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



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

Report 1: The technology sector has major employment hubs across the country, including the San Francisco Bay area, the greater New York City region, and the Washington-Arlington-Alexandria region (see fig  1)  In addition, technology workers are employed at companies outside the technology sector, such as in the retail or financial services industries  For example, a large retail company may require technology workers to create and manage their online sales activities, but the company itself would be considered part of the retail industry  Private companies are generally prohibited by federal law from discriminating in employment on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, and disability status  Additionally, federal contractors and subcontractors are generally required to take affirmative action to ensure that all applicants and employees are treated without regard to race, sex, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, and gender identity, and to employ or advance in employment qualified individuals with disabilities and qualified covered veterans  EEOC is responsible for enforcement of federal antidiscrimination laws, and OFCCP enforces affirmative action and nondiscrimination requirements for federal contractors  EEOC and OFCCP have some shared activities and have established a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to minimize any duplication of effort  For example, under the MOU, individual complaints filed with OFCCP alleging discrimination under Title VII are generally referred to EEOC  In addition, on occasions when EEOC receives a complaint not within its purview, such as cases that involve veteran status, but over which it believes OFCCP has jurisdiction, it will refer the complaint to OFCCP  The EEOC, created by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, enforces federal laws that prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of race, sex, color, religion, national origin, age, and disability  As the nation’s primary enforcer of antidiscrimination laws, EEOC investigates charges of employment discrimination from the public, litigates major cases, and conducts outreach to prevent discrimination by educating employers and workers  In fiscal year 2016, EEOC received about 91,500 charges, secured more than $482 million for victims of discrimination, and filed 114 lawsuits  According to EEOC, many states, counties, cities, and towns have their own laws prohibiting discrimination, usually similar to those EEOC enforces, as well as agencies responsible for enforcing those laws, called Fair Employment Practices Agencies  However, in some cases, these agencies enforce laws that offer greater protection to workers  An individual can file a charge with either the EEOC or with a Fair Employment Practices Agency  When an individual initially files with a Fair Employment Practices Agency that has a worksharing agreement with the EEOC, and the allegation is covered by a law enforced by the EEOC, the Fair Employment Practices Agency will dual file the charge with EEOC (meaning EEOC will receive a copy of the charge), but will usually retain the charge for processing  If the charge is initially filed with EEOC and the charge is also covered by state or local law, EEOC dual files the charge with the state or local Fair Employment Practices Agency (meaning the Fair Employment Practices Agency will receive a copy of the charge), but EEOC ordinarily retains the charge for processing  EEOC also pursues a limited number of cases each year designed to combat systemic discrimination, defined by the agency as patterns or practices where the alleged discrimination presented by a complainant has a broad impact on an industry, profession, company, or geographic location  EEOC can also initiate a systemic investigation under Title VII with the approval of an EEOC commissioner, called a “commissioner charge”, provided the commissioner finds there is a reasonable basis for the investigation  In addition, EEOC district directors can approve systemic investigations, called “directed investigations” which are initiated by EEOC field office directors under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the Equal Pay Act  Under Title VII, EEOC generally requires that large employers and non- exempt federal contractors file Employer Information Reports (EEO-1 reports) annually, which collect employees’ demographic data by business location on sex, race, and ethnic group for 10 occupational job categories  According to EEOC documentation, EEO-1 data are used in investigations of Title VII violations, litigation, research, comparative analyses, class action suits, and affirmative action plans  The OFCCP is responsible for ensuring that the nearly 200,000 federal contractor establishments comply with federal nondiscrimination and affirmative action requirements  Under Executive Order 11246 and other federal laws and regulations, covered federal contractors and subcontractors are prohibited from discriminating in employment on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or national origin and are required to take affirmative action to help ensure that all applicants and employees are treated without regard to these factors  In general, OFCCP’s regulations require covered contractors to comply with certain recordkeeping and reporting requirements, and provide for enforcement procedures such as compliance evaluations and complaint investigations to assist OFCCP in ensuring federal contractor compliance with these regulations  Among other provisions, OFCCP’s regulations generally require that covered contractors prepare and maintain an affirmative action program (AAP)  Under OFCCP’s regulations, an AAP is a management tool that is designed to ensure equal employment opportunity, with an underlying premise that the gender, racial, and ethnic makeup of a contractor’s workforce should be representative of the labor pools from which the contractor recruits and selects  Companies must create an AAP for each business establishment—generally, a physical facility or unit that produces the goods or services, such as a factory, office, or store for the federal contractor  An AAP will also include any practical steps to address underrepresentation of women and minorities, such as expanding employment opportunities to underrepresented groups  Covered contractors must also comply with certain recordkeeping requirements, including records pertaining to hiring, promotion, lay off or termination, rates of pay, and applications, among other records  OFCCP’s enforcement program represents the majority of the agency’s activity and is carried out primarily by using compliance officers, who evaluate contractors’ compliance with various requirements, according to agency officials  In addition to conducting compliance evaluations, OFCCP also conducts investigations in response to complaints  In 2016, we reported that according to OFCCP officials, responding to complaints accounted for close to 16 percent of OFCCP’s enforcement activities  OFCCP selects contractor establishments for evaluations based on a number of neutrally applied factors, such as employee count at the establishment, contract value, or contract expiration date  We previously found that OFCCP reviews, on average, 2 percent of federal contractor establishments annually  As we previously reported, as part of its compliance evaluations, OFCCP is to review the selected contractor’s hiring, promotion, compensation, termination, and other employment practices to determine whether contractors are maintaining nondiscriminatory hiring and employment practices  OFCCP conducts evaluations at the establishment level  When a contractor establishment is selected for evaluation, OFCCP sends the contractor a “scheduling letter” requesting the AAP and supporting data, such as the percentage of women and minority staff at the workplace by job group  Then, a compliance officer is to conduct a desk audit, which is an off-site review of the submitted materials  If necessary, the compliance officer may also conduct an on-site review or further off-site analysis to make a final determination as to whether the contractor is in compliance  In addition to looking at whether federal contractors maintain nondiscriminatory hiring and employment practices, which can result in finding discrimination violations, OFCCP also frequently finds other types of violations, such as failure to keep necessary records or conduct annual reviews of equal employment and affirmative action efforts  These findings by the agency often require administrative changes on the part of the contractor, such as improved record-keeping  There are many different forms of remedies for discrimination violations, including financial, employment, and organizational change remedies  Although rare, under some circumstances, OFCCP may bar a contractor from doing business with the government  From 2005 to 2015, the estimated number of workers in the technology workforce—people who worked in mathematics, computing, or engineering occupations—increased at a higher rate (24 percent) than the estimated number of workers in the general workforce (9 percent), according to ACS data  In 2015, the technology workforce comprised an estimated 7 5 million workers, an increase of slightly over 1 4 million workers since 2005  (For a complete list of the occupations we include as technology occupations, see appendix II)  Most technology workers have a college degree and have a higher median income than workers in the general workforce  Specifically, in 2015, an estimated 69 percent of technology workers held at least a bachelor’s degree, compared to 31 percent of workers in the general workforce  In 2015, the estimated median income for technology workers was $81,000 compared to $42,000 for the general workforce  From 2005 to 2015, the percentage of women in the technology workforce remained flat and women remained a smaller proportion of the technology workforce compared to their representation in the general workforce  In 2015, women represented 22 percent (about 1 6 million workers) of workers in technology occupations, compared to 48 7 percent of workers in the general workforce (see fig  2)  Although the estimated percentage of minority technology workers as a whole had grown since 2005, we found that this trend did not apply to Black technology workers  Specifically, from 2005 through 2015, although the number of Black workers increased as the technology workforce grew, there was no statistically significant change in their representation as a percentage of the entire technology workforce  In contrast, from 2005 to 2015, Hispanic and Asian technology workers had statistically significant increases in their representation in the technology workforce  Even with the increase in their numbers in the technology workforce, Black and Hispanic technology workers remained a smaller proportion of these workers compared to their representation in the general workforce  In contrast, Asian workers were an increasing share of the technology workforce, where they remained more represented than they were in the general workforce (see fig  3)  We found that when we examined gender representation for each minority group, both Black and Hispanic men and women were less represented in the technology workforce compared to their representation in the general workforce  The same was true for White women, whereas White men, Asian men, and Asian women were more represented in the technology workforce compared to their representation in the general workforce (see fig  4)  We defined the technology sector as those companies that have the highest concentration of technology workers and are in such industries as computer systems design and software publishing  Companies categorized as outside the technology sector, for example, retail or finance companies, may still employ some technology workers  However, we found differences in median incomes for technology workers within and outside the technology sector  In 2015, technology workers employed in the technology sector earned an estimated median income of $89,000 compared to median incomes of $78,000 for those working outside the technology sector  We also compared the characteristics of technology workers within the technology sector and outside the technology sector, and found male and Asian technology workers were relatively more represented in the technology sector than outside the technology sector  Similar to the lower representation of female, Black, and Hispanic technology workers in technology occupations, we found technology workers from these groups were also more likely to work outside the technology sector than in the technology sector  For example, according to our analysis of 2015 ACS data, women represented an estimated 18 percent of all technology workers employed in the technology sector, compared to 25 percent of all technology workers employed outside the technology sector (see fig  5)  White technology workers were also more represented outside the technology sector than within the technology sector  Companies in the technology sector also employ non-technical workers such as sales people, and the lower representation of women and certain minorities in the technology sector was also present in such non-technical job categories  According to our analysis of EEO-1 data, women were less represented across the full range of management and non- management positions at companies within the technology sector, including at leading technology companies, compared to their representation in companies outside the technology sector  We determined this by comparing specific occupations at companies both within and outside the technology sectors using 2015 EEO-1 data  For example, women held about 19 percent of senior-level management positions at companies in the technology sector compared to nearly 31 percent of such positions at companies outside the technology sector in 2015  Women were also less represented in all of the remaining job categories (mid-level managers, professionals, technicians, and all other jobs) in the technology sector  (See fig  6 ) Comparing EEO-1 data at three points in time for 2007, 2011, and 2015, we found women’s representation in management positions as well as among professionals and technicians at companies within the technology sector remained at about the same level, and decreased for “all other jobs” (see table 1)  Similar to women, Black and Hispanic workers were less represented across multiple job categories in companies within the technology sector compared to those outside the technology sector (see fig 7)  For example, 1 8 percent of senior level managers in the technology sector were Black compared to 3 4 percent of senior level managers in all other sectors  Appendix IV provides percentages for each minority group in different job categories within and outside the technology sector  The lower representation of Black workers in the technology sector relative to their representation in other sectors was consistent across all job categories (mid-level managers, professionals, technicians, and “all other jobs”)  Hispanic workers were less represented in the technology sector compared to outside the technology sector across all job categories (senior and mid-level managers, professionals, technicians, and “all other jobs”)  Compared to their representation across job categories within the technology sector in general, Black and Hispanic workers had slightly greater representation at the leading technology companies in senior management and technician categories, and lower representation among mid-level managers, professionals, and holders of “all other jobs ” Asian workers comprised a greater proportion of managerial and professional roles in the technology sector than in other sectors, according to our analysis of 2015 EEO-1 data  Asian workers represented 11 0 percent of senior level managers in the technology sector compared to 4 3 percent in industries outside the technology sector  This higher representation of Asian workers in the technology sector was consistent among mid-level managers, professionals and technicians  Asian workers were more represented in the same categories at the leading technology companies  However, a lower proportion of Asian workers held senior management positions compared to their representation in professional positions in both the technology sector and leading technology companies  Further, the proportion of Asian workers in mid-level management positions was also lower than their representation in professional positions, from which mid-level managers might be selected, in both the technology sector and leading technology companies  In contrast, a higher proportion of White workers were in senior and mid- level management positions compared to their representation in professional positions in both the technology sector and leading technology companies  Comparing EEO-1 data at three points in time—2007, 2011, and 2015— we saw varied representation across job categories in the technology sector by race/ethnicity  For example, Black workers decreased in their representation in all job categories in the technology sector from 2007 to 2015  In contrast, Hispanic and Asian workers increased in their representation in all job categories we examined from 2007 to 2015 (see table 2)  Several factors may contribute to the lower representation of female, Hispanic, and Black workers in the technology workforce and at companies in the technology sector, based on research and interviews with researchers and representatives from workforce and industry organizations and technology companies  These include the lower diversity of degree earners in technology-related fields, and company- based factors such as hiring practices and retention of women and underrepresented minorities  The smaller proportion of women in the technology workforce may reflect the number of women earning technology-related degrees  Slightly over two-thirds of technology workers report having earned their bachelor’s degree in a computer, engineering, mathematics, or technology field  However, according to our analysis of 2014 IPEDS data, the percentage of technology-related bachelor’s and master’s degrees earned by women is far less than for men, although women were comparable to men in their receipt of science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) degrees, and surpassed men in obtaining degrees in all other fields  In 2014, about 60,000 women were awarded technology-related bachelor’s or master’s degrees (compared to about 50,000 in 2004) and about 190,000 men were awarded such degrees (compared to about 147,000 in 2004)  (See fig  8 ) An estimated 218,000 technology workers were added to the technology workforce in 2015, according to our analysis of 2015 American Community Survey data from the U S  Census Bureau  In addition, technology degrees are also issued at the associate’s level  Two researchers told us that women often have the academic preparation to enter into technology-related degree programs, but they may choose not to pursue such degrees because of instances of gender bias within technology classes  Our prior work reported on studies that found women leave STEM fields at a higher rate than their male peers, citing one study that found women leave STEM academic positions at a higher rate than men in part due to dissatisfaction with departmental culture, faculty leadership, and research support  Further, a 2012 consulting firm report found that businesses viewed as male-dominated tended to attract fewer women at the entry level  In addition, according to our analysis of 2014 IPEDS data, three minority racial or ethnic groups each constituted 10 percent or fewer of bachelor’s and master’s degree earners in a technology-related field  Specifically, among the 202,200 earners of degrees in a technology-related field in 2014, there were about 20,000 Hispanic recipients, 13,000 Black recipients, and 18,000 recipients who were Multiracial or other race, which includes American Indian or Alaska Native, Other or Unknown Race, and Two or more Races, i e  respondents who selected one or more racial designations  Among all minority groups, Asian students, including Pacific Islander, earned the highest proportion of technology- related degrees (about 24,000 individuals)  (See fig  9)  One barrier to entry into technology degree paths for Black and Hispanic students may be lower likelihood of access to preparatory academic programs in secondary school  In 2016, we reported that the K-12 public schools in the United States with students who are mostly Black or Hispanic offered disproportionately fewer math and science classes for their students  One researcher told us some colleges and universities, to help these students be academically successful, provide additional academic support such as tutoring to help bridge knowledge gaps  To address the uneven access to preparatory math and science classes, representatives from five technology companies told us they have started to invest in exposing Black and Hispanic children to technology occupations by, for example, developing online resources targeted to them and their parents and creating partnerships with secondary schools to improve their academic preparation in computer science  However, we have previously also reported that the number of students graduating with STEM degrees may not be a good measure of the supply of STEM workers because students often pursue careers in fields different from the ones they studied  For example, a lower percentage of women who obtained technology-related degrees became technology workers compared to men who earned the same degrees, according to our analysis of 2015 ACS data  Specifically, among women who earned technology degrees, an estimated 33 percent worked as a technology worker compared to 45 percent of men who earned technology degrees  Several representatives we interviewed from workforce and industry organizations and technology companies told us that recruitment practices may also have affected diversity in the technology workforce  For example, representatives from three workforce and industry organizations said technology companies tend to recruit from a select number of universities and colleges, thereby limiting their pool of potential applicants  To address this, representatives from several of the technology companies we interviewed told us they had changed recruitment practices and offered internships targeted to underrepresented groups  For example, representatives of four technology companies told us that their companies had expanded recruitment to include more schools  Representatives from two companies told us they offer programs such as summer and semester internships for which the company actively recruits from Historically Black Colleges and Universities and other specific schools to increase its pool of diverse candidates  In addition, representatives from workforce organizations and technology companies discussed concerns and strategies to address companies’ hiring practices and internal cultures that may limit workforce diversity  For example, one of these representatives said that technology companies often offer financial incentives to current employees to make referrals for new hires, which can result in reliance on social networks  These networks may be largely comprised of the same race and this practice therefore makes it harder for potential candidates from demographically different groups to have their resumes reviewed  Another workforce organization representative reported that some hiring managers filter out eligible candidates if their background and qualifications are not the same as those of previously successful employees  To address these concerns, representatives from one technology company told us that they had moved away from depending on referrals since this practice may result in leaders hiring people within their own networks, which generally does not increase diversity of gender or race/ethnicity  In addition, representatives from another company said they plan to begin reviewing resumes with names removed to limit bias by the reviewer  Further, representatives we interviewed from three technology companies told us they offer training to employees to help employees identify their own, unconscious biases  Other factors may affect retention of women and underrepresented minorities  For example, a representative from a workforce organization said that women leave technology occupations at a higher rate than men because they feel as if they have not been given the same opportunities for promotion and advancement within the company  A 2016 study that examined women in engineering and science found that women’s concerns about pay and promotion are often an issue in male-dominated fields regardless of the industry  Further, this study found that retention difficulties become more severe as the share of men in the workforce increased and that affected women’s pay and promotion  Representatives from one company told us another challenge is the lack of Black workers at the top levels, which might make it more difficult for Black employees in particular to see a leadership path  Representatives we interviewed from five technology companies told us they had implemented efforts to increase retention and promotion rates among minority and female workers, for example, by developing a diversity and inclusion newsletter, employee resource groups with executive sponsors, and internal training and classes for employees to improve their readiness to be promoted  Representatives from five technology companies told us that commitment of top leadership is an important factor that can help women and underrepresented minorities in the technology sector  For example, representatives from one company told us that top management support for diversity efforts, such as setting hiring goals, can help move a company in the direction of achieving representation goals and that leadership is very important to this effort  Representatives from several companies told us that there is often a business case for such changes: These companies work in a diverse, global environment and strive to make better products for diverse users  However, our prior work on workforce diversity in the financial services sector found that some diversity initiatives faced challenges gaining the "buy-in" of key employees, such as the middle managers who are often responsible for implementing such programs  According to EEOC officials, EEOC primarily oversees compliance with equal employment opportunity requirements by investigating workers’ individual charges of employment discrimination filed against companies  EEOC has publicly acknowledged the low levels of diversity in the technology sector  However, we were unable to identify a specific number of charges received by EEOC against companies in industries that are part of this sector because EEOC does not require investigators to record the industry of the charged company  EEOC’s database of charges and enforcement actions—the Integrated Mission System (IMS)—has a data field for the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) industry code, the standard used by federal statistical agencies in classifying business establishments  However, we found that it is completed for only about half the entries in the system  EEOC officials in both the San Francisco and New York district offices told us that, while they cannot readily identify individual charges against technology companies, they believe they have received far fewer charges against technology companies than they would have expected given the public attention to the issue of diversity in the technology sector  In terms of systemic cases, according to EEOC, as of June 2017, the commission had 255 systemic cases pending since fiscal year 2011 involving technology companies (13 of these were initiated as commissioner charges and 8 were directed investigations involving age discrimination or pay parity issues)  Officials from the New York region reported that they had seen an increase in systemic cases against technology companies in the past 3 years, largely involving practices of information technology staffing firms  Several EEOC officials we interviewed noted that technology workers may be initiating few complaints at the federal level due to factors such as fear of retaliation from employers or the availability of other employment or legal options  According to EEOC officials, fear of retaliation can affect charges across sectors and, given the growth in the technology workforce, an individual who feels discriminated against may simply leave the company because there are many other opportunities for individuals with technical skills  They also said that technology workers may generally have greater wealth and can afford to hire private attorneys to sue in state court rather than go through the EEOC  Moreover, they said that some states, including California, have stronger employment discrimination laws that allow for better remedies than federal laws, which could lead employees to file charges at the state level rather than with the EEOC  In addition, EEOC has acknowledged in a 2016 report that binding arbitration policies, which require individuals to submit their claims to private arbiters rather than courts, can also deter workers from bringing discrimination claims to the agency, leaving significant violations in entire segments of the workforce unreported  The report stated that an increasing number of arbitration policies have added bans on class actions that prevent individuals from joining together to challenge practices in any forum  The report concluded that the use of arbitration policies hinders EEOC’s ability to detect and remedy potential systemic violations  Researchers report that the use of such clauses has grown and data on federal civil filings for civil rights employment cases reflect a marked reduction in the number of such filings  Beyond pursuing charges, EEOC has taken some steps to address diversity in the technology sector including research and outreach efforts  In May 2016, citing the technology sector as a source for an increasing number of U S  jobs, EEOC released a report analyzing EEO-1 data on diversity in the technology sector in tandem with a commission meeting raising awareness on the topic  In addition, EEOC’s fiscal year 2017- 2021 Strategic Enforcement Plan identified barriers to hiring and recruiting in the technology sector as a strategic priority  EEOC has also been involved in outreach efforts with the technology sector  For example, the EEOC Pacific Region described more than 15 in-person or webinar events since 2014 in collaboration with OFCCP and local organizations focused on diversity in the technology sector  The topics of these events included equity in pay and the activities of these two agencies in enforcing nondiscrimination laws  Finally, in fall 2016, EEOC initiated an internal working group to identify practices to help improve gender and racial diversity in technology, but as of June 2017 had no progress to report  OFCCP’s regulations require covered federal contractors to take proactive steps to ensure equal employment opportunity  OFCCP annually conducts routine evaluations of selected federal contractors, which includes those in the technology sector, for compliance with federal nondiscrimination and affirmative action requirements  To the extent that technology contractors are selected for evaluation through OFCCP’s normal selection process, these contractors are assessed for compliance with nondiscrimination and affirmative action laws as are other selected contractors  While evaluation of technology contractors occurs in the course of OFCCP’s routine activities, OFCCP does not currently use type of industry as a selection factor, according to officials  We also found that few (less than 1 percent) of OFCCP’s 2,911 closed technology contractor evaluations from fiscal years 2011 through 2016 resulted in discrimination violations, though 13 percent resulted in other violations, such as record- keeping violations and failure to establish an affirmative action program (AAP)  An AAP is a key tool OFCCP requires contractors to complete to ensure equal employment opportunity  The remaining 86 percent of evaluations either found no violations or ended in administrative closure  Technology contractor evaluations that had discrimination violations resulted in back pay, salary adjustments, or other benefits totaling more than $4 5 million for 15,316 individuals (averaging about $300 per award) for fiscal years 2011 through 2016  The vast majority of discrimination violations were on the basis of gender or race/ethnicity rather than disability or veteran status  Corrective actions OFCCP identified for federal technology contractors over this timeframe also included requiring contractors to fill a total of 410 job vacancies as they arise with applicants who had been denied employment on the basis of discrimination  In addition, OFCCP recently filed three complaints against technology companies  According to our analysis, OFCCP conducted evaluations on 36 of the 65 leading technology companies from fiscal year 2011 through fiscal year 2016  During this timeframe there were 272 reviews of establishments— physical business locations—affiliated with these 36 companies  Based on these evaluations, 15 of the 36 companies had administrative violations, and 2 of the 36 also had discrimination violations  As a result of the discrimination findings against these leading technology companies, 541 individuals received monetary benefits totaling $783,387 (an average of $1,448 per award)  In terms of other steps to conduct oversight of the technology sector, OFCCP officials in the Pacific Region said they are hiring compliance officers with legal training to be better able to address needs for reviews in the technology sector, such as responding to lawyers representing technology contractors  Officials in both the Pacific and Northeast regions work closely with statisticians and labor economists on their cases, an effort officials said has increased over the past few years  OFCCP has also requested funding in its fiscal year 2018 congressional budget justification to establish centers in San Francisco and New York that would develop expertise to handle large, complex compliance evaluations in specific industries, including information technology  We found that by not requiring an industry code in its investigations data, EEOC cannot analyze charge data by industry to help identify investigation and outreach priorities, in contradiction to EEOC strategic planning documents and EEOC Inspector General reports, which have emphasized the importance of doing so  By not requiring the use of the NAICS code for each entry in IMS, EEOC is limited in its ability to use these data for the purposes of identifying charges by industry sector and conducting sector-related analyses  Officials were aware of substantial gaps in coding of charges by industry and acknowledged limitations in the commission’s ability to analyze its investigations data by industry  However, officials expressed concern that routinely creating more complete records of the companies against which charges had been filed would require investigators to divert attention from their efforts to investigate charges  EEOC officials explained that the charging party provides initial information on the respondent company and requiring EEOC personnel to generate this information would slow down the process  They said their priority is to investigate individual charges, not to address larger trends or target specific industries  “The Strategic Enforcement Plan recommends using EEOC data to allow our enforcement and outreach efforts to focus on areas of significant concern  This might include tailoring outreach efforts for industries that experience greater likelihood of certain charges or informing enforcement decisions based on knowledge that certain industries have persistent problems, such as harassment  The data maintained in IMS provide a rich resource of information that can be used to explore the characteristics of industries that appear to have higher levels of certain allegations than comparative industries ” In addition, reports completed by the Urban Institute for the EEOC Office of Inspector General in 2013 and 2015 similarly recommended analysis of charge data, including by industry, to help identify priorities and measure performance  While EEOC has plans to review a year of IMS data to clean it and determine how best to add missing industry codes, among other objectives, officials could not provide a specific timeframe for when this review would begin and end  Standards for internal control in the federal government state that management should use quality information to achieve the agency’s objectives and objectives should be defined in specific terms so they are understood at all levels of the entity  This involves clearly defining what is to be achieved, who is to achieve it, how it will be achieved, and the time frames for achievement  Efforts to scrub these data and identify missing codes could help EEOC determine how to collect industry information on an ongoing basis for all entries  Doing so would also help EEOC determine the level of NAICS code that would be feasible and useful for investigators to identify and input into IMS  Without analyzing its data on charges across industries, EEOC’s ability to proactively identify priorities for its outreach and enforcement resource use is limited  We found that OFCCP also faces challenges that may hinder the agency’s oversight of technology companies  Specifically, OFCCP reported facing delays in receiving information from federal contractors, including technology companies, but has not yet evaluated whether its own policies and practices also impede its efforts to hold federal technology contractors responsible for the legal requirements to take affirmative action and not discriminate against protected groups  In addition, OFCCP regulations do not require federal contractors to disaggregate data for the purpose of determining placement goals for hiring, which may hinder contractors’ efforts to implement effective affirmative action programs  OFCCP has not analyzed delays in obtaining information from contractors OFCCP officials told us that they face delays in obtaining complete, accurate, and timely documentation from federal contractors, including technology companies, as part of the compliance review process  They said this limited their access to critical information and hindered OFCCP’s ability to determine whether discrimination had occurred  Officials in the Pacific Region reported that when issues are identified during OFCCP’s initial review that will require additional data, the data requests can be extensive  Consequently, technology contractors are taking longer to submit complete and accurate data that are needed to conduct analyses of the contractor’s workforce  In addition, officials in both the Pacific and Northeast regions reported that companies may not provide raw data as requested, or provide access to employees for OFCCP to interview, which is part of the compliance review process  Using 2015 OFCCP compliance evaluation data, we previously reported that close to 85 percent of contractor establishments across all sectors did not submit an AAP within 30 days of being scheduled for an OFCCP compliance evaluation, as required by OFCCP policy  Officials told us of the potential need for a more flexible set of investigatory tools or sanctions, such as subpoena power to speed up data-gathering or penalties for delays in providing information, in order to obtain accurate and timely information  In the case of incomplete data, OFCCP officials said one option is to enter into an agreement with the contractor whereby the contractor will gather the missing data, and OFCCP will monitor the contractor’s efforts and review detailed records at a later date  However, they said that such an agreement could give the contractor an opportunity to modify the data in the contractor’s favor  Currently, OFCCP’s primary sanction is the threat of debarment, which makes a company ineligible to receive future federal contracts  At the same time, OFCCP officials acknowledged there may additionally be delays in their own review processes  In prior work, we’ve reported concerns by contractors and industry groups about lengthy and expansive OFCCP evaluations  However, OFCCP has not analyzed its data on closed evaluations to assess the cause of delays, which would help determine whether changes should be made to its internal processes or if stronger sanctions to obtain information from contractors are needed  Internal control standards state that management should identify, analyze, and respond to risks related to achieving its objectives  Further, it states that management should design appropriate mechanisms to enforce its directives to achieve those objectives and address related risks  Without more information on the root cause of the delays, these delays may continue, straining resources and inhibiting OFCCP’s efforts to identify potential discrimination  “An affirmative action program is a management tool designed to ensure equal employment opportunity  A central premise underlying affirmative action is that, absent discrimination, over time a contractor’s workforce, generally, will reflect the gender, racial and ethnic profile of the labor pools from which the contractor recruits and selects  Affirmative action programs contain a diagnostic component which includes a number of quantitative analyses designed to evaluate the composition of the workforce of the contractor and compare it to the composition of the relevant labor pools  Affirmative action programs also include action- oriented programs  If women and minorities are not being employed at a rate to be expected given their availability in the relevant labor pool, the contractor’s affirmative action program includes specific practical steps designed to address this underutilization ” “The placement goal-setting process       contemplates that contractors will, where required, establish a single goal for all minorities  In the event of a substantial disparity in the utilization of a particular minority group or in the utilization of women or women of a particular minority group, a contractor may be required to establish separate goals for those groups ” According to OFCCP officials, a contractor may be required to establish separate goals for particular minority groups as part of a compliance review  We found, however, that OFCCP’s regulations do not require federal contractors to disaggregate demographic data for the purpose of establishing placement goals in their AAP  This may hinder their efforts to implement effective AAPs, which are designed to assist the company in achieving a workforce that reflects the gender, racial, and ethnic profile of the labor pools from which the contractor recruits and selects  OFCCP officials in headquarters and in the field said, based on their experience evaluating companies’ compliance, it was not common for companies to have placement goals disaggregated by race and ethnicity in their AAPs  A diversity and inclusion officer we interviewed from one large technology contractor noted that the requirement in the AAP to identify the need for placement goals for minorities as a whole does not address underrepresentation in certain minority groups  According to the officer, the company does not count Asian workers in setting the company’s diversity goals because Asians are well represented and the company believes it should set a placement goal for groups for which the company knows it needs to make progress  Citing comments received during development of other regulations, OFCCP officials cautioned that an analysis of utilization disaggregated by race/ethnicity may be more challenging for smaller companies with fewer employees  Further, looking at trends in diversity for minorities as a whole may not assist a company’s affirmative action efforts to identify groups that need particular outreach or support  Specifically, our analysis of workforce data found differences in representation for Black and Hispanic workers in the technology workforce compared to Asian workers  Under the current AAP regulations, companies may opt not to detect and address underrepresentation of particular minority groups since OFCCP does not require placement goals disaggregated by race/ethnicity  While OFCCP may be able to detect underrepresentation of particular minority groups during its reviews, the office reviews only 2 percent of federal contractor establishments each year  OFCCP officials said that they would need to amend their regulations in order to require disaggregated race/ethnicity information for placement goals on AAPs  The officials said disaggregating race in placement goals could help an establishment determine how to tailor outreach accordingly or better identify impediments to its equal employment opportunity efforts  However, they have not pursued this regulatory change because of competing priorities on their regulatory agenda  OFCCP’s mission includes holding federal contractors responsible for the legal requirements to take affirmative action and not discriminate against protected groups  However, not requiring contractors to set placement goals for each minority group may hinder OFCCP’s ability to effectively achieve this mission  OFCCP has not reviewed key aspects of its current approach to evaluations OFCCP officials report the agency intends to incorporate additional information on gender, racial, and ethnic disparities by industry into its compliance evaluation selection process, but we found the methodology to determine the disparities may have weaknesses  We have previously reported on the challenges OFCCP faces with its enforcement efforts, and identified additional areas that may limit OFCCP’s enforcement of federal contractors’ equal employment and affirmative action efforts  For example, our 2016 report found that OFCCP’s weak compliance evaluation selection process, reliance on voluntary compliance, and lack of staff training create several challenges to its enforcement efforts  This report found that because OFCCP was not able to identify which factors are associated with risk of noncompliance, the agency does not have reasonable assurance that it is focusing its efforts on those contractors at greatest risk of not following nondiscrimination or affirmative action requirements  OFCCP agreed with recommendations we made to address these areas and detailed steps the agency would take  In particular, to strengthen its compliance evaluation process to select contractors at greatest risk of potential discrimination, the agency stated that it planned to incorporate information on pay disparities and employment disparities  OFCCP officials indicated this information would be based on analysis of gender and race/ethnicity by industry using ACS data and EEO-1 compensation data that was to be collected beginning March 2018  However, in August 2017, the Office of Management and Budget issued a memo suspending the pay-related data collection aspects of the EEO-1 form  Despite this change, OFCCP officials said they are exploring other options for focusing on compensation disparities by industry, including through the use of ACS data, administrative data, a previous study conducted by the Department of Labor, as well as options proposed by contractors  We also found OFCCP’s current methodology for identifying disparities by industry with the ACS data may have some weaknesses that could affect the accuracy of the outcomes  For example, its reliance on the broadest industry level available may not sufficiently identify specific industries at elevated risk  Further, the methodology includes future plans to conduct the analysis for metropolitan areas  Given the importance of regional and local labor markets for assessing affirmative action efforts, regional and local analysis should also be completed before OFCCP incorporates this analysis into its selection process  It is important that OFCCP use reliable information in modifying its basic processes and setting priorities  For the reasons cited earlier regarding the importance of using quality information to make management decisions, it is important that OFCCP assess the quality of the methods for its analysis of employment disparities among industries  Without doing so, OFCCP may not accurately identify industries at greatest risk of potential noncompliance with nondiscrimination and affirmative action requirements so it can focus its limited investigation resources most effectively  Further, according to OFCCP officials, although the agency has made slight changes to various thresholds and factors for its selection process, the agency has not made any significant changes to the selection process for about 10 years, and has made no changes to its establishment-based approach since OFCCP was founded in 1965  While OFCCP currently grounds its review of a contractor in a particular physical establishment, OFCCP officials acknowledged the changing nature of a company’s work can involve multiple locations and corresponding changes in the scope of hiring and recruitment  Officials we interviewed from five of our eight selected technology companies discussed their work spread across locations, including the United States or overseas, and the related challenges they face with OFCCP’s establishment-based approach to reviews  One company representative said the AAP is not useful because site specific plans do not connect to business decisions  However, OFCCP has not reviewed the implications for the effectiveness of its mission of continuing with its establishment-based approach to conducting compliance evaluations  In addition, OFCCP officials acknowledged their inability, in identifying establishments for review, to consistently identify and include all subcontractors to which OFCCP rules should apply  They said the agency has not assessed the potential significance of any omissions of subcontractors from the oversight process  Internal control standards state that management should identify risks throughout the entity related to achieving its defined objectives to form a basis for designing risk responses, as well as the importance of periodically reviewing policies, procedures and related control activities for continued relevance and effectiveness in achieving the agency’s objectives  OFCCP officials said they have informally discussed how to adjust their work based on how work is performed in today’s economy—with virtual sites, workplace flexibilities, and nontraditional forms of employment  However, due to competing priorities, they have not conducted a formal review of these key aspects of its current approach to selecting entities for review  They acknowledged such a review would be useful  Without assessing its current approach to its establishment-based reviews and identification of all relevant subcontractors, OFCCP does not have reasonable assurance that its approach can identify discrimination occurring within the companies it oversees and may be missing opportunities to identify more effective practices or adjust its methods to external changes  While OFCCP has offered an option—the Functional Affirmative Action Program (FAAP)—for companies to move away from establishment- based reviews and which may be more appropriate for some multi– establishment contractors, uptake has been low and the agency has not conducted an evaluation of this program  Since 2002, OFCCP has allowed companies to create FAAPs, with OFCCP approval, which are based on a business function or unit that may exist at multiple establishments  As of May 2017, 73 companies across all industries had FAAPs in place  Further, some of the companies we interviewed were unaware that the FAAP was an option or believed it was cumbersome to establish given the complexity of their workforce  Asked why the FAAP has not been more broadly adopted, OFCCP officials hypothesized it could have to do with a requirement intended to ensure that companies with FAAPs would be reviewed at least as often as others, but that may result in these companies being reviewed more often than most  Standards for internal control for government agencies state that management should periodically review policies, procedures, and related control activities for continued relevance and effectiveness in achieving the entity’s objectives  Reviewing and refining the FAAP program could help OFCCP improve its ability to achieve its objectives and may provide broader insight for OFCCP’s overall enforcement approach  Jobs in the high paying technology sector are projected to grow in coming years  Female, Black, and Hispanic workers, however, comprised a smaller proportion of technology workers compared to their representation in the general workforce from 2005 through 2015, and have also been less represented among technology workers inside the technology sector than outside it  Both EEOC’s and OFCCP’s mission is to combat discrimination and support equal employment opportunity for U S  workers; however, weaknesses in their processes impact the effectiveness of their efforts  When conducting investigations, EEOC has not been consistently capturing information on industry codes  This impedes its ability to conduct industry sector analysis that could be used to more effectively focus its limited enforcement resources and outreach activities  Similarly, OFCCP faces delays in its compliance review process but it has not analyzed its closed evaluations to understand the causes of these delays and whether its processes need to be modified to reduce them  In addition, as part of their affirmative action programs federal contractors are only required to set placement goals for all minorities in general  By not requiring contractors to disaggregate demographic data for the purpose of establishing placement goals, OFCCP has limited assurance that these contractors are setting goals that will address potential underrepresentation in certain minority groups  Further, OFCCP plans to incorporate information on disparities by industry into its process for selecting establishments for compliance evaluations, but has not fully assessed its planned methods  Without such assessment, OFCCP may use a process that does not effectively identify the industries at greatest risk of potential noncompliance with nondiscrimination and affirmative action requirements  In addition, key aspects of OFCCP’s approach to compliance reviews of contractors’ affirmative action efforts have not changed in over 50 years, whereas the structure and locations of these companies’ work have changed  Finally, although OFCCP has developed an alternative affirmative action program for multi-establishment contractors, few contractors participate in this program  Because OFCCP has not evaluated the program, it does not have information to determine why there has not been greater uptake and whether it provides a more effective alternative to an establishment-based AAP  We are making a total of six recommendations, including one to EEOC and five to OFCCP  Specifically: The Chair of the EEOC should develop a timeline to complete the planned effort to clean IMS data for a one-year period and add missing industry code data  (Recommendation 1) The Director of OFCCP should analyze internal process data from closed evaluations to better understand the cause of delays that occur during compliance evaluations and make changes accordingly  (Recommendation 2) The Director of OFCCP should take steps toward requiring contractors to disaggregate demographic data for the purpose of setting placement goals in the AAP rather than setting a single goal for all minorities, incorporating any appropriate accommodation for company size  For example, OFCCP could provide guidance to contractors to include more specific goals in their AAP or assess the feasibility of amending their regulations to require them to do so  (Recommendation 3) The Director of OFCCP should assess the quality of the methods used by OFCCP to incorporate consideration of disparities by industry into its process for selecting contractor establishments for compliance evaluation  It should use the results of this assessment in finalizing its procedures for identifying contractor establishments at greatest risk of noncompliance  (Recommendation 4) The Director of OFCCP should evaluate the current approach used for identifying entities for compliance review and determine whether modifications are needed to reflect current workplace structures and locations or to ensure that subcontractors are included  (Recommendation 5) The Director of OFCCP should evaluate the Functional Affirmative Action Program to assess its usefulness as an effective alternative to an establishment-based program, and determine what improvements, if any, could be made to better encourage contractor participation  (Recommendation 6) We provided a draft of this report to the Departments of Labor (DOL), Commerce, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the National Science Foundation (NSF)  We received written comments from DOL that are reproduced in appendix V  In addition, DOL, Commerce, EEOC, and NSF provided technical comments which we incorporated into the report as appropriate  DOL agreed with 4 of the 5 recommendations we made to improve oversight of federal contractors, and identified some steps it plans to take to implement them  Specifically, the department agreed with our recommendations to analyze internal process data to better understand the cause of delays that occur during compliance evaluations, assess the quality of methods used to incorporate consideration of disparities by industry into the process to select contractors for review, and to evaluate its current approach to identifying entities for review in light of changes in workplace structures, as well as its Functional Affirmative Action Program  DOL stated that it appreciated, but neither agreed nor disagreed, with our recommendation to take steps toward requiring contractors to disaggregate demographic data for the purpose of setting placement goals in the AAP rather than setting a single goal for all minorities  The department said this would require a regulatory change with little immediate benefit as contractors are already required to collect demographic data on each employee and applicant, and must conduct in- depth analyses of their total employment processes to identify where impediments to equal opportunity exist  While we acknowledge these data collection requirements for federal contractors, we remain concerned that without requiring contractors to also establish placement goals to address any underrepresentation for specific minority groups, contractors may not develop objectives or targets to make affirmative action efforts work  We maintain, therefore, that DOL should take steps toward requiring contractors to develop placement goals disaggregated by race/ethnicity  EEOC provided us a memo that it characterized as technical comments on the draft report  In these comments, EEOC neither agreed nor disagreed with our recommendation to develop a timeline to complete its planned effort to clean IMS data for a one-year period, which would include adding missing industry codes, but stated that it was taking some actions to enhance these data  We continue to maintain a timeline should be developed to complete this review, which is needed for the commission to conduct industry sector analysis that could be used to more effectively focus its limited resources and outreach activities  EEOC also emphasized the importance of systemic investigations, noting that while outreach may be somewhat useful in generating charges, individual charges are unlikely to make a substantial impact on a systemic practice affecting an entire employment sector  We maintain that the ability to analyze IMS data by industry could help EEOC to focus its resource use, including for systemic investigations  EEOC also noted staffing and resource constraints as issues faced by the commission  As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the report date  At that time, we will send copies to the appropriate congressional committees, the Secretary of Labor, the Chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Secretary of Commerce, and the Director of the National Science Foundation  In addition, the report will be available at no charge on GAO’s website at http://www gao gov  If you or your staff should have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-7215 or brownbarnesc@gao gov  Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report  GAO staff who made key contributions to this report are listed in appendix VI  Our two objectives were to: (1) identify the demographic trends in the technology workforce over the past 10 years, and (2) assess the efforts by the U S  Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the Department of Labor’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) to oversee technology companies and technology contractors’ compliance with equal employment opportunity and affirmative action requirements  This appendix provides details of the data sources used to answer these questions, the analyses we conducted, and any limitations we encountered  There is no commonly accepted definition of the technology sector or technology-oriented occupations  To arrive at our definition for the technology sector, we identified industries with the highest concentration of technology-oriented occupations, a similar approach to what other federal agencies have used recently to analyze trends within this sector  To identify technology-oriented occupations, we reviewed relevant research and interviewed researchers and other individuals knowledgeable about the technology sector  Based on this research, we defined technology-oriented occupations to include all computer, engineering and mathematical occupations, including managers  We selected our occupations using Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) System codes, and crosswalked those occupations to the corresponding U S  Census Bureau occupation codes to conduct our analysis  (For a complete list of the occupations we included as technology occupations, see appendix II)  We defined the technology sector as a group of industries with the highest concentration of technology workers  Using data from the American Community Survey, an ongoing national survey conducted by the U S  Census Bureau that collects information from a sample of households, we identified the 15 industries with the highest concentration of technology workers  For this analysis, we used Census industry codes since we used this dataset for many of our analyses  The concentration of technology workers in these industries ranged from a high of 62 2 percent in the computer systems design and related services industry to a low of 19 33 percent in the wired telecommunications carriers industry (see table 3)  Companies in the technology sector also employ non-technical workers, such as sales people  We cross-walked the industries we identified in the American Community Survey with corresponding industry codes from the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS), which is the standard used by federal statistical agencies in classifying business establishments  The other data sets used in this review use NAICS codes to identify industry  The NAICS system has six levels of industry classification, with the smallest level (2-digit code) providing the most general industry classification, and the largest (6-digit) providing the most specific classification  In total, we identified 55 6-digit NAICS industry codes that comprise the technology sector using this method  (See appendix III for a list of the 6-digit NAICS codes and industry names that correspond to the Census industries we identified ) We compared our list of industries to those included in the 2016 reports by EEOC and the BLS on the technology sector  While each report includes a somewhat different set of industries depending on the authors’ particular definition of technology occupations, most of the 15 industries we selected overlap with industries selected in these other reviews  Stemming from their particular focus, these reports included some additional industries and/or occupations excluded from our analysis, such as those in the life sciences  We also compared our findings on the demographic trends in the technology workforce to 2016 EEOC and Census Bureau reports that reviewed diversity in the technology sector  Despite the definitional and methodological variations, the demographic trends found in these other reports were generally comparable to our findings  To determine the demographic trends in the technology workforce over the past decade, we analyzed quantitative data on technology workers within and outside the technology sector from 2005 through 2015 from the Census Bureau’s Public Use Microdata Sample of the American Community Survey (ACS) for the years 2005, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2013, and 2015  ACS is an ongoing national survey that collects information from a sample of households  We analyzed trend data for gender, race, and ethnicity, and median salary by occupation and sector, and analyzed point-in-time data on educational background by occupation  We analyzed the percentage of technology workers who earned bachelor’s degrees in computer, engineering, mathematics, and technology fields  For median salary, we analyzed data for workers who were employed full-time, which included those who, over the past 12 months, reported usually working 35 hours or more per week and 50 weeks or more per year, and those with wages greater than zero  To account for the sample representation and design used in the ACS, we used the person weight present in the ACS data  We used the successive difference replication method to estimate the standard errors around any population estimate  For each comparison, we tested the statistical significance of the difference for men and women and for specific racial and ethnic groups at the p-value <0 05 level  In addition, we tested the statistical significance of the change between 2005 and 2015 for each gender and racial/ethnic group  For race categories using ACS data in this report, we included only non- Hispanic members of White, Black, Asian, and Other categories  For the Asian category, we included Asian American, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander  The Hispanic category incorporated Hispanics of all races  Our analysis included American Indian or Alaskan Native, and Two or More Races, in the category reported as “Other ” We assessed the reliability of the ACS generally and of data elements that were critical to our analyses and determined that they were sufficiently reliable for our analyses  Specifically, we reviewed documentation on the general design and methods of the ACS and on the specific elements of the ACS data that were used in our analysis  We interviewed Census Bureau officials knowledgeable about the ACS data and completed our own electronic data testing to assess the accuracy and completeness of the data used in our analyses  To determine workforce trends in companies within the technology sector and at leading information technology companies, we analyzed data from EEOC’s Employer Information Reports (EEO-1) for the years 2007, 2011, and 2015  We report EEO-1 data starting in 2007 because EEOC made significant changes to its requirements related to the reporting of EEO-1 data over time  For example, beginning in 2007, EEOC changed its requirements related to the reporting of data on managers and changed its practices for collecting certain racial/ethnicity information  EEO-1 reports contain firm-level data that is annually submitted to EEOC, generally by private-sector firms with at least 100 employees or federal contractors with at least 50 employees that have a contract, subcontract or purchase order amounting to $50,000 or more  Companies that fit the above criteria submit separate EEO-1 reports for their headquarters as well as each establishment facility  EEOC requires employers to use the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) to classify their industry  To identify trends using EEO-1 data for workers, we analyzed data for companies with the NAICS codes we initially identified as technology industries  We selected the leading information technology companies using Standard & Poor’s (S&P) 500 Information Technology Index list, which identifies the largest public information technology companies at a given time  In October 2016, this list consisted of 67 companies in the world that have stocks trading with the United States, and we analyzed EEO-1 data from 65 of these companies  For both analyses, we analyzed EEO-1 data from all job categories by gender, race and ethnicity, and industry sectors  For job categories, the EEO-1 form collects data on 10 major job categories including 1) Executives, Senior Level Officials and Managers; 2) First/Mid-Level Officials and Managers; 3) Professionals; 4) Technicians; 5) Sales Workers; 6) Administrative Support Workers; 7) Craft Workers; 8) Operatives; 9) Laborers and Helpers; and 10) Service Workers  In our analysis, “all other jobs” combines sales workers, administrative support workers, craft workers, operatives, laborers and helpers, and service workers  We used the race/ethnicity categories used by the EEOC as follows: White, Black or African American, Asian (including Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander), Hispanic or Latino, and “Two or more Races” (including American Indian or Alaska Native)  We assessed the reliability of the EEO-1 data and determined that despite limitations, they were sufficiently reliable for our analyses  To determine the reliability of the EEO-1 data that we received from EEOC, we interviewed knowledgeable EEOC officials, reviewed relevant documents provided by agency officials and obtained on its website, and performed manual data testing for missing variables  For our analysis of technology degree earners, we used degree completion data tabulated by the National Science Foundation from the National Center for Education Statistics’ Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) for the year 2014  Using a variety of sources, such as academic research and interviews with representatives from academia, we defined technology-related fields as degree programs in computer science, engineering, and mathematics  We analyzed IPEDS data by race and gender and who had obtained a bachelor’s or master’s degree in technology-related fields  We determined that the potential external candidates for technology positions generally had obtained either a bachelor’s or a master’s degree in a technology-related field  We used the race/ethnicity categories used by IPEDS as follows: White, Black, Asian (including Pacific Islander), Hispanic, and Multiracial or other (which includes American Indian or Alaska Native, Other or Unknown Race, and Two or more Races, i e  respondents who selected one or more racial designations)  Race and ethnicity breakouts are for U S  citizens and permanent residents only, and thus do not include data on temporary residents  The analysis by gender includes temporary residents  To determine the reliability of IPEDs data, we reviewed relevant documents obtained on the National Center for Education Statistics website, such as annual methodology reports and the handbook of NCES survey methods  We determined that data from IPEDs were sufficiently reliable for our purposes  To identify how EEOC and OFCCP have overseen technology companies’ compliance with federal equal opportunity and affirmative action requirements, we reviewed relevant federal statutes and regulations, EEOC and OFCCP policies, strategic planning documents, and operational manuals  We interviewed EEOC and OFCCP officials in headquarters, and in two regional locations selected based on the large proportion of technology companies in those areas  At EEOC, we met with officials from the San Francisco and New York district offices  At OFCCP, we met with officials from the Pacific and Northeast regional offices  To explore charges of discrimination filed with the EEOC against technology companies, we planned to analyze data from the EEOC Integrated Mission System (IMS), which contains records on EEOC charges and enforcement activities  However, since industry code is not a mandatory field for investigators to complete, roughly half the entries did not have an industry code  Therefore, we could not reliably identify technology companies that have faced charges or enforcement  We attempted to match information we had developed on federal technology contractors with charges filed in the IMS database  Depending on the matching method we used, this yielded very different results and we determined this was not a sufficiently reliable method  Further, any matching method we used would have excluded technology companies that did not hold a federal contract  To obtain information on evaluations of technology contractors completed by OFCCP and complaints received against technology contractors, we took a two-step approach  First, using the Federal Procurement Data System–Next Generation (FPDS-NG), we developed a list of company establishments and their subsidiaries that received federal contract obligations in fiscal years 2011-2015 under any of the 55 NAICS codes we included above as technology industries  We selected only company establishments that received 50 percent or more of their total federal contract obligations under these NAICS codes  Each establishment was counted only once regardless of how many federal contracts it received during the time period  Using this method, we identified 43,448 establishments in our pool of “technology contractors ” To identify subsidiaries, which are also subject to OFCCP requirements and evaluations, we identified any other establishments that shared the global vendor code with the contractors we identified, regardless of their NAICS code  This yielded 2,116 additional contractors  Second, we matched the names (removing suffixes) of the technology contractors and their subsidiaries that we identified in FPDS-NG against OFCCP’s data on their evaluations of contractors to identify the evaluations of technology contractors that OFCCP opened and completed from fiscal year 2011 through fiscal year 2016  We conducted a similar matching exercise to identify the complaints OFCCP received against technology companies  In addition, we identified which of the leading technology companies had completed evaluations between fiscal year 2011 through 2016  We obtained information during interviews with researchers, and representatives of workforce and industry organizations and associations  In addition, we interviewed diversity and compliance representatives of eight of the leading information technology companies located in the San Francisco Bay area which were also federal contractors to discuss their efforts to increase diversity and to gain their perspectives on the federal role in overseeing compliance with nondiscrimination laws  These companies were: Cisco Systems, Inc  Facebook, Inc  Google Inc  Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company Intuit Inc  Oracle America, Inc  This is the list of technology occupations that we used in our analyses  We selected our occupations using Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) System codes, and cross- walked those occupations to the corresponding U S  Census Bureau occupation codes  This is the list of the 55 6-digit North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes we identified as technology-related industries  To develop this list, we identified the 15 industries with the highest concentration of technology workers using U S  Census Bureau industry codes and then used the U S  Census Bureau’s 2012 Industry Code List for Household Surveys to crosswalk the Census codes with NAICS codes  In addition to the contact named above, Betty Ward-Zukerman (Assistant Director), Kate Blumenreich (Analyst-in-Charge), Sheranda Campbell, Julianne Hartmann Cutts, Clarita Mrena, Moon Parks, Alexandra Rouse, and John Yee made significant contributions to all phases of the work  Also contributing to this report were Rachel Beers, James Bennett, Hedieh Fusfield, Julia Kennon, Jean McSween, Jessica Orr, Dae Park, James Rebbe, Almeta Spencer, and Alexandra Squitieri 


Report 2: U S  Code, Title 10, Section 5063, United States Marine Corps: Composition and Functions, dated October 1, 1986, states the following: The Marine Corps will be organized, trained and equipped to provide an amphibious and land operations capability to seize advanced naval bases and to conduct naval land campaigns  In this regard, the Marines are required by law to have the necessary equipment to conduct amphibious operations and land operations  The ACV and MPC were considered integral systems by the Department of Defense (DOD) and Marine Corps to meet this legal requirement, as well as providing critical capabilities to execute the nation's military strategy  On January 6, 2011, after spending approximately $3 billion in developmental funding, the Marine Corps—with "encouragement" from DOD—cancelled the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV) program  The EFV was intended to replace the 40-year-old Amphibious Assault Vehicle (AAV), which currently transports Marines from ships to shore under hostile conditions  The Marine Corps cancelled the EFV due to excessive cost growth and poor performance in operational testing  Recognizing the need to replace the AAV, the Pentagon pledged to move quickly to develop a "more affordable and sustainable" vehicle to take the place of the EFV  The Amphibious Combat Vehicle (ACV) is intended to replace the AAV, incorporating some EFV capabilities but in a more practical and cost-efficient manner  In concert with the ACV, the Marines were developing the Marine Personnel Carrier (MPC) to serve as a survivable and mobile platform to transport Marines when ashore  At present, the Marines do not have a wheeled armored fighting vehicle that can operate as a dedicated infantry carrier with Marine maneuver forces inland  The MPC was not intended to be amphibious like an AAV, EFV, or the ACV but instead would be required to have a swim capability for inland waterways such as rivers, lakes, and other water obstacles such as shore-to-shore operations in the littorals  Because of a perceived amphibious "redundancy," some have questioned the need for both the ACV and MPC  In June 2013, citing budgetary pressures, the Marines reportedly put the MPC program "on ice" and suggested that it might not be resurrected for about 10 years  Although some have questioned why the Marines cannot simply "adopt" a U S  Army personnel carrier, Marine requirements for a personnel carrier reflect the need for this vehicle to be compatible with amphibious assault craft, as well as to have an enhanced amphibious capability, which is not necessarily an Army requirement  With the Marines involved in decades-long land conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan and proliferating anti-access technologies such as guided missiles, some analysts questioned whether the Marines would ever again be called on to conduct a large-scale amphibious assault operation  In response to these questions and the perceived need to examine the post-Iraq and Afghanistan Marine Corps, the Department of the Navy and DOD studied the requirement to conduct large-scale amphibious operations and in early 2012 released a strategic vision for how amphibious operations will be conducted in the future  The primary assertion of this study is that the Marine Corps' and Navy's amphibious capabilities serve a central role in the defense of the global interests of a maritime nation  The need to maintain an amphibious assault capability is viewed by Marine Corps leadership as establishing the requirement for the ACV and MPC (as discussed in greater detail below)  Congress is responsible for authorizing and appropriating funds for all weapon systems programs, including the ACV  In its oversight role, Congress could be concerned about how the ACV enables the Marines to conduct not only amphibious operations but also operations ashore  Another possible congressional concern is to what extent a robust amphibious assault capability is a necessary component of U S  national security  Cost is another issue of interest to Congress  At present, the Marines use the AAV-7A1 series amphibious assault vehicle to move Marines from ship to shore  The Marines have used the AAV since 1971 and expect to continue to use it until replaced by the ACV or a similar vehicle  Over the years, the Marines have claimed the AAV has become increasingly difficult to operate, maintain, and sustain  As weapons technology and threat capabilities have evolved since the early 1970s, the AAV—despite upgrades—is viewed as having capabilities shortfalls in the areas of water and land mobility performance, lethality, protection, and network capability  The AAV's two-mile ship-to-shore range is viewed by many as a significant survivability issue not only for the vehicle itself but also for naval amphibious forces  Although the AAV has some armor protection and can operate inland to a limited extent, it is not intended for use as an infantry combat vehicle  The Marines do have the LAV-25, Light Armored Vehicle-25, an eight-wheeled armored vehicle that carries a crew of three and six additional marines  The LAV-25 is armed with a 25 mm chain gun and a 7 62 mm machine gun but is not fully amphibious, as it cannot cross a surf zone and would get to the beach via some type of connector such as the Landing Craft, Air Cushioned (LCAC)  The LAV-25 has been in service since 1983  According to the Marine Program Executive Office (PEO) Land Systems, the LAV is not employed as an armored personnel carrier and usually carries a four-person Marine scout/reconnaissance team in addition to its crew  In this regard, the MPC was viewed as necessary by Marine leadership for the transport and enhanced armor protection of Marine infantry forces  The Marines' 2011 Request for Information (RFI) to industry provides an overview of the operational requirements for the ACV  These requirements include the following: The proposed vehicle must be able to self-deploy from amphibious shipping and deliver a reinforced Marine infantry squad (17 marines) from a launch distance at or beyond 12 miles with a speed of not less than 8 knots in seas with 1-foot significant wave height and must be able to operate in seas up to 3-foot significant wave height  The vehicle must be able to maneuver with the mechanized task force for sustained operations ashore in all types of terrain  The vehicle's road and cross-country speed as well as its range should be greater than or equal to the M-1A1  The vehicle's protection characteristics should be able to protect against direct and indirect fire and mines and improvised explosive device (IED) threats  The vehicle should be able to accommodate command and control (C2) systems that permit it to operate both at sea and on land  The vehicle, at a minimum, should have a stabilized machine gun in order to engage enemy infantry and light vehicles  The Marine Corps' 2011 Request for Information (RFI) to industry provided an overview of the operational requirements for the MPC  These requirements included the following: The vehicle must accommodate nine marines and two crew members and have a "robust tactical swim capability (shore-to-shore [not designed to embark from an amphibious ship]) and be capable of operating at 6 knots in a fully developed sea " The vehicle must be able to operate on land with M-1A1s in mechanized task forces across the Marine Corps' mission profile  The vehicle shall provide protection for the occupants from the blasts, fragments, and incapacitating effects of attack from kinetic threats, indirect fire, and improvised explosive devices and mines  The vehicle shall be capable of firing existing Marine anti-structure and anti-armor missiles and should be able to accommodate existing command and control (C2) systems  Defense officials have noted the Marine Corps is "not currently organized, trained and equipped to face a peer adversary in the year 2025" and enemies with advanced air and shore defense will make amphibious operations even riskier  To counter this, the Navy is developing the Expeditionary Advance Base Operations (EABO) operational concept to address these concerns  EABO is described as follows: Expeditionary Advance Base Operations is a naval operational concept that anticipates the requirements of the next paradigm of US Joint expeditionary operations  The concept is adversary based, cost informed and advantage focused  EABO calls for an alternative, difficult to target forward basing infrastructure that will enable US naval and joint forces to create a more resilient forward based posture to persist, partner and operate within range of adversary long range precision fires  The alternative forward posture enabled by Expeditionary Advance Bases (EABs) is designed to mitigate the growing threat posed by the abundant quantity, expanded range and enhanced precision of potential adversary weaponry—particularly ballistic and cruise missiles designed to attack critical joint fixed forward infrastructure and large platforms  EABs provide a dispersed and largely mobile forward basing infrastructure that enables a persistent alternative force capability set that is similarly designed to be difficult to target and inherently resilient  The resilient, reduced signature infrastructure of EABs, combined with naval forces designed and structured to persist and operate within the arc of adversary anti-access/aerial denial (A2AD) capabilities enables naval commanders to conduct Expeditionary Advance Base Operations to support Joint Force Maritime Component Commander (JFMCC), and Fleet Commanders in the fight for sea control, by exploiting the opportunities afforded by key maritime terrain, particularly in close and confined seas  EABO advances, sustains and maintains the naval and joint sensor, shooter and sustainment capabilities of dispersed forces to leverage the decisive massed capabilities of the larger joint force with enhanced situational awareness, augmented fires and logistical support  The EABO Concept enables US naval forces to exercise 21 st Century naval operational art, meet new enemy A2AD threats with new capabilities and operate and thrive in and around close and confined seas  In terms of Marine Corps amphibious assault operations, the adoption of EABO could reportedly result in "an entirely different approach to amphibious assaults as well as new weapon systems " Noting that "missiles can now hit ships and landing craft while they are hundreds of miles from shore, making it far too dangerous for Marines to storm a beach with current capabilities," Marine officials are reportedly exploring ways to create temporary "bubbles" where Marines can get ashore  In response to these challenges, current and planned weapons systems might need to be modified to accommodate EABO operational concepts  As previously noted, in June 2013, citing budgetary pressures, the Marines reportedly put the MPC program "on ice" and suggested it might not be resurrected for about 10 years  At the time of the decision, the Marines' acquisition priorities were refocused to the ACV as well as the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV)  Although the Marines refocused budgetary resources to the ACV, difficulties in developing an affordable high water speed capability for the ACV continued to confront Marine leadership  In what was described as a "drastic shift," the Marines decided in March 2014 to "resurrect" the MPC and designate it as ACV Increment 1 1 and initially acquire about 200 vehicles  The Marines also plan to develop ACV Increment 1 2, a tracked version, and to acquire about 470 vehicles and fund an ongoing high water speed study  Although ACV Increment 1 1 will have a swim capability, a connector will be required to get the vehicles from ship to shore  Plans called for ACV Increment 1 1 to enter the acquisition cycle at Milestone B (Engineering and Manufacturing Development) in FY2016, award prototype contracts leading to a down select to one vendor in FY2018, and enter low-rate initial production  On April 23, 2014, the Marines released an RFI for ACV Increment 1 1  Some of the required capabilities included the following:     operate in a significant wave height of two feet and sufficient reserve buoyancy to enable safe operations; a high level of survivability and force protection; operate in four to six feet plunging surf with ship-to-shore operations and launch from amphibious ships as an objective; land mobility, operate on 30 percent improved surfaces and 70 percent unimproved surfaces; ability to integrate a  50 calibre remote weapon station (RWS) with growth potential to a dual mount 40 mm/ 50 calibre RWS or a 30 mm cannon RWS; carrying capacity to include three crew and 10 embarked troops as the threshold, 13 embarked troops as the objective, carry mission essential equipment and vehicle ammunition; and the ability to integrate a command, control and communications suite provided as government furnished equipment     The RFI included a requirement for industry to deliver 16 prototype vehicles nine months after contract award in April 2016 at a rate of 4 vehicles per month  The Marines estimated ACV Increment 1 1 would cost about $5 million to $6 million per vehicle, about $10 million less than what the previous ACV version was expected to cost  On November 5, 2014, the Marines reportedly released a draft RFP for ACV Increment 1 1  The Marines were looking for information from industry regarding program milestones, delivery schedules, and where in the program cost savings could be achieved  Plans were for two companies to build 16 prototype vehicles each for testing  Companies who competed for the two contracts included BAE Systems, General Dynamics Land Systems (GDLS), Lockheed Martin, and Scientific Applications International Corporation (SAIC)  Under the provisions of the RFP, the ACV 1 1 was envisioned as an eight-wheeled vehicle capable of carrying 10 Marines and a crew of 3 that would cost between $4 million to $7 5 million per copy—a change from the RFI estimate of $5 million to $6 million per vehicle  In terms of mobility, the ACV 1 1 would need to be able to travel at least 3 nautical miles from ship to shore, negotiate waves up to at least 2 feet, travel 5 to 6 knots in calm seas, and be able to keep up with the M-1 Abrams tank once ashore  Proposals were due in April 2016 and the Marines reportedly planned to award two EMD contracts for 16 vehicles each to be delivered in November 2016  In 2018, the Marines would then down select to one vendor and start full production  The Marines reportedly plan to acquire 204 ACV 1 1s, to be allocated as follows: 1 st Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, CA— 67 ; 2 nd Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Lejeune, NC— 46 ; 3 rd Marine Expeditionary Force, Okinawa, Japan— 21 ; Assault Amphibian School, Camp Pendleton, CA— 25 ; Exercise Support Division, Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center, Twenty Nine Palms, CA— 25 ; and Program Manager, Quantico, VA, and Amphibious Vehicle Test Branch, Camp Pendleton, CA— 20   In April 2016 testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee, the Deputy Commandant for Combat Development and Integration testified that the Marines' Acquisition Objective for the ACV 1 1 remained at 204 vehicles, which would provide lift for two infantry battalions  Full Operational Capability (FOC) for ACV 1 1 is planned for FY2020  On November 24, 2015, the Marine Corps awarded BAE Systems and SAIC contracts to develop ACV 1 1 prototypes for evaluation  BAE's contract was for $103 8 million and SAIC's for $121 5 million, and each company is to build 16 prototypes  The Marines expect to down select to a single vendor in 2018  Initial operational capability (IOC) was expected by the end of 2020, and all ACV 1 1 vehicles are planned to be fielded by summer 2023  Plans are to equip six battalions with ACV 1 1s and 392 existing upgraded AAVs  Both BAE and SAIC reportedly have a long history related to amphibious vehicles, as BAE built the Marines' original AAV and SAIC has built hundreds of Terrex 1 vehicles used by Singapore, and both companies had Marine Corps contracts to modernize AAVs  ACV 1 1 is intended to have some amphibious capability but would rely on ship-to-shore connectors  ACV 1 2 is intended to have greater amphibious capability, including greater water speed and the ability to self-deploy from amphibious ships  BAE planned to team with Italian manufacturer Iveco (which owns Chrysler and Ferrari)  BAE's prototype would accommodate 13 Marines and travel 11 5 miles at about 7 miles per hour (mph) in surf and 65 mph on land  BAE's version would incorporate a V hull design intended to protect passengers from underside blasts and have external fuel tanks for increased safety  BAE intends to produce its prototypes at its York, PA, facility  SAIC planned to team with Singapore Technology Kinetics to develop its prototype based on an existing design called Terrex  SAIC's version is said to travel 7 mph in water and incorporates a V hull design as well as blast-mitigating seats  It would carry a crew of 3 and can accommodate 11 Marines  SAIC's version plans for a Common Remote Weapons System (CROWS) ( 50 calibre machine gun and a 30 mm cannon), which could be operated from inside the vehicle while buttoned up, therefore not exposing crewmen to hostile fire  On December 7, 2015, it was reported that GDLS would protest the award of the ACV 1 1 contract to BAE and SAIC, claiming the Marines asked for particular capabilities and then evaluated vendors by a different set of standards  On March 15, 2016, GAO denied GDLS's protest, noting that "the Marine Corps' evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the evaluation scheme identified in the solicitation " The Marines reportedly stated that the protest put the ACV 1 1 program about 45 days behind schedule but anticipated the ACV 1 1 would still be fielded on time  BAE and SAIC reportedly delivered their ACV 1 1 prototypes, with BAE delivering its first prototype in December 2016 and SAIC delivering its prototype in February 2017  This early delivery could potentially result in an unspecified incentive fee award for both companies  EMD testing began the week of March 13 and was scheduled to last eight months  In early December 2017, the Marines reportedly sent the ACV 1 1 down select request for proposals to BAE and SAIC  Plans called for operational testing to start in January 2018, with the Marines anticipating announcing a contract winner in June 2018 for the delivery of 204 ACV 1 1s over a four-year period  In accordance with the provisions of the FY2014 National Defence Authorization Act ( P L  113-66 ) Section 251, GAO submitted its annual report to Congress on the ACV program in April 2018  GAO reviewed program cost estimates, updated schedules, and program assessments of test results and production readiness, and compared ACV acquisition efforts to DOD guidance and GAO-identified best practices  GAO found the following: The first version of the Amphibious Combat Vehicle (ACV 1 1) is on track to meet development cost goals with no additional anticipated delays for major acquisition milestones  With regard to costs, the development phase of ACV 1 1 is on pace to not exceed cost goals that were established at the start of development, based on a recent Navy estimate, the ACV program office, and reporting from the contractors  GAO recommended that the Marine Corps (1) not enter the second year of low rate production for ACV 1 1 until after the contractor has achieved an overall Manufacturing Readiness Level (MRL) of 8 and (2) not enter full-rate production until achieving an overall MRL of 9  DOD partially concurred with this recommendation but noted that it was "reasonable to proceed at lower MRL levels if steps are taken to mitigate risks " On June 19, 2018, the Marine Corps selected BAE Systems to produce the ACV  Reportedly, the initial contract—valued at $198 million—will be for low-rate production of 30 vehicles to be delivered by the autumn of 2019  Eventually, 204 vehicles are to be delivered under the ACV 1 1 phase of the project  BAE will also produce the ACV 1 2 variant and, all told, the entire ACV 1 1 and 1 2 project is expected to deliver 700 vehicles, and, if all options are exercised, the total contract will reportedly be worth $1 2 billion  In December 2018, the Navy reportedly awarded BAE Systems a $140 million contract modification to build 30 Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) ACVs as part of Lot 2, with the first vehicles expected to be delivered in the summer of 2020  Lot 1 is reportedly still scheduled to start delivery in the summer of 2019  In DOT&E's December 2018 FY2018 Annual Report, it was noted During the operational evaluation (OA), the ACV-equipped unit demonstrated the ability to maneuver to an objective, conduct immediate action drills, and provide suppressive fires in support of dismounted infantry maneuver in a desert environment  The ACV-equipped unit was able to maneuver in the littorals; embark aboard a landing craft air cushioned (LCAC), transit the open ocean and surf zone, and debark from the LCAC  The ACV demonstrated water mobility and the ability to self-deploy from the beach, cross the surf zone, enter the ocean, swim, and return to the beach  Based on data from the OA, reliability is below the program reliability growth curve (58 hours Mean Time Between Operational Mission Failures [MTBOMF])  BAE vehicles demonstrated 24 9 hours MTBOMF  There were no systemic problems identified that indicate a major redesign is required  The ACV section was successful in 15 of 16 missions and demonstrated the capability to negotiate terrain in the desert and littorals, operate with tanks and light armored vehicles, and maneuver to achieve tactical advantage over the opposing threat force  ACV crews, supported infantry, and the opposing force noted that the vehicles performed better than the legacy vehicle in a wide variety of areas  In terms of recommendations, DOT&E noted the Program Manager, Advanced Amphibious Assault should do the following: Modify the infantry troop commander's station to make it easier to move between the hatch and seat  Assess the capability of all existing Marine Corps recovery assets to recover the ACV  Investigate options for preventing damage to steering/suspension when encountering battlefield debris, such as concertina wire  According to reports, the Marines envisioned that the successor to ACV 1 1—the ACV 1 2—would have a threshold requirement of 12 miles from ship-to-shore  If this threshold can be achieved, it could help to reduce the vulnerability of U S  naval vessels supporting Marine amphibious operations to enemy shore fire  On April 10, 2019, during testimony to the Subcommittee on Seapower of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Navy and Marine Corps leadership noted During the fall of 2018, ACV 1 1 prototypes demonstrated satisfactory water mobility performance in high surf conditions, and in doing so met the full water mobility transition requirement for ACV 1 2 capability  Subsequently, the Milestone Decision Authority Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development and Acquisition (ASN (RD&A)) approved the consolidation of increments one and two into a single program to enable continuous production of ACVs to completely replace the AAV  The next key acquisition event is the Full Rate Production decision scheduled for the third quarter of FY 2020 following Initial Operational Test & Evaluation  ACV remains on schedule to achieve Initial Operational Capability in the fourth quarter of FY 2020  With the consolidation of ACV variants into a single variant, there will likely be a number of programmatic changes and potential ramifications for the ACV and ACV 2 0 programs  Reportedly, the Marines plan to develop an ACV 2 0, capable of carrying 10 to 13 Marines plus crew, capable of high water speeds and deployment from ships far from the coast  ACV 2 0 is planned to be capable of operating on land alongside tanks and light armored vehicles  According to the Marines ACV 2 0 serves as a conceptual placeholder for a future Decision Point (~ 2025, or sooner) at which time knowledge gained in the fielding and employment of the first phase of ACV (1 1 and 1 2), the state of the naval connector strategy, and science & technology work towards a high water speed capable self-deploying vehicle will support an informed decision  The FY2020 presidential budget request includes RDT&E and Procurement funding requests in the Base Budget, as well as FY2020 requested quantities  The Marines did not request ACV Overseas Contingency operations (OCO) funding in FY2020  According to DOD, the FY2020 ACV budget request will fund The ACV 1 1 Full Rate Production (FRP) Lot 3 of 56 vehicles, plus procurement of related items such as production support, systems engineering, program management, Engineering Change Orders (ECOs), Government Furnished Equipment (GFE), and integrated logistics support  Research and Development efforts include the procurement of ACV 1 2 MRV test articles, associated GFE, and initiation of a Vehicle Protective System trade study and integration efforts  While from an overall programmatic perspective, the consolidation of the ACV 1 1 and ACV 1 2 variants could be viewed as a favourable programmatic outcome, there are likely ramifications that might be of interest to policymakers  Potential issues include the following: Will the consolidation of ACV 1 1 and ACV 1 2 result in an overall cost savings? Will this consolidation permit the acquisition of additional ACVs because of potential cost savings? With the consolidation and the stated intent to replace AAVs, what is the revised timeline for the replacement of AAVs and will this result in cost savings from not having to upgrade and maintain AAVs longer than previously intended? How will the consolidation of ACV 1 1 and ACV 1 2 affect the ACV 2 0 program? If the Navy and Marine Corps decide to adopt Expeditionary Advance Base Operations (EABO) as an operational concept, it could possibly have implications for the ACV program, including the following: At the weapon systems level, would EABO require any changes to the vehicles themselves, such as enhanced survivability, lethality, or Command, Control, Communications, Computer, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (C4ISR) features? If changes are required to facilitate EABO, how would this affect the program's overall acquisition timeline and cost? If EABO does not require any technical changes in the ACV program, would the adoption of EABO modify the Marines' current procurement quantities of ACVs? If EABO requires different procurement quantities for the different ACV versions (more or fewer), how might this affect program timelines and program costs?

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

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



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

Report 1: According to the President’s budget, the federal government plans to invest more than $96 billion for IT in fiscal year 2018—the largest amount ever budgeted  Despite such large IT expenditures, we have previously reported that investments in federal IT too often result in failed projects that incur cost overruns and schedule slippages, while contributing little to the desired mission-related outcomes  For example: The tri-agency National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System was disbanded in February 2010 by the White House’s Office of Science and Technology Policy after the program spent 16 years and almost $5 billion  The Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Secure Border Initiative Network program was ended in January 2011, after the department obligated more than $1 billion for the program  The Department of Veterans Affairs’ Financial and Logistics Integrated Technology Enterprise program was intended to be delivered by 2014 at a total estimated cost of $609 million, but was terminated in October 2011  The Department of Defense’s Expeditionary Combat Support System was canceled in December 2012 after spending more than a billion dollars and failing to deploy within 5 years of initially obligating funds  The United States Coast Guard (Coast Guard) decided to terminate its Integrated Health Information System project in 2015  As reported by the agency in August 2017, the Coast Guard spent approximately $60 million over 7 years on this project, which resulted in no equipment or software that could be used for future efforts  Our past work has found that these and other failed IT projects often suffered from a lack of disciplined and effective management, such as project planning, requirements definition, and program oversight and governance  In many instances, agencies had not consistently applied best practices that are critical to successfully acquiring IT  Such projects have also failed due to a lack of oversight and governance  Executive-level governance and oversight across the government has often been ineffective, specifically from CIOs  For example, we have reported that some CIOs’ roles were limited because they did not have the authority to review and approve the entire agency IT portfolio  In addition to failures when acquiring IT, security deficiencies can threaten systems once they become operational  As we previously reported, in order to counter security threats, 23 civilian Chief Financial Officers Act agencies spent a combined total of approximately $4 billion on IT security-related activities in fiscal year 2016  Even so, our cybersecurity work at federal agencies continues to highlight information security deficiencies  The following examples describe the types of risks we have found at federal agencies  In November 2017, we reported that the Department of Education’s Office of Federal Student Aid did not consistently analyze privacy risks for its electronic information systems, and policies and procedures for protecting information systems were not always up to date  In August 2017, we reported that, since the 2015 data breaches, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) had taken actions to prevent, mitigate, and respond to data breaches involving sensitive personal and background investigation information  However, we noted that the agency had not fully implemented recommendations made to OPM by DHS’s United States Computer Emergency Readiness Team to help the agency improve its overall security posture and improve its ability to protect its systems and information from security breaches  In July 2017, we reported that IT security at the Internal Revenue Service had weaknesses that limited its effectiveness in protecting the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of financial and sensitive taxpayer data  An underlying reason for these weaknesses was that the Internal Revenue Service had not effectively implemented elements of its information security program  In May 2016, we reported that the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, OPM, and the Department of Veteran Affairs did not always control access to selected high-impact systems, patch known software vulnerabilities, and plan for contingencies  An underlying reason for these weaknesses was that the agencies had not fully implemented key elements of their information security programs  In August 2016, we reported that the IT security of the Food and Drug Administration had significant weaknesses that jeopardized the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of its information systems and industry and public health data  Congress and the President have enacted various key pieces of reform legislation to address IT management issues  These include the federal IT acquisition reform legislation commonly referred to as the Federal Information Technology Acquisition Reform Act (FITARA)  This legislation was intended to improve covered agencies’ acquisitions of IT and enable Congress to monitor agencies’ progress and hold them accountable for reducing duplication and achieving cost savings  The law includes specific requirements related to seven areas: Agency CIO authority enhancements  CIOs at covered agencies have the authority to, among other things, (1) approve the IT budget requests of their respective agencies and (2) review and approve IT contracts  Federal data center consolidation initiative (FDCCI)  Agencies covered by FITARA are required, among other things, to provide a strategy for consolidating and optimizing their data centers and issue quarterly updates on the progress made  Enhanced transparency and improved risk management  The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and covered agencies are to make detailed information on federal IT investments publicly available, and agency CIOs are to categorize their investments by level of risk  Portfolio review  Covered agencies are to annually review IT investment portfolios in order to, among other things, increase efficiency and effectiveness and identify potential waste and duplication  Expansion of training and use of IT acquisition cadres  Covered agencies are to update their acquisition human capital plans to support timely and effective IT acquisitions  In doing so, the law calls for agencies to consider, among other things, establishing IT acquisition cadres (i e , multi-functional groups of professionals to acquire and manage complex programs), or developing agreements with other agencies that have such cadres  Government-wide software purchasing program  The General Services Administration is to develop a strategic sourcing initiative to enhance government-wide acquisition and management of software  In doing so, the law requires that, to the maximum extent practicable, the General Services Administration should allow for the purchase of a software license agreement that is available for use by all executive branch agencies as a single user  Maximizing the benefit of the Federal Strategic Sourcing Initiative  Federal agencies are required to compare their purchases of services and supplies to what is offered under the Federal Strategic Sourcing Initiative  In June 2015, OMB released guidance describing how agencies are to implement FITARA  This guidance is intended to, among other things: assist agencies in aligning their IT resources with statutory establish government-wide IT management controls to meet the law’s requirements, while providing agencies with flexibility to adapt to unique agency processes and requirements; strengthen the relationship between agency CIOs and bureau CIOs; strengthen CIO accountability for IT costs, schedules, performance, and security  The guidance identifies a number of actions that agencies are to take to establish a basic set of roles and responsibilities (referred to as the common baseline) for CIOs and other senior agency officials; and thus, to implement the authorities described in the law  For example, agencies are to conduct a self-assessment and submit a plan describing the changes they intend to make to ensure that common baseline responsibilities are implemented  In addition, in August 2016, OMB released guidance intended to, among other things, define a framework for achieving the data center consolidation and optimization requirements of FITARA  The guidance directs agencies to develop a data center consolidation and optimization strategic plan that defines the agency’s data center strategy for fiscal years 2016, 2017, and 2018  This strategy is to include, among other things, a statement from the agency CIO indicating whether the agency has complied with all data center reporting requirements in FITARA  Further, the guidance indicates that OMB is to maintain a public dashboard to display consolidation-related costs savings and optimization performance information for the agencies  Congress has recognized the importance of agencies’ continued implementation of FITARA provisions, and has taken legislative action to extend selected provisions beyond their original dates of expiration  Specifically, Congress and the President enacted laws to: remove the expiration date for enhanced transparency and improved risk management provisions, which were set to expire in 2019; remove the expiration date for portfolio review, which was set to expire in 2019; and extend the expiration date for FDCCI from 2018 to 2020  In addition, Congress and the President enacted a law to authorize the availability of funding mechanisms to help further agencies’ efforts to modernize IT  The law, known as the Modernizing Government Technology (MGT) Act, authorizes agencies to establish working capital funds for use in transitioning from legacy IT systems, as well as for addressing evolving threats to information security  The law also creates the Technology Modernization Fund, within the Department of the Treasury, from which agencies can “borrow” money to retire and replace legacy systems, as well as acquire or develop systems  Further, in February 2018, OMB issued guidance for agencies to implement the MGT Act  The guidance was intended to provide agencies additional information regarding the Technology Modernization Fund, and the administration and funding of the related IT working capital funds  Specifically, the guidance allowed agencies to begin submitting initial project proposals for modernization on February 27, 2018  In addition, in accordance with the MGT Act, the guidance provides details regarding a Technology Modernization Board, which is to consist of (1) the Federal CIO; (2) a senior official from the General Services Administration; (3) a member of DHS’s National Protection and Program Directorate; and (4) four federal employees with technical expertise in IT development, financial management, cybersecurity and privacy, and acquisition, appointed by the Director of OMB  Congress and the President enacted the Federal Information Security Modernization Act of 2014 (FISMA) to improve federal cybersecurity and clarify government-wide responsibilities  The act addresses the increasing sophistication of cybersecurity attacks, promotes the use of automated security tools with the ability to continuously monitor and diagnose the security posture of federal agencies, and provides for improved oversight of federal agencies’ information security programs  Specifically, the act clarifies and assigns additional responsibilities to entities such as OMB, DHS, and the federal agencies  Table 1 describes a selection of OMB, DHS, and agency responsibilities  Beyond the implementation of FITARA, FISMA, and related actions, the current administration has also initiated other efforts intended to improve federal IT  Specifically, in March 2017, the administration established the Office of American Innovation, which has a mission to, among other things, make recommendations to the President on policies and plans aimed at improving federal government operations and services  In doing so, the office is to consult with both OMB and the Office of Science and Technology Policy on policies and plans intended to improve government operations and services, improve the quality of life for Americans, and spur job creation  In May 2017, the Administration also established the American Technology Council, which has a goal of helping to transform and modernize federal agency IT and how the federal government uses and delivers digital services  The President is the chairman of this council, and the Federal CIO and the United States Digital Service Administrator are among the members  In addition, on May 11, 2017, the President signed Executive Order 13800, Strengthening the Cybersecurity of Federal Networks and Critical Infrastructure  This executive order outlined actions to enhance cybersecurity across federal agencies and critical infrastructure to improve the nation’s cyber posture and capabilities against cyber security threats  Among other things, the order tasked the Director of the American Technology Council to coordinate a report to the President from the Secretary of DHS, the Director of OMB, and the Administrator of the General Services Administration, in consultation with the Secretary of Commerce, regarding the modernization of federal IT  As a result, the Report to the President on Federal IT Modernization was issued on December 13, 2017, and outlined the current and envisioned state of federal IT  The report focused on modernization efforts to improve the security posture of federal IT and recognized that agencies have attempted to modernize systems but have been stymied by a variety of factors, including resource prioritization, ability to procure services quickly, and technical issues  The report provided multiple recommendations intended to address these issues through the modernization and consolidation of networks and the use of shared services to enable future network architectures  Further, in March 2018, the Administration issued the President’s Management Agenda, which lays out a long-term vision for modernizing the federal government  The agenda identifies three related drivers of transformation—IT modernization; data, accountability, and transparency; and the workforce of the future—that are intended to push change across the federal government  The Administration also established 14 related Cross-Agency Priority goals, many of which have elements that involve IT  In particular, the Cross-Agency Priority goal on IT modernization states that modern IT must function as the backbone of how government serves the public in the digital age and provides three priorities that are to guide the Administration’s efforts to modernize federal IT: (1) enhancing mission effectiveness by improving the quality and efficiency of critical services, including the increased utilization of cloud-based solutions; (2) reducing cybersecurity risks to the federal mission by leveraging current commercial capabilities and implementing cutting edge cybersecurity capabilities; and (3) building a modern IT workforce by recruiting, reskilling, and retaining professionals able to help drive modernization with up-to-date technology  Most recently, on May 15, 2018, the President signed Executive Order 13833, Enhancing the Effectiveness of Agency Chief Information Officers  Among other things, this executive order is intended to better position agencies to modernize their IT systems, execute IT programs more efficiently, and reduce cybersecurity risks  The order pertains to 22 of the 24 Chief Financial Officer Act agencies: the Department of Defense and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission are exempt  For the covered agencies, the executive order strengthens the role of agency CIOs by, among other things, requiring to report directly to their agency head; to serve as their agency head’s primary IT strategic advisor; and to have a significant role in all management, governance, and oversight processes related to IT  In addition, one of the cybersecurity requirements directs agencies to ensure that the CIO works closely with an integrated team of senior executives, including those with expertise in IT, security, and privacy, to implement appropriate risk management measures  In the February 2017 update to our high-risk series, we reported that agencies still needed to complete significant work related to the management of IT acquisitions and operations We stressed that OMB and federal agencies should continue to expeditiously implement FITARA and OMB’s related guidance, which include enhancing CIO authority, consolidating data centers, and acquiring and managing software licenses  Our update to this high-risk area also stressed that OMB and agencies needed to continue to implement our prior recommendations in order to improve their ability to effectively and efficiently invest in IT  Specifically, from fiscal years 2010 through 2015, we made 803 recommendations to OMB and federal agencies to address shortcomings in IT acquisitions and operations  In addition, in fiscal year 2016, we made 202 new recommendations, thus, further reinforcing the need for OMB and agencies to address the shortcomings in IT acquisitions and operations  As stated in the update, OMB and agencies should demonstrate government-wide progress in the management of IT investments by, among other things, implementing at least 80 percent of our recommendations related to managing IT acquisitions and operations within 4 years  As of May 2018, OMB and agencies had fully implemented 489 (or about 61 percent) of the 803 recommendations  Figure 1 summarizes the progress that OMB and agencies have made in addressing our recommendations as compared to the 80 percent target  Overall, federal agencies would be better positioned to realize billions in cost savings and additional management improvements if they address these recommendations, including those aimed at implementing CIO responsibilities, review of IT acquisitions; improving data center consolidation; and managing software licenses  In all, the various laws, such as FITARA, and related guidance assign 35 IT management responsibilities to CIOs in six key areas  These areas are: leadership and accountability, budgeting, information security, investment management, workforce, and strategic planning  In a draft report on CIO responsibilities that we have provided to the agencies for comment and plan to issue in June 2018, our preliminary results suggest that none of the 24 agencies we reviewed had policies that fully addressed the role of their CIO, as called for by federal laws and guidance  In this regard, a majority of the agencies fully or substantially addressed the role of their CIOs for the area of leadership and accountability  In addition, a majority of the agencies substantially or partially addressed the role of their CIOs for two areas: information security and IT budgeting  However, most agencies partially or minimally addressed the role of their CIOs for two areas: investment management and strategic planning  These preliminary results are shown in figure 2  Despite these shortfalls, most agency officials stated that their CIOs are implementing the responsibilities even if the agencies do not have policies requiring implementation  Nevertheless, the CIOs of the 24 selected agencies acknowledged in responses to a survey that we administered for our draft report that they were not always very effective in implementing the six IT management areas  Specifically, our preliminary results show that at least 10 of the CIOs indicated that they were less than very effective for each of the six areas of responsibility  We believe that until agencies fully address the role of CIOs in their policies, agencies will be limited in addressing longstanding IT management challenges  Figure 3 depicts that extent to which the CIOs reported their effectiveness in implementing the six areas of responsibility  Beyond the actions of the agencies, however, our preliminary results indicate that shortcomings in agencies’ policies also are partially attributable to two weaknesses in OMB’s FITARA implementation guidance  First, the guidance does not comprehensively address all CIO responsibilities, such as those related to assessing the extent to which personnel meet IT management knowledge and skill requirements, and ensuring that personnel are held accountable for complying with the information security program  Correspondingly, the majority of the agencies’ policies did not fully address nearly all of the responsibilities that were not included in OMB’s guidance  Second, OMB’s guidance does not ensure that CIOs have a significant role in (1) IT planning, programming, and budgeting decisions and (2) execution decisions and the management, governance, and oversight processes related to IT, as required by federal law and guidance  In the absence of comprehensive guidance, CIOs will not be positioned to effectively acquire, maintain, and secure their IT systems  Based on our preliminary results, 24 agency CIOs also identified a number of factors that enabled and challenged their ability to effectively manage IT  As shown in figure 4, five factors were identified by at least half of the 24 CIOs as major enablers and three factors were identified by at least half of the CIOs as major challenges  Specifically, most agency CIOs cited five factors as being enablers to effectively carry out their responsibilities: (1) NIST guidance, (2) the CIO’s position in the agency hierarchy, (3) OMB guidance, (4) coordination with the Chief Acquisition Officer (CAO), and (5) legal authority  Further, three factors were cited by CIOs as major factors that have challenged their ability to effectively carry out responsibilities: (1) processes for hiring, recruiting, and retaining IT personnel; (2) financial resources; and (3) the availability of personnel/staff resources  As our draft report states, although OMB has issued guidance aimed at addressing the three factors that were identified by at least half of the CIOs as major challenges, the guidance does not fully address those challenges  Further, regarding the financial resources challenge, OMB recently required agencies to provide data on CIO authority over IT spending; however, its guidance does not provide a complete definition of the authority  We believe that in the absence of such guidance, agencies have created varying definitions of CIO authority  Further, until OMB updates its guidance to include a complete definition of the authority that CIOs are to have over IT spending, it will be difficult for OMB to identify any deficiencies in this area and to help agencies make any needed improvements  In order to address challenges in implementing CIO responsibilities, we intend to include in our draft report recommendations to OMB and each of the selected 24 federal agencies to improve the effectiveness of CIOs’ implementation of their responsibilities for each of the six IT management areas  FITARA includes a provision to enhance covered agency CIOs’ authority through, among other things, requiring agency heads to ensure that CIOs review and approve IT contracts  OMB’s FITARA implementation guidance expanded upon this aspect of the legislation in a number of ways  Specifically, according to the guidance: CIOs may review and approve IT acquisition strategies and plans, rather than individual IT contracts; CIOs can designate other agency officials to act as their representatives, but the CIOs must retain accountability; CAOs are responsible for ensuring that all IT contract actions are consistent with CIO-approved acquisition strategies and plans; and CAOs are to indicate to the CIOs when planned acquisition strategies and acquisition plans include IT  In January 2018, we reported that most of the CIOs at 22 selected agencies were not adequately involved in reviewing billions of dollars of IT acquisitions  For instance, most of the 22 agencies did not identify all of their IT contracts


Report 2:  In this regard, the agencies identified 78,249 IT- related contracts, to which they obligated $14 7 billion in fiscal year 2016  However, we identified 31,493 additional contracts with $4 5 billion obligated, raising the total amount obligated by these agencies to IT contracts in fiscal year 2016 to at least $19 2 billion  Figure 5 reflects the obligations that the 22 selected agencies reported to us relative to the obligations we identified  The percentage of additional IT contract obligations we identified varied among the selected agencies  For example, the Department of State did not identify 1 percent of its IT contract obligations  Conversely, 8 agencies did not identify over 40 percent of their IT contract obligations  Many of the selected agencies that did not identify these IT contract obligations did not follow OMB guidance  Specifically, 14 of the 22 agencies did not involve the acquisition office in their process to identify IT acquisitions for CIO review, as required by OMB  In addition, 7 agencies did not establish guidance to aid officials in recognizing IT  We concluded that until these agencies involve the acquisitions office in their IT acquisition identification processes and establish supporting guidance, they cannot ensure that they will identify all IT acquisitions  Without proper identification of IT acquisitions, these agencies and CIOs cannot effectively provide oversight of these acquisitions  In addition to not identifying all IT contracts, 14 of the 22 selected agencies did not fully satisfy OMB’s requirement that the CIO review and approve IT acquisition plans or strategies  Further, only 11 of 96 randomly selected IT contracts at 10 agencies that we evaluated were CIO-reviewed and approved as required by OMB’s guidance  The 85 IT contracts not reviewed had a total possible value of approximately $23 8 billion  We believe that until agencies ensure that CIOs are able to review and approve all IT acquisitions, CIOs will continue to have limited visibility and input into their agencies’ planned IT expenditures and will not be able to use the increased authority that FITARA’s contract approval provision is intended to provide  Further, agencies will likely miss an opportunity to strengthen CIOs’ authority and the oversight of IT acquisitions  As a result, agencies may award IT contracts that are duplicative, wasteful, or poorly conceived  As a result of these findings, we made 39 recommendations in our January 2018 report  The recommendations included that agencies ensure that their acquisition offices are involved in identifying IT acquisitions and issuing related guidance, and that IT acquisitions are reviewed in accordance with OMB guidance  OMB and the majority of the agencies generally agreed with or did not comment on the recommendations  In our February 2017 high-risk update, we stated that OMB and agencies needed to demonstrate additional progress on achieving data center consolidation savings in order to improve the management of IT acquisitions and operations  Further, data center consolidation efforts are key to implementing FITARA  Specifically, OMB established the FDCCI in February 2010 to improve the efficiency, performance, and environmental footprint of federal data center activities  The enactment of FITARA in 2014 codified and expanded the initiative  In a series of reports that we issued from July 2011 through August 2017, we noted that, while data center consolidation could potentially save the federal government billions of dollars, weaknesses existed in several areas, including agencies’ data center consolidation plans, data center optimization, and OMB’s tracking and reporting on related cost savings  In these reports, we made a total of 160 recommendations to OMB and 24 agencies to improve the execution and oversight of the initiative  Most agencies and OMB agreed with our recommendations or had no comments  As of May 2018, 80 of these 160 recommendations remained unimplemented  Further, we recently reported in May 2018 that the 24 agencies participating in OMB’s Data Center Optimization Initiative (DCOI) had communicated mixed progress toward achieving OMB’s goals for closing data centers by September 2018  Over half of the agencies reported that they had either already met, or planned to meet, all of their OMB- assigned goals by the deadline  This would result in the closure of 7,221 of the 12,062 centers that agencies reported in August 2017  However, 4 agencies reported that they do not have plans to meet all of their assigned goals and 2 agencies are working with OMB to establish revised targets  With regard to agencies’ progress in achieving cost savings, 24 agencies reported $3 9 billion in cost savings through 2018  The 24 agencies also reported limited progress against OMB’s five data center optimization targets for server utilization and automated monitoring, energy metering, power usage effectiveness, facility utilization, and virtualization  As of August 2017, 1 agency reported that it had met four targets, 1 agency reported that it had met three targets, 6 agencies reported having met either one or two targets, and 14 agencies reported meeting none of the targets  Further, as of August 2017, most agencies were not planning to meet OMB’s fiscal year 2018 optimization targets  Specifically, 4 agencies reported plans to meet all of their applicable targets by the end of fiscal year 2018; 14 agencies reported plans to meet some of the targets; and 4 reported that they did not plan to meet any targets  Figure 6 summarizes agency-reported plans to meet or exceed the OMB’s data center optimization targets, as of August 2017  In 2016 and 2017, we made 81 recommendations to OMB and the 24 DCOI agencies to help improve the reporting of data center-related cost savings and to achieve optimization targets  As of May 2018, 71 of these 81 recommendations have not been fully addressed  In our 2015 high-risk report’s discussion of IT acquisitions and operations, we identified the management of software licenses as an area of concern, in part because of the potential for cost savings  Federal agencies engage in thousands of software licensing agreements annually  The objective of software license management is to manage, control, and protect an organization’s software assets  Effective management of these licenses can help avoid purchasing too many licenses, which can result in unused software, as well as too few licenses, which can result in noncompliance with license terms and cause the imposition of additional fees  As part of its PortfolioStat initiative, OMB has developed policy that addresses software licenses  This policy requires agencies to conduct an annual, agency-wide IT portfolio review to, among other things, reduce commodity IT spending  Such areas of spending could include software licenses  In May 2014, we reported on federal agencies’ management of software licenses and determined that better management was needed to achieve significant savings government-wide  Of the 24 selected agencies we reviewed, only 2 had comprehensive policies that included the establishment of clear roles and central oversight authority for managing enterprise software license agreements, among other things  Of the remaining 22 agencies, 18 had policies that were not comprehensive, and 4 had not developed any policies  Further, we found that only 2 of the 24 selected agencies had established comprehensive software license inventories, a leading practice that would help them to adequately manage their software licenses  The inadequate implementation of this and other leading practices in software license management was partially due to weaknesses in agencies’ policies  As a result, we concluded that agencies’ oversight of software license spending was limited or lacking, thus potentially leading to missed savings  However, the potential savings could be significant considering that, in fiscal year 2012, 1 major federal agency reported saving approximately $181 million by consolidating its enterprise license agreements, even when its oversight process was ad hoc  Accordingly, we recommended that OMB issue a directive to help guide agencies in managing software licenses  We also made 135 recommendations to the 24 agencies to improve their policies and practices for managing licenses  Among other things, we recommended that the agencies regularly track and maintain a comprehensive inventory of software licenses and analyze the inventory to identify opportunities to reduce costs and better inform investment decision making  Most agencies generally agreed with the recommendations or had no comments  As of May 2018, 78 of the 135 recommendations had not been implemented  Table 2 reflects the extent to which the 24 agencies implemented the recommendations in these two areas  Since information security was added to the high-risk list in 1997, we have consistently identified shortcomings in the federal government’s approach to cybersecurity  We have previously testified that, even though agencies have acted to improve the protections over federal and critical infrastructure information and information systems, the federal government needs to take the following actions to strengthen U S  cybersecurity: Effectively implement risk-based entity-wide information security programs consistently over time  Among other things, agencies need to (1) implement sustainable processes for securely configuring operating systems, applications, workstations, servers, and network devices; (2) patch vulnerable systems and replace unsupported software; (3) develop comprehensive security test and evaluation procedures and conduct examinations on a regular and recurring basis; and (4) strengthen oversight of contractors providing IT services  Improve its cyber incident detection, response, and mitigation capabilities  DHS needs to expand the capabilities and support wider adoption of its government-wide intrusion detection and prevention system  In addition, the federal government needs to improve cyber incident response practices, update guidance on reporting data breaches, and develop consistent responses to breaches of personally identifiable information  Expand its cyber workforce planning and training efforts  The federal government needs to (1) enhance efforts for recruiting and retaining a qualified cybersecurity workforce and (2) improve cybersecurity workforce planning activities  Expand efforts to strengthen cybersecurity of the nation’s critical infrastructures  The federal government needs to develop metrics to (1) assess the effectiveness of efforts promoting the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s (NIST) Framework for Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity and (2) measure and report on the effectiveness of cyber risk mitigation activities and the cybersecurity posture of critical infrastructure sectors  Better oversee protection of personally identifiable information  The federal government needs to (1) protect the security and privacy of electronic health information, (2) ensure privacy when face recognition systems are used, and (3) protect the privacy of users’ data on state-based health insurance marketplaces  As we have previously noted, in order to take the preceding actions and strengthen the federal government’s cybersecurity posture, agencies should implement the information security programs required by FISMA  In this regard, FISMA provides a framework for ensuring the effectiveness of information security controls for federal information resources  The law requires each agency to develop, document, and implement an agency- wide information security program  Such a program includes risk assessments; the development and implementation of policies and procedures to cost-effectively reduce risks; plans for providing adequate information security for networks, facilities, and systems; security awareness and specialized training; the testing and evaluation of the effectiveness of controls; the planning, implementation, evaluation, and documentation of remedial actions to address information security deficiencies; procedures for detecting, reporting, and responding to security incidents; and plans and procedures to ensure continuity of operations  Since 2010, we have made 2,733 recommendations to agencies aimed at improving the security of federal systems and information  These recommendations have identified actions for agencies to take to strengthen technical security controls over their computer networks and systems  They also have included recommendations for agencies to fully implement aspects of their information security programs, as mandated by FISMA  Nevertheless, many agencies continue to be challenged in safeguarding their information systems and information, in part because many of these recommendations have not been implemented  As of May 2018, 793 of information security-related recommendations we have made have not been implemented  In order to determine the effectiveness of the agencies’ information security programs and practices, FISMA requires that federal agencies’ inspectors general conduct annual independent evaluations  The agencies are to report the results of these evaluations to OMB, and OMB is to summarize the results in annual reports to Congress  In these evaluations, the inspectors general frame the scope of their analysis, identify key findings, and detail recommendations to address the findings  The evaluations also are to capture maturity model ratings for their respective agencies  Toward this end, in fiscal year 2017, the inspector general community, in partnership with OMB and DHS, finalized a 3-year effort to create a maturity model for FISMA metrics that align to the five function areas in the NIST Framework for Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity (Cybersecurity Framework): identify, protect, detect, respond, and recover  This alignment is intended to help promote consistent and comparable metrics and criteria and provides agencies with a meaningful independent assessment of their information security programs  This maturity model is designed to summarize the status of agencies’ information security programs on a five-level capability maturity scale  The five maturity levels are defined as follows: Level 1 Ad-hoc: Policies, procedures, and strategy are not formalized; activities are performed in an ad-hoc, reactive manner  Level 2 Defined: Policies, procedures, and strategy are formalized and documented but not consistently implemented  Level 3 Consistently Implemented: Policies, procedures, and strategy are consistently implemented, but quantitative and qualitative effectiveness measures are lacking  Level 4 Managed and Measurable: Quantitative and qualitative measures on the effectiveness of policies, procedures, and strategy are collected across the organizations and used to assess them and make necessary changes  Level 5 Optimized: Policies, procedures, and strategy are fully institutionalized, repeatable, self-generating, consistently implemented and regularly updated based on a changing threat and technology landscape and business/mission needs  In March 2018, OMB issued its annual FISMA report to Congress, which showed the combined results of the inspectors general’s fiscal year 2017 evaluations  Based on data from 76 agency inspector general and independent auditor assessments, OMB determined that the government-wide median maturity model ratings across the five NIST Cybersecurity Framework areas did not exceed a level 3 (consistently implemented)  Table 3 shows the inspectors general’s median ratings for each of the NIST Cybersecurity Framework areas  In its efforts toward strengthening the federal government’s cybersecurity, OMB also requires agencies to submit related cybersecurity metrics as part of its Cross-Agency Priority goals  In particular, OMB developed the IT modernization goal so that federal agencies will be able to build and maintain more modern, secure, and resilient IT  A key part of this goal is to reduce cybersecurity risks to the federal mission through three strategies: manage asset security, protect networks and data, and limit personnel access  The key targets supporting each of these strategies correspond to areas within the FISMA metrics  Table 4 outlines the strategies and their associated targets  In conclusion, FITARA and FISMA present opportunities for the federal government to address the high-risk areas on improving the management of IT acquisitions and operations, and ensuring the security of federal IT, thereby saving billions of dollars  Most agencies have taken steps to execute key IT management and cybersecurity initiatives, including implementing CIO responsibilities, requiring CIO review of IT acquisitions, realizing data center consolidation cost savings, managing software assets, and complying with FISMA requirements  The agencies have also continued to address the recommendations that we have made over the past several years  However, further efforts by OMB and federal agencies to implement our previous recommendations would better position them to improve the management and security of federal IT  To help ensure that these efforts succeed, we will continue to monitor agencies’ efforts toward implementing these recommendations  Chairmen Meadows and Hurd, Ranking Members Connolly and Kelly, and Members of the Subcommittees, this completes my prepared statement  I would be pleased to respond to any questions that you may have at this time  If you or your staff have any questions about this testimony, please contact David A  Powner, Director, Information Technology, at (202) 512- 9286 or pownerd@gao gov  Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this statement  GAO staff who made key contributions to this testimony are Kevin Walsh (Assistant Director), Chris Businsky, Rebecca Eyler, Meredith Raymond, and Jessica Waselkow (Analyst in Charge)  This is a work of the U S  government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States  The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further permission from GAO  However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately 

ground_truth: On January 6, 2011, after spending approximately $3 billion in developmental funding, the Marine Corps cancelled the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV) program due to poor reliability demonstrated during operational testing and excessive cost growth. Because the EFV was intended to replace the 40-year-old Amphibious Assault Vehicle (AAV), the Pentagon pledged to move quickly to develop a "more affordable and sustainable" vehicle to replace the EFV. The Amphibious Combat Vehicle (ACV) is intended to replace the AAV, incorporating some EFV capabilities but in a more practical and cost-efficient manner. In concert with the ACV, the Marines were developing the Marine Personnel Carrier (MPC) to serve as a survivable and mobile platform to transport Marines when ashore. The MPC was not intended to be amphibious like an AAV, EFV, or the ACV but instead would be required to have a swim capability for inland waterways such as rivers, lakes, and other water obstacles such as shore-to-shore operations in the littorals. Both vehicles were intended to play central roles in future Marine amphibious operations. On June 14, 2013, Marine leadership put the MPC program "on ice" due to budgetary pressures but suggested the program might be resurrected some 10 years down the road when budgetary resources might be more favorable. In what was described as a "drastic shift," the Marines decided to "resurrect" the MPC in March 2014. The Marines designated the MPC as ACV Increment 1.1 and planned to acquire about 200 vehicles. The Marines also plan to develop ACV Increment 1.2, a tracked, fully amphibious version, and at the time planned to acquire about 470 vehicles and fund an ongoing high water speed study. Although ACV Increment 1.1 is to have a swim capability, another mode of transport (ship or aircraft) would be required to get the vehicles from ship to shore. The Marines are reportedly exploring the possibility of developing a high water speed ACV 2.0, which could accompany tanks and light armored vehicles into combat. On November 5, 2014, the Marines released a draft Request for Proposal (RFP) for ACV Increment 1.1. On November 24, 2015, the Marine Corps awarded BAE Systems and SAIC contracts to develop ACV 1.1 prototypes for evaluation. BAE's contract was for $103.8 million and SAIC's for $121.5 million, and each company was to build 16 prototypes to be tested over the next two years. Both BAE and SAIC delivered their prototypes early, and Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD) testing began mid-March 2017. In early December 2017, the Marines reportedly sent the ACV 1.1 down select request for proposals to BAE and Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC). On June 19, 2018, the Marine Corps selected BAE Systems to produce the ACV. The initial contract—valued at $198 million—was for low-rate production of 30 vehicles to be delivered by the autumn of 2019. On April 10, 2019, during testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee, Navy and Marine Corps leadership announced that during the fall of 2018, ACV 1.1 prototypes demonstrated satisfactory water mobility performance in high surf conditions and, in doing so, met the full water mobility transition requirement for ACV 1.2 capability. As a result, ACV 1.1 and ACV 1.2 were to be consolidated into a single variant—the ACV—which is intended to replace all AAVs. Potential issues for Congress include the potential ramifications of the consolidation of the ACV 1.1 and ACV 1.2 programs and how the possible adoption of the Expeditionary Advance Base Operations (EABO) operational concept could affect the ACV program.