior to the fiscal year when overseas obligations will be incurred and disbursements made  For example, in June 2015, OUSD(C) issued guidance to, in part, instruct the services on the foreign currency rates to use in building their fiscal year 2017 budgets  In February 2016, as part of the President’s budget, DOD submitted its proposed fiscal year 2017 budget to Congress, and it began incurring obligations against subsequently appropriated amounts on October 1, 2016  DOD has used various methodologies for establishing the foreign currency budget rates  In 2005, we reviewed DOD’s methodology for developing its foreign currency budget rates and reported that DOD’s approach for estimating its foreign currency requirements for the fiscal year 2006 budget was a reasonable approach for forecasting foreign currency rates that could produce a more realistic estimate than its historical approach  In its fiscal year 2006 through 2016 budget requests, DOD used a centered weighted average model that combined both a 5-year average of exchange rates and an average of the most recently observed 12 months of exchange rates  For its fiscal year 2017 request, DOD adjusted its methodology to establish the foreign currency budget rates  Specifically, DOD established its foreign currency rates by calculating a 6-month average of Wall Street Journal rates published every Monday from May 25, 2015, to November 16, 2015  According to an OUSD(C) official, the 6-month average more closely represented foreign currency exchange rates experienced by the department during budget formulation, and it accounted for the strength of the U S  Dollar, which had increased as compared with its historical 5- year average  DOD’s analysis found that the use of the 5-year historical average would have resulted in substantial gains when compared with gains expected from application of the 6-month average  More specifically, DOD projected gains of about $1 billion using the 5-year average of rates  During the fiscal year for which a budget is developed, DOD incurs obligations for its overseas O&M and MILPERS activities  Those obligations are recorded using the foreign currency budget rates  DOD uses various methods for selecting foreign currency rates to liquidate those obligations through disbursements, which may differ from the budget rates  DOD’s preferred payment method for foreign currency transactions is the Department of Treasury’s (Treasury) comprehensive international payment and collection system—the International Treasury Services (ITS gov) system—which serves federal agencies making payments in nearly 200 countries  ITS gov offers a number of rates, including advanced rates available up to 5 days in advance of disbursement, and the spot rate  The spot rate is the price for foreign currencies for delivery in 2 business days  While advanced rates, like spot rates, are based on the current market rate, advanced rates at the time they are selected are generally higher than the spot rate, with the 5-day advanced rate being the highest, because the rates are locked in ahead of the actual value date  While the spot rate can be more cost-effective, it requires immediate transaction processing, which may not be feasible for all disbursements  Differences between obligations incurred at the foreign currency budget rates and the amounts that DOD actually disburses drive gains or losses in the appropriated amounts DOD has available for its planned overseas expenditures  For example, if DOD budgeted for the U K  Pound at a rate of  6289 (that is, 1 U S  Dollar buys  6289 U K  Pounds) as it did in fiscal year 2016, and the rate experienced at the time of disbursement was  6845, then DOD would have requested more funds than were actually needed for transactions involving the U K  Pound  That would have resulted in a gain from the transaction—meaning that DOD would need less funds than were budgeted for the transaction  Conversely, a current rate that is lower than what was budgeted will result in a loss—and DOD would require more funds than were budgeted for the transaction  Within each of the services’ O&M and MILPERS appropriations accounts, amounts are available for overseas activities  Amounts obligated for overseas activities, along with associated foreign currency gains and losses, are managed by the services as part of the overall management of their O&M and MILPERS appropriations accounts  Service components use foreign currency fluctuation accounts within their O&M and MILPERs appropriations to manage realized gains and losses in direct programs due to fluctuations in foreign exchange rates  The service-level foreign currency fluctuation accounts are maintained at various budgetary levels within the service components  In fiscal year 1979, Congress appropriated $500 million to establish the FCFD account for purposes of maintaining the budgeted level of operations in the MILPERS and O&M appropriation accounts by mitigating substantial gains or losses to those appropriations caused by foreign currency rate fluctuations  FCFD appropriations are different from the O&M and MILPERS appropriations in two ways  First, FCFD account amounts are no-year amounts, meaning that they are available until expended, while in general, O&M and MILPERS appropriations are 1-year amounts and expire at the end of the fiscal year for which they were appropriated  Expired O&M and MILPERS amounts remain available only for limited purposes for 5 additional fiscal years  At the end of the 5-year expired period, any remaining O&M or MILPERS amounts, obligated or unobligated, are canceled and returned to Treasury  Second, FCFD account amounts may be used only to pay obligations incurred because of fluctuations in currency exchange rates of foreign countries, while O&M amounts are available for diverse expenses necessary for the operation and maintenance of the services and MILPERS amounts are available for service personnel-related expenses, such as pay, permanent changes of station travel, and expenses of temporary duty travel, among other purposes  Amounts from the FCFD account may be transferred to service-level foreign currency fluctuation accounts within O&M and MILPERS appropriation accounts to offset losses in buying power due to unfavorable differences between the budget rate and the foreign currency exchange rate prevailing at the time of disbursement  The FCFD account may be replenished in several ways  Amounts transferred from the FCFD to O&M and MILPERS appropriations may be returned when not needed to liquidate obligations because of subsequent favorable foreign currency rates in relation to the budget rate, or because other amounts have become available to cover obligations  A transfer back to the FCFD of unneeded amounts must be made before the end of the second fiscal year of expiration following the fiscal year of availability of the O&M or MILPERS appropriation to which the funds were originally transferred  Amounts may also be transferred to the FCFD account even if they did not originate there  Specifically, DOD may transfer to the FCFD account any unobligated O&M and MILPERS amounts unrelated to foreign currency exchange fluctuations so long as the transfers are made not later than the end of the second fiscal year of expiration of the appropriation  While multiple transfers of these unobligated amounts may be made during a fiscal year, any such transfer is limited so that the amount in the FCFD account does not exceed the statutory maximum of $970 million at the time of transfer  When the FCFD account balance is at the maximum balance, the services normally retain in their service- level O&M and MILPERs foreign currency fluctuation accounts any gains resulting from favorable foreign currency rates  Finally, any amounts transferred, whether from the FCFD account to an O&M or MILPERS account, or from an O&M or MILPERS account to the FCFD, are merged with the account and assume the characteristics of that account, including the period of availability of the funds contained in the account  Visibility of service-level foreign currency fluctuation account and FCFD transactions is maintained through the services’ accounting systems and execution reports  DOD uses the following reports to track its foreign currency funds: Foreign Currency Fluctuations, Defense Report (O&M): provides data on O&M foreign currency gains and losses for each service, by currency, including data on projected gains or losses for any remaining obligations that have not yet been liquidated and disbursed at the time of the report  Foreign Currency Fluctuation, Defense Report (MILPERS): provides data on MILPERS foreign currency gains and losses for each service, by currency, including data on projected gains or losses for any remaining obligations that have not yet been disbursed at the time of the report  In 2013 we analyzed and reported on carryover balances in federal accounts, which amounted to $2 2 trillion in fiscal year 2012, and we found that greater examination of carryover balances by an agency provides opportunities for enhanced oversight of their management of federal funds and may help identify opportunities for potential budgetary savings  Carryover balances are composed of both obligated and unobligated amounts  Only accounts with multi-year or no-year amounts, such as the FCFD, may carry over amounts that remain legally available for new obligations from one fiscal year to the next  DOD’s carryover balances would include FCFD account balances carried from one year to the next  DOD’s FCFD account is composed of unobligated carryover amounts that accumulate when unneeded for transfer to O&M and MILPERS accounts to cover foreign currency fluctuations  FCFD unobligated carryover balances include any expired, unobligated balances from the military services’ O&M and MILPERS accounts, which can include any gains due to favorable foreign currency fluctuations that are not used to cover other losses and that are transferred into the FCFD  DOD revised its foreign currency budget rates in fiscal years 2014 through 2016, which resulted in budget rates in these years that were more closely aligned with rates published by Treasury  Furthermore, the revised budget rates in fiscal years 2014 through 2016 decreased DOD’s projected O&M and MILPERS funding needs  The revised budget rates also decreased potential gains and losses in the amount of funds that DOD had available for its planned overseas expenditures  DOD revised its foreign currency budget rates in fiscal year 2014 and continued to do so in fiscal years 2015 and 2016 before making adjustments to its methodology in fiscal year 2017  According to an OUSD(C) official, the methodology developed in 2017 resulted in budget rates that were more closely aligned with market rates than in previous years, making revision of the 2017 budget rates unnecessary  DOD’s revisions to its foreign currency budget rates in fiscal years 2014 through 2016 resulted in rates that more closely aligned with those published by Treasury  Further, they decreased the expected gains that would have otherwise resulted from a substantial increase in the strength of the U S  Dollar, in fiscal years 2014 through 2016, relative to other foreign currencies from the time the budget rates were set as compared with the rates available once the fiscal year began  Prior to fiscal year 2014, DOD did not revise its foreign currency budget rates  DOD officials did not provide an explanation for why the budget rates for fiscal years 2009 through 2013 were not revised  DOD developed, in November 2015, a set of standard operating procedures that describe the methodology it used for formulating budget rates for the nine foreign currencies included in its budget submission  These procedures also state that DOD is required to update the budget rates once an appropriation is enacted for the fiscal year  For example, if Congress reduces DOD’s appropriations due to favorable foreign currency rates, such as the $1 5 billion reduction in DOD’s total fiscal year 2016 appropriations, OUSD(C) then revises the budget rates to absorb the reduced funding levels  OUSD(C) officials stated that other factors are also considered when determining whether to revise the foreign currency budget rates, and that the department communicates the revised budget rates to the DOD components and Congress  For example, OUSD(C) assesses the value of each of the nine foreign currencies used to develop the budget request relative to the strength of the U S  Dollar during the fiscal year  An OUSD(C) official also noted that the effects that the rate changes would have across these foreign currencies are also considered prior to submitting recommended rate revisions to the OUSD(C) leadership for approval  The official stated that one currency may be experiencing a loss, while another is experiencing a gain, which can affect whether to revise the rates and what those revisions should be  Additionally, the OUSD(C) official stated that “significant” projected gains or losses could drive a revision to the foreign currency budget rates, and that an informal $10 million threshold for projected gains and losses is used to determine when the foreign currency budget rates are revised  According to OUSD(C) officials, DOD components and Congress were notified when the budget rates were revised during fiscal years 2014 through 2016, including an explanation for why the rates were revised  OUSD(C) also includes the budget rates for each of the nine foreign currencies on its website and identifies any instances in which the budget rates were revised with the effective date of any rate revisions  Our analysis of DOD’s use of revised budget rates during fiscal years 2014 through 2016 found that the revised budget rates for those years were more closely aligned with rates published by Treasury  More specifically, for the nine foreign currencies included in DOD’s budget, our analysis comparing DOD’s initial and revised budget rates for fiscal years 2009 through 2017 with average Treasury rates for these years found that DOD’s budget rates differed from Treasury rates by less than 10 percent in about 64 percent of the total 162 occurrences we examined  While we are unaware of any criteria that suggest how closely DOD’s foreign currency budget rates should align with market rates, we used 10 percent as a basis for our analysis because Treasury’s guidance states that amendments to its published exchange rates are required if rates differ from current rates by 10 percent or more  We further examined these occurrences to determine what the differences were between the DOD and Treasury rates before and after DOD began revising its budget rates in fiscal year 2014  Of the 162 occurrences we reviewed, there were 90 occurrences included in our comparison for fiscal years 2009 through 2013, and 72 occurrences were included in our comparison for fiscal years 2014 through 2017  Our analysis shows the following: For fiscal years 2014 through 2017, DOD’s budget rates for its nine foreign currencies differed from Treasury rates by less than 10 percent in about 71 percent of the occurrences  This increased from about 59 percent of the occurrences for the period of fiscal years 2009 through 2013, before DOD began revising its rates after the fiscal year began  For fiscal years 2014 through 2017, DOD’s budget rates differed from Treasury’s rates by 10 percent or more after DOD began revising its rates in fiscal year 2014 in about 29 percent of the occurrences, which is a decrease from about 41 percent of the occurrences prior to fiscal year 2014  Figure 2 below shows the number of occurrences in which DOD’s initial and revised rates differed from Treasury rates by less than 10 percent, and the occurrences in which DOD’s rates differed from Treasury rates by 10 percent or more  The occurrences that are less than 10 percent of Treasury rates are most closely aligned with Treasury rates  According to DOD officials, the differences between DOD’s foreign currency budget rates and Treasury rates are driven primarily by market volatility (that is, the differences in the foreign currency rates from when DOD formulates its budget rates, prior to the fiscal year, and the foreign currency rates determined by Treasury when obligated amounts are liquidated through disbursements during the fiscal year)  According to the OUSD(C) official responsible for formulating and revising the foreign currency budget rates, the delay that occurs between the time when a budget rate is set (approximately 18 months prior to the beginning of a particular fiscal year) and the actual fiscal year is a major factor for why the budget rate may be revised  According to the official, the market rates experienced during fiscal years 2014 through 2016 were substantially different from those expected when the budget rates for those years were developed  Therefore, DOD revised its budget rates during these years to more closely align with market rates experienced  Specifically, this official stated that DOD revised its budget rates during fiscal years 2014 through 2016 to decrease the expected gains that would have otherwise resulted during these fiscal years from a substantial increase in the strength of the U S  Dollar relative to other foreign currencies from the time the budget rates were set as compared with more favorable rates available once the fiscal year began  In order to more closely align its budget rates with market rates, DOD introduced a new methodology to establish the foreign currency budget rates for fiscal year 2017 because DOD anticipated approximately $1 billion in projected gains if it used the prior methodology  As a result of this change in the methodology, according to the OUSD(C) official, DOD did not experience substantial gains or losses in fiscal year 2017  Therefore, DOD did not revise its foreign currency budget rates during fiscal year 2017  However, as previously stated, the official did not provide an explanation as to why the budget rates for fiscal years 2009 through 2013 were not revised  DOD’s use of revised foreign currency budget rates decreased DOD’s projected O&M and MILPERS funding needs and any potential gains and losses that would have occurred due to foreign currency fluctuations during fiscal years 2014 through 2016  Because DOD uses its budget rates to establish its projected annual O&M and MILPERS funding requirements for planned overseas expenditures, any revisions to the budget rates affect DOD’s estimate of its funding needs  For example, our analysis shows that as a result of revising its budget rates during fiscal years 2014 through 2016, DOD’s projected funding needs for the period of fiscal years 2009 through 2017 decreased from about $60 2 billion to about $57 5 billion—a decrease of about $2 7 billion  To further show the effect that changing foreign currency rates could have on DOD’s projected funding for planned overseas expenditures for fiscal years 2009 through 2017, we also compared DOD’s projected O&M and MILPERS funding needs, based on its initial and revised foreign currency budget rates, against projected funding needs based on the use of foreign currency rates published by Treasury during the fiscal year  Our analysis shows that DOD’s projected O&M and MILPERS foreign currency funding needs using Treasury rates would have been about $58 4 billion, or about $885 million more than the $57 5 billion that DOD had projected using its initial and revised budget rates  DOD also uses foreign currency budget rates to calculate gains or losses attributable to foreign currency fluctuations  Specifically, DOD determines gains and losses due to foreign currency fluctuations by comparing the budget rate (that is, initial or revised budget rate) used to incur obligations against a more current market rate at the time it liquidates its obligations through disbursements  Therefore, revisions to the budget rates not only change DOD’s projected O&M and MILPERS funding requirements for the fiscal year in which the revisions occur, but also change the baseline from which the potential gains or losses would result when DOD liquidates its overseas O&M and MILPERS obligations through disbursements  For example, in fiscal year 2016, Congress reduced DOD’s total appropriations by $1 5 billion  As a result of this reduction and favorable foreign currency rates, DOD revised its fiscal year 2016 budget rates in February 2016 and applied the revised foreign currency budget rates in its calculations of gains and losses due to foreign currency fluctuations since the beginning of the fiscal year to absorb the reduced funding level  In applying the revised budget rates, a $30 million gain DOD had previously projected became a projected loss of about $186 2 million  The use of revised budget rates also affects the movement of funds from the FCFD account  For example, if the use of the revised budget rate creates a loss and DOD is unable to cover the increased costs to its O&M or MILPERS appropriations, funds from the FCFD account may be used to cover its planned overseas expenditures  DOD has taken some steps to reduce costs in selecting foreign currency rates to liquidate its obligations through disbursements  However, DOD organizations are not always selecting the most cost-effective rates to convert U S  Dollars, and DOD has not determined whether opportunities exist to achieve additional efficiencies when making disbursements  DOD liquidates its obligations through disbursements for overseas expenditures using Treasury’s ITS gov system, which provides DOD organizations with a choice of foreign currency rates to apply when making disbursements in a foreign currency  The foreign currency rate chosen determines how many U S  Dollars must be paid for the transaction  Treasury officials explained that customers may choose either the spot rate or an advanced rate  The spot rate is the price for foreign currencies for delivery in 2 business days  Treasury officials explained that advanced rates are exchange rates that are “locked in” and guaranteed by the bank processing the disbursement 5, 4, or 3 days in advance of payment processing, which is known as the “value date” of a disbursement  Normally, the cost of the rate increases the further from the date of disbursement that it is locked in  While DOD often uses a 5-day advanced rate to make its disbursements, the other rate options available, such as a 3-day advanced and a spot rate, can be more cost-effective  We analyzed data provided by Treasury from its ITS gov system and found that for disbursements made during the period of June and July 2017, the 5-day advanced rate was more costly than the 3-day advanced rate  In instances where the spot rate was available, we found that it was also more cost-effective than either the 3- day or 5-day advanced rates  For example, for those transactions processed through ITS gov on June 13, 2017, DOD would have paid 1 U S  Dollar for  881 European Euros if using the 5-day advanced rate;  883 European Euros if using the 3-day advanced rate; and  889 European Euros if using the spot rate  In the case of the Army, an Army Financial Management Command official provided us information indicating that the service has estimated potential cost savings that would result from more consistently selecting 3-day advanced rates through the ITS gov system to make overseas disbursements of amounts, rather than the 5-day advanced rate  More specifically, the Army estimated between $8 million and $10 million in annual savings by transitioning from a 5-day to a 3-day advanced rate when selecting foreign currency rates  According to officials, the Army has transitioned all paying locations to the 3-day advanced rate  The Army estimates that these locations have produced $6 04 million in savings through February 2018  Although the Army indicated that it also planned to analyze whether use of the spot rate was feasible, it had not conducted this review at the time of our review  Data provided to us by Treasury from its ITS gov system indicate that in June and July of 2017, the Air Force used the 5-day advanced rate exclusively for its disbursements, while the Navy and Marine Corps relied on both the 5-day and the 3-day advanced rates  Our analysis of these data show the Air Force would have achieved total savings for those 2 months of about $258,000 if it had made its disbursements using the 3- day versus the 5-day advanced rate  The savings resulting from each transaction varied based on the amount of the transaction  For example, on June 13, 2017, the Air Force disbursed a payment exceeding $3 7 million and would have saved more than $9,000 for that transaction if the 3-day advanced rate had been used  For the same single transaction, if the spot rate had been used instead of the 5-day advanced rate, the Air Force would have saved more than $31,000  The savings associated with the Navy’s and Marine Corps’ disbursements for the same 2-month period showed the potential for less dramatic savings of less than $100 because the Navy and Marine Corps used the 3-day advanced rate as opposed to the 5-day advanced rate for most of its disbursements  Where information on the spot rate was available, its use, as opposed to either the 5-day or 3-day advanced rate, would have resulted in additional savings opportunities for those 2 months  While these examples are illustrative of cost savings opportunities in June and July 2017, Treasury data show that in fiscal year 2016, DOD disbursed more than $11 8 billion through ITS gov and, as of July 2017, had disbursed more than $9 6 billion through ITS gov  Our analysis suggests that DOD could achieve further cost savings by more consistently selecting cost-effective foreign currency rates, such as the 3-day advanced or spot rates, with which to make disbursements  In selecting foreign currency rates, DOD’s Financial Management Regulation states that disbursements should be computed to avoid gains or deficiencies (losses) due to fluctuations in rates of exchange to the greatest extent possible  If there is no rate of exchange established by agreement between the U S  government and the foreign country, then foreign currency transactions are to be conducted at the prevailing rate  The prevailing rate of exchange is the most favorable rate legally available for acquisition of foreign currency for official disbursement and other exchange transactions  Additionally, GAO’s Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government calls for management to periodically review policies, procedures, and related control activities for continued relevance and effectiveness in achieving the entity’s objectives or addressing related risks  DOD disbursement organizations have flexibility in selecting foreign currency rates to use when making disbursements using ITS gov  There is no DOD-wide requirement for the services to review the rates used to make disbursements and, except for the Army, the services have not conducted such a review  This step is necessary to determine whether there are opportunities for savings by more consistently selecting cost- effective foreign currency rates  We discussed disbursement processes with DOD and Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps financial management officials, including the factors considered when selecting foreign currency rates  In addition, a Defense Finance and Accounting Service official noted that currencies can have criteria specifying when a payment is made and provided us the ITS gov user’s guide, which addresses “special currency requirements,” such as those that would drive advanced payment for a currency  For example, the user’s guide indicates that payment for transactions involving the Afghanistan Afghani must be made 2 days in advance of the value date, and cannot be made on a Friday  However, information that is contained in the ITS gov user’s guide and that we received from a Treasury official indicate that none of the nine foreign currencies for which DOD budgets place restrictions on when payment must be made; and therefore, this consideration should not drive the use of a specific rate at disbursement  Marine Corps financial management officials told us that the foreign currency rate selected at disbursement is at the discretion of the disbursing officer based on operational requirements, with the understanding that the most favorable rate for the government is the preference, while balancing mission requirements and the time necessary to process the transaction  These officials acknowledged that the 3-day advanced rate can be more cost-effective to the government but indicated that there are occasions when the 5-day advanced rate should be used because it provides more time to process the payments from deployed locations operating in different time zones or with limited communication capabilities  However, we found that OUSD (C) officials and financial management officials with the headquarters of the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps were not involved in disbursement, were unaware of what rates were being used at disbursement, and had not reviewed the rationale for selecting one rate over another  For example, Air Force and Navy headquarters officials we spoke with were unable to provide insight as to what drives the decision to use one rate over another  One Navy financial management official told us that he was unaware of any Navy policy that directs a specific rate to be used when disbursing funds, and suggested that the absence of such a policy provides the flexibility for officials to determine which approach is best  Headquarters, Marine Corps officials also stated that they did not monitor foreign currency rates used for disbursements or the reasons why one rate was selected over another  Based on our inquiry, officials indicated that they would analyze the foreign currency rates used for disbursements in 2017 and whether opportunities existed to achieve savings by using other rates available through ITS gov  A Marine Corps official subsequently provided us with information that showed that two of three disbursing offices that currently utilize ITS gov for disbursements use the 3-day advanced rate exclusively and one uses the 5-day advanced rate  The official noted that a technical issue within ITS gov has restricted the disbursing office currently using the 5-day advanced rate from choosing any other rate, but that the service was further assessing options to correct the issue  In our conversations with an official in OUSD(C) about why the other services had not reviewed the foreign currency rates used for disbursements to determine what was being paid through ITS gov and whether there was an opportunity for savings, the official commented that OUSD(C) had not directed the services to conduct any reviews in this area  This official was unaware that different foreign currency rates were used to make disbursements, and assumed that the military services all make disbursements in the same way  However, as discussed above, the services are using different rates resulting in inconsistency across the department  The official further indicated that DOD could perform a review to determine the cost differences of using one disbursement rate over another  Absent a review of the rates the services are using in making disbursements and whether cost savings could be achieved by more consistently selecting the most cost-effective foreign currency rates available for use at disbursement, DOD is at risk for paying more to convert U S  Dollars for overseas expenditures than would otherwise be required  In fiscal years 2009 through 2016, DOD used the FCFD account to cover losses that the services experienced due to foreign currency fluctuations in 6 of the 8 years we reviewed  However, DOD does not effectively manage the FCFD account balance based on projected gains or losses  Transfers of expired unobligated balances from MILPERS and O&M accounts into the FCFD account have been made to replenish the account balance to the statutory limit of $970 million, without consideration of projected losses due to foreign currency fluctuations  Furthermore, DOD’s financial reporting on foreign currency fluctuations for fiscal years 2009 through 2016 contains incomplete and inaccurate information  In fiscal years 2009 through 2016, DOD transferred approximately $1 92 billion out of the FCFD account to cover losses that the services experienced due to foreign currency fluctuations in 6 of the 8 years we reviewed  For these years, DOD transferred funds from the FCFD account to the services’ MILPERS and O&M accounts during the fiscal year in which the funds were obligated for overseas expenses  The transfer amounts were based on both losses realized from actual disbursements and projected losses for any remaining obligations to be liquidated  The projected losses were calculated based on the current foreign currency market rates as of the time of the calculation  Based on the service-level data we reviewed, all of the services reported that they experienced losses in at least 5 of the fiscal years we reviewed  For example, the Army reported that it experienced losses in its MILPERS account for 5 of 8 years, while the Marine Corps reported that it experienced losses in its O&M and MILPERS accounts in each of the 8 years  In addition to the transfers to cover losses within the services’ MILPERS and O&M accounts, in fiscal year 2013 DOD transferred an additional $969 million to the Defense Working Capital Fund to offset fuel cost losses  Since fiscal year 2012, DOD has maintained the FCFD end-of-year account balance at $970 million—the maximum allowed by statute  To replenish the funds that were transferred out of the FCFD account, DOD transferred unobligated balances to the FCFD account from the services’ O&M and MILPERS accounts  While DOD can also replenish the FCFD account or absorb foreign currency losses in certain currencies by transferring to the FCFD account any gains experienced by the services, our analysis found that DOD did not transfer any gains into the FCFD account for fiscal years 2009 through 2016  Figure 3 shows the transfers into and out of the FCFD account and the end-of-year FCFD account balance for fiscal years 2009 through 2016  Our analysis also shows that DOD transferred funds to maintain the FCFD account at its maximum balance since 2012, despite experiencing fewer losses due to foreign currency fluctuations than it had experienced in fiscal years 2009 to 2011  Of the $1 92 billion transferred from the FCFD account to the services’ MILPERS and O&M accounts to cover losses, $464 5 million was transferred since fiscal year 2012, when DOD began maintaining its FCFD account at the maximum level  During that time, some of the services experienced foreign currency gains, while others experienced losses  For example, at the end of fiscal year 2013 the Navy reported a total realized and projected cumulative gain for its O&M and MILPERS accounts of about $98 6 million  In that same year, the Marine Corps reported a cumulative realized and projected loss for its O&M and MILPERS accounts of approximately $12 7 million  Had DOD not transferred unobligated funds back into the FCFD account, it would have retained a positive balance of approximately $505 5 million  However, DOD maintained the account balance at $970 million by transferring approximately $495 3 million in unobligated balances into the account  As part of its management of the FCFD account balance, DOD analyzes data on realized and projected losses as the basis for transferring funds from the FCFD account to the services’ MILPERS and O&M accounts to cover losses  However, DOD does not consider projected losses when making transfers of unobligated O&M and MILPERS balances into the FCFD account  Figure 4 below shows the FCFD account balance that DOD has maintained in relation to the transfers out of the account to cover losses  Specifically, according to the OUSD(C) official responsible for managing the FCFD account, DOD maintains the FCFD account balance at $970 million to maximize unobligated balances within the military services’ O&M and MILPERS accounts before they are canceled and are no longer available to DOD  In addition, this official stated that DOD prefers to maintain the maximum balance in case it is needed due to sudden, unfavorable swings in foreign currency exchange rates  Our review of the documentation used to make transfers into and out of the FCFD account corroborates that DOD maintains the FCFD account balance to maximize the retention of unobligated balances  Specifically, we found instances in which the documentation states that the transfers of unobligated balances into the FCFD account were made for the purpose of replenishing the account balance to the statutory limit  For example, DOD transferred $89 million from the FCFD account to the Army for losses it had realized and projected in fiscal year 2014, and later transferred unobligated balances of the same amount back into the account  DOD’s documentation states that this transfer of unobligated balances was made for the purpose of replenishing the account to $970 million in order to finance estimated foreign currency losses resulting from the decline in value of the U S  Dollar  However, the transfer to the Army already covered the realized losses and projected losses for any remaining disbursements  In other words, estimated foreign currency losses had already been accounted for at the time of the transfer to the Army  In addition, based on data reported by the Air Force, Marine Corps, and Navy, DOD had an estimated cumulative gain of about $30 million for fiscal year 2014 based on the other services’ gains and losses, which could have been transferred to the FCFD account to absorb any additional foreign currency losses elsewhere  However, DOD did not transfer those gains to the FCFD account  Similarly, based on data reported by these services, DOD experienced cumulative realized and projected gains of more than $200 million in fiscal year 2013 and about $92 6 million in fiscal year 2015, but it did not transfer any gains to the FCFD account because the account balance had already reached its maximum using transferred unobligated balances  Despite replenishing the account balance to the maximum amount for the purpose of covering additional losses, the FCFD transfers have not been made to fully offset losses in some years, further raising questions about the need to maintain the balance at the statutory cap of $970 million annually  Specifically, in 3 of the 6 years in which DOD transferred funds from the FCFD account to the services’ MILPERS and O&M accounts, DOD did not use the FCFD account to fully cover the losses that the Air Force, Marine Corps, and Navy experienced  In fiscal year 2011, for example, DOD’s transfers out of the FCFD account to these services covered about 88 percent of the reported MILPERS and O&M losses that these services had realized and projected to lose by the end of the fiscal year  In fiscal year 2012, FCFD transfers covered almost 72 percent of the MILPERS and O&M realized and projected losses reported by the Air Force, Marine Corps, and Navy, as of the end of the fiscal year  In fiscal year 2016, DOD FCFD transfers to these services covered approximately 55 percent of their reported MILPERS and O&M realized and projected losses by the end of the fiscal year  The OUSD(C) official we spoke with stated that FCFD transfers to cover losses begin with a request from the services, and the OUSD(C) office and the services then coordinate on the final transfer amount  In addition, some service officials told us that they try to cover their losses using each service’s available funding before reaching out for assistance from the FCFD account  Therefore, based on a service’s ability to cover the loss, it may not always request an FCFD transfer to cover the full amount of realized and projected losses  Further, according to an OUSD(C) official, the timing of a service’s request for an FCFD transfer may also affect any differences between the amount transferred and the actual losses experienced  Specifically, if a service requests a transfer early in the fiscal year based on realized and projected losses, actual losses experienced as of the end of the fiscal year may be greater than or less than the transfer amount due to foreign currency fluctuations  Using transfers of unobligated balances, DOD has maintained its FCFD account balance at the maximum level allowed by statute because it has not analyzed realized and projected losses to determine what size account balance is necessary to meet the intended purpose of the account  In our prior work, we have developed key questions for evaluating federal account balances that agencies may use to identify the amount of the balance necessary to maintain agency or program operations  Through examination of carryover balances, oversight of agencies’ management of federal funds may be enhanced  Specifically, we reported that understanding an agency’s processes for estimating and managing carryover balances provides information to assess how effectively agencies anticipate program needs, and ensure the most efficient use of resources  To estimate and manage carryover balances, agencies may consider such factors as future needs of the account, economic indicators, and historical data  If an agency does not have a robust strategy in place to manage carryover balances or is unable to adequately explain or support the reported carryover balance, then a more in-depth review is warranted  In those cases, balances may either fall too low to efficiently manage operations or rise to unnecessarily high levels, producing potential opportunities for those funds to be used more efficiently elsewhere  When asked about maintaining the balance at a level necessary to cover losses, rather than at the maximum level allowed by statute, the OUSD(C) official indicated that the OUSD(C) takes a cautious approach and prefers to have the additional flexibility allowed by the higher balance  Further, the official stated that it would be difficult for DOD to attempt to base its unobligated balance transfers and the FCFD account balance on analysis and evaluation, given the unpredictable nature and constant volatility of foreign currency rates  Our guidelines on evaluating carryover balances acknowledge that external events beyond an agency’s control can dramatically affect carryover balances  However, the challenges that are inherent in predicting foreign currency rates do not preclude DOD from conducting analysis to glean insight as to the appropriate size for the balance of the account and what potential opportunities for savings might exist  Specifically, our guidelines suggest that agencies would benefit from considering the sources and fiscal characteristics of an account with carryover balances  In this case, the FCFD account can receive funds from transfers of unobligated balances and realized foreign currency gains  In addition, DOD can make multiple transfers throughout a fiscal year and can transfer funds from the FCFD to and from the services’ O&M and MILPERS accounts simultaneously, if necessary  These characteristics of the FCFD account already provide the department with flexibility, indicating that DOD may be positioned to manage the FCFD balance in a more analytical manner based on any projected losses  Without analyzing any realized or projected losses to determine what balance may be needed to meet the FCFD account’s intended purpose, the account balance may be kept at a higher level than is necessary  As a result, although an exact amount is unknown, DOD may be maintaining balances in the FCFD account that are hundreds of millions of dollars higher than needed to cover any losses it has experienced, and these funds may have been more efficiently used in supporting other defense activities or returned to Treasury after the account is canceled by law  DOD prepares financial reports to monitor the status of its foreign currency funds, but some of DOD’s financial reporting on foreign currency fluctuations for fiscal years 2009 through 2016 is incomplete and inaccurate  DOD’s Financial Management Regulation establishes reporting requirements specifically for tracking all transactions that increase or decrease the FCFD  In accordance with that guidance, the services provide data from their accounting systems to the Defense Finance and Accounting Service to generate reports that are used as a tool with which the services and OUSD(C) can monitor how they are expending funds appropriated for overseas expenditures  For O&M appropriations, the Foreign Currency Fluctuations, Defense (O&M) report provides data on foreign currency gains and losses for each service, by currency, including data on projected gains or losses for any remaining obligations that have not yet been disbursed at the time of the report  The Foreign Currency Fluctuations, Defense Report (MILPERS) provides similar information for the MILPERS appropriation  We reviewed end-of-year Foreign Currency Fluctuations, Defense (O&M) and (MILPERS) reports for fiscal years 2009 through 2016 and found that some of the reporting for O&M was incomplete and inaccurate, which hampers the quality of information available to manage the FCFD account  For instance, we found the following: Incomplete data in the Foreign Currency Fluctuations Defense (O&M) reports: In our review of the end-of-year Foreign Currency Fluctuations Defense (O&M) and (MILPERS) reports we observed several instances of incomplete data in the O&M reports, and these affect managers’ ability to make sound decisions to manage foreign currency gains and losses  First, for the Navy, we found that the report data showed, for multiple currencies across fiscal years 2011 through 2016, values in the realized variance column, indicating that the service had experienced a gain or loss in a particular currency; however, the reports showed values of zero in other columns that are necessary for calculating the gain or loss  Second, the Air Force data for the Turkey Lira, in fiscal year 2012, showed a gain or loss without any data indicating what would have driven the gain or loss  Third, in one instance, Marine Corps data on obligations for fiscal year 2011 were missing from the end-of-year reports until 2014  Missing obligation data for these end-of-year reports indicate a limitation in using these reports for tracking actual gains and losses  Inaccurate data in the Army’s Foreign Currency Fluctuations Defense (O&M) reports: The Army’s Foreign Currency Fluctuation Defense (O&M) reports are inaccurate and cannot be used to reliably track gains or losses, and this hinders managers from making sound decisions regarding the Army’s foreign currency gains and losses  The reports are inaccurate in that the Army’s accounting system charges disbursements to the current fiscal year appropriation rather than to the fiscal year appropriation that incurred the obligation, as required by the Financial Management Regulation  According to officials from the Army Budget Office, the Army designed its General Fund Enterprise Business System (GFEBS) to record disbursements to the current fiscal year based on differing interpretations of a previous version of the Regulation  Because the Army is not recording its disbursements to the fiscal year appropriation as the other services are, Army data are inaccurate and cannot be used by the OUSD(C) official responsible for overseeing DOD’s foreign currency program to track the Army’s foreign currency transactions and maintain full visibility of DOD’s overall gains and losses in a given fiscal year  Army Budget Office officials acknowledged that the Army will need to modify its system to record disbursements consistent with Financial Management Regulation guidance, but it has not developed a plan or timeline for doing so  Without accurate reporting of the Army’s foreign currency transactions, DOD lacks information for tracking and helping to manage the Army’s foreign currency gain and losses  DOD’s Financial Management Regulation specifies the data that must be included in the Foreign Currency Fluctuations Defense (O&M) and (MILPERS) reports and the roles and responsibilities of the services as well as the Defense Finance and Accounting Service for ensuring the quality of those data  However, we identified data issues in our analysis that indicate that quality is inconsistent  For example, officials from the Navy stated that they had observed the incomplete data for some currencies and speculated that the incompleteness was attributable to data entry errors  Similarly, according to an OUSD(C) official, the Defense Finance and Accounting Service is notified when discrepancies are found in the reports and the Defense Finance and Accounting Service officials coordinate with the services to correct the data  However, neither Navy nor the Defense Finance and Accounting Service officials have corrected the data  Although DOD’s Financial Management Regulation specifies the data that are to be included, as well as roles and responsibilities of the services and the Defense Finance and Accounting Service, it does not identify who is responsible for correcting erroneous or missing data  According to an OUSD(C) official, correcting reporting issues is an area that OUSD(C), the Defense Finance and Accounting Service, and the services can improve on, and they would benefit from guidance in the Financial Management Regulation that establishes the steps that should be taken for making such corrections  Further, GAO’s Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government and the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board’s Handbook of Federal Accounting Standards and Other Pronouncements, as Amended, both establish the importance of using reliable and complete information for making decisions  In addition, DOD’s Financial Management Regulation establishes responsibilities for both the DOD components and the Defense Finance and Accounting Service to establish appropriate internal controls to ensure that financial reporting data are complete, accurate, and supportable, in order for managers to make sound decisions and exercise proper stewardship over these resources  Effectively managing foreign currency gains and losses as well as any projected gains or losses for any remaining obligations that have not yet been liquidated through disbursement requires complete and accurate data  OUSD(C) and service officials recognize the importance of reliable data, as well as the need to take steps to improve the quality of the foreign currency gains and losses data  Without OUSD(C) establishing guidance to ensure that the Foreign Currency Fluctuation Defense (O&M) report data that tracks foreign currency gains and losses are complete, DOD and Congress do not have information to make sound decisions and exercise proper stewardship over resources due to foreign currency fluctuations  Furthermore, until the Army establishes a plan and timeline for modifying its system to record foreign currency disbursements in an accurate manner, the Army and DOD will lack quality information for tracking and helping to manage the Army’s and DOD’s foreign currency gain and losses  Congress provides DOD with a significant amount of funding each year to purchase goods and services overseas and to pay service-members stationed abroad  DOD develops and can revise foreign currency budget rates to determine its funding needs and calculate any gains or losses that result from DOD’s overseas expenditures  The Army has estimated potential cost savings that would result from more consistently selecting a more cost-effective foreign currency rate for making disbursements to liquidate its overseas O&M obligations  However, DOD has not fully determined whether additional cost-saving opportunities exist because the services have not reviewed the rates used for foreign currency disbursements  Absent a review of the foreign currency rates the services are using at disbursement, including whether cost-saving opportunities exist, by more consistently selecting cost-effective foreign currency rates, DOD risks paying more than would be required otherwise  Further, while DOD has used the FCFD account to cover losses that resulted from foreign currency fluctuations, it has not managed the FCFD account balance by basing the transfers of unobligated balances into the FCFD account on an analysis of realized and projected losses  Without basing its FCFD account balance on such analyses, DOD may be maintaining balances in the FCFD account that are hundreds of millions of dollars higher than needed to cover any losses it has experienced, and these amounts may have been more efficiently used supporting other defense activities or ultimately returned to Treasury, once expired  Moreover, DOD has not established guidance and other procedures to ensure that complete and accurate data are included in financial reporting on foreign currency funds, and this limits the quality of information available to effectively manage the FCFD account  We are making the following four recommendations to DOD  The Secretary of Defense ensures that: The Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), in coordination with the U S  Army, Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps, should conduct a review of the foreign currency rates used at disbursement to determine whether cost-saving opportunities exist by more consistently selecting cost- effective rates at disbursement  (Recommendation 1) The Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) should analyze realized and projected losses to determine the necessary size of the FCFD account balance and use the results of this analysis as the basis for transfers of unobligated balances to the account  (Recommendation 2) The Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) should revise the Financial Management Regulation to include guidance on ensuring that data are complete and accurate, including assignment of responsibility for correcting erroneous data in its Foreign Currency Fluctuations Defense (O&M) reports  (Recommendation 3) The Secretary of the Army should develop a plan with timelines for implementing changes to its General Fund Enterprise Business System to accurately record its disbursements, consistent with DOD Financial Management Regulation guidance  (Recommendation 4) We provided a draft of this report to DOD for review and comment  In its written comments, reproduced in appendix II, DOD concurred with our first, third, and fourth recommendations and outlined its plan to address them  DOD partially concurred with our second recommendation that the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) analyze realized and projected losses to determine the necessary size of the FCFD account balance and use the results of the analysis as the basis for transfers of unobligated balances to the account  DOD also provided technical comments, which we incorporated in the report, where appropriate  In partially concurring with our second recommendation, DOD stated that projecting foreign currency gains or losses can be difficult given that foreign currency rates can be volatile due to various factors, such as trade balances, money supply, and national income, as well as arbitrary disturbances that affect foreign currency rates that cannot be predicted or forecasted, such as the departure of the United Kingdom from the European Union  DOD noted that because of the risk and volatility associated with foreign currency rates, the Congress established the FCFD account  We agree that forecasting foreign currency rates is challenging due to market volatility and include examples in our report of the effect of foreign currency rate fluctuations on DOD’s planned foreign currency obligations  Our report also describes the relationship between gains and losses and foreign currency fluctuations, and the movement of funds from the FCFD account to offset any losses  As our report also discusses, DOD calculates actual and projected losses due to foreign currency fluctuations and uses those projections as the basis, at least in part, for any transfers out of the FCFD account to cover losses experienced in the military services’ O&M and MILPERS appropriations  However, our report also notes that DOD does not consider its calculations of actual and future projected losses when making transfers of unobligated O&M and MILPERS balances to replenish the FCFD account  Instead, since fiscal year 2012, DOD has kept the FCFD account balance at the maximum level allowed by statute by using unobligated balances before they are canceled and are no longer available to DOD, regardless of whether the funds were needed in the account to offset any projected losses  DOD’s comments also stated that projecting gains or losses for foreign currency to determine the size of the FCFD account opens the door to greater uncertainty and risk at a time when the department is working to rebuild readiness and implement the National Defense Strategy  Our report describes the characteristics of the FCFD account that provide DOD with flexibility to manage market volatility, thereby helping to address uncertainty and reduce risk  For example, DOD can make multiple transfers of funds to the FCFD account throughout a fiscal year in response to unforeseen foreign currency fluctuations  The FCFD account can also receive funds from transfers of actual foreign currency gains and/or unobligated balances  As we also noted, DOD made use of its authority to transfer expired unobligated MILPERS and O&M amounts into the FCFD account in the event that actual losses exceeded the projected amounts and additional transfers were deemed necessary  We continue to believe that by analyzing actual and projected losses and basing the transfer of any unobligated balances on these losses, DOD would be better positioned to determine the size of the FCFD account balance that is necessary to meet its intended purpose  Further, such analyses would provide opportunities to more efficiently use unobligated balances for other defense activities or return the balances to Treasury  We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Defense, the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), the Secretary of the Army, the Secretary of the Navy, the Secretary of the Air Force, the Commandant of the Marine Corps, and appropriate congressional committees  In addition, the report is available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www gao gov  If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-5431 or russellc@gao gov  Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report  Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix III  To describe the Department of Defense’s (DOD) revised foreign currency budget rates since 2009 and the relationship between the revised budget rates and DOD’s projected Operation and Maintenance (O&M) and Military Personnel (MILPERS) funding needs, we reviewed DOD’s foreign currency budget rates for the period of fiscal years 2009 through 2017, and we identified any years during which DOD revised the initial budget rates  We compared DOD’s initial foreign currency budget rates and revised foreign currency budget rates with rates published by the U S  Treasury Department (Treasury) for fiscal years 2009 through 2017  This period corresponded with data available to us on DOD’s initial and revised rates and allowed for use of the most current data available, since DOD had not yet decided whether or not to revise the fiscal year 2018 budget rates, while we were conducting our audit work  We chose rates published by Treasury for this comparison because Treasury has the sole authority to establish for all foreign currencies or credits the exchange rates at which such currencies are to be reported by all agencies of the government  Because Treasury rates are issued quarterly, we averaged Treasury’s first and second quarter rates for each currency and compared the Treasury average with DOD’s initial budget rates  Similarly, we computed an average of the third and fourth quarter Treasury rates for each currency and compared them with the DOD initial or revised budget rates, where applicable  These comparisons are meant to show the difference between DOD’s budget rates and Treasury rates for the first 6 months of the fiscal year, and the difference between DOD’s revised exchange rates and Treasury rates for the last 6 months of the fiscal year  Further, we analyzed the extent to which DOD’s budget rates were within 10 percent of Treasury rates during these same years  We chose 10 percent as the basis for our analysis because Treasury’s guidance states that amendments to the quarterly rates will be published during the quarter to reflect significant changes in the quarterly data, such as rate changes of 10 percent or more  Additionally, to understand the effect that revising the budget rates had on DOD’s O&M and MILPERS funding estimates and on potential gains or losses due to foreign currency fluctuations, we used a three-step approach  First, we identified the amount of O&M and MILPERS funds DOD requested for each currency  We converted the U S  Dollars requested to the total amount of foreign currency needed by multiplying the U S  Dollars requested by DOD’s initial budget rate  Second, we determined the total amount of U S  Dollars required using the revised rates by dividing the total amount of foreign currency needed using DOD’s initial budget rate by DOD’s revised budget rate  We used this same approach to determine the total amount of U S  Dollars required using the average Treasury rates  Third, we computed the differences in DOD’s O&M and MILPERS foreign currency funding needs by subtracting the U S  Dollars required to meet its foreign currency needs based on the average Treasury rates from the amounts required based on DOD’s initial budget rates and DOD’s revised budget rates, respectively  We discussed further with officials from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense, Comptroller (OUSD(C)) the factors considered in revising the rates and whether those factors are communicated within and outside of the department  To evaluate the extent to which DOD has taken steps to reduce costs in selecting foreign currency rates at which to make disbursements and determine whether opportunities exist to gain additional savings, we reviewed accounting standards and any guidelines that exist regarding disbursements and calculations of foreign currency gains and losses, such as DOD’s Financial Management Regulation 7000 14-R, which calls for the use of prevailing foreign currency rates to make disbursements  We also discussed with agency officials how those guidelines are being carried out, and whether DOD or the services have developed guidance that instructs the services in selecting rates used for disbursements in foreign currencies  Additionally, we examined a non-generalizable selection of data for DOD disbursements made during the months June and July 2017 from Treasury’s International Treasury Service (ITS gov) system to determine which rates DOD used during this period and what savings might be achievable from using alternate rates  We chose data from those 2 months because it was the most recent data available on disbursements at the time Treasury provided the data for our review  Additionally, we discussed with officials from OUSD(C) and the services any analysis and ongoing efforts to transition to more cost-effective rates, including savings that may result  To assess the extent to which DOD has effectively managed the Foreign Currency Fluctuations, Defense (FCFD) account to cover losses, and maintained quality information to manage these funds, we analyzed DOD data for fiscal years 2009 through 2016 on foreign currency gains and losses reported by each of the services as reported in their Foreign Currency Fluctuation, Defense (O&M) and (MILPERS) reports; movements of funds between the FCFD account and the services’ O&M and MILPERS accounts; and the end-of-year FCFD account balances  We chose this time period in order to capture years in which both gains and losses were experienced, and for which DOD had complete data on gains and losses, fund transfers, and end-of-year balances for the FCFD account  Because the Army charges disbursements to the current fiscal year appropriation instead of the fiscal year appropriation that incurred the obligation, we requested that the Army adjust its reported data on foreign currency gains and losses and provide information consistent with how the other services report them, and with DOD’s Financial Management Regulation  However, the Army was unable to provide us with data that were consistent with what was provided by the other services at the time of our review  We, therefore, were unable to use Army data for purposes of comparison with data provided by the other services  We compared the end-of-year FCFD account balances and the use of the account with guidelines established in our prior work on the importance of examining unobligated balances  Additionally, we reviewed and analyzed DOD financial reports on foreign currency gains or losses and compared the reports, including any identified discrepancies, against best practices and standards on accurate reporting and maintaining quality information, such as those in GAO’s Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, and the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board’s Handbook of Federal Accounting Standards and Other Pronouncements, as Amended  To determine the reliability of the data used in addressing these objectives, we analyzed DOD and Treasury foreign currency rates, data on DOD foreign currency disbursements, and DOD financial reporting data on foreign currency gains and losses to identify any missing or inaccurate information, and we discussed with agency officials any identified abnormalities and how the information was extracted from systems, when appropriate  We found the data to be sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our reporting objectives, with the exception of the financial reporting on financial gains and losses  Specifically, based on problems with the completeness and accuracy of DOD’s financial reporting on foreign currency gains and losses, we found that these data were not sufficiently reliable for the purpose of computing exact totals for the gains and losses DOD experienced  However, because DOD uses these data as the basis for decisions related to management of the FCFD account, we included the data in our analysis to provide insight into the scope of gains and losses experienced  We also spoke with OUSD(C), military service, and Treasury officials regarding the process and systems used to input the reviewed data and generate the foreign currency reports we reviewed  We conducted this performance audit from February 2017 to April 2018 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives  We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives  In addition to the contact named above, Matt Ullengren, Assistant Director; and Tulsi Bhojwani, Justin Bolivar, Carol Bray, Amie Lesser, Kelly Liptan, Felicia Lopez, Leah Nash, Randy Neice, Jacqueline McColl, Mike Silver, Roger Stoltz, Susan Tindall, John Trubey, Elaine Vaurio, and Cheryl Weissman made key contributions to this report 


Report 2: The Buy American Act of 1933 was enacted during the Great Depression when there was a need to create and preserve jobs for American workers, and it established a preference for the federal government to buy domestic end products  Many of the products the federal government buys—including aircraft engines and medical supplies—are end products that may be subject to the requirements of the Buy American Act  Further, the Buy American Act does not apply to products that are purchased for use outside the United States or obtained through contracts under the micro-purchase threshold, which was generally $3,500 in fiscal year 2017  end products manufactured in the United States provided that (a) the product is a commercially available off-the-shelf item; or (b) the cost of the components mined, produced, or manufactured in the United States exceeds 50 percent of the total cost of all components  End products that are not considered domestic under the Buy American Act are treated as foreign  This characterization is based on the origin of the end product—that is, where the product is manufactured or produced—and not the vendor’s location  For example, a vendor located in Finland may supply end products manufactured in the United States, in which case these products would be treated as domestic products  Conversely, a vendor located in the United States may supply end products manufactured in Finland  In this case, the end products would be considered foreign  Although the Buy American Act establishes a preference for domestic end products, there are situations in which agencies can procure foreign end products through established exceptions to the Buy American requirements  In addition, under the Trade Agreements Act of 1979, the United States has waived domestic purchasing requirements—including the Buy American Act—for certain acquisitions of foreign end products from countries that are party to international trade agreements or are considered designated countries by the U S  Trade Representative  In implementing the Buy American Act, the FAR sets forth several exceptions that permit federal agencies to buy foreign end products  These include situations when a domestic end product is not produced in sufficient quantities or cases where the cost would be unreasonable to buy a domestic end product  The steps that contracting officers must take to determine or document an exception will vary depending on the circumstances of the acquisition  For example, a written determination from the Head of Contracting Activity (HCA) or a delegate may be necessary to determine non-availability in some cases  However, a written determination may not be required when an acquisition is conducted through full and open competition, is synopsized, and no domestic offer is received  Other exceptions to the Buy American Act restrictions on the purchase of foreign products, such as the exception for commercial information technology, are blanket exceptions that do not require a written determination  In addition, some agencies have specified additional considerations that must precede a determination and what level of authority is appropriate for certain determinations  The five Buy American Act exceptions that apply government-wide and the corresponding determination standards in the FAR are listed in Table 1  Individual federal agencies may make blanket determinations of situations in which the Act’s restrictions should not apply to that agency’s procurements, when it is not in the public interest to restrict the purchase of foreign end products  For example, over the years, DOD has entered into reciprocal procurement agreements with 27 foreign counterparts  DOD determined that it would be inconsistent with the public interest to apply the Buy American Act restrictions on products from these 27 qualifying countries  Thus, if an offer includes end products from a qualifying country, those products are not restricted by the Buy American Act and the acquisition of qualifying country end products does not require higher approval  This public interest exception for qualifying countries applies only to contracts awarded by DOD  Federal agencies can purchase eligible foreign end products from designated countries when the Buy American Act’s requirements are waived because of the terms of an international trade agreement or other criteria, such as a designation by the U S  Trade Representative as a least developed country  In accordance with the Trade Agreements Act of 1979, the president has the authority to waive the Buy American Act  For eligible products that come from countries covered by the World Trade Organization’s Government Procurement Agreement, Free Trade Agreements, and the Israeli Trade Act, the Buy American Act has been waived so that these items receive nondiscriminatory consideration and are on equal footing with domestic end products  In total, these agreements cover approximately 60 countries—overlapping with all but two of the DOD qualifying countries  Appendix II highlights the overlap  Unlike DOD’s blanket public interest exception for qualifying countries, the Buy American Act requirements are only waived under a trade agreement if the acquisition is of a certain value set by the U S  Trade Representative  Current trade agreement thresholds, at or above which the requirements are waived, range from $25,000 for contracts for eligible products from Canada to $180,000 for the 45 other parties to the World Trade Organization’s Government Procurement Agreement  Table 2 lists the parties eligible for trade agreements and the associated threshold for supply contracts  The FAR specifies certain conditions in which trade agreements do not apply, even if the acquisition is above the requisite threshold value set by the U S  Trade Representative  In these cases, the Buy American Act would apply  These conditions include, but are not limited to: acquisitions that do not use full and open competition, when the limitation of competition would preclude the procedures applicable to acquisitions covered by trade agreements; certain sole-source acquisitions for commercial items using simplified acquisition procedures; acquisitions set aside for small businesses; acquisition of ammunition, arms, or war materials, or for purchases indispensable for national security or national defense purposes; and acquisitions from federal prison industries or nonprofit agencies employing people who are blind or severely disabled  If the contracting officer determines that a trade agreement applies to a particular acquisition, which waives the Buy American restrictions, that determination does not require additional review at a higher level  This is similar to other circumstances where Buy American Act restrictions do not apply, such as for the acquisition of products for use outside the United States or contracts valued below the micro-purchase threshold  The Buy American Act’s applicability is based on the country of origin of the product being supplied, rather than the country of the vendor offering the product to the government  Vendors who propose to do business with the U S  government are required to certify as to where their products are manufactured or produced—whether in the United States or in a designated country covered by the Trade Agreements Act  Vendors can provide an annual certification applicable to all of their contracts through the federal government’s contractor registry, known as the System for Award Management (SAM)  Through SAM, a vendor identifies the country of origin for foreign products associated with a broad category of products  For example, a vendor could state that it provides aircraft components that originate in France and Mexico  Vendors also have the option not to certify the origin of their products in SAM, but instead provide information about foreign end products in their individual offers for contracts  Contracting officials include the relevant clauses in solicitations and contracts in accordance with regulation to require vendor certification  For example, the clause at FAR 52 225-2, Buy American Certificate, requires the offeror to certify that each end product is a domestic end product, or list any foreign end products and their country of origin  Once a contract is awarded, the awarding agency must enter certain information into FPDS-NG, a government-wide database for contract awards and obligations  The Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP) within the Office of Management and Budget provides the overall direction for FPDS-NG, which is managed by the General Services Administration  FPDS-NG data can be populated through the individual systems agencies use to develop contracts  Agencies are responsible for the quality of the information transmitted to FPDS-NG, including data captured on the contract value and whether the foreign product acquisition is authorized by one of the Buy American Act exceptions or a trade agreement  This information is recorded at the contract level, or at the delivery order level for orders from indefinite delivery contracts  For certain product categories—essentially those that represent end products—FPDS-NG requires that contracting staff enter information in the “Place of Manufacture” drop-down data field, as shown in Figure 1  This field must be populated for all reported manufactured end products, including those valued under the micro-purchase threshold, which at the time of our review was generally $3,500  Options in this field include indicating that the product is made in the United States, or that it is made outside the United States and qualifies under one of the Buy American Act exceptions, or that it is subject to the requirements of a trade agreement instead of the Buy American Act requirements  In 2018, FPDS-NG data on agencies’ historical reporting of the use of Buy American exceptions were added to the website on which agencies post contracting opportunities (www fbo gov)  According to OFPP, this allows vendors selling domestic products to more easily see how agencies acquire foreign goods pursuant to Buy American Act exceptions  In fiscal year 2017, the federal government obligated approximately $7 8 billion for the acquisition of foreign end products, which accounts for less than 5 percent of total federal contract obligations for end products in that year  We observed differences in how civilian agencies and DOD apply Buy American Act exceptions and waivers  In our review of 38 contracts and orders from four agencies—DOD, HHS, DHS, and VA—we found 6 instances where the place of manufacture information was misreported in FPDS-NG  We further identified system limitations in how FPDS-NG captures information  Based on our analysis of FPDS-NG data, almost 40 percent of federal contract obligations in fiscal year 2017—totaling approximately $196 billion—were for domestic and foreign end products, such as aircraft parts, that may be subject to the Buy American Act  Less than 5 percent of these obligations—approximately $7 8 billion—were reported as foreign end products  This is consistent with the information agencies reported in FPDS-NG in the previous 4 years, with foreign end products accounting for approximately 3 to 8 percent of goods subject to Buy American Act restrictions between fiscal years 2013 through 2016  The foreign end products in fiscal year 2017 primarily came from South Korea, the United Kingdom, Afghanistan, Canada, Mexico, and the United Arab Emirates, which together accounted for almost half of the total foreign end products reported  Appendix III shows the federal government’s obligations for foreign end products from various countries for fiscal year 2017  The procurement of foreign end products is permitted by the flexibilities available under the Buy American Act’s exceptions and waivers  Agencies also procured foreign end products through means separate from the exceptions allowed under the Buy American Act, primarily in cases where the Act would not apply  Agencies reported obligating more than $700 million to procure foreign end products by applying one of the five government-wide Buy American Act exceptions—such as domestic non-availability or unreasonable cost—in FPDS-NG for fiscal year 2017  Agencies reported obligating approximately $550 million to procure foreign end products as permitted by the Trade Agreements Act, which waives the Buy American Act’s domestic preference requirements for US trading partners when eligible products are covered by trade agreements and are above certain dollar thresholds  DOD also obligated nearly $2 9 billion to procure foreign products from countries with which it has reciprocal procurement agreements, using what is referred to as the DOD qualifying country exception  This is an exercise of the authority available to agencies under the Buy American Act’s public interest exception  DOD determined that it is not in the public interest to restrict the purchase of foreign end products from 27 countries  All but two of these qualifying countries are also US trading partners, so some of these awards for eligible products may be authorized by a trade agreement  However, the qualifying country exception allows DOD to procure foreign end products without regard to dollar thresholds or other trade agreement eligibility limitations  Agencies also procured foreign end products, such as fuel, to be used outside the United States, in which circumstance the Buy American Act’s requirements do not apply  For fiscal year 2017, these obligations accounted for almost $3 7 billion—about 47 percent of all dollars obligated for foreign end products, as reported in FPDS-NG  Figure 2 highlights fiscal year 2017 obligations, including agencies’ reported spending on foreign end products under the Buy American Act exceptions and other means  DOD accounted for more than 80 percent—roughly $6 4 billion—of the total obligations for foreign end products in fiscal year 2017  Almost all of DOD purchases were either for use outside of the United States, so were not subject to Buy American Act restrictions, or were reported under the public interest exception for DOD qualifying countries  In contrast, civilian agencies report a more varied mix of the exceptions and waivers of the Buy American Act  The civilian agencies—which are unable to apply DOD’s qualifying country exception—were more likely to report buying foreign end products based on trade agreements or another exception to the Buy American Act requirements  Figure 3 shows how DOD and the civilian agencies acquired foreign end products authorized by the various exceptions and waivers of the Buy American Act  From our review of FPDS-NG data, the civilian agencies are more likely to cite one of the five Buy American Act exceptions or a trade agreement waiver when buying foreign end products, and thus take corresponding actions to document or approve the authority cited  For example, in our review of contracts from four agencies, VA obligated $71,000 for medical imaging equipment from Canada, and had to consider whether a trade agreement waiver applied  The manufacturer was determined to be the only source available and the contracting officer determined the acquisition was authorized by a Buy American exception based on domestic non-availability, which can require additional review  In contrast, DOD may make a similar contract award for equipment from Canada based on the qualifying countries exception  DOD acquisitions, then, may be authorized by exceptions such as domestic non-availability when a required item does not come from a qualifying country  For example, we reviewed a $744,000 DOD award for vehicle equipment that was only available from South Africa—which is not one of the DOD qualifying countries and not covered by any of the trade agreements—so the acquisition was authorized by the domestic non-availability exception  In addition, the civilian agencies also reported buying foreign end products for use outside the United States but to a lesser extent than DOD  For example, this included one of the contracts we reviewed, an HHS award for Ebola vaccines manufactured in the Netherlands, with $44 7 million obligated in fiscal year 2017  This contract was reported as used outside the United States because it is primarily stored overseas  FPDS-NG is the primary means for capturing procurement data regarding the Buy American Act, but we found that agencies may not always input reliable information on the extent to which exceptions or waivers authorized the acquisition of foreign end products  In addition, some aspects of how FPDS-NG is structured could lead to additional data reporting errors  In the non-generalizable sample of 38 contracts and orders we examined from DOD, HHS, DHS, and VA, we found 6 awards where information related to the Buy American Act was incorrectly reported in FPDS-NG  In three of the six contracts, agencies recorded the wrong exception or waiver, most often because of an error when reporting the place of manufacture in FPDS-NG  For example, DOD reported a $22,000 contract for vehicle equipment from South Africa as a Buy American Act exception due to unreasonable cost  But the contract file indicated that the exception that applied was domestic non-availability  DOD officials acknowledged the error and corrected it in FPDS-NG during the course of our review  In the three remaining contracts, agencies misreported whether an end product came from the United States or another country  For example, DHS incorrectly recorded that an $18 million contract was for aircraft accessories and other parts manufactured in the United States, even though file documentation showed the contract was for Italian-produced spare parts from the original equipment manufacturer  The Italian- produced spare parts were available from existing inventory maintained by the manufacturer and were needed immediately to meet a mandatory operational requirement  Officials from DHS acknowledged the recording oversight, attributed it to a mistake when entering information in FPDS- NG, and have since corrected the error in response to our observation  Additionally, FPDS-NG has system limitations that could hinder complete and accurate reporting of Buy American Act information: DOD Qualifying Country Exceptions and Trade Agreement Waivers  FPDS-NG requires that information on the type of Buy American Act exception or waiver applied be provided when end products are reported as foreign  But FPDS-NG does not identify errors associated with this process  For example, we reviewed an $8 3 million DHS contract for engines manufactured in Germany that was recorded as a DOD qualifying country exception in FPDS-NG, although this exception is not available to civilian agencies  Contracting officials corrected the data in FPDS-NG during the course of our review  Further, FPDS-NG does not prevent agencies from reporting trade agreement waivers when the contracts are valued below applicable thresholds or waivers do not apply, such as for small business set asides  For example, in the fiscal year 2017 data we reviewed, more than 5 percent of contract obligations reported for trade agreement waivers were for awards set-aside for small businesses, which would not be eligible under the Trade Agreements Act  OFPP officials noted that because of the various dollar thresholds applicable to different trade agreements, adding automatic thresholds in FPDS-NG to guide contracting staff in reporting an applicable trade agreement could lead to additional data errors in the procurement database  Awards under the Micro-purchase Threshold  Although the Buy American Act requirements do not apply to contract awards valued below the micro-purchase threshold—generally $3,500 in fiscal year 2017—the FPDS-NG ‘Place of Manufacture’ field does not have an option to indicate whether a contract is under the threshold  Instead, contracting officers entering information for awards under the micro- purchase amount must still state whether the product is domestic or foreign  If the product is foreign, the officials must select a Buy American Act exception authorizing the purchase, even though no exception is needed at these dollar levels  As a result, when agencies report in FPDS-NG that a Buy American Act exception or waiver applied for a procurement valued at less than $3,500, that information would not be accurate  Based on our review, this may have involved about $16 million in fiscal year 2017 obligations  Awards for both Foreign and Domestic Products  When reporting data for contracts that include multiple end products from both the United States and a foreign country, FPDS-NG only allows for one country of origin to be identified  Contracting officers told us that they typically will report a foreign end product in FPDS-NG when the foreign products account for the preponderance of the contract value  Thus, in cases where a contract includes foreign end products that do not account for the preponderance of the contract’s value, the value of these foreign end products would not be reported in FPDS-NG  We have previously reported that FPDS-NG has similar limitations in other fields, such the type of product or service provided, which prevent contracting officers from identifying more than one condition  According to OFPP, a recent change in the FAR requiring contract reporting at the line item level should provide greater transparency of all products included in a contract  Buy American Act Exceptions and Waivers under Indefinite Delivery Contracts  The way FPDS-NG captures data for Buy American Act exceptions and waivers for some indefinite-delivery contracts results in inaccurate data reporting  When an indefinite- delivery contract is initially awarded, FPDS-NG functionality does not give contracting staff the option to enter information for the ‘Place of Manufacture’ field  Instead, this information is typically captured once an order is placed on the contract  In our review of FPDS-NG data across the four agencies, however, we found that in some cases obligations are reported on the initial indefinite delivery contract so the Buy American Act exceptions or waivers are not recorded  This occurred with multiple agencies, but particularly at HHS, where information for almost 28 percent of HHS obligations for end products in fiscal year 2017 was not captured in FPDS-NG because the obligations were reported in the system through the initial contracts rather than orders  As a result, the applicability of the Buy American Act for HHS contracts totaling almost $1 9 billion in fiscal year 2017 was unreported in FPDS-NG  DOD, DHS, and VA officials told us they identified FPDS-NG reporting as an area of concern  GAO Standards for Internal Controls in the Federal Government state that management should use quality information to support objectives, and that such data should be complete and accurate  In response to the 2017 Executive Order calling for federal agencies to assess their implementation of the Buy American Act requirement, OFPP officials told us they are identifying potential strategies for improving the information agencies submit to FPDS-NG  As OFPP weighs potential options for FPDS-NG reporting, implementing enhancements to reduce data entry errors and ensure that the data collected are complete and accurate would help enable the system to provide the most useful information possible  Ensuring information is correctly reported in FPDS- NG is critical because the data are used to inform procurement policy decisions and facilitate congressional oversight  The four agencies we reviewed—DOD, HHS, DHS, and VA—took different approaches to provide training and guidance for the Buy American Act requirements  Contracting officers faced challenges when procuring products subject to the Buy American Act  For example, we found instances in which contracting officers applied a waiver or exception to contracts where the waiver did not apply and did not have complete guidance for required determinations or reviews  There also were challenges in confirming product origin information when vendors did not provide consistent information  The four agencies we reviewed varied in the mix of training and guidance provided to aid contracting officers in implementing the requirements of the Buy American Act  Three of the four agencies—DOD, DHS and VA— supplemented the federal acquisition regulation, which implements the requirements of the Buy American Act and Trade Agreements Act, with their own acquisition regulations  In addition, DHS and DOD have recently updated existing training or added new training and guidance  VA issued policy memoranda in 2017, emphasizing the importance of meeting Buy American Act requirements, but has not added training or provided specific guidance  HHS does not provide department-level training or guidance related to the Buy American Act  Most of the DHS and DOD contracting officers we spoke to reported that they had attended training and several found the guidance provided by the training to be helpful  HHS and VA contracting officials described confusion due to the lack of resources available at their respective agencies  In 2017, in response to a series of recommendations from the DOD Inspector General to re-emphasize Buy American Act training and guidance, the Defense Acquisition University introduced an updated training course that specifically focuses on the requirements and implementation of the Buy American Act  While not mandatory, a June 2017 memo notified all DOD services and the defense agencies that members of their contracting workforce should complete this training as part of their professional development  At the current pace of enrollment, DOD officials anticipate approximately 18,000 people will have taken this course by the end of September 2018, which is a seven-fold increase over previous graduation rates  Incorporated into these trainings were supplemental on-the-job tools to assist contracting officers when awarding contracts for end products subject to the Buy American Act requirements  One such tool is a flowchart outlining applicable solicitation provisions or contract clauses based upon the awarded contract’s total dollar value  DOD contracting officials we interviewed from Defense Logistics Agency’s (DLA) Land and Maritime division had completed the agency-level Buy American Act training and said it served as a good refresher, with some noting that most of the training they had received on the subject came when they were first hired  DOD provides regulations and guidance on Buy American Act requirements through both the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) and the accompanying Procedures, Guidance and Information  DOD contracting officers use the provisions and clauses in DFARS to address the public interest exception for DOD qualifying countries  In addition, as a part of the updated training, the Defense Pricing and Contracting Office developed two documents to provide additional Buy American Act guidance  One outlines a step-by-step approach contracting officers can follow to determine whether the Buy American Act applies to their particular procurement and, if so, whether the use of an exception or waiver is appropriate  The second assists contracting officers with evaluating all offers—foreign and domestic— when price is the determining factor  In addition, we found that DLA supplements the available Defense Acquisition University training and guidance with a robust level of support, including annual training and subject matter expertise  DLA contracting officers told us that while they found the updated training helpful, they also appreciated the training course internal to their agency, as it addresses the types of procurements they typically handle in their day-to- day work, such as buying spare parts  Further, DLA contracting officers noted that they use the job aid provided through the local training  DHS introduced training courses in 2017 that specifically focus on the requirements and implementation of the Buy American Act, including a mandatory training course for DHS contracting officers  DHS reported that 94 percent of contracting staff had taken the required course as of April 2018  DHS developed these courses in response to the 2017 Executive Order to ensure its staff was familiar with the Buy American Act requirements  Incorporated into these training courses are supplemental on-the-job tools to assist contracting officers when awarding contracts for end products subject to the Buy American Act requirements, such as a flowchart outlining applicable solicitation provisions or contract clauses based upon contract dollar value

ground_truth: DOD requested about $60 billion for fiscal years 2009 - 2017 to purchase goods and services overseas and reimburse service-members for costs incurred while stationed abroad. DOD uses foreign currency exchange rates to budget and pay (that is, disburse amounts) for these expenses. It also manages the FCFD account to mitigate a loss in buying power that results from foreign currency rate changes. GAO was asked to examine DOD's processes to budget for and manage foreign currency fluctuations. This report (1) describes DOD's revision of its foreign currency budget rates since 2009 and the relationship between the revised rates and projected O&M and MILPERS funding needs; (2) evaluates the extent to which DOD has taken steps to reduce costs in selecting foreign currency rates to disburse funds to liquidate O&M obligations, and determined whether opportunities exist to gain additional savings; and (3) assesses the extent to which DOD has effectively managed the FCFD account balance. GAO analyzed data on foreign currency rates, DOD financial management regulations, a non-generalizable sample of foreign currency disbursement data, and FCFD account balances. The Department of Defense (DOD) revised its foreign currency exchange rates (“budget rates”) during fiscal years 2014 through 2016 for each of the nine foreign currencies it uses to develop its Operation and Maintenance (O&M) and Military Personnel (MILPERS) budget request. These revisions decreased DOD's projected O&M and MILPERS funding needs. DOD's revision of the budget rates during these years also decreased the expected gains (that is, buying power) that would have resulted from an increase in the strength of the U.S. Dollar relative to other foreign currencies. DOD did not revise its budget rates in fiscal years 2009 through 2013. For fiscal year 2017, DOD changed its methodology for producing budget rates, resulting in rates that were more closely aligned with market rates. According to officials, that change made it unnecessary to revise the budget rates during the fiscal year. DOD has taken some steps to reduce costs in selecting foreign currency rates used to pay (that is, disburse amounts) for goods and services, but DOD has not fully determined whether opportunities exist to achieve additional savings. The Army has estimated potential savings of up to $10 million annually by using a foreign currency rate available 3 days in advance of paying for goods or services rather than a more costly rate available up to 5 days in advance. The Army has converted to the use of a 3-day advanced rate. GAO's analysis suggests that DOD could achieve cost savings if the services reviewed and consistently selected the most cost-effective foreign currency rates when paying for their goods and services. Absent a review, DOD is at risk for paying more than it would otherwise be required to conduct its transactions. DOD used the Foreign Currency Fluctuations, Defense (FCFD) account to cover losses (that is, less buying power) due to unfavorable foreign currency fluctuations in 6 of the 8 years GAO reviewed. Since 2012, DOD has maintained the FCFD account balance at the statutory limit of $970 million, largely by transferring unobligated balances before they are cancelled from certain DOD accounts into the FCFD. However, DOD has not identified the appropriate FCFD account balance needed to maintain program operations by routinely analyzing projected losses and basing any transfers into the account on those expected losses. Thus, DOD may be maintaining balances that are hundreds of millions of dollars higher than needed, and that could have been used for other purposes or returned to the Treasury Department (see figure). GAO is making four recommendations, including that DOD review opportunities to achieve cost savings by more consistently selecting the most cost-effective foreign currency rates used for the payment of goods and services, and analyze projected losses to manage the FCFD account balance. DOD generally concurred with the recommendations.

prompt_front: You are given two reports by the government agency.



Question: Write a one-page summary of the report 2.



Report 2:  Contracting officials generally view the training and tools they received as beneficial  For example, several DHS contracting officials we interviewed said that the agency’s new course provided a helpful review on the topic, while one contracting officer specifically noted that the course materials are useful to new staff, to help them understand the Act’s waivers and exceptions  DHS also revised its acquisition manual in December 2017 to add further detail regarding the Buy American Act requirements  Specifically, DHS updated its acquisition manual to provide contracting officers more explicit FPDS-NG reporting instructions for procurements subject to the Buy American Act, as well as discretion to purchase domestic end products at or below the micro-purchase threshold  Additional changes include increasing the documentation and level of managerial review required to use several of the exceptions to the Buy American Act  For example, prior to 2018—which includes the time period in which the DHS contracts and orders we reviewed were awarded—the head of individual contracting offices had the authority to approve domestic non-availability and unreasonable cost exceptions, with a notification made to the DHS Chief Procurement Officer  But under the new policy, the use of these exceptions must have the concurrence of the HCA—who is responsible for contracting activities within individual DHS components—and be approved by the department’s Chief Procurement Officer  Table 3 outlines these changes  In September 2017, VA issued guidance to reinforce existing Buy American Act requirements  The policy memorandum encourages the HCAs within VA to institute reviews of awarded contracts subject to the Buy American Act to ensure compliance  As of September 2018, policy officials did not know how many HCAs had taken this step  Further, the guidance emphasizes the importance of Buy American Act training for its acquisition workforce  VA policy officials explained that the Buy American Act is introduced in several VA training courses, but the agency does not have a specific course on implementing the Buy American Act requirements or provide additional instruction or tools  During the course of our review, VA officials said that some of the HCAs had added internal training on the Buy American Act  In addition, VA contracting staff has the option of taking training offered outside the agency, such as the updated Defense Acquisition University course on the Buy American Act  This training is not required  Contracting officials we spoke to at VA said they struggled with the details of awarding contracts subject to Buy American Act requirements because they are not provided sufficient agency-specific training and guidance on the topic  Moreover, several contracting staff noted an increased need for training due to recent changes in VA contracting practices  Specifically, in response to a 2016 Supreme Court decision, VA has increased contracting efforts with veteran-owned small businesses through the Veterans First Contracting Program  As a result, contracting officials explained they have reduced their use of schedule contracts, in which the determinations related to the Buy American Act requirements were made with the initial awards  As one contracting officer explained, prior to this change, more than 90 percent of her division’s procurements were through VA schedule contracts in which Buy American Act applicability had already been established  However, this shift in contracting practices means contracting officers will more frequently need to consider the applicability of the Buy American Act, but contracting officers have not received specific guidance or training to do so  Noting the significance of this change, one contracting officer stated she approached VA management to obtain Buy American Act training for her division, but such training was not available  Federal internal controls state that agencies should ensure that training is aimed at developing and retaining employee knowledge, skills, and abilities to meet changing organizational needs  In September 2018, we reported that VA was experiencing difficulties implementing multiple aspects of the Veterans First policy, and we recommended that VA provide more targeted implementation training  As VA moves forward to implement this training, incorporating the Buy American Act requirements will be important to provide greater assurance that staff has the knowledge and skills needed to navigate the changing procurement environment  HHS does not have agency-level Buy American training or guidance  The HHS Acquisition Regulation Supplement does not address foreign acquisitions  HHS officials told us that efforts to develop guidance that would address Buy American Act requirements are underway, but they do not know when they will be finalized and made available to contracting officers, and could not describe the extent to which they will address Buy American Act implementation  The HHS contracting officers we interviewed discussed informal Buy American Act training their divisions had developed because department-level training was not available  For example, at HHS’ National Institutes of Health, a contracting official told us about a training course she recently developed because her office was taking on the administration of additional contracts for which the Buy American Act requirements would apply  Contracting officers at HHS’ Office of Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority described informal training on the agency’s contract writing system— included as part of their weekly internal staff meetings—that provides additional guidance on how to appropriately complete certain data fields relevant to the Buy American Act  In our analysis of 38 contracts from across the four agencies, we found that agencies faced various levels of challenge in applying the Trade Agreements Act waivers and Buy American Act exceptions to acquire foreign end products  This was particularly apparent in cases where contracting officers had to determine if a trade agreement applied or cases which required a determination that a domestic end product was not sufficiently available, in accordance with the domestic non-availability exception to the Buy American Act requirements  Contracting staff also had difficulty determining the origin of products in light of incomplete or conflicting information  Of the six contracts we reviewed reporting that a trade agreement applied to the foreign end products purchased, we found two cases in which this waiver did not apply to the contracts in question  The value of the contract is one determining factor for whether a trade agreement waives the Buy American Act requirements, although the FAR also states additional factors that would affect applicability under a trade agreement  The two contracts we found, both from VA, had total dollar values at award— $8,435 and $11,950, respectively—that were less than any of the thresholds at which trade agreement waivers of the Buy American Act are applicable  Both contracts were for products from countries that are party to the World Trade Organization Government Procurement Agreement, so the value of the acquisition would have to be equal to or exceed $191,000—the threshold that was in effect at the time of award—for waivers from Buy American requirements to apply  Contracting officials in both cases were generally unaware that the applicable threshold was not met, making the trade agreement waiver inapplicable  Although VA has added Buy American Act guidance since these contracts were awarded early in fiscal year 2017, the information currently available does not provide sufficient detail to assist contracting officers when awarding contracts in these situations  For example, the guidance VA provided contracting officers in September 2017 does not emphasize consideration of the applicable trade agreement thresholds or include information on how contracting officers should determine the applicable waiver or exception  When contracting officers procure foreign end products, the type of waiver or exception used to support the purchase matters—particularly when required additional steps and review are not completed because the wrong waiver or exception was applied  We found that the two VA contracts with foreign end products were incorrectly reported as the Trade Agreements Act waiver having applied  If one of the other Buy American Act exceptions permitting purchases of foreign end products had applied, contracting officers may have been required to obtain higher-level review or complete a written determination  In addition, we reviewed contracts that show some of the complexities contracting officers face beyond applying the dollar thresholds when determining if an award for foreign end products is eligible under the Trade Agreements Act waiver of the Buy American Act  Specifically, we found instances where DHS contracting officials took different approaches for non-competed awards for similar foreign-manufactured products  For example, we reviewed a non-competed $58 million DHS award for acquiring spare aircraft parts from an original equipment manufacturer located in a foreign country that is party to the World Trade Organization Government Procurement Agreement  DHS reported in FPDS-NG that the procurement was waived by the Trade Agreements Act  However, we also reviewed two other sole-source awards from DHS for similar products—spare aircraft parts from two separate manufacturers in foreign countries that are also party to the World Trade Organization Government Procurement Agreement—that were instead reported as subject to the Buy American Act, but excepted due to the non-availability of domestic products  Contracting officers may come to different conclusions for similar products, in part, because of the multiple factors that have to be considered when determining whether an acquisition is subject to the Buy American Act and whether any waivers or exceptions apply  However, available guidance does not always address these complexities  For example, agencies need to decide if other conditions, such as the procurement of products deemed indispensable for national security or national defense purposes apply to an acquisition that would make a trade agreement inapplicable  Further, if the product’s country of origin is considered a designated country under the World Trade Organization Government Procurement Agreement, officials need to determine that the product is eligible under that agreement  DHS updated its training and guidance for the Buy American Act, which includes a job aid outlining at what dollar values solicitation provisions and contract clauses under a trade agreement waiver are applicable  However, it does not address other situations in which contracts may not be eligible under the Trade Agreements Act, such as non-eligible products or products for national defense purposes  For the other agencies in our review, we found that DOD’s updated Buy American Act training and its acquisition supplement both address trade agreement eligibility, but HHS does not yet have Buy American guidance to address this topic  Federal internal control standards state that agencies should communicate quality information internally to achieve their objectives and that they should select the appropriate methods of communication  When written guidance is not available, agencies may miss opportunities to ensure appropriate steps are taken to meet Buy American Act requirements  Our review of 38 contracts also included 8 contracts for foreign end products pursuant to the domestic non-availability exception  In certain situations, such as when contracts are awarded without full and open competition, this exception requires an approved written determination  The FAR establishes requirements for domestic non-availability determinations, but agencies can delegate the level of review required or specify information to be included in the determination  Three of the agencies we reviewed—DOD, DHS, and VA—provide supplemental guidance on the process for making determinations, including who must make the determination when applying a domestic non-availability exception  However, DHS policy officials told us that when the agency uses the domestic non-availability exception for a sole-source acquisition, the written justification that the FAR requires for non- competed awards should suffice as the documentation to support the non-availability determination as well  The practice of using sole-source justifications to support Buy American determinations is not addressed in DHS guidance  According to DHS policy updated in 2018, determinations of domestic non-availability must be concurred with by the HCA and approved by the Chief Procurement Officer  Federal and DHS acquisition regulations, however, state that some justifications can be approved at a lower level  In the absence of further guidance, this difference in approval levels could result in inconsistent application within the department  In addition, as previously noted HHS does not yet have Buy American Act guidance so the department does not provide information on how to make determinations  According to federal internal control standards, agencies should communicate quality information internally to achieve their objectives and that they should select appropriate communication methods  When written guidance is not available, agencies may miss opportunities to ensure that contracting officers take the steps needed to meet requirements when applying a domestic non-availability exception  Knowing the country of origin of the products the federal government buys is necessary to implement the Buy American Act, but contracting officers do not always have access to accurate information on originating countries  The FAR and the DFARS provide various clauses which, when incorporated into contracts, require vendors to certify that the end products they provide to the government are domestic and, if necessary, declare the foreign countries from which they provide products  Vendors frequently certify this information through the System for Award Management (SAM), the government-wide system used to collect vendors’ annual representations and certifications  Contracting officers may rely on the information vendors provide about their product origins, but they are generally expected to take actions to verify incomplete or conflicting information when they have reason to believe that a vendor will be providing a non-compliant product  We found that SAM certifications and offers did not always include accurate information on end products from foreign countries  In 6 of the 38 contracts that we reviewed—from DHS, HHS, and VA—the vendors certified that they only provided domestic end products although the end products provided were foreign  In all of these cases, the contracting officers knew that the acquisitions included foreign end products  For example, we reviewed two DHS awards for spare aircraft parts from an Italian-based company, one of which was reported in FPDS-NG under the domestic non-availability exception to the Buy American Act, and the other which was incorrectly reported as being manufactured in the United States but has since been corrected  Contracting officials said they knew the parts were made in Italy based on extensive experience contracting with the company and, in part, because they had visited the production location  Contracting officials—including some at HHS and VA—said they use SAM as their primary source to determine whether the vendor is offering domestic end products  Others reported some awareness of the limitations of SAM certifications  At all four agencies, contracting officials emphasized that it is important to ask questions when end product origin information is not readily available—or if there is conflicting information—but agency guidance that we reviewed does not address this need or provide information on how to do so  Only the local training offered by DOD’s DLA addresses other sources of information, which officials said was helpful because it is specific to the industries with which they work  Instead, some officials described how they rely on their experience to know how to verify products’ origins but this can be problematic, particularly with newer staff  For example, in one contract we reviewed VA contracting officials acknowledged that a new contracting specialist at VA did not follow-up when the product origin certification was not provided and assumed all of the items procured were domestic  During the course of our review, the contracting specialist’s supervisor said that she contacted the vendor and learned that some of the items provided were in fact foreign end products  The foreign products were not considered to account for the preponderance of the contract so were not reported in FPDS-NG, but the contracting officer was acting with incomplete information at the time of award  Further, in 4 of the 38 contracts that we reviewed, it is not clear how contracting staff took steps to obtain product origin information in situations where it was not provided in SAM  In these cases—which include contracts for both domestic and foreign end products—the vendors had opted not to certify their product origins in SAM, but instead said that they would provide the information with their individual proposals  However, based on the information in the contract files, the proposals did not include this information  For example: Three of the contracts we reviewed from HHS—all reported as purchasing end items manufactured in the United States—did not certify product origin in SAM  The supervising contracting officer for two of the awards explained that his contracting staff regularly check the vendor’s written representations and certifications provided in the offer, because the SAM certifications are general and do not always apply to the specific equipment they buy  However, the three contract files we reviewed did not include manufacturing or origin information  The vendor for a DHS contract that was reported as manufactured in the United States did not certify this information in SAM  The contracting officer said that he checks SAM for product origin information, but in the documents we reviewed there is no evidence of the information in the contract file  Federal internal control standards state that agencies should communicate the necessary quality information needed to achieve the agency’s objectives, thereby enabling personnel to address risks  Providing guidance regarding the situations in which contracting officers should verify product origin information with vendors may help agencies better meet the requirements of the Buy American Act  Although purchases for foreign end products account for less than 5 percent of federal procurement spending in fiscal year 2017, it is important that these purchases be consistent with the domestic- purchasing restrictions in the Buy American Act  This requires that Buy American Act exceptions and trade agreement waivers be used only when applicable, and that agencies report accurate data on the extent to which they are used  However, data reporting errors by contracting staff and FPDS-NG limitations mean that data on the use of exceptions and waivers are not fully captured  The federal agencies all have responsibilities to ensure Buy American Act data are accurate and complete  The lack of good data can hinder congressional oversight of the extent to which foreign end products are procured as authorized by one of the exceptions or waivers of the Buy American Act  Agencies have taken varied approaches for providing information to contracting officers that navigate the complexities and nuances associated with applying the different Buy American Act exceptions or trade agreement waivers  DOD has added such detailed information through its revised training course and policy guidance  Adding these types of targeted information to address challenging areas would help contracting officers at other agencies implement the Buy American Act’s domestic preferences, as well as related exceptions and waivers  Further, to accurately determine how exceptions and waivers apply requires complete product origin information  Although the responsibility to certify the origins of products supplied to the federal government rests with the contractors, contracting officers would benefit from resources that help them identify information that may be inconsistent, to ensure that accurate information is available  We are making four recommendations, one each to the Office of Management and Budget, DHS, VA, and HHS  The Director of the Office of Management and Budget should instruct the Office of Federal Procurement Policy: To facilitate additional training to improve the understanding of the contracting workforce regarding the Buy American Act requirements; and To facilitate clarifying revisions to FPDS-NG, where needed, and provide training and guidance for recording Buy American Act information in FPDS-NG to improve the accuracy of the Buy American data  (Recommendation 1) The Secretary of Homeland Security should clarify existing guidance in the Homeland Security Acquisition Manual or update training to help contracting officials: Identify the factors that should be considered in order to determine the applicability of the Trade Agreements Act and waiver of the Buy American Act; Document determinations of the use of Buy American exception for domestic non-availability and ensure the required approvals are obtained, particularly when such determinations are evidenced through justifications for other than full and open competition; and Identify sources of information available for determining product origin and the steps they should take to verify information that is inconsistent  (Recommendation 2) The Secretary of Veterans Affairs should clarify existing guidance, or provide training or other instruction, to help contracting officials: Address the applicability of the Buy American Act requirements and provide instruction on how to implement the requirements, including in any training developed to implement the Veterans First policy; Identify the factors that should be considered in order to determine the applicability of the Trade Agreements Act and waiver of the Buy American Act; and Identify sources of information available for determining products’ origins and the steps they should take to verify information that is inconsistent  (Recommendation 3) The Secretary of Health and Human Services should provide guidance, training, or other instruction to help contracting officials: Identify the factors that should be considered in order to determine the applicability of the Trade Agreements Act and waiver of the Buy American Act; Document determinations of the use of Buy American exceptions for domestic non-availability and ensure the required approvals are obtained; and Identify sources of information available for determining products’ origins and the steps they should take to verify information that is inconsistent  (Recommendation 4) We provided a draft of this report to DOD, HHS, DHS, VA, and the Office of Management and Budget for review and comment  DOD reviewed the report, but did not offer comments  HHS, DHS, and VA provided written responses, which are reproduced in Appendices IV, V, and VI of this report, respectively  A senior official within the Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP) at the Office of Management and Budget provided a response via email  In addition, HHS, DHS, and OFPP provided technical comments, which we incorporated into the report where appropriate  In their responses, HHS, DHS, VA agreed, and OFPP generally agreed, with our findings and recommendations  The written response from HHS and DHS included information on the steps each agency plans to take to address the recommendations  Specifically, HHS stated that the agency will evaluate ways to provide additional training and guidance to contracting officials  DHS stated that it will provide guidance on the applicability of the Buy American Act and the Trade Agreements Act in certain situations and the documentation and approvals required when awarding non-competed contracts that require an exception  Additionally, DHS plans to update training regarding actions contracting officers should take when there are discrepancies in product origin information  VA concurred with our three-part recommendation and described some of the actions the agency plans to take in response  However, VA’s comments do not fully address our recommendation  Specifically, we recommended that VA clarify guidance or provide training to identify factors that could help contracting officers determine the applicability of Trade Agreements Act waivers of the Buy American Act  The comments from VA, however, only restate the existing Buy American Act exceptions and make no mention of Trade Agreements Act waivers  Further, we recommended that VA identify sources of information regarding product origin and the steps to be taken to verify inconsistent product origin information  VA’s response only noted that contracting officers are responsible for conducting market research and ensuring that all product origin requirements are met  VA did not outline any additional steps the agency would take to help contracting officers navigate the complexities inherent in this area  Going forward, VA will need to develop a more robust and responsive approach in order to fully implement our recommendation  We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional committees; the Secretaries of the Departments of Defense, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, and Veterans Affairs; the Director of the Office of Management and Budget; and other interested parties  In addition, the report is available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www gao gov  If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-4841 or woodsw@gao gov  Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report  GAO staff who made key contributions to this report are listed in appendix VII  The objectives of this report are to assess the extent to which (1) the federal government procures foreign products through Buy American Act exceptions and waivers; and (2) selected agencies provide training and guidance to implement the Buy American Act requirements  To address both of these objectives, we reviewed relevant laws and policies, such as sections of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR); the Buy American Act as amended; the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 as amended; federal acquisition regulation supplements from audited agencies such as the Department of Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS); the Executive Order “Buy American, Hire American” of 2017; the World Trade Organization’s Agreement on Government Procurement; and memorandums, policy, guidance, and instructions related to the Buy American Act  To assess the federal government procurement of foreign products, including those procured through citing exceptions and waivers of the Buy American Act, we analyzed data from the Federal Procurement Data System-Next Generation (FPDS-NG) for fiscal year 2017, which was the most recent and complete data available at the time of our review  We analyzed procurement data in FPDS-NG across the federal government in fields relevant to the Buy American Act’s domestic preference requirements, including the product service code, country of product origin, and place of manufacture, in addition to fields such as the contract value and dollars obligated  We reviewed the place of manufacture field in particular as it contains information on how the Buy American Act applies to the contract, including whether the preponderance of the obligations is for manufactured end products and, if so, whether they are manufactured in or outside of the United States  When manufactured outside of the United States, this field also captures the reason the purchase was permissible, which we analyzed to assess the dollar obligations associated with the various Buy American exceptions or trade agreement waiver reported, as well as when products were used outside of the United States  We also analyzed data from FPDS-NG to identify the countries where foreign end products were reported to be manufactured and the associated dollars obligated in fiscal year 2017  In addition, we met with officials from the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Federal Procurement Policy to better understand ongoing reviews of the data in FPDS-NG that pertains to the Buy American Act  In our analysis of FPDS-NG data, we took steps to minimize issues that might affect data reliability  Specifically, we analyzed FPDS-NG data to identify potential errors and inconsistencies, such as non-eligible agencies reporting the use of exceptions for DOD qualifying countries, or reporting trade agreement waivers for contracts valued less than minimum thresholds for trade agreements  We made minor adjustments to minimize potential data reporting issues, including aggregating the exceptions reported, and where appropriate, limiting our analysis to one year of data, fiscal year 2017  Based on these steps, we determined that FPDS-NG data were sufficiently reliable to allow us to calculate the approximate extent of obligations for foreign end products and the use of the Buy American Act exceptions and the Trade Agreements Act waiver  However, we are unable to precisely determine the amount spent on foreign end products through the use of exceptions and waivers because of the reporting errors and data system limitations we identified in this report  Using FPDS-ND data, we identified four agencies—the Departments of Defense (DOD), Health and Human Services (HHS), Homeland Security (DHS), and Veterans Affairs (VA)—that had the highest fiscal year 2017 obligations in the product codes for manufactured products, which are potentially subject to the Buy American Act restrictions  In addition, to identify trends and determine if there were variations in reported obligations for foreign end products in the past, we reviewed FPDS-NG data on the Buy American exceptions and trade agreement waivers in fiscal years 2013 through 2017  To assess the extent to which selected agencies are providing training and guidance to implement the requirements of the Buy American Act, we reviewed training course materials and regulations, policies, and other guidance available at the four agencies in our review—DOD, HHS, DHS, and VA—to determine the extent to which they address the Buy American Act requirements  In addition, we reviewed training materials available to government employees through sources such as the Federal Acquisition Institute  We interviewed policy officials from the four agencies to understand how training and guidance had been implemented  We further reviewed relevant inspector general reports from the DOD Inspector General issued between 2015 and 2018, which made several recommendations to improve compliance with the Buy American Act, among other requirements  Within the four agencies, we selected contracting offices that reported obligating fiscal year 2017 dollars for awards with foreign end products and awards with US-manufactured end products  We specifically focused on offices that reported a sufficient amount of foreign end product obligations and a sufficient number of contract awards to allow us to select multiple contracts  We also considered offices with a variety of Buy American exceptions and waiver types reported, in order to select a mix of contracts  The contracting offices selected were as follows: DOD: Defense Logistics Agency, Land and Maritime HHS: National Institutes of Health and the HHS Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response DHS: United States Coast Guard VA: Veterans Health Administration From these offices, we selected a non-generalizable sample of 38 contracts and delivery orders awarded in fiscal year 2017  At each agency, we selected awards to include a mix of end items produced by domestic and foreign manufacturers and, when products were reported as foreign manufactured, a mix of the various exceptions and waivers cited  We also include awards across a range of value for dollars obligated above the micro purchase threshold—ranging from approximately $5,000 to more than $100 million—to ensure we reviewed awards both above and below the various thresholds at which the Trade Agreements Act waiver might apply  Additionally, our sample included awards for similar types of end products across agencies, including aircraft parts at DOD and DHS and medical supplies at HHS and VA, to compare practices in different agencies  We originally selected 40 awards for review—10 from each agency—but removed two awards from our sample  One was an HHS award that we determined was awarded using Other Transaction Authority and was not subject to the Buy American Act  The second excluded contract was from DHS, which was modified after award to reflect that it was an information technology service rather than a product  As a service, it would not be subject to the Buy American Act  We reviewed the contract files for each of the 38 awards in our sample, including documentation such as the contract and task order award, solicitations, vendors’ offers or response to proposals, determination and finding memos, and FPDS-NG output documents  In addition, we reviewed the certifications each vendor provided in the System for Award Management (SAM) at the time of contract award  We interviewed contracting officials responsible for each of the 38 contracts and task orders to understand how they addressed the Buy American Act requirements, including how they determined exception or waiver applicability and product origin  We also reviewed any agency-specific or local training and guidance, tools, or job aids available to assist contracting officers in implementing the Act’s requirements We conducted this performance audit from October 2017 to December 2018 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives  We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on audit objectives  The United States maintains trade relationships with other countries whose specific negotiated terms results in different levels and types of applicability for waivers and exceptions to the Buy American Act  Figure 4 depicts the range of relationships that the United States maintains with other nations that allow for less restrictive purchasing of foreign end products by the federal government  The federal government purchases foreign end products from various countries  Figure 5 highlights the different amounts of contract obligations for foreign end products from these countries for fiscal year 2017  The highest category, over $500 million, includes 4 countries that account for almost 40 percent of all federal procurement of foreign end products  Countries where the federal government obligated less than $5 million for the procurement of foreign end products are not included  In addition to the contact named above, Candice Wright, Assistant Director; and Jennifer Dougherty, Analyst-in-Charge, managed this review  Skip McClinton; Erin Stockdale; Adam Cowles; Stephanie Gustafson; Julia Kennon; Anne Louise Taylor; and Robin Wilson made key contributions to this report 
Report 2:  The findings included that there was a variance in the authorities used between organizations, management unfamiliarity with all available authorities, and a belief among managers that expanded use of some authorities is needed to produce more quality hires  DOD’s Cost- Comparison Report recommended DOD and OPM should explore opportunities to refine, consolidate, or reduce unused, inefficient, or cumbersome hiring authorities  We provided a draft of this report to DOD for review and comment  In written comments, DOD non-concurred with our assessment that DOD partially addressed the mandated reporting element to provide an accounting of the fully-burdened cost of federal civilian and service contractor personnel performing functions at the selected installations to include training, benefits, reimbursable costs, and facility overhead  DOD’s comments are reproduced in their entirely in appendix I  DOD also provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate  DOD stated that we presented the three reporting elements identified in the congressional mandate absent the full context and congressional intent  Specifically, DOD stated that in the congressional mandate, the list of elements to be included in the report is not a stand-alone list and DOD stated that we present the elements as a stand-alone list  DOD further stated that the list of elements in the mandate is preceded by a paragraph that we did not reproduce in our report, but which provides context and congressional intent for the reporting elements  We do not believe that the language omitted from our report changes the meaning of the reporting elements to be included in DOD’s cost comparison report because the paragraph omitted clearly states that the purpose of the report is to provide the results of a study that includes a comparison of the fully-burdened cost of the performance of functions by DOD civilian personnel with the fully-burdened cost of the performance by DOD contractors  The paragraph preceding the reporting elements and the elements reads as follows: The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives, and to the Comptroller General of the United States, a report setting forth the results of a study, conducted by the Secretary for the purposes of the report, of a comparison of the fully-burdened cost of performance of functions by Department of Defense (DOD) civilian personnel with the fully-burdened cost of the performance of functions by DOD contractors by no later the February 1, 2016  The study shall include: (1) An assessment of performance of such functions at six DOD installations selected by the Secretary for purposes of the study from among DOD installations at which functions are performed by an appropriate mix of civilian personnel and contractors, with four such installations to be located in the continental United States and two such installations to be located outside the continental United States; (2) An accounting of the fully-burdened cost of DOD civilian personnel and contractors performing functions for DOD (including costs associated with training, benefits, reimbursable costs under chapter 43 of title 41, United States Code, and facility overhead) in order to permit a direct comparison between the cost of performance of functions by DOD civilian personnel and the cost of the performance of functions by contractors; (3) A comparison of the cost of performance of the full range of functions, required expertise, and managerial qualities required to adequately perform the function to be compared, including: a  Secretarial, clerical, or administrative duties, including data entry; b  Mid-level managers and other personnel possessing special expertise or professional qualifications; c  Managers and other leadership; and d  Personnel responsible for producing congressionally-directed reports  The committee recommends that, in conducting the study, the Secretary should take into account the policy that inherently governmental functions vital to the national security of the United States may not be performed by contractor personnel  The report required shall include an assessment of the flexible employment authorities available to the Secretary for the employment and retention of civilian employees of the DOD, including an identification of such additional flexible employment authorities as the Secretary considers appropriate to shape the civilian personnel workforce of the DOD  Not later than 120 days after receipt of such report, the Comptroller General shall submit to Congress a report that includes an assessment of the adequacy and sufficiency of the report submitted by the Secretary, including any recommendations for policy or statutory change as the Comptroller deems appropriate  As we reported, DOD noted in its cost comparison report that it identified labor costs used in its comparisons  However, DOD did not include direct and indirect non-labor costs and DODI 7041 04 states that the full cost of personnel should include these non-labor costs as we discussed earlier in the report  Therefore, DOD only partially addressed the reporting provision  In addition, DOD stated that we omit relevant language related to congressional intent for the second reporting element (i e , an accounting of the fully-burdened cost of DOD civilian personnel and contractors)  DOD stated that the text, “      in order to permit a direct comparison between the cost of performance of functions by DOD civilian personnel and the cost of the performance of the function by contractors,” conveys the congressional intent that the study is for comparison and our exclusion of the text in our restatement of the element omitted language indicating relevant Congressional intent  We do not believe that the language omitted in our report changed the meaning of the reporting element, which is that DOD was to include an accounting of the fully- burdened costs of federal civilians and service contractors in its cost comparisons  DOD further stated that we did not assess the second reporting element (i e , an accounting of the fully-burdened cost of DOD civilian personnel and contractors) as it is directly stated but rather that we assessed the element by redefining it and then asserting that DOD partially addressed it  DOD noted that the direct language of the second reporting element is for DOD to include an “accounting” of the fully burdened cost of DOD civilian personnel and contractors  DOD asserted that we misinterpreted the meaning of “accounting” when we determined that DOD partially addressed the mandate because it did not “calculate” certain non-labor costs  We disagree  As we discuss in our report, DOD did account for the labor costs associated with federal civilian and service contractors by gathering labor cost data from several sources, but it did not include non- labor costs in its cost calculations  In order to account for the fully burdened costs of federal civilians and service contractors, as directed to do so by the preamble to the reporting elements, as well as the second reporting element, DOD should have included all labor and non-labor costs in the cost calculations  DOD also stated that our assessment incorrectly implies that to “account” for costs is equivalent to “calculating” costs as evidenced by the following quote from our draft report, "We acknowledge that DODI 7041 04 states that the cost elements can be modified, but by excluding non-labor costs in its cost comparisons, DOD did not account for the full cost of federal civilians and service contractors as requested in the mandate " DOD stated that although DOD did not “calculate” some non-labor costs, they did “account” for them in accordance with DODI 7041 04 and as directed in the congressional mandate  DOD asserted that in multiple places, DODI 7041 04 states that common costs "are excluded" and "may be excluded" from cost comparisons  DOD provided facility costs as an example of non-labor costs accounted for but not calculated in its cost comparisons  DOD stated that in its report, all of the civilian positions and contractor functions are performed at government-owned facilities  Thus, facility costs are common costs and may be excluded  DOD stated that their report accounted for facility costs by recognizing that such costs exist and are common costs, thus, DOD properly excluded such costs in accordance with DODI 7041 04, and their report satisfied the Congressional mandate  We disagree  As mentioned above, the preamble to the mandated reporting elements and the second reporting element specifically directed that DOD account for the fully-burdened cost of DOD civilian and contractor personnel  Because there are multiple costs associated with civilian and contractor personnel, calculations are necessary in order to account for the full cost of these workforces  DODI 7041 04 instructs that if a function is performed on government property, the costs of goods, services, and benefits that are common costs may be excluded provided the number of government and contactor personnel is equivalent  While there were some instances where it was the case that DOD’s cost estimates involved an equal number of civilian and contractor personnel performing functions on government property, there were many instances where the personnel numbers differed and common costs should not have been excluded  For example, in DOD’s comparisons of federal civilians and service contractors at Fort Belvoir Community Hospital, DOD conducted comparisons of 19 functions where 2 functions had equal numbers of federal civilian and service contractors and 17 functions had differing numbers of federal civilian and service contractors  In one comparison, the number of contractors was over three times the number of civilians  DODI 7041 04 further instructs that when the number of government and contractor personnel differs, adjustments must be made to the cost estimates to account for the difference in number of government and contractor personnel  DOD did not make these adjustments in is calculations and as result non-labor costs should not have been excluded; therefore, DOD did not account for the fully- burdened costs, as directed by Congress  We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional committees  We are also sending copies to the Secretary of Defense, the Director of the Office of Cost assessment and Program Evaluation and other interested parties  This report will also be available at no charge on our Web site at http://www gao gov  Should you or your staff have any questions concerning this report, please contact Brenda S  Farrell at (202) 512-3604 or farrellb@gao gov  Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report  GAO staff who made key contributions to this report are listed in appendix II  In addition to the contact named above, Vincent Balloon, Assistant Director; Timothy Carr, Felicia Lopez, Clarice Ransom, Michael Silver, and Norris “Traye” Smith made key contributions to this report  Department of Defense: Actions Needed to Address Five Key Mission Challenges, GAO-17-369 (Washington, D C : June 13, 2017) DOD Civilian and Contractor Workforces: Additional Cost Savings Data and Efficiencies Plan Are Needed, GAO-17-128 (Washington, D C : October 12, 2016) Federal Hiring: OPM Needs to Improve Management and Oversight of Hiring Authorities, GAO-16-521 (Washington, D C : August 2, 2016) DOD Service Acquisition: Improved Use of Available Data Needed to Better Manage and Forecast Service Contract Requirements, GAO-16-119 (Washington, D C : February 18, 2016) Civilian and Contractor Workforces: Complete Information Needed to Assess DOD’s Progress for Reductions and Associated Savings, GAO-16-172 (Washington, D C : December 23, 2015) DOD Inventory of Contracted Services: Actions Needed to Help Ensure Inventory Data Are Complete and Accurate, GAO-16-46 (Washington, D C : November 18, 2015) Sequestration: Comprehensive and Updated Cost Savings Would Better Inform DOD Decision Makers if Future Civilian Furloughs Occur, GAO-14-529 (Washington, D C : June 17, 2014) Human Capital: Opportunities Exist to Further Improve DOD’s Methodology for Estimating the Costs of Its Workforces, GAO-13-792 (Washington, D C : September 25, 2013) Human Capital: Additional Steps Needed to Help Determine the Right Size and Composition of DOD’s Total Workforce, GAO-13-470 (Washington, D C : May 29, 2013) Defense Outsourcing: Better Data Needed to Support Overhead Rates for A-76 Studies, GAO/NSIAD-98-62 (Washington, D C : Feb  27, 1998)

ground_truth: The Buy American Act of 1933, as amended, is the main U.S. law promoting domestic purchasing. The Act permits agencies to buy foreign end products only under certain exceptions, such as when domestic items are not available at a reasonable cost. Further, U.S. trade agreements waive the Buy American restrictions for certain products. GAO was asked to review implementation of the Buy American Act. This report assesses the extent to which (1) the federal government procures foreign products through Buy American Act exceptions and waivers; and (2) selected agencies provide training and guidance to implement the Act. GAO reviewed laws, regulations, and policies related to the Buy American Act and analyzed data for fiscal year 2017 from FPDS-NG. GAO also analyzed a non-generalizable sample of 38 contracts from DOD, HHS, DHS, and VA—the agencies with the most obligations for products in fiscal year 2017. The 38 awards selected include a mix of foreign and domestic products, as well as dollars obligated. Finally, GAO interviewed cognizant contracting and policy officials from the selected agencies. According to data reported in the Federal Procurement Data System-Next Generation (FPDS-NG) in fiscal year 2017, foreign end products accounted for less than 5 percent—about $7.8 billion—of federal obligations for products potentially subject to the Buy American Act. Federal agencies procured foreign products using exceptions to Buy American Act requirements, as well as through waivers or when the Buy American Act did not apply, as shown in the figure. The amount of foreign end products purchased could be greater than reported in FPDS-NG, however, due to reporting errors and system limitations. GAO found that 6 of the 38 contracts reviewed from the Departments of Defense (DOD), Health and Human Services (HHS), Homeland Security (DHS), and Veterans Affairs (VA) inaccurately recorded waiver or exception information. FPDS-NG system limitations compound these errors because it does not fully capture Buy American Act data. Among other things, the database does not always enable agencies to report the use of exceptions or waivers on contracts for both foreign and domestic products, reducing data accuracy. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is considering strategies to improve Buy American Act data. The four agencies GAO reviewed varied in their approaches to Buy American Act training and guidance. DOD reports that it will have trained more than 18,000 personnel by the end of 2018. DHS reports training almost 1,400 people—approximately 94 percent of its contracting staff—as of April 2018. Some VA courses mention the Act, but none is focused specifically on implementing its requirements. HHS does not have agency-level training or guidance on the Act. GAO found that contracting officers for the contracts it reviewed face challenges implementing Buy American Act requirements. Having specific and targeted Buy American Act guidance and training can better ensure that agencies meet the Act's requirements. GAO is recommending that OMB take steps to improve Buy American Act data and that HHS, DHS, and VA improve agency guidance and training on implementing the Act. All of the agencies either concurred or generally concurred with GAO's recommendations.