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



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

Report 1: Agencies generally acquire equipment from commercial vendors and through GSA, which contracts for the equipment from commercial vendors  In acquiring heavy equipment from a commercial vendor or GSA, agencies can purchase or lease the equipment  Generally, agencies use the term “lease” to refer to acquisitions that are time-limited and therefore distinct from purchases  The term “lease” is used to refer to both long-term and short-term leases  For example, the three agencies we reviewed in-depth use the term “rental” to refer to short-term leases of varying time periods  According to Air Force officials, they define rentals as leases that are less than 120 days while FWS and NPS officials said they generally use the term rental to refer to leases that are a year or less  For the purposes of this report, we use the term “rental” to refer to short-term leases defined as rentals by the agency and “long-term lease” to refer to a lease that is not considered a rental by the agency  (See fig  1 ) In 2013, GSA began offering heavy equipment through its Short-Term Rental program, which had previously been limited to passenger vehicles, in part to eliminate ownership and maintenance cost for infrequently used heavy equipment  Under this program, agencies can request a short-term equipment rental (less than a year) from GSA, and GSA will work with a network of commercial vendors to provide the requested heavy equipment  Unlike for some other types of federal property, there are no central reporting requirements for agencies’ inventories of heavy equipment  However, each federal agency is required to maintain inventory controls for its property, which includes heavy equipment  Agencies maintain inventory data through the use of agency-specific databases, and each agency can set its own requirements for what data are required and how these data are maintained  For example, while an agency may choose to maintain data in a headquarters database, it could also choose to maintain data at the local level  As another example, an agency may decide to track and maintain data on the utilization of its heavy equipment (such as the hours used) or may choose not to have such data or require any particular utilization levels  The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) governs the acquisition process of executive branch agencies when acquiring certain goods and services, including heavy equipment  Under the FAR, agencies should consider whether to lease equipment instead of purchasing it based on several factors  Specifically, the FAR provides that agency officials should evaluate cost and other factors by conducting a “lease-versus-purchase” analysis before acquiring heavy equipment  Additionally, DOD’s regulations require its component agencies to prepare a justification supporting lease-versus-purchase decisions if the equipment is to be leased for more than 60 days  Twenty agencies reported data on their owned heavy equipment, including the (1) number, (2) types, (3) acquisition year, and (4) location of agencies’ owned heavy equipment in their inventories as of June 2017  The 20 agencies reported owning over 136,000 heavy equipment items  DOD reported owning most of this heavy equipment—over 100,000 items, about 74 percent  (See app  I for more information on agencies’ ownership of these items ) The Department of Agriculture reported owning the second highest number of heavy equipment items—almost 9,000 items, about 6 percent  (See fig  2 ) Four agencies—the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Office of Personnel Management, and the Agency for International Development—reported owning five or fewer heavy equipment items each  The 20 agencies reported owning various types of heavy equipment, such as cranes, backhoes, and road maintenance equipment in five categories: (1) construction, mining, excavating, and highway maintenance equipment; (2) airfield-specialized trucks and trailers; (3) self-propelled warehouse trucks and tractors; (4) tractors; and (5) soil preparation and harvesting equipment  Thirty-eight percent (almost 52,000 items) were in the construction, mining, excavating, and highway maintenance category (see fig  3)  Fifteen of the 20 agencies reported owning at least some items in this category  Twenty-four percent (over 33,000 items) were in the airfield- specialized trucks and trailers category, generally used to service and re-position aircraft on runways  DOD reported owning 99 percent (over 32,000) of these items, while 9 other agencies, including the Department of Labor and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, reported owning the other one percent (317 items)  Twenty-two percent (over 29,000 items) were in the self-propelled warehouse trucks and tractors category, which includes equipment such as forklift trucks  All 20 agencies reported owning at least one item in this category, and five agencies—the Agency for International Development, Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and the Office of Personnel Management—reported owning only items in this category  (For additional information on agencies’ ownership of heavy equipment in various categories, see app  I ) The twenty agencies reported acquiring their owned heavy equipment between 1944 and 2017, with an average of about 13 years since acquisition (see fig  4)  One heavy equipment manager we interviewed reported that a dump truck can last 10 to 15 years, whereas other types of equipment can last for decades if regularly used and well-maintained  The 20 agencies reported that over 117,000 heavy equipment items (86 percent) were located within the United States or its territories  Of these, about one-fifth (over 26,000) were located in California and Virginia, the two states with the most heavy equipment (see fig  5)  Of the equipment located outside of the United States and its territories, 94 percent was owned by the Department of Defense  The rest was owned by the Department of State (714 items in 141 countries from Afghanistan to Zimbabwe) and the National Science Foundation (237 items in areas such as Antarctica)  The twenty agencies reported spending over $7 4 billion in 2016 dollars to acquire the heavy equipment they own (see table 1)  However, actual spending was higher because this inflation-adjusted figure excludes over 37,000 heavy equipment items for which the agencies did not report acquisition cost or acquisition year, or both  Without this information, we could not determine the inflation-adjusted cost and therefore did not include the cost of these items in our calculation  The Army owns almost all of these items, having not reported acquisition cost or acquisition year, or both, for 36,589 heavy equipment items because, according to Army officials, the data were not available centrally but may have been available at individual Army units and would have been resource- intensive to obtain  The heavy equipment items reported by the 20 agencies ranged in acquisition cost from zero dollars to over $2 million in 2016 dollars, with an average acquisition cost in 2016 dollars of about $78,000, excluding assets with a reported acquisition cost of $0  Of the items which we adjusted to 2016 dollars and for which non-zero acquisition costs were provided: 94 percent cost less than $250,000 and accounted for 57 percent of the total adjusted acquisition costs (See fig  6 ) 6 percent of items cost more than $250,000 and accounted for 43 percent of the adjusted acquisition costs  (See fig  6 ) High-cost items included a $779,000 hydraulic crane acquired by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration in 1997 ($1 2 million in 2016 dollars), a $1 4 million ultra-deep drilling simulator acquired by the Department of Energy in 2009 ($1 6 million in 2016 dollars), and several $2 2 million well-drilling machines acquired by the Air Force in 2013 ($2 3 million in 2016 dollars)  In calendar years 2012 through 2016, the Air Force, FWS, and NPS purchased almost 3,500 pieces of heavy equipment through GSA and private vendors at a total cost of about $360 million to support mission needs  (See table 2 ) These agencies also spent over $5 million on long- term leases and rentals during this time period  The Air Force spent over $300 million to purchase over 2,600 heavy equipment assets in calendar years 2012 through 2016 that were used to support and maintain its bases globally  For example, according to Air Force officials, heavy equipment is often used to maintain runways and service and reposition aircraft on runways  While the majority of Air Force heavy equipment purchased in this time period is located in the United States, 41 percent of this heavy equipment is located outside the United States and its territories in 17 foreign countries to support global military bases  The Air Force could not provide complete information on its heavy equipment leases for fiscal years 2012 through 2016  Specifically, the Air Force provided data on 33 commercial heavy equipment leases that were ongoing as of August 2017 but could not provide cost data for these leases because this information is not tracked centrally  Additionally, the Air Force could not provide any data on leases that occurred previously because, according to Air Force officials, lease records are removed from the Air Force database upon termination of the lease  Officials said that rentals are generally handled locally and obtaining complete data would require a data call to over 300 base contracting offices  Air Force officials stated that rentals are generally used in unique situations involving short- term needs such as responding to natural disasters  For example, following Hurricane Sandy, staff at Langley Air Force Base in Virginia used rental equipment to clean up and repair the base  Although Air Force did not provide complete information on rentals, data we obtained from GSA’s Short-Term Rental program indicated that Air Force rented heavy equipment in 46 transactions not reflected in the Air Force data we received totaling over $3 7 million since GSA began offering heavy equipment through its Short-Term Rental program, which had previously been limited to passenger vehicles, in part program in 2013  FWS spent over $32 million to purchase 348 heavy equipment assets from calendar years 2012 through 2016  FWS used its heavy equipment to maintain refuge areas throughout the United States and its territories, including maintaining roads and nature trails  FWS also used heavy equipment to respond to inclement weather and natural disasters  Most of the heavy equipment items purchased by FWS were in the construction, mining, excavating, and highway maintenance equipment category and include items such as excavators, which were used for moving soil, supplies, and other resources  FWS officials reported that they did not have any long-term leases for any heavy equipment in fiscal years 2012 through 2016 because they encourage equipment sharing and rentals to avoid long-term leases whenever possible  FWS officials provided data on 228 rentals for this time period with a total cost of over $1 million  Information regarding these rentals is contained in an Interior-wide property management system, the Financial Business Management System (FBMS)  FWS officials told us that they have not rented heavy equipment through GSA’s program because they have found lower prices through local equipment rental companies  NPS spent over $27 million to purchase 471 heavy equipment assets from calendar years 2012 through 2016  NPS uses heavy equipment— located throughout the United States and its territories—to maintain national parks and respond to inclement weather and natural disasters  For example, NPS used heavy equipment such as dump trucks, snow plows, road graders, and wheel loaders to clear and salt the George Washington Memorial Parkway in Washington, D C , following snow and ice storms  Most of the heavy equipment items purchased by NPS were in the construction, mining, excavating, and highway maintenance equipment category and include items such as excavators, which are used for moving soil, supplies, and other resources  NPS reported spending about $360,000 on 230 long-term leases and rentals in fiscal years 2012 through 2016, not including rentals through GSA’s Short-Term Rental program, which had previously been limited to passenger vehicles, in part program  As with FWS, NPS leases and rentals are contained in FBMS, which is Interior’s property management system  Data we obtained from GSA’s Short-Term Rental program, which had previously been limited to passenger vehicles, in part program indicated that NPS rented heavy equipment in 26 transactions totaling over $200,000 since GSA began offering heavy equipment through its Short-Term Rental program, which had previously been limited to passenger vehicles, in part program in 2013, for a potential total cost of over $560,000 for these long-term leases and rentals  As mentioned earlier, the FAR provides that executive branch agencies seeking to acquire equipment should consider whether it is more economical to lease equipment rather than purchase it and identifies factors agencies should consider in this analysis, such as estimated length of the period that the equipment is to be used, the extent of use in that time period, and maintenance costs  This analysis is commonly referred to as a lease-versus-purchase analysis  While the FAR does not specifically require that agencies document their lease-versus-purchase analyses, according to federal internal control standards, management should clearly document all transactions and other significant events in a manner that allows the documentation to be readily available for examination and also communicate quality information to enable staff to complete their responsibilities  As discussed below, we found that most acquisitions we reviewed from FWS, NPS, and the Air Force did not contain any documentation of a lease-versus-purchase analysis  Specifically, officials were unable to provide documentation of a lease-versus-purchase analysis for six of the eight acquisitions we reviewed  FWS officials were able to provide documentation for the other two  Officials told us that a lease-versus- purchase analysis was not conducted for five of the six acquisitions and did not know if such analysis was conducted for the other acquisition  According to agency officials, the main reason why analyses were not conducted or documented for these six acquisitions is that the circumstances in which such analyses were to be performed or documented were not always clear to FWS, NPS, and Air Force officials  In addition to the FAR, Interior has agency guidance stating that bureaus should conduct and document lease-versus-purchase analyses  This July 2013 guidance—that FWS and NPS are to follow—states that requesters of equipment valued at $15,000 or greater should perform a lease-versus- purchase analysis when requesting heavy equipment  According to the guidance, this analysis should address criteria in the FAR and include a discussion of the financial and operating advantages of alternate approaches that would help contracting officials determine the final appropriate acquisition method  At the time the guidance was issued, Interior also provided a lease-versus-purchase analysis tool to aid officials in conducting this analysis  Additionally, in April 2016, Interior issued a policy to implement the July 2013 guidance  The 2016 policy clarifies that program offices are required to complete Interior’s lease-versus-purchase analysis tool and provide the completed analysis to the relevant contracting officer  Within Interior, bureaus are responsible for ensuring that procurement requirements are met, including the requirements and directives outlined in Interior’s 2013 guidance and 2016 policy on lease-versus-purchase analyses, according to agency officials  Within FWS, local procurement specialists prepare procurement requests and ensure that procurement requirements are met and that all viable options have been considered  Regional equipment managers review these procurement requests, decide whether to purchase or lease the requested equipment, and prepare the lease-versus-purchase analysis tool if the procurement specialist has indicated that it is required  Within NPS, local procurement specialists are responsible for ensuring that all procurements adhere to relevant requirements and directives, including documenting the lease- versus-purchase analysis  Of the three FWS heavy equipment acquisitions we reviewed for which the 2013 Interior guidance was applicable, one included a completed lease-versus-purchase analysis tool; one documented the rationale for purchasing rather than leasing, although it did not include Interior’s lease- versus-purchase analysis tool; and one did not include any documentation related to a lease-versus-purchase analysis  (See table 3 ) Regarding the acquisition for which no documentation of a lease-versus- purchase analysis was provided—a 12-month lease of an excavator and associated labor costs for over $19,000—FWS officials initially told us that a lease-versus-purchase analysis was not required because the equipment lease was less than $15,000, and Interior’s guidance required a lease-versus-purchase analysis for procurements of equipment valued at $15,000 or greater  However, we found the guidance did not specify whether the $15,000 threshold includes the cost of labor  We also found that Interior’s guidance did not specify if a lease-versus-purchase analysis was required if the total cost of a rental is less than the purchase price  FWS officials acknowledged that Interior guidance is not clear and that it would be helpful for Interior to clarify whether these leases require a lease-versus-purchase analysis  NPS officials were unable to provide documentation of a lease-versus- purchase analysis for the single heavy equipment acquisition we reviewed—the purchase of a wheeled tractor in 2015 for $43,177  According to these officials, they could not do so because of personnel turnover in the contracting office that would have documented the analysis  In addition, they told us that they believe that such analyses are not always completed for heavy equipment acquisitions because responsibility for completing these analyses is unclear  Specifically, they told us that it was unclear whether the responsibility lies with the official requesting the equipment, the contracting personnel who facilitate the acquisition, or the property personnel who manage inventory data  However, when we discussed our findings with Interior and NPS officials, NPS officials were made aware of the 2016 Interior policy that specifically requires program offices—the officials requesting the equipment—to complete the lease-versus-purchase analysis and provide documentation of this analysis to the contracting officer  As a result, NPS officials told us at the end of our review that program office officials will now be required to complete the lease-versus-purchase analysis tool and document this analysis  According to Air Force officials responsible for managing heavy equipment, financial or budget personnel at individual bases are responsible for conducting lease-versus-purchase analyses, also called economic analyses, to support purchase and lease requests  Air Force fleet officials told us that they then review these requests from a fleet perspective, considering factors such as whether the cost information provided in the request is from a reputable source, expected maintenance costs, and whether a requesting base has the capability to maintain the requested equipment  However, they said they do not check to ensure that a lease-versus-purchase analysis was completed or review the analysis  Equipment rentals can be approved at individual bases  In our review of four Air Force heavy equipment acquisitions, we found no instances in which Air Force officials documented a lease-versus- purchase analysis (see table 4)  For the acquisitions that we reviewed, Air Force officials told us they did not believe a lease-versus-purchase analysis was required because the new equipment was either replacing old equipment that was previously approved or could be deployed  Accordingly, the Air Force purchased two forklifts in 2013 without conducting lease-versus-purchase analyses because the forklifts were replacing old forklifts that were authorized in 1997 and 2005  Furthermore, Air Force officials told us that both of these forklifts could be deployed and indicated that lease-versus-purchase analyses are not required for deployable equipment  However, the Air Force does not have guidance that describes the circumstances that require either a lease-versus-purchase analysis or documentation of the rationale for not completing such analysis  Although we identified several instances in which officials in the three selected agencies did not document lease-versus-purchase analyses, officials from these agencies stated that they consider mission needs and equipment availability, among other factors, when making these decisions  For example, Air Force officials told us following Hurricane Sandy, staff at Langley Air Force Base in Virginia used rental equipment to clean and repair the base because the equipment was needed immediately to ensure the base could meet its mission  Moreover, availability of heavy equipment for lease or rental, which can be affected by factors such as geography and competition for equipment, is a key consideration  For example, FWS officials told us that the specialized heavy equipment sometimes needed may not be available for long-term lease or rent in remote areas such as Alaska and the Midway Islands, so the agency purchases the equipment  In addition, some agency officials told us that they may purchase heavy equipment even if that equipment is needed only sporadically if there is likely to be high demand for rental equipment  For example, following inclement weather or a natural disaster, demand for certain heavy equipment rentals can be high and equipment may not be available to rent when it is needed  While we recognize that mission needs and other factors are important considerations, without greater clarity regarding when to conduct or document lease-versus-purchase analyses, officials at FWS, NPS, and Air Force may not be conducting such analyses when appropriate and may not always make the best acquisition decisions  These agencies could be overspending on leased equipment that would be more cost- effective if purchased or overspending to purchase equipment when it would be more cost-effective to lease or rent  Moreover, without documenting decisions on whether to purchase or lease equipment, they lack information that could be used to inform future acquisition decisions for similar types of equipment or projects  Air Force guidance requires that fleet managers collect utilization data for both vehicles and heavy equipment items, such as the number of hours used, miles traveled, and maintenance costs  The Air Force provided us with utilization data for over 18,000 heavy equipment items and uses such data to inform periodic base validations  Specifically, Air Force officials said that every 3 to 5 years each Air Force base reviews the on- base equipment to ensure that the installation has the appropriate heavy equipment to complete its mission and reviews utilization data to identify items that are underutilized  If heavy equipment is considered underutilized, the equipment is relocated—either moved to another location or sent to the Defense Logistics Agency for reuse or transfer to another agency  According to Air Force officials the Air Force has relocated over 700 heavy equipment items based on the results of the validation process and other factors such as replacing older items and agency needs since 2014  Similarly, FWS guidance for managing heavy equipment utilization sets forth minimum utilization hours for certain types of heavy equipment and describes requirements for reporting utilization data  FWS provided us with utilization data on over 3,000 heavy equipment items  According to officials, condition assessments of heavy equipment are required by FWS guidance every 3 to 5 years  According to FWS officials, condition assessments inform regional-level decision making about whether to move equipment to another FWS location or dispose of the equipment  In contrast, NPS does not require the collection of utilization data to evaluate heavy equipment use and does not have guidance for managing heavy equipment utilization  However, NPS officials told us that they recognize the need for such guidance  NPS officials shared with us draft guidance that they have developed, which would require collection of utilization data for heavy equipment such as hours or days of usage each month  According to NPS officials, they plan to send the guidance to the NPS policy office for final review in March 2018  Until this guidance is completed and published, NPS is taking interim actions to manage the utilization of its heavy equipment  For example, NPS officials stated that they have asked NPS locations to collect and post monthly utilization data, discussed the collection of utilization data at fleet meetings, and distributed job aids to support this effort  During the course of our review, NPS officials provided us with some utilization data for about 1,400 of the more than 2,400 NPS heavy equipment items  Specifically, for the 1,459 heavy equipment items for which NPS provided utilization data, 541 items had utilization data for each month  For the remaining 918 items, utilization data were reported for some, but not all months  The federal government has spent billions of dollars to acquire heavy equipment  There is no requirement that agencies report on the inventory of this equipment, as there is no standard definition of heavy equipment  When deciding how to acquire this equipment, agencies’ should conduct a lease-versus-purchase analysis as provided in the FAR, which is a critical mechanism to ensure agencies are acquiring the equipment in the most cost-effective manner  Because FWS, NPS and the Air Force were unclear when such an analysis was required, they did not consistently conduct or document analyses of whether it was more economical to purchase or lease heavy equipment  In the absence of clarity on the circumstances in which lease-versus-purchase analyses for heavy equipment acquisitions are to be conducted and documented, the agencies may not be spending funds on heavy equipment cost- effectively  We are making two recommendations—one to the Air Force and one to the Department of the Interior  The Secretary of the Air Force should develop guidance to clarify the circumstances in which lease-versus-purchase analyses for heavy equipment acquisitions are to be conducted and documented  (Recommendation 1) The Secretary of the Interior should further clarify in guidance the circumstances in which lease-versus-purchase analyses for heavy equipment acquisitions are to be conducted and documented  (Recommendation 2) We provided a draft of this report to the Departments of Agriculture, Defense, Energy, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, the Interior, Justice, Labor, State, and Veterans Affairs; General Services Administration; National Aeronautics and Space Administration; National Science Foundation; Nuclear Regulatory Commission; Office of Personnel Management; and U S  Agency for International Development  The departments of Agriculture, Energy, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, Justice, State and Veterans Affairs, as well as the General Services Administration, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, National Science Foundation, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Personnel Management; and U S  Agency for International Development did not have comments  The Department of Labor provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate  In written comments, reproduced in appendix III, the Department of Defense stated that it concurred with our recommendation and plans to issue a bulletin to Air Force contracting officials  In written comments, reproduced in appendix IV, the Department of the Interior stated that it concurred with our recommendation and plans to implement it  If you or members of your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-2834 or RectanusL@gao gov  Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report  Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix V  Specialized Trucks and Trailers 37   Self-Propelled Warehouse Trucks and Tractors 1,733 3                                       Specialized Trucks and Trailers 7   Self-Propelled Warehouse Trucks and Tractors 2,925 134                                     Specialized Trucks and Trailers   Self-Propelled Warehouse Trucks and Tractors 146             7       - 109       Self-Propelled Warehouse Trucks and Tractors 575 64 40                       4                   Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Personnel Management Social Security Administration United States Agency for International Development Grand Total         This report addresses: (1) the number, type, and cost of heavy equipment items that are owned by the 24 CFO Act agencies; (2) the heavy equipment items selected agencies have recently acquired and how selected agencies decided to purchase or lease this equipment; and (3) how selected agencies manage the utilization of their heavy equipment  To identify the number, type, and cost of heavy equipment owned by federal agencies, we first interviewed officials at the General Services Administration to determine whether there were government-wide reporting requirements for owned heavy equipment and learned that there are no such requirements  We then obtained and analyzed data on agencies’ spending on equipment purchases and leases from the Federal Procurement Data System–Next Generation (FPDS-NG), which contains government-wide data on agencies’ contracts  However, in reviewing the data available and identifying issues with the reliability of the data, we determined that data on contracts would not be sufficient to answer the question of what heavy equipment the 24 CFO Act agencies own  We therefore conducted a data collection effort to obtain heavy equipment inventory information from the 24 CFO Act agencies, which are the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, the Interior, Justice, Labor, State, Transportation, the Treasury, and Veterans Affairs; Environmental Protection Agency; General Services Administration; National Aeronautics and Space Administration; National Science Foundation; Nuclear Regulatory Commission; Office of Personnel Management; Small Business Administration; Social Security Administration; and Agency for International Development  Because there is no generally accepted definition of heavy equipment, we identified 12 federal supply classes in which the majority of items are self- propelled equipment but not passenger vehicles or items that are specific to combat and tactical purposes, as these items are generally not considered to be heavy equipment  (See table 5 ) We then vetted the appropriateness of these selected supply classes with Interior, FWS, NPS, and Air Force agency officials, as well as with representatives from a fleet management consultancy and a rental company, and they generally agreed that items in selected federal supply classes are considered heavy equipment  Federal supply classes are used in FPDS- NG and are widely used in agencies’ inventory systems  Overall, about 90 percent of the heavy equipment items that agencies reported were assigned a federal supply class in the agency’s inventory data  In discussing heavy equipment categories in the report, we use the category titles below  To identify points of contact at the 24 CFO Act agencies, we obtained GSA’s list of contact information for agencies’ national utilization officers, who are agency property officers who coordinate with GSA  As a preliminary step, we contacted these individuals at each of the 24 CFO Act agencies and asked them to either confirm that they were the appropriate contacts or provide contact information for the appropriate contact and to inform us if they do not own heavy equipment  Officials at 4 agencies—Department of Education, Department of the Treasury, General Services Administration, and Small Business Administration— indicated that the agency did not own any items in the relevant federal supply classes  Officials at 16 of these agencies indicated that they would be able to respond on a departmental level because the relevant inventory data are maintained centrally, while officials at 4 agencies indicated that we would need to obtain responses from officials at some other level because the relevant inventory data are not maintained centrally  (See table 7 for a list of organizations within the 20 CFO Act agencies that indicated they own relevant equipment and responded to our data collection effort ) After identifying contacts responsible for agencies’ heavy-equipment inventory data, we prepared data collection instruments for requesting information on heavy equipment and tested these documents with representatives from 4 of the 20 CFO Act agencies that indicated they own heavy equipment to ensure that the documents were clear and logical and that respondents would be able to provide the requested data and answer the questions without undue burden  These agency representatives were selected to provide a variety of spending on federal supply group 38 equipment as reported in FPDS-NG, civilian and military agencies, and different levels at which the agency would be responding to the data collection effort (e g , at the departmental level or at a sub- departmental level)  Our data collection instrument requested the following data on respondent organizations’ owned assets in 12 federal supply classes as of June 2017: Respondents provided data on original acquisition costs in nominal terms, with some acquisitions occurring over 50 years ago  In order to provide a fixed point of reference for appropriate comparison, we present in our report inflation-adjusted acquisition costs using calendar year 2016 as the reference  To adjust these dollar amounts for inflation, we used the Bureau of Labor Statistic’s Producer Price Index by Commodity for Machinery and Equipment: Construction Machinery and Equipment (WPU112), compiled by the Federal Reserve Bank of St  Louis  We conducted the data collection effort from July 2017 through October 2017 and received responses from all 20 agencies that indicated they own heavy equipment  In order to assess the reliability of agencies’ reported data, we collected and reviewed agencies’ responses regarding descriptions of their inventory systems, frequency of data entry, agency uses of the data, and agencies’ opinions on potential limitations of the use of their data in our analysis  We conducted some data cleaning, which included examining the data for obvious errors and eliminating outliers  We did not verify the data or responses received; the results of our data collection effort are used only for descriptive purposes and are not generalizable beyond the 24 CFO Act agencies  Based on the steps we took, we found these data to be sufficiently reliable for our purposes  To determine the heavy equipment items that selected agencies recently acquired and how these agencies decided whether to purchase or lease this equipment, we first used data from the FPDS-NG to identify agencies that appeared to have the highest obligations for construction or heavy equipment, or both, and used this information, along with other factors, to select DOD and Interior  At the time, in the absence of a generally accepted definition of heavy equipment, we reviewed data related to federal supply group 38—construction, mining, excavating, and highway maintenance equipment—because (1) we had not yet defined heavy equipment for the purposes of our review; (2) agency officials had told us that most of what could be considered heavy equipment was in this federal supply group; and (3) our analysis of data from usaspending gov showed that about 80 percent of spending on items that may be considered heavy equipment were in this federal supply group  In meeting with officials at these departments, we learned that agencies within each department manage heavy equipment independently, so we requested current inventory data for Interior bureaus and the DOD military departments and selected three agencies that had among the largest inventories of construction and/or heavy equipment at the time, among other criteria: the U S  Air Force (Air Force); the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS); and the National Park Service (NPS)  We then used information from our data collection effort—which included the number, type, cost, acquisition year and other data elements—to determine heavy equipment items that these agencies acquired during 2012 through 2016  We interviewed agency officials to determine what lease data were available from the three selected agencies  We assessed the reliability of these data with agency official interviews and reviewed the data for completeness and potential outliers  We determined that the data provided were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of documenting leased and rental heavy equipment  We also obtained data from GSA’s Short- Term Rental program, which had previously been limited to passenger vehicles, in part program for August 2012, when the first item was rented under this program, to February 2017, when GSA provided the data  We used these data to identify selected agencies’ rentals of heavy equipment through GSA’s Short-Term Rental program, which had previously been limited to passenger vehicles, in part program and associated costs  We interviewed officials from GSA’s Short-Term Rental program to discuss the program history as well as the reliability of their data on these rented heavy equipment items  We determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for our purposes  To determine how the three selected agencies decide whether to purchase or lease heavy equipment, we interviewed fleet and property managers at these selected agencies and asked them to describe their process for making these decisions as well as to identify relevant federal and agency regulations and guidance  We reviewed relevant federal and agency regulations and guidance regarding how agencies should make these decisions, including: Federal Acquisition Regulation, Office of Management Budget’s A-94, Guidelines and Discount Rates for Benefit- Cost Analysis of Federal Programs, Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement, Air Force Manual 65-506, Air Force Guidance Memorandum to Air Force Instruction 65-501, and Interior’s Guidance On Lease Versus Purchase Analysis and Capital Lease Determination for Equipment Leases  We also reviewed the Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government for guidance on documentation as well as past GAO work that reviewed agencies’ lease-versus-purchase analyses  To determine whether the three selected federal agencies documented lease-versus-purchase decisions for selected acquisitions and adhered to relevant agency guidance, we selected and reviewed a non-generalizable sample of 10 heavy equipment acquisitions—two purchases each from the Air Force, FWS, and NPS, and two leases each from the Air Force and FWS  Specifically, we used inventory data obtained through our data collection effort, described above, to randomly select two heavy equipment purchases from each selected agency using the following criteria: calendar years 2012 through 2016; the two federal supply classes most prevalent in each selected agency’s heavy equipment inventory, as determined by the data collection effort described above; and for NPS and FWS, acquisition costs of over $15,000  In addition, we used lease data provided by the Air Force and FWS to randomly selected two heavy equipment leases per agency  Because NPS could not provide data on heavy equipment leases, we did not select or review any NPS lease decisions  To select the Air Force and FWS leases we used the following criteria: fiscal years 2012 through 2016; for the Air Force, which included federal supply classes in the lease data provided, the two federal supply classes most prevalent in the lease data and for FWS, which did not include federal supply class in the lease data provided, the two federal supply classes most prevalent in the purchase data; and for FWS, leases over $15,000  After selecting these acquisitions, we determined that one FWS lease and one NPS purchase we selected pre-dated Interior’s 2013 guidance on lease-versus-purchase analysis and excluded these acquisitions from our analysis for a total of eight acquisitions  In reviewing agencies’ documentation related to these acquisitions, we developed a data collection instrument to assess the extent to which agencies documented lease-versus-purchase analyses and, in the case of FWS and NPS, adhered to relevant Interior guidance  We supplemented our review of these acquisition decisions with additional information by interviewing officials at the three selected agencies and requesting additional information to understand specific circumstances surrounding each procurement  Our findings are not generalizable across the federal government or within each selected department  To determine how selected agencies manage heavy equipment utilization, we interviewed officials at the three selected agencies to identify departmental and agency-specific guidance and policies and to determine whether utilization requirements exist  We reviewed guidance identified by these officials, including Interior and Air Force vehicle guidance, both of which apply to heavy equipment, and FWS’s Heavy Equipment Utilization and Replacement Handbook  We also compared their practices to relevant Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government  For the selected agencies with guidance for managing heavy equipment—Air Force and FWS—we reviewed the guidance to determine if and how selected agencies measured and documented heavy equipment utilization  For example, we reviewed whether selected agencies developed reports for managing heavy equipment utilization such as Air Force validation reports and FWS conditional assessment reports  We also reviewed Air Force, FWS, and NPS utilization data for heavy equipment but we did not independently calculate or verify the utilization rate for individual heavy equipment items because each heavy equipment item (backhoe, forklift, tractor, etc ,) has different utilization requirements depending on various factors such as the brand, model, or age of equipment  However, we did request information about agency procedures to develop and verify utilization rates  We assessed the reliability of the utilization data with agency official interviews and a review of the data for completeness and potential outliers  We determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of providing evidence of utilization data collection for heavy equipment assets  We also visited the NPS George Washington Memorial Parkway to interview equipment maintenance officials regarding the procurement and management of heavy equipment and to document photos of heavy equipment  We selected this site because of its range of heavy equipment and close proximity to the Capital region  We conducted this performance audit from October 2016 to February 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 individual named above, John W  Shumann (Assistant Director), Rebecca Rygg (Analyst in Charge), Nelsie Alcoser, Melissa Bodeau, Terence Lam, Ying Long, Josh Ormond, Kelly Rubin, Crystal Wesco, and Elizabeth Wood made key contributions to this report 


Report 2: NASA’s mission is to drive advances in science, technology, aeronautics, and space exploration, and contribute to education, innovation, our country’s economic vitality, and the stewardship of the Earth  To accomplish this mission, NASA establishes programs and projects that rely on complex instruments and spacecraft  NASA’s portfolio of major projects ranges from space satellites equipped with advanced sensors to study the Earth to a telescope intended to explore the universe to spacecraft to transport humans and cargo to and beyond low-Earth orbit  Some of NASA’s projects are expected to incorporate new and sophisticated technologies that must operate in harsh, distant environments  The life cycle for NASA space flight projects consists of two phases— formulation, which takes a project from concept to preliminary design, and implementation, which includes building, launching, and operating the system, among other activities  NASA further divides formulation and implementation into phase A through phase F  Major projects must get approval from senior NASA officials at key decision points before they can enter each new phase  Figure 1 depicts NASA’s life cycle for space flight projects  Formulation culminates in a review at key decision point C, known as project confirmation, where cost and schedule baselines are established and documented in a decision memorandum  To inform those baselines, each project with a life-cycle cost estimated to be greater than $250 million must also develop a joint cost and schedule confidence level (JCL)  The JCL initiative, adopted in January 2009, is a point-in-time estimate that, among other things, includes all cost and schedule elements, incorporates and quantifies known risks, assesses the impacts of cost and schedule to date, and addresses available annual resources  NASA policy requires that projects be baselined and budgeted at the 70 percent confidence level  The agency baseline commitment established at key decision point C includes cost and schedule reserves held at the project—those within the project manager’s control—and NASA headquarters level  Cost reserves are for costs that are expected to be incurred—for instance, to address project risks—but are not yet allocated to a specific part of the project  Schedule reserves are extra time in project schedules that can be allocated to specific activities, elements, and major subsystems to mitigate delays or address unforeseen risks  NASA’s current portfolio of major space telescopes includes three projects—WFIRST, TESS, and JWST—that vary in cost, complexity, and phase of the acquisition life cycle  WFIRST, a project that entered the concept and technology development phase and established preliminary cost and schedule estimates in February 2016, is in the earliest stages of the acquisition life cycle  With preliminary cost estimates ranging from $3 2 billion to $3 8 billion, this project is an observatory designed to perform wide-field imaging and survey of the sky at near-infrared wavelengths to answer questions about the structure and evolution of the universe and to expand our knowledge of planets beyond our solar system  The current design includes a 2 4 meter telescope that was built and qualified for another federal agency over 10 years ago; the project is evaluating which components to reuse and which to modify, refurbish, or build new  TESS—a smaller project whose latest cost estimate is approximately $337 million—is targeted to launch in March 2018 and will be used to conduct the first extensive survey of the sky from space for transiting exoplanets  And finally, JWST, with a life-cycle cost estimate of $8 835 billion, is one of NASA’s most complex projects and top priorities  The telescope is designed to help understand the origin and destiny of the universe, the creation and evolution of the first stars and galaxies, and the formation of stars and planetary systems  With a 6 5-meter primary mirror, JWST is expected to operate at about 100 times the sensitivity of the Hubble Space Telescope  JWST’s science instruments are to detect very faint infrared sources and, as such, are required to operate at extremely cold temperatures  To help keep these instruments cold, a multi-layered tennis-court-sized sunshield is being developed to protect the mirrors and instruments from the sun’s heat  We have reported for several years on the JWST project, which has experienced significant cost increases and schedule delays  Prior to being approved for development, cost estimates for JWST ranged from $1 billion to $3 5 billion, with expected launch dates ranging from 2007 to 2011  Before 2011, early technical and management challenges, contractor performance issues, low levels of cost reserves, and poorly phased funding levels caused JWST to delay work after confirmation, which contributed to significant cost and schedule overruns, including launch delays  The Chair of the Senate Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies requested from NASA an independent review of JWST in June 2010  In response, NASA commissioned the Independent Comprehensive Review Panel, which issued its report in October 2010  The panel concluded that JWST was executing well from a technical standpoint, but that the baseline cost estimate did not reflect the most probable cost with adequate reserves in each year of project execution, resulting in an unexecutable project  Following this review, Congress in November 2011 placed an $8 billion cap on the formulation and development costs for the project and NASA rebaselined JWST with a life-cycle cost estimate of $8 835 billion that included additional money for operations and a planned launch in October 2018  The new baseline represented a 78 percent increase to the project’s life-cycle cost from the original baseline and a launch date in October 2018, a delay of 52 months  The revised life-cycle cost estimate included a total of 13 months of funded schedule reserve  Our ongoing work indicates that these three projects are each making progress in line with their phase of the acquisition cycle, but also face challenges in execution  Some of these challenges are unique to the projects themselves and some are common among the projects in NASA’s portfolio  For example, when projects enter the integration and test phase, unforeseen challenges can arise and affect the cost and schedule for the project  Table 1 provides more details about the current acquisition phase, cost, and schedule status of NASA’s major space telescope projects based on our ongoing work  WFIRST  NASA’s preliminary cost and schedule estimates for the WFIRST project are currently under review as the project responds to findings in the WFIRST Independent External Technical/Management/Cost Review  This independent review was conducted to ensure the mission’s scope and required resources are well understood and executable  NASA initiated this review in April 2017 to address the National Academies’ concerns that WFIRST cost growth could endanger the balance of NASA’s astrophysics program and negatively affect other scientific priorities  The review found that the mission scope is understood, but not aligned with the resources provided and concluded that the mission is not executable without adjustments and/or additional resources  For example, the study team found that NASA’s current forecasted funding profile for the WFIRST project would require the project to slow down activities starting in fiscal year 2020, which would result in an increase in development cost and schedule  NASA agreed with the study team’s results and directed the project to reduce the cost and complexity of the design in order to maintain costs within the $3 2 billion cost target  The project is currently identifying potential ways to reduce the scope of planned activities (called “descopes”), assessing the science impact of those descopes, and then developing recommendations for the Astrophysics Division leadership  An example of a descope that may be considered is the requirement for WFIRST to be “star-shade ready,” which means the design must be compatible with a star-shade device that is positioned between it and the star being observed to block out starlight while allowing the light emitted by the planet through  TESS  The TESS project is currently holding cost and schedule reserves consistent with NASA center requirements, but there are no longer headquarters-held cost reserves to cover a delay if the project cannot launch as planned in March 2018  According to a project official, the project is holding 16 days of schedule reserve to its target March 2018 launch readiness date, which includes 6 days for the completion of integration and test, and 10 days for launch operations  The project previously used schedule reserves to accommodate the delayed delivery of its Ka-band transmitter, which is essential for TESS as it transmits the mission data back to Earth, due to continued performance and manufacturing issues  The two main risks to the March 2018 launch date are if: 1) SpaceX requires additional time past December 2017 for NASA’s Launch Services Program to certify that TESS can fly on its upgraded launch vehicle—certification is necessary because it will be the first time that NASA will use this version of the vehicle—and 2) any issues are identified during the remainder of environmental testing  The project is also conducting additional testing on its spare camera at temperatures seen in space to better understand expected camera performance on orbit  TESS will use four identical, wide field-of-view cameras to conduct the first extensive survey of the sky from space for transiting exoplanets  However, during thermal testing, the project found that the substance attaching the lenses to the camera barrel places pressure on the lenses and causes the cameras to be slightly out of focus  In June 2017, NASA directed the project to proceed with integrating the cameras—as they are expected to meet TESS’s top level science requirements even with the anomaly  At its most recent key decision review in August 2017, NASA reallocated $15 million of TESS’s headquarters-held reserves to the WFIRST project  While this had the effect of decreasing life cycle costs for TESS, it also increased risk as the project no longer has any additional headquarters-held cost reserves to cover a launch delay past March 2018  JWST  The JWST project continues to make progress towards launch, but the program is encountering technical challenges that require both time and money to fix and may lead to additional delays, beyond a delay recently announced  While the project has made much progress on hardware integration and testing over the past several months, it also used all of its remaining schedule reserves to address various technical issues, particularly on the spacecraft element  In September 2017, the JWST project requested from the European Space Agency—who will contribute the Ariane V launch vehicle—a launch window from March to June 2019, or 5 to 8 months later than the planned October 2018 launch readiness date, established in 2011  The project based this request on the results of a schedule risk assessment that incorporated inputs from the contractor on expected durations of ongoing spacecraft element integration work and other challenges that were expected to increase schedule  With the later launch window to June 2019, the project expected to have up to 4 months of new schedule reserves  However, shortly after requesting the revised launch window, the project learned from its contractor that up to another 3 months of schedule reserve use is likely, due to lessons learned from conducting deployment exercises of the sunshield, such as reach and access limitations on the flight hardware  As a result, and pending further examination of the schedule, the project now has approximately one month of schedule reserve to complete environmental testing of the spacecraft element and the final integration phase  The final integration phase is where the instruments and telescope will be integrated with the spacecraft and sunshield to form the completed observatory  As I previously noted, our work has shown the integration and test is the riskiest phase of development, where problems are most likely to be found and schedules slip  Given the risks associated with the integration and test work ahead, coupled with a level of schedule reserves that is currently well below the level stated in the procedural requirements issued by the NASA center responsible for managing JWST, additional delays to the project’s revised launch readiness date of June 2019 are likely  As a result, the funding available under the Congressional cost cap of $8 billion may be inadequate as the contractor will need to continue to retain higher workforce levels for longer than expected to prepare the mission for a delayed launch  As Congress, NASA, and the science community consider future telescope efforts, it will be exceedingly important to shape and manage new programs in a manner that minimizes cost overruns and schedule delays  This is particularly important for the largest programs as even small cost increases can have reverberating effects

ground_truth: Federal agencies use heavy equipment such as cranes and forklifts to carry out their missions, but there is no government-wide data on federal agencies' acquisition or management of this equipment. GAO was asked to review federal agencies' management of heavy equipment. This report, among other objectives, examines: (1) the number, type, and costs of heavy equipment items that are owned by 20 federal agencies and (2) the heavy equipment that selected agencies recently acquired as well as how they decided whether to purchase or lease this equipment. GAO collected heavy equipment inventory data as of June 2017 from the 24 agencies that have chief financial officers responsible for overseeing financial management. GAO also selected three agencies (using factors such as the heavy equipment fleet's size) and reviewed their acquisitions of and guidance on heavy equipment. These agencies' practices are not generalizable to all acquisitions but provide insight into what efforts these agencies take to acquire thousands of heavy equipment items. GAO also interviewed officials at the three selected agencies. Of the 24 agencies GAO reviewed, 20 reported owning over 136,000 heavy equipment items such as cranes, backhoes, and forklifts, and spending over $7.4 billion (in 2016 dollars) to acquire this equipment. The remaining 4 agencies reported that they do not own any heavy equipment. The three selected agencies GAO reviewed in-depth—the Air Force within the Department of Defense (DOD), and the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Park Service within the Department of the Interior (Interior)—spent about $360 million to purchase about 3,500 heavy equipment assets in calendar years 2012 through 2016 and over $5 million to lease heavy equipment from fiscal years 2012 through 2016. Officials from all three agencies stated that they consider mission needs and the availability of equipment leases when deciding whether to lease or purchase heavy equipment. Federal regulations provide that agencies should consider whether it is more economical to lease or purchase equipment when acquiring heavy equipment, and federal internal control standards require that management clearly document all transactions in a manner that allows the documentation to be readily available for examination. However, in reviewing selected leases and purchases of heavy equipment from these three agencies, GAO found that officials did not consistently conduct or document lease-versus-purchase analyses. Officials at the Air Force and Interior said that there was a lack of clarity in agency policies about when they were required to conduct and document such analyses. Without greater clarity on when lease-versus-purchase analyses should be conducted and documented, these agencies may not be spending funds on heavy equipment effectively. The Department of the Interior and the Air Force should clarify the circumstances in which lease-versus-purchases analyses for heavy equipment acquisitions are to be conducted and documented. The Departments of the Interior and Defense concurred with these recommendations.

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



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



Report 2:  NASA’s telescope and other science projects will always have inherent technical, design, and integration risks because they are complex, specialized, and often push the state of the art in space technology  But too often, our reports find that management and oversight problems—which can include poor planning, optimistic cost estimating, funding gaps, lax oversight, and poor contractor performance, among other issues—are the real drivers behind cost and schedule growth  To its credit, NASA has taken significant steps, partly in response to our past recommendations, to reduce acquisition risk from both a technical and management standpoint, including actions to enhance cost and schedule estimating, provide adequate levels of reserves to projects, establish better processes and metrics to monitor projects, and expand the use of earned value management to better monitor contractor performance  For example, in November 2012, we found that NASA employee skill sets available to analyze and implement earned value management vary widely from center to center, and we recommended that NASA conduct an earned value management skills gap analysis to identify areas requiring augmented capability across the agency, and, based on the results of the assessment, develop a workforce training plan to address any deficiencies  NASA concurred with this recommendation and developed an earned value management training plan in 2014 based on the results of an earned value management skills gap analysis that was conducted in 2013  Moreover, in recent years, we have found that many of the projects within the agency’s major project portfolio have improved their cost and schedule performance  Nevertheless, the extent to which NASA has adopted some of the following lessons learned within its portfolio of major projects is mixed, and NASA has an opportunity to strengthen its program management of major acquisitions, including its space telescopes, by doing so  Manage Cost and Schedule Performance for Large Projects to Limit Implications for Entire Portfolio  In 2013, following JWST’s cost increases and schedule growth, we found that though cost and schedule growth can occur on any project, increases associated with NASA’s most costly and complex missions can have cascading effects on the rest of the portfolio  For example, we found that the JWST cost growth would have reverberating effects on the portfolio for years to come and required the agency to identify $1 4 billion in additional resources over fiscal years 2012 through 2017, according to Science Mission Directorate officials  NASA identified approximately half of this required funding from the four science divisions within the Science Mission Directorate account  The majority of the cuts were related to future high priority missions, missions in the operations and sustainment phase, and research and analysis  In essence, NASA had to mortgage future high priority missions and research to address JWST’s additional resource needs  Similarly, the National Academy of Sciences has concluded in the past that it is important for NASA to have a clearly articulated and consistently applied method for prioritizing why and how its scarce fiscal resources are apportioned with respect to the science program in general and on a more granular level among component scientific disciplines  The academy noted that failure to do so could result in a loss of capacity, capability, and human resources in a number of scientific disciplines and technological areas that may take a generation or more to reconstitute once eliminated  NASA’s establishment of the WFIRST Independent External Technical/Management/Cost Review that I previously discussed is a step in the right direction to help ensure the Astrophysics Division incorporates this lesson learned  Establish Adequate Cost and Schedule Reserves to Address Risks  Twice in the history of the JWST program, independent reviewers found that the program’s planned cost reserves were inadequate  First, in April 2006, an Independent Review Team confirmed that the project’s technical content was complete and sound, but expressed concern over the project’s reserve funding, reporting that it was too low and phased in too late in the development lifecycle  The review team reported that for a project as complex as JWST, 25 to 30 percent total reserve funding was appropriate  The team cautioned that low reserve funding compromised the project’s ability to resolve issues, address risk areas, and accommodate unknown problems  As I previously mentioned, following additional cost increases and schedule threats, NASA commissioned the Independent Comprehensive Review Panel  In 2010, the panel again concluded JWST was executing well from a technical standpoint, but that the baseline cost estimate did not reflect the most probable cost with adequate reserves in each year of project execution, resulting in an unexecutable project  NASA heeded these lessons when it established a new baseline for JWST in 2011  For example, the revised schedule included more reserves than required by the procedural requirements issued by the NASA center responsible for managing JWST  We have found, however, that NASA has not applied this lesson learned to all of its large projects— most notably with its human spaceflight projects, including the Space Launch System, Orion Crew Capsule, and associated ground systems— and similar outcomes to the JWST project have started to emerge with these projects  We previously reported that all three of these programs were operating with limited cost reserves, which limited each program’s ability to address risks and unforeseen technical challenges  For example, we found in July 2016 that the Orion program planned to maintain very low levels of annual cost reserves until 2018  The lack of available cost reserves in the near term led to the program deferring work to address technical issues to stay within budget, and put the program’s future cost reserves at risk of being overwhelmed by deferred work  In April 2017, we also found that all three programs faced development challenges in completing work, and each had little to no schedule reserve remaining to the launch date—meaning they would have to complete all remaining work with minimal delay during the most challenging stage of development  We found that it was unlikely that the programs would achieve the planned launch readiness date and recommended that NASA reassess the date  NASA agreed with this recommendation and stated that it would establish a new launch readiness date  In November 2017, NASA announced that a review of the possible manufacturing and production schedule risks indicated a launch date of June 2020—a delay of 19 months—but the agency will manage to a December 2019 launch date because, according to NASA, they have put in mitigation strategies for those risks  We will follow-up on those mitigation strategies as part of future work on the human space exploration programs  Regularly and Consistently Update Project JCLs to Provide Realistic Estimates to Decision Makers  In 2009, NASA began requiring that programs and projects with estimated life-cycle costs greater than $250 million develop a JCL prior to project confirmation  This was a positive step for NASA to help ensure that cost and schedule estimates are realistic and projects are thoroughly planning for anticipated risks  This is because a JCL assigns a confidence level, or likelihood, of a project meeting its cost and schedule estimates  Our cost estimating best practices recommend that cost estimates should be updated to reflect changes to a program or be kept current as a program moves through milestones  As new risks emerge on a project, an updated cost and schedule risk analysis can provide realistic estimates to decision-makers, including the Congress  This is especially true for NASA’s largest projects as updated estimates may require the Congress to consider a variety of actions  However, there is no requirement for NASA projects to update their JCLs, and our prior work has found that projects—including JWST—do not regularly update cost risk analyses to take into account newly emerged risks  Our ongoing work indicates that of the 16 major projects currently in NASA’s portfolio that have developed JCL estimates, only 2 have reported updating their JCLs (other than required due to a rebaseline)  For example, the Interior Exploration using Seismic Investigations, Geodesy, and Heat Transport Project (InSight), a Mars lander, updated its JCL after the project missed its committed launch date  As a result, the project was able to provide additional information to decision makers about the probability that it will meet its revised cost and schedule estimates  As a project reaches the later stages of development, especially integration and testing, the types of risks the project will face may change  An updated project JCL would provide both project and agency management with data on relevant risks that can guide the project decisions  For example, in December 2012, we recommended the JWST project update its JCL  NASA concurred with this recommendation; however, we recently closed the recommendation because NASA had not taken steps to implement it and the amount of time remaining before launch would not have allowed the benefit of implementing the recommendation to be realized  An updated JCL may have portended the current schedule delays, which could have been proactively addressed by the project  Enhance Oversight of Contractors to Improve Project Outcomes  In December 2012, we found that the JWST project had taken steps to enhance communications with and oversight of its contractors  According to project officials, the increased communication allowed them to better identify and manage project risks by having more visibility into contractors’ activities  The project reported that a great deal of communication existed across the project prior to the Independent Comprehensive Review Panel; however, additional improvements were made  For example, the project increased its presence at contractor facilities as necessary to provide assistance; this included assigning two engineers on a recurring basis at a Lockheed Martin facility to assist in solving problems with an instrument  The JWST project also assumed full responsibility for the mission system engineering functions from Northrop Grumman in March 2011  NASA and Northrop Grumman officials both said that NASA is better suited to perform these tasks  We continue to see instances in our ongoing work that highlight the importance of implementing this lesson learned from JWST  For example, we found in 2017 that the Space Network Ground Segment Sustainment project—a project that plans to develop and deliver a new ground system for one Space Network site that provides essential communications tracking services to NASA and non-NASA missions—exceeded its original cost baseline by at least $401 7 million and been delayed by 27 months  The project has attributed some of the cost overruns and schedule delays to the contractor’s incomplete understanding of its requirements, which led to poor contractor plans and late design changes  The project also took steps to assign a new NASA project manager, increase physical presence at the contractor facility, and have more staff focused on validation and verification activities  In summary, NASA continues to make progress developing its space telescopes to help understand the universe and our place in it  But much like other major projects that NASA is developing, there continues to be an opportunity for NASA to learn from JWST and other projects that have suffered from cost overruns and schedule delays  Key project management tools and prior GAO recommendations that I have highlighted here today, could help to better position these large, complex, and technically challenging efforts for a successful outcome  We look forward to continuing to work with NASA and this subcommittee in addressing these issues  Chairman Babin, Ranking Member Bera, and Members of the Subcommittee, this completes my prepared statement  I would be pleased to respond to any questions that you may have at this time  If you or your staff have any questions about this testimony, please contact Cristina T  Chaplain, Director, Acquisition and Sourcing Management at (202) 512-4841 or chaplainc@gao gov  Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this statement  GAO staff who made key contributions to this statement include Molly Traci, Assistant Director; Richard Cederholm, Assistant Director; Carrie Rogers; Lisa Fisher; Laura Greifner; Erin Kennedy; and Jose Ramos  This is a work of the U S  government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States  The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further permission from GAO  However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately 
Report 2:  Therefore, the agency does not collaborate with EPA to disseminate the 3Ts guidance beyond posting links to related guidance on their websites and newsletters  EPA officials told us they do not know which office they should collaborate with at Education  EPA regional officials also said they do not collaborate with Education to disseminate the guidance to states and school districts  However, in the 2005 memorandum, EPA and Education agreed to work together to encourage school districts to test drinking water for lead; disseminate results to parents, students, staff, and other interested stakeholders; and take appropriate actions to correct elevated lead levels  There are many school districts that have not tested for lead in school drinking water, and some conducted testing without the assistance of federal guidance—although the large majority (68 percent) of school districts who use the guidance reported finding it helpful  Officials in 11 of 17 school districts we interviewed that had conducted lead testing told us they were familiar with the 3Ts guidance and 9 of those districts said they found it helpful for designing their lead testing programs  Increased encouragement and dissemination of EPA resources about lead in school drinking water by Education and EPA could help school districts test for and remediate lead in drinking water using good practices and reduce the potential risk of exposure for students and staff  Children are particularly at risk of experiencing the adverse effects of lead exposure from a variety of sources, including drinking water  While there is no federal law requiring lead testing for drinking water in most schools, some states and school districts have decided to test for lead in the drinking water to help protect students  However, there are a number of school districts that have not tested for lead and some that do not know if they have tested for lead in their drinking water, according to our nationwide survey  Even in states and school districts that have opted to test, officials may choose different action levels to identify elevated lead and may choose different testing protocols that do not test all fixtures in all schools  EPA has developed helpful guidance—3Ts—and webinars for states and school districts to support efforts to test and remediate lead in school drinking water  However, some EPA regional offices have not communicated the importance of testing for and remediating lead to states and school districts  By promoting further efforts to communicate the importance of lead testing to school districts to help ensure that their lead testing programs are in line with good practices, including the 3Ts guidance, regional offices that have not focused on this issue could build on the recent efforts of other regional offices to provide technical assistance and guidance and other forms of support  State and school district officials can use EPA’s 3Ts guidance to help ensure that their drinking water testing and remediation efforts are in line with good practices and said that it has been helpful for establishing their programs  However, statements in the guidance—which has not been updated in over a decade—that suggest the action level described will ensure that school facilities do not have elevated lead in their drinking water are misleading  In addition, state and school district officials told us that additional guidance—including information on a recommended schedule for retesting as well as on costs associated with testing and remediation—could help school districts make more informed decisions regarding their testing and remediation efforts  Without providing interim or updated guidance, EPA is providing schools with confusing and out of date information, which can increase the risk of school districts making uninformed decisions  EPA officials said they would consider updates to the 3Ts action level while the revisions to the LCR are being completed  However, the longer school districts are without the additional information they need to conduct their efforts in line with good practices and continue to rely on confusing and misleading information, the more challenges they will face in trying to limit children’s exposure to lead  After EPA revises the LCR, the agency would have greater assurance that school districts are limiting children’s exposure to lead by considering whether to develop, as part of its guidance, a health-based level for schools that incorporates available scientific modeling regarding vulnerable population exposures  Finally, although Education provides information to states and school districts on lead testing and remediation through the agency’s websites, that information is difficult to find  Further, Education’s website does not include all of EPA’s quarterly webinars to highlight school district efforts to test for lead  By making guidance accessible, Education could improve school district awareness of EPA resources about lead in school drinking water  In addition, EPA and Education should improve their collaboration to encourage and support lead testing and remediation efforts by states and school districts  EPA has the expertise to develop guidance and provide technical assistance to states and school districts, while Education, based on its mission to promote student achievement, should collaborate with EPA to disseminate guidance and raise awareness of lead in drinking water as an issue that could impact student success  Although over one-third of districts that tested found elevated levels of lead, many districts have still not been tested  Unless EPA and Education encourage additional school districts to test for lead, many students and school staff may be at risk of lead exposure  We are making a total of seven recommendations, including five to EPA and two to Education: The Assistant Administrator for Water of EPA’s Office of Water should promote further efforts to communicate the importance of testing for lead in school drinking water to address what has been a varied approach by regional offices  For example, the Assistant Administrator could direct those offices with limited involvement to build on the recent efforts of several regional offices to provide technical assistance and guidance, and other forms of support  (Recommendation 1) The Assistant Administrator for Water of EPA’s Office of Water should provide interim or updated guidance to help schools choose an action level for lead remediation and more clearly explain that the action level currently described in the 3Ts guidance is not a health-based standard  (Recommendation 2) The Assistant Administrator for Water of EPA’s Office of Water should, following the agency’s revisions to the LCR, consider whether to develop a health-based level, to include in its guidance for school districts, that incorporates available scientific modeling regarding vulnerable population exposures and is consistent with the LCR  (Recommendation 3) The Assistant Administrator for Water of EPA’s Office of Water should provide information to states and school districts concerning schedules for testing school drinking water for lead, actions to take if lead is found in the drinking water, and costs of testing and remediation  (Recommendation 4) The Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education should improve the usability of Education’s websites to ensure that the states and school districts can more easily find and access federal guidance to address lead in school drinking water, by taking actions such as clarifying which links contain guidance; highlighting new or important guidance; improving their websites’ search function; and categorizing guidance  (Recommendation 5) The Assistant Administrator for Water of EPA’s Office of Water and the Director of the Office of Children’s Health Protection should collaborate with Education to encourage testing for lead in school drinking water  This effort could include further dissemination of EPA guidance related to lead testing and remediation in schools or sending letters to states to encourage testing in all school districts that have not yet done so  (Recommendation 6) The Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education should collaborate with EPA to encourage testing for lead in school drinking water  This effort could include disseminating EPA guidance related to lead testing and remediation in schools or sending letters to states to encourage testing in all school districts that have not yet done so  (Recommendation 7) We provided a draft of this report to EPA, Education, and CDC for review and comment  EPA and Education provided written comments that are reproduced in appendixes VII and VIII respectively  EPA also provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate  CDC did not provide comments  We also provided relevant excerpts to selected states and incorporated their technical comments as appropriate  In its written comments, EPA stated that it agreed with our recommendations and noted a number of actions it plans to take to implement them  For example, EPA said its Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water is holding regular meetings with regional offices and other EPA offices to obtain input on improving the 3Ts guidance  Potential revisions include updates to implementation practices, the sampling protocol, and the action level, including clarifying descriptions of different action levels and standards  Also, EPA said that while it has not yet determined the role of a health-based benchmark for lead in drinking water in the revised LCR, it sees value in providing states, drinking water systems, and the public with a greater understanding of the potential health implications for vulnerable populations of specific levels of lead in drinking water  EPA said it would continue to reach out to states and schools to provide information, technical assistance, and training and will continue to make the 3Ts guidance available  EPA also said it would work with Education to ensure that school districts and other stakeholders are aware of additional resources EPA is developing  In its written comments, Education stated that it agreed with our recommendations and noted a number of actions it plans to take to implement them  In response to our recommendation to improve Education’s websites, Education said it would identify and include an information portal dedicated to enhancing the usability of federal resources related to testing for and addressing lead in school drinking water  Also, Education said it is interested in increasing coordination across all levels of government and it shares the view expressed in our report that improved federal coordination, including with EPA, will better enhance collaboration to encourage testing for lead in school drinking water  Education said it would develop a plan for disseminating relevant resources to its key stakeholder groups and explore how best to coordinate with states to disseminate EPA’s guidance on lead testing and remediation to school districts  As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the report date  At that time, we will send copies to interested congressional committees, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, the Secretary of Education, the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and other interested parties  In addition, the report will be 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 us at (617) 788-0580 or nowickij@gao gov or (202) 512-3841 or gomezj@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 IX  In this report, we examined three objectives: (1) the extent to which school districts are testing for, finding, and remediating lead in school drinking water; (2) the extent to which states require or support testing for and remediating lead in school drinking water by school districts; and (3) the extent to which federal agencies are supporting state and school district efforts to test for and remediate lead  To address these objectives, we conducted a web-based survey of school districts, interviews with selected state and school district officials, a review of applicable requirements in selected states, a review of relevant federal laws and regulations, and interviews with federal agency officials and representatives of stakeholder organizations  We conducted this performance audit from October 2016 through July 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  To examine the extent to which school districts are testing for and remediating lead in school drinking water, we designed and administered a generalizable survey of a stratified random sample of U S  local educational agencies (LEA), which we refer to as school districts throughout the report  The survey included questions about school district efforts to test for lead in school drinking water, such as the number of schools in which tests were conducted, the costs of testing, and whether parents or others were notified about the testing efforts  We also asked questions about remediation efforts, such as whether lead was discovered in school drinking water, the specific remediation efforts that were implemented, and whether parents or others were notified about the remediation efforts  Further, we asked about officials’ familiarity with the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) guidance entitled 3Ts for Reducing Lead in Drinking Water in Schools, (3Ts guidance) whether the guidance was used, and the extent to which it was helpful in conducting tests, remediating lead, and communicating with parents and others  We directed the survey to school district superintendents or other cognizant officials, such as facilities directors  See appendix II which includes the survey questions and estimates  We defined our target population to be all school districts in the 50 U S  states and the District of Columbia that are not under the jurisdiction of the Department of Defense or Bureau of Indian Education  We used the LEA Universe database from Department of Education’s (Education) Common Core of Data (CCD) for the 2014-2015 school year to our sampling frame  For the purpose of our survey, our sample was limited to school districts that: were located in the District of Columbia or the 50 states; had a LEA type code of 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, and 8; had one or more schools and one or more students; and were not closed according to the 2014-2015 School Year  The resulting sample frame included 16,452 school districts and we selected a stratified random sample of 549 school districts  We stratified the sampling frame into 13 mutually exclusive strata based on urban classification and poverty classification  We further stratified the school districts classified as being in a city by charter status  We selected the largest 100 school districts with certainty  We determined the minimum sample size needed to achieve precision levels of plus or minus 12 percentage points or fewer, at the 95 percent confidence level  We then increased the sample size within each stratum for an expected response rate of 70 percent  We defined the three urban classifications based on the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) urban-centric locale code  To build a general measure of the poverty level for each school district we used the proportion of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch (FRPL) as indicated in the CCD data and classified these into the following three groups: High-poverty – More than 75 percent of students in the school district were eligible for FRPL; Mid-poverty – Between 25 1 and 75 0 percent of students in the school district were eligible for FRPL; and Low-poverty – 25 percent or fewer students in the school district were eligible for FRPL  We assessed the reliability of the CCD data by reviewing existing documentation about the data and performing electronic testing on required data elements and determined they were sufficiently reliable for the purpose of our report  We administered the survey from July to October 2017 (the survey asked school districts to report information based on the 12 months prior to their completing the survey ) To obtain the maximum number of responses to our survey, we sent reminder emails to nonrespondents and contacted nonrespondents over the telephone  We identified that four of the 549 sampled school districts were closed and one was a “cyber-school” with no building, so these were removed from the sample  Of the remaining 544 eligible sampled school districts, we received valid responses from 373, resulting in an unweighted response rate of 68 percent  We conducted an analysis of our survey results to identify potential sources of nonresponse bias using a multivariate logistic regression model  We examined the response propensity of the sampled school districts by several demographic characteristics  These characteristics included poverty, urbanicity, and charter status  We did not find any other population characteristics significantly affected survey response propensity except those used in stratification (charter schools and the largest 100 school districts)  Based on the response bias analysis and the 68 percent response rate across stratum, we determined that estimates based on adjusted weights reflecting the response rate are generalizable to the population of eligible school districts and are sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report  We took steps to minimize non-sampling errors, including pretesting draft instruments and using a web-based administration system  As we began to develop the survey, we met with officials from seven school districts to explore the feasibility of responding to the survey questions  We then pretested the draft instrument from April to June 2017 with officials in eight school districts—including one charter school district—in cities and suburbs in different states  In the pretests, we asked about the clarity of the questions and the flow and layout of the survey  The EPA also reviewed and provided us comments on a draft version of the survey  Based on feedback from the pretests and EPA’s review, we made revisions to the survey instrument  To further minimize non-sampling errors, we used a web-based survey, which allowed respondents to enter their responses directly into an electronic instrument  Using this method automatically created a record for each respondent and eliminated the errors associated with a manual data entry process  We express the precision of our particular sample’s results as a 95 percent confidence interval (for example, plus or minus 10 percentage points)  This is the interval that would contain the actual population value for 95 percent of the samples we could have drawn  As a result, we are 95 percent confident that each of the confidence intervals in this report will include the true values in the study population  To analyze differences in the percentages of school districts that reported they tested for lead in school drinking water and those that discovered lead, we compared weighted survey estimates generated for school districts in different levels of the following subgroups: Poverty: low poverty, mid poverty, and high poverty; Racial composition: majority-minority and majority white; Region: Northeast, South, Midwest, and West; Population density: urban, suburban, and rural/town; Urban charter school: in urban areas, charter district and non-charter Largest 100: largest 100 districts (based on student enrollment) and all other districts  For each subgroup, we produced percentage estimates and standard errors for each level and used these results to confirm the significance of the differences between weighted survey estimates  To examine school districts’ testing and remediation efforts and state support of those efforts, we conducted site visits in five states—Georgia, Illinois, Massachusetts, Oregon, and Texas—from February to October 2017  We selected these states because they varied in the extent to which they required testing of school drinking water for lead and they are located in geographic areas covered by different EPA regional offices  Within these states, we selected 17 school districts that had tested for lead in school drinking water and to achieve variation in the size and population density (urban, suburban, and rural) of the district as well as including one charter school district  Site visits generally consisted of interviews with officials in state agencies and school districts and officials in the local EPA regional office: State interviews: We interviewed officials in state environment, education, and health agencies, depending on whether they had information related to school district testing for lead in school drinking water in their state  The topics we discussed were the agencies’ roles and responsibilities related to testing for and remediation of lead in school drinking water, any related state requirements, policies, and guidance, communication and public notification about testing and remediation efforts and, as appropriate, coordination among multiple state agencies  We also discussed similar topics related to lead-based paint  In Massachusetts, we interviewed representatives with the University of Massachusetts, because of their role in implementing the state’s program to support school district efforts to test for lead in school drinking water  School Districts: Within the five site visit states, we interviewed officials in 14 school districts in person and in three school districts by phone (because we were not able to meet with them in person)  We also selected one charter school that functions as its own school district which had conducted tests for lead in school drinking water  Similar to our school district survey, the interview topics we discussed with district officials included testing for and remediation of lead in school drinking water, use of guidance (such as the 3Ts guidance) and efforts to communicate or coordinate with any federal, state, or local agencies, including any other school districts  Within 13 of the school districts, we visited at least one school in which the district had tested for lead in drinking water and, as needed, took remedial action in order to gain an in-depth understanding of their testing and remediation efforts  EPA Regional Offices: We interviewed officials in all 10 EPA Regional offices  We met in-person with officials in the regional offices 1, 4, 5, and 6 and conducted phone interviews with officials in regional offices 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, and 10  We generally discussed EPA officials’ roles and responsibilities related to testing for lead in school drinking water and paint and efforts in states and school districts in their region  Information we gathered from these interviews, while not generalizable, represents the conditions present in the states and school districts at the time of our interviews and may be illustrative of efforts in other states and school districts  As part of our effort to examine school districts’ testing and remediation efforts and state support of those efforts, we reviewed related state requirements  To determine whether states had related requirements, we asked all EPA regional offices if states in their region had requirements related to testing for lead in school drinking water  EPA provided examples of eight states (California, Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Virginia, and the District of Columbia that had such requirements  We reviewed relevant laws, regulations, and policy documents for these states  We then confirmed the details of the related requirements with the appropriate state officials via structured questionnaires  Also, we used available documentation to corroborate and verify the testing requirements of the states that EPA identified  GAO did not conduct an independent search of state laws  To examine the extent to which federal agencies have collaborated in supporting state and school district efforts to test for and remediate lead, we reviewed relevant federal laws, including the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act of 2016, Reduction of Lead in Drinking Water Act of 2011, the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974, as amended, and the Lead Contamination Control Act of 1988; regulations, such as the Lead and Copper Rule; and guidance, such as the 3Ts guidance  We also reviewed documentation including the Memorandum of Understanding on Reducing Lead Levels in Drinking Water in Schools and Child Care Facilities signed in 2005 by EPA, Education and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC); Federal Partners in School Health Charter; EPA training webinar information; and other relevant guidance including the 3Ts guidance tool kit  We interviewed officials from EPA’s Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water and Office of Children’s Health Protection and officials in all 10 of EPA regional offices regarding their approach to providing support to states and school district on lead testing and remediation  We interviewed officials from Education’s Office of Safe and Healthy Students and officials from the CDC  During these interviews, we interviewed officials about the Memorandum of Understanding and about the Federal Partners in School Health initiative, both of which represent collaborative efforts that address lead in school drinking water, among other topics  We evaluated federal efforts to collaborate and support lead testing and remediation in schools against federal standards for internal control, which call for agencies to communicate quality information to external parties, among other things  We also evaluated federal efforts against the Memorandum of Understanding, in which EPA, Education, and CDC agreed to encourage testing drinking water for lead and communicate with key stakeholders, among other things  To inform all of our research objectives, we interviewed representatives with the National Conference of State Legislatures, National Center for Healthy Housing, National Alliance of Public Charter Schools, the DC Public Charter School Board, and the 21st Century School Fund  We also attended a workshop entitled “Eliminating Lead Risks in Schools and Child Care Facilities” in December 2017  The questions we asked in our survey of local educational agencies (referred to in this report as school districts) are shown below  Our survey was comprised of closed- and open-ended questions  In this appendix, we include all survey questions and aggregate results of responses to the closed-ended questions; we do not provide information on responses provided to the open-ended questions  Estimates noted with superscript “a” are based on 20 or fewer responses and were not included in our findings  For a more detailed discussion of our survey methodology, see appendix I  1  Do any schools in your local educational agency (LEA) obtain drinking water from a public water system such as a city or municipal water plant? (Check one ) 95 percent confidence interval – lower bound (percentage) 95 percent confidence interval – upper bound (percentage) No (Skip to 20) Don’t know (Skip to 20) Section B: Testing for Lead in School Drinking Water 2  Is there a requirement that the drinking water in your LEA’s schools be tested for lead? (Please answer “Yes” regardless of whether that requirement comes from your state, municipality, local educational agency or any other governmental entity ) (Check one ) 95 percent confidence interval – lower bound (percentage) 3  Regardless of whether your LEA is required to test for lead in school drinking water, have tests been conducted for lead in the drinking water in at least one of your schools in the past 12 months? (Check one ) 95 percent confidence interval – lower bound (percentage) 95 percent confidence interval – upper bound (percentage) If yes to 3: 3A  What is the number of schools in which tests were conducted in the past 12 months? Estimated Number (Mean) 95 percent confidence interval – lower bound (number) 95 percent confidence interval – upper bound (number) (Respondent reported number) 3B  About how many samples were taken from sources of drinking water such as water fountains and sinks in each school? (Check one ) 95 percent confidence interval – lower bound (percentage) 3C  Did any of the following develop the sampling plan, draw the samples of water, and analyze the samples? (Check all that apply ) 95 percent confidence interval – lower bound (percentage) 95 percent confidence interval – upper bound (percentage) 3D  What size samples were taken? (Check one ) 95 percent confidence interval – lower bound (percentage) 95 percent confidence interval – upper bound (percentage) If ‘other’ to 3D: What sample size was used? 3E: To the best of your knowledge, did the personnel drawing or analyzing samples follow a testing protocol that offers guidance on developing the sampling plan, drawing samples of water, or analyzing samples? (Check one ) 95 percent confidence interval – lower bound (percentage) 95 percent confidence interval – upper bound (percentage) No (Skip to 3F) Don’t know (Skip to 3F) If ‘yes’ to 3E: a  To the best of your knowledge, were any of the following entities involved in developing the protocol? (Check one per row ) 95 percent confidence interval – lower bound (percentage) 95 percent confidence interval – upper bound (percentage) Contractor / water testing company EPA or another federal government agency A local government agency (aside from your LEA) If ‘other’ to 3Eh: What other entities were involved in developing the protocol? 3F  If tests were conducted in some schools in your LEA in the past 12 months—but were not conducted in every school—how was it determined which schools would be tested? (Check one per row ) Not applicable: tests were conducted in every school (Skip to 3G) 95 percent confidence interval – lower bound (percentage) 95 percent confidence interval – upper bound (percentage) 95 percent confidence interval – lower bound (percentage) 95 percent confidence interval – upper bound (percentage) If ‘other’ to 3Fe: In what other ways did your LEA use to determine which schools would be tested? 3G  How much do you estimate your LEA has spent on testing for lead in school drinking water in the past 12 months? (Please answer this question for lead testing only; the survey asks about expenditures to address concerns identified through testing later  Also, please include materials, labor, and any other expenditures related to lead testing in your estimate ) Estimated Number (Median) 95 percent confidence interval – lower bound (number) 95 percent confidence interval – upper bound (number) (Respondent reported number) 3H  Did your LEA use any of the following sources of funding for the testing in the past 12 months? (Check one per row)  95 percent confidence interval – lower bound (percentage) 95 percent confidence interval – upper bound (percentage) If ‘other’ to 3H: What other sources of funding did your LEA use? 3I  In the past 12 months, did your LEA notify the following groups that it was planning to test for lead in school drinking water before conducting the tests? (Check one per row)  95 percent confidence interval – lower bound (percentage) 95 percent confidence interval – upper bound (percentage) General public (e g , media) If ‘other’ to 3I: What other groups did your LEA notify that it was planning to test for lead in school drinking water before conducting the tests? 3J  In the past 12 months, did your LEA report the testing results to the following groups after completing the tests? (Check one per row)  95 percent confidence interval – lower bound (percentage) 95 percent confidence interval – upper bound (percentage) General public (e g , media) If ‘other’ to 3J: To what other groups did your LEA report the testing results? 3K  If ‘no’ to 3: Were any of the following a reason your LEA did not conduct any tests in any schools in the last 12 months? (Check one per row)  95 percent confidence interval – lower bound (percentage) 95 percent confidence interval – upper bound (percentage) If ‘other’ to 3K: For what other reasons did your LEA not conduct any tests in any schools in the last 12 months? 4  Does your LEA have a schedule for recurring tests to determine the amount of lead in the drinking water in your schools within any of the following time frames? (Check one ) 95 percent confidence interval – lower bound (percentage) 95 percent confidence interval – upper bound (percentage) Section C: Remediation of Lead in School Drinking Water 5  Has your LEA discovered any level of lead in the drinking water of any of your schools (as a result of testing) in the last 12 months? (Check one ) 95 percent confidence interval – lower bound (percentage) 95 percent confidence interval – upper bound (percentage) 5A  What lead concentration (measured in “parts per billion” or “ppb”) did your LEA use to initiate remedial action? (Check one ) 95 percent confidence interval – lower bound (percentage) 95 percent confidence interval – upper bound (percentage) If ‘other’ to 5A: What lead concentration did your LEA use to initiate remedial action? 5B  In the last 12 months, how many schools had at least one test result–including as few as one sample in one school–greater than the lead level your LEA used to initiate action? (Please answer regardless of whether these results were discovered in the first of multiple rounds of testing ) 5C To address lead discovered in school drinking water, has your LEA taken any of the following actions in any of your schools in the past 12 months? 95 percent confidence interval – lower bound (percentage) 95 percent confidence interval – upper bound (percentage) 5D  If ‘no’ to every item in 5C: What are the reasons why your LEA has not taken actions in any of your schools in the past 12 months? 5E  If ‘yes’ to any item in 5C: How much do you estimate your LEA has spent on taking actions in the past 12 months? (Please include materials, labor, and any other expenditures related to lead remediation in your estimate ) Estimated Number (Median) 95 percent confidence interval – lower bound (number) 95 percent confidence interval – upper bound (number) (Respondent reported number) 5F  Did your LEA use any of the following sources of funding to take actions in the past 12 months? (Check one per row)  95 percent confidence interval – lower bound (percentage) 95 percent confidence interval – upper bound (percentage) If ‘other’ to 5F: What other sources of funding did your LEA use to take actions in the past 12 months? 5G  Did your LEA notify the following groups about its actions in the past 12 months? (Check one per row)  95 percent confidence interval – lower bound (percentage) 95 percent confidence interval – upper bound (percentage) General public (e g , media) If ‘other’ to 5G: What other groups has your LEA notified about its remedial actions in the past 12 months? 6  Does your LEA have a schedule to flush the water system as a result of concerns about lead in drinking water in at least one of your schools within any of the following time frames? (Check one ) 95 percent confidence interval – lower bound (percentage) 95 percent confidence interval – upper bound (percentage) 7  Does your LEA have plans to take actions to eliminate or reduce lead in school drinking water (for example, replace drinking water fountains, replace pipes) in at least one of your schools? (Check one ) 95 percent confidence interval – lower bound (percentage) 95 percent confidence interval – upper bound (percentage) If ‘according to a schedule’ to 7: how would you describe the schedule that your LEA has developed? Section D: Guidance Regarding Lead Testing and Remediation 8  Prior to receiving this survey, were you familiar with guidance issued by the U S  Environmental Protection Agency entitled “3Ts for Reducing Lead in Drinking Water in Schools”? (Please answer “Yes” if you had read or used the”3Ts” prior to receiving this survey ) (Check one ) 95 percent confidence interval – lower bound (percentage) 95 percent confidence interval – upper bound (percentage) If ‘yes’ to 8: did your LEA (or a contractor working on behalf of your LEA) follow or refer to “3Ts” during your efforts to test for or remediate lead in school drinking water? (Check one ) 95 percent confidence interval – lower bound (percentage) 95 percent confidence interval – upper bound (percentage) If ‘yes’ to 8A: How helpful was 3Ts for conducting tests for lead in your schools’ drinking water? (Check one ) 95 percent confidence interval – lower bound (percentage) 95 percent confidence interval – upper bound (percentage) If ‘yes’ to 8A: How helpful was 3Ts for remediating lead in your schools’ drinking water? (Check one ) 95 percent confidence interval – lower bound (percentage) 95 percent confidence interval – upper bound (percentage) If ‘yes’ to 8A: How helpful was 3Ts for communicating with parents and other stakeholders about lead in your schools’ drinking water? (Check one ) 95 percent confidence interval – lower bound (percentage) 95 percent confidence interval – upper bound (percentage) What else, if anything, would make 3Ts more helpful? 9  Did your LEA (or a contractor working on behalf of your LEA) use any other guidance (for example, best practices, manuals, protocols, webinars) in your LEA’s efforts to test for lead in your schools’ drinking water, take remedial actions, or for notification purposes? (Check one ) 95 percent confidence interval – lower bound (percentage) 95 percent confidence interval – upper bound (percentage) What other guidance was used? 10  Would your LEA find any of the following helpful? (Check one per row)  95 percent confidence interval – lower bound (percentage) 95 percent confidence interval – upper bound (percentage) Clearer guidance on a level of lead in school drinking water at which we should take action Additional guidance on determining a schedule for 41 95 percent confidence interval – lower bound (percentage) 95 percent confidence interval – upper bound (percentage) regularly testing for lead in school drinking water Additional guidance on actions to take if lead is found in school drinking water Information on the costs of testing for lead in school drinking water Information on the costs of remediating lead in school drinking water 18 95 percent confidence interval – lower bound (percentage) 95 percent confidence interval – upper bound (percentage) If ‘other guidance or information’ to 10: What other guidance or information would be helpful? Section E: Inspecting Schools for Lead Based Paint Section F: Remediation of Lead Based Paint in Schools Section G: Other Questions 16  How many schools are owned or operated by your LEA? Estimated Number (Mean) 95 percent confidence interval – lower bound (number) 95 percent confidence interval – upper bound (number) (Respondent reported number) 17  How many schools in your LEA were built before 1986? (If a building has additions, we mean the original structure/the original part of the building ) Estimated Number (Mean) 95 percent confidence interval – lower bound (number) 95 percent confidence interval – upper bound (number) (Respondent reported number) 18  How many schools in your LEA were built before 1978? (If a building has additions, we mean the original structure/the original part of the building ) Estimated Number (Mean) 95 percent confidence interval – lower bound (number) 95 percent confidence interval – upper bound (number) (Respondent reported number) 19  Is there anything else you would like to share with us regarding lead testing, inspection, or remediation efforts in your school or LEA (drinking water or paint)? 20  What is the name, title, e-mail address, and telephone number of the person responsible for completing this survey? Section H: Completion 21  Please check one of the options below  Clicking on “Completed” indicates that your answers are official and final  Your answers will not be used unless you have done this  (Check one ) 95 percent confidence interval – lower bound (percentage) Charter schools comprise a small but growing group of public schools  In contrast to most traditional public schools, many charter schools are responsible for financing their own buildings and other facilities  As a result, charters schools vary in terms of whether they own their own building or pay rent, and whether they operate in buildings originally designed as a school or in buildings which have been redesigned for educational purposes  Sometimes charter schools may also share space in their building with others, such as non-profit organizations  In addition to differences in facility access and finance, charter school governance also varies  In some states, charter schools function as their own school district, while in other states, charter schools have the option to choose between being a distinct school district or part of a larger school district  To determine the extent to which charter school districts were testing for lead in school drinking water and finding and remediating lead, our survey included charter school districts in two ways: our sampling design included three strata specifically for charter school districts in urban areas; in addition, charter school districts were retained in the sampling population, such that they could be randomly selected in our other strata  While we generally received too few responses from charter school districts to report their data separately, we are able to estimate that about 36 percent of charter school districts tested for lead in school drinking water  To learn more about experiences of charter schools, we visited one charter school district and interviewed representatives of the DC Public Charter School Board (DC PCSB)  The charter school district we visited consisted of one charter school in a building it leased  The school had 10 sources of consumable water, all of which were tested in 2016 and were found to have lead below the district’s selected action level of 15 parts per billion  Before testing, district officials met with the building owner who agreed to cover the cost of any remediation  Officials with the DC PCSB told us that it paid to have tests conducted in every charter school in the District of Columbia  According to DC PCSB officials, between March and June 2016, 95 charter schools were tested, and lead above their action level of 15 parts per billion was discovered in 20 schools  Officials estimated their testing costs to be about $100,000, which was subsequently reimbursed by the District of Columbia’s Office of State Superintendent of Education  They also said that charter schools were responsible for taking steps to remediate the lead and recommended schools flush their water systems and use filters  Communication of results Not specified 5 ppb in a 250 ml sample (from filtered fixture) The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) provides information on its website for the public on lead in drinking water  EPA’s website includes, among other documents, a December 2005 brochure for the public and school districts entitled “3Ts for Reducing Lead in Drinking Water in Schools” (see fig 10)  In addition to the individuals named above, Diane Raynes (Assistant Director), Scott Spicer (Assistant Director), Jason Palmer (Analyst-in- Charge), Amanda K  Goolden, Rich Johnson, Grant Mallie, Jean McSween, Dae Park, James Rebbe, Sarah M  Sheehan, and Alexandra Squitieri made significant contributions to this report  Also contributing to this report were Susan Aschoff, David Blanding, Mimi Nguyen, Tahra Nichols, Dan C  Royer, Kiki Theodoropoulos, and Kim Yamane  Lead Paint in Housing: HUD Should Strengthen Grant Processes, Compliance Monitoring, and Performance Assessment  GAO-18-394  Washington, D C : June 19, 2018  Drinking Water: Additional Data and Statistical Analysis May Enhance EPA’s Oversight of the Lead and Copper Rule  GAO-17-424  Washington, D C : September 1, 2017  Environmental Health: EPA Has Made Substantial Progress but Could Improve Processes for Considering Children’s Health  GAO-13-254  Washington, D C : August 12, 2013  Lead in Tap Water: CDC Public Health Communications Need Improvement  GAO-11-279  Washington, D C : March 14, 2011  Environmental Health: High-level Strategy and Leadership Needed to Continue Progress toward Protecting Children from Environmental Threats  GAO-10-205  Washington, D C : January 28, 2010  Drinking Water: EPA Should Strengthen Ongoing Efforts to Ensure That Consumers Are Protected from Lead Contamination  GAO-06-148  Washington, D C : January 4, 2006 

ground_truth: Acquisition management has been a long-standing challenge at NASA, although GAO has reported on improvements the agency has made in recent years. Three space telescope projects are the key enablers for NASA to achieve its astrophysics' science goals, which include seeking to understand the universe. In its fiscal year 2018 budget request, NASA asked for about $697 million for these three projects, which represents over 50 percent of NASA's budget for its astrophysics' major projects. In total, these projects represent an expected investment of at least $12.4 billion. This statement reflects preliminary observations on (1) the current status and cost of NASA's major telescope projects and (2) lessons learned that can be applied to NASA's management of its telescope projects. This statement is based on ongoing work on JWST and ongoing work on the status of NASA's major projects. Both reports are planned to be published in Spring 2018. This statement is also based on past GAO reports on JWST and NASA's acquisitions of major projects, and NASA input. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) current portfolio of major space telescopes includes three projects that vary in cost, complexity, and phase of the acquisition life cycle. GAO's ongoing work indicates that these projects are each making progress in line with their phase of the acquisition cycle but also face some challenges. For example, the current launch date for the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) project reflects a 57-60-month delay from the project's original schedule. GAO's preliminary observations indicate this project still has significant integration and testing to complete, with very little schedule reserve remaining to account for delays. Therefore, additional delays beyond the delay of up to 8 months recently announced are likely, and funding available under the $8 billion Congressional cost cap for formulation and development may be inadequate. There are a number of lessons learned from its acquisitions that NASA could consider to increase the likelihood of successful outcomes for its telescope projects, as well as for its larger portfolio of projects, such as its human spaceflight projects. For example, twice in the history of the JWST program, independent reviews found that the program was not holding adequate cost and schedule reserves. GAO has found that NASA has not applied this lesson learned to all of its large projects, and similar outcomes to JWST have started to emerge. For example, NASA did not incorporate this lesson with its human spaceflight programs. In July 2016 and April 2017, GAO found that these programs were holding inadequate levels of cost and schedule reserves to cover unexpected cost increases or delays. In April 2017, GAO recommended that NASA reassess the date of the programs' first test flight. NASA concurred and, in November 2017, announced a launch delay of up to 19 months. GAO is not making any recommendations in this statement, but has made recommendations in prior reports to strengthen NASA's acquisition management of its major projects. NASA has generally agreed with GAO's recommendations and taken steps to implement them.