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



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

Report 1: The Department of Defense (DOD) obligates more than $300 billion annually to pay for goods and services (including research and development)  Most of these acquisitions are governed by numerous statutes and regulations found in Title 10 of the United States Code, the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), and the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS)  DOD can also enter into certain transactions without triggering most of the standard acquisition statutes and regulations by using other transaction (OT) authorities  In recent years, Congress has expanded these authorities and DOD is increasingly using OTs for research, prototyping, and production  This report examines (1) how OTs work, (2) why they were established, (3) potential benefits and risks of using OTs, and (4) whether there are data available against which to measure their effectiveness  Appendix A provides a legislative history of DOD's other transaction authorities  On October 4, 1957, the Soviet Union triggered a space race with the United States when it successfully launched Sputnik I into orbit, becoming the first nation to send a man-made satellite into space  Congress, concerned that the United States was falling behind in space, held a series of hearings on an "emergency" effort to respond to the Soviet launch of Sputnik  At the same time, a bill was introduced in the Senate to create an agency with the means to quickly and efficiently develop a national space program  These efforts led to passage of the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 (Space Act, P L  85-568) in July 1958, which established the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)  In an effort to give the new agency "the necessary freedom to carry on research, development, and exploration     to insure the full development of these peaceful and defense uses without unnecessary delay," the Space Act granted NASA broad authority to "enter into and perform such contracts, leases, cooperative agreements, or other transactions as may be necessary" to accomplish its mission of research and exploration (emphasis added)  Congress extended different variations of OT authorities to other select agencies, granting the authority to DOD in the FY1990 & 1991 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA, P L  101-189 )  For an analysis of which non-DOD agencies can use OTs and how the authorities differ by agency, see Appendix B   Other transactions are legally binding contracts that are generally exempt from federal procurement laws and regulations such as the Competition in Contracting Act and the Federal Acquisition Regulation  In contrast, traditional procurement contracts must adhere to the procurement rules set forth in statute and regulation  Generally, DOD can use other transaction authorities for three purposes: 1  conduct research, 2  develop prototypes, or 3  contract for follow-on production of a successful prototype project  DOD's other transaction authorities are found in two sections of law: 10 U   S   C   2371 grants DOD the authority to use other transactions to carry out basic, applied, and advanced research projects  DOD regulations treat these projects as financial assistance instruments, not as contracts  10 U   S   C   2371b permits the use of other transactions to conduct prototype projects and follow-on production  OTs can only be used for prototypes if one of the following applies: at least one nontraditional defense contractor significantly participating in the project; all significant participants are small businesses or nontraditional defense contractors; at least one-third of the total cost of the prototype project is provided by nongovernment participants; or the senior procurement acquisition official provides in writing an explanation of the exceptional circumstances justifying an OT  Follow-on production can only be conducted when the underlying prototype OT was competitively awarded, and the prototype project was successfully completed  10 U   S   C   2373 , while generally not considered an o ther t ransaction authority , allows DOD to buy certain items and designs for experimental or test purposes without having to adhere to the procurement laws set forth in Chapter 137 of Title 10  OT authorities grant government officials the flexibility to include, amend, or exclude contract clauses and requirements that are mandatory in traditional procurements (e g , termination clauses, payments, audit requirements, intellectual property, and contract disputes)  OTs can be structured in numerous ways, including a direct relationship between a single government agency and a single provider; joint ventures; partnerships; multiple agencies joining together to fund an agreement encompassing multiple providers; or through a consortium  One common application of OTs is to forge an agreement with a consortium  A consortium is an organized group— it can consist of nonprofits, academic institutions, or contractors— focusing on a specific technology area  Generally, a lead entity coordinates and directs a consortium's activities  Consortia have consisted of a handful to as many as 1,000 members  Consortia can act to facilitate multiparty agreements whereby each member is akin to its own co-prime contractor with the government  In such a case, the government articulates the need or problem it is trying to solve, and the various members of the consortium can submit white papers for consideration  In this scenario, OTs can serve as an efficient way for all members to send unsolicited technology suggestions and solutions to solve a defined challenge  Consortia can also be used to develop an ecosystem of entities working together on a project, whereby members of a consortium pool resources and collaborate with DOD  A number of analysts argue that using consortia in this way gives the federal government a unique ability to leverage and pool the technological expertise and innovation of multiple entities in a particular sector, thereby strengthening and advancing a sector of the industrial base that may have defense applications  Seen like this, OTs can be considered a mechanism to promote defense technology and the defense industrial base, with the potential added benefit of advancing the domestic commercial technology base  Some analysts, however, have argued that many of today's consortia do not operate as collaborative organizations, but function more like managed multiple award task order contracts  These analysts argue that DOD should seek to foster more collaboration in consortia  Some analysts have argued that consortia reduce competition, since only members of the consortium under contract can participate in the project or submit white papers for consideration and funding  Others counter that even when an OT is signed with a single consortium, competition could be increased, since all members of the consortium are notified of the opportunity (expanding the pool of potential competitors aware of the opportunity), and the OT will foster internal competition among consortium members  OTs are not procurement contracts and thus are exempt from numerous procurement statutes and regulations, including the statutes in Chapter 137 of Title 10 ( Procurement Generally )  They are, however, bound by standard contract and other select laws and regulations  Examples of laws that do not apply include the Truth in Negotiations Act, Competition in Contracting Act, Cost Accounting Standards, Contract Disputes Act, and select intellectual property statutes such as the Bayh-Dole Act  A number of these laws are aimed at oversight and protecting the interests of taxpayers  While the Competition in Contracting Act does not apply, 10 U S C  2371b requires that research and prototype projects be competed "to the maximum extent practicable " DOD policy mirrors the statutory language, stating "[C]ompetition is a good thing  It helps keep prices low, quality high, and gives the government leverage in negotiations " To the extent that OTs induce nontraditional contractors to work with DOD, OTs can be viewed as promoting competition among (and within) entities that would not normally compete for DOD contracts  However, the lack of explicitly defined competition requirements could result in less competition for certain OTs  OTs are not free from all legislative and regulatory requirements  Generally, statutes and regulations that are not procurement-specific apply, including the Trade Secrets Act, (18 U S C  1905); the Economic Espionage Act (18 U S C  1831-39); elements of the Freedom of Information Act (5 U S C  552); and fiscal and property laws, such as the Anti-deficiency Act (31 U S C  1341); and the Tucker Act (28 U S C  1491)  As can be seen by these citations, many of these statutes are not located in the procurement titles of Title 10 or Title 41  The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has held that OTs are not procurement contracts, and therefore it will not review protests of such an award or solicitation  However, GAO will review "a timely protest that an agency is improperly using its other transaction authority " OT contracts can be protested to the Court of Federal Claims, although there is debate as to the extent of the court's jurisdiction  The limited protest jurisdiction of GAO is appealing to many government procurement officials  One senior Air Force official reportedly stated that OTs are "just so much faster and so much more attuned to getting something that we want today and not have to spend a couple of years going through a protest, going through this huge process to get something we wanted two years ago " It generally does not take that long to go through a GAO protest  By statute, GAO must issue an opinion on a protest within 100 days of the protest being filed, and 70% of cases are resolved in less than 60 days  While exempt from GAO bid protests, OTs are not exempt from GAO audits  Generally, OTs that include government payments exceeding $5 million are required to include a clause granting GAO the right to examine the records of any related party  However, this requirement has a number of limitations  Used properly, OTs can provide significant benefits to DOD  Along with the potential benefits come certain risks  Some of the potential benefits to OTs highlighted by analysts and officials include providing a mechanism to pool R&D resources with industry to facilitate development of, and obtain "the latest state-of-the-art, dual use technologies"; attracting nontraditional contractors with promising technological capabilities to work with DOD; lowering costs by eliminating requirements associated with the Federal Acquisition Regulations (i e , costs associated with required reporting and administrative activities) or sharing costs with industry; and "speeding up" the acquisition process  A number of experts argue that OTs provide a unique mechanism for DOD to invest in, and influence the direction of, technology development even when the end result is not directly tied to a military capability  As one observer noted, the real benefit to DOD may be that [t]he R&D has been accomplished and is available to the technical and scientific communities  As a result, a subsequent phase of research can begin or a particular approach can be demonstrated to be of no value  Some argue that OTs have particular import today  Drawing parallels to the space race, these analysts argue that DOD is engaged in a defense technology race  According to the 809 Panel: DoD is now in a period during which the time a particular technology is a dominant force on the battlefield is getting increasingly shorter, disruptive technologies are emerging at a faster pace, and these technologies are more widely dispersed…In a world with rapidly changing technology, time is a valuable resource that must not be taken for granted  It is difficult to predict what capabilities DoD will need 5 to 10 years from now—biotechnology, nanotechnology, artificial intelligence, robotics, or a new technology area not even known today  It also is unclear on what plane the military will conduct warfare—traditional battlefields, space, cyberspace, or some other domain  The current acquisition system lacks the agility needed to adapt to new paradigms  These analysts argue that OTs and similar rapid acquisition authorities are critical for DOD to compete in such a fast-paced global environment where technology and innovation are no longer driven by DOD, but by industry and foreign competitors  In 1960, the United States accounted for 69% of global R&D, with U S  defense-related R&D alone accounting for more than one-third of global R&D  The federal government funded approximately twice as much R&D as U S  business  However, from 1960 to 2016, the U S  share of global R&D fell to 28%, and the federal government's share of total U S  R&D fell from 65% to 24%, while business's share more than doubled from 33% to 67%  As a result of these global, national, and federal trends, federal defense R&D's share of total global R&D fell to 3 7% in 2016  Given the shift in the global R&D landscape, and the diminishing influence of DOD as a market mover, analysts suggest that the current procurement system is overburdened by regulations and bureaucratic processes that slow the system, increase costs, and dissuade companies from doing business with DOD  In contrast, OTs are viewed as faster, attracting companies that would otherwise forgo working with DOD and promoting broader investment in critical defense capabilities  As one analyst wrote: OTAs are currently the only way to remove the barriers necessary to get these nontraditional sources of innovation to do business with the military  Properly constructed, OTAs help speed up the process, respect a company's IP through negotiation rather than regulatory fiat, and result in contracting under commercial terms and conditions  Congress also appears to have shifted its view on appropriate use of other transactions  In the FY1999 conference report, Congress stated that [OT] authority should only be used in the exceptional cases where it can be clearly demonstrated that a normal contract or grant will not allow sufficient access to affordable technologies  By comparison, in the FY2018 NDAA, Congress expanded OT authorities and stated the following: In the execution of science and technology and prototyping programs, the Secretary of Defense shall establish a preference, to be applied in circumstances determined appropriate by the Secretary, for using transactions other than contracts, cooperative agreements, and grants  Along with the potential benefits come potential risks, including that of diminished oversight and exemption from laws and regulations designed to protect government and taxpayer interests  Some analysts, while acknowledging the important role of OTs, raise concerns over transparency and how these agreements are being employed  As one industry official stated, OTs are a contracting method, not a substitute for good acquisition practices  Discussing a particular OT for cloud services that was protested and ultimately cancelled by DOD, one observer argued The cloud contract provides a teachable moment for procurement reform-minded officials in the Pentagon and Capitol Hill  The problem was not with the OTA mechanism, which remains an essential element of reforming Pentagon procurement  Rather, the problem was with a lack of transparency with how the mechanism was employed  Scott Amey, general counsel of the Project on Government Oversight, cautioned We have to seriously consider how we are using [OTs]; whether we are using them as intended, whether we are getting the goods and services that we really want and need, whether we are getting them at the best cost and process, and we are using this procurement vehicle as a way to just circumvent the rules and have contractors not have the administration and oversight they need to hold them accountable  I'm just afraid this is going to result in a lot of waste, fraud, and abuse in the future  Congress has expressed repeated concerns that OTs could be used to circumvent congressional intent  In the FY1999 NDAA, the committees emphasized that the authority should only be used in a limited manner  The conference report stated the following: The conferees are especially concerned that such authority not be used to circumvent the appropriate management controls in the standard acquisition and budgeting process  Congress echoed a similar concern in the FY2019 NDAA  According to the House report: The committee also urges the Department to reiterate through established guidelines that OTA is not a means for circumventing appropriate use of the Federal Acquisition Regulations, and that full and open competition should be used to the maximum extent possible to maintain a sense of integrity, fairness, and credibility in the Federal Procurement process  Other transactions are also exempt from many of the socioeconomic policies put in place by Congress to promote public policies, including some Buy America requirements  Some analysts have raised concerns that OTs are a way to circumvent many of the public policies enshrined in the acquisition process  A number of analysts and officials have raised concerns that if DOD uses OTs in ways not intended by Congress—or is perceived to abuse the authority—Congress could clamp down on the authority  Under Secretary of the Army Ryan McCarthy reportedly stated that the military department is "trying to be very judicious about this authority so we don't lose it " Some analysts argue that Congress is already clamping down on the use of OTs  These analysts point to language in the FY2019 NDAA and FY2019 appropriations legislation ( P L  115-245 ) requiring additional reporting and notification (see Appendix A )  Such notification and reporting requirements, however, are not new; when Congress expanded OT authorities in the past, reporting and notification requirements were commonly included  The reporting requirements may also be a result of congressional frustration with a lack of transparency and data on how DOD uses OTs  DOD lacks authoritative data that can be used to assess OT effectiveness and better understand broader trends associated with these agreements  The most frequently cited source for such data is the Federal Procurement Data System-Next Generation (FPDS-NG), which is the primary source for tracking data on contract obligations, including other transactions for prototypes and follow-on production  FPDS-NG is configured to track data on cost-sharing, other transaction award type, and prevalence of nontraditional contractors  Obligations connected to OTs for research are tracked by the Defense Assistance Awards Data System, which is primarily used to track grants and cooperative agreements  This bifurcation of how OT data are tracked makes it more difficult to get a consolidated view of OT data  According to DOD, all OT data will be reported through FPDS-NG starting in late 2019  The procurement data in FPDS-NG are not fully reliable  There are quality issues relating to accuracy, completeness, and timeliness of data  CRS reviewed FPDS-NG data for prototype OT agreements signed or modified between FY2015 and FY2017 and found similar data inconsistencies  DOD officials acknowledge that they do not have sufficiently reliable data upon which to conduct analysis on the use of OTs and are taking steps to try to improve the data  The analyses below reflect CRS's effort to analyze DOD's use of other transaction authority based on the best available data  According to FPDS-NG, in FY2017, DOD obligated $2 1 billion—and received $360 million in cost-share contributions—on prototype other transaction agreements, representing less than 1% of DOD's total FY2017 contract obligations (approximately $320 billion)  Despite the small percentage of obligations, OTs are growing quickly and are expected to continue to grow at a rapid pace  From FY2013 to FY2017, the number of new prototype agreements increased from 12 to 94, an increase of over 650% (see Table 1 )  DOD's Defense Innovation Unit (DIU, formerly known as the Defense Innovation Unit Experimental, or DIUx) was involved with approximately half of the prototype agreements executed in 2017  DOD officials have stated their intent to further increase the department's use of OTs  Officials say that this increase is due to Congress expanding the statutory authority  The Army executed more than 66% of the prototype OT agreements between FY2013 and FY2017, often on behalf of other military departments and components (see Table 2 )  Army Contracting Command-New Jersey at Picatinny Arsenal executes many of these agreements  DIU currently uses Picatinny Arsenal to execute all of its other transaction agreements  A number of private sector companies do not pursue federal government contracts because they are unwilling to forfeit intellectual property rights or adhere to some of the procurement regulations  One of the goals of OTs is to expand the defense marketplace by creating a mechanism for access to technologies and services of companies that would not otherwise work with DOD, particularly startups and companies developing innovative technology  As one industry representative stated: Because they are "outside" the FAR, OT agreements do not require such cumbersome oversight and audit requirements such as those imposed by the Truth in Negotiations Act, cost and pricing data or an expensive Cost Accounting System (CAS) qualified financial system  CAS compliant financial systems can cost a company millions of dollars to implement and maintain — and are therefore a significant, if not potentially fatal, barrier to government market entry for startups and small, innovative companies  These requirements tend to reinforce the "legacy advantage" of large traditional contractors, who can afford to hire and staff these requirements with large staffs of accountants and lawyers  A number of nontraditional companies told CRS that they are more likely to work with DOD because of the department's other transaction authorities  Despite these claims, some observers question whether OTs are effectively bringing nontraditional contractors into the defense marketplace  A DOD Inspector General report examining other transactions from FY1994 to FY2001 found that OTs did not attract significant numbers of nontraditional defense contractors to do business with DOD  The report found that of the 209 prototype agreements examined, traditional defense contractors received 95% of the $5 7 billion in funds awarded  A recent analysis of FPDS-NG data by Federal News Network had similar findings  According to the report, from FY2015 to FY2017, while nontraditional defense contractors were awarded most of the new OTs (66% vs  33% for traditional defense contractors), the dollar value of the OTs favored traditional contractors ($20 8 billion vs  $7 4 billion for nontraditional contractors)  Some observers have questioned the accuracy of the data published by Federal News Network  According to Charlie McBride, president of Consortium Management Group (which manages two consortia working with DOD through OTs), 88% of the total dollar value of awards to CMG Group has gone to nontraditional prime contractors, and nontraditional entities have participated in the remaining 12%  This debate highlights the lack of authoritative data on OTs  The currently available data may not accurately reflect the extent to which nontraditional contractors are engaged in OT agreements  FPDS-NG does not collect data regarding subcontractors or consortia composition, making it difficult to determine the nature and extent to which nontraditional defense contractors and entities may be working under OT agreements with DOD directly or as subcontractors  When Congress extended OT authority to DOD, it authorized inserting a clause requiring a person or entity to make payments to DOD as a condition of receiving support under the agreement  Such funds were to be merged into an account dedicated to support DARPA advanced research projects  The intent of this provision was to permit DARPA to "recoup the fruits of such arrangements, when there is a 'dual use' potential for commercial application" and reinvest the funds to develop other technologies  In addition to the recoupment authority, DOD can share costs with other parties under an OT  Using this approach, the amount of each party's share is negotiated and incorporated into the agreement  Congress believed that OTs and cooperative agreements were ideal vehicles for promoting DOD-industry collaboration in developing dual-use technologies  For example, the FY1992 & 1993 NDAA ( P L  102-190 ) authorized DOD to enter into cooperative and other transaction agreements to develop critical dual-use technologies as set forth in the Defense Critical Technologies Plan  According to the Senate report:     the United States tends to underinvest in dual-use technologies  National security requirements alone often do not justify major DOD support, and market prospects alone often appear to be too long-term or high risk to justify US industry carrying the entire development burden     The committee encourages use of cooperative agreements and other transactions in lieu of grants or contracts     The provision would require that at least 50 percent of funding over the life of a partnership derive from non-federal sources but would allow for a smaller industry share at the start  In the 1990s, some DARPA OTs required participants to share costs because the types of work completed generally involved R&D that was mutually beneficial to government needs and industry commercial goals  In certain instances, present-day OTs have cost-sharing requirements that foster collaborative research  Some analysts believe that DOD is not always realizing all the benefits that OTs have to offer, such as sufficiently leveraging private capital or forming true consortia of multiple parties pooling resources  Some of these analysts believe that DOD does not sufficiently use consortia to leverage private investment through the pursuit of collaborative, mutually beneficial, dual-use technologies  Some observers argue that as the legislation on OTs has evolved, the cost-sharing provision for prototype projects has come to create an unfair playing field biased against traditional defense contractors  For prototype projects, traditional contractors generally are required to assume one-third of costs whereas nontraditional defense contractors and small businesses generally do not have to cost share  From a fairness perspective, these observers argue that traditional contractors should not have a mandatory cost share  These observers also point out that some nontraditional defense contractors are companies with billions of dollars of revenue that should not be granted a competitive cost advantage  Putting traditional defense contractors at a competitive disadvantage could deny DOD access to those companies with the most experience working on defense products, potentially depriving the military of access to leading defense-related research and technology  Other observers argue that the cost share as currently structured is appropriate: traditional defense contractors hold a significant competitive edge in their understanding of, and have the systems in place to manage, traditional contracts  In contrast, nontraditional and small businesses, which generally cannot compete with the traditional defense contractors, need the exemption from the cost-share requirement to be able to work with DOD  These observers also argue that traditional contractors are awarded the majority of dollars obligated to OTs, proving how difficult it is for nontraditional suppliers to break into the defense marketplace  Additionally, traditional contractors could avoid the cost-sharing requirement by teaming with a nontraditional contractor  DOD has not effectively tracked data on cost sharing  A 2017 report to Congress indicated that in FY2016 DOD obligated $1 billion for prototype agreements and received $68 million in cost-share contributions  A CRS review found numerous concerns with the data underlying the report, and with DOD's analytical conclusions  See Appendix C for further discussion  A number of analysts and industry officials have raised concerns that DOD could use OTs to avoid competitions, as OTs are exempt from the Competition in Contracting Act  According to statute, follow-on production using other transaction authority can only be awarded if the underlying R&D agreement was competed  In addition, 10 U S C  2371b states that "to the maximum extent practicable" OTs must be competed  Determining whether OTs are being used to circumvent competition requires a two-step analysis: 1  Are OTs competed less often that traditional contracts? 2  Is there a benefit to these OTs being competed? Available FPDS-NG data suggest that DOD is broadly complying with 10 U S C  2371b's competition mandate  Between FY2013 and FY2017, approximately 89% of all new OT prototype agreements were competed in some fashion  Many observers and analysts believe that OT agreements can be executed substantially faster, sometimes in a matter of weeks, compared to the months or years it typically takes to execute traditional contracts  Based in part on this belief, some officials and analysts are touting OTs as a new model for conducting acquisitions and the answer to many of the problems in defense acquisition  These analysts argue that in a world of increasingly fast technology development, DOD acquisitions must go faster or risk being left behind  Many acquisition professionals argue that OT contracts are not inherently faster than traditional contracting; instead, they are executed faster because they are not encumbered by the reviews, protests, and bureaucratic layers that have been overlaid on traditional contracting  According to these officials, OTs take just as long as traditional contracts if the same execution and oversight processes are applied  And because all terms are negotiable, complex negotiations could make OTs take longer to execute than traditional contracts that have required, nonnegotiable conditions  The Other Transactions Guide states The OT award process will not always be faster than the traditional procurement processes and sometimes can be as long or longer  The speed of award is tied to many factors, many of which are internal to the organization  DOD has not tracked data on the relative time it takes to execute OTs vs  traditional contracts, making it impossible to objectively assess these claims  Analysts and officials generally agree that the workforce plays a critical role in determining the success or failure of an acquisition  Because there are fewer predefined requirements, OTs can be more difficult to negotiate than traditional contracts, putting DOD at greater risk of not getting what it wants at a reasonable price  The complexity and difficulty of negotiations is particularly high when there are intellectual property/patent rights issues, as is the case with most OTs  Given these challenges, OTs often require more experienced and capable government representatives to ensure implementation of agreements that are in the government's best interest  Some analysts question the extent to which the workforce is sufficiently trained and equipped to negotiate OTs  In response to this concern, in the FY2018 NDAA, Congress required workforce education and training for OTs, and required DOD to establish a cadre of intellectual property experts to advise, assist, and provide resources to program offices that are developing intellectual property strategies for contracts and agreements (see Appendix A )  DOD officials acknowledge that more training and education is required  Given the complexity of OTs and the limited extent to which they are used, some analysts and industry officials suggested that there may be a benefit to establishing a centralized office within DOD responsible for executing or overseeing all other transaction agreements  Such a structure could help ensure that those members of the acquisition workforce engaged in other transactions are sufficiently experienced, trained, and qualified  A number of analysts have argued that DOD should take steps to improve its use of OTs  Many of these analysts have suggested that data are not consistently and accurately tracked, regulations and guidance on when and how to use OTs are vague or insufficient, and the workforce is not sufficiently prepared to effectively use OTs  A number of officials have acknowledged these shortcomings and DOD is reportedly taking steps to address them  For example, in December 2018, DOD issued an updated Other Transactions Guide , a comprehensive guide containing best practices, case studies, and a clarification of myths related to other transaction authorities  In addition, Defense Acquisition University developed new course materials addressing OTs and is working to expand its offerings of relevant training and classes  However, numerous acquisition officials question whether it is possible, or even desirable, to try to quickly implement training aimed at preparing the thousands of DOD acquisition officials to execute OTs  Some of these officials have suggested it might be appropriate to only allow a limited and vetted number of acquisition professionals to be OT agreements officers  Some argue that OTs are just one "tool in the tool box," appropriate for only specific types of contracts, and should not be used to avoid the statutory and regulatory framework or to try to accelerate the process just for the sake of speed  Others have suggested that OTs should be used to cut through bureaucracy, speed up the acquisition process, avoid regulations and bid protests, and perhaps eventually supplant the regular FAR-based contracting process  Given the benefits and risks associated with OTs, questions for Congress include the following: 1  To what extent and in what circumstances do the potential benefits of OTs in terms of cost, schedule, and added capabilities outweigh concerns over potential fraud, waste, abuse, diminished oversight, and other public policy objectives? 2  Should OT authorities be extended further, curtailed, or maintained? The FY2019 NDAA required DOD to submit a report annually through 2021, summarizing DOD's use of OTs, including organizations involved; number of transactions; amounts of payments; and purpose, description, and status of projects  The NDAA also required the Defense Innovation Unit to submit a report to Congress, to include the number of traditional and nontraditional defense contractors with DOD contracts or other transactions resulting directly from the unit's initiatives  The conference report for the FY2019 defense appropriations bill included language expressing the conferees' "[concern] with the lack of transparency surrounding the employment of OTA, particularly for follow-on production " The conferees directed DOD to provide quarterly reports to the House and Senate appropriations committees listing each active OT, and to include additional information for each agreement  The conferees also directed GAO to review DOD's use of OTs to determine whether the "employment of this authority conforms to applicable statutes and guidelines, to include the identification of any potential conflicts " GAO was also required to report on the extent to which OTs have been used since FY2016  The multitude of reporting requirements, and the questionable reliability of the available data, raise a number of questions that Congress may wish to explore, such as the following: 1  To what extent, if any, should the current reporting requirements be consolidated to create a more streamlined and consistent flow of information to Congress? 2  What specific data does Congress need in these reports to effectively conduct oversight? For example, what percentage of research OTs result in prototype projects and follow-on production? 3  To what extent are the data sufficiently reliable, and will such data be easily retrievable in the future, to allow Congress to conduct effective, timely, and ongoing oversight? If the data are not sufficiently reliable or accessible in the future, what other data collection and tracking methods could Congress mandate to ensure ongoing access to reliable data? 4  How are OTs being used? Where and when in the acquisition lifecycle is the authority being used? To what extent is the requirements process being circumvented when DOD awards an OT follow-on production contract for a major system? One analyst suggested that "no efficiency is lost if only the most able personnel are authorized to procure and administer" OT agreements and further argued that expanding the use of OTs would increase the training costs by expanding the number of people who can "weave complex agreements in a relatively unstructured environment " Congress may consider whether DOD should establish an acquisition innovation lab or center of excellence responsible for overseeing, executing, and approving all OTs across the department  Such a lab or center could be staffed and supported by a cadre of professionals with experience across the acquisition lifecycle who have a willingness and ability to embrace new ideas and rethink existing practices  Alternatively, such labs or centers could be established in the military departments  Having centers in each organization could allow for consideration of the different missions and business approaches of the departments and help educate the workforce on a more systematic basis  Proponents argue that such an office would help ensure that only experienced and capable officials, with the appropriate training, use OT authorities  Such an office could also help protect against layering internal DOD policies and bureaucracies onto OTs by placing OTs outside of the traditional bureaucratic acquisition process  Proponents could further argue that such an office could better propagate best practices and ensure that OTs are used appropriately and are consistent with guidance and legislation  Having a single office responsible for executing or approving all OTs could also help ensure more timely and accurate information, giving Congress more visibility into DOD's use of other transaction authorities  To the extent that a single, high-level official is responsible for managing and overseeing all OTs, Congress might wish to consider repealing or modifying existing statutory approval requirements  If such an office was able to provide timely and accurate information, Congress might also consider some of the current reporting requirements unnecessary, and may choose to repeal some of the reporting requirements  Opponents of such a proposal argue that centralizing OTs would have the opposite effect, increasing bureaucracy by adding yet another office within DOD  Opponents also argue that such an office could make it more time-consuming to get a project underway and may discourage program offices from attempting or suggesting OTs  Some also argue that a single office may not have the resources to execute and approve agreements in a timely manner, and would inhibit spreading expertise on how to execute OT agreements more broadly across the acquisition workforce  Even proponents who might in theory support establishing such an office could raise significant concerns regarding how such an office would function in practice  A number of alternative options could be pursued to address concerns raised by opponents of establishing a centralized office  Some of these alternative options include the following: Granting such an office primary, but not exclusive, authority to execute OTs  For example, agreement officers specifically authorized to do so could execute OTs, with the centralized office conducting a peer review  Under this construct, the office could also be charged with providing information and expertise/consulting services on the use of OTs to program offices contemplating using the authorities  Establishing centers within each military department, with a designated office in OSD serving a coordinating function (with nondelegable approval authority residing in the military department office designated for OTs)  Creating the office as a pilot program for three years, to help DOD manage OTs until such time as the workforce becomes more experienced and proficient in using these agreements  Appendix A  Legislative History Other transaction authority first appeared in the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958  Since then, Congress has extended OT authorities to 11 federal agencies and a number of other federal offices (see Appendix B for information on other federal entities with similar authorities)  This appendix traces the legislative history of OT authorities and select related statutes applicable to DOD  To read the full text of the three statutory provisions related to OTs (10 U S C  2371, 2371b, and 2373), see Appendix D   National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 (P L  85-568) Creation of Other Transaction Authority On July 29, 1958 President Dwight D  Eisenhower signed into law the National Aeronautics and Space Act (P L  85-568), which established the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)  The purpose of the act included the expansion of human knowledge, preservation of the role of the United States as a leader in space science and technology, and pursuing the most effective utilization of the scientific and engineering resources of the United States  Section 203(b)(5) of the Space Act provided NASA the authority (emphasis added) to enter into and perform such contracts, leases, cooperative agreements, or other transactions as may be necessary in the conduct of its work and on such terms as it may deem appropriate, with any instrumentality of the United States     or with any person, firm, association, corporation, or educational institution  To the maximum extent practicable and consistent with the accomplishments of the purpose of this Act, such contracts, leases, agreements, and other transactions shall be allocated by the Administrator in a manner which will enable small-business concerns to participate equitably and proportionately in the conduct of the work of the Administration  Intellectual Property Rights The Space Act specifically addressed NASA's "property rights in inventions " Section 305 stated that any invention made in the performance of any work under any contract is the exclusive property of the United States "unless the Administrator waives all or any part of the rights " This was true even when the person who created the invention "was not employed or assigned to perform research, development, or exploratory work, but the invention is nevertheless related to the contract" and was made during working hours, or with a contribution of the government  The act granted the Administrator wide latitude to "waive all or any part of the rights of the United States under this section" if doing so was deemed to be in the best interests of the United States  When such rights were waived, NASA retained an irrevocable, nonexclusive, nontransferable royalty-free license by or on behalf of the United States  National Defense Authorization Act for FY1990 & FY1991 ( P L  101-189 ) The FY1990 & FY1991 NDAA granted DARPA temporary authority to enter into "cooperative agreements and other transactions" for the purpose of conducting advanced research projects  The statute clarified that OTs should only be used when "the use of standard contracts or grants is not feasible or appropriate " Congress restricted funding for OTs and cooperative agreements to $25 million of appropriated funds for FY1990 and FY1991, and set the authority to expire on September 30, 1991  Cost Sharing The FY1990 & FY1991 NDAA permitted OTs (or cooperative agreements) to include a clause requiring a person or entity to make payments to DOD as a condition of receiving support under the agreement  Such funds were to be merged into an account dedicated to supporting DARPA advanced research projects using cooperative agreements and other transactions  The act required, to the extent practicable, that funds provided by the government not exceed the total amount provided by the other parties to the project  According to the Senate report, one of the intents of the cost-sharing provision was to permit DARPA to "recoup the fruits of such arrangements, when there is a 'dual use' potential for commercial application" and to reinvest the funds to develop other technologies  Reporting Requirements The FY1990 & FY1991 NDAA required DOD to submit an annual report on the use of OTs and cooperative agreements, to include a description of each agreement and the technologies involved, the potential military and commercial utility of the technology, the reasons a contract or grant was not feasible to support the research, and the amount of payments, if any, received by the federal government under the agreement  National Defense Authorization Act for FY1991 ( P L  101-510 ) Section 244 increased the funds authorized for cooperative agreements and OTs from $25 million to $50 million  However, no such funding was appropriated  Reporting and Notification Requirements The conference report required DOD to submit to Congress a report listing the cooperative agreements and consortia intended to be used in FY1991-1992  The conference report also required DOD to provide the armed services and appropriations committees 30 days' notice prior to DOD signing a cooperative agreement or agreement with a consortia under OT authority  The Senate report focused on consortia as a method to pool resources, share research among numerous participants, and promote critical dual-use technology  Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 1992 ( P L  102-172 ) Limitations on the Use of OTs Section 8113A of P L  102-172 placed temporary limitations on the use of agreements undertaken pursuant to 10 U S C  2371: Section 8113A limited the use of OTs and cooperative agreements exclusively to DARPA (to the exclusion of the rest of DOD) for FY1992  Section 8113A limited DARPA to obligating or expending no more than $37 5 million in FY1992 for cooperative agreements or OTs undertaken pursuant to 10 U S C  2371  Section 8113A further established that no more than $75 million could be obligated or expended by DARPA in FY1992 for DOD dual-use critical technology partnerships  National Defense Authorization Act for FY1992 & FY1993 ( P L  102-190 ) Expanded Authority Section 826 extended other transaction authority to the military departments, and established separate fund accounts in each department for cost sharing  Section 826 also repealed the sunset for cooperative agreements and OTs, making the authorities permanent  Section 821 authorized DOD to enter into cooperative and other transaction agreements to develop critical dual-use technologies as set forth in the Defense Critical Technologies Plan  According to the Senate report     the United States tends to underinvest in dual-use technologies  National security requirements alone often do not justify major DOD support, and market prospects alone often appear to be too long-term or high risk to justify US industry carrying the entire development burden     The committee encourages use of cooperative agreements and other transactions in lieu of grants or contracts     The provision would require that at least 50 percent of funding over the life of a partnership derive from non-federal sources but would allow for a smaller industry share at the start  The conference report stated that the partnerships should focus on programs that fit into the security needs within DARPA  The conference report also stated that OTs are appropriate for those cases where the "regulations applicable to the allocation of patent and data rights under the procurement statutes may not be appropriate to partnership arrangements in certain cases " National Defense Authorization Act for FY1993 ( P L  102-484 ) Cost Sharing Section 4221 established 10 U S C  2511, which required DOD to establish cooperative arrangements with industry, educational institutions, federal labs, and other entities, to pursue research, development, and application of dual-use technologies  The section authorized DOD to use grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, or OTs to create these partnerships, and that the Federal government should not contribute more than 50% of the costs related to projects under this authority  National Defense Authorization Act for FY1994 ( P L  103-160 ) Expanded Authority Section 827 established 10 U S C  2358, which gave the Secretary of Defense and the Secretaries of the military departments the authority to conduct basic, advanced, and applied research through the use of contracts, cooperative agreements, grants, and OTs  Previously, OTs were only authorized for advanced research  Prototype Authorities Section 845 granted DARPA the authority to use OTs for prototype projects directly related to weapons or weapon systems proposed to be acquired by DOD  Section 845 required that "to the maximum extent practicable," prototypes be competitively awarded  This authority was set to terminate after three years  Section 845 remained as a note to 10 U S C  2371 until separately codified as 10 U S C  2371b in the FY2016 NDAA ( P L  114-92 )  Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 ( P L  103-355 ) Section 1301 redesignated the language in 10 U S C  2358 (granting the authority to use OTs) to 10 U S C  2371  Reporting Requirements Section 1301 also required DOD to submit an annual report to the armed services committees, to include a general description of the other transactions, including the technologies involved in the research, the potential military and, if any, commercial utility of such technologies, the reasons for not using a contract or grant to provide support for such research, and the amount of payments, if any, received during the fiscal year pursuant to a clause in the other transactions and to what accounts such payments were credited  National Defense Authorization Act for FY1997 ( P L  104-201 ) Section 203 required that a senior DOD official be designated in OSD, and that the officials' sole responsibility be developing policy related to, and ensuring implementation of, DOD's dual-use technology program  This section authorized DOD to use OTs (as well as contracts, cooperative agreements, and grants) for dual-use projects only if the project "is entered into through the use of competitive procedures " Section 743 granted DOD the authority to use OTs to conduct research on Gulf War Syndrome, to determine its relationship to possible exposures of members of the Armed Forces to chemical warfare agents and hazardous materials, and the use of inoculations and new drugs  Expanded Prototype Authorities Section 804 amended Section 845 of the FY1994 NDAA by extending to the military departments and officials designated by the Secretary of Defense, the authority to use OTs for certain prototype projects  This authority, originally granted solely to DARPA and set to expire after three years, was given a new termination date of September 30, 1999  Reporting Requirements Section 267 modified elements of the annual report to the armed services committees  National Defense Authorization Act for FY1998 ( P L  105-85 ) Section 832 amended 10 U S C  2371 by clarifying that certain information submitted to DOD (i e  a proposal, business plan, technical information) be protected from disclosure pursuant to 5 U S C  552 for a period of five years  Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for FY1999 ( P L  105-261 ) Section 241 extended the sunset day for the authority to use OTs for prototypes from September 30, 1999, to September 30, 2001  Section 817 amended Section 2371 of Title 10, United States Code, clarifying that information submitted by outside parties in cooperative agreements for basic, applied, and advanced research is protected from disclosure under Section 552 of Title 5, United States Code  Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 1999 ( P L  105-262 ) While the enacted FY1999 defense appropriations bill ( P L  105-262 ) did not include legislative language addressing OTs, H Rept  105-591 , which accompanied the House-reported version of H R  4103 , included language expressing the House Appropriations Committee's "serious reservations" regarding the Air Force's then-proposed use of an OT agreement—instead of a contract— to develop the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) program  The committee noted that "under [OTs] traditional safeguards which protect the government's interest in large acquisition programs are largely absent," and required the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (now the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment) and the DOD Inspector General to certify to the congressional defense committees that the use of an OT was appropriate for the EELV program, and that "adequate safeguards exist[ed] to protect the government's interest and monitor program performance " National Defense Authorization Act for FY2000 ( P L  106-65 ) Section 801 required that for prototypes using OT authorities, DOD ensure that GAO, under its audit authority, have access to records relating to other transaction prototype agreements exceeding $5 million  Section 801 allowed for a waiver to GAO access and exempted entities that over the last year have not entered into an agreement with DOD that provided for audit access by a government entity  According to the Senate report: Senior DOD officials have sought legislation to extend other transaction authority to production contracts  Under current authority, there is some debate about whether GAO has audit access to other transactions  As the size, costs, and complexity of programs being funded using other transactions increases, the committee wants to ensure that the GAO has audit access in relation to the higher levels of spending and added risks  Reporting Requirements The Senate report also addressed reporting requirements and congressional intent to review the use of OTs  The report stated the following: The committee is assessing the utility of other transaction prototype authority  The statement of managers accompanying the Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act of 1999 directed the Secretary of Defense to report on the use of this authority to the congressional defense committees, no later than March 1, 1999  In addition, both the Department of Defense Inspector General and the General Accounting Office are reviewing the use of other transaction prototype authority and will report to Congress in the coming year  The committee is interested in the extent that new commercial firms are entering the DOD marketplace through the use of other transaction authority, as well as the degree of cost sharing between the government and non-federal government parties  The committee is also interested in any lessons learned from the broad exemptions to federal law provided by other transaction authority  For example, other transactions are exempt from the Competition in Contracting Act, Truth in Negotiations Act, Contract Disputes Act, Antikickback Act of 1986, Procurement Integrity Act, Service Contract Act, Buy American Act, and chapter 137 of title 10, United States Code  Questions have been raised about whether the government's interest is adequately protected in the absence of the applicability of these statutes  Conversely, advocates of the view that the government should take advantage of the flexibility of other transactions have championed proposals to extend other transaction authority to production  The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a new report that updates information in the March 1999 report on the use of other transaction prototype authority to the congressional defense committees by February 1, 2000  National Defense Authorization Act for FY2001 ( P L  106-398 ) Limitations on the Use of OTs Section 803 limited the use of OTs for prototype projects to only those circumstances when at least one nontraditional defense contractor significantly participates in the project, one-third of the total cost of the project is paid out of funds provided by parties to the transaction other than the federal government, or the senior procurement executive determines in writing that exceptional circumstances justify use of an OT  Nontraditional defense contractor was defined as an entity that for a period of one year has not entered into or performed "any contract that is subject to full coverage under the cost accounting standards" or "any other contract in excess of $500,000 to carry out prototype projects or to perform basic, applied, or advanced research projects for a Federal agency, that is subject to the Federal Acquisition Regulation '' Section 803 also extended the authority to use OTs for prototypes from September 30, 2001, to September 30, 2004  According to the Senate report, the intent of using OTs for prototypes is to attract companies that typically do not do business with the Department of Defense and encourage cost sharing and experimentation in potentially more efficient ways of doing business with traditional defense contractors  Other transaction authority is an important acquisition tool that can facilitate the incorporation of commercial technology into military weapon systems  In an environment where, in many areas, commercial technology is now more advanced than defense technology, it is imperative that the Department continue to have the flexibility to use innovative contractual instruments that provide access to this technology  There are, however, improvements that can be made in managing and overseeing these contractual arrangements  Section 804 clarified the extent of GAO's access to records in instances where the party in question has only done business with the government in the preceding year through an OT or cooperative agreement  National Defense Authorization Act for FY2002 ( P L  107-107 ) Expanded Authority—Follow-on Production Section 822 of the FY2002 NDAA granted DOD the authority to award a follow-on production contract for prototype projects when at least one-third of the total cost of the prototype project is to be paid out of funds provided by non-federal government sources  Under this authority, such a follow-on contract could be awarded without competition if the prototype project was successfully completed, the number of units in the production contract does not exceed the number of units specified in the underlying prototype agreement, and the price for each unit does not exceed the price specified in the underlying transaction  Department of Defense and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Recovery from and Response to Terrorist Attacks on the United States Act, 2002 ( P L  107-117 ) Establishment of Army Venture Capital Initiative (AVCI) Section 8150 designated $25 million of the FY2002 funds made available for Army Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E) to be made available to the Secretary of the Army for the purpose of funding a venture capital investment corporation established pursuant to 10 U S C  2371  A 2014 RAND report stated that OT authorities were used only to form the AVCI, and were not used to acquire products or services: "While OT authorities were used to form [AVCI] itself, any volume of the Army's purchase of products and services from [AVCI] companies is conducted under the FAR " National Defense Authorization Act for FY2004 ( P L  108-136 ) Expanded Authority Section 847 of the FY2004 NDAA extended the authority to use an OT for developing prototypes to improve weapons or weapon systems currently in use by the Armed Forces  Previously, such authority was restricted to prototypes "directly relevant to weapons or weapon systems proposed to be acquired or developed" by DOD  Section 847 also established a pilot program for transitioning prototypes to follow-on contracts for production for nontraditional defense contractors  Under the pilot program, such a follow-on contract could be treated as a commercial item or an item developed with both federal and private sector funds (for purposes of negotiating intellectual property rights)  The pilot program was restricted to contracts with nontraditional defense contractors, where the value of the contract does not exceed $50 million (approximately $70 million in FY2018 dollars), and that are firm-fixed price or fixed price with economic adjustment  The pilot program was set to sunset September 30, 2008  Section 1441 authorized any agency that engages in basic, applied, or advanced research and development projects that facilitated defense against or recovery from terrorism or nuclear, biological, chemical, or radiological attack to exercise the same general authority given to DOD as found in 10 U S C  2371 (including for prototype projects)  Reporting Requirements Section 1031 sunset the annual reporting requirement for OT after the report covering FY2006 was submitted  National Defense Authorization Act for FY2006 ( P L  109-163 ) Restricted Authority and Notification Requirements Section 212 of the FY2006 NDAA directed the Army to procure the Future Combat System using contract procedures set forth in part 15 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation, in lieu of an OT  Section 823 extended ethics requirements to OT prototype authority and required the congressional defense committees be notified in writing at least 30 days before such authority is exercised  Certification Requirements Section 823 also amended Section 845 of the FY1994 NDAA, requiring a written determination by a senior procurement executive for other transaction prototype projects estimated between $20 million and $100 million, and for a written determination by the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics for prototype projects that exceed $100 million  According to the Senate report: Section 845 was intended to be used for limited prototype projects, particularly those in which the Department seeks to engage nontraditional defense contractors that may be averse to the requirements imposed by a standard Department procurement contract  For this reason, the statement of managers accompanying the Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (Public Law 105–261) states: The conferees continue to believe that the section 845 authority should only be used in the exceptional cases where it can be clearly demonstrated that a normal contract or grant will not allow sufficient access to affordable technologies  The conferees are especially concerned that such authority not be used to circumvent the appropriate management controls in the standard acquisition and budgeting process  …  The committee does not believe that the $20 9 billion agreement entered between the Army and the Lead Systems Integrator for the FCS program is consistent with the language and intent of section 845 authority  Section 845 authority is intended to be used for limited prototype projects, particularly those in which the Department of Defense seeks to engage nontraditional defense contractors that may be averse to the requirements imposed by a standard Department contract  Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2007 ( H R  5631 ) Reporting Requirement The FY2007 defense appropriations bill ( P L  109-289 ) did not include language addressing OTs  The conference report ( H Rept  109-676 ) included language expressing the conferees' "[concern] with the continued use of OTA contracts by the Missile Defense Agency," as such contracts "lack the customary safeguards found under FAR-based contracts for organizational conflict of interest, truth in negotiations and submission of cost and pricing data " The conferees "strongly encourage[d]" the Missile Defense Agency to convert "large development and procurement contracts using OTA to FAR-based contracts," and directed the Missile Defense Agency to submit a report to the congressional defense committees on the use of OTs, to include the number, value, and justification for the use of such agreements  National Defense Authorization Act for FY2008 ( P L  110-181 ) Section 823 extended the authority for prototype projects for five more years, from September 30, 2008, to September 30, 2013  National Defense Authorization Act for FY2009 ( P L  110-417 ) Section 822 required DOD to issue guidance on rights in technical data under non-FAR agreements, including OTs  Section 822 also required that appropriate provisions relating to rights in technical data be included in non-FAR agreements, consistent with policy guidance  This requirements is in statute at 10 U S C  2320 note  Section 824 expanded the scope of the pilot program for transition to follow-on contracts for certain prototype projects to include research projects carried out under 10 U S C  2371  Authority to use the pilot program, set to expire September 30, 2008, was extended to September 30, 2010  Section 874 required OT data be included in the Federal Procurement Data System  National Defense Authorization Act for FY2011 ( P L  111-383 ) Section 866 changed the definition of nontraditional defense contractor, conforming the definition to that found in 10 U S C  2302(9)  National Defense Authorization Act for FY2013 ( P L  112-239 ) Section 863 extended the authority for using OTs for prototype projects from September 30, 2013, to September 30, 2018  Carl Levin and Howard P  "Buck" McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for FY2015 ( P L  113-291 ) Expanded Authority Section 812 expanded the authority to use OT for prototypes, to include those "directly related to enhancing the mission effectiveness of military personnel and the supporting platforms, systems, components, or materials proposed to be acquired or developed by the Department of Defense, or to improvement of platforms, systems, components, or materials in use by the Armed Forces " Prior to the FY2015 NDAA, OTs could only be used for prototypes relating to weapons or weapon systems proposed to be developed, or for the improvement of weapons or weapon systems currently in use  Reporting Requirements Section 1071 repealed the reporting requirement language found in 10 U S C  2371, relating to OTs for research projects  National Defense Authorization Act for FY2016 ( P L  114-92 ) Until the FY2016 NDAA, the prototyping and follow-on production authority established in Section 845 of the FY1994 NDAA (as amended) was found in 10 U S C  2371 note  Section 815 of the FY2016 NDAA simultaneously repealed Section 845 of the FY1994 NDAA and put the repealed language into the newly created 10 U S C  2371b  The FY2016 NDAA also modified 2371b by making the authority permanent  Expanded Authority and Small Business The authorities in Section 2371b were expanded to allow their use when "all significant participants in the transaction other than the Federal government are small businesses or nontraditional contractors" and when the agency determines that using an OT would expand the defense supply base in a manner that could not be accomplished through a contract  Section 815 eased the restriction on follow-on production contracts or transactions  Section 815 amended the definition of a nontraditional defense contractor found in 10 U S C  2302 to be an entity that is not currently performing, and for one year prior to an OT has not performed on any contract or subcontract that is subject to full coverage under the cost accounting standards pursuant to Section 1502 of Title 41, U S C  Section 815 also required DOD to update its guidance to reflect changes in the statute  The conference report stated that Congress believed OTs are an attractive option for firms and organizations that do not usually participate in government contracting due to typical overhead burdens and the "one size fits all" rules governing defense acquisition  The report also stated that OTs could support DOD's effort to access new sources of technological innovation, specifically with Silicon Valley startup firms and small commercial firms  National Defense Authorization Act for FY2018 ( P L  115-91 ) Expanded Authority Section 216 of the FY2018 NDAA authorized nonprofit research institutions to enter into OTs with DOD for prototype projects  Section 862 amended 10 U S C  2358, granting the Secretary of Defense and the military departments the authority to pursue basic research, applied research, advanced research, and development projects under the OT authorities granted in Sections 2371 and 2371b of Title 10  Workforce Section 802 required DOD to establish a cadre of intellectual property experts to advise, assist, and provide resources to program offices who are developing intellectual property strategies for contracts and agreements  Section 863 required training and education for personnel involved in OTs and other innovative contracting methods  Certification Requirements and Small Business Section 864 adjusted the language of the statute to state that the dollar threshold relates to the specific transaction for a prototype project and not for the value of the entire project  Section 864 defined a transaction for follow-on production to include "all individual prototype sub-projects awarded under the transaction to a consortium of United States industry and academic institutions " Section 864 also increased the dollar thresholds for required approvals and defined the term small business to include small businesses under Section 9 of the Small Business Act to ensure that companies participating in the Small Business Innovation Research and Small Business Technology Transfer programs were considered small businesses for the purposes of the cost-sharing requirements  Miscellaneous Section 867 required the Secretary of Defense to establish a preference for OTs in the "execution of science and technology and prototyping programs " Section 1711 required DOD to carry out a pilot program to "assess the feasibility and advisability of increasing the manufacturing capability of the defense industrial base " Pursuant to the pilot, Section 1711 authorized DOD to use OTs to support production capabilities in small and medium-sized manufacturers  John S  McCain National Defense Authorization Act for FY2019 ( P L  115-232 ) Section 211 of the FY2019 NDAA clarified that follow-on production of a prototype or subproject within a consortium may occur if the individual prototype or subproject is complete; all projects associated with the consortium do not need to be completed before follow-on production of a specific prototype  Expanded Authority The FY2019 NDAA authorized the use of OTs to develop enhanced personal protective equipment (Section 226) and to carry out research under the Explosive Ordnance Disposal Defense Program (Section 311)  Reporting Requirements Section 244 required the Defense Innovation Unit to submit a report to Congress, to include the number of traditional and nontraditional defense contractors with DOD contracts or other transactions resulting directly from the unit's initiatives  Section 873 required DOD to submit an annual report through 2021, summarizing DOD's use of OTs, including organizations involved; number of transactions; amounts of payments; and purpose, description, and status of projects  Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2019 ( P L  115-245 ) Reporting Requirements While the enacted FY2019 defense appropriations bill did not include legislative language addressing OTs, the conference report included language expressing the conferees' "[concern] with the lack of transparency surrounding the employment of OTA, particularly for follow-on production " The conferees directed DOD to provide quarterly reports to the House and Senate appropriations committees listing each active OT, and to include the following information on each agreement: funding military service or DOD component; major command (if applicable); contracting activity; appropriation title; budget line item; minimum and maximum award value; vendor; obligations and expenditures to date; product service code; period of performance; and indication if the OT agreement included an option for follow-on production (with a description of the scope of anticipated follow-on production)  The conferees also directed GAO to review DOD's use of OTs to determine whether the "employment of this authority conforms to applicable statutes and guidelines, to include the identification of any potential conflicts " GAO was also required to report on the extent to which OTs have been used since FY2016  Notification Requirements The House report to accompany H R  6157 acknowledged OTs as an "important tool to provide flexibility and agility for cutting-edge research and development projects and prototypes " However, the report stated its concern "with the lack of transparency on the use of OTA authority for follow-on production procurements," and directed that no funds could be obligated or expended for a follow-on production contract or a transaction carried out under 10 U S C  2371b, until 30 days after the Secretary of Defense provides the congressional defense committees with a notification of the proposed contract or transaction, to include a justification of why an OT is being used for production  Appendix B  Non-DOD Federal Agencies with Agency-Wide OT or Related Authorities A number of agencies have varying other transaction or similar authorities, as reflected in Table B-1   The table below is not a comprehensive or definitive listing of every federal government entity with OT or related authorities  In some instances, offices, agencies, commissions, and other federal government entities have OT or related authorities that are only associated with certain programs or projects, such as the National Institutes of Health (which has OT authority for such specific activities such as the National Heart, Blood Vessel, Lung, and Blood Diseases and Blood Resources Program [42 U S C  §285b-3] and the Cures Acceleration Network [42 U S C  §287a])  Appendix C  Reliability of Data on Other Transactions All data have imperfections and limitations  FPDS-NG data can be used to identify broad trends and produce rough estimates, or to gather information about specific contracts  Some observers say that despite their shortcomings, FPDS-NG data are substantially more comprehensive than what is available in most other countries in the world  Understanding the limitations of government procurement data—including knowing when, how, and to what extent to rely on data—can help policymakers incorporate FPDS-NG data more effectively into their decisionmaking process  FPDS-NG OT Data Quality and Accuracy Issues Decisionmakers should be cautious when using data from FPDS-NG to develop policy or otherwise draw conclusions, especially with respect to OTs  In some cases, the data themselves may not be reliable  In other instances, a query for particular data may return differing results, depending on the parameters and timing of the analysis  In particular, all DOD data entered into FPDS-NG are subject to a 90-day delay, and updates to "data, including new actions, modifications, and corrections are made on a regular basis," which could result in changes to "data     for current and/or prior fiscal years " Inconsistencies in FPDS-NG Data Within FPDS-NG, two primary collections of obligation data exist: one associated with standard government procurement contracts or modifications to such contracts, and the other associated with prototype OT agreements or modifications to such agreements  FPDS-NG's collection of prototype OT data allows for the input of additional data elements—such as nongovernment dollars associated with cost-share prototype OT agreements—not included in FPDS-NG's collection of standard government procurement contract data  More consequentially, FPDS-NG's prototype OT data include two similar data elements that allow users to identify the fiscal year a prototype OT agreement was signed or modified  One, labeled in the database as "Fiscal Year," appears to allow users entering data into the system to manually assign a fiscal year to a transaction  FPDS-NG users entering data into the system appear to have interpreted this data element in various, conflicting ways  For example, a Department of the Air Force OT agreement was signed in February 2016 for the development of rocket propulsion system prototypes under the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) program  FPDS-NG records an obligation of $115 million in FY2020 for this agreement  Fiscal law bars DOD from obligating money now for future fiscal years that have not yet occurred  The second, labeled "Contract Fiscal Year," appears to be based on the date the prototype OT agreement was signed or modified  See Table C-1 for a comparison of the "Fiscal Year" and "Contract Fiscal Year" elements for selected new prototype OT agreements signed between FY2013 and FY2017  If a user selects the Fiscal Year data element when attempting to review high-level data on recent trends in the use of prototype OT agreements within DOD—such as the total amount obligated for prototype OT agreements on an annual basis—that user will obtain a substantially different result than if he or she selects the Contract Fiscal Year data element for a similar analysis  See Table C-2 for a comparison of action obligations and nongovernment contributions using the Fiscal Year and Contract Fiscal Year data elements for new prototype OT agreements signed between FY2013 and FY2017  DOD OT Data Analysis Methodological Issues in Congressional Reports A March 2017 report to Congress entitled "An Assessment of Cost-Sharing in Other Transaction Agreements for Prototype Projects," completed by the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics indicated that In FY2016, DOD obligated (Note: Two outliers in 2016 excluded) $1 billion in section 2371b awards and received $68 million in cost-share contributions after excluding two significant trend outliers  DOD cited FPDS-NG as the source for its analysis, and defined the "significant trend outliers" excluded as "two $40 million OTAs with total cost-share of $270 million," likely referring to two DARPA prototype OT agreements conducted on a cost-share basis initiated in FY2016  However, a CRS analysis of the same FPDS-NG data identified numerous inconsistencies in DOD's methodological approach  Recreation of DOD Methodology Specifically, DOD appears to have conducted its analysis using the "Fiscal Year" data element referenced in this report's discussion of FPDS-NG OT data quality and accuracy issues, which would attribute some prototype OT activities to the wrong fiscal year for the purposes of comparative trend analysis  DOD also compared two disparate transaction types: the reported "$1 billion in Section 2371b awards" includes all action obligations associated with ongoing prototype OT activities in FY2016, including transactions associated with prototype OT indefinite delivery contracts, while the "$68 million in cost-share contributions" includes only cost-share contributions associated with new prototype OT agreements  If DOD used the "Contract Fiscal Year" data element, excluded the identified "trend outliers," and focused on all action obligations and cost-share contributions associated with ongoing prototype OT activities, it would have found instead that the department obligated $1 4 billion for prototype OT agreements in FY2016, with an additional $313 5 million in cost-share contributions from the private sector  On the other hand, if DOD used the "Contract Fiscal Year" data element, excluded the identified "trend outliers," and focused on only action obligations and cost-share contributions associated with new prototype OT agreements, it would have found instead that the department obligated $400 million for prototype OT agreements in FY2016, with an additional $272 1 million in cost-share contributions from the private sector  Appendix D  Other Transaction Authority Statutes 10 U S C  §2371  Research projects: transactions other than contracts and grants (a) ADDITIONAL FORMS OF TRANSACTIONS AUTHORIZED — The Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of each military department may enter into transactions (other than contracts, cooperative agreements, and grants) under the authority of this subsection in carrying out basic, applied, and advanced research projects  The authority under this subsection is in addition to the authority provided in Section 2358 of this title to use contracts, cooperative agreements, and grants in carrying out such projects  (b) EXERCISE OF AUTHORITY BY SECRETARY OF DEFENSE — In any exercise of the authority in subsection (a), the Secretary of Defense shall act through the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency or any other element of the Department of Defense that the Secretary may designate  (c) ADVANCE PAYMENTS — The authority provided under subsection (a) may be exercised without regard to Section 3324 of Title 31  (d) RECOVERY OF FUNDS — (1) A cooperative agreement for performance of basic, applied, or advanced research authorized by Section 2358 of this title and a transaction authorized by subsection (a) may include a clause that requires a person or other entity to make payments to the Department of Defense or any other department or agency of the Federal Government as a condition for receiving support under the agreement or other transaction  (2) The amount of any payment received by the Federal Government pursuant to a requirement imposed under paragraph (1) may be credited, to the extent authorized by the Secretary of Defense, to the appropriate account established under subsection (f)  Amounts so credited shall be merged with other funds in the account and shall be available for the same purposes and the same period for which other funds in such account are available  (e) CONDITIONS — (1) The Secretary of Defense shall ensure that- (A) to the maximum extent practicable, no cooperative agreement containing a clause under subsection (d) and no transaction entered into under subsection (a) provides for research that duplicates research being conducted under existing programs carried out by the Department of Defense; and (B) to the extent that the Secretary determines practicable, the funds provided by the Government under a cooperative agreement containing a clause under subsection (d) or a transaction authorized by subsection (a) do not exceed the total amount provided by other parties to the cooperative agreement or other transaction  (2) A cooperative agreement containing a clause under subsection (d) or a transaction authorized by subsection (a) may be used for a research project when the use of a standard contract, grant, or cooperative agreement for such project is not feasible or appropriate  (f) SUPPORT ACCOUNTS — There is hereby established on the books of the Treasury separate accounts for each of the military departments and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency for support of research projects and development projects provided for in cooperative agreements containing a clause under subsection (d) and research projects provided for in transactions entered into under subsection (a)  Funds in those accounts shall be available for the payment of such support  (g) EDUCATION AND TRAINING —The Secretary of Defense shall— (1) ensure that management, technical, and contracting personnel of the Department of Defense involved in the award or administration of transactions under this section or other innovative forms of contracting are afforded opportunities for adequate education and training; and (2) establish minimum levels and requirements for continuous and experiential learning for such personnel, including levels and requirements for acquisition certification programs  (h) REGULATIONS — The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe regulations to carry out this section  (i) Protection of Certain Information From Disclosure -(1) Disclosure of information described in paragraph (2) is not required, and may not be compelled, under Section 552 of Title 5 for five years after the date on which the information is received by the Department of Defense  (2)(A) Paragraph (1) applies to information described in subparagraph (B) that is in the records of the Department of Defense if the information was submitted to the Department in a competitive or noncompetitive process having the potential for resulting in an award, to the party submitting the information, of a cooperative agreement for performance of basic, applied, or advanced research authorized by Section 2358 of this title or another transaction authorized by subsection (a)  (B) The information referred to in subparagraph (A) is the following: (i) A proposal, proposal abstract, and supporting documents  (ii) A business plan submitted on a confidential basis  (iii) Technical information submitted on a confidential basis  10 U S C  §2371b  Authority of the Department of Defense to carry out certain prototype projects (a) AUTHORITY — (1) Subject to paragraph (2), the Director of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, the Secretary of a military department, or any other official designated by the Secretary of Defense may, under the authority of Section 2371 of this title, carry out prototype projects that are directly relevant to enhancing the mission effectiveness of military personnel and the supporting platforms, systems, components, or materials proposed to be acquired or developed by the Department of Defense, or to improvement of platforms, systems, components, or materials in use by the armed forces  (2) The authority of this section- (A) may be exercised for a transaction (for a prototype project) that is expected to cost the Department of Defense in excess of $100,000,000 but not in excess of $500,000,000 (including all options) only upon a written determination by the senior procurement executive for the agency as designated for the purpose of Section 1702(c) of Title 41, or, for the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency or the Missile Defense Agency, the director of the agency that- (i) the requirements of subsection (d) will be met; an d (ii) the use of the authority of this section is essential to promoting the success of the prototype project; and (B) may be exercised for a transaction (for a prototype project) that is expected to cost the Department of Defense in excess of $500,000,000 (including all options) only if- (i) the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics determines in writing that- (I) the requirements of subsection (d) will be met; an d (II) the use of the authority of this section is essential to meet critical national security objectives; and (ii) the congressional defense committees are notified in writing at least 30 days before such authority is exercised  (3) The authority of a senior procurement executive or director of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency or Missile Defense Agency under paragraph (2)(A), and the authority of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics under paragraph (2)(B), may not be delegated  (b) EXERCISE OF AUTHORITY — (1) Subsections (e)(1)(B) and (e)(2) of such Section 2371 shall not apply to projects carried out under subsection (a)  (2) To the maximum extent practicable, competitive procedures shall be used when entering into agreements to carry out projects under subsection (a)  (c) COMPTROLLER GENERAL ACCESS TO INFORMATION — (1) Each agreement entered into by an official referred to in subsection (a) to carry out a project under that subsection that provides for payments in a total amount in excess of $5,000,000 shall include a clause that provides for the Comptroller General, in the discretion of the Comptroller General, to examine the records of any party to the agreement or any entity that participates in the performance of the agreement  (2) The requirement in paragraph (1) shall not apply with respect to a party or entity, or a subordinate element of a party or entity, that has not entered into any other agreement that provides for audit access by a Government entity in the year prior to the date of the agreement  (3) (A) The right provided to the Comptroller General in a clause of an agreement under paragraph (1) is limited as provided in subparagraph (B) in the case of a party to the agreement, an entity that participates in the performance of the agreement, or a subordinate element of that party or entity if the only agreements or other transactions that the party, entity, or subordinate element entered into with Government entities in the year prior to the date of that agreement are cooperative agreements or transactions that were entered into under this section or Section 2371 of this title  (B) The only records of a party, other entity, or subordinate element referred to in subparagraph (A) that the Comptroller General may examine in the exercise of the right referred to in that subparagraph are records of the same type as the records that the Government has had the right to examine under the audit access clauses of the previous agreements or transactions referred to in such subparagraph that were entered into by that particular party, entity, or subordinate element  (4) The head of the contracting activity that is carrying out the agreement may waive the applicability of the requirement in paragraph (1) to the agreement if the head of the contracting activity determines that it would not be in the public interest to apply the requirement to the agreement  The waiver shall be effective with respect to the agreement only if the head of the contracting activity transmits a notification of the waiver to Congress and the Comptroller General before entering into the agreement  The notification shall include the rationale for the determination  (5) The Comptroller General may not examine records pursuant to a clause included in an agreement under paragraph (1) more than three years after the final payment is made by the United States under the agreement  (d) APPROPRIATE USE OF AUTHORITY — (1) The Secretary of Defense shall ensure that no official of an agency enters into a transaction (other than a contract, grant, or cooperative agreement) for a prototype project under the authority of this section unless one of the following conditions is met: (A) There is at least one nontraditional defense contractor or nonprofit research institution participating to a significant extent in the prototype project  (B) All significant participants in the transaction other than the Federal Government are small businesses (including small businesses participating in a program described under Section 9 of the Small Business Act (15 U S C  638)) or nontraditional defense contractors  (C) At least one third of the total cost of the prototype project is to be paid out of funds provided by sources other than other than the Federal Government  (D) The senior procurement executive for the agency determines in writing that exceptional circumstances justify the use of a transaction that provides for innovative business arrangements or structures that would not be feasible or appropriate under a contract, or would provide an opportunity to expand the defense supply base in a manner that would not be practical or feasible under a contract  (2) (A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), the amounts counted for the purposes of this subsection as being provided, or to be provided, by a party to a transaction with respect to a prototype project that is entered into under this section other than the Federal Government do not include costs that were incurred before the date on which the transaction becomes effective  (B) Costs that were incurred for a prototype project by a party after the beginning of negotiations resulting in a transaction (other than a contract, grant, or cooperative agreement) with respect to the project before the date on which the transaction becomes effective may be counted for purposes of this subsection as being provided, or to be provided, by the party to the transaction if and to the extent that the official responsible for entering into the transaction determines in writing that- (i) the party incurred the costs in anticipation of entering into the transaction; and (ii) it was appropriate for the party to incur the costs before the transaction became effective in order to ensure the successful implementation of the transaction  (e) Definitions —In this section: (1) The term "nontraditional defense contractor" has the meaning given the term under Section 2302(9) of this title  (2) The term "small business" means a small business concern as defined under Section 3 of the Small Business Act (15 U S C  632)  (f) FOLLOW-ON PRODUCTION CONTRACTS OR TRANSACTIONS — (1) A transaction entered into under this section for a prototype project may provide for the award of a follow-on production contract or transaction to the participants in the transaction  A transaction includes all individual prototype subprojects awarded under the transaction to a consortium of United States industry and academic institutions  (2) A follow-on production contract or transaction provided for in a transaction under paragraph (1) may be awarded to the participants in the transaction without the use of competitive procedures, notwithstanding the requirements of Section 2304 of this title, if - (A) competitive procedures were used for the selection of parties for participation in the transaction; and (B) the participants in the transaction successfully completed the prototype project provided for in the transaction  (3) Contracts and transactions entered into pursuant to this subsection may be awarded using the authority in subsection (a), under the authority of Chapter 137 of this title, or under such procedures, terms, and conditions as the Secretary of Defense may establish by regulation  (g) AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE PROTOTYPES AND FOLLOW-ON PRODUCTION ITEMS AS GOVERNMENT-FURNISHED EQUIPMENT — An agreement entered into pursuant to the authority of subsection (a) or a follow-on contract or transaction entered into pursuant to the authority of subsection (f) may provide for prototypes or follow-on production items to be provided to another contractor as Government-furnished equipment  (h) APPLICABILITY OF PROCUREMENT ETHICS REQUIREMENTS — An agreement entered into under the authority of this section shall be treated as a Federal agency procurement for the purposes of Chapter 21 of Title 41  10 U S C  §2373  Procurement for experimental purposes (a) AUTHORITY — The Secretary of Defense and the Secretaries of the military departments may each buy ordnance, signal, chemical activity, transportation, energy, medical, space-flight, and aeronautical supplies, including parts and accessories, and designs thereof, that the Secretary of Defense or the Secretary concerned considers necessary for experimental or test purposes in the development of the best supplies that are needed for the national defense  (b) PROCEDURES — Purchases under this section may be made inside or outside the United States and by contract or otherwise  Chapter 137 of this title applies only when such purchases are made in quantities greater than necessary for experimentation, technical evaluation, assessment of operational utility, or safety or to provide a residual operational capability 


Report 2: Grade-crossing safety has improved significantly since 1975, but since 2009, the number of crashes and fatalities at grade crossings has plateaued (see fig  1)  The yearly number of grade-crossing crashes declined from 12,126 in 1975 to 2,117 in 2017  In that time frame, fatalities dropped from 917 to 273  The most significant reductions in grade-crossing crashes and fatalities were achieved from 1975 to 1985, when states closed or improved the most dangerous crossings  Grade- crossing safety continued to improve until the mid-2000s, though at a slower rate  Since 2009, the number of grade-crossing crashes and fatalities remains at around 2,100 crashes and 250 fatalities a year  These fatalities typically make up less than one percent of all highway- related fatalities  The decrease in crashes and fatalities occurred as the volume of train and highway traffic generally increased over the years  FRA expects the traffic volumes to continue to increase and has expressed concern that grade-crossing crashes and fatalities may also increase  As a set-aside portion of FHWA’s much larger Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP), the Section 130 Program provides funds to state DOTs for the elimination of hazards at highway-rail grade crossings  States determine what improvements need to be made at grade crossings  FHWA has oversight responsibilities regarding the use of federal funds as part of its administration of federal-aid highway programs and funding, including HSIP funds  FHWA uses a statutory formula to distribute to states Section 130 Program funds, which averaged $235 million per year during the last 10 years (fiscal years 2009 through 2018)  Section 130 Program projects are funded at a 90 percent federal share, with the state or the roadway authority funding the remaining 10 percent  States have 4 years to obligate their program funds before they expire, meaning that in any given fiscal year, states can obligate funds appropriated in that year as well as any unobligated funds from the previous 3 fiscal years  In addition, states may choose to combine funds from multiple years to fund relatively expensive projects  The Section 130 Program’s requirements direct states to establish an implementation schedule for grade-crossing-safety improvement projects that, at a minimum, include warning signs for all public grade crossings  Grade crossings are generally categorized as “active” or “passive” depending on the type of traffic control devices that are present  As of July 2018, according to FRA’s National Highway-Rail Crossing Inventory, there were approximately 68,000 public grade crossings with electronic, or active, traffic control devices in the United States  Another approximately 58,000 public grade crossings have passive traffic-control devices, which include signs and supplementary pavement markings  The requirements also specify that at least 50 percent of Section 130 Program funding must be dedicated to the installation of protective devices at grade crossings, including traffic control devices  States can use remaining program funds for any hazard elimination project  States may also use program funds to improve warning signs and pavement markings or to improve the way the roadway aligns with the tracks (e g , to ensure low-clearance vehicles do not get stuck on the tracks)  In addition, states can use up to 2 percent of the funds to improve their grade-crossing inventories and to collect and analyze data  See figure 2 for examples of the types of projects eligible for Section 130 Program funds and graphical depictions of grade crossings before and after safety improvements have been made  FHWA and FRA are the primary agencies responsible for safety at grade crossings, and they both play key—yet distinct—roles  FHWA oversees the Section 130 Program and monitors states’ uses of program funds through 52 division offices located in each state, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico and through headquarters staff in Washington, D C  In addition, FHWA’s division staff reviews states’ processes for prioritizing and selecting grade-crossing-safety improvement projects  FHWA does not evaluate the appropriateness of individual grade-crossing projects, but instead helps states determine that projects meet program eligibility requirements  Division staff assists in the implementation of Section 130 Program state-administered projects, and they may participate in state- DOT-led, on-site reviews of grade crossings under consideration for Section 130 Program projects  FHWA headquarters staff is responsible for FHWA-wide initiatives, such as working with stakeholders to establish standards for traffic control devices and systems at grade crossings and for engineering oversight of state-administered safety improvement projects  FRA provides safety oversight of both freight and passenger railroads by: collecting and analyzing data; issuing and enforcing numerous safety regulations, including on grade-crossings’ warning systems; conducting focused inspections, audits, and accident providing technical assistance to railroads and other stakeholders  Specifically, FRA oversees rail safety through eight regional offices and through headquarters staff in Washington, D C  Regional staff monitor railroads’ compliance with federal safety regulations through inspections and provide technical assistance and guidance to states  In 2017, FRA created a new discipline for grade-crossing safety and is hiring new grade-crossing inspectors  These inspectors conduct field investigations, identify regulatory defects and violations, recommend civil penalty assessments when appropriate, and may participate in state- DOT-led teams that conduct on-site reviews of grade crossings to evaluate potential safety improvements  According to FRA documentation, FRA’s new inspectors will also work with a variety of stakeholders to institute new types of training, explore new safety concepts and technologies, and assist in the development of new or modified highway-rail grade-crossing-safety regulations, initiatives, and programs  The inspectors will also work with FHWA and other DOT operating administrations in a cooperative effort to improve grade- crossing safety  FRA regional staff also investigates select railroad crashes, including those at grade crossings, to determine root causation and any contributing factors, so that railroads can implement corrective actions  FRA headquarters staff develops analytical tools for states to use to prioritize grade-crossing projects  In addition, headquarters staff manages research and development to support improved railroad safety, including at grade crossings  FRA’s Office of Railroad Safety maintains the National Highway-Rail Crossing Inventory database and the Railroad Accident/Incident Reporting System on grade-crossing crashes  Both states and railroads submit information to FRA’s crossing inventory, which is designed to contain information on every grade crossing in the nation  Railroads submit information such as train speed and volume; states submit information such as highway speed limits and average annual daily traffic  The Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 added requirements for both railroads and states to periodically update the inventory; however, the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) repealed a provision providing DOT authority to issue implementing regulations that would govern states’ reporting to the inventory  According to FRA officials, while FRA’s regulations do not require states to report the information, FRA encourages them to do so  FRA regulations require railroads to report and update their information in the inventory every 3 years or sooner in some instances, such as if new warning devices are installed or the grade crossing is closed  FRA’s accident system contains details about each grade-crossing accident that has occurred  In addition to submitting immediate reports of fatal grade-crossing crashes, railroads are required to submit accident reports within 30 days after the end of the month in which the accident occurred and describe conditions at the time of the accident (e g , visibility and weather); information on the grade crossing (e g , type of warning device); and information on the driver (e g , gender and age)  In its role overseeing grade-crossing safety, FRA has sponsored a number of research efforts to better understand the causes of grade- crossing crashes and identify potential ways to improve engineering, education, and enforcement efforts  For example, FRA sponsored an in- depth data analysis of grade-crossing crashes to better identify which crossing characteristics increase the risk of an accident  The report, issued in 2017, found that the volumes of train and vehicle traffic at a crossing are the biggest predictors of grade-crossing crashes  Changes in vehicle and train traffic therefore affect the annual number of grade- crossing crashes  For example, as highway traffic decreased in 2008, possibly due to the economic recession and higher gas prices, so too did the number of grade-crossing crashes  As previously noted, FRA expects that the number of grade-crossing crashes will likely grow with anticipated increases in future train and highway traffic  As discussed below, vehicle and train volume are included in the U S  DOT Accident Prediction Model, which some states use to select grade-crossing improvement projects  According to FRA officials, FRA is using the results of this recent in-depth data analysis to, in part, evaluate whether additional risk factors, such as the number of male drivers or trains carrying toxic materials, should be added to the model  FRA has targeted other research into understanding driver behavior at grade crossings, which is the leading cause of crashes  According to FRA’s accident data, in 2017, 71 percent of fatal crashes at public grade crossings occurred at those with gates  In 2004, the DOT Inspector General (IG) reported that 94 percent of grade-crossing crashes from 1994 to 2003 could be attributed to risky driver behavior or poor judgement  State officials we spoke with explained that drivers may become impatient waiting at a grade crossing and decide to go around the gates  Drivers may also line up over the grade crossing in heavy vehicular traffic, and be unable to exit before the gates come down  See figure 3 for examples of risky driver behavior at grade crossings  To better understand driver behavior, FRA sponsored a John A  Volpe National Transportation Systems Center (Volpe Center) study that recorded and analyzed drivers’ actions as they approached grade crossings  The researchers found that almost half of drivers were doing another task, such as eating, and over a third did not look in either direction while approaching passive grade crossings  We have previously reported, and many stakeholders we interviewed agreed, that in light of inappropriate driver behavior, technological solutions alone may not fully resolve safety issues at grade crossings  In addition, public-education and law-enforcement efforts can augment the effectiveness of technological solutions  According to FRA officials, they shared information on driver education with DOT’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) as NHTSA works more closely with states on driver education manuals  According to DOT officials, NHTSA updates its driver education materials every 2–3 years and plans to consider including grade-crossing-safety materials in the next versions  FRA is also working with states and localities to research and develop new protective devices and other safety measures targeted at improving driver behavior at grade crossings  As most fatal crashes happen at grade crossings already equipped with gates, FRA and state and local agencies are exploring whether additional safety measures can improve safety at those locations  For example, in 2016 and 2017, FRA’s Grade Crossing Task Force worked with the Volpe Center and the City of Orlando to test whether photo enforcement at grade crossings could reduce risky driver behavior  The City of Orlando installed automated photo-enforcement devices at a grade crossing, and instead of issuing fines to drivers who had violated its warning devices, sent drivers a warning notice and educational safety materials  Eight months after the photo-enforcement system was installed, grade crossing violations decreased by 15 percent  While FRA judged these enforcement efforts successful at changing driver behavior, a 2015 FRA whitepaper noted that photo enforcement equipment is costly—on average costing over $300,000 per crossing to install and operate for 2 years—and may not be cost-effective for most grade crossings  FRA found that due to costs and state laws prohibiting photo-enforcement, only two photo- enforcement cameras were currently in operation at grade crossings across the country  States, localities, and FHWA are also exploring whether new types of pavement markings at grade crossings can improve driver behavior  According to DOT officials, FHWA is working with two states to develop new cross-hatch pavement markings for grade crossings that would comply with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, similar to the “don’t block the box” type pavement markings used in intersections  FHWA also worked with a city to test the use of in-roadway lights to delineate the crossing  (See fig  4)  FRA and state DOTs are also trying to improve pedestrian safety at grade crossings by developing new safety measures  Grade-crossing accidents involving pedestrians are less frequent than those involving automobiles at grade crossings but have a higher fatality rate  While pedestrians were involved in only 9 percent of accidents at public crossings in 2017, almost 40 percent of fatal grade-crossing accidents involved pedestrians  To try to improve pedestrian safety, in 2012 the Volpe Center worked with New Jersey Transit to study whether adding additional pedestrian gate skirts— hanging gates that further block a crossing (see fig  5)—would prevent people from ducking under the gates  The Volpe Center reported that these new gates had mixed success  While incidents of people going under and around the gates decreased, more people chose to cross the tracks in the street rather than at the sidewalk  Finally, FRA is exploring new automated and connected vehicle technologies that could reduce risky driver behavior at grade crossings  FRA, FHWA, and officials from one state we interviewed said they anticipate that such technology will be critical to further improving safety  Specifically, FRA and FHWA are coordinating with DOT’s Intelligent Transportation Systems Joint Program Office to develop pilot technology that would enable crossing infrastructure or trains to communicate wirelessly with vehicles  Vehicles can use this information to warn the driver that a crash or violation is imminent, or integrate with onboard active safety systems  According to FRA officials, they completed a proof of concept in 2013 and completed and tested a prototype of the technology in 2017  DOT officials said that DOT does not have a time frame for when automakers might begin incorporating such connected vehicle technologies and noted that retrofitting older cars with new equipment will likely make this a long-term effort  FRA shares information on its research in various ways with state DOTs, because states are responsible for deciding which safety measures to install at grade crossings  Specifically, FRA and FHWA jointly hold quarterly webinars with stakeholders, including state DOT officials, and conduct presentations at highway-rail safety workshops  Information on safety measures such as grade-crossing devices, signs, and markings are also included in the Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook  According to DOT officials, the handbook was developed jointly by FHWA and FRA  The last version of the handbook was updated in 2007 and includes some out of date information  FRA and FHWA officials said they began working on an update in 2017, but missed the July 2018 target completion date  According to FHWA officials, updating the handbook is a complex undertaking that has taken more time than they anticipated due to the extensive collaboration required among stakeholders  FHWA officials said they anticipate completing the update during the spring of 2019  The risk of crashes at public grade crossings within a state factors into states’ selection of over 1,000 new Section 130 Program projects nationally each fiscal year  FHWA requires states to develop a grade crossing program that considers relative risk  FHWA officials said they review the methods that states use to select projects to ensure that risk is considered  According to a 2016 academic study of 50 states, most states use mathematical formulas, or “accident prediction models,” to help assess risk and identify grade crossings for potential projects  More specifically, these accident prediction models use factors such as grade crossing characteristics and accident history to rank grade crossings by risk  DOT provides one such model—the Accident Prediction Model—and some states have developed their own models  The study reported that 19 states used DOT’s model and 20 states used a different model  It also found that the DOT and commonly used state models include some similar grade-crossing characteristics to predict accident risk  For example, the selected models reviewed all considered vehicle- and train- traffic volume, which FRA has found to be the strongest predictors of grade-crossing crashes  FRA makes its Accident Prediction Model available to states online through its Web Accident Prediction System  This system is an online tool that uses FRA’s crossing inventory, crossing collision history, and the DOT Accident Prediction Model to predict accident risk for grade crossings in each state  Only one of the eight states in our review used the system as its primary source for ranking grade-crossing risk  Most of the other states perform their own calculations to rank grade crossings  Officials from two states said that they believe their state-maintained data are more reliable than FRA’s crossing inventory and explained that they go directly to their contacts at railroads to get updated information on factors such as train volume  Accident prediction models are only one source of information states use when selecting Section 130 Program projects  According to the state officials we spoke with, a variety of other considerations can also influence their decisions, including the following: Proximity of projects together along a railroad “corridor” in order to gain efficiencies and reduce construction costs  Requests from local jurisdictions or railroads  These stakeholders may have information on upcoming changes at a grade crossing, such as higher train volume or new housing developments nearby, which would increase risk but would not be reflected yet in the accident prediction model  Availability of local funding to provide the required 10 percent match for Section 130 Program projects, while trying to spread the funds fairly across the state  States may also consider grade crossings that have had close calls in the past, such as where a car narrowly avoided being hit by a train  FRA does not require railroads to report on these close calls, or “near misses;” however, according to state officials, railroads sometimes provide this information to states on an ad-hoc basis  State officials from four of the eight states we spoke with said they considered near misses when selecting Section 130 Program projects  A 2004 Volpe Center report noted that studying close calls was a proactive way to improve safety  According to the report, FRA sponsored a workshop to learn about the benefits of collecting and analyzing close calls  However, stakeholders we interviewed noted challenges formalizing near-miss reporting  For example, Volpe Center officials said these reports are subjective in nature—what one engineer considers a close call, others may not  FRA developed another online tool—GradeDec—to allow states to compare the costs and benefits for various grade-crossing improvement projects  GradeDec uses models to analyze a project’s risk and calculate cost-benefit ratios and net present value for potential projects  FRA provides state DOTs with on-site GradeDec workshops upon request  While FRA officials noted that many state and local governments have registered to use the program, none of the state officials we spoke with identified GradeDec as a tool that they use to conduct cost-benefit analysis  Officials from two state DOTs we spoke with said that cost- benefit analyses could help them better identify and select the most cost- effective crossing safety projects in the future  According to the academic study of 50 states noted above, because of limited funding for grade-crossing improvements, states should consider the life-cycle costs of the projects as well as net present value to help select projects  As discussed later in this report, the small number of crashes at grade crossings can make it challenging to distinguish between different projects in terms of their effectiveness in reducing accidents  Finally, after they have considered risk factors and created a list of potential grade crossings for improvement, state officials, along with relevant stakeholders from railroads and local governments, conduct field reviews of the potential projects  According to state officials, these reviews help identify grade-crossing characteristics that may not be included in the accident prediction models, such as vegetation that would obstruct drivers’ views  In 2008, legislation was enacted mandating reporting by states and railroads to the National Highway-Rail Crossing Inventory  However, the fact that reporting to the inventory remained voluntary until 2015 has had lingering effects on the completeness of the data in the inventory  In 2015, as mandated by statute, FRA issued regulations requiring railroads to update certain data elements for all grade crossings every 3 years  However, our analysis of FRA’s crossing inventory found that 4 percent of grade crossings were last updated in 2009 or earlier  In addition, because MAP-21 repealed DOT’s authority to issue regulations that would govern state reporting to the inventory, state reporting of grade-crossing data remains voluntary, according to FRA officials, and all state-reported information is not complete  Our analysis of state-reported data in FRA’s crossing inventory found varying levels of completeness  For example, while some state-reported data fields were almost entirely complete, 33 percent of public grade crossings were missing data on posted highway speed  We also found that of the crossings for which states reported the year when the highway-traffic count was conducted, 64 percent of the highway-traffic counts for public grade crossings, another important risk factor, had not been updated since 2009, or earlier  According to the 2015 final rule, FRA will continue to evaluate whether additional regulations to address state reporting are needed to maintain the crossing inventory’s accuracy  FRA officials told us that improving inventory data will help them better deploy their limited resources, particularly their grade-crossing inspectors, and said that they have taken steps to help improve the data  In 2017, FRA regional officials conducted field reviews to verify the latitude and longitude data for grade crossings in the inventory, data that states are responsible for updating

ground_truth: The Department of Defense (DOD) obligates more than $300 billion annually to buy goods and services, and to support research and development. Most of these acquisitions are governed by procurement statutes and regulations found in Title 10 (and parts of other select titles) of the United States Code, the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), and the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement. Under certain circumstances, DOD can enter into an other transaction (OT) agreement instead of a traditional contract. OT agreements are generally exempt from federal procurement laws and regulations. These exemptions grant government officials the flexibility to include, amend, or exclude contract clauses and requirements that are mandatory in traditional procurements (e.g., termination clauses, cost accounting standards, payments, audit requirements, intellectual property, and contract disputes). OT authorities also grant more flexibility to structure agreements in numerous ways, including joint ventures; partnerships; consortia; or multiple agencies joining together to fund an agreement encompassing multiple providers. Other transaction agreements are legally binding contracts; they are referred to as agreements to distinguish them from the traditional procurement contracts governed by the FAR and procurements laws. Other transaction authorities are set forth in two sections of law: 10 U.S.C. 2371—granting authority to use OTs for basic, applied, and advanced research projects. 10 U.S.C. 2371b—granting authority to use OTs for prototype projects and follow-on production. Under this authority, a prototype project can only be conducted if at least one nontraditional defense contractor significantly participates in the project; all significant participants are small businesses or nontraditional defense contractors; at least one-third of the total cost of the prototype project is provided by nongovernment participants; or the senior procurement acquisition official provides a written justification for using an OT. Follow-on production can only be conducted when the underlying prototype OT was competitively awarded, and the prototype project was successfully completed. OTs have the potential to provide significant benefits to DOD, including attracting nontraditional contractors with promising technological capabilities to work with DOD, establishing a mechanism to pool resources with other entities to facilitate development of, and obtain, state-of-the-art dual-use technologies, and offering a unique mechanism for DOD to invest in, and influence the direction of, technology development. A number of analysts warn that along with the potential benefits come significant risks, including potentially diminished oversight and exemption from laws and regulations designed to protect government and taxpayer interests. In FY2017, DOD obligated $2.1 billion on prototype OT agreements, representing less than 1% of contract obligations for the year. However, the use of OTs is expected to grow at a rapid pace, due in part to recent statutory changes expanding other transaction authorities. A number of analysts and officials have raised concerns that if DOD uses OTs in ways not intended by Congress—or is perceived to abuse the authority—Congress could clamp down on the authority. Generally, DOD lacks authoritative data that can be used to measure and evaluate the use of other transaction authorities.

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



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



Report 2:  In addition, FRA expects its grade-crossing inspectors as part of their inspections to review and identify issues with the railroad- and state-reported inventory data  According to FRA officials, FRA has begun to both transition its 19 grade-crossing managers into grade-crossing inspectors and also hire new inspectors, for an eventual total of 24 inspectors and eight regional specialists to supervise their activities  To help ensure railroads’ compliance with crossing inventory regulations, officials said that the inspectors will use spot checks to validate the inventory data by comparing grade-crossing characteristics in the field with the information railroads submitted to the inventory  In addition, FRA has incorporated information on inventory-reporting requirements into the grade-crossing inspectors’ training  Finally, FRA is currently developing guidelines for the grade-crossing inspections similar to those for other FRA safety disciplines  FRA headquarters officials acknowledged that they are still clarifying the details for the inspections that will be included in the compliance manuals that inspectors will use  Specifically, they said they are still determining appropriate inspector workloads and drafting specific guidelines that will need to be integrated into FRA’s regional inspection plans  FRA officials said they are working to develop and make available inventory inspection guidance to the grade-crossing managers and inspectors by December 31, 2018  In the meantime, FRA held training that included information on inventory-reporting requirements  In August 2018, FRA developed guidance for grade-crossing inspections specific to quiet zones in response to a recommendation we made in 2017  It is important that FRA meets its goal to issue similar guidance specific to reviewing the accuracy of the inventory data, as FRA cannot have reasonable assurance that inspections that are already under way are being conducted in such a manner that would allow them to consistently identify data reliability issues at each crossing  About 75 percent of all Section 130 Program projects states implemented in fiscal year 2016 involved installing or updating active grade-crossing equipment, including warning lights and protective gates (see fig  6)  The prevalence of this type of project is in part due to the Section 130 Program requirement that states spend at least 50 percent of funds on protective devices  Other than eliminating a grade crossing, adding protective devices has long been considered the most effective way of reducing the risk of a crash  Officials from six of eight state DOTs we interviewed told us that the numbers and types of grade-crossing projects they implement are dependent on the amount of Section 130 Program funding they receive and the cost of the projects  As previously described, funds are set aside from the Highway Safety Improvement Program and distributed to states by a statutory formula that includes factors such as the number of grade crossings in each state  Officials from six of the eight state DOTs we spoke to agreed that the set-aside nature of the program was crucial in allowing them to implement projects, many of which they said would not have been possible without Section 130 Program funds  For example, many said the formula funding ensures that grade-crossing projects are completed along with highway safety projects, particularly given the fact that fatalities resulting from grade-crossing crashes account for so few when compared to highway deaths  Overall, fatalities resulting from grade-crossing crashes account for less than 1 percent of all highway- related fatalities  In fiscal year 2018, the funds distributed ranged from a low of approximately $1 2 million for eight states and Washington, D C , to over $16 million for California and over $19 million for Texas  The number of grade crossings in the eight states and Washington, D C  ranged from 5 to 380, while California had almost 6,000 and Texas had over 9,000  Project implementation costs varied by project type and ranged widely depending on project scope  Based on 2016 DOT data, some typical project costs ranged as follows: adding signs to passive grade crossings—$500 to $1,500; adding flashing lights and two gates to passive grade crossings— $150,000 to $300,000; adding four gates to grade crossings with flashing lights—$250,000 - closing a grade crossing—$25,000 to $100,000; and separating a grade crossing from traffic (Grade Separation)—$5 million to $40 million  State officials we spoke with cited several challenges in pursuing certain types of controversial, innovative, and expensive projects that could help them address the evolving nature of risk at grade crossings and difficulty in measuring the effectiveness of their projects  First, most state DOT officials said that the cost of grade-separation projects and, at times, the controversy of eliminating grade crossings through closure reduces the number of these projects, while acknowledging that they are the most effective ways to improve safety  These types of projects made up only 3 percent of Section 130 Program projects in fiscal year 2016 (see fig  6)  Grade-separation projects are often more expensive than the annual Section 130 Program funding available to states  In 2018, only eight states received annual Section 130 Program funding sufficient to fund a $7-million grade-separation project  As discussed previously, to fund relatively expensive projects, states may choose to combine funds from multiple years  Also, states and railroads may make incentive payments to localities for the permanent closure of a grade crossing  In addition to the cost, most state DOT officials reported challenges obtaining local support for closing grade crossings  They said closures may inconvenience residents who use the road and force emergency responders to take longer routes, potentially slowing response times  Grade-separation projects address these safety concerns and may be more agreeable to residents, but they are substantially more expensive  While up to $7,500 in Section 130 Program funding can be used to help incentivize communities to close grade crossings, officials from some of our selected state DOTs said this amount is generally not enough to persuade local officials to support the closing  Second, officials from many state DOTs we interviewed also reported that the requirements of the Section 130 Program create challenges for them in implementing what they considered to be innovative projects  For example, the program requirement that 50 percent of funds be used on protective devices, combined with what one researcher described to us as the tendency by states to implement “known” projects—i e , protective devices—may impede states’ selection of new, more innovative safety projects  Officials we interviewed from many state DOTs described challenges related to the program’s requirements  They noted that they are prevented from using Section 130 Program funds for new types of safety technologies not yet incorporated into FHWA’s Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices  As noted previously in this report, outside the Section 130 Program FHWA is working with states and localities to explore whether new types of pavement markings at grade crossings, not in the manual, can improve driver behavior  One state DOT official we interviewed suggested changes to allow states to fund one grade- crossing pilot project per year or to use a set percentage of program funds to finance a pilot project that could help them explore promising but as yet unproven technologies  Third, state DOT officials from four of the eight selected states also said it can be difficult to find funding for the required 10 percent state match  As previously mentioned, while certain rail-safety projects are eligible for up to 100 percent federal funding, Section 130 Program projects are funded at a 90 percent federal share  According to DOT documentation we reviewed, only some states have a dedicated source for such a match, and state DOT officials from one of our selected states said their state cannot use state funds for the 10 percent match  Some state DOT officials said this situation can drive project selection  For example, they sometimes chose projects based on which localities or railroads were willing to provide matching funds or offer cost savings  Finally, many state officials cited challenges in measuring the effectiveness of grade crossing projects in reducing crashes or the risk of crashes  In particular, state officials we spoke to said it can be difficult to use before-and-after crash statistics as a measure of effectiveness because of the low number and random nature of crashes  Also, as FRA research has shown and as FHWA and FRA have noted, reporting on before-and-after grade-crossing accident statistics can be misleading, given the infrequency of crashes and crashes that are not the result of grade crossing conditions  States’ required Section 130 Program annual progress reports to the Secretary of DOT call for states to report on the effectiveness of the improvements they made  FHWA reporting guidance suggests they define effectiveness as the reduction in the number of fatalities and serious injuries after grade-crossing projects were implemented, consistent with statutory requirements  In addition, FHWA guidance states that consideration should be given to quantifying effectiveness in the context of fatalities and serious injuries  However, states often report no differences in crashes after specific projects were implemented, and there have been instances where states reported a slight increase in crashes  Such an increase does not necessarily mean that the project was not effective in reducing the overall risk of a crash  Also, not all projects are implemented at grade crossings where there has been a crash  Among other information, states also typically report information on funding and data on the numbers and types of projects implemented  In addition, the extent to which states report projects’ effectiveness varies greatly  Given states’ responsibility for implementing the Section 130 Program and the differences in the amounts of funding they receive, FHWA officials said states should determine and report on the appropriate effectiveness metrics for their programs  According to FHWA officials, during the 2017 reporting year, a few states requested examples of what to include when reporting effectiveness, and FHWA responded with examples of various methods they could use, such as a benefit-cost ratio or the percentage decrease in fatalities, serious injuries, and crashes  Regardless of the difficulty in measuring the effectiveness of specific projects, most state DOT officials we interviewed stressed the importance of the Section 130 Program in funding grade-crossing projects  FHWA’s biennial report to Congress is intended to provide information to Congress on the progress being made by the states in implementing projects to improve safety and, in addition, make recommendations for future implementation of the program  FHWA reviews states’ annual Section 130 Program reports and uses them to formulate the report to Congress every 2 years  FHWA’s 2018 report highlights that the Section 130 Program has seen great success since 1975, with a decrease of approximately 74 percent in fatalities at the same time that there was an increase in vehicle and train traffic  The report described the latest available 10-year trend, from 2007 to 2016, as showing a 31 percent decrease in fatalities  Fatalities have also decreased when adjusted for train traffic  However, FHWA officials acknowledged in interviews with us that crashes and fatalities have remained constant since about 2009, with more recent data showing a slight increase in fatalities over the last 2 to 3 years, data that are consistent with the increases in overall roadway fatalities  The officials said increased train- and vehicle-traffic volumes could be contributing to that increase, in addition to other factors, such as more bicycle riders and pedestrians using grade crossings  As described earlier, states have generally already used Section 130 Program funding to address safety at the riskiest grade crossings by adding protective measures, typically lights and gates  Yet crashes continue to occur at these improved grade crossings  Given these trends and the challenges discussed earlier related to the requirements of the Section 130 Program, it is not clear whether the program remains effective in continuing to reduce the risk of crashes and fatalities at grade crossings  As required, FHWA’s biennial report includes a section on “recommendations for future implementation” of the Section 130 Program  As part of this, FHWA reports on challenges and actions being taken to address them  FHWA’s 2018 report identified one of the same challenges we heard about from state DOT officials related to the inability or unwillingness of local agencies to provide matching funds and the relatively low amount of funding designed to incentivize localities to close crossings  FHWA reported on its efforts to address these challenges, including by providing guidance, resources, and supportive training to states and local agencies and serving as a clearinghouse for innovative methods of supporting projects  However, with the exception of the funding challenge, FHWA’s most recent report does not include the other challenges state officials identified to us related to the requirements of the Section 130 Program discussed above  These include program funding requirements that may impede innovative approaches and the difficulties of using before-and-after crash statistics to measure effectiveness  Many state DOT officials we spoke with said there may be an opportunity to more broadly assess the Section 130 Program at the national level  It could be more informative to comprehensively assess more detailed crash trends, such as those that look forward over multiple years across the more than 1,700 crashes nationwide, rather than on the approximately 35 that occur on average within a state, and identify strategies to address those trends  Doing so could help FHWA learn more about why crashes are continuing and what types of projects may be effective  There could be ways to evaluate the program in a more comprehensive way; many state DOT officials we interviewed told us such a comprehensive evaluation could help improve program effectiveness in a number of ways, including by enabling the program to better keep up with the rapid pace of technological change and re- examining eligibility requirements that limit the flexibility of states to consider other types of projects beyond engineering  Also, most state DOT officials we interviewed agreed that education and enforcement efforts are crucial to further improving safety, as did 8 out of 10 other stakeholders we spoke to, as well as officials from Volpe Center and NTSB  However, according to FHWA officials, those project types are not allowed under the Section 130 Program’s requirements  The officials said FHWA has partnered with FRA and NHTSA on research efforts, such as driver-behavior studies, to inform grade-crossing safety issues  However, the officials said that FHWA has not conducted a program evaluation of the Section 130 Program to consider whether the program’s funding and other requirements allow states to adequately address ongoing safety issues such as driver behavior  FHWA officials said that there is no federal requirement for them to conduct such a program evaluation  We have previously reported that an important component of effective program management is through program performance assessment, which helps establish a program’s effectiveness—the extent to which a program is operating as it was intended and the extent to which a program achieves what the agency proposes to accomplish  This type of evaluative information helps the executive branch and congressional committees make decisions about the programs they oversee  Assessing program performance includes conducting program evaluations, which are individual systematic studies that answer specific questions about how well a program is meeting its objectives  In addition, federal internal-control standards state that management should identify, analyze, and respond to significant changes in a program’s environment that could pose new risks  FHWA officials said the fact that crashes and fatalities have held steady while the volume of train and vehicle traffic has increased is an indication that grade-crossing safety has continued to improve  However, specific to fatalities per million train-miles, FHWA’s 2018 biennial report shows this rate to be fairly constant since 2009  As noted previously, FRA expects train and traffic volumes to continue to increase and has expressed concern that grade-crossing crashes and fatalities may also increase  Without conducting a program evaluation, FHWA cannot ensure that the Section 130 Program is achieving one of the national goals of the federal- aid highway program, to reduce fatalities and injuries  In addition, It is difficult to see how FHWA, in its biennial reports to Congress, could make informed recommendations for future program implementation without conducting a program evaluation to assess, among other things, whether program requirements first established some four decades ago continue to reduce fatalities and injuries  We note that as part of a program evaluation, some changes that FHWA, working with FRA, identifies as potentially having merit to improve the program’s effectiveness could require a statutory change  The continued number of crashes and fatalities at grade crossings with devices intended to warn of a train’s presence calls into question whether the Section 130 Program is structured to help states continue making progress toward the national goal to reduce fatalities and injuries  An evaluation of the program’s requirements could help determine whether Congress should consider better ways to focus federal funds to address the key factor in crashes—risky driver behavior  An FHWA program evaluation could also help determine whether, for example, states could more strategically target emerging safety problems if changes were made to the types of projects eligible for funding under the Section 130 Program  FRA’s new grade-crossing inspectors are meant to increase the effectiveness of FRA’s rail-safety oversight activities, and accordingly, these FRA inspectors, along with FRA researchers, may be well positioned to help FHWA evaluate potential changes to improve the effectiveness of the Section 130 Program  The Administrator of FHWA, working with FRA, should evaluate the Section 130 Program’s requirements to determine whether they allow states sufficient flexibility to adequately address current and emerging grade-crossing safety issues  As part of this evaluation, FHWA should determine whether statutory changes to the program are necessary to improve its effectiveness  (Recommendation 1) We provided a draft of this report to DOT for review and comment  In written comments, reproduced in appendix II, DOT concurred with our recommendation  DOT also provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate  We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional committees, the Secretary of Transportation, the Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration, and the Administrator of the Federal Railroad Administration  In addition, the report will be available at no charge on GAO’s website at http://www gao gov  If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-2834 or flemings@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 III  This report examines (1) what has been the focus of Federal Railroad Administration’s (FRA) grade-crossing-safety research, (2) how states select and implement grade-crossing projects and what railroad- and state-reported data are available from FRA to inform states’ decisions, and (3) the challenges states reported in implementing and assessing projects and the extent to which the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) assesses the program’s effectiveness  The scope of this work focused on the nation’s more than 128,000 public grade crossings  We did not include private grade crossings, as states can only use Railway- Highway Crossings Program (commonly referred to as the Section 130 Program) funds to improve safety at public grade crossings  While FRA provides safety grants to address rail issues, including for grade-crossing projects, we focused our work on the Section 130 Program because it is the primary source of federal funding directed at grade-crossing-safety improvement  For each objective we reviewed: pertinent statutes and FHWA and FRA regulations and documents; interviewed FHWA and FRA program officials in headquarters; and conducted in-depth interviews with a non- generalizable sample of organizations that included officials from 4 freight and passenger railroads, 12 state agencies from 8 states, 6 FRA regional offices, and 8 FHWA state division offices  We also spoke with representatives from relevant associations and officials from NTSB and Volpe Center  We selected these organizations based on our initial background research, prior work, and input from other stakeholders, among other things  See the paragraph below for additional selection details and table 5 for a complete list of organizations we spoke with  We selected eight states as part of our non-generalizable sample for interviews  These states included Arizona, California, Florida, Illinois, Missouri, New Jersey, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania  The states were selected to include a mix of state experiences based on a variety of factors, including the number of grade crossings and crashes at those crossings, and the amount of Section 130 Program funding they received  Specifically, we selected four states from those in the top 25 percent of all states in terms of their number of grade crossings and the amount of Section 130 Program funds they received  We selected the other four states to include a mix of these factors  We also considered geographical diversity and recommendations from FRA and FHWA officials  Within these eight states, we conducted in-depth interviews with FHWA division staff, FRA regional staff, and state officials  A variety of state agencies administer the Section 130 Program within their state; the state officials we spoke with from our eight selected states worked for agencies such as state departments of transportation, corporation commissions, and public utility commissions  We also spoke with a non-generalizable sample of four railroads: Amtrak, CSX, Norfolk Southern, and Sierra Northern  We selected railroads based on a variety of factors including geographic location and stakeholder recommendations  We also conducted additional work related to each of the objectives  To describe the focus of FRA’s grade-crossing-safety research, we examined FRA research aimed at understanding the causes of grade- crossing crashes and identifying potential improvements and described FRA efforts to test new approaches that could improve safety  We did not assess the quality of FRA’s research, as that was beyond the scope of this engagement  Instead, we described the nature of the research  We also spoke with FRA research and development staff, Volpe researchers, and state partners about this work  To describe how states select and implement grade-crossing projects, and what FRA data are available to inform their decisions, we reviewed an academic study that included a literature review and interviews with state officials to describe how states select Section 130 Program projects  We spoke with the researcher and determined the study to be reliable for the purposes of our reporting objectives  We also spoke with officials from our eight selected states, FHWA division staff, and FRA regional staff, and reviewed the states’ 2017 Section 130 Program reports  As part of this objective, we also assessed the reliability of data reported for all railroads in FRA’s National Highway-Rail Crossing Inventory data as of August 31, 2018  For public grade crossings that were not closed, we examined a selection of fields within the database to identify the frequency of missing data (see table 1), data anomalies (see table 2), relational errors, where two related data fields had values that were incompatible (see table 3), and when the data was last updated (see table 4)  Specifically, we conducted the following electronic tests on the crossing inventory data to determine if they were within reasonable ranges, were internally consistent, and appeared complete: Before conducting our analysis, we filtered the inventory data to only include open, public, at-grade crossings  To understand FRA’s efforts to improve its crossing inventory data, we interviewed FRA regional and headquarters staff and reviewed job descriptions for FRA’s new grade- crossing inspectors  Finally, to determine the challenges states reported in implementing and assessing grade-crossing safety projects and the extent to which FHWA assesses the program’s effectiveness, we reviewed program requirements and state project data and other components from FHWA’s 2016 and 2018 Section 130 Program biennial reports to Congress  We also reviewed FHWA’s summary of fiscal year 2018 program funds provided to states and federal laws and guidance related to implementing projects and measuring performance  We interviewed state DOT officials from the eight selected states and other stakeholders on the challenges states reported in implementing and assessing projects, and FHWA and FRA officials for their perspectives on managing the program, including how FHWA measures performance and assesses program effectiveness  We compared information collected from FHWA and FRA to federal internal-control standards and criteria on program evaluation identified in our previous work  In addition, we reviewed FHWA and FRA documents designed to guide states, such as the Grade Crossing Handbook, the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, the Action Plan and Project Prioritization Noteworthy Practices Guide, and other related documents  We conducted this performance audit from November 2017 to November 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  Susan A  Fleming, (202) 512-2834, Flemings@gao gov  In addition to the individual named above, Maria Edelstein (Assistant Director); Gary Guggolz (Analyst in Charge); Steven Campbell; Tim Guinane; Ben Licht; Catrin Jones; Delwen Jones; SaraAnn Moessbauer; Malika Rice; Larry Thomas; and Crystal Wesco made key contributions to this report 
Report 2:  To be certified as a HUBZone small business, at least 35% of the small business's employees must generally reside in a HUBZone  In FY2017, the federal government awarded $7 53 billion to HUBZone-certified small businesses  $1 90 billion was awarded with a HUBZone preference ($1 49 billion through a HUBZone set-aside, $65 3 million through a HUBZone sole source award, and $346 9 million through a HUBZone price-evaluation preference); $1 53 billion was awarded to HUBZone-certified small businesses in open competition with other firms; and $4 10 billion was awarded with another small business preference (e g , set-asides and sole source awards for small businesses generally and for 8(a), women-owned, and service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses)  This program allows agencies to set aside contracts for SDVOSBs  Also, federal agencies may award sole source contracts to SDVOSBs so long as the award can be made at a fair and reasonable price, and the anticipated total value of the contract, including any options, is below $4 million ($6 5 million for manufacturing contracts)  For purposes of this program, veterans and service-related disabilities are defined as they are under the statutes governing veterans affairs  In FY2017, the federal government awarded $18 2 billion to SDVOSBs  $6 8 billion was awarded through a SDVOSB set-aside award; $4 3 billion was awarded to a SDVOSB in open competition with other firms; and $7 1 billion was awarded with another small business preference (e g , set-asides and sole source awards for small businesses generally and for HUBZone firms, 8(a) firms, and WOSBs)  Under this program, contracts may be set aside for economically disadvantaged WOSBs in industries in which women are underrepresented and substantially underrepresented  Federal agencies may award sole source contracts to WOSBs so long as the award can be made at a fair and reasonable price, and the anticipated total value of the contract, including any options, is below $4 million ($6 5 million for manufacturing contracts)  In FY2017, the federal government awarded $21 3 billion to WOSBs  $648 9 million was awarded with a WOSB preference ($580 5 million through a WOSB set-aside and $68 4 million through a WOSB sole source award); $7 0 billion was awarded to a WOSB in open competition with other firms; and $13 7 billion was awarded with another small business preference (e g , set-asides and sole source awards for small businesses generally and for HUBZone firms, 8(a) firms, and SDVOSBs)  Federal contracting officers are required to provide the SBA's PCR (or, if a PCR is not assigned, the SBA Area Office serving the procuring activity area) a "reasonable period of time" to review any solicitation requiring submission of a small business subcontracting plan and to submit advisory findings before the solicitation is issued  The PCR's advisory comments regarding the small business subcontracting plan's acceptability must be submitted, in writing, to the appropriate contracting officer within five working days after the plan's receipt  As mentioned previously, the SBA's commercial market representatives help prime contractors find small businesses to perform subcontracts; counsel contractors on their responsibility to maximize subcontracting opportunities for small businesses; and conduct periodic reviews, often in concert with a SBA PCR, of contractors awarded contracts that require an acceptable small business subcontracting plan  Federal agencies may also set aside contracts or make sole source awards to small businesses not participating in any other program under certain conditions  The Department of Transportation's (DOT's) Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Program originally began in 1980 as a minority/women's business enterprise program "established by regulation under the authority of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other nondiscrimination statutes that apply to DOT financial assistance programs " Congress has reauthorized the DBE program several times since its inception; most recently in P L  114-94 , the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST-Act)  The FAST-Act provides, that, except to the extent the Secretary of Transportation determines otherwise, not less than 10% of the amounts made available for any program under Titles I (federal-aid highways), II (innovative project finance), III (public transportation) and VI (innovation) of the act and 23 U S  Code 403 (highway safety research and development), shall be expended with DBEs  DOT also has a separate DBE program for airport concessions  A DBE is a for-profit small business owned and controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals  Eligibility for the DBE program differs somewhat from the 8(a) program  For example, under the DBE program, women are presumed to be socially and economically disadvantaged individuals  Also, to be regarded as economically disadvantaged, an individual must have a personal net worth (excluding ownership interest in the firm and equity in his or her primary personal residence) that does not exceed $1 32 million  The DBE must also meet SBA size criteria and have average annual gross receipts not exceeding $23 98 million  Size limits for the airport concessions DBE program are higher  The DBE program's eight objectives are to 1  ensure nondiscrimination in the award and administration of DOT-assisted contracts in the department's highway, transit, and airport financial assistance programs; 2  create a level playing field on which DBEs can compete fairly for DOT-assisted contracts; 3  ensure that the department's DBE program is narrowly tailored in accordance with applicable law; 4  ensure that only firms that fully meet the program's eligibility standards are permitted to participate as DBEs; 5  help remove DBE-participation barriers in DOT-assisted contracts; 6  promote the use of DBEs in all types of federally-assisted contracts and procurement activities conducted by recipients; 7  assist the development of firms that can compete successfully in the marketplace outside the DBE program; and 8  provide appropriate flexibility to recipients of federal financial assistance in establishing and providing opportunities for DBEs  Other federal programs promote subcontracting with small disadvantaged businesses (SDBs)  SDBs include 8(a) participants and other small businesses that are at least 51% unconditionally owned and controlled by socially or economically disadvantaged individuals or groups  Individuals owning and controlling non-8(a) SDBs may have net worth of up to $750,000 (excluding ownership interests in the SDB firm and equity in their primary personal residence)  Otherwise, however, SDBs must generally satisfy the same eligibility requirements as 8(a) firms, although they do not apply to the SBA to be designated SDBs in the same way that 8(a) firms do  Federal agencies must negotiate "subcontracting plans" with the apparently successful bidder or offeror on eligible prime contracts prior to awarding the contract  Subcontracting plans set goals for the percentage of subcontract dollars to be awarded to SDBs, among others, and describe efforts that will be made to ensure that SDBs "have an equitable opportunity to compete for subcontracts " Federal agencies may also consider the extent of subcontracting with SDBs in determining to whom to award a contract or give contractors "monetary incentives" to subcontract with SDBs  As of February 11, 2019, the SBA's Dynamic Small Business Search database included 2,538 SBA-certified SDBs and 100,595 self-certified SDBs  The SBA's 7(j) Management and Technical Assistance program provides "a wide variety of management and technical assistance to eligible individuals or concerns to meet their specific needs, including: (a) counseling and training in the areas of financing, management, accounting, bookkeeping, marketing, and operation of small business concerns; and (b) the identification and development of new business opportunities " Eligible individuals and businesses include "8(a) certified firms, SDBs, businesses operating in areas of high unemployment, or low income or firms owned by low income individuals " In FY2017, the 7(j) Management and Technical Assistance program assisted 4,100 small businesses  The SBA's Surety Bond Guarantee program aims to increase small businesses' access to federal, state, and local government contracting, as well as private-sector contracts, by guaranteeing bid, performance, and payment bonds for small businesses that cannot obtain surety bonds through regular commercial channels  The program guarantees individual contracts of up to $6 5 million and up to $10 million if a federal contracting officer certifies that such a guarantee is necessary  The SBA's guarantee ranges from not to exceed 80% to not to exceed 90% of the surety's loss if a default occurs  In FY2017, the SBA guaranteed 10,397 bid and final surety bonds with a total contract value of more than $6 3 billion  A surety bond is a three-party instrument between a surety (someone who agrees to be responsible for the debt or obligation of another), a contractor, and a project owner  The agreement binds the contractor to comply with the terms and conditions of a contract  If the contractor is unable to successfully perform the contract, the surety assumes the contractor's responsibilities and ensures that the project is completed  The surety bond reduces the risk associated with contracting  Surety bonds are meant to encourage project owners to contract with small businesses that may not have the credit history or prior experience of larger businesses and may be at greater risk of failing to comply with the contract's terms and conditions  Surety bonds are important to small businesses interested in competing for federal contracts because the federal government requires prime contractors—prior to the award of a federal contract exceeding $150,000 for the construction, alteration, or repair of any building or public work of the United States—to furnish a performance bond issued by a surety satisfactory to the contracting officer in an amount that the officer considers adequate to protect the government  Small business mentor-protégé programs typically seek to pair new businesses with more experienced businesses in mutually beneficial relationships  Protégés may receive financial, technical, or management assistance from mentors in obtaining and performing federal contracts or subcontracts, or serving as suppliers under such contracts or subcontracts  Mentors may receive credit toward subcontracting goals, reimbursement of certain expenses, or other incentives  The federal government currently has several mentor-protégé programs to assist small businesses in various ways  The 8(a) Mentor-Protégé Program is a government-wide program designed to assist small businesses "owned and controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals" participating in the SBA's Minority Small Business and Capital Ownership Development Program (commonly known as the 8(a) program) in obtaining and performing federal contracts  For that purpose, mentors may (1) form joint ventures with protégés that are eligible to perform federal contracts set aside for small businesses; (2) make certain equity investments in protégé firms; (3) lend or subcontract to protégé firms; and (4) provide technical or management assistance to their protégés  The SBA's A ll S mall B usiness Mentor-Protégé Program is a government-wide mentor-protégé program for all small business concerns, consistent with the SBA's mentor-protégé program for participants in the SBA's 8(a) Business Development program  The Department of Defense (DOD) Mentor-Protégé Program , in contrast, is agency-specific  It assists various types of small businesses and other entities in obtaining and performing DOD subcontracts and serving as suppliers on DOD contracts  Mentors may (1) make advance or progress payments to their protégés that DOD reimburses; (2) award subcontracts to their protégés on a noncompetitive basis when they would not otherwise be able to do so; (3) lend money to or make investments in protégé firms; and (4) provide or arrange for other assistance  Other agencies also have agency-specific mentor-protégé programs to assist various types of small businesses or other entities in obtaining and performing subcontracts under agency prime contracts  The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), for example, has a mentor-protégé program wherein mentors may provide protégés with rent-free use of facilities or equipment, temporary personnel for training, property, loans, or other assistance  Because these programs are not based in statute, unlike the SBA and DOD programs, they generally rely upon preexisting authorities (e g , authorizing use of evaluation factors) or publicity to incentivize mentor participation  Currently, more than 1,200 mentor-protégé agreements are in place, even though there are issues with the accuracy and thoroughness of some federal agency records  Since 1978, federal agency heads have been required to establish federal procurement goals, in consultation with the SBA, "that realistically reflect the potential of small business concerns and small business concerns owned and controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals" to participate in federal procurement  Each agency is required, at the conclusion of each fiscal year, to report its progress in meeting the goals to the SBA  In 1988, Congress authorized the President annually to establish government-wide minimum participation goals for procurement contracts awarded to small businesses and small businesses owned and controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals  Congress required the government-wide minimum participation goal for small businesses to be "not less than 20% of the total value of all prime contract awards for each fiscal year" and "not less than 5% of the total value of all prime contract and subcontract awards for each fiscal year" for small businesses owned and controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals  Each federal agency was also directed to "have an annual goal that presents, for that agency, the maximum practicable opportunity for small business concerns and small business concerns owned and controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals to participate in the performance of contracts let by such agency " The SBA was also required to report to the President annually on the attainment of the goals and to include the information in an annual report to Congress  The SBA negotiates the goals with each federal agency and establishes a small business eligible baseline for evaluating the agency's performance  The agency head is required to "make consistent efforts to annually expand participation by small business concerns from each industry category " If the SBA and the agency cannot agree on the goals, the agency may submit the case to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP) for resolution  The small business eligible baseline excludes certain contracts that the SBA has determined do not realistically reflect the potential for small business participation in federal procurement (such as those awarded to mandatory and directed sources), contracts funded predominately from agency-generated sources (i e , non-appropriated funds), contracts not covered by the FAR, acquisitions on behalf of foreign governments, and contracts not reported in the Federal Procurement Data System – Next Generation, or FPDS-NG (such as government procurement card purchases and contracts valued less than $10,000)  These exclusions typically account for 18% to 20% of all federal prime contracts each year  The SBA then evaluates the agencies' performance against their negotiated goals annually, using FPDS-NG data, managed by the U S  General Services Administration (GSA), to generate the small business eligible baseline  This information is compiled into the official Small Business Goaling Report, which the SBA releases annually  Each agency that fails to achieve any proposed prime or subcontract goal is required to submit a justification to the SBA on why it failed to achieve a proposed or negotiated goal with a proposed plan of corrective action  Agencies can take credit in every category that is applicable to the recipient of the contract  For example, "when counting goaling achievements, a contract awarded to a service-disabled Veteran-Owned Woman-Owned Small Business would be counted toward the Small Business (SB) goal, the Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) goal and the Women-Owned Small Business (WOSB) goal  However, these category counts are not summed to triple the total count  The Sum of Parts Does Not Equal the Whole (italics in original) " Over the years, federal government-wide procurement goals have been established for small businesses generally ( P L  100-656 , the Business Opportunity Development Reform Act of 1988, and P L  105-135 , the HUBZone Act of 1997—Title VI of the Small Business Reauthorization Act of 1997); small businesses owned and controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals ( P L  100-656 ); women ( P L  103-355 , the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994); small businesses located within a HUBZone ( P L  105-135 ); and small businesses owned and controlled by a service-disabled veteran ( P L  106-50 , the Veterans Entrepreneurship and Small Business Development Act of 1999)  The current federal small business procurement goals are at least 23 0% of the total value of all small business eligible prime contract awards to small businesses for each fiscal year; 5 0% of the total value of all small business eligible prime contract awards and subcontract awards to small disadvantaged businesses (including participants in the SBA's 8(a) Program) for each fiscal year; 5 0% of the total value of all small business eligible prime contract awards and subcontract awards to women-owned small businesses; 3 0% of the total value of all small business eligible prime contract awards and subcontract awards to HUBZone small businesses; and 3 0% of the total value of all small business eligible prime contract awards and subcontract awards to service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses  There are no punitive consequences for not meeting these goals  However, the SBA's Small Business Goaling Report is distributed widely, receives media attention, and serves to heighten public awareness of the issue of small business contracting  For example, agency performance as reported in the SBA's Small Business Goaling Report is often cited by Members during their questioning of federal agency witnesses during congressional hearings  As shown in Table 1 , the FY2017 Small Business Goaling Report , using FPDS-NG data, indicates that federal agencies met the federal procurement goal for small businesses generally, small disadvantaged businesses, and service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses in FY2017  Table 1 also provides, for comparative purposes, the percentage of total reported federal contracts (without exclusions) awarded to those small businesses in FY2017  Before awarding a federal contract, the contracting officer must affirmatively determine that the business is responsible to perform the contract  If the contracting officer determines that an apparent successful small business offeror lacks certain elements of responsibility (e g , is unable to fulfill the requirements of a specific government procurement because it lacks capability, competency, capacity, credit, integrity, perseverance, tenacity, or limitations on subcontracting), the officer is required to refer the matter in writing to the SBA for review and a possible Certificate of Competency (COC), even if the next acceptable offer is also from a small business  The COC certifies in writing that the small business meets all required elements of responsibility for the purpose of receiving and performing a specific government contract  The "COC program empowers the SBA to certify to contracting officers as to all elements of responsibility of any small business concern to receive and perform a specific government contract  The COC program does not extend to questions concerning regulatory requirements imposed and enforced by other federal agencies " As mentioned previously, the SBA's commercial market representatives conduct periodic compliance reviews of contractors awarded contracts that require an acceptable small business subcontracting plan  In addition, once the contract is completed, federal agencies are required to pay the contractor on a timely basis and pay interest penalties for late payments  Under specified circumstances, federal agencies may also pay contractors before the contract's payment's due date  The periodic compliance review can take place on-site, at the contracting agency, or virtual  Materials that may be reviewed include the contractor's contract files, correspondence that is directly or indirectly related to the contract, IT systems, subcontracting methods, and procedures  Contractors are selected randomly for audit  The SBA may enter into agreements with other federal agencies to conduct these assessments  The compliance report includes compliant and non-compliant items found during the assessment of the contractor's subcontracting activities and a rating indicating the contractor's level of compliance or non-compliance, ranging from unsatisfactory to outstanding  If any deficiencies are found, the contractor is required to submit, within 30 days of the compliance review rating letter date, a corrective action plan (CAP)  The CAP is submitted to the SBA Area Office via email, or any method designated by the SBA  The commercial market representative conducts a follow-up compliance report within six months to a year of the date the SBA acknowledges receipt of the contractor's CAP to ensure that corrective actions have been taken to eliminate the deficiencies  The SBA keeps the federal agency that awarded the contract informed of the contractor's adherence to correcting the deficiencies  If the contractor refuses to provide or address all deficiencies in the CAP, a delinquent CAP letter is sent advising the contractor that it has 15 days from the letter's date to comply with federal regulations  If an acceptable CAP is not received in the allotted time frame the case is escalated to the SBA's subcontracting program manager who informs the SBA's Office of Government Contracting director and works with the SBA's Office of General Counsel and the federal agency that awarded the contract for resolution or to begin accessing liquidated damages  Once a contract is awarded, federal agencies are generally required to pay interest to prime contractors on any invoice payments the agency fails to make by the date(s) specified in the contract, or within 30 days of receipt of a proper invoice for the amount due if no date is specified in the contract  Similar requirements exist for prime contractors in paying subcontractors on construction contracts  These requirements are especially important for small businesses in the construction industry  Specifically, every construction contract awarded by a federal agency must contain clauses obligating the prime contractor to (1) pay the subcontractor for "satisfactory performance" under the subcontract within seven days of receiving payment from the agency and (2) pay interest on any amounts that are not paid within the proper time frame  The contract must also obligate the prime contractor to include similar payment and interest penalty terms in its subcontracts, as well as require its subcontractors to impose these terms on their subcontractors  This latter provision ensures that the payment and interest penalty requirements flow down to all tiers of construction subcontractors  In addition, required subcontracting plans must incorporate terms obligating the prime contractor to notify the agency awarding the contract in writing if a subcontractor is paid a reduced price for goods supplied or services completed under the contract, or if payment is made to the subcontractor more than 90 days past due  The prime contractor must include the reason for the reduction in payment or failure to pay a subcontractor within 90 days  If the contracting officer for a covered contract (a contract that requires an acceptable subcontracting plan) determines that a prime contractor has a history of unjustified, untimely payments to contractors, the contracting officer shall record the contractor's identity, describe the circumstances under which the contractor may be determined to have a history of unjustified, untimely payments to subcontractors, and include the contractor's identity in, and make publicly available through, the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System, or any successor  This information is used by federal agencies to "evaluate the business ethics and quality of prospective contractors competing for Federal contracts and to protect taxpayers from doing business with contractors that are not responsible sources " Federal agencies are permitted to make an accelerated payment up to seven days before the required payment date in a federal contract, or earlier if the agency deems it necessary on a case-by-case basis if, after receiving a proper invoice, it is in the best interest of the government, and any of the following is true: the invoice in under $2,500; the payment is to a small business; or the payment is related to an emergency, disaster, or military deployment  In addition, the Secretary of Defense is required, to the fullest extent permitted by law, to establish an accelerated payment date for its small business prime contractors, with a goal of 15 days after receipt of a proper invoice for the amount due if a specific payment date is not established by contract  The Secretary of Defense is also required to establish, to the fullest extent permitted by law, an accelerated payment date for its prime contractors that subcontract with small businesses, with a goal of 15 days after receipt of a proper invoice for the amount due if a specific payment date is not established by contract and the prime contractor agrees to make payments to the subcontractor "in accordance with the accelerated payment date, to the maximum extent practicable, without any further consideration from or fees charged to the subcontractor " The small business contracting programs described in this report generally have strong bipartisan support  However, that does not mean that these programs face no opposition or that issues have not been raised concerning the impact or operations of specific programs  For example, small business advocates seek policies that reduce or eliminate exclusions that narrow the reach of small business contracting preferences, want the SBA to use the total value of all prime contract awards in the Small Business Goaling Report, and want the SBA to use a more discerning methodology for awarding performance grades to federal agencies in meeting its small business contracting goals  Critics have questioned some of these programs' effectiveness, in terms of both promoting small business opportunities to win federal contracts and a more diversified, robust economy  Many observers judge the relative success or failure of federal efforts to enhance small business contracting opportunities by whether the federal government and individual federal agencies meet the procurement goals in the annual Small Business Goaling Report  In recent years, the federal government has generally succeeded in meeting the government-wide goals of awarding 23% of the total value of all small business eligible prime contract awards to small businesses generally, 5% to SDBs, and 3% to SDVOSBs  However, it has had difficulty meeting the goals of 5% to WOSBs and 3% to HUBZone small businesses  The Small Business Goaling Report is the most convenient measure available to compare federal small business contracting performance over time, but it has limitations  For example, the report does not include all federal contracts, because some are not deemed to be small business eligible and others are not recorded in the FPDS-NG  In addition, the report does not evaluate the effect these contracts have on small businesses, industry competitiveness, or the overall economy  As one group of researchers has argued, the entire goal-setting process … is geared to measuring the dollars and contracts awarded to small business, and pays little attention to the effect that access to government contracts has on small business starts, growth, and wealth generation  Results of the program are also hard to isolate, difficult to measure, and generally not judged against the next best or other alternative policies [emphasis in original]  Comprehensive studies examining the effect of small business contracting preferences on small business startups, growth, wealth generation, and industry competitiveness may prove useful for congressional oversight  In the meantime, although the Small Business Goaling Report has its limitations, it can help policymakers identify programs most in need of examination  For example, the SBA has announced that it is focusing additional efforts on promoting the HUBZone program to federal contracting officials, primarily due to the continuing difficulties federal agencies have had in meeting the 3% goal for HUBZone small businesses 

ground_truth: Crashes at highway-rail grade crossings are one of the leading causes of railroad-related deaths. According to FRA data, in 2017, there were more than 2,100 crashes resulting in 273 fatalities. Since 2009 crashes have occurred at a fairly constant rate. The federal government provides states funding to improve grade-crossing safety through FHWA's Section 130 Program. The persistence of crashes and deaths raises questions about the effectiveness of the federal grade-crossing-safety program. GAO was asked to review federal efforts to improve grade-crossing safety. This report examines: (1) the focus of FRA's grade-crossing-safety research, (2) how states select and implement grade-crossing projects and what data are available from FRA to inform their decisions, and (3) the challenges states reported in implementing and assessing projects and the extent to which FHWA assesses the program's effectiveness. GAO analyzed FRA data; reviewed FRA's, FHWA's, and states' documents; reviewed a study of states' selection of projects; and interviewed FRA and FHWA headquarters and field staff, and officials from a non-generalizable sample of eight states, selected to include a mix in the number of grade crossings and crashes, and geographic diversity. Research sponsored by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) has identified driver behavior as the main cause of highway-rail grade crossing crashes and that factors such as train and traffic volume can contribute to the risk of a crash. (See figure.) Over 70 percent of fatal crashes in 2017 occurred at grade crossings with gates. To meet the requirements of the federal grade-crossing program, states are responsible for selecting and ensuring the implementation of grade-crossing improvement projects. Most state DOT officials and other relevant transportation officials use local knowledge of grade crossings to supplement the results of models that rank grade crossings based on the risk of an accident. These states generally consider the same primary risk factors, such as vehicle and train traffic. FRA is taking steps to improve the data used in its model to help states assess risk factors at grade crossings. For example, FRA's grade-crossing inspectors will review and identify issues with railroad- and state-reported inventory data. FRA is currently developing guidelines, which it plans to finalize by the end of 2018, to implement these inspections as it has for other types of FRA inspections. Officials we spoke with in eight states reported challenges in pursuing certain types of projects that could further enhance safety, in part because of federal requirements. While safety has improved, many crashes occur at grade crossings with gates, and officials said there could be additional ways to focus program requirements to continue improving safety. States' and the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) reporting focuses on the program's funding and activity, such as the number and types of projects, yet the low number of crashes makes it difficult to assess the effectiveness of projects in reducing crashes and fatalities. FHWA reports the program has been effective in reducing fatalities by about 74 percent since 1975. However, since 2009, annually there have been about 250 fatalities—almost one percent of total highway fatalities. FRA expects future crashes to grow, in part, due to the anticipated increase in rail and highway traffic. An evaluation of the program should consider whether its funding and other requirements allow states to adequately address ongoing safety issues. FHWA officials said they are not required to perform such evaluations. GAO has previously reported on the importance of program evaluations to determine the extent to which a program is meeting its objectives. An evaluation of the program could lead FHWA to identify changes that could allow states to more strategically address problem areas. GAO recommends that FHWA evaluate the program's requirements to determine if they allow states the flexibility to address ongoing safety issues. The Department of Transportation concurred with GAO's recommendation.