You are given two reports by the government agency.  

Report 1:
The Buy American Act of 1933 was enacted during the Great Depression when there was a need to create and preserve jobs for American workers, and it established a preference for the federal government to buy domestic end products. Many of the products the federal government buys—including aircraft engines and medical supplies—are end products that may be subject to the requirements of the Buy American Act. Further, the Buy American Act does not apply to products that are purchased for use outside the United States or obtained through contracts under the micro-purchase threshold, which was generally $3,500 in fiscal year 2017. end products manufactured in the United States provided that (a) the product is a commercially available off-the-shelf item; or (b) the cost of the components mined, produced, or manufactured in the United States exceeds 50 percent of the total cost of all components. End products that are not considered domestic under the Buy American Act are treated as foreign. This characterization is based on the origin of the end product—that is, where the product is manufactured or produced—and not the vendor’s location. For example, a vendor located in Finland may supply end products manufactured in the United States, in which case these products would be treated as domestic products. Conversely, a vendor located in the United States may supply end products manufactured in Finland. In this case, the end products would be considered foreign. Although the Buy American Act establishes a preference for domestic end products, there are situations in which agencies can procure foreign end products through established exceptions to the Buy American requirements. In addition, under the Trade Agreements Act of 1979, the United States has waived domestic purchasing requirements—including the Buy American Act—for certain acquisitions of foreign end products from countries that are party to international trade agreements or are considered designated countries by the U.S. Trade Representative. In implementing the Buy American Act, the FAR sets forth several exceptions that permit federal agencies to buy foreign end products. These include situations when a domestic end product is not produced in sufficient quantities or cases where the cost would be unreasonable to buy a domestic end product. The steps that contracting officers must take to determine or document an exception will vary depending on the circumstances of the acquisition. For example, a written determination from the Head of Contracting Activity (HCA) or a delegate may be necessary to determine non-availability in some cases. However, a written determination may not be required when an acquisition is conducted through full and open competition, is synopsized, and no domestic offer is received. Other exceptions to the Buy American Act restrictions on the purchase of foreign products, such as the exception for commercial information technology, are blanket exceptions that do not require a written determination. In addition, some agencies have specified additional considerations that must precede a determination and what level of authority is appropriate for certain determinations. The five Buy American Act exceptions that apply government-wide and the corresponding determination standards in the FAR are listed in Table 1. Individual federal agencies may make blanket determinations of situations in which the Act’s restrictions should not apply to that agency’s procurements, when it is not in the public interest to restrict the purchase of foreign end products. For example, over the years, DOD has entered into reciprocal procurement agreements with 27 foreign counterparts. DOD determined that it would be inconsistent with the public interest to apply the Buy American Act restrictions on products from these 27 qualifying countries. Thus, if an offer includes end products from a qualifying country, those products are not restricted by the Buy American Act and the acquisition of qualifying country end products does not require higher approval. This public interest exception for qualifying countries applies only to contracts awarded by DOD. Federal agencies can purchase eligible foreign end products from designated countries when the Buy American Act’s requirements are waived because of the terms of an international trade agreement or other criteria, such as a designation by the U.S. Trade Representative as a least developed country. In accordance with the Trade Agreements Act of 1979, the president has the authority to waive the Buy American Act. For eligible products that come from countries covered by the World Trade Organization’s Government Procurement Agreement, Free Trade Agreements, and the Israeli Trade Act, the Buy American Act has been waived so that these items receive nondiscriminatory consideration and are on equal footing with domestic end products. In total, these agreements cover approximately 60 countries—overlapping with all but two of the DOD qualifying countries. Appendix II highlights the overlap. Unlike DOD’s blanket public interest exception for qualifying countries, the Buy American Act requirements are only waived under a trade agreement if the acquisition is of a certain value set by the U.S. Trade Representative. Current trade agreement thresholds, at or above which the requirements are waived, range from $25,000 for contracts for eligible products from Canada to $180,000 for the 45 other parties to the World Trade Organization’s Government Procurement Agreement. Table 2 lists the parties eligible for trade agreements and the associated threshold for supply contracts. The FAR specifies certain conditions in which trade agreements do not apply, even if the acquisition is above the requisite threshold value set by the U.S. Trade Representative. In these cases, the Buy American Act would apply. These conditions include, but are not limited to: acquisitions that do not use full and open competition, when the limitation of competition would preclude the procedures applicable to acquisitions covered by trade agreements; certain sole-source acquisitions for commercial items using simplified acquisition procedures; acquisitions set aside for small businesses; acquisition of ammunition, arms, or war materials, or for purchases indispensable for national security or national defense purposes; and acquisitions from federal prison industries or nonprofit agencies employing people who are blind or severely disabled. If the contracting officer determines that a trade agreement applies to a particular acquisition, which waives the Buy American restrictions, that determination does not require additional review at a higher level. This is similar to other circumstances where Buy American Act restrictions do not apply, such as for the acquisition of products for use outside the United States or contracts valued below the micro-purchase threshold. The Buy American Act’s applicability is based on the country of origin of the product being supplied, rather than the country of the vendor offering the product to the government. Vendors who propose to do business with the U.S. government are required to certify as to where their products are manufactured or produced—whether in the United States or in a designated country covered by the Trade Agreements Act. Vendors can provide an annual certification applicable to all of their contracts through the federal government’s contractor registry, known as the System for Award Management (SAM). Through SAM, a vendor identifies the country of origin for foreign products associated with a broad category of products. For example, a vendor could state that it provides aircraft components that originate in France and Mexico. Vendors also have the option not to certify the origin of their products in SAM, but instead provide information about foreign end products in their individual offers for contracts. Contracting officials include the relevant clauses in solicitations and contracts in accordance with regulation to require vendor certification. For example, the clause at FAR 52.225-2, Buy American Certificate, requires the offeror to certify that each end product is a domestic end product, or list any foreign end products and their country of origin. Once a contract is awarded, the awarding agency must enter certain information into FPDS-NG, a government-wide database for contract awards and obligations. The Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP) within the Office of Management and Budget provides the overall direction for FPDS-NG, which is managed by the General Services Administration. FPDS-NG data can be populated through the individual systems agencies use to develop contracts. Agencies are responsible for the quality of the information transmitted to FPDS-NG, including data captured on the contract value and whether the foreign product acquisition is authorized by one of the Buy American Act exceptions or a trade agreement. This information is recorded at the contract level, or at the delivery order level for orders from indefinite delivery contracts. For certain product categories—essentially those that represent end products—FPDS-NG requires that contracting staff enter information in the “Place of Manufacture” drop-down data field, as shown in Figure 1. This field must be populated for all reported manufactured end products, including those valued under the micro-purchase threshold, which at the time of our review was generally $3,500. Options in this field include indicating that the product is made in the United States, or that it is made outside the United States and qualifies under one of the Buy American Act exceptions, or that it is subject to the requirements of a trade agreement instead of the Buy American Act requirements. In 2018, FPDS-NG data on agencies’ historical reporting of the use of Buy American exceptions were added to the website on which agencies post contracting opportunities (www.fbo.gov). According to OFPP, this allows vendors selling domestic products to more easily see how agencies acquire foreign goods pursuant to Buy American Act exceptions. In fiscal year 2017, the federal government obligated approximately $7.8 billion for the acquisition of foreign end products, which accounts for less than 5 percent of total federal contract obligations for end products in that year. We observed differences in how civilian agencies and DOD apply Buy American Act exceptions and waivers. In our review of 38 contracts and orders from four agencies—DOD, HHS, DHS, and VA—we found 6 instances where the place of manufacture information was misreported in FPDS-NG. We further identified system limitations in how FPDS-NG captures information. Based on our analysis of FPDS-NG data, almost 40 percent of federal contract obligations in fiscal year 2017—totaling approximately $196 billion—were for domestic and foreign end products, such as aircraft parts, that may be subject to the Buy American Act. Less than 5 percent of these obligations—approximately $7.8 billion—were reported as foreign end products. This is consistent with the information agencies reported in FPDS-NG in the previous 4 years, with foreign end products accounting for approximately 3 to 8 percent of goods subject to Buy American Act restrictions between fiscal years 2013 through 2016. The foreign end products in fiscal year 2017 primarily came from South Korea, the United Kingdom, Afghanistan, Canada, Mexico, and the United Arab Emirates, which together accounted for almost half of the total foreign end products reported. Appendix III shows the federal government’s obligations for foreign end products from various countries for fiscal year 2017. The procurement of foreign end products is permitted by the flexibilities available under the Buy American Act’s exceptions and waivers. Agencies also procured foreign end products through means separate from the exceptions allowed under the Buy American Act, primarily in cases where the Act would not apply. Agencies reported obligating more than $700 million to procure foreign end products by applying one of the five government-wide Buy American Act exceptions—such as domestic non-availability or unreasonable cost—in FPDS-NG for fiscal year 2017. Agencies reported obligating approximately $550 million to procure foreign end products as permitted by the Trade Agreements Act, which waives the Buy American Act’s domestic preference requirements for US trading partners when eligible products are covered by trade agreements and are above certain dollar thresholds. DOD also obligated nearly $2.9 billion to procure foreign products from countries with which it has reciprocal procurement agreements, using what is referred to as the DOD qualifying country exception. This is an exercise of the authority available to agencies under the Buy American Act’s public interest exception. DOD determined that it is not in the public interest to restrict the purchase of foreign end products from 27 countries. All but two of these qualifying countries are also US trading partners, so some of these awards for eligible products may be authorized by a trade agreement. However, the qualifying country exception allows DOD to procure foreign end products without regard to dollar thresholds or other trade agreement eligibility limitations. Agencies also procured foreign end products, such as fuel, to be used outside the United States, in which circumstance the Buy American Act’s requirements do not apply. For fiscal year 2017, these obligations accounted for almost $3.7 billion—about 47 percent of all dollars obligated for foreign end products, as reported in FPDS-NG. Figure 2 highlights fiscal year 2017 obligations, including agencies’ reported spending on foreign end products under the Buy American Act exceptions and other means. DOD accounted for more than 80 percent—roughly $6.4 billion—of the total obligations for foreign end products in fiscal year 2017. Almost all of DOD purchases were either for use outside of the United States, so were not subject to Buy American Act restrictions, or were reported under the public interest exception for DOD qualifying countries. In contrast, civilian agencies report a more varied mix of the exceptions and waivers of the Buy American Act. The civilian agencies—which are unable to apply DOD’s qualifying country exception—were more likely to report buying foreign end products based on trade agreements or another exception to the Buy American Act requirements. Figure 3 shows how DOD and the civilian agencies acquired foreign end products authorized by the various exceptions and waivers of the Buy American Act. From our review of FPDS-NG data, the civilian agencies are more likely to cite one of the five Buy American Act exceptions or a trade agreement waiver when buying foreign end products, and thus take corresponding actions to document or approve the authority cited. For example, in our review of contracts from four agencies, VA obligated $71,000 for medical imaging equipment from Canada, and had to consider whether a trade agreement waiver applied. The manufacturer was determined to be the only source available and the contracting officer determined the acquisition was authorized by a Buy American exception based on domestic non-availability, which can require additional review. In contrast, DOD may make a similar contract award for equipment from Canada based on the qualifying countries exception. DOD acquisitions, then, may be authorized by exceptions such as domestic non-availability when a required item does not come from a qualifying country. For example, we reviewed a $744,000 DOD award for vehicle equipment that was only available from South Africa—which is not one of the DOD qualifying countries and not covered by any of the trade agreements—so the acquisition was authorized by the domestic non-availability exception. In addition, the civilian agencies also reported buying foreign end products for use outside the United States but to a lesser extent than DOD. For example, this included one of the contracts we reviewed, an HHS award for Ebola vaccines manufactured in the Netherlands, with $44.7 million obligated in fiscal year 2017. This contract was reported as used outside the United States because it is primarily stored overseas. FPDS-NG is the primary means for capturing procurement data regarding the Buy American Act, but we found that agencies may not always input reliable information on the extent to which exceptions or waivers authorized the acquisition of foreign end products. In addition, some aspects of how FPDS-NG is structured could lead to additional data reporting errors. In the non-generalizable sample of 38 contracts and orders we examined from DOD, HHS, DHS, and VA, we found 6 awards where information related to the Buy American Act was incorrectly reported in FPDS-NG. In three of the six contracts, agencies recorded the wrong exception or waiver, most often because of an error when reporting the place of manufacture in FPDS-NG. For example, DOD reported a $22,000 contract for vehicle equipment from South Africa as a Buy American Act exception due to unreasonable cost. But the contract file indicated that the exception that applied was domestic non-availability. DOD officials acknowledged the error and corrected it in FPDS-NG during the course of our review. In the three remaining contracts, agencies misreported whether an end product came from the United States or another country. For example, DHS incorrectly recorded that an $18 million contract was for aircraft accessories and other parts manufactured in the United States, even though file documentation showed the contract was for Italian-produced spare parts from the original equipment manufacturer. The Italian- produced spare parts were available from existing inventory maintained by the manufacturer and were needed immediately to meet a mandatory operational requirement. Officials from DHS acknowledged the recording oversight, attributed it to a mistake when entering information in FPDS- NG, and have since corrected the error in response to our observation. Additionally, FPDS-NG has system limitations that could hinder complete and accurate reporting of Buy American Act information: DOD Qualifying Country Exceptions and Trade Agreement Waivers. FPDS-NG requires that information on the type of Buy American Act exception or waiver applied be provided when end products are reported as foreign. But FPDS-NG does not identify errors associated with this process. For example, we reviewed an $8.3 million DHS contract for engines manufactured in Germany that was recorded as a DOD qualifying country exception in FPDS-NG, although this exception is not available to civilian agencies. Contracting officials corrected the data in FPDS-NG during the course of our review. Further, FPDS-NG does not prevent agencies from reporting trade agreement waivers when the contracts are valued below applicable thresholds or waivers do not apply, such as for small business set asides. For example, in the fiscal year 2017 data we reviewed, more than 5 percent of contract obligations reported for trade agreement waivers were for awards set-aside for small businesses, which would not be eligible under the Trade Agreements Act. OFPP officials noted that because of the various dollar thresholds applicable to different trade agreements, adding automatic thresholds in FPDS-NG to guide contracting staff in reporting an applicable trade agreement could lead to additional data errors in the procurement database. Awards under the Micro-purchase Threshold. Although the Buy American Act requirements do not apply to contract awards valued below the micro-purchase threshold—generally $3,500 in fiscal year 2017—the FPDS-NG ‘Place of Manufacture’ field does not have an option to indicate whether a contract is under the threshold. Instead, contracting officers entering information for awards under the micro- purchase amount must still state whether the product is domestic or foreign. If the product is foreign, the officials must select a Buy American Act exception authorizing the purchase, even though no exception is needed at these dollar levels. As a result, when agencies report in FPDS-NG that a Buy American Act exception or waiver applied for a procurement valued at less than $3,500, that information would not be accurate. Based on our review, this may have involved about $16 million in fiscal year 2017 obligations. Awards for both Foreign and Domestic Products. When reporting data for contracts that include multiple end products from both the United States and a foreign country, FPDS-NG only allows for one country of origin to be identified. Contracting officers told us that they typically will report a foreign end product in FPDS-NG when the foreign products account for the preponderance of the contract value. Thus, in cases where a contract includes foreign end products that do not account for the preponderance of the contract’s value, the value of these foreign end products would not be reported in FPDS-NG. We have previously reported that FPDS-NG has similar limitations in other fields, such the type of product or service provided, which prevent contracting officers from identifying more than one condition. According to OFPP, a recent change in the FAR requiring contract reporting at the line item level should provide greater transparency of all products included in a contract. Buy American Act Exceptions and Waivers under Indefinite Delivery Contracts. The way FPDS-NG captures data for Buy American Act exceptions and waivers for some indefinite-delivery contracts results in inaccurate data reporting. When an indefinite- delivery contract is initially awarded, FPDS-NG functionality does not give contracting staff the option to enter information for the ‘Place of Manufacture’ field. Instead, this information is typically captured once an order is placed on the contract. In our review of FPDS-NG data across the four agencies, however, we found that in some cases obligations are reported on the initial indefinite delivery contract so the Buy American Act exceptions or waivers are not recorded. This occurred with multiple agencies, but particularly at HHS, where information for almost 28 percent of HHS obligations for end products in fiscal year 2017 was not captured in FPDS-NG because the obligations were reported in the system through the initial contracts rather than orders. As a result, the applicability of the Buy American Act for HHS contracts totaling almost $1.9 billion in fiscal year 2017 was unreported in FPDS-NG. DOD, DHS, and VA officials told us they identified FPDS-NG reporting as an area of concern. GAO Standards for Internal Controls in the Federal Government state that management should use quality information to support objectives, and that such data should be complete and accurate. In response to the 2017 Executive Order calling for federal agencies to assess their implementation of the Buy American Act requirement, OFPP officials told us they are identifying potential strategies for improving the information agencies submit to FPDS-NG. As OFPP weighs potential options for FPDS-NG reporting, implementing enhancements to reduce data entry errors and ensure that the data collected are complete and accurate would help enable the system to provide the most useful information possible. Ensuring information is correctly reported in FPDS- NG is critical because the data are used to inform procurement policy decisions and facilitate congressional oversight. The four agencies we reviewed—DOD, HHS, DHS, and VA—took different approaches to provide training and guidance for the Buy American Act requirements. Contracting officers faced challenges when procuring products subject to the Buy American Act. For example, we found instances in which contracting officers applied a waiver or exception to contracts where the waiver did not apply and did not have complete guidance for required determinations or reviews. There also were challenges in confirming product origin information when vendors did not provide consistent information. The four agencies we reviewed varied in the mix of training and guidance provided to aid contracting officers in implementing the requirements of the Buy American Act. Three of the four agencies—DOD, DHS and VA— supplemented the federal acquisition regulation, which implements the requirements of the Buy American Act and Trade Agreements Act, with their own acquisition regulations. In addition, DHS and DOD have recently updated existing training or added new training and guidance. VA issued policy memoranda in 2017, emphasizing the importance of meeting Buy American Act requirements, but has not added training or provided specific guidance. HHS does not provide department-level training or guidance related to the Buy American Act. Most of the DHS and DOD contracting officers we spoke to reported that they had attended training and several found the guidance provided by the training to be helpful. HHS and VA contracting officials described confusion due to the lack of resources available at their respective agencies. In 2017, in response to a series of recommendations from the DOD Inspector General to re-emphasize Buy American Act training and guidance, the Defense Acquisition University introduced an updated training course that specifically focuses on the requirements and implementation of the Buy American Act. While not mandatory, a June 2017 memo notified all DOD services and the defense agencies that members of their contracting workforce should complete this training as part of their professional development. At the current pace of enrollment, DOD officials anticipate approximately 18,000 people will have taken this course by the end of September 2018, which is a seven-fold increase over previous graduation rates. Incorporated into these trainings were supplemental on-the-job tools to assist contracting officers when awarding contracts for end products subject to the Buy American Act requirements. One such tool is a flowchart outlining applicable solicitation provisions or contract clauses based upon the awarded contract’s total dollar value. DOD contracting officials we interviewed from Defense Logistics Agency’s (DLA) Land and Maritime division had completed the agency-level Buy American Act training and said it served as a good refresher, with some noting that most of the training they had received on the subject came when they were first hired. DOD provides regulations and guidance on Buy American Act requirements through both the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) and the accompanying Procedures, Guidance and Information. DOD contracting officers use the provisions and clauses in DFARS to address the public interest exception for DOD qualifying countries. In addition, as a part of the updated training, the Defense Pricing and Contracting Office developed two documents to provide additional Buy American Act guidance. One outlines a step-by-step approach contracting officers can follow to determine whether the Buy American Act applies to their particular procurement and, if so, whether the use of an exception or waiver is appropriate. The second assists contracting officers with evaluating all offers—foreign and domestic— when price is the determining factor. In addition, we found that DLA supplements the available Defense Acquisition University training and guidance with a robust level of support, including annual training and subject matter expertise. DLA contracting officers told us that while they found the updated training helpful, they also appreciated the training course internal to their agency, as it addresses the types of procurements they typically handle in their day-to- day work, such as buying spare parts. Further, DLA contracting officers noted that they use the job aid provided through the local training. DHS introduced training courses in 2017 that specifically focus on the requirements and implementation of the Buy American Act, including a mandatory training course for DHS contracting officers. DHS reported that 94 percent of contracting staff had taken the required course as of April 2018. DHS developed these courses in response to the 2017 Executive Order to ensure its staff was familiar with the Buy American Act requirements. Incorporated into these training courses are supplemental on-the-job tools to assist contracting officers when awarding contracts for end products subject to the Buy American Act requirements, such as a flowchart outlining applicable solicitation provisions or contract clauses based upon contract dollar value. Contracting officials generally view the training and tools they received as beneficial. For example, several DHS contracting officials we interviewed said that the agency’s new course provided a helpful review on the topic, while one contracting officer specifically noted that the course materials are useful to new staff, to help them understand the Act’s waivers and exceptions. DHS also revised its acquisition manual in December 2017 to add further detail regarding the Buy American Act requirements. Specifically, DHS updated its acquisition manual to provide contracting officers more explicit FPDS-NG reporting instructions for procurements subject to the Buy American Act, as well as discretion to purchase domestic end products at or below the micro-purchase threshold. Additional changes include increasing the documentation and level of managerial review required to use several of the exceptions to the Buy American Act. For example, prior to 2018—which includes the time period in which the DHS contracts and orders we reviewed were awarded—the head of individual contracting offices had the authority to approve domestic non-availability and unreasonable cost exceptions, with a notification made to the DHS Chief Procurement Officer. But under the new policy, the use of these exceptions must have the concurrence of the HCA—who is responsible for contracting activities within individual DHS components—and be approved by the department’s Chief Procurement Officer. Table 3 outlines these changes. In September 2017, VA issued guidance to reinforce existing Buy American Act requirements. The policy memorandum encourages the HCAs within VA to institute reviews of awarded contracts subject to the Buy American Act to ensure compliance. As of September 2018, policy officials did not know how many HCAs had taken this step. Further, the guidance emphasizes the importance of Buy American Act training for its acquisition workforce. VA policy officials explained that the Buy American Act is introduced in several VA training courses, but the agency does not have a specific course on implementing the Buy American Act requirements or provide additional instruction or tools. During the course of our review, VA officials said that some of the HCAs had added internal training on the Buy American Act. In addition, VA contracting staff has the option of taking training offered outside the agency, such as the updated Defense Acquisition University course on the Buy American Act. This training is not required. Contracting officials we spoke to at VA said they struggled with the details of awarding contracts subject to Buy American Act requirements because they are not provided sufficient agency-specific training and guidance on the topic. Moreover, several contracting staff noted an increased need for training due to recent changes in VA contracting practices. Specifically, in response to a 2016 Supreme Court decision, VA has increased contracting efforts with veteran-owned small businesses through the Veterans First Contracting Program. As a result, contracting officials explained they have reduced their use of schedule contracts, in which the determinations related to the Buy American Act requirements were made with the initial awards. As one contracting officer explained, prior to this change, more than 90 percent of her division’s procurements were through VA schedule contracts in which Buy American Act applicability had already been established. However, this shift in contracting practices means contracting officers will more frequently need to consider the applicability of the Buy American Act, but contracting officers have not received specific guidance or training to do so. Noting the significance of this change, one contracting officer stated she approached VA management to obtain Buy American Act training for her division, but such training was not available. Federal internal controls state that agencies should ensure that training is aimed at developing and retaining employee knowledge, skills, and abilities to meet changing organizational needs. In September 2018, we reported that VA was experiencing difficulties implementing multiple aspects of the Veterans First policy, and we recommended that VA provide more targeted implementation training. As VA moves forward to implement this training, incorporating the Buy American Act requirements will be important to provide greater assurance that staff has the knowledge and skills needed to navigate the changing procurement environment. HHS does not have agency-level Buy American training or guidance. The HHS Acquisition Regulation Supplement does not address foreign acquisitions. HHS officials told us that efforts to develop guidance that would address Buy American Act requirements are underway, but they do not know when they will be finalized and made available to contracting officers, and could not describe the extent to which they will address Buy American Act implementation. The HHS contracting officers we interviewed discussed informal Buy American Act training their divisions had developed because department-level training was not available. For example, at HHS’ National Institutes of Health, a contracting official told us about a training course she recently developed because her office was taking on the administration of additional contracts for which the Buy American Act requirements would apply. Contracting officers at HHS’ Office of Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority described informal training on the agency’s contract writing system— included as part of their weekly internal staff meetings—that provides additional guidance on how to appropriately complete certain data fields relevant to the Buy American Act. In our analysis of 38 contracts from across the four agencies, we found that agencies faced various levels of challenge in applying the Trade Agreements Act waivers and Buy American Act exceptions to acquire foreign end products. This was particularly apparent in cases where contracting officers had to determine if a trade agreement applied or cases which required a determination that a domestic end product was not sufficiently available, in accordance with the domestic non-availability exception to the Buy American Act requirements. Contracting staff also had difficulty determining the origin of products in light of incomplete or conflicting information. Of the six contracts we reviewed reporting that a trade agreement applied to the foreign end products purchased, we found two cases in which this waiver did not apply to the contracts in question. The value of the contract is one determining factor for whether a trade agreement waives the Buy American Act requirements, although the FAR also states additional factors that would affect applicability under a trade agreement. The two contracts we found, both from VA, had total dollar values at award— $8,435 and $11,950, respectively—that were less than any of the thresholds at which trade agreement waivers of the Buy American Act are applicable. Both contracts were for products from countries that are party to the World Trade Organization Government Procurement Agreement, so the value of the acquisition would have to be equal to or exceed $191,000—the threshold that was in effect at the time of award—for waivers from Buy American requirements to apply. Contracting officials in both cases were generally unaware that the applicable threshold was not met, making the trade agreement waiver inapplicable. Although VA has added Buy American Act guidance since these contracts were awarded early in fiscal year 2017, the information currently available does not provide sufficient detail to assist contracting officers when awarding contracts in these situations. For example, the guidance VA provided contracting officers in September 2017 does not emphasize consideration of the applicable trade agreement thresholds or include information on how contracting officers should determine the applicable waiver or exception. When contracting officers procure foreign end products, the type of waiver or exception used to support the purchase matters—particularly when required additional steps and review are not completed because the wrong waiver or exception was applied. We found that the two VA contracts with foreign end products were incorrectly reported as the Trade Agreements Act waiver having applied. If one of the other Buy American Act exceptions permitting purchases of foreign end products had applied, contracting officers may have been required to obtain higher-level review or complete a written determination. In addition, we reviewed contracts that show some of the complexities contracting officers face beyond applying the dollar thresholds when determining if an award for foreign end products is eligible under the Trade Agreements Act waiver of the Buy American Act. Specifically, we found instances where DHS contracting officials took different approaches for non-competed awards for similar foreign-manufactured products. For example, we reviewed a non-competed $58 million DHS award for acquiring spare aircraft parts from an original equipment manufacturer located in a foreign country that is party to the World Trade Organization Government Procurement Agreement. DHS reported in FPDS-NG that the procurement was waived by the Trade Agreements Act. However, we also reviewed two other sole-source awards from DHS for similar products—spare aircraft parts from two separate manufacturers in foreign countries that are also party to the World Trade Organization Government Procurement Agreement—that were instead reported as subject to the Buy American Act, but excepted due to the non-availability of domestic products. Contracting officers may come to different conclusions for similar products, in part, because of the multiple factors that have to be considered when determining whether an acquisition is subject to the Buy American Act and whether any waivers or exceptions apply. However, available guidance does not always address these complexities. For example, agencies need to decide if other conditions, such as the procurement of products deemed indispensable for national security or national defense purposes apply to an acquisition that would make a trade agreement inapplicable. Further, if the product’s country of origin is considered a designated country under the World Trade Organization Government Procurement Agreement, officials need to determine that the product is eligible under that agreement. DHS updated its training and guidance for the Buy American Act, which includes a job aid outlining at what dollar values solicitation provisions and contract clauses under a trade agreement waiver are applicable. However, it does not address other situations in which contracts may not be eligible under the Trade Agreements Act, such as non-eligible products or products for national defense purposes. For the other agencies in our review, we found that DOD’s updated Buy American Act training and its acquisition supplement both address trade agreement eligibility, but HHS does not yet have Buy American guidance to address this topic. Federal internal control standards state that agencies should communicate quality information internally to achieve their objectives and that they should select the appropriate methods of communication. When written guidance is not available, agencies may miss opportunities to ensure appropriate steps are taken to meet Buy American Act requirements. Our review of 38 contracts also included 8 contracts for foreign end products pursuant to the domestic non-availability exception. In certain situations, such as when contracts are awarded without full and open competition, this exception requires an approved written determination. The FAR establishes requirements for domestic non-availability determinations, but agencies can delegate the level of review required or specify information to be included in the determination. Three of the agencies we reviewed—DOD, DHS, and VA—provide supplemental guidance on the process for making determinations, including who must make the determination when applying a domestic non-availability exception. However, DHS policy officials told us that when the agency uses the domestic non-availability exception for a sole-source acquisition, the written justification that the FAR requires for non- competed awards should suffice as the documentation to support the non-availability determination as well. The practice of using sole-source justifications to support Buy American determinations is not addressed in DHS guidance. According to DHS policy updated in 2018, determinations of domestic non-availability must be concurred with by the HCA and approved by the Chief Procurement Officer. Federal and DHS acquisition regulations, however, state that some justifications can be approved at a lower level. In the absence of further guidance, this difference in approval levels could result in inconsistent application within the department. In addition, as previously noted HHS does not yet have Buy American Act guidance so the department does not provide information on how to make determinations. According to federal internal control standards, agencies should communicate quality information internally to achieve their objectives and that they should select appropriate communication methods. When written guidance is not available, agencies may miss opportunities to ensure that contracting officers take the steps needed to meet requirements when applying a domestic non-availability exception. Knowing the country of origin of the products the federal government buys is necessary to implement the Buy American Act, but contracting officers do not always have access to accurate information on originating countries. The FAR and the DFARS provide various clauses which, when incorporated into contracts, require vendors to certify that the end products they provide to the government are domestic and, if necessary, declare the foreign countries from which they provide products. Vendors frequently certify this information through the System for Award Management (SAM), the government-wide system used to collect vendors’ annual representations and certifications. Contracting officers may rely on the information vendors provide about their product origins, but they are generally expected to take actions to verify incomplete or conflicting information when they have reason to believe that a vendor will be providing a non-compliant product. We found that SAM certifications and offers did not always include accurate information on end products from foreign countries. In 6 of the 38 contracts that we reviewed—from DHS, HHS, and VA—the vendors certified that they only provided domestic end products although the end products provided were foreign. In all of these cases, the contracting officers knew that the acquisitions included foreign end products. For example, we reviewed two DHS awards for spare aircraft parts from an Italian-based company, one of which was reported in FPDS-NG under the domestic non-availability exception to the Buy American Act, and the other which was incorrectly reported as being manufactured in the United States but has since been corrected. Contracting officials said they knew the parts were made in Italy based on extensive experience contracting with the company and, in part, because they had visited the production location. Contracting officials—including some at HHS and VA—said they use SAM as their primary source to determine whether the vendor is offering domestic end products. Others reported some awareness of the limitations of SAM certifications. At all four agencies, contracting officials emphasized that it is important to ask questions when end product origin information is not readily available—or if there is conflicting information—but agency guidance that we reviewed does not address this need or provide information on how to do so. Only the local training offered by DOD’s DLA addresses other sources of information, which officials said was helpful because it is specific to the industries with which they work. Instead, some officials described how they rely on their experience to know how to verify products’ origins but this can be problematic, particularly with newer staff. For example, in one contract we reviewed VA contracting officials acknowledged that a new contracting specialist at VA did not follow-up when the product origin certification was not provided and assumed all of the items procured were domestic. During the course of our review, the contracting specialist’s supervisor said that she contacted the vendor and learned that some of the items provided were in fact foreign end products. The foreign products were not considered to account for the preponderance of the contract so were not reported in FPDS-NG, but the contracting officer was acting with incomplete information at the time of award. Further, in 4 of the 38 contracts that we reviewed, it is not clear how contracting staff took steps to obtain product origin information in situations where it was not provided in SAM. In these cases—which include contracts for both domestic and foreign end products—the vendors had opted not to certify their product origins in SAM, but instead said that they would provide the information with their individual proposals. However, based on the information in the contract files, the proposals did not include this information. For example: Three of the contracts we reviewed from HHS—all reported as purchasing end items manufactured in the United States—did not certify product origin in SAM. The supervising contracting officer for two of the awards explained that his contracting staff regularly check the vendor’s written representations and certifications provided in the offer, because the SAM certifications are general and do not always apply to the specific equipment they buy. However, the three contract files we reviewed did not include manufacturing or origin information. The vendor for a DHS contract that was reported as manufactured in the United States did not certify this information in SAM. The contracting officer said that he checks SAM for product origin information, but in the documents we reviewed there is no evidence of the information in the contract file. Federal internal control standards state that agencies should communicate the necessary quality information needed to achieve the agency’s objectives, thereby enabling personnel to address risks. Providing guidance regarding the situations in which contracting officers should verify product origin information with vendors may help agencies better meet the requirements of the Buy American Act. Although purchases for foreign end products account for less than 5 percent of federal procurement spending in fiscal year 2017, it is important that these purchases be consistent with the domestic- purchasing restrictions in the Buy American Act. This requires that Buy American Act exceptions and trade agreement waivers be used only when applicable, and that agencies report accurate data on the extent to which they are used. However, data reporting errors by contracting staff and FPDS-NG limitations mean that data on the use of exceptions and waivers are not fully captured. The federal agencies all have responsibilities to ensure Buy American Act data are accurate and complete. The lack of good data can hinder congressional oversight of the extent to which foreign end products are procured as authorized by one of the exceptions or waivers of the Buy American Act. Agencies have taken varied approaches for providing information to contracting officers that navigate the complexities and nuances associated with applying the different Buy American Act exceptions or trade agreement waivers. DOD has added such detailed information through its revised training course and policy guidance. Adding these types of targeted information to address challenging areas would help contracting officers at other agencies implement the Buy American Act’s domestic preferences, as well as related exceptions and waivers. Further, to accurately determine how exceptions and waivers apply requires complete product origin information. Although the responsibility to certify the origins of products supplied to the federal government rests with the contractors, contracting officers would benefit from resources that help them identify information that may be inconsistent, to ensure that accurate information is available. We are making four recommendations, one each to the Office of Management and Budget, DHS, VA, and HHS. The Director of the Office of Management and Budget should instruct the Office of Federal Procurement Policy: To facilitate additional training to improve the understanding of the contracting workforce regarding the Buy American Act requirements; and To facilitate clarifying revisions to FPDS-NG, where needed, and provide training and guidance for recording Buy American Act information in FPDS-NG to improve the accuracy of the Buy American data. (Recommendation 1) The Secretary of Homeland Security should clarify existing guidance in the Homeland Security Acquisition Manual or update training to help contracting officials: Identify the factors that should be considered in order to determine the applicability of the Trade Agreements Act and waiver of the Buy American Act; Document determinations of the use of Buy American exception for domestic non-availability and ensure the required approvals are obtained, particularly when such determinations are evidenced through justifications for other than full and open competition; and Identify sources of information available for determining product origin and the steps they should take to verify information that is inconsistent. (Recommendation 2) The Secretary of Veterans Affairs should clarify existing guidance, or provide training or other instruction, to help contracting officials: Address the applicability of the Buy American Act requirements and provide instruction on how to implement the requirements, including in any training developed to implement the Veterans First policy; Identify the factors that should be considered in order to determine the applicability of the Trade Agreements Act and waiver of the Buy American Act; and Identify sources of information available for determining products’ origins and the steps they should take to verify information that is inconsistent. (Recommendation 3) The Secretary of Health and Human Services should provide guidance, training, or other instruction to help contracting officials: Identify the factors that should be considered in order to determine the applicability of the Trade Agreements Act and waiver of the Buy American Act; Document determinations of the use of Buy American exceptions for domestic non-availability and ensure the required approvals are obtained; and Identify sources of information available for determining products’ origins and the steps they should take to verify information that is inconsistent. (Recommendation 4) We provided a draft of this report to DOD, HHS, DHS, VA, and the Office of Management and Budget for review and comment. DOD reviewed the report, but did not offer comments. HHS, DHS, and VA provided written responses, which are reproduced in Appendices IV, V, and VI of this report, respectively. A senior official within the Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP) at the Office of Management and Budget provided a response via email. In addition, HHS, DHS, and OFPP provided technical comments, which we incorporated into the report where appropriate. In their responses, HHS, DHS, VA agreed, and OFPP generally agreed, with our findings and recommendations. The written response from HHS and DHS included information on the steps each agency plans to take to address the recommendations. Specifically, HHS stated that the agency will evaluate ways to provide additional training and guidance to contracting officials. DHS stated that it will provide guidance on the applicability of the Buy American Act and the Trade Agreements Act in certain situations and the documentation and approvals required when awarding non-competed contracts that require an exception. Additionally, DHS plans to update training regarding actions contracting officers should take when there are discrepancies in product origin information. VA concurred with our three-part recommendation and described some of the actions the agency plans to take in response. However, VA’s comments do not fully address our recommendation. Specifically, we recommended that VA clarify guidance or provide training to identify factors that could help contracting officers determine the applicability of Trade Agreements Act waivers of the Buy American Act. The comments from VA, however, only restate the existing Buy American Act exceptions and make no mention of Trade Agreements Act waivers. Further, we recommended that VA identify sources of information regarding product origin and the steps to be taken to verify inconsistent product origin information. VA’s response only noted that contracting officers are responsible for conducting market research and ensuring that all product origin requirements are met. VA did not outline any additional steps the agency would take to help contracting officers navigate the complexities inherent in this area. Going forward, VA will need to develop a more robust and responsive approach in order to fully implement our recommendation. We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional committees; the Secretaries of the Departments of Defense, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, and Veterans Affairs; the Director of the Office of Management and Budget; and other interested parties. In addition, the report is available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov. If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-4841 or woodsw@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report are listed in appendix VII. The objectives of this report are to assess the extent to which (1) the federal government procures foreign products through Buy American Act exceptions and waivers; and (2) selected agencies provide training and guidance to implement the Buy American Act requirements. To address both of these objectives, we reviewed relevant laws and policies, such as sections of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR); the Buy American Act as amended; the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 as amended; federal acquisition regulation supplements from audited agencies such as the Department of Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS); the Executive Order “Buy American, Hire American” of 2017; the World Trade Organization’s Agreement on Government Procurement; and memorandums, policy, guidance, and instructions related to the Buy American Act. To assess the federal government procurement of foreign products, including those procured through citing exceptions and waivers of the Buy American Act, we analyzed data from the Federal Procurement Data System-Next Generation (FPDS-NG) for fiscal year 2017, which was the most recent and complete data available at the time of our review. We analyzed procurement data in FPDS-NG across the federal government in fields relevant to the Buy American Act’s domestic preference requirements, including the product service code, country of product origin, and place of manufacture, in addition to fields such as the contract value and dollars obligated. We reviewed the place of manufacture field in particular as it contains information on how the Buy American Act applies to the contract, including whether the preponderance of the obligations is for manufactured end products and, if so, whether they are manufactured in or outside of the United States. When manufactured outside of the United States, this field also captures the reason the purchase was permissible, which we analyzed to assess the dollar obligations associated with the various Buy American exceptions or trade agreement waiver reported, as well as when products were used outside of the United States. We also analyzed data from FPDS-NG to identify the countries where foreign end products were reported to be manufactured and the associated dollars obligated in fiscal year 2017. In addition, we met with officials from the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Federal Procurement Policy to better understand ongoing reviews of the data in FPDS-NG that pertains to the Buy American Act. In our analysis of FPDS-NG data, we took steps to minimize issues that might affect data reliability. Specifically, we analyzed FPDS-NG data to identify potential errors and inconsistencies, such as non-eligible agencies reporting the use of exceptions for DOD qualifying countries, or reporting trade agreement waivers for contracts valued less than minimum thresholds for trade agreements. We made minor adjustments to minimize potential data reporting issues, including aggregating the exceptions reported, and where appropriate, limiting our analysis to one year of data, fiscal year 2017. Based on these steps, we determined that FPDS-NG data were sufficiently reliable to allow us to calculate the approximate extent of obligations for foreign end products and the use of the Buy American Act exceptions and the Trade Agreements Act waiver. However, we are unable to precisely determine the amount spent on foreign end products through the use of exceptions and waivers because of the reporting errors and data system limitations we identified in this report. Using FPDS-ND data, we identified four agencies—the Departments of Defense (DOD), Health and Human Services (HHS), Homeland Security (DHS), and Veterans Affairs (VA)—that had the highest fiscal year 2017 obligations in the product codes for manufactured products, which are potentially subject to the Buy American Act restrictions. In addition, to identify trends and determine if there were variations in reported obligations for foreign end products in the past, we reviewed FPDS-NG data on the Buy American exceptions and trade agreement waivers in fiscal years 2013 through 2017. To assess the extent to which selected agencies are providing training and guidance to implement the requirements of the Buy American Act, we reviewed training course materials and regulations, policies, and other guidance available at the four agencies in our review—DOD, HHS, DHS, and VA—to determine the extent to which they address the Buy American Act requirements. In addition, we reviewed training materials available to government employees through sources such as the Federal Acquisition Institute. We interviewed policy officials from the four agencies to understand how training and guidance had been implemented. We further reviewed relevant inspector general reports from the DOD Inspector General issued between 2015 and 2018, which made several recommendations to improve compliance with the Buy American Act, among other requirements. Within the four agencies, we selected contracting offices that reported obligating fiscal year 2017 dollars for awards with foreign end products and awards with US-manufactured end products. We specifically focused on offices that reported a sufficient amount of foreign end product obligations and a sufficient number of contract awards to allow us to select multiple contracts. We also considered offices with a variety of Buy American exceptions and waiver types reported, in order to select a mix of contracts. The contracting offices selected were as follows: DOD: Defense Logistics Agency, Land and Maritime HHS: National Institutes of Health and the HHS Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response DHS: United States Coast Guard VA: Veterans Health Administration From these offices, we selected a non-generalizable sample of 38 contracts and delivery orders awarded in fiscal year 2017. At each agency, we selected awards to include a mix of end items produced by domestic and foreign manufacturers and, when products were reported as foreign manufactured, a mix of the various exceptions and waivers cited. We also include awards across a range of value for dollars obligated above the micro purchase threshold—ranging from approximately $5,000 to more than $100 million—to ensure we reviewed awards both above and below the various thresholds at which the Trade Agreements Act waiver might apply. Additionally, our sample included awards for similar types of end products across agencies, including aircraft parts at DOD and DHS and medical supplies at HHS and VA, to compare practices in different agencies. We originally selected 40 awards for review—10 from each agency—but removed two awards from our sample. One was an HHS award that we determined was awarded using Other Transaction Authority and was not subject to the Buy American Act. The second excluded contract was from DHS, which was modified after award to reflect that it was an information technology service rather than a product. As a service, it would not be subject to the Buy American Act. We reviewed the contract files for each of the 38 awards in our sample, including documentation such as the contract and task order award, solicitations, vendors’ offers or response to proposals, determination and finding memos, and FPDS-NG output documents. In addition, we reviewed the certifications each vendor provided in the System for Award Management (SAM) at the time of contract award. We interviewed contracting officials responsible for each of the 38 contracts and task orders to understand how they addressed the Buy American Act requirements, including how they determined exception or waiver applicability and product origin. We also reviewed any agency-specific or local training and guidance, tools, or job aids available to assist contracting officers in implementing the Act’s requirements We conducted this performance audit from October 2017 to December 2018 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on audit objectives. The United States maintains trade relationships with other countries whose specific negotiated terms results in different levels and types of applicability for waivers and exceptions to the Buy American Act. Figure 4 depicts the range of relationships that the United States maintains with other nations that allow for less restrictive purchasing of foreign end products by the federal government. The federal government purchases foreign end products from various countries. Figure 5 highlights the different amounts of contract obligations for foreign end products from these countries for fiscal year 2017. The highest category, over $500 million, includes 4 countries that account for almost 40 percent of all federal procurement of foreign end products. Countries where the federal government obligated less than $5 million for the procurement of foreign end products are not included. In addition to the contact named above, Candice Wright, Assistant Director; and Jennifer Dougherty, Analyst-in-Charge, managed this review. Skip McClinton; Erin Stockdale; Adam Cowles; Stephanie Gustafson; Julia Kennon; Anne Louise Taylor; and Robin Wilson made key contributions to this report.

 

 Report 2:
As we have previously reported, 911 services have evolved from basic 911—which provided Americans with a universally recognized emergency number—to Enhanced 911 which also routes calls to the appropriate call center and provides information about the caller’s location and a call back number. NG911 represents the next evolution in 911 services by using IP-based technology to deliver and process 911 traffic. Under NG911, call centers will continue to receive voice calls and location information, but will also be able to accommodate emergency communications from the range of technologies in use today. In addition, NG911 systems provide call centers with enhanced capabilities to route and transfer calls and data, which could improve call centers’ abilities to handle overflow calls and increase information sharing with first responders. Generally speaking, 911 communications begin when a caller dials 911 using a landline, wireless, or Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) system. Once a 911 caller places an emergency call, a communications provider receives and routes the call to the appropriate call center, along with the caller’s phone number and location (i.e., street address for a landline caller, approximate geographic location for a wireless caller, and the subscriber’s address for VoIP). Calls and data may be routed to 911 call centers using legacy methods (i.e., routing calls across traditional telephone networks) or NG911 methods (i.e., routing calls and other data through IP-networks). Once the call reaches a call center, trained call takers and dispatchers determine the nature of the emergency and dispatch first responders, typically using a variety of equipment and systems, including call handling systems, mapping programs, and computer aided dispatch. Figure 1 illustrates the 911 communications and dispatch process. As illustrated in figure 1, NG911 systems use IP-networks capable of carrying voice plus large amounts of data. These emergency-services networks are typically deployed at the state or regional level with multiple call centers connecting to the network. However, the existence of an IP- network alone does not constitute an NG911 system. As defined by standards developed by the emergency communications community, an NG911 system should have the capability to, among other things: provide a secure environment for emergency communications; acquire and integrate additional data for routing and answering calls; process all types of emergency calls, including multimedia messages; transfer calls with added data to other call centers or first responders. While NG911 systems must possess certain capabilities, it is important to note that states and localities may make decisions about which capabilities they intend to use to best meet their needs. In addition, states and localities have the authority to make decisions about what NG911 equipment, systems, and vendors to use; thus, the configurations of these systems vary. According to a panel of experts convened by the National 911 Program, the transition to NG911 may require a variety of technical and operational changes to current 911 systems and processes. For example, technical changes can include upgrades to networks or installing new hardware or software in 911 call centers. Operational changes can include the need for additional training or the development of new policies and procedures (e.g., new procedures for processing or storing multimedia). These technical and operational changes may also have effects on 911 funding and state and local governance structures, which we will discuss in more detail later in this report. According to an FCC advisory body that examined NG911 systems architecture in 2016, while NG911 systems are implemented in a variety of ways at the state or local level, NG911 implementation can occur gradually and in phases. According to this model, NG911 implementation occurs on a continuum that begins with legacy 911 systems and ends with a fully deployed NG911 national end-state where all individual 911 call centers nationwide would be connected. The NG911 implementation model identifies activities that take place as part of the NG911 transition, many of which occur concurrently, such as: planning (e.g., conducting feasibility studies, preparing databases, establishing governance models); acquiring, testing, and implementing NG911 system elements (e.g., establishing an emergency-services IP-network, location-based call routing, processing multimedia); connecting call centers within a jurisdiction (i.e., jurisdictional end- state in which all call centers are fully NG911 operational, supported by agreements, policies, and procedures); and connecting NG911 systems nationwide (i.e., national end-state in which all call centers in the nation are fully NG911 operational, supported by agreements, policies, and procedures). In addition, because 911 services provide an essential function, the implementation of NG911 generally involves using both the legacy system and the NG911 system simultaneously for a period of time, according to the FCC advisory body, to ensure 911 services are not disrupted as new system elements are tested and implemented. Deploying and operating 911 is the responsibility of 911 authorities at the state and local level. As we have previously reported, all 50 states and the District of Columbia collect—or have authorized local entities to collect—funding for 911 from telephone service subscribers, and methods within each state for collecting funds vary. FCC, as required by statute, reports to Congress annually on the states’ collection and distribution of 911 fees and charges. There are approximately 6,000 call centers nationwide that process 911 calls, often at the county or city level, and these centers can vary greatly in size and technical sophistication. The state and local governance structures that oversee 911 operations also vary by location. For example, we previously reported that some states collect fees or charges for 911 and administer a statewide 911 program. Other states authorize local entities to collect fees or charges for 911 and administer 911 programs at the local level. Still other states use a combination of these approaches. According to a panel of experts convened by the National 911 Program, historically, 911 authority has been coordinated and maintained locally with no requirement to coordinate with other jurisdictions. However, the transition to NG911 enables connection of 911 systems. Thus, as previously mentioned, the NG911 transition may require technological and operational changes, as well as changes to 911 policies and governance responsibilities for states and localities. While deploying and operating 911 is the responsibility of entities at the state and local level, federal agencies—including NHTSA, NTIA, FCC, and DHS—have responsibilities to support state and local implementation, including through facilitating coordination of activities among 911 stakeholders and administering federal grants, for example: NHTSA houses the National 911 Program as part of its Office of Emergency Medical Services (Office of EMS) to provide national leadership and coordination for the NG911 transition throughout the United States, as previously mentioned. According to NHTSA, the fiscal year 2017 budget for the National 911 Program was $2.74 million. Among other activities, which we will discuss later in this report, the National 911 Program surveys states on progress implementing NG911 and reports this survey data annually. FCC issues orders and regulations for 911 service providers on topics relevant to NG911, such as 911 reliability, location accuracy, and text- to-911. FCC also sponsors advisory bodies comprised of government and industry experts that study relevant topics and provide recommendations related to NG911, such as the Task Force on Optimal Public Safety Answering Point Architecture and the Communications, Security, Reliability, and Interoperability Council. While there are no federally mandated time frames for implementing NG911, the Next Generation 911 Advancement Act of 2012 requires specific actions of some federal agencies as outlined in table 1, below. In addition, according to the National 911 Program, as states and localities continue to implement NG911, and begin to explore interconnection with other states’ 911 systems, federal agencies may need to take steps to help ensure state NG911 networks are interoperable and connected. We will discuss actions taken by federal agencies to assist states and localities to implement NG911 later in this report. According to NHTSA’s most recent national survey, state and local progress implementing NG911 varies, and about half of all states reported being in some phase of transition to NG911 in 2015. While a few states are well into statewide implementation, NHTSA officials told us that no state had completely implemented all NG911 functions. Additionally, as of the fall of 2017, none of the selected states we spoke with were processing multimedia—such as images or audio/video recordings—through their 911 systems due to concerns related to privacy, liability, and the ability to store and manage these types of data, among other things. The national survey data, based on responses from 45 states, measured the extent to which NG911 planning and acquisition of NG911 equipment and services were occurring, and the extent to which basic NG911 functions were operational at the state and local levels in 2015. Planning: This measure includes state and local NG911 plans for governance, funding, system components, and operations. In this context, system components refer to an emergency services IP-based network, NG911 software, system and information security, and databases, among other things, according to NHTSA’s survey. In total, 25 of 45 states reported having a state or at least one local NG911 plan in place; conversely, 18 states reported having no NG911 plan in place at either the state or local level—which may indicate they are in the early stages of planning for the NG911 transition or have not yet begun the transition to NG911. Acquisition: These measures identify states or local entities that have defined their NG911 needs and awarded contracts, and then installed and tested acquired NG911 components and services. Twenty-four states reported awarding at least one contract at the state or local level for NG911 components and services. Twenty-three states reported having installed and tested NG911 components and services at either the state or local level. NG911 services: This is a measure of 911 authorities that have some basic, functioning NG911 infrastructure in place. In total, 21 states reported having some level of basic NG911 services in place at the state or local level. Of these 21 states, 10 reported that all 911 authorities within the state were using NG911 technology to process emergency calls. Another 7 of these states reported that 25 percent or less of their state’s 911 authorities were using NG911 technology to process emergency calls. Federal officials, industry stakeholders, and state and local 911 officials we interviewed from nine states identified a number of challenges to implementing NG911, including challenges related to funding, evolving technology and operations, and governance. Funding: State and local officials in four of nine selected states identified insufficient funding as one of the challenges they face in implementing NG911. Additionally, FCC, NHTSA, and industry reports noted that state and local financing strategies are generally insufficient to fully implement NG911. Specifically, these reports note that the need to provide new capital for NG911 implementation while simultaneously funding legacy operational costs during the transition can strain state and local funding. Limited funding: Officials in three states told us that their current funding may not be able to support the upfront costs of infrastructure and equipment acquisitions associated with the transition to NG911. Further, officials said they will need to simultaneously fund both the new NG911 and legacy 911 systems currently in operation until the NG911 systems are fully operational. To address these challenges, a Minnesota official told us about how the state leveraged economies of scale to reduce overall costs through cost sharing between multiple call centers and of call centers consolidating operations from 114 to 104 call centers. Additionally, a Virginia official told us that to cover the upfront costs of transitioning to NG911, the state plans to borrow from the state treasury and then repay the treasury with future-year fee collections. Fee diversion: Diversion of fees intended for 911 costs to non-911 activities may affect a state’s or locality’s ability to cover NG911 transition costs and necessitate identifying alternative funding sources. The FCC’s 2016 annual report on 911 fees indicates that for calendar year 2015, all but two of the states that responded to FCC’s 911 fee survey affirmed that their state or jurisdiction collects fees from phone users to support or implement 911 services. State and local authorities also determine how these 911 fees can be used. FCC’s report also indicated that eight states and Puerto Rico reported diverting a total of more than $220 million (or approximately 8.4 percent) of 911 fees collected to non-911 purposes. Some of these diverted funds were directed to other public safety programs, and others were diverted to either non-public safety or unspecified purposes. According to one state official, had it not been for 911 fees being diverted to non-911 purposes, funding would have been sufficient to cover the NG911 transition without having to go to the state legislature for additional funding. However, officials in the other eight selected states told us that either fee diversion was not an issue in their state or that the diversion of funds had not affected their state’s ability to implement NG911. Evolving technology and operations: Officials in eight states told us that the retirement of legacy infrastructure and the transition to IP-based systems introduces new technical and operational challenges for call centers and states, as well as for equipment and service providers. Interoperability: Officials in three selected states mentioned that connecting to neighboring networks—whether within or between states—could pose challenges. For example, officials mentioned that states and localities may have obtained different equipment, software applications, or service providers – all of which can make interconnections difficult. Officials in Maine and New Hampshire told us that differences in service providers can also be a challenge to seamlessly connecting to neighboring systems. In an instance where two states (Minnesota and North Dakota) have worked to connect their 911 systems, both states used the same service provider, which officials said allowed for fewer barriers to connection. Cyber risks: Officials in three states told us that the transition from a traditional system that only transmits voice traffic to an IP-based system that transmits voice and data traffic has significantly increased the risk of a cyber-attack. This can be a challenge because managing cyber risks is a new and evolving role for state and local 911 authorities. Approaching the transition to NG911 without managing these risks could result in disrupted or disabled call center operations and ultimately a delayed response to an emergency situation. Multimedia: Officials in three states mentioned potential implementation challenges related to accepting and processing multimedia such as audio recordings, images, and videos. More specifically, one official said they did not have procedures to manage or store these multimedia files once received. In addition, another official raised privacy and liability concerns. Call routing: One of the core services of an NG911 system is the ability to have calls routed to the appropriate call center based on a wireless caller’s physical location, instead of the location of the cellular tower that receives and transmits the call. An FCC-sponsored working group reported that there are several options for achieving this and each option has unique positive and negative aspects. One challenge officials in two states noted was that rather than a single, nationwide approach to routing these calls, state and local 911 authorities would need to work individually with the wireless carriers to determine how to best implement location-based call routing. Governance: FCC has noted that transitioning to NG911 will likely result in new roles and levels of coordination between state 911 authorities, local 911 authorities, 911 call centers, and 911 service providers. Further, relationships among authorities at the state and local level may change as states work to interconnect NG911 systems. State and local officials noted that these types of governance challenges can apply in a variety of situations, including within or between states. Evolving roles: As previously mentioned, 911 governance structures vary among states. These varying governance structures may pose different challenges. For example, some states have a centralized structure in which a single government agency is responsible for statewide 911 system’s administration and policy. Officials in two states told us that although they faced challenges transitioning to NG911, their states’ centralized 911 structure eased the transition in their states because there was uniformity in policy and technology, among other things, coming from a single statewide authority. In other states, 911 systems are primarily a local responsibility and organized with decentralized authorities and resources. In these instances, there may be specific challenges related to transitioning to an interconnected NG911 system. Such challenges may include the need for increased levels of coordination among numerous jurisdictions with potentially disparate organizational structures, levels of funding, and priorities. An official also noted that there are governance challenges related to connecting states and evolving relationships between 911 authorities and service providers. Informing decision makers: One of the challenges identified by officials in two states is differing levels of experience and understanding by state and local officials as to what NG911 priorities should be for timely implementation. To help with this understanding, the federal government is making efforts to educate state and local authorities on how to facilitate policymaker understanding as well as provide regular updates to stakeholders on recent NG911 developments. We discuss some of these efforts later in this report. While state and local entities have the primary responsibility for implementing NG911 technology and services, federal agencies are taking actions to assist state and local 911 entities to address NG911 implementation challenges. Actions taken include developing resources, offering technical assistance, and convening stakeholders. More specifically, we identified selected activities that were taken by NHTSA, NTIA, FCC, and DHS that address some of the funding, technology, and governance challenges raised by state and local 911 stakeholders, for example: Cost study: NHTSA’s National 911 Program and NTIA, in consultation with FCC and DHS, plan to issue a study of the range of costs for 911 call centers and service providers to implement NG911 systems. According to NHTSA officials, the cost study will present a nationwide view, rather than a state-by-state view, on the progress of NG911 implementation and its associated costs. Grant program: NHTSA and NTIA are preparing to jointly administer a $115 million grant program to improve 911 services, including the adoption and operation of NG911 services. In September 2017, NHTSA and NTIA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking outlining implementing regulations for the grant program. NHTSA and NTIA expect to award the grants in 2018. Technology standards: The National 911 Program issued an annual guide in 2017 that stressed the importance of using open technology standards for NG911 services. The guide provides a list of standards that have been recently updated and an analysis that identifies whether existing standards fully address NG911 processes and protocols. Cybersecurity guides: DHS issued a guide in 2016 that identified cybersecurity risks for NG911 and risk mitigation strategies. According to DHS officials, the National 911 Program provided input on this guide. In addition, an advisory body tasked by FCC to examine 911 call-centers’ architecture issued a report in 2016 that provided a cybersecurity self-assessment tool for call centers and guidance on cybersecurity strategies. Governance plans: To address challenges related to the evolving roles for state and local 911 authorities, the National 911 Program issued a guide in 2016 that provided practices for states to consider when interconnecting NG911 networks, and DHS issued a guide in 2015 for emergency communications officials for establishing, assessing, and updating their governance structures. In addition, an FCC advisory body issued a report in 2016 that identified NG911 governance approaches, issues, and recommendations for states, localities, and call centers to consider when planning for the deployment of NG911. In addition to federal agency efforts to assist the state and local 911 community, the National 911 Program is in the early stages of establishing an interagency initiative to create a National NG911 Roadmap. As part of this initiative, the National 911 Program plans to convene the 911 stakeholder community to identify tasks that need to be completed at the national level by the federal government and other public and private-sector organizations to support the creation of a national, interconnected NG911 system. Additional details regarding this planned activity are described in further detail later in this report. For additional information on federal actions to address state and local NG911 challenges, see appendix II. As the lead entity for coordinating federal NG911 activities, the National 911 Program has taken a variety of actions to assist the state and local 911 community, in collaboration with other federal agencies. However, the program lacks goals and performance measures to assess whether these activities are achieving desired results. National 911 Program officials stated that they initiate program activities based on feedback received from the 911 community. In addition, officials said the program’s activities fall within the tasks established in the Next Generation 911 Advancement Act of 2012. However, the National 911 Program does not have a means to assess its progress toward meeting its responsibilities established in the 2012 Act. National 911 Program officials said the Office of EMS—the office within NHTSA in which the program is housed—has a strategic plan, but it is outdated and does not contain specific goals or performance measures related to 911 or NG911 implementation. Officials said the Office of EMS has held preliminary discussions to begin updating its strategic plan by January 2019 and plans to include goals and performance measures related to 911 and NG911 services. Office of EMS officials told us the Office of EMS strategic plan will be jointly developed with the National 911 Program. However the Office of EMS had not yet developed a draft strategic plan during the time of our review. Federal internal control standards call for management to clearly define objectives in order to achieve desired results. According to these standards, an entity determines its mission, establishes specific measurable objectives, and formulates plans to achieve its objectives. These standards state that management sets objectives in order to meet the entity’s mission, strategic plan, and goals and requirements of applicable laws and regulations. In addition, our work on leading practices for managing for results indicated that an agency’s strategic goals should also explain what results are expected from the agency and when to expect those results. Further, these goals form a basis for an entity to identify strategies to fulfill its mission and improve its operations to support the achievement of that mission. As the lead entity for coordinating federal NG911 efforts, the National 911 Program faces a complex and challenging task of assisting the 911 community while the nation’s 911 systems undergo a major transformation. However, without specific goals and related performance measures, the National 911 Program is unable to assess how well its activities are achieving results in relation to its responsibilities identified in the 2012 Act. As the National 911 Program and the Office of EMS consider creating a strategic plan, ensuring that the plan includes specific goals and related measures for the National 911 Program would help officials better understand whether the program’s activities are effectively assisting states and localities in transitioning to a fully integrated national NG911 system, and help identify any programmatic changes that might be needed. As previously mentioned, the National 911 Program is in the early stages of establishing an interagency initiative to create a National NG911 Roadmap. This initiative will convene the 911 stakeholder community to identify national-level tasks that need to be completed by federal agencies and other organizations to realize a national, interconnected NG911 system. According to the National 911 Program, a list of the national-level tasks needed to advance NG911 implementation nationwide has not been created to date. In addition, state officials we spoke with said there are certain issues related to interoperability and cybersecurity that federal agencies need to address before states can connect their respective state NG911 systems. To address these issues, NHTSA’s National 911 Program issued a request for proposal (RFP) in August 2017 for managing the roadmap development process and awarded a contract in September 2017. While the National 911 Program is taking steps to develop a National NG911 Roadmap, the program does not have a plan to identify: (1) roles or responsibilities for federal entities to carry out national-level tasks or (2) how the program plans to achieve the roadmap’s objectives. NHTSA’s NG911 roadmap RFP specifies that by identifying a list of national-level tasks that are developed and adopted by the 911 stakeholder community, the roadmap could serve as a blueprint to carry out these tasks and thereby ensure the interoperability of the nation’s NG911 system. However, the National 911 Program does not have plans for the entities participating in the development of the roadmap to be assigned roles and responsibilities for executing the roadmap’s national- level tasks. National 911 Program officials told us the National 911 Program does not plan to assign roles and responsibilities because NHTSA does not have the authority to require or assign tasks for other entities. Additionally, program officials view the simultaneous identification of tasks and assignments of responsibility for those tasks as a risk to facilitating a candid and productive discussion with entities participating in the roadmap initiative. However, officials stated it may be appropriate for agencies participating in the roadmap initiative to perform specific tasks after the roadmap is finalized. We have previously examined interagency collaborative mechanisms and identified certain key issues for federal agencies to consider when using these mechanisms to achieve results. Our prior work has found that following leading collaboration practices, such as clarifying roles and responsibilities of agencies engaged in collaboration, can enhance and sustain collaboration among agencies and provide an understanding of who will do what in support of meeting the aims of the collaborative group. As stated above, the RFP specifies that a roadmap developed by and adopted by 911 stakeholders could serve as a blueprint to carry out the roadmap’s tasks. Securing the commitment of agencies to assigned roles could help organize the collaborative group’s joint and individual efforts and thereby better facilitate decision making. As we have previously found, a lack of clarity on the roles and responsibilities of agencies participating in an interagency effort—such as the execution of the roadmap’s tasks—may limit agencies’ abilities to effectively achieve shared objectives. Given the complexity of the task and the number of agencies that could be involved, following selected leading collaboration practices for the roadmap initiative—particularly with regard to collaborating with roadmap stakeholders to clarify their roles and responsibilities (whether during the creation of the task list or afterwards)—could reduce barriers to agencies effectively working together to achieve the national-level tasks. While clarifying the roles and responsibilities of roadmap stakeholders for the execution of the roadmap’s tasks is an important collaborative step, the National 911 Program has additional responsibilities as the lead entity for the initiative. However, National 911 Program officials are unable to clearly articulate how the program will proceed following the completion of the roadmap. National 911 Program officials said without knowing the contents of the roadmap, it would be premature to specify how the roadmap’s national-level tasks would be completed. Officials stated that once the roadmap is completed, possible next steps may include identification of timelines, deadlines, and a mechanism for tracking progress, among other things, but officials stated that these steps are not required in the roadmap RFP. As stated above, federal internal control standards call for management to clearly define objectives in specific terms. According to these standards, management defines what is to be achieved, who is to achieve it, how it will be achieved, and the time frames for achievement. Without a clear plan for how the National 911 Program would take next steps to support the implementation of the roadmap’s objectives and tasks, the National 911 Program may not be prepared to take effective action once the roadmap is completed. We have previously found that having an implementation plan can assist agencies to better focus and prioritize goals and objectives, and align planned activities. Once the roadmap is completed, developing an implementation plan that details what is to be achieved and how it will be accomplished will place the National 911 Program in a better position moving forward to support the completion of the national-level tasks. The current 911 system is undergoing a historic transition. With no federal requirement that states transition to NG911 services, federal leadership is critical to addressing interoperability challenges and promoting the goal of an interconnected national system. As the lead federal entity for fostering coordination and collaboration among federal, state, and local 911 authorities, the National 911 Program plays a critical role in coordinating NG911 implementation efforts to improve the nation’s 911 services. However, this program—in collaboration with other federal agencies— faces a complex and challenging task to help move approximately 6,000 independent 911 call centers toward an interconnected national NG911 system. In addition, given that the NG911 transition is still in its early stages and is an ongoing effort, it is difficult to assess the effectiveness of various federal actions to assist states and localities in the transition. In light of these challenges, without specific goals and related measures to assess effectiveness, the National 911 Program may be hindered in determining whether it is making progress towards its stated mission. Through the roadmap initiative, the National 911 Program has taken important first steps in identifying the need for actions at the national level, in order to fully realize the desired end-state of a national, interconnected NG911 system. However, while identifying needed next steps is essential, equally important to the collaborative effort’s success is (1) defining and agreeing on the roles and responsibilities of the entities best suited to undertake these actions, and (2) developing plans for how the National 911 Program will support implementation to achieve the roadmap’s objectives. If taken, these actions could help further NG911 implementation nationwide and help the National 911 Program and federal agencies in assisting states and localities to improve these lifesaving services. We are making the following three recommendations to the Administrator of NHTSA regarding the National 911 Program: develop specific program goals and performance measures related to NG911 implementation. (Recommendation 1) in collaboration with the appropriate federal agencies, determine roles and responsibilities of federal agencies participating in the National NG911 Roadmap initiative in order to carry out the national-level tasks over which each agency has jurisdiction. (Recommendation 2) develop an implementation plan to support the completion of the National NG911 Roadmap’s national-level tasks. (Recommendation 3) We provided a draft of this report to the Departments of Transportation, Commerce, and Homeland Security and FCC for their review and comment. In its comments, reproduced in appendix III, the Department of Transportation agreed with the recommendations. The Departments of Transportation and Homeland Security also provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. The Department of Commerce and FCC had no comments. 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 of this report to the appropriate congressional committees, the Secretary of the Department of Transportation, the Secretary of the Department of Commerce, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, the Managing Director of the FCC, and other interested parties. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov. If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-2834 or goldsteinm@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. Staff who made key contributions to this report are listed in appendix IV. Our objectives were to examine (1) progress states and localities are making to implement Next Generation 911 (NG911) and the challenges they have faced and (2) how federal agencies have addressed state and local implementation challenges and planned next steps. To describe state and local progress in implementing NG911 and background information on fee collection and costs, we analyzed select survey data elements from the 2016 National 911 Progress Report and the Eighth Annual Report to Congress on State Collection and Distribution of 911 and Enhanced 911 Fees and Charges, maintained by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) respectively. More specifically, we analyzed the most recent state-provided data (from calendar year 2015) related to the planning and implementation of NG911 at the state and local levels, as well as NG911 cost and 911-related revenue data. We assessed the reliability of these data by reviewing relevant documents and discussing data elements with staff responsible for collecting and analyzing the data. We also conducted our own testing to check the consistency of the data. We found the data from both sources to be sufficiently reliable for our purposes to describe states’ progress in implementing NG911 and provide background on 911 fee collection and costs. While these data provide the best nationwide picture of NG911 implementation and fee collection, and are reliable for our purposes, there are some limitations on how the data can be used. Since we did not validate the state-reported responses, our findings based on these data are limited to what states reported. Additionally, regarding the 2016 National 911 Progress Report data, there are limitations to (1) making comparisons between states because states have different approaches to implementing NG911 and (2) ascertaining year-over-year progress because reporting is voluntary and states’ response rates can vary year to year. To describe implementation challenges that states and local authorities may be encountering, we selected a non-generalizable sample of 10 states as case studies, based upon a variety of factors, including reported progress in implementing NG911, statewide planning and coordination, reported number of annual 911 calls, whether states diverted 911 fees to other uses, and variation in geographic location. We selected these states, in part, based on their responses to the two aforementioned surveys. Based on the aforementioned criteria, we selected the following states to include as case studies: California, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Virginia. We reviewed documents and interviewed state officials from all of these states except Nevada about NG911 implementation progress, challenges, federal actions, and any additional assistance needed. We contacted 911 officials in Nevada but did not receive responses. We also interviewed local officials in four of the selected states. While not generalizable to all states, the information obtained from our case studies provides examples of broader issues faced by states and localities in managing the NG911 transition. To determine how federal agencies have addressed state and local implementation challenges and planned next steps, we reviewed relevant statutes, regulations, and documentation of federal agency actions and plans, and our prior reports. We also interviewed officials from federal agencies, including NHTSA, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), FCC, and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), about federal actions taken and plans for next steps. To understand planning activities undertaken by NHTSA’s National 911 Program, and its planned project to develop a National NG911 Roadmap, we reviewed the National 911 Program’s internal planning documents, the program’s request for proposal to develop a national roadmap, the program’s written responses to our questions, and interviewed National 911 Program officials. In addition, we interviewed officials from national associations representing emergency-response- technology companies, wireless and wireline phone carriers, emergency- communications entities, and groups representing deaf and hard-of- hearing consumers to gain their perspectives on federal actions taken and next steps. We assessed the National 911 Program’s strategic- planning activities against leading practices for performance management found in our prior work on strategic planning and goal setting and federal internal control standards. We assessed the National 911 Program’s planned activities for the national roadmap project against federal internal control standards and selected key practices to enhance interagency collaboration identified in our prior work. We conducted our work from January 2017 to January 2018 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. Description of challenge State and local funding may not be sufficient to support costs associated with transitioning to NG911 equipment and infrastructure. Transitioning from legacy infrastructure to Internet Protocol-based systems presents technical and operational challenges such as interoperability and cybersecurity risks. Federal actions Grant resources: The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s (NHTSA) National 911 Program issued on its website a list clarifying which of the fiscal year 2016 emergency-communications grants may be used for NG911 services. Program officials said they developed this list in collaboration with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Cost study: NHTSA’s National 911 Program and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), in consultation with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and DHS, plan to issue a study of the range of costs for 911 call centers and service providers to implement NG911 systems and on the nationwide progress of implementing NG911 services. Grant program: NHTSA and NTIA are preparing to jointly administer a $115 million grant program to improve 911 services, including the adoption and operation of NG911 services. NHTSA and NTIA expect to award the grants in 2018. Funding mechanisms: An advisory body tasked by FCC issued a report in 2016 that identified common costs and funding mechanisms for 911 officials to consider. The report also introduced a 911 funding sustainment model designed for use by 911 officials to calculate their financial needs to support a transition to NG911 implementation. Guides on technology standards and procurement practices: In 2017, NHTSA’s National 911 Program issued an annual guide on emergency- communications technology standards that stressed the importance of using open technology standards for NG911 services. The National 911 Program issued another guide in 2016 that provides information on procuring goods and services related to NG911 such as practices for call centers to consider when developing their request for proposals and contracts. Examining emerging technology issues: In 2017, FCC tasked a public- private advisory council to recommend how FCC can promote the NG911 transition, enhance the reliability of NG911, and mitigate the threat of 911 outages. Prior to that tasking, the FCC advisory council issued a report in 2016 that explored location-based routing issues and discussed transition considerations from legacy 911 to NG911. NG911 cybersecurity guide and technical assistance: DHS, with input from NHTSA’s National 911 Program according to DHS officials, issued a guide in 2016 that identifies cybersecurity risks for NG911 and risk mitigation strategies. In addition, DHS provides NG911 technical assistance for states seeking assistance with strategic planning and technology integration. In a separate effort, an advisory body tasked by FCC to examine 911 call center architecture issued a report in 2016 that provides a cybersecurity self- assessment tool for call centers and guidance on cybersecurity strategies. Description of challenge States may face a range of challenges related to evolving roles for state and local 911 authorities that could hinder NG911 implementation. Federal actions Guides on state and legislative planning: NHTSA’s National 911 Program issued guides on state 911 planning and legislative issues to consider for NG911 and awarded a contract in September 2017 to update those guides. In 2016, the National 911 Program issued a guidebased on the experiences of Iowa, Minnesota, North Dakota, and South Dakota that identifies practices to consider for states interconnecting NG911 networks across state lines. Exploring NG911 governance implementation issues: In 2016, an advisory body tasked by FCC issued a report that identifies NG911 governance approaches, issues, and recommendations for states, localities, and call centers to consider when planning for the deployment of NG911. In 2013, FCC also issued a report that details recommendations to Congress for transitioning from legacy 911 to NG911 networks. Guide on emergency communications governance structures: In 2015, DHS and the National Council of Statewide Interoperability Coordinators issued a guide that provides characteristics of effective governance approaches and best practices for officials to establish, assess, and update their governance structures. In addition to the contact named above, Andrew Huddleston (Assistant Director), Jean Cook (Analyst in Charge), Camilo Flores, Steven Rabinowitz, Malika Rice, Kelly L. Rubin, Michael Sweet, Hai Tran, Marika Van Laan, and Michelle Weathers made key contributions to this report.

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

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