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



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

Report 1: The Navy currently has 51 attack submarines—comprising 33 Los Angeles class, 3 Seawolf class, and 15 Virginia class submarines (see fig  1)  Attack submarines are homeported at bases in the United States: in New London, Connecticut; Pearl Harbor, Hawaii; Norfolk, Virginia; San Diego, California; and Bangor, Washington; 4 are homeported overseas, in the U S  territory of Guam  Submarine Safety Controls and Culture On April 10, 1963, the USS Thresher (SSN 593) sank during deep submergence tests off the coast of New England  One hundred and twelve officers and enlisted sailors and 17 civilians perished in the tragedy  The accident investigation concluded that the Navy did not have adequate procedures in place to prevent and respond to a catastrophic flooding incident  time, and that maintenance delays reduce the amount of time during which ships and submarines are available for training and operations  Submarine fleet and squadron officials emphasized the strict safety culture that permeates the submarine community  This emphasis on meeting safety certification criteria means that the Navy operates a supply-based submarine force that does not compromise on adherence to training and maintenance standards to meet combatant commander demands, according to these officials (see sidebar)  Officials added that the Navy will delay deployment dates if necessary to ensure that these standards are met  As a result, deployed readiness is high and attack submarines are in excellent materiel condition as compared with the rest of the Navy fleet  The loss of the USS Thresher and its crew spurred the Navy to establish stringent safety requirements for submarines to prevent another loss at sea  Following the accident, the Navy established submarine safety certification criteria to provide maximum reasonable assurance that critical systems would protect the crew from flooding and allow the submarine to conduct an emergency surfacing should flooding occur  This program, known as SUBSAFE, is still in use today, to ensure that these critical systems receive a high quality of work and that all work is properly documented  According to the Navy, the SUBSAFE certification status of a submarine is fundamental to its mission capability, as it provides a thorough and systematic approach to quality, and to a culture that permeates the entire submarine community  According to Navy officials, since the SUBSAFE program was established in 1963, no SUBSAFE-certified submarine has ever been lost  The Navy has been unable to begin or complete the vast majority of its attack submarine maintenance periods on time resulting in significant maintenance delays and operating and support cost expenditures  Our analysis of Navy maintenance data shows that between fiscal year 2008 and the end of fiscal year 2018, attack submarines will have incurred 10,363 days of idle time and maintenance delays as a result of delays in getting into and out of the shipyards  Our analysis found that the primary driver affecting attack submarines are delays in completing depot maintenance  For example, of the 10,363 total days of lost time since fiscal year 2008, 8,472 (82 percent) were due to depot maintenance delays  As we previously reported, completing ship and submarine maintenance on time is essential to Navy readiness, as maintenance periods lasting longer than planned could reduce the number of days during which ships and crews are available for training or operations  Attack submarines also face delays in beginning maintenance when the public shipyards have no available capacity, in some cases forcing submarines to idle pierside because they are no longer certified to conduct normal operations  According to Navy officials, the SUBSAFE program—its program to ensure and certify submarine safety—requires submarines to adhere to strict maintenance schedules and pass materiel condition assessments before they are allowed to submerge  Attack submarines that go too long without receiving required maintenance are at risk of having their materiel certification expire  Should this certification expire, these submarines are restricted to sitting idle, pierside, while they wait until a shipyard has the capacity to begin their maintenance period (see fig  2)  We found that since fiscal year 2008, 14 attack submarines have spent a combined 61 months (1,891 days) idling while waiting to enter shipyards for maintenance  Idle time incurred while waiting to begin a maintenance period is often coupled with maintenance delays while at the shipyards, thus compounding total delays  We also found that the Navy incurs significant costs in operating and supporting submarines that are experiencing maintenance delays and idle time  We analyzed the operating and support costs the Navy incurs on average to estimate the costs of crewing, maintaining, and supporting attack submarines that are delayed in getting into and out of the shipyards  Using historical daily cost data the Navy adjusted for inflation, we estimated that since fiscal year 2008 the Navy has spent more than $1 5 billion in fiscal year 2018 constant dollars on attack submarines sitting idle while waiting to enter the shipyards, and on those delayed in completing their maintenance at the shipyards (see table 1)  While the Navy would incur these costs regardless of whether the submarine was delayed, idled, or deployed, our estimate of $1 5 billion represents costs incurred from fiscal year 2008 through fiscal year 2018 for attack submarines without receiving any operational capability in return  While acknowledging the magnitude of these costs, Navy officials stated that there may be some benefits that could be realized from these operating and support costs since crews on idle attack submarines can conduct some limited training  Operating and support costs include payment of crew salaries, purchasing of spare parts, and conducting of maintenance, among other things, but they do not represent the full operational impact incurred by the Navy from the idle time and maintenance delays  For example, attack submarine depot-level maintenance requires the use of a drydock, and officials from the three public shipyards we visited told us that their drydock capacity was limited  A delayed attack submarine maintenance period can restrict the use of a drydock for much longer than originally anticipated, thereby preventing the shipyard from using that drydock to maintain other vessels, including other types of ships, or to conduct necessary repairs on the facilities  The Navy has started to address workforce shortages and facilities needs at the public shipyards  These efforts to address the Navy’s maintenance challenges are important steps, but they will require several years of sustained management attention to reach fruition  As we reported in September 2017, maintenance on ships and submarines may be delayed for numerous reasons, including workforce gaps and inexperience, the poor condition of facilities and equipment, parts shortages, changes in planned maintenance work, and weather  According to Navy officials, all of these issues continue to affect the Navy’s ability to complete attack submarine maintenance on time  According to officials, the Navy has begun to address some of these challenges  For example: The public shipyards have been hiring to address workforce shortages  The number of civilian full-time employees at the shipyards increased from 25,087 in 2007 to 34,160 in 2017, with a goal to reach 36,100 by 2020  Navy officials cautioned that this newly hired workforce is largely inexperienced and will require time to attain full proficiency  The Navy has released a plan to guide public shipyard capital investments  In September 2017 we reported that the Navy projected an inability to support 50 planned submarine maintenance periods over the ensuing 23 years, due to capacity and capability shortfalls at the public shipyards  We recommended that the Navy develop a comprehensive plan for shipyard capital investment  In February 2018 the Navy published its shipyard optimization plan, outlining an estimated $21 billion investment needed to address shipyard facility and equipment needs over 20 years to meet the operational needs of the current Navy fleet, but not the larger fleet size planned for the future  While the public shipyards have operated above capacity for the past several years, attack submarine maintenance delays are getting longer and idle time is increasing  The Navy expects the maintenance backlogs at the public shipyards to continue  We estimate that, as a result of these backlogs, the Navy will incur approximately $266 million in operating and support costs in fiscal year 2018 constant dollars for idle submarines from fiscal year 2018 through fiscal year 2023, as well as additional depot maintenance delays  The Navy may have options to mitigate idle time and maintenance delays  For example, officials at the private shipyards—General Dynamics Electric Boat and Huntington Ingalls Industries-Newport News Shipbuilding—told us that they will have available capacity for repair work for at least the next 5 years  Although the Navy has shifted about 8 million man-hours in attack submarine maintenance to private shipyards over the past 5 years, it has done so sporadically, having decided to do so in some cases only after experiencing lengthy periods of idle time  According to private shipyard officials, the sporadic shifts in workload have resulted in repair workload gaps that have disrupted private shipyard workforce, performance, and capital investment—creating costs that are ultimately borne in part by the Navy  We believe that the Navy has not fully mitigated this challenge because it has not completed a comprehensive business case analysis to inform maintenance workload allocation across public and private shipyards, and to proactively minimize attack submarine idle time and maintenance delays  Such an analysis would help the Navy better assess private shipyard capacity to perform attack submarine maintenance and would help it incorporate a complete accounting of all costs, benefits, and risks, including: the large operating and support costs of having attack submarines sitting idle; the qualitative benefits associated with providing additional availability to the combatant commanders; and the potential for additional work at private shipyards to reduce schedule risk to submarine construction programs by allowing the yards to build and maintain a stable shipyard workforce  The April 2011 DOD Product Support Business Case Analysis Guidebook provides standards for DOD’s process for conducting analyses of costs, benefits, and risks  It states that data sources used to conduct a business case analysis should be comprehensive and should include both quantitative and qualitative values  It notes that benefits, such as the availability of a weapon system, may be qualitative in nature, and that DOD should evaluate all possible support options, to include government- and contractor-provided maintenance  Navy leadership has acknowledged that they need to be more proactive in leveraging private shipyard repair capacity, but officials cautioned that maintenance could cost more at a private shipyard than at a public shipyard  However, without a complete accounting of all costs, benefits, and risks, the Navy will remain unable to determine whether the cost of performing a maintenance period at a private shipyard would outweigh the mission benefits of having reduced idle time, additional operational availability, and the potential for reduced risk to submarine construction programs  The nation’s investment in attack submarines provides the United States an asymmetric advantage to gather intelligence undetected, attack enemy targets, and insert special forces, among other capabilities  However, the Navy’s attack submarine fleet has suffered from persistent and costly maintenance delays  Although the Navy has several activities underway to reduce maintenance delays for the attack submarine fleet, it has not yet taken additional steps to maximize attack submarine readiness that fully address challenges such as the allocation of maintenance periods between public and private shipyards  Without addressing this challenge, the Navy will not achieve the full benefit of the nation’s investment in its attack submarines, and it risks continued expenditure of operating and support funding to crew, maintain, and support attack submarines that provide no operational capability because they are delayed in getting into and out of maintenance  The Secretary of the Navy should ensure that the Chief of Naval Operations conducts a business case analysis to inform maintenance workload allocation across public and private shipyards; this analysis should include an assessment of private shipyard capacity to perform attack submarine maintenance, and should incorporate a complete accounting of both (a) the costs and risks associated with attack submarines sitting idle, and (b) the qualitative benefits associated with having the potential to both mitigate risk in new submarine construction and provide additional availability to the combatant commanders  We provided a draft of the classified version of the report to DOD for review and comment  That draft contained the same recommendation as this unclassified version as well as three additional recommendations DOD deemed sensitive  In written comments provided by DOD (reprinted in appendix II), DOD concurred with our recommendation stating that it has taken the first steps to take a more holistic view of submarine maintenance requirements and impacts across both the public and private shipyards  The Navy also provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate  We are sending copies of this report to congressional committees; the Secretary of Defense; the Secretary of the Navy, and other interested parties  In addition, the report is available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www gao gov  If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-3489 or pendletonj@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 IV  To assess the extent to which the Navy has experienced maintenance delays in its attack submarine fleet, we analyzed attack submarine maintenance delay and idle time data from Naval Sea Systems Command, and we reviewed prior GAO work on shipyard maintenance delays  The Navy determines depot maintenance delays by counting each day in which a submarine maintenance period extends beyond the planned completion date  Two Navy offices within Naval Sea Systems Command—that is, the Logistics, Maintenance, and Industrial Operations office and Program Executive Office Submarines—track days incurred from depot-level maintenance delays and idle time  To determine the total number of days of maintenance delays for each fiscal year within our scope, we subtracted the planned completion date from the actual completion date to produce the number of days of maintenance delays for each maintenance period for each submarine  We added together the days of maintenance delays across all attack submarines for each fiscal year, and then added the fiscal year totals to produce the overall total  Although the data included some maintenance periods that began before fiscal year 2008, we counted days of maintenance delays only from periods that were incurred in fiscal years 2008 through 2018  We also tracked the total number of days that the Navy completed maintenance periods ahead of schedule—that is, 153—but we noted these separately instead of subtracting them from the total number of days of maintenance delays  To estimate costs associated with these delays, we analyzed annual data from fiscal years 2011 through 2017 (the most current data available at the time of our review) from the Navy’s Visibility and Management of Operating and Support Costs system  We also reviewed prior work on determining the operating and support costs of Navy ships  The Navy calculates total operating and support expenditures for each attack submarine on an annual basis, as well as the yearly average expenditure for each attack submarine class, including Los Angeles class, Seawolf class, and Virginia class blocks one and two  For each class, we converted the Navy’s annual class averages into daily average costs by adding the annual class averages together for each year that data were available, fiscal years 2011 through 2017, then dividing that number by the total number of days  We then multiplied the daily class average by the total number of days of maintenance delays and idle time incurred by submarines within that class, according to our calculations outlined above, between fiscal year 2008 and fiscal year 2018, and we added these totals together to produce the total estimated operating and support cost for days of maintenance delays and idle time incurred during this period  The data did not include annual class average costs for fiscal years 2008, 2009, 2010, or 2018  However, the annual class averages for fiscal years 2011 through 2017 did not show significant variation, so we applied these averages to 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2018  To assess the extent to which the Navy has addressed any challenges and developed mitigation plans for any maintenance delays, we reviewed the Navy’s plans to address attack submarine maintenance delays and interviewed Navy headquarters, fleet, and squadron officials, attack submarine crews, and public and private shipyard officials to understand any plans to address attack submarine maintenance delays and idle time  We analyzed data on factors contributing to attack submarine maintenance delays, such as cannibalization rates  We visited three of the four public shipyards, including Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard and Intermediate Maintenance Facility, Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, and Norfolk Naval Shipyard, to observe operations, training, and the condition of the facilities and equipment, and to interview officials about challenges affecting operational efficiency and performance  We also met with Navy maintainers at Naval Station Norfolk and Naval Submarine Base New London, and with the crew of the submarine tenders USS Frank Cable (AS-40) and USS Emory S  Land (AS-39) in Guam  We toured the two private shipyards that conduct attack submarine repair work—General Dynamics Electric Boat and Huntington Ingalls Industries-Newport News Shipbuilding—and interviewed executives at both locations  We also toured attack submarines and met with crew leadership, selected according to which submarines and crews were available for tours at each of the sites we visited  We visited the USS Boise (SSN 764) at Naval Station Norfolk and four attack submarines in depot-level maintenance: the USS Albany (SSN 753), the USS Jefferson City (SSN 759), the USS New Mexico (SSN 779), and the USS Springfield (SSN 761)  We met with the crews of two attack submarines assigned to the operating forces at the time of our visit, the USS Missouri (SSN 780) and the USS North Dakota (SSN 784)  We evaluated the Navy’s plans to address any challenges against criteria in federal standards for internal control, which state that agencies should evaluate performance in achieving key objectives and addressing risks; the Department of Defense’s business case analysis guidebook, which provides standards for the process used to conduct analyses of costs, benefits, and risks; the Project Management Book of Knowledge, which provides best practices for project management; and the Secretary of the Navy’s December 2017 Strategic Readiness Review, which calls for the early identification of systemic risks before problems occur  To assess the reliability of the data sources for conducting analyses to address all of the objectives in this report, we reviewed systems documentation and interviewed officials to understand system operating procedures, organizational roles and responsibilities, and error-checking mechanisms  We selected the time frames for each of the data series above after assessing their availability and reliability, to maximize the amount of data available for us to make meaningful comparisons  We assessed the reliability of each of the data sources  The Navy provided information based on our questions regarding data reliability, including information on an overview of the data, data-collection processes and procedures, data quality controls, and overall perceptions of data quality  The Navy provided documentation of how the systems are structured and what written procedures are in place to help ensure that the appropriate information is collected and properly categorized  Additionally, we interviewed Navy officials to obtain further clarification on data reliability, discuss how the data were collected and reported, and explain how we planned to use the data  We also conducted our own error checks to look for inaccurate or questionable data, and we discussed with officials any data irregularities we found  We conducted these assessments on the following data for attack submarines: Navy deployed and surge-ready submarines from fiscal years 2011 through 2018; maintenance timeliness from fiscal years 2000 through 2018; idle time from fiscal years 2008 through 2018; operating and support costs from fiscal years 2011 through 2017; and cannibalization rates from 2012 through 2017  Some of these data were used in prior reports, and their reliability had previously been assessed  After further assessing any data that we had not recently used, we determined that they were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of summarizing attack submarine readiness trends and related information  We interviewed officials, and where appropriate obtained documentation, at the following locations: Office of the Chief of Naval Operations Undersea Warfare Division (N97) Warfare Integration Division (N83) U S  Fleet Forces Command Commander, Submarine Force, U S  Atlantic Fleet Commander, Submarine Squadron 4 Commander, Regional Support Group Groton Commander, Submarine Force, U S  Pacific Fleet Commander, Submarine Squadron 1 Commander, Submarine Squadron 7 Commander, Submarine Squadron 15 Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) Logistics, Maintenance, and Industrial Operations (NAVSEA 04) Program Executive Office, Submarines Attack Submarine Program Office (PMS 392) Submarine Maintenance Engineering, Planning, and Procurement (SUBMEPP) Supervisor of Shipbuilding, Conversion, and Repair (SUPSHIP) Newport News, Virginia Navy Education and Training Command Submarine Learning Facility Norfolk Navy Board of Inspection and Survey Norfolk Naval Shipyard, Norfolk, Virginia Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard and Intermediate Maintenance Facility, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, Kittery, Maine Newport News Shipbuilding, Virginia, operated by Huntington Ingalls Industries Electric Boat, Groton, Connecticut, operated by General Dynamics The performance audit upon which this report is based was conducted from August 2017 to October 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  We worked with DOD to prepare this unclassified version of the report for public release  This public version was also prepared in accordance with these standards  Report numbers with a C or RC suffix are Classified  Classified reports are available to personnel with the proper clearances and need to know, upon request  Columbia Class Submarine: Immature Technologies Present Risks to Achieving Cost Schedule and Performance Goals  GAO-18-158  Washington, D C : Dec  21, 2017  Navy Readiness: Actions Needed to Address Persistent Maintenance, Training, and Other Challenges Affecting the Fleet  GAO-17-809T  Washington, D C : Sept  19, 2017  Naval Shipyards: Actions Needed to Improve Poor Conditions that Affect Operations  GAO-17-548  Washington, D C : Sept  12, 2017  Navy Readiness: Actions Needed to Address Persistent Maintenance, Training, and Other Challenges Facing the Fleet  GAO-17-798T  Washington, D C : Sept  7, 2017  Military Readiness: DOD’s Readiness Rebuilding Efforts May Be at Risk without a Comprehensive Plan  GAO-16-841  Washington, D C : Sept  7, 2016  Navy and Marine Corps: Services Face Challenges to Rebuilding Readiness  GAO-16-481RC  Washington, D C : May 25, 2016  (SECRET//NOFORN) Military Readiness: Progress and Challenges in Implementing the Navy’s Optimized Fleet Response Plan  GAO-16-466R  Washington, D C : May 2, 2016  Navy Force Structure: Sustainable Plan and Comprehensive Assessment Needed to Mitigate Long-Term Risks to Ships Assigned to Overseas Homeports  GAO-15-329  Washington, D C : May 29, 2015  In addition to the contact named above, Suzanne Wren, Assistant Director; Chris Watson, Analyst in Charge; Herb Bowsher; Chris Cronin; Ally Gonzalez; Cynthia Grant; Carol Petersen; Amber Sinclair; and Cheryl Weissman made key contributions to this report 


Report 2: The technology sector has major employment hubs across the country, including the San Francisco Bay area, the greater New York City region, and the Washington-Arlington-Alexandria region (see fig  1)  In addition, technology workers are employed at companies outside the technology sector, such as in the retail or financial services industries  For example, a large retail company may require technology workers to create and manage their online sales activities, but the company itself would be considered part of the retail industry  Private companies are generally prohibited by federal law from discriminating in employment on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, and disability status  Additionally, federal contractors and subcontractors are generally required to take affirmative action to ensure that all applicants and employees are treated without regard to race, sex, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, and gender identity, and to employ or advance in employment qualified individuals with disabilities and qualified covered veterans  EEOC is responsible for enforcement of federal antidiscrimination laws, and OFCCP enforces affirmative action and nondiscrimination requirements for federal contractors  EEOC and OFCCP have some shared activities and have established a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to minimize any duplication of effort  For example, under the MOU, individual complaints filed with OFCCP alleging discrimination under Title VII are generally referred to EEOC  In addition, on occasions when EEOC receives a complaint not within its purview, such as cases that involve veteran status, but over which it believes OFCCP has jurisdiction, it will refer the complaint to OFCCP  The EEOC, created by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, enforces federal laws that prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of race, sex, color, religion, national origin, age, and disability  As the nation’s primary enforcer of antidiscrimination laws, EEOC investigates charges of employment discrimination from the public, litigates major cases, and conducts outreach to prevent discrimination by educating employers and workers  In fiscal year 2016, EEOC received about 91,500 charges, secured more than $482 million for victims of discrimination, and filed 114 lawsuits  According to EEOC, many states, counties, cities, and towns have their own laws prohibiting discrimination, usually similar to those EEOC enforces, as well as agencies responsible for enforcing those laws, called Fair Employment Practices Agencies  However, in some cases, these agencies enforce laws that offer greater protection to workers  An individual can file a charge with either the EEOC or with a Fair Employment Practices Agency  When an individual initially files with a Fair Employment Practices Agency that has a worksharing agreement with the EEOC, and the allegation is covered by a law enforced by the EEOC, the Fair Employment Practices Agency will dual file the charge with EEOC (meaning EEOC will receive a copy of the charge), but will usually retain the charge for processing  If the charge is initially filed with EEOC and the charge is also covered by state or local law, EEOC dual files the charge with the state or local Fair Employment Practices Agency (meaning the Fair Employment Practices Agency will receive a copy of the charge), but EEOC ordinarily retains the charge for processing  EEOC also pursues a limited number of cases each year designed to combat systemic discrimination, defined by the agency as patterns or practices where the alleged discrimination presented by a complainant has a broad impact on an industry, profession, company, or geographic location  EEOC can also initiate a systemic investigation under Title VII with the approval of an EEOC commissioner, called a “commissioner charge”, provided the commissioner finds there is a reasonable basis for the investigation  In addition, EEOC district directors can approve systemic investigations, called “directed investigations” which are initiated by EEOC field office directors under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the Equal Pay Act  Under Title VII, EEOC generally requires that large employers and non- exempt federal contractors file Employer Information Reports (EEO-1 reports) annually, which collect employees’ demographic data by business location on sex, race, and ethnic group for 10 occupational job categories  According to EEOC documentation, EEO-1 data are used in investigations of Title VII violations, litigation, research, comparative analyses, class action suits, and affirmative action plans  The OFCCP is responsible for ensuring that the nearly 200,000 federal contractor establishments comply with federal nondiscrimination and affirmative action requirements  Under Executive Order 11246 and other federal laws and regulations, covered federal contractors and subcontractors are prohibited from discriminating in employment on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or national origin and are required to take affirmative action to help ensure that all applicants and employees are treated without regard to these factors  In general, OFCCP’s regulations require covered contractors to comply with certain recordkeeping and reporting requirements, and provide for enforcement procedures such as compliance evaluations and complaint investigations to assist OFCCP in ensuring federal contractor compliance with these regulations  Among other provisions, OFCCP’s regulations generally require that covered contractors prepare and maintain an affirmative action program (AAP)  Under OFCCP’s regulations, an AAP is a management tool that is designed to ensure equal employment opportunity, with an underlying premise that the gender, racial, and ethnic makeup of a contractor’s workforce should be representative of the labor pools from which the contractor recruits and selects  Companies must create an AAP for each business establishment—generally, a physical facility or unit that produces the goods or services, such as a factory, office, or store for the federal contractor  An AAP will also include any practical steps to address underrepresentation of women and minorities, such as expanding employment opportunities to underrepresented groups  Covered contractors must also comply with certain recordkeeping requirements, including records pertaining to hiring, promotion, lay off or termination, rates of pay, and applications, among other records  OFCCP’s enforcement program represents the majority of the agency’s activity and is carried out primarily by using compliance officers, who evaluate contractors’ compliance with various requirements, according to agency officials  In addition to conducting compliance evaluations, OFCCP also conducts investigations in response to complaints  In 2016, we reported that according to OFCCP officials, responding to complaints accounted for close to 16 percent of OFCCP’s enforcement activities  OFCCP selects contractor establishments for evaluations based on a number of neutrally applied factors, such as employee count at the establishment, contract value, or contract expiration date  We previously found that OFCCP reviews, on average, 2 percent of federal contractor establishments annually  As we previously reported, as part of its compliance evaluations, OFCCP is to review the selected contractor’s hiring, promotion, compensation, termination, and other employment practices to determine whether contractors are maintaining nondiscriminatory hiring and employment practices  OFCCP conducts evaluations at the establishment level  When a contractor establishment is selected for evaluation, OFCCP sends the contractor a “scheduling letter” requesting the AAP and supporting data, such as the percentage of women and minority staff at the workplace by job group  Then, a compliance officer is to conduct a desk audit, which is an off-site review of the submitted materials  If necessary, the compliance officer may also conduct an on-site review or further off-site analysis to make a final determination as to whether the contractor is in compliance  In addition to looking at whether federal contractors maintain nondiscriminatory hiring and employment practices, which can result in finding discrimination violations, OFCCP also frequently finds other types of violations, such as failure to keep necessary records or conduct annual reviews of equal employment and affirmative action efforts  These findings by the agency often require administrative changes on the part of the contractor, such as improved record-keeping  There are many different forms of remedies for discrimination violations, including financial, employment, and organizational change remedies  Although rare, under some circumstances, OFCCP may bar a contractor from doing business with the government  From 2005 to 2015, the estimated number of workers in the technology workforce—people who worked in mathematics, computing, or engineering occupations—increased at a higher rate (24 percent) than the estimated number of workers in the general workforce (9 percent), according to ACS data  In 2015, the technology workforce comprised an estimated 7 5 million workers, an increase of slightly over 1 4 million workers since 2005  (For a complete list of the occupations we include as technology occupations, see appendix II)  Most technology workers have a college degree and have a higher median income than workers in the general workforce  Specifically, in 2015, an estimated 69 percent of technology workers held at least a bachelor’s degree, compared to 31 percent of workers in the general workforce  In 2015, the estimated median income for technology workers was $81,000 compared to $42,000 for the general workforce  From 2005 to 2015, the percentage of women in the technology workforce remained flat and women remained a smaller proportion of the technology workforce compared to their representation in the general workforce  In 2015, women represented 22 percent (about 1 6 million workers) of workers in technology occupations, compared to 48 7 percent of workers in the general workforce (see fig  2)  Although the estimated percentage of minority technology workers as a whole had grown since 2005, we found that this trend did not apply to Black technology workers  Specifically, from 2005 through 2015, although the number of Black workers increased as the technology workforce grew, there was no statistically significant change in their representation as a percentage of the entire technology workforce  In contrast, from 2005 to 2015, Hispanic and Asian technology workers had statistically significant increases in their representation in the technology workforce  Even with the increase in their numbers in the technology workforce, Black and Hispanic technology workers remained a smaller proportion of these workers compared to their representation in the general workforce  In contrast, Asian workers were an increasing share of the technology workforce, where they remained more represented than they were in the general workforce (see fig  3)  We found that when we examined gender representation for each minority group, both Black and Hispanic men and women were less represented in the technology workforce compared to their representation in the general workforce  The same was true for White women, whereas White men, Asian men, and Asian women were more represented in the technology workforce compared to their representation in the general workforce (see fig  4)  We defined the technology sector as those companies that have the highest concentration of technology workers and are in such industries as computer systems design and software publishing  Companies categorized as outside the technology sector, for example, retail or finance companies, may still employ some technology workers  However, we found differences in median incomes for technology workers within and outside the technology sector  In 2015, technology workers employed in the technology sector earned an estimated median income of $89,000 compared to median incomes of $78,000 for those working outside the technology sector  We also compared the characteristics of technology workers within the technology sector and outside the technology sector, and found male and Asian technology workers were relatively more represented in the technology sector than outside the technology sector  Similar to the lower representation of female, Black, and Hispanic technology workers in technology occupations, we found technology workers from these groups were also more likely to work outside the technology sector than in the technology sector  For example, according to our analysis of 2015 ACS data, women represented an estimated 18 percent of all technology workers employed in the technology sector, compared to 25 percent of all technology workers employed outside the technology sector (see fig  5)  White technology workers were also more represented outside the technology sector than within the technology sector  Companies in the technology sector also employ non-technical workers such as sales people, and the lower representation of women and certain minorities in the technology sector was also present in such non-technical job categories  According to our analysis of EEO-1 data, women were less represented across the full range of management and non- management positions at companies within the technology sector, including at leading technology companies, compared to their representation in companies outside the technology sector  We determined this by comparing specific occupations at companies both within and outside the technology sectors using 2015 EEO-1 data  For example, women held about 19 percent of senior-level management positions at companies in the technology sector compared to nearly 31 percent of such positions at companies outside the technology sector in 2015  Women were also less represented in all of the remaining job categories (mid-level managers, professionals, technicians, and all other jobs) in the technology sector  (See fig  6 ) Comparing EEO-1 data at three points in time for 2007, 2011, and 2015, we found women’s representation in management positions as well as among professionals and technicians at companies within the technology sector remained at about the same level, and decreased for “all other jobs” (see table 1)  Similar to women, Black and Hispanic workers were less represented across multiple job categories in companies within the technology sector compared to those outside the technology sector (see fig 7)  For example, 1 8 percent of senior level managers in the technology sector were Black compared to 3 4 percent of senior level managers in all other sectors  Appendix IV provides percentages for each minority group in different job categories within and outside the technology sector  The lower representation of Black workers in the technology sector relative to their representation in other sectors was consistent across all job categories (mid-level managers, professionals, technicians, and “all other jobs”)  Hispanic workers were less represented in the technology sector compared to outside the technology sector across all job categories (senior and mid-level managers, professionals, technicians, and “all other jobs”)  Compared to their representation across job categories within the technology sector in general, Black and Hispanic workers had slightly greater representation at the leading technology companies in senior management and technician categories, and lower representation among mid-level managers, professionals, and holders of “all other jobs ” Asian workers comprised a greater proportion of managerial and professional roles in the technology sector than in other sectors, according to our analysis of 2015 EEO-1 data  Asian workers represented 11 0 percent of senior level managers in the technology sector compared to 4 3 percent in industries outside the technology sector  This higher representation of Asian workers in the technology sector was consistent among mid-level managers, professionals and technicians  Asian workers were more represented in the same categories at the leading technology companies  However, a lower proportion of Asian workers held senior management positions compared to their representation in professional positions in both the technology sector and leading technology companies  Further, the proportion of Asian workers in mid-level management positions was also lower than their representation in professional positions, from which mid-level managers might be selected, in both the technology sector and leading technology companies  In contrast, a higher proportion of White workers were in senior and mid- level management positions compared to their representation in professional positions in both the technology sector and leading technology companies  Comparing EEO-1 data at three points in time—2007, 2011, and 2015— we saw varied representation across job categories in the technology sector by race/ethnicity  For example, Black workers decreased in their representation in all job categories in the technology sector from 2007 to 2015  In contrast, Hispanic and Asian workers increased in their representation in all job categories we examined from 2007 to 2015 (see table 2)  Several factors may contribute to the lower representation of female, Hispanic, and Black workers in the technology workforce and at companies in the technology sector, based on research and interviews with researchers and representatives from workforce and industry organizations and technology companies  These include the lower diversity of degree earners in technology-related fields, and company- based factors such as hiring practices and retention of women and underrepresented minorities  The smaller proportion of women in the technology workforce may reflect the number of women earning technology-related degrees  Slightly over two-thirds of technology workers report having earned their bachelor’s degree in a computer, engineering, mathematics, or technology field  However, according to our analysis of 2014 IPEDS data, the percentage of technology-related bachelor’s and master’s degrees earned by women is far less than for men, although women were comparable to men in their receipt of science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) degrees, and surpassed men in obtaining degrees in all other fields  In 2014, about 60,000 women were awarded technology-related bachelor’s or master’s degrees (compared to about 50,000 in 2004) and about 190,000 men were awarded such degrees (compared to about 147,000 in 2004)  (See fig  8 ) An estimated 218,000 technology workers were added to the technology workforce in 2015, according to our analysis of 2015 American Community Survey data from the U S  Census Bureau  In addition, technology degrees are also issued at the associate’s level  Two researchers told us that women often have the academic preparation to enter into technology-related degree programs, but they may choose not to pursue such degrees because of instances of gender bias within technology classes  Our prior work reported on studies that found women leave STEM fields at a higher rate than their male peers, citing one study that found women leave STEM academic positions at a higher rate than men in part due to dissatisfaction with departmental culture, faculty leadership, and research support  Further, a 2012 consulting firm report found that businesses viewed as male-dominated tended to attract fewer women at the entry level  In addition, according to our analysis of 2014 IPEDS data, three minority racial or ethnic groups each constituted 10 percent or fewer of bachelor’s and master’s degree earners in a technology-related field  Specifically, among the 202,200 earners of degrees in a technology-related field in 2014, there were about 20,000 Hispanic recipients, 13,000 Black recipients, and 18,000 recipients who were Multiracial or other race, which includes American Indian or Alaska Native, Other or Unknown Race, and Two or more Races, i e  respondents who selected one or more racial designations  Among all minority groups, Asian students, including Pacific Islander, earned the highest proportion of technology- related degrees (about 24,000 individuals)  (See fig  9)  One barrier to entry into technology degree paths for Black and Hispanic students may be lower likelihood of access to preparatory academic programs in secondary school  In 2016, we reported that the K-12 public schools in the United States with students who are mostly Black or Hispanic offered disproportionately fewer math and science classes for their students  One researcher told us some colleges and universities, to help these students be academically successful, provide additional academic support such as tutoring to help bridge knowledge gaps  To address the uneven access to preparatory math and science classes, representatives from five technology companies told us they have started to invest in exposing Black and Hispanic children to technology occupations by, for example, developing online resources targeted to them and their parents and creating partnerships with secondary schools to improve their academic preparation in computer science  However, we have previously also reported that the number of students graduating with STEM degrees may not be a good measure of the supply of STEM workers because students often pursue careers in fields different from the ones they studied  For example, a lower percentage of women who obtained technology-related degrees became technology workers compared to men who earned the same degrees, according to our analysis of 2015 ACS data  Specifically, among women who earned technology degrees, an estimated 33 percent worked as a technology worker compared to 45 percent of men who earned technology degrees  Several representatives we interviewed from workforce and industry organizations and technology companies told us that recruitment practices may also have affected diversity in the technology workforce  For example, representatives from three workforce and industry organizations said technology companies tend to recruit from a select number of universities and colleges, thereby limiting their pool of potential applicants  To address this, representatives from several of the technology companies we interviewed told us they had changed recruitment practices and offered internships targeted to underrepresented groups  For example, representatives of four technology companies told us that their companies had expanded recruitment to include more schools  Representatives from two companies told us they offer programs such as summer and semester internships for which the company actively recruits from Historically Black Colleges and Universities and other specific schools to increase its pool of diverse candidates  In addition, representatives from workforce organizations and technology companies discussed concerns and strategies to address companies’ hiring practices and internal cultures that may limit workforce diversity  For example, one of these representatives said that technology companies often offer financial incentives to current employees to make referrals for new hires, which can result in reliance on social networks  These networks may be largely comprised of the same race and this practice therefore makes it harder for potential candidates from demographically different groups to have their resumes reviewed  Another workforce organization representative reported that some hiring managers filter out eligible candidates if their background and qualifications are not the same as those of previously successful employees  To address these concerns, representatives from one technology company told us that they had moved away from depending on referrals since this practice may result in leaders hiring people within their own networks, which generally does not increase diversity of gender or race/ethnicity  In addition, representatives from another company said they plan to begin reviewing resumes with names removed to limit bias by the reviewer  Further, representatives we interviewed from three technology companies told us they offer training to employees to help employees identify their own, unconscious biases  Other factors may affect retention of women and underrepresented minorities  For example, a representative from a workforce organization said that women leave technology occupations at a higher rate than men because they feel as if they have not been given the same opportunities for promotion and advancement within the company  A 2016 study that examined women in engineering and science found that women’s concerns about pay and promotion are often an issue in male-dominated fields regardless of the industry  Further, this study found that retention difficulties become more severe as the share of men in the workforce increased and that affected women’s pay and promotion  Representatives from one company told us another challenge is the lack of Black workers at the top levels, which might make it more difficult for Black employees in particular to see a leadership path  Representatives we interviewed from five technology companies told us they had implemented efforts to increase retention and promotion rates among minority and female workers, for example, by developing a diversity and inclusion newsletter, employee resource groups with executive sponsors, and internal training and classes for employees to improve their readiness to be promoted  Representatives from five technology companies told us that commitment of top leadership is an important factor that can help women and underrepresented minorities in the technology sector  For example, representatives from one company told us that top management support for diversity efforts, such as setting hiring goals, can help move a company in the direction of achieving representation goals and that leadership is very important to this effort  Representatives from several companies told us that there is often a business case for such changes: These companies work in a diverse, global environment and strive to make better products for diverse users  However, our prior work on workforce diversity in the financial services sector found that some diversity initiatives faced challenges gaining the "buy-in" of key employees, such as the middle managers who are often responsible for implementing such programs  According to EEOC officials, EEOC primarily oversees compliance with equal employment opportunity requirements by investigating workers’ individual charges of employment discrimination filed against companies  EEOC has publicly acknowledged the low levels of diversity in the technology sector  However, we were unable to identify a specific number of charges received by EEOC against companies in industries that are part of this sector because EEOC does not require investigators to record the industry of the charged company  EEOC’s database of charges and enforcement actions—the Integrated Mission System (IMS)—has a data field for the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) industry code, the standard used by federal statistical agencies in classifying business establishments  However, we found that it is completed for only about half the entries in the system  EEOC officials in both the San Francisco and New York district offices told us that, while they cannot readily identify individual charges against technology companies, they believe they have received far fewer charges against technology companies than they would have expected given the public attention to the issue of diversity in the technology sector  In terms of systemic cases, according to EEOC, as of June 2017, the commission had 255 systemic cases pending since fiscal year 2011 involving technology companies (13 of these were initiated as commissioner charges and 8 were directed investigations involving age discrimination or pay parity issues)  Officials from the New York region reported that they had seen an increase in systemic cases against technology companies in the past 3 years, largely involving practices of information technology staffing firms  Several EEOC officials we interviewed noted that technology workers may be initiating few complaints at the federal level due to factors such as fear of retaliation from employers or the availability of other employment or legal options  According to EEOC officials, fear of retaliation can affect charges across sectors and, given the growth in the technology workforce, an individual who feels discriminated against may simply leave the company because there are many other opportunities for individuals with technical skills  They also said that technology workers may generally have greater wealth and can afford to hire private attorneys to sue in state court rather than go through the EEOC  Moreover, they said that some states, including California, have stronger employment discrimination laws that allow for better remedies than federal laws, which could lead employees to file charges at the state level rather than with the EEOC  In addition, EEOC has acknowledged in a 2016 report that binding arbitration policies, which require individuals to submit their claims to private arbiters rather than courts, can also deter workers from bringing discrimination claims to the agency, leaving significant violations in entire segments of the workforce unreported  The report stated that an increasing number of arbitration policies have added bans on class actions that prevent individuals from joining together to challenge practices in any forum  The report concluded that the use of arbitration policies hinders EEOC’s ability to detect and remedy potential systemic violations  Researchers report that the use of such clauses has grown and data on federal civil filings for civil rights employment cases reflect a marked reduction in the number of such filings  Beyond pursuing charges, EEOC has taken some steps to address diversity in the technology sector including research and outreach efforts  In May 2016, citing the technology sector as a source for an increasing number of U S  jobs, EEOC released a report analyzing EEO-1 data on diversity in the technology sector in tandem with a commission meeting raising awareness on the topic  In addition, EEOC’s fiscal year 2017- 2021 Strategic Enforcement Plan identified barriers to hiring and recruiting in the technology sector as a strategic priority  EEOC has also been involved in outreach efforts with the technology sector  For example, the EEOC Pacific Region described more than 15 in-person or webinar events since 2014 in collaboration with OFCCP and local organizations focused on diversity in the technology sector  The topics of these events included equity in pay and the activities of these two agencies in enforcing nondiscrimination laws  Finally, in fall 2016, EEOC initiated an internal working group to identify practices to help improve gender and racial diversity in technology, but as of June 2017 had no progress to report  OFCCP’s regulations require covered federal contractors to take proactive steps to ensure equal employment opportunity  OFCCP annually conducts routine evaluations of selected federal contractors, which includes those in the technology sector, for compliance with federal nondiscrimination and affirmative action requirements  To the extent that technology contractors are selected for evaluation through OFCCP’s normal selection process, these contractors are assessed for compliance with nondiscrimination and affirmative action laws as are other selected contractors  While evaluation of technology contractors occurs in the course of OFCCP’s routine activities, OFCCP does not currently use type of industry as a selection factor, according to officials  We also found that few (less than 1 percent) of OFCCP’s 2,911 closed technology contractor evaluations from fiscal years 2011 through 2016 resulted in discrimination violations, though 13 percent resulted in other violations, such as record- keeping violations and failure to establish an affirmative action program (AAP)  An AAP is a key tool OFCCP requires contractors to complete to ensure equal employment opportunity  The remaining 86 percent of evaluations either found no violations or ended in administrative closure  Technology contractor evaluations that had discrimination violations resulted in back pay, salary adjustments, or other benefits totaling more than $4 5 million for 15,316 individuals (averaging about $300 per award) for fiscal years 2011 through 2016  The vast majority of discrimination violations were on the basis of gender or race/ethnicity rather than disability or veteran status  Corrective actions OFCCP identified for federal technology contractors over this timeframe also included requiring contractors to fill a total of 410 job vacancies as they arise with applicants who had been denied employment on the basis of discrimination  In addition, OFCCP recently filed three complaints against technology companies  According to our analysis, OFCCP conducted evaluations on 36 of the 65 leading technology companies from fiscal year 2011 through fiscal year 2016  During this timeframe there were 272 reviews of establishments— physical business locations—affiliated with these 36 companies  Based on these evaluations, 15 of the 36 companies had administrative violations, and 2 of the 36 also had discrimination violations  As a result of the discrimination findings against these leading technology companies, 541 individuals received monetary benefits totaling $783,387 (an average of $1,448 per award)  In terms of other steps to conduct oversight of the technology sector, OFCCP officials in the Pacific Region said they are hiring compliance officers with legal training to be better able to address needs for reviews in the technology sector, such as responding to lawyers representing technology contractors  Officials in both the Pacific and Northeast regions work closely with statisticians and labor economists on their cases, an effort officials said has increased over the past few years  OFCCP has also requested funding in its fiscal year 2018 congressional budget justification to establish centers in San Francisco and New York that would develop expertise to handle large, complex compliance evaluations in specific industries, including information technology  We found that by not requiring an industry code in its investigations data, EEOC cannot analyze charge data by industry to help identify investigation and outreach priorities, in contradiction to EEOC strategic planning documents and EEOC Inspector General reports, which have emphasized the importance of doing so  By not requiring the use of the NAICS code for each entry in IMS, EEOC is limited in its ability to use these data for the purposes of identifying charges by industry sector and conducting sector-related analyses  Officials were aware of substantial gaps in coding of charges by industry and acknowledged limitations in the commission’s ability to analyze its investigations data by industry  However, officials expressed concern that routinely creating more complete records of the companies against which charges had been filed would require investigators to divert attention from their efforts to investigate charges  EEOC officials explained that the charging party provides initial information on the respondent company and requiring EEOC personnel to generate this information would slow down the process  They said their priority is to investigate individual charges, not to address larger trends or target specific industries  “The Strategic Enforcement Plan recommends using EEOC data to allow our enforcement and outreach efforts to focus on areas of significant concern  This might include tailoring outreach efforts for industries that experience greater likelihood of certain charges or informing enforcement decisions based on knowledge that certain industries have persistent problems, such as harassment  The data maintained in IMS provide a rich resource of information that can be used to explore the characteristics of industries that appear to have higher levels of certain allegations than comparative industries ” In addition, reports completed by the Urban Institute for the EEOC Office of Inspector General in 2013 and 2015 similarly recommended analysis of charge data, including by industry, to help identify priorities and measure performance  While EEOC has plans to review a year of IMS data to clean it and determine how best to add missing industry codes, among other objectives, officials could not provide a specific timeframe for when this review would begin and end  Standards for internal control in the federal government state that management should use quality information to achieve the agency’s objectives and objectives should be defined in specific terms so they are understood at all levels of the entity  This involves clearly defining what is to be achieved, who is to achieve it, how it will be achieved, and the time frames for achievement  Efforts to scrub these data and identify missing codes could help EEOC determine how to collect industry information on an ongoing basis for all entries  Doing so would also help EEOC determine the level of NAICS code that would be feasible and useful for investigators to identify and input into IMS  Without analyzing its data on charges across industries, EEOC’s ability to proactively identify priorities for its outreach and enforcement resource use is limited  We found that OFCCP also faces challenges that may hinder the agency’s oversight of technology companies  Specifically, OFCCP reported facing delays in receiving information from federal contractors, including technology companies, but has not yet evaluated whether its own policies and practices also impede its efforts to hold federal technology contractors responsible for the legal requirements to take affirmative action and not discriminate against protected groups  In addition, OFCCP regulations do not require federal contractors to disaggregate data for the purpose of determining placement goals for hiring, which may hinder contractors’ efforts to implement effective affirmative action programs  OFCCP has not analyzed delays in obtaining information from contractors OFCCP officials told us that they face delays in obtaining complete, accurate, and timely documentation from federal contractors, including technology companies, as part of the compliance review process  They said this limited their access to critical information and hindered OFCCP’s ability to determine whether discrimination had occurred  Officials in the Pacific Region reported that when issues are identified during OFCCP’s initial review that will require additional data, the data requests can be extensive  Consequently, technology contractors are taking longer to submit complete and accurate data that are needed to conduct analyses of the contractor’s workforce  In addition, officials in both the Pacific and Northeast regions reported that companies may not provide raw data as requested, or provide access to employees for OFCCP to interview, which is part of the compliance review process  Using 2015 OFCCP compliance evaluation data, we previously reported that close to 85 percent of contractor establishments across all sectors did not submit an AAP within 30 days of being scheduled for an OFCCP compliance evaluation, as required by OFCCP policy  Officials told us of the potential need for a more flexible set of investigatory tools or sanctions, such as subpoena power to speed up data-gathering or penalties for delays in providing information, in order to obtain accurate and timely information  In the case of incomplete data, OFCCP officials said one option is to enter into an agreement with the contractor whereby the contractor will gather the missing data, and OFCCP will monitor the contractor’s efforts and review detailed records at a later date  However, they said that such an agreement could give the contractor an opportunity to modify the data in the contractor’s favor  Currently, OFCCP’s primary sanction is the threat of debarment, which makes a company ineligible to receive future federal contracts  At the same time, OFCCP officials acknowledged there may additionally be delays in their own review processes

ground_truth: According to the Navy, its 51 attack submarines provide the United States an asymmetric advantage to gather intelligence undetected, attack enemy targets, and insert special forces, among others. These capabilities make attack submarines some of the most–requested assets by the global combatant commanders. GAO was asked to review the readiness of the Navy's attack submarine force. This report discusses the extent to which the Navy (1) has experienced maintenance delays in its attack submarine fleet and costs associated with any delays; and (2) has addressed any challenges and developed mitigation plans for any maintenance delays. GAO analyzed readiness information from fiscal years 2008-2018, operating and support costs, maintenance performance, and other data; visited attack submarines and squadrons; and interviewed public and private shipyard and fleet officials. This is a public version of a classified report issued in October 2018. Information the Department of Defense deemed classified or sensitive, such as attack submarine force structure requirements and detailed data on attack submarine maintenance delays, has been omitted. The Navy has been unable to begin or complete the vast majority of its attack submarine maintenance periods on time resulting in significant maintenance delays and operating and support cost expenditures. GAO's analysis of Navy maintenance data shows that between fiscal year 2008 and 2018, attack submarines have incurred 10,363 days of idle time and maintenance delays as a result of delays in getting into and out of the shipyards. For example, the Navy originally scheduled the USS Boise to enter a shipyard for an extended maintenance period in 2013 but, due to heavy shipyard workload, the Navy delayed the start of the maintenance period. In June 2016, the USS Boise could no longer conduct normal operations and the boat has remained idle, pierside for over two years since then waiting to enter a shipyard (see figure). GAO estimated that since fiscal year 2008 the Navy has spent more than $1.5 billion in fiscal year 2018 constant dollars to support attack submarines that provide no operational capability—those sitting idle while waiting to enter the shipyards, and those delayed in completing their maintenance at the shipyards. The Navy has started to address challenges related to workforce shortages and facilities needs at the public shipyards. However, it has not effectively allocated maintenance periods among public shipyards and private shipyards that may also be available to help minimize attack submarine idle time. GAO's analysis found that while the public shipyards have operated above capacity for the past several years, attack submarine maintenance delays are getting longer and idle time is increasing. The Navy may have options to mitigate this idle time and maintenance delays by leveraging private shipyard capacity for repair work. But the Navy has not completed a comprehensive business case analysis as recommended by Department of Defense guidelines to inform maintenance workload allocation across public and private shipyards. Navy leadership has acknowledged that they need to be more proactive in leveraging potential private shipyard repair capacity. Without addressing this challenge, the Navy risks continued expenditure of operating and support funding to crew, maintain, and support attack submarines that provide no operational capability because they are delayed in getting into and out of maintenance. GAO recommends that the Navy conduct a business case analysis to inform maintenance workload allocation across public and private shipyards. The Department of Defense concurred with GAO's recommendation.

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



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



Report 2:  In prior work, we’ve reported concerns by contractors and industry groups about lengthy and expansive OFCCP evaluations  However, OFCCP has not analyzed its data on closed evaluations to assess the cause of delays, which would help determine whether changes should be made to its internal processes or if stronger sanctions to obtain information from contractors are needed  Internal control standards state that management should identify, analyze, and respond to risks related to achieving its objectives  Further, it states that management should design appropriate mechanisms to enforce its directives to achieve those objectives and address related risks  Without more information on the root cause of the delays, these delays may continue, straining resources and inhibiting OFCCP’s efforts to identify potential discrimination  “An affirmative action program is a management tool designed to ensure equal employment opportunity  A central premise underlying affirmative action is that, absent discrimination, over time a contractor’s workforce, generally, will reflect the gender, racial and ethnic profile of the labor pools from which the contractor recruits and selects  Affirmative action programs contain a diagnostic component which includes a number of quantitative analyses designed to evaluate the composition of the workforce of the contractor and compare it to the composition of the relevant labor pools  Affirmative action programs also include action- oriented programs  If women and minorities are not being employed at a rate to be expected given their availability in the relevant labor pool, the contractor’s affirmative action program includes specific practical steps designed to address this underutilization ” “The placement goal-setting process       contemplates that contractors will, where required, establish a single goal for all minorities  In the event of a substantial disparity in the utilization of a particular minority group or in the utilization of women or women of a particular minority group, a contractor may be required to establish separate goals for those groups ” According to OFCCP officials, a contractor may be required to establish separate goals for particular minority groups as part of a compliance review  We found, however, that OFCCP’s regulations do not require federal contractors to disaggregate demographic data for the purpose of establishing placement goals in their AAP  This may hinder their efforts to implement effective AAPs, which are designed to assist the company in achieving a workforce that reflects the gender, racial, and ethnic profile of the labor pools from which the contractor recruits and selects  OFCCP officials in headquarters and in the field said, based on their experience evaluating companies’ compliance, it was not common for companies to have placement goals disaggregated by race and ethnicity in their AAPs  A diversity and inclusion officer we interviewed from one large technology contractor noted that the requirement in the AAP to identify the need for placement goals for minorities as a whole does not address underrepresentation in certain minority groups  According to the officer, the company does not count Asian workers in setting the company’s diversity goals because Asians are well represented and the company believes it should set a placement goal for groups for which the company knows it needs to make progress  Citing comments received during development of other regulations, OFCCP officials cautioned that an analysis of utilization disaggregated by race/ethnicity may be more challenging for smaller companies with fewer employees  Further, looking at trends in diversity for minorities as a whole may not assist a company’s affirmative action efforts to identify groups that need particular outreach or support  Specifically, our analysis of workforce data found differences in representation for Black and Hispanic workers in the technology workforce compared to Asian workers  Under the current AAP regulations, companies may opt not to detect and address underrepresentation of particular minority groups since OFCCP does not require placement goals disaggregated by race/ethnicity  While OFCCP may be able to detect underrepresentation of particular minority groups during its reviews, the office reviews only 2 percent of federal contractor establishments each year  OFCCP officials said that they would need to amend their regulations in order to require disaggregated race/ethnicity information for placement goals on AAPs  The officials said disaggregating race in placement goals could help an establishment determine how to tailor outreach accordingly or better identify impediments to its equal employment opportunity efforts  However, they have not pursued this regulatory change because of competing priorities on their regulatory agenda  OFCCP’s mission includes holding federal contractors responsible for the legal requirements to take affirmative action and not discriminate against protected groups  However, not requiring contractors to set placement goals for each minority group may hinder OFCCP’s ability to effectively achieve this mission  OFCCP has not reviewed key aspects of its current approach to evaluations OFCCP officials report the agency intends to incorporate additional information on gender, racial, and ethnic disparities by industry into its compliance evaluation selection process, but we found the methodology to determine the disparities may have weaknesses  We have previously reported on the challenges OFCCP faces with its enforcement efforts, and identified additional areas that may limit OFCCP’s enforcement of federal contractors’ equal employment and affirmative action efforts  For example, our 2016 report found that OFCCP’s weak compliance evaluation selection process, reliance on voluntary compliance, and lack of staff training create several challenges to its enforcement efforts  This report found that because OFCCP was not able to identify which factors are associated with risk of noncompliance, the agency does not have reasonable assurance that it is focusing its efforts on those contractors at greatest risk of not following nondiscrimination or affirmative action requirements  OFCCP agreed with recommendations we made to address these areas and detailed steps the agency would take  In particular, to strengthen its compliance evaluation process to select contractors at greatest risk of potential discrimination, the agency stated that it planned to incorporate information on pay disparities and employment disparities  OFCCP officials indicated this information would be based on analysis of gender and race/ethnicity by industry using ACS data and EEO-1 compensation data that was to be collected beginning March 2018  However, in August 2017, the Office of Management and Budget issued a memo suspending the pay-related data collection aspects of the EEO-1 form  Despite this change, OFCCP officials said they are exploring other options for focusing on compensation disparities by industry, including through the use of ACS data, administrative data, a previous study conducted by the Department of Labor, as well as options proposed by contractors  We also found OFCCP’s current methodology for identifying disparities by industry with the ACS data may have some weaknesses that could affect the accuracy of the outcomes  For example, its reliance on the broadest industry level available may not sufficiently identify specific industries at elevated risk  Further, the methodology includes future plans to conduct the analysis for metropolitan areas  Given the importance of regional and local labor markets for assessing affirmative action efforts, regional and local analysis should also be completed before OFCCP incorporates this analysis into its selection process  It is important that OFCCP use reliable information in modifying its basic processes and setting priorities  For the reasons cited earlier regarding the importance of using quality information to make management decisions, it is important that OFCCP assess the quality of the methods for its analysis of employment disparities among industries  Without doing so, OFCCP may not accurately identify industries at greatest risk of potential noncompliance with nondiscrimination and affirmative action requirements so it can focus its limited investigation resources most effectively  Further, according to OFCCP officials, although the agency has made slight changes to various thresholds and factors for its selection process, the agency has not made any significant changes to the selection process for about 10 years, and has made no changes to its establishment-based approach since OFCCP was founded in 1965  While OFCCP currently grounds its review of a contractor in a particular physical establishment, OFCCP officials acknowledged the changing nature of a company’s work can involve multiple locations and corresponding changes in the scope of hiring and recruitment  Officials we interviewed from five of our eight selected technology companies discussed their work spread across locations, including the United States or overseas, and the related challenges they face with OFCCP’s establishment-based approach to reviews  One company representative said the AAP is not useful because site specific plans do not connect to business decisions  However, OFCCP has not reviewed the implications for the effectiveness of its mission of continuing with its establishment-based approach to conducting compliance evaluations  In addition, OFCCP officials acknowledged their inability, in identifying establishments for review, to consistently identify and include all subcontractors to which OFCCP rules should apply  They said the agency has not assessed the potential significance of any omissions of subcontractors from the oversight process  Internal control standards state that management should identify risks throughout the entity related to achieving its defined objectives to form a basis for designing risk responses, as well as the importance of periodically reviewing policies, procedures and related control activities for continued relevance and effectiveness in achieving the agency’s objectives  OFCCP officials said they have informally discussed how to adjust their work based on how work is performed in today’s economy—with virtual sites, workplace flexibilities, and nontraditional forms of employment  However, due to competing priorities, they have not conducted a formal review of these key aspects of its current approach to selecting entities for review  They acknowledged such a review would be useful  Without assessing its current approach to its establishment-based reviews and identification of all relevant subcontractors, OFCCP does not have reasonable assurance that its approach can identify discrimination occurring within the companies it oversees and may be missing opportunities to identify more effective practices or adjust its methods to external changes  While OFCCP has offered an option—the Functional Affirmative Action Program (FAAP)—for companies to move away from establishment- based reviews and which may be more appropriate for some multi– establishment contractors, uptake has been low and the agency has not conducted an evaluation of this program  Since 2002, OFCCP has allowed companies to create FAAPs, with OFCCP approval, which are based on a business function or unit that may exist at multiple establishments  As of May 2017, 73 companies across all industries had FAAPs in place  Further, some of the companies we interviewed were unaware that the FAAP was an option or believed it was cumbersome to establish given the complexity of their workforce  Asked why the FAAP has not been more broadly adopted, OFCCP officials hypothesized it could have to do with a requirement intended to ensure that companies with FAAPs would be reviewed at least as often as others, but that may result in these companies being reviewed more often than most  Standards for internal control for government agencies state that management should periodically review policies, procedures, and related control activities for continued relevance and effectiveness in achieving the entity’s objectives  Reviewing and refining the FAAP program could help OFCCP improve its ability to achieve its objectives and may provide broader insight for OFCCP’s overall enforcement approach  Jobs in the high paying technology sector are projected to grow in coming years  Female, Black, and Hispanic workers, however, comprised a smaller proportion of technology workers compared to their representation in the general workforce from 2005 through 2015, and have also been less represented among technology workers inside the technology sector than outside it  Both EEOC’s and OFCCP’s mission is to combat discrimination and support equal employment opportunity for U S  workers; however, weaknesses in their processes impact the effectiveness of their efforts  When conducting investigations, EEOC has not been consistently capturing information on industry codes  This impedes its ability to conduct industry sector analysis that could be used to more effectively focus its limited enforcement resources and outreach activities  Similarly, OFCCP faces delays in its compliance review process but it has not analyzed its closed evaluations to understand the causes of these delays and whether its processes need to be modified to reduce them  In addition, as part of their affirmative action programs federal contractors are only required to set placement goals for all minorities in general  By not requiring contractors to disaggregate demographic data for the purpose of establishing placement goals, OFCCP has limited assurance that these contractors are setting goals that will address potential underrepresentation in certain minority groups  Further, OFCCP plans to incorporate information on disparities by industry into its process for selecting establishments for compliance evaluations, but has not fully assessed its planned methods  Without such assessment, OFCCP may use a process that does not effectively identify the industries at greatest risk of potential noncompliance with nondiscrimination and affirmative action requirements  In addition, key aspects of OFCCP’s approach to compliance reviews of contractors’ affirmative action efforts have not changed in over 50 years, whereas the structure and locations of these companies’ work have changed  Finally, although OFCCP has developed an alternative affirmative action program for multi-establishment contractors, few contractors participate in this program  Because OFCCP has not evaluated the program, it does not have information to determine why there has not been greater uptake and whether it provides a more effective alternative to an establishment-based AAP  We are making a total of six recommendations, including one to EEOC and five to OFCCP  Specifically: The Chair of the EEOC should develop a timeline to complete the planned effort to clean IMS data for a one-year period and add missing industry code data  (Recommendation 1) The Director of OFCCP should analyze internal process data from closed evaluations to better understand the cause of delays that occur during compliance evaluations and make changes accordingly  (Recommendation 2) The Director of OFCCP should take steps toward requiring contractors to disaggregate demographic data for the purpose of setting placement goals in the AAP rather than setting a single goal for all minorities, incorporating any appropriate accommodation for company size  For example, OFCCP could provide guidance to contractors to include more specific goals in their AAP or assess the feasibility of amending their regulations to require them to do so  (Recommendation 3) The Director of OFCCP should assess the quality of the methods used by OFCCP to incorporate consideration of disparities by industry into its process for selecting contractor establishments for compliance evaluation  It should use the results of this assessment in finalizing its procedures for identifying contractor establishments at greatest risk of noncompliance  (Recommendation 4) The Director of OFCCP should evaluate the current approach used for identifying entities for compliance review and determine whether modifications are needed to reflect current workplace structures and locations or to ensure that subcontractors are included  (Recommendation 5) The Director of OFCCP should evaluate the Functional Affirmative Action Program to assess its usefulness as an effective alternative to an establishment-based program, and determine what improvements, if any, could be made to better encourage contractor participation  (Recommendation 6) We provided a draft of this report to the Departments of Labor (DOL), Commerce, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the National Science Foundation (NSF)  We received written comments from DOL that are reproduced in appendix V  In addition, DOL, Commerce, EEOC, and NSF provided technical comments which we incorporated into the report as appropriate  DOL agreed with 4 of the 5 recommendations we made to improve oversight of federal contractors, and identified some steps it plans to take to implement them  Specifically, the department agreed with our recommendations to analyze internal process data to better understand the cause of delays that occur during compliance evaluations, assess the quality of methods used to incorporate consideration of disparities by industry into the process to select contractors for review, and to evaluate its current approach to identifying entities for review in light of changes in workplace structures, as well as its Functional Affirmative Action Program  DOL stated that it appreciated, but neither agreed nor disagreed, with our recommendation to take steps toward requiring contractors to disaggregate demographic data for the purpose of setting placement goals in the AAP rather than setting a single goal for all minorities  The department said this would require a regulatory change with little immediate benefit as contractors are already required to collect demographic data on each employee and applicant, and must conduct in- depth analyses of their total employment processes to identify where impediments to equal opportunity exist  While we acknowledge these data collection requirements for federal contractors, we remain concerned that without requiring contractors to also establish placement goals to address any underrepresentation for specific minority groups, contractors may not develop objectives or targets to make affirmative action efforts work  We maintain, therefore, that DOL should take steps toward requiring contractors to develop placement goals disaggregated by race/ethnicity  EEOC provided us a memo that it characterized as technical comments on the draft report  In these comments, EEOC neither agreed nor disagreed with our recommendation to develop a timeline to complete its planned effort to clean IMS data for a one-year period, which would include adding missing industry codes, but stated that it was taking some actions to enhance these data  We continue to maintain a timeline should be developed to complete this review, which is needed for the commission to conduct industry sector analysis that could be used to more effectively focus its limited resources and outreach activities  EEOC also emphasized the importance of systemic investigations, noting that while outreach may be somewhat useful in generating charges, individual charges are unlikely to make a substantial impact on a systemic practice affecting an entire employment sector  We maintain that the ability to analyze IMS data by industry could help EEOC to focus its resource use, including for systemic investigations  EEOC also noted staffing and resource constraints as issues faced by the commission  As agreed with your office, 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 the appropriate congressional committees, the Secretary of Labor, the Chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Secretary of Commerce, and the Director of the National Science Foundation  In addition, the report will be available at no charge on GAO’s website at http://www gao gov  If you or your staff should have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-7215 or brownbarnesc@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 VI  Our two objectives were to: (1) identify the demographic trends in the technology workforce over the past 10 years, and (2) assess the efforts by the U S  Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the Department of Labor’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) to oversee technology companies and technology contractors’ compliance with equal employment opportunity and affirmative action requirements  This appendix provides details of the data sources used to answer these questions, the analyses we conducted, and any limitations we encountered  There is no commonly accepted definition of the technology sector or technology-oriented occupations  To arrive at our definition for the technology sector, we identified industries with the highest concentration of technology-oriented occupations, a similar approach to what other federal agencies have used recently to analyze trends within this sector  To identify technology-oriented occupations, we reviewed relevant research and interviewed researchers and other individuals knowledgeable about the technology sector  Based on this research, we defined technology-oriented occupations to include all computer, engineering and mathematical occupations, including managers  We selected our occupations using Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) System codes, and crosswalked those occupations to the corresponding U S  Census Bureau occupation codes to conduct our analysis  (For a complete list of the occupations we included as technology occupations, see appendix II)  We defined the technology sector as a group of industries with the highest concentration of technology workers  Using data from the American Community Survey, an ongoing national survey conducted by the U S  Census Bureau that collects information from a sample of households, we identified the 15 industries with the highest concentration of technology workers  For this analysis, we used Census industry codes since we used this dataset for many of our analyses  The concentration of technology workers in these industries ranged from a high of 62 2 percent in the computer systems design and related services industry to a low of 19 33 percent in the wired telecommunications carriers industry (see table 3)  Companies in the technology sector also employ non-technical workers, such as sales people  We cross-walked the industries we identified in the American Community Survey with corresponding industry codes from the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS), which is the standard used by federal statistical agencies in classifying business establishments  The other data sets used in this review use NAICS codes to identify industry  The NAICS system has six levels of industry classification, with the smallest level (2-digit code) providing the most general industry classification, and the largest (6-digit) providing the most specific classification  In total, we identified 55 6-digit NAICS industry codes that comprise the technology sector using this method  (See appendix III for a list of the 6-digit NAICS codes and industry names that correspond to the Census industries we identified ) We compared our list of industries to those included in the 2016 reports by EEOC and the BLS on the technology sector  While each report includes a somewhat different set of industries depending on the authors’ particular definition of technology occupations, most of the 15 industries we selected overlap with industries selected in these other reviews  Stemming from their particular focus, these reports included some additional industries and/or occupations excluded from our analysis, such as those in the life sciences  We also compared our findings on the demographic trends in the technology workforce to 2016 EEOC and Census Bureau reports that reviewed diversity in the technology sector  Despite the definitional and methodological variations, the demographic trends found in these other reports were generally comparable to our findings  To determine the demographic trends in the technology workforce over the past decade, we analyzed quantitative data on technology workers within and outside the technology sector from 2005 through 2015 from the Census Bureau’s Public Use Microdata Sample of the American Community Survey (ACS) for the years 2005, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2013, and 2015  ACS is an ongoing national survey that collects information from a sample of households  We analyzed trend data for gender, race, and ethnicity, and median salary by occupation and sector, and analyzed point-in-time data on educational background by occupation  We analyzed the percentage of technology workers who earned bachelor’s degrees in computer, engineering, mathematics, and technology fields  For median salary, we analyzed data for workers who were employed full-time, which included those who, over the past 12 months, reported usually working 35 hours or more per week and 50 weeks or more per year, and those with wages greater than zero  To account for the sample representation and design used in the ACS, we used the person weight present in the ACS data  We used the successive difference replication method to estimate the standard errors around any population estimate  For each comparison, we tested the statistical significance of the difference for men and women and for specific racial and ethnic groups at the p-value <0 05 level  In addition, we tested the statistical significance of the change between 2005 and 2015 for each gender and racial/ethnic group  For race categories using ACS data in this report, we included only non- Hispanic members of White, Black, Asian, and Other categories  For the Asian category, we included Asian American, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander  The Hispanic category incorporated Hispanics of all races  Our analysis included American Indian or Alaskan Native, and Two or More Races, in the category reported as “Other ” We assessed the reliability of the ACS generally and of data elements that were critical to our analyses and determined that they were sufficiently reliable for our analyses  Specifically, we reviewed documentation on the general design and methods of the ACS and on the specific elements of the ACS data that were used in our analysis  We interviewed Census Bureau officials knowledgeable about the ACS data and completed our own electronic data testing to assess the accuracy and completeness of the data used in our analyses  To determine workforce trends in companies within the technology sector and at leading information technology companies, we analyzed data from EEOC’s Employer Information Reports (EEO-1) for the years 2007, 2011, and 2015  We report EEO-1 data starting in 2007 because EEOC made significant changes to its requirements related to the reporting of EEO-1 data over time  For example, beginning in 2007, EEOC changed its requirements related to the reporting of data on managers and changed its practices for collecting certain racial/ethnicity information  EEO-1 reports contain firm-level data that is annually submitted to EEOC, generally by private-sector firms with at least 100 employees or federal contractors with at least 50 employees that have a contract, subcontract or purchase order amounting to $50,000 or more  Companies that fit the above criteria submit separate EEO-1 reports for their headquarters as well as each establishment facility  EEOC requires employers to use the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) to classify their industry  To identify trends using EEO-1 data for workers, we analyzed data for companies with the NAICS codes we initially identified as technology industries  We selected the leading information technology companies using Standard & Poor’s (S&P) 500 Information Technology Index list, which identifies the largest public information technology companies at a given time  In October 2016, this list consisted of 67 companies in the world that have stocks trading with the United States, and we analyzed EEO-1 data from 65 of these companies  For both analyses, we analyzed EEO-1 data from all job categories by gender, race and ethnicity, and industry sectors  For job categories, the EEO-1 form collects data on 10 major job categories including 1) Executives, Senior Level Officials and Managers; 2) First/Mid-Level Officials and Managers; 3) Professionals; 4) Technicians; 5) Sales Workers; 6) Administrative Support Workers; 7) Craft Workers; 8) Operatives; 9) Laborers and Helpers; and 10) Service Workers  In our analysis, “all other jobs” combines sales workers, administrative support workers, craft workers, operatives, laborers and helpers, and service workers  We used the race/ethnicity categories used by the EEOC as follows: White, Black or African American, Asian (including Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander), Hispanic or Latino, and “Two or more Races” (including American Indian or Alaska Native)  We assessed the reliability of the EEO-1 data and determined that despite limitations, they were sufficiently reliable for our analyses  To determine the reliability of the EEO-1 data that we received from EEOC, we interviewed knowledgeable EEOC officials, reviewed relevant documents provided by agency officials and obtained on its website, and performed manual data testing for missing variables  For our analysis of technology degree earners, we used degree completion data tabulated by the National Science Foundation from the National Center for Education Statistics’ Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) for the year 2014  Using a variety of sources, such as academic research and interviews with representatives from academia, we defined technology-related fields as degree programs in computer science, engineering, and mathematics  We analyzed IPEDS data by race and gender and who had obtained a bachelor’s or master’s degree in technology-related fields  We determined that the potential external candidates for technology positions generally had obtained either a bachelor’s or a master’s degree in a technology-related field  We used the race/ethnicity categories used by IPEDS as follows: White, Black, Asian (including Pacific Islander), Hispanic, and Multiracial or other (which includes American Indian or Alaska Native, Other or Unknown Race, and Two or more Races, i e  respondents who selected one or more racial designations)  Race and ethnicity breakouts are for U S  citizens and permanent residents only, and thus do not include data on temporary residents  The analysis by gender includes temporary residents  To determine the reliability of IPEDs data, we reviewed relevant documents obtained on the National Center for Education Statistics website, such as annual methodology reports and the handbook of NCES survey methods  We determined that data from IPEDs were sufficiently reliable for our purposes  To identify how EEOC and OFCCP have overseen technology companies’ compliance with federal equal opportunity and affirmative action requirements, we reviewed relevant federal statutes and regulations, EEOC and OFCCP policies, strategic planning documents, and operational manuals  We interviewed EEOC and OFCCP officials in headquarters, and in two regional locations selected based on the large proportion of technology companies in those areas  At EEOC, we met with officials from the San Francisco and New York district offices  At OFCCP, we met with officials from the Pacific and Northeast regional offices  To explore charges of discrimination filed with the EEOC against technology companies, we planned to analyze data from the EEOC Integrated Mission System (IMS), which contains records on EEOC charges and enforcement activities  However, since industry code is not a mandatory field for investigators to complete, roughly half the entries did not have an industry code  Therefore, we could not reliably identify technology companies that have faced charges or enforcement  We attempted to match information we had developed on federal technology contractors with charges filed in the IMS database  Depending on the matching method we used, this yielded very different results and we determined this was not a sufficiently reliable method  Further, any matching method we used would have excluded technology companies that did not hold a federal contract  To obtain information on evaluations of technology contractors completed by OFCCP and complaints received against technology contractors, we took a two-step approach  First, using the Federal Procurement Data System–Next Generation (FPDS-NG), we developed a list of company establishments and their subsidiaries that received federal contract obligations in fiscal years 2011-2015 under any of the 55 NAICS codes we included above as technology industries  We selected only company establishments that received 50 percent or more of their total federal contract obligations under these NAICS codes  Each establishment was counted only once regardless of how many federal contracts it received during the time period  Using this method, we identified 43,448 establishments in our pool of “technology contractors ” To identify subsidiaries, which are also subject to OFCCP requirements and evaluations, we identified any other establishments that shared the global vendor code with the contractors we identified, regardless of their NAICS code  This yielded 2,116 additional contractors  Second, we matched the names (removing suffixes) of the technology contractors and their subsidiaries that we identified in FPDS-NG against OFCCP’s data on their evaluations of contractors to identify the evaluations of technology contractors that OFCCP opened and completed from fiscal year 2011 through fiscal year 2016  We conducted a similar matching exercise to identify the complaints OFCCP received against technology companies  In addition, we identified which of the leading technology companies had completed evaluations between fiscal year 2011 through 2016  We obtained information during interviews with researchers, and representatives of workforce and industry organizations and associations  In addition, we interviewed diversity and compliance representatives of eight of the leading information technology companies located in the San Francisco Bay area which were also federal contractors to discuss their efforts to increase diversity and to gain their perspectives on the federal role in overseeing compliance with nondiscrimination laws  These companies were: Cisco Systems, Inc  Facebook, Inc  Google Inc  Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company Intuit Inc  Oracle America, Inc  This is the list of technology occupations that we used in our analyses  We selected our occupations using Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) System codes, and cross- walked those occupations to the corresponding U S  Census Bureau occupation codes  This is the list of the 55 6-digit North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes we identified as technology-related industries  To develop this list, we identified the 15 industries with the highest concentration of technology workers using U S  Census Bureau industry codes and then used the U S  Census Bureau’s 2012 Industry Code List for Household Surveys to crosswalk the Census codes with NAICS codes  In addition to the contact named above, Betty Ward-Zukerman (Assistant Director), Kate Blumenreich (Analyst-in-Charge), Sheranda Campbell, Julianne Hartmann Cutts, Clarita Mrena, Moon Parks, Alexandra Rouse, and John Yee made significant contributions to all phases of the work  Also contributing to this report were Rachel Beers, James Bennett, Hedieh Fusfield, Julia Kennon, Jean McSween, Jessica Orr, Dae Park, James Rebbe, Almeta Spencer, and Alexandra Squitieri 
Report 2:  While the exemption for American Samoa has traditionally been set at 84% of the standard salary level, the other territories have been subject to the standard level  The application of the provisions of the FLSA is determined by the Congressional Accountability Act (CAA, P L  104-1 ), which was enacted in 1995 and extends some FLSA provisions, including overtime provisions, and other labor and workplace laws to congressional employees  In addition, the CAA created the Office of Compliance (now the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights), headed by a five-member Board of Directors (Board), to enforce the CAA  Rulemaking on the EAP exemptions would apply to congressional staff if the Board adopts them and Congress approves the Board's regulations, pursuant to the process established in the CAA  In other words, regulations adopted by the Board do not have legal effect until they are approved by Congress  When the Secretary of Labor issued new regulations to update the EAP exemptions in 2004, the Board adopted them; but thus far, Congress has apparently not approved the 2004 overtime regulations  Thus, overtime regulations that were adopted by the Board and approved by Congress in 1996, based on DOL regulations originally promulgated in 1975, currently apply to congressional staff  In the absence of action by the Board and by Congress, the provisions in any future final rules would not change the status quo  Congress can pass legislation to repeal rules or compel new rules  For example, prior to the publication of the 2016 final rule, legislation was introduced that would have prohibited the Secretary of Labor from enforcing the final rule and would have required additional analysis from the Secretary before the issuance of any substantially similar rule in the future  Given that rulemaking on the EAP exemptions typically includes increases in the salary level threshold for the EAP exemption, a greater number of employees become eligible for overtime pay with each upward adjustment of the salary level  To comply with the proposed regulations, employers would have several options, including the following: pay overtime to newly covered EAP employees if they work more than 40 hours in a workweek; increase the weekly pay for workers near the salary threshold to a level above it so that the EAP employees would become exempt and thus not be eligible for overtime pay; reduce work hours of nonexempt (covered) employees to 40 or fewer so that overtime pay would not be triggered; hire additional workers to offset the reduction in hours from nonexempt employees; or reduce base pay of nonexempt workers and maintain overtime hours so that base pay plus overtime pay would not exceed, or would remain close to, previous employer costs of base pay plus overtime  This section provides an overview of the main provisions of the 2019 proposed rule on EAP exemptions  For context, some provisions of the 2016 final rule are discussed  A final rule updating the EAP exemptions was published in the Federal Register on May 23, 2016, with an effective date of December 1, 2016  However, on November 22, 2016, the U S  District Court for the Eastern District of Texas issued a preliminary injunction blocking the implementation of the rule  On August 31, 2017, the U S  District Court for the Eastern District of Texas ruled that DOL exceeded its authority by setting the threshold at the salary level in the 2016 final rule ($913 per week) and thus invalidated it  Subsequently, DOJ appealed that decision to the U S  Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which granted DOJ's motion to hold the appeal in abeyance until DOL issued new rulemaking on the EAP salary level  Thus, DOL is currently enforcing the EAP regulations in effect on November 30, 2016, which include a standard salary level of $455 per week  DOL issued a request for information (RFI) related to the EAP exemptions on July 26, 2017, seeking information from the public to assist in formulating a proposal to revise the exemptions  On March 22, 2019, a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) was published in the Federal Register to define and delimit EAP exemptions  The proposed rule would not only revise the regulations on the EAP exemptions but would also formally rescind the 2016 final rule  Such a rescission would provide that if any or all of the substantive provisions of the 2019 rule were invalidated or not put into effect, the EAP regulations would revert to those promulgated in the 2004 final rule  Due to the invalidation of the 2016 final rule (discussed above), DOL currently enforces the provisions of the 2004 final rule  The main changes to the EAP exemptions in the 2019 proposed rule, as summarized in Table 1 , include the following: an increase in the salary level test from the current $455 per week ($23,660 annually) to $679 per week ($35,308 annually); an increase in the annual salary threshold for the HCE exemption from $100,000 to $147,414; an allowance that up to 10% of the standard salary level may be comprised of nondiscretionary bonuses, incentive payments, and commissions; a salary level of $455 per week for the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U S  Virgin Islands, and of $380 in American Samoa; and an increase in the "base rate" weekly salary level for employees in the motion picture industry from $695 per week to $1,036 per week  Since the FLSA was enacted in 1938, the salary level threshold has been increased eight times, including the proposed 2019 increase  Each of the previous increases have occurred through intermittent rulemaking by the Secretary of Labor, with periods between adjustments ranging from 2 years (1938–1940) to 29 years (1975–2004)  Since 1938, measures of the salary level have fluctuated according to DOL's identification of data sources most suitable for studying wage distributions and the department's determinations of the proportion and types of workers who should be below salary thresholds, as well as its determinations of whether regional, industry, or cost-of-living considerations should be factored into salary tests  Starting with the 2004 final rule, DOL has used survey data from the Current Population Survey (CPS) in determining the salary level for the EAP exemptions, albeit with different methodological choices  Effective January 2020 (approximately), the standard salary level threshold would equal the 20 th percentile of weekly earnings of full-time non-hourly workers in the lowest-wage Census region, which in 2019 is the South, and/or in the retail sector nationwide  In 2020, about 20% of full-time salaried workers in the South region and/or the retail sector nationwide are estimated to earn at or below $679 per week ($35,308 annually)  Effective January 2020 (approximately), the HCE salary level for the EAP exemptions would equal the annual earnings equivalent of the 90 th percentile of the weekly earnings of full-time non-hourly workers nationally  In 2020, 90% of full-time non-hourly workers are estimated to earn at or below $147,414 per year  Effective January 2020 (approximately), the salary level for the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U S  Virgin Islands would be $455 per week, and in American Samoa it would be $380 per week  Except for American Samoa, this would depart from past regulations by establishing a salary threshold for the territories below the standard level  Effective January 2020 (approximately), the motion picture industry employee salary level for the EAP exemption would be $1,036 per week  This level was derived by increasing the previous threshold ($695 per week) proportionally to the increase in the standard salary level  This would continue a special salary test created in 1953 for the motion picture industry that provides an exception to the "salary basis" test  Specifically, employees in the motion picture industry may be classified as exempt if they meet the duties tests for EAP exemption and are paid a "base rate" (rather than on a "salary basis") equal to the salary level for this exemption  The 2019 proposed rule would implement a commitment by DOL to update the EAP salary level thresholds every four years by submitting an NPRM for comment  If the 2019 proposed rule is finalized, DOL would publish its first proposed update on January 1, 2023, and subsequent updates every four years thereafter  The future salary level updates would be based on the same data source (CPS) and methodology of the salary levels established in the 2019 proposed rule: the standard salary level would be adjusted to the 20 th percentile of weekly earnings of full-time salaried workers in the lowest-wage Census region and/or in the retail sector, the HCE salary level threshold would be adjusted to the 90 th percentile of annual earnings of full-time non-hourly workers nationally, and the quadrennial NPRM would seek comment on whether to update the salary level for the territories established in the 2019 proposed rule  The 2019 proposed rule would expand overtime coverage to EAP employees through a higher salary level threshold rather than through additional classes of employees  As such, EAP employees making between $455 per week (the current effective level) and the new rate of $679 per week in 2019 would likely become nonexempt (i e , covered) by the overtime provisions and entitled to overtime pay for hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek  It is difficult to project the number of employees currently exempt under the EAP exemptions who would no longer be exempt under the 2019 proposed rule  This is due in part to uncertainty about potential employer responses, such as increasing salaries above the new threshold to maintain exemption for EAP employees  DOL estimates, with caveats, that approximately 4 9 million workers would be affected by the proposed rule  DOL identifies two groups in particular that would be affected—newly covered workers and workers with strengthened protections  Specifically, DOL estimates the following: In the first year under the provisions of the 2019 proposed rule, about 1 3 million EAP employees would become newly entitled to overtime pay due to the increase in the salary threshold: about 1 1 million employees in this group meet the duties test for the EAP exemption but earn between the current standard salary threshold ($455 per week) and the proposed threshold ($679 per week); and an additional 201,000 employees in this group meet the HCE duties test for exemption, but not the standard test, and earn at least the current HCE salary threshold ($100,000 per year) but less than the proposed threshold ($147,414 per year)  An additional 3 6 million workers would receive "strengthened" overtime protections, including the following: An additional 2 0 million white collar workers who are paid on a salary basis and earn between the current salary threshold of $455 per week and the proposed threshold of $679 per week but do not meet the EAP duties test (i e , they perform nonexempt work but might be misclassified) would gain overtime protections because their exemption status would not depend on the duties test  In other words, this group of workers would gain overtime coverage because the higher salary threshold would create a clearer line exemption test and reduce misclassification for exemption purposes  About 1 6 million salaried workers in blue collar occupations whose overtime coverage would have been clearer with the higher salary threshold  As DOL notes, this group of workers should currently be covered by overtime provisions but may not be due to worker classification  By comparison, DOL estimated that in the first year under the provisions of the 2016 final rule, approximately 13 1 million workers would have been affected  This total would have included about 4 2 million EAP employees who would have become newly entitled to overtime pay due to the increase in the salary threshold and an additional 8 9 million workers who would have received "strengthened" overtime protections  The data in Table 2 provide a summary of the estimated numbers of affected workers under the 2019 proposed rule and the 2016 final rule 

ground_truth: Technology companies are a major source of high-paying U.S. jobs, but some have questioned the sector's commitment to equal employment opportunity. EEOC provides federal oversight of nondiscrimination requirements by investigating charges of discrimination, and OFCCP enforces federal contractors' compliance with affirmative action requirements. GAO was asked to review workforce trends in the technology sector and federal oversight. This report examines (1) trends in the gender, racial, and ethnic composition of the technology sector workforce; and (2) EEOC and OFCCP oversight of technology companies' compliance with equal employment and affirmative action requirements. GAO analyzed workforce data from the American Community Survey for 2005-2015 and EEOC Employer Information Reports for 2007-2015, the latest data available during our analysis. GAO analyzed OFCCP data on compliance evaluations for fiscal years 2011-2016. GAO interviewed agency officials, researchers, and workforce, industry, and company representatives. The estimated percentage of minority technology workers increased from 2005 to 2015, but GAO found that no growth occurred for female and Black workers, whereas Asian and Hispanic workers made statistically significant increases (see figure). Further, female, Black, and Hispanic workers remain a smaller proportion of the technology workforce—mathematics, computing, and engineering occupations—compared to their representation in the general workforce. These groups have also been less represented among technology workers inside the technology sector than outside it. In contrast, Asian workers were more represented in these occupations than in the general workforce. Stakeholders and researchers GAO interviewed identified several factors that may have contributed to the lower representation of certain groups, such as fewer women and minorities graduating with technical degrees and company hiring and retention practices. Both the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the Department of Labor's Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) have taken steps to enforce equal employment and affirmative action requirements in the technology sector, but face limitations. While EEOC has identified barriers to recruitment and hiring in the technology sector as a strategic priority, when EEOC conducts investigations, it does not systematically record the type of industry, therefore limiting sector-related analyses to help focus its efforts. EEOC has plans to determine how to add missing industry codes but has not set a timeframe to do this. In addition, OFCCP's regulations may hinder its ability to enforce contractors' compliance because OFCCP directs contractors to set placement goals for all minorities as a group rather than for specific racial/ethnic groups. OFCCP also has not made changes to its establishment-based approach to selecting entities for review in decades, even though changes have occurred in how workplaces are structured. Without taking steps to address these issues, OFCCP may miss opportunities to hold contractors responsible for complying with affirmative action and nondiscrimination requirements. GAO makes 6 recommendations, including that EEOC develop a timeline to improve industry data collection and OFCCP take steps toward requiring more specific minority placement goals by contractors and assess key aspects of its selection approach. EEOC neither agreed nor disagreed with its recommendation, and OFCCP stated the need for regulatory change to alter placement goal requirements. GAO continues to believe actions are needed, as discussed in the report.