You are given two reports by the government agency.  

Report 1:
According to Education, 50.3 million students were enrolled in more than 98,000 public elementary and secondary schools nationwide in the 2014- 2015 school year. These individual public schools are overseen by approximately 16,000 local educational agencies (referred to in this report as school districts) which are, in turn, overseen and supported by state educational agencies. School districts can range in size from one school (for example, in rural areas) to hundreds of schools in large urban and suburban areas. For example, the 100 largest districts in the United States together have approximately 16,000 schools and enroll about 11 million students. In addition, charter schools are public schools created to achieve a number of goals, such as encouraging innovation in public education. Oversight of charter schools can vary, with some states establishing charter schools as their own school district and other states allowing charter schools to be either a distinct school district in themselves or part of a larger district. Charter schools are often responsible for their own facilities; these may be located in non-traditional school buildings, and may lease part or all of their space. Typically, state educational agencies are responsible for administering state and federal education laws, disbursing state and federal funds, and providing guidance to school districts and schools across the state. State educational agencies frequently provide funds for capital improvements to school facilities, which school districts may use to address issues related to lead in school drinking water, among other things. Different state agencies, including agencies for education, health, and environmental protection, may provide school districts with guidance on testing and remediation of lead in school drinking water. Within a school district, responsibility for water management may be held by individuals in different positions, such as facilities managers or environmental specialists. Lead is a neurotoxin that can accumulate in the body over time with long- lasting effects, particularly for children. According to the CDC, lead in drinking water can cause health effects if it enters the bloodstream and causes an elevated blood lead level. Lead in a child’s body can slow down growth and development, damage hearing and speech, and lead to learning disabilities. For adults, lead can have detrimental effects on cardiovascular, renal, and reproductive systems and can prompt memory loss. In pregnant women, lead stored in bones (due to lead exposure prior to and during pregnancy) can be released as maternal calcium used to form the bones of the fetus, reduce fetal growth, and increase risk of miscarriage and stillbirth. The presence of lead in the bloodstream can disappear relatively quickly, but bones can retain the toxin for decades. Lead in bones may be released into the blood, re-exposing organ systems long after the original exposure. The concentration of lead, total amount consumed, and duration of exposure influence the severity of health effects. The health consequences of lead exposure can differ from person to person and are affected by the cumulative dose of lead and the vulnerability of the individual person regardless of whether the lead exposure is from food, water, soil, dust, or air. Although there are medical therapies to remove lead from the body, they cannot undo the damage it has already caused. For these reasons, EPA, CDC, and others recommend the prevention of lead exposure to the extent possible, recognizing that lead is widespread in the environment. The SDWA authorizes EPA to set standards for drinking water contaminants in public water systems. For a given contaminant the act requires EPA to first establish a maximum contaminant level goal, which is the level at which no known or anticipated adverse effects on the health of persons occur and which allows an adequate margin of safety. EPA must then set an enforceable maximum contaminant level as close to the maximum contaminant level goal as is feasible, or require water systems to use a treatment technique to prevent known or anticipated adverse effects on the health of persons to the extent feasible. Feasible means the level is achievable using the best available technology or treatment technique. In 1991 EPA issued the LCR, which it revised in 2000 and 2007, establishing regulations for water systems covered by the SDWA. Lead concentration in water is typically measured in micrograms of lead per liter of water (also referred to as “parts per billion” or ppb). The rule established a maximum contaminant level goal of zero, because EPA concluded that there was no established safe level of lead exposure. EPA decided not to establish an enforceable maximum contaminant level, concluding that any level reasonably close to the goal would result in widespread noncompliance, and therefore was not feasible. Instead, the rule established an “action level” of 15 micrograms of lead per liter (15 ppb) in a one liter sample of tap water, a level that EPA believed was generally representative of what could be feasibly achieved at the tap. The action level is a screening tool for determining when certain follow-up actions are needed, which may include corrosion control treatment, public education, and lead service line replacement. Sample results that exceed the lead action level do not by themselves constitute violations of the rule. If the lead action level is exceeded in more than 10 percent of tap water samples collected during any monitoring period (that is, if the 90th percentile level is greater than the action level), a water system must take actions to reduce exposure. Several amendments to the SDWA are relevant to testing for lead in school drinking water. In 1988, the SDWA was amended by the Lead Contamination Control Act (LCCA), which banned the manufacture and sale of drinking water coolers with lead-lined tanks containing more than 8 percent lead; the statute defined a drinking water cooler as containing 8 percent lead or less as “lead-free.” The LCCA also required states to establish testing and remediation programs for schools. However, in 1996 a federal circuit court held that this requirement was unconstitutional. In 2011, Congress passed the Reduction of Lead in Drinking Water Act, which amended the SDWA by lowering the maximum allowable lead content in “lead-free” plumbing materials such as pipes. This provision became effective on January 4, 2014. In 2016, Congress passed the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act which, among other things, amended the SDWA, to establish a grant program for states to assist school districts in voluntary testing for lead contamination in drinking water at schools. As a condition of receiving funds, school districts are required to test for lead using standards that are at least as stringent as those in federal guidance for schools. In March 2018, Congress appropriated $20 million to EPA for this grant program. Lead can enter drinking water when service lines or plumbing fixtures that contain lead corrode, especially where the water has high acidity or low mineral content. According to EPA, lead typically enters school drinking water as a result of interaction with lead-containing plumbing materials and fixtures within the building. Although lead pipes and lead solder were not commonly used after 1986, water fountains and other fixtures were allowed to have up to 8 percent lead until 2014, as previously mentioned. Consequently, both older and newer school buildings can have lead in drinking water. Some water in a school building is not for consumption, such as water from a janitorial sink or garden hose, so lead in these water sources presents less risk to students. (See fig. 1.) The best way to know if a school’s water is contaminated with lead is to test the water after it has gone through a school’s pipes, faucets, and other fixtures. To facilitate testing efforts, EPA suggests that schools implement programs for reducing lead in drinking water and developed the 3Ts for Reducing Lead in Drinking Water in Schools: Revised Technical Guidance (3Ts guidance) in 2006, which provides information on: (1) training school officials about the potential causes and health effects of lead in drinking water; (2) testing drinking water in schools to identify potential problems and take corrective actions as necessary; and (3) telling students, parents, staff, and the larger community about monitoring programs, potential risks, the results of testing, and remediation actions. The purpose of the 3Ts guidance is to help schools minimize students’ and staffs’ exposure to lead in drinking water. The guidance provides recommendations and suggestions for how to address lead in school drinking water, but does not establish requirements for schools to follow. According to the guidance, if school districts follow the procedures described in guidance, they will be assured their facilities do not have elevated levels of lead in their drinking water. The guidance recommends taking 250 milliliter samples of water from every drinking water source in a school building and having the samples analyzed by an accredited laboratory. Based on the test results of the samples, the guidance recommends remedial action if the samples are found to have an elevated concentration of lead, which is identified by using an action level. While school districts may have discretion to set their own action level, the 3Ts guidance strongly recommends taking remedial action if a school district finds lead at or above 20 ppb in a 250 milliliter sample of water. School districts can take a variety of actions including replacing pipes, replacing fixtures, running water through the system before consumption (known as flushing), or providing bottled water. However, since the amount of lead in school drinking water may change over time for a variety of reasons—for example, the natural aging of plumbing materials or a disturbance nearby, such as construction—the results obtained by one test are not necessarily indicative of results which may be obtained in the future. With no federal law requiring testing for lead in school drinking water, federal agencies play a limited role: Education’s mission includes fostering educational excellence and promoting student achievement, and the agency disseminates guidance to states and school districts about lead in school drinking water, but does not administer any related grants. EPA’s Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water provides voluntary guidance to schools on how to test for and remediate lead in school drinking water, as part of EPA’s mission to inform the public about environmental risks. In addition, EPA’s Office of Children’s Health Protection is responsible for working with EPA’s 10 regional offices via their healthy schools coordinators, who communicate with schools and help to disseminate the 3Ts guidance. CDC administers the School Health Policies and Practices Study, a periodic survey to monitor national health objectives that pertain to schools and school districts. The 2016 data, the most recent available, provide information on the number of school districts that periodically test for lead in their drinking water. Under the 2005 memorandum signed by these three agencies to encourage lead testing and remediation in schools, Education’s role includes working with EPA and other groups to encourage testing, and disseminating materials to schools. EPA agreed to update guidance for schools, and provide tools to facilitate testing for lead in school drinking water. CDC’s role includes identifying public health organizations to work with and facilitating dissemination of materials to state health organizations. Lead in School Drinking Water Survey Results at a Glance An estimated 43 percent of school districts tested for lead in school drinking water, but 41 percent did not, and 16 percent did not know. o Some districts tested drinking water in all sources of consumable water in all of their schools, while other school districts tested only some sources. o Among the reasons for not testing, school districts said they either did not identify a need to test or were not required to do so. Of those that tested, an estimated 37 percent of school districts found elevated lead levels—levels of lead above the district’s threshold for taking remedial action—in school drinking water. o School districts varied in terms of the threshold they used, with some using 15 ppb or 20 ppb and others using a lower threshold. School districts varied in whether they tested for lead in school drinking water and whether they discovered elevated levels of lead. For example, an estimated 88 percent of the largest 100 school districts tested compared with 42 percent of other school districts. All school districts that found elevated lead reported taking steps to reduce or eliminate the lead, including replacing water fountains or providing bottled water. Nationwide, school districts vary in terms of whether they have tested for lead in school drinking water, with many not testing. According to our survey of school districts, an estimated 43 percent tested for lead in school drinking water in at least one school in the last 12 months, while 41 percent had not tested. An estimated 35 million students were enrolled in districts that tested as compared with 12 million students in districts that did not test. An estimated 16 percent of school districts, enrolling about 6 million students, reported that they did not know whether they had tested or not. (See fig. 2.) Of school districts that tested for lead in school drinking water, some tested all consumable water sources in all of their schools, while others may have only tested some sources in all schools or all sources in some schools. Among the reasons provided by survey respondents for not testing in all schools, some said the age of the building was the primary consideration. For example, an official in one school district we visited told us they began testing in buildings constructed before 1989, but after receiving results that some water sources had elevated lead levels, the district decided to test all of their school buildings. Other reasons reported for testing some, but not all, schools included testing schools only when a complaint about discolored water was received or testing only new schools or schools that were renovated. In addition, school districts varied in whether they sampled from every consumable water source, or just some of the sources, in their schools. For example, one district official told us they took one sample from each type of water fountain in each school, assuming that, if a sampled fountain was found to have an elevated level of lead, then all of the other fountains of that type would also have elevated lead levels. However, EPA’s 3Ts guidance recommends that every water source that is regularly used for drinking or cooking be sampled. Further, stakeholders and environmental and educational officials we interviewed said that results from one water fountain, faucet, or any other consumable water source cannot be used to predict whether lead will be found in other sources. In our survey, the median amount spent by school districts to test for lead in school drinking water during the past 12 months varied substantially, depending on the number of schools in which tests were conducted (see table 1). School districts may have paid for services such as collecting water samples, analyzing and reporting results, and consultants. For example, an official in a small, rural school district—with three schools housed in one building—told us his district spent $180 to test all eight fixtures. In contrast, officials in a large, urban school district told us they spent about $2.1 million to test over 11,000 fixtures in over 500 schools. Some school districts, especially larger ones, incurred costs to hire consultants to advise them and help design a plan to take samples, among other things. EPA’s 3Ts guidance recommends determining how to communicate information about lead testing programs with parents, governing officials, and other stakeholders before testing. Of school districts that reported testing for lead in school drinking water in our survey, an estimated 76 percent informed their local school board and 59 percent informed parents about their plans to test; similar percentages provided information about the testing results. We identified a range of approaches to communicating testing efforts in the 17 school districts we interviewed. Some school districts reported issuing press releases, putting letters in multiple languages in students’ backpacks, sending emails to parents, holding public meetings, and releasing information through social media. Before testing, one district created a website with a list of dates when it planned to test the drinking water in every one of its schools. In contrast, other school districts communicated with parents and the press only upon request. Officials in one district we visited said they did not post lead testing results on their website, because they wanted to avoid causing undue concern, adding that “more information isn’t necessarily better, especially when tests showed just trace amounts of lead.” School districts generally have discretion to determine how frequently they test for lead in school drinking water except when prescribed in state law, and most school districts responding to our survey had no specific schedule for recurring testing. Specifically, an estimated: 27 percent of school districts plan to test “as needed,” 25 percent have no schedule to conduct recurring tests, and 15 percent do not know. The remaining school districts reported a range of frequencies for conducting additional tests or said they were developing a schedule to conduct tests on a recurring basis. School district officials and stakeholders we interviewed told us that it is important to test for lead in drinking water on a recurring basis, because lead can leach into school drinking water at any time. In our survey, we asked school districts reporting that they had not tested for lead in school drinking water in the last 12 months (41 percent of districts) to provide us with one or more reasons why they had not tested. Of these school districts, an estimated 53 percent reported that they did not identify a need to test and 53 percent reported they were not required to test (see fig. 3). Of school districts that reported testing for lead in school drinking water, an estimated 37 percent of districts found elevated levels of lead in school drinking water, while 57 percent of districts did not find lead (see fig. 4). Of those that found lead in drinking water, most found lead above their selected action level in some of their schools, while some districts found lead above their action level in all of their schools. For example, officials in one large school district told us they tested over 10,000 sources of water, including drinking fountains and food preparation fixtures, and found that over 3,600 water sources had lead at or above the district’s action level of 15 parts per billion (ppb). The findings resulted in extensive remediation efforts, officials said. Further, district officials reported different action levels they used to determine when to take steps such as replacing a water fountain or installing a filter. School districts generally may select their own action level, resulting in different action levels between districts. Of school districts that reported testing for lead in school drinking water, an estimated 44 percent set an action level between 15 ppb and 19 ppb. The action levels chosen by the rest of the school districts ranged from a low of 1 ppb whereby action would be taken if any lead at all was detected to a high 20 ppb where action would be taken if lead was found at or above 20 ppb. (See appendix II for the estimated percentage of school districts that set other action levels.) Though fewer than half of school districts reported testing for lead in school drinking water, our analysis of school districts’ survey responses shows that these estimates varied depending on the size and population density of the district as well as its geographic location. For example, among the largest 100 school districts, an estimated 88 percent reported they had tested for lead in school drinking water in at least one school in the last 12 months compared with 42 percent of all other districts nationwide. An estimated 59 percent of the largest 100 school districts that tested discovered elevated levels of lead compared to 36 percent of all other districts that tested (see table 2). In addition, an estimated 86 percent of school districts in the Northeast region of the United States tested for lead in school drinking water, compared to less than half of school districts in other geographic regions. Similarly, about half of school districts in the Northeast and about 8 percent in the South found elevated levels of lead, compared to their selected action level. (See fig. 5.) In our survey, every school district that reported finding lead in school drinking water above their selected action level reported taking steps to reduce or eliminate the lead. For example, an estimated 71 percent said they replaced water fountains, 63 percent took water fountains out of service without replacing them, and 62 percent flushed the school’s water system (see fig. 6). School districts officials we interviewed told us they took a range of remedial actions generally consistent with those reported to us in our survey. For example, an official in one district told us that 129 of the 608 fixtures tested above the district’s action level of “any detectable level.” He said they installed filters on all of the 106 sink faucets with elevated lead and replaced all of the 23 drinking fountains with elevated lead. The district official explained that they re-tested fixtures after the filters and new fountains were installed, and did not detect any lead in their drinking water. Officials in another school district told us that approximately 3,600 of their fixtures were found to have lead above their action level of 15 ppb. They told us the district turned off the water at the affected fixtures as an interim measure and provided bottled water to students and staff. Though they had not yet finalized their plans at the time of our interview, they said they were planning to replace the fixtures and replace old pipes with new pipes. District officials said they plan to pay for their remediation efforts using local capital improvement funds from a recently-approved bond initiative. Similar to the cost of testing, the median amount spent by school districts to remediate lead in school drinking water during the past 12 months varied substantially, depending on the number of schools in which a district took action to remediate lead (see table 3). The median expenditure for school districts taking action in one to four schools was $4,000 compared to a median expenditure for school districts taking action in 51 or more schools of $278,000. EPA regional officials provided examples of eight states that have requirements for schools to test for lead in drinking water as of September 2017: California, Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Virginia, and the District of Columbia. State requirements differ in terms of which schools are included, testing protocols, communicating results, and funding. (See fig. 7.) (For a list of testing components for the eight states, see appendix IV.) According to stakeholders we interviewed, most state legislation on testing for lead in school drinking water has been introduced in the past 2 years. Of the eight states, three states have completed one round of required testing, while other states are in the early stages of implementation or have not yet begun, according to state officials. School districts in Illinois, New Jersey, and New York completed a round of testing for lead in school drinking water by December 2017. Testing in the District of Columbia was in progress as of April 2018. Minnesota requires school districts to develop a plan to test by July 2018 and California requires that water systems sample all covered public schools in their service area by July 2019. According to state officials, schools in Maryland must test by July 2020. In Virginia, no timeline for testing is indicated in the requirement. In addition, requirements in these eight states vary in terms of covered schools and frequency of testing. For example, in Maryland, all schools, including charter and private schools, are required to test their water for lead by July 2020 and must re-test every 3 years. After regulations were approved in July 2016, New Jersey required testing within a year in all traditional public schools, charter schools, and certain private schools, and re-testing every 6 years, according to state officials. Illinois’ requirement is for public and private elementary schools constructed before 2000 to test their drinking water for lead, and does not mandate re- testing. Seven of the eight states include at least some charter schools in their testing requirements (New York does not). State testing requirements also differ in terms of action level, sample sizes, and number of samples, according to state documents. States can choose their own lead threshold or action level for remediation, and the eight states have chosen levels ranging from any detectable level in Illinois to 20 ppb in Maryland. Six of the eight states have chosen to use 250 milliliter samples of water, while California is using a one liter sample size, and Virginia delegates to school districts to choose their action level and sample size. Some states specify that all drinking water sources in a building must be tested, such as in New York and New Jersey, or allow a smaller number of samples to be tested, such as in California, which recommends that water systems take between one and five samples per school. To implement its testing requirement, the District of Columbia has installed filters in all school drinking water sources, and plans to test the filtered water from each fixture for elevated lead annually. The responsibility for the costs of testing and remediation also differ by state. According to state officials, in Minnesota, the costs of testing may be eligible for reimbursement from the state, and in the District of Columbia, the Department of General Services is responsible for the cost. California requires that public water systems cover the cost of testing for all public schools in their jurisdiction. In all other states we looked at, schools or school districts are at least partially responsible for the costs of testing. Additionally, most schools or school districts are responsible for the costs of remediation, although Minnesota, New York, and the District of Columbia will provide funds to help with the costs of remediation as well. Seven of the eight state requirements have a provision for communicating the results of lead sampling and testing in schools. For example, Minnesota requires all test results be made public and New York requires that results be communicated to students’ families. Maryland and New Jersey require that results above the action level be reported to the responsible state agency, such as the Department of the Environment or the Department of Education, and that sample results that find elevated levels of lead be communicated to students’ families. Illinois requires that all results be made available to families and that individual letters to families also be sent if lead levels over 5 ppb are found. In contrast, Virginia does not include a provision to communicate testing results in its testing requirement for schools. According to stakeholders and state officials we interviewed, states have several other common issues to consider in implementing a state testing and remediation program. First, states need to ensure that their efforts, which can be significant given the thousands of schools that operate in each state, can be completed with limited resources and by a legislated deadline. Second, coordination between relevant state agencies, which will vary by state, may be challenging. Because of the nature of testing for lead in school drinking water, multiple government agencies may be involved, necessitating a balance of responsibilities and information- sharing between these state agencies. Finally, state officials told us that imposing requirements without providing funding to implement them may be a challenge for schools in complying with testing and remediation requirements. Apart from the states with requirements to test for lead in school drinking water discussed in this report, at least 13 additional states had also provided funding or in-kind support to school districts to assist with voluntary lead testing and remediation, according to EPA regional offices. Those states are Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Indiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Mexico, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. In Massachusetts, for example, officials told us the state used $2.8 million from the state Clean Water Trust to fund a voluntary program for sampling and testing for all participating public schools in 2016 and 2017. Massachusetts contracted with a state university to assist schools with testing for lead in drinking water. When the program completed its first round of testing in February 2017, 818 schools throughout the state had participated, and the state has begun a second round of sampling with remaining funds from the Clean Water Trust. In Oregon, officials told us the state legislature provided funding for matching grants of up to $8 million to larger school districts for facilities improvements, and made $5 million of emergency funds available to reimburse school districts for laboratory fees associated with drinking water testing as part of the state’s efforts to address student safety. States can also provide technical assistance to support school districts in their efforts to test for and remediate lead in drinking water. The five states we visited provided a range of technical assistance to school districts. For example, to implement the voluntary assistance program in Massachusetts, the contracted university told us they hired 15 additional staff and assisted schools in designing sampling plans, taking samples, and sending them for testing. University officials told us they oversaw the sampling of all drinking water sources in each participating school and sent the sample to state certified laboratories for analysis. State officials encouraged schools to shut off all fixtures in which water tested at or above the action level of 15 ppb and provided guidance on actions to take, such as removing and replacing fixtures, using signage to indicate fixtures not to be used for drinking water, and implementing a flushing program. The state developed an online reporting tool so that all test results could be publicly posted. State officials also supported schools in communicating lead testing results to parents and the community. Other states we visited provided technical assistance to school districts through webinars, guidance documents, in-person presentations, and responding to inquiries. In Oregon, the state Department of Education and the state Health Authority collaborated in 2016 to provide guidance to schools on addressing lead in drinking water. The Governor issued a directive requesting all school districts test for lead in their buildings and the Health Authority requested that districts send them the results. In Texas, officials at the Commission for Environmental Quality have made presentations to schools on water sampling protocols and provided templates for school districts to communicate results. Officials told us that an increased number of school districts have contacted them in the past year seeking guidance, and, in response, they directed districts to EPA’s 3Ts guidance and a list of accredited laboratories. In Illinois, state officials partnered with the state chapter of the American Water Works Association to provide a guidance document for drinking water sampling and testing to assist schools in complying with new testing requirements. In Georgia, officials at the Department of Natural Resources told us they promote the 3Ts guidance on their website and have offered themselves as a resource on school testing at presentations with local water associations. EPA provides several voluntary resources, such as guidance, training, and technical assistance, to states and school districts regarding testing for and remediation of lead in school drinking water, but some school districts we surveyed and officials we interviewed said more information would be helpful. The Lead Contamination Control Act of 1988 (LCCA) required EPA to publish a guidance document and testing protocol to assist schools in their testing and remediation efforts. EPA’s Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water issued its 3Ts guidance which provides information on training school officials, testing drinking water in schools, and telling the school and broader community about these efforts. Of the school districts that reported in our survey using the 3Ts guidance to inform their lead testing efforts, an estimated 68 percent found the guidance extremely or very helpful for conducting tests. The Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water also developed an additional online resource—known as the 3Ts guidance toolkit—to further assist states and school districts with their lead in drinking water prevention programs by providing fact sheets and brochures for community members, among other things. Some states have used the 3Ts guidance as a resource for their state programs, according to EPA officials. For example, a New York regulation directs schools to use the 3Ts guidance as a technical reference when implementing their state- required lead testing and remediation programs. The Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water provides training to support states and school districts with their lead testing and remediation programs. In June 2017, EPA started a quarterly webinar series to highlight school district efforts to test for lead. These webinars include presentations from school officials and key partners that conducted lead testing and remediation. For example, on June 21, 2017, officials from Denver Public Schools and Denver Water presented on their efforts to test for lead in the public school system. EPA’s approach to providing guidance and technical assistance to states and school districts is determined by each of the 10 EPA regional offices. Some EPA regional offices provide the 3Ts guidance to school districts upon request and others conduct outreach to share the guidance, typically through their healthy schools coordinator when discussing other topics, such as indoor air quality and managing chemicals. EPA regional offices also provide technical assistance by request, typically through phone consultations with school districts that have questions regarding the 3Ts guidance, according to EPA headquarters officials. Officials also indicated that the agency has received more requests for technical assistance from schools over the past few years regarding lead in drinking water. Officials in EPA Regions 1 in Boston and 2 in New York City told us they provided technical assistance to school districts by conducting lead testing and analysis in school facilities and Region 9 in San Francisco provided technical assistance by reviewing school district testing protocols. For example, EPA Region 2 officials said between 2002 and 2016 they worked with one to two school districts per year to assist with their lead testing efforts. As part of this effort, the regional office provided funding for sampling and analysis. Officials said they prioritized school districts based on population size and whether the community had elevated blood lead levels. Other EPA regional office approaches included identifying resources and guidance for relevant state agencies and facilitating information sharing by connecting districts that have tested for lead with districts that are interested in doing so. However, most EPA regional offices do not provide technical assistance in the form of testing, analysis, or remediation to school districts, and some do little or no outreach to communicate the importance of testing for and remediating lead in school drinking water. According to federal standards for internal control, management should externally communicate the necessary quality information to achieve the entity’s objectives. Each EPA regional office’s approach to providing resources to states and school districts varies based on differing regional priorities and available resources, according to EPA headquarters officials. Additionally, officials said that this decentralized model of providing support and technical assistance related to lead testing and remediation in schools is appropriate because of the number of schools across the United States. However, based on our survey we found school district familiarity with the 3Ts guidance varied by geographic area (see fig. 8). An estimated 54 percent of school districts in the Northeast reported familiarity with the 3Ts guidance, compared with 17 percent of districts in the South. Furthermore, the Northeast was the only geographic area with more school districts reporting that they were familiar with the 3Ts guidance than not. This awareness corresponds with the efforts made by the state of Massachusetts and EPA’s regional offices in the Northeast to distribute the 3Ts guidance and conduct lead testing and remediation in school districts. By promoting further efforts to communicate the importance of lead testing to schools to help ensure that their lead testing programs are in line with good practices included in the 3Ts guidance, EPA regional offices that have not focused on this issue could leverage the recent efforts of other regional offices to provide technical assistance and guidance, and other forms of support. EPA’s 3Ts guidance emphasizes the importance of taking action to remediate elevated lead in school drinking water, but the agency’s guidance on a recommended action level for states and school districts is not current and contains elements that could be misleading. Although the guidance recommends that school districts prioritize taking action if lead levels from water fountains and other outlets used for consumption exceed 20 ppb (based on a 250 milliliter water sample), EPA officials told us when the guidance was originally developed in response to the 1988 LCCA requirement, the agency did not have information available to recommend an action level specifically designed for schools. Furthermore, EPA officials told us that the action level in the 3Ts guidance is not a health-based standard. However, there are statements in the guidance that appear to suggest otherwise. For example, the guidance states that EPA strongly recommends that all water outlets in all schools that provide water for drinking or cooking meet a “standard” of 20 ppb lead or less and that school officials who follow the steps included in the document, including using a 20 ppb action level, will be “assured” that school facilities do not have elevated lead in the drinking water. The use of the terms “standard” and “assured” are potentially misleading and could suggest that the 20 ppb action level is protective of health. Further, state and school district officials may be familiar with the 15 ppb action level (based on a 1 liter water sample) for public water systems aimed at identifying system-wide problems under the LCR, which may also create confusion around the 20 ppb action level included in the 3Ts guidance. According to our survey, an estimated 67 percent of school districts reported using an action level less than the 20 ppb recommended in the 3Ts guidance. We found that nearly half of school districts used action levels between 15 ppb and 19 ppb. Although these action levels— the 20 ppb from the 3Ts guidance and the 15 ppb from the LCR—are intended for different purposes, the difference creates confusion for some state and school district officials. Also, according to our survey, an estimated 56 percent of school districts reported they would find it helpful to have clearer guidance on what level of lead to use as the action level for deciding to take steps to remediate lead in drinking water. In addition, officials we interviewed in four of the five states we visited said there is a need for clearer guidance on the action level. EPA officials agreed that the difference between the two action levels creates confusion for states and school districts. In addition to wanting clearer guidance on choosing lead action levels, about half of the school districts we surveyed said they would also like additional information to help inform their lead testing and remediation programs. Specifically, school districts reported that they want information on a recommended schedule for lead testing, how to remediate elevated lead levels, and information associated with testing and remediation costs (see fig. 9). For example, an estimated 54 percent of school districts responded that they would like additional information on a testing schedule, as did officials in 10 of the 17 school districts and one of the five states we interviewed. EPA’s 3Ts guidance does not include information to help school districts determine a schedule for retesting their schools. Officials in one school district told us they need information for determining retesting schedules for lead in their school drinking water, and that—without guidance—they chose to retest every 5 years, acknowledging that this decision was made without a clear rationale. Further, an estimated 62 percent of school districts reported wanting additional information on remedial actions to take to address elevated lead. For example, officials from the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection told us that they would like additional guidance on evaluating remedial actions to address elevated lead in the fixtures or the plumbing system. Officials with EPA’s Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water hold quarterly meetings with regional officials to obtain input on potential improvements to the 3Ts guidance, but have not made any revisions. EPA has not substantially updated the 3Ts guidance since October 2006 and does not have firm plans or time frames for providing additional information, including on the action level and other key topics such as a recommended schedule for testing. EPA officials said that they may update the 3Ts guidance before the LCR is updated, but did not provide a specific time frame for doing so. EPA has efforts underway to reconsider the action level for the LCR, which may include a change in the action level from one that is based on technical feasibility, to one that also considers lead exposure in vulnerable populations such as infants and young children, which EPA refers to as a health-based benchmark. EPA anticipates issuing comprehensive revisions to the LCR by February 2020. While the 3Ts guidance is not contingent on the LCR, EPA officials told us they would consider updates to the 3Ts guidance, including the 20 ppb action level, as they consider revisions to the LCR. By updating the 3Ts guidance to include an action level for school districts that incorporates available scientific modeling regarding vulnerable population exposures, EPA could have greater assurance that school districts are able to limit children’s exposure to lead. EPA has emphasized the importance of addressing elevated lead levels in school drinking water through its 3Ts guidance, but has not communicated necessary information about action levels and other key topics consistent with the external communication standard under federal standards for internal control. According to EPA, CDC, and others, eliminating sources of lead before exposure can occur is considered the best strategy to protect children from potential adverse health outcomes. EPA officials also told us that clear guidance is important because testing for lead in drinking water requires technical expertise. But without providing interim or updated guidance to help school districts choose an action level for lead remediation EPA will continue to provide schools with confusing information regarding whether to remediate, which may not adequately limit potential lead exposure to students and staff. Furthermore, without important information on key topics, such as a recommended schedule for lead testing, how to remediate elevated lead levels, and information associated with testing and remediation costs school districts are at risk of making misinformed decisions regarding their lead testing and remediation efforts. Education has not played a significant role in supporting state and school districts efforts to test for and remediate lead in school drinking water, and there has been limited collaboration between Education and EPA, according to officials. In 2005, Education, EPA, CDC, and other entities involved with drinking water signed the Memorandum of Understanding on Reducing Lead Levels in Drinking Water in Schools and Child Care Facilities (the memorandum) to encourage and support schools’ efforts to test for lead in drinking water and to support actions to reduce children’s exposure to lead. According to the memorandum, Education’s role is to identify the appropriate school organizations with which to work and facilitate dissemination of materials and tools to schools in collaboration with EPA. In addition, EPA’s role is to update relevant guidance documents for school districts—resulting in the production of the 3Ts guidance in 2006—raising awareness, and collaborating with other federal agencies and associations, among other things. Education officials told us that the agency does not have any ongoing efforts related to implementing the memorandum. However, Education and EPA officials were not aware of the memorandum being terminated by either agency and told us the memorandum remains in effect. Although Education does not have any ongoing efforts related to implementing the memorandum, the agency’s websites, including the Readiness and Emergency Management for Schools Technical Assistance Center (REMS TA Center) website, and the Green Strides portal, provide links to EPA guidance and webinars on lead testing and remediation. The REMS TA Center website, which is largely focused on emergency management planning, includes a link to EPA’s 3Ts guidance and other resources on lead exposure and children, but does not provide information regarding the importance of testing for lead in school drinking water. Education’s Green Strides portal includes a link to a number of EPA’s webinars on lead in school drinking water, but does not include all of the quarterly webinars started in June 2017 to highlight school district efforts to test for lead. An Education official told us that these EPA webinars are identified by Education without coordinating with EPA officials. Further, when searching on Education’s website for lead in school drinking water, the 3Ts guidance does not show up. Education officials acknowledged that information regarding lead testing and remediation is difficult to find on Education’s website and they could take steps to make federal guidance on lead in school drinking water more accessible. The federal government has developed guidelines to help federal agencies improve their experience with customers through websites. One such resource is Guidelines for Improving Digital Services developed by the federal Digital Services Advisory Group. It states that federal agencies should take steps to make guidance easy to find and accessible. Making guidance easy to find and accessible such as by clarifying which links contain guidance; highlighting new or important guidance; improving their websites’ search function; and categorizing guidance on Education’s websites could help raise school district awareness of the guidance, which is currently low in most areas of the country. Many school districts are not familiar with EPA guidance related to lead testing and remediation. Specifically, an estimated 60 percent of school districts reported in our survey that they were not familiar with the EPA’s 3Ts guidance. Most school district officials from our site visits told us they did not have contact with EPA prior to or during their lead testing and some said they would not have thought to go to EPA for guidance. Likewise, EPA officials reported they had received feedback from school district officials indicating that they do not know where to go for information about testing for and remediating lead in drinking water. Rather, school district officials may look to their state educational agency or Education for guidance on lead testing and remediation, as they might do when looking for guidance on other topics. Education and EPA do not regularly collaborate to support state and school districts’ efforts related to lead in school drinking water, according to EPA and Education officials. Education officials said the agency does not have a role in ensuring safe drinking water in schools, and that the mitigation of environmental health concerns in school facilities is a state and local function. Therefore, the agency does not collaborate with EPA to disseminate the 3Ts guidance beyond posting links to related guidance on their websites and newsletters. EPA officials told us they do not know which office they should collaborate with at Education. EPA regional officials also said they do not collaborate with Education to disseminate the guidance to states and school districts. However, in the 2005 memorandum, EPA and Education agreed to work together to encourage school districts to test drinking water for lead; disseminate results to parents, students, staff, and other interested stakeholders; and take appropriate actions to correct elevated lead levels. There are many school districts that have not tested for lead in school drinking water, and some conducted testing without the assistance of federal guidance—although the large majority (68 percent) of school districts who use the guidance reported finding it helpful. Officials in 11 of 17 school districts we interviewed that had conducted lead testing told us they were familiar with the 3Ts guidance and 9 of those districts said they found it helpful for designing their lead testing programs. Increased encouragement and dissemination of EPA resources about lead in school drinking water by Education and EPA could help school districts test for and remediate lead in drinking water using good practices and reduce the potential risk of exposure for students and staff. Children are particularly at risk of experiencing the adverse effects of lead exposure from a variety of sources, including drinking water. While there is no federal law requiring lead testing for drinking water in most schools, some states and school districts have decided to test for lead in the drinking water to help protect students. However, there are a number of school districts that have not tested for lead and some that do not know if they have tested for lead in their drinking water, according to our nationwide survey. Even in states and school districts that have opted to test, officials may choose different action levels to identify elevated lead and may choose different testing protocols that do not test all fixtures in all schools. EPA has developed helpful guidance—3Ts—and webinars for states and school districts to support efforts to test and remediate lead in school drinking water. However, some EPA regional offices have not communicated the importance of testing for and remediating lead to states and school districts. By promoting further efforts to communicate the importance of lead testing to school districts to help ensure that their lead testing programs are in line with good practices, including the 3Ts guidance, regional offices that have not focused on this issue could build on the recent efforts of other regional offices to provide technical assistance and guidance and other forms of support. State and school district officials can use EPA’s 3Ts guidance to help ensure that their drinking water testing and remediation efforts are in line with good practices and said that it has been helpful for establishing their programs. However, statements in the guidance—which has not been updated in over a decade—that suggest the action level described will ensure that school facilities do not have elevated lead in their drinking water are misleading. In addition, state and school district officials told us that additional guidance—including information on a recommended schedule for retesting as well as on costs associated with testing and remediation—could help school districts make more informed decisions regarding their testing and remediation efforts. Without providing interim or updated guidance, EPA is providing schools with confusing and out of date information, which can increase the risk of school districts making uninformed decisions. EPA officials said they would consider updates to the 3Ts action level while the revisions to the LCR are being completed. However, the longer school districts are without the additional information they need to conduct their efforts in line with good practices and continue to rely on confusing and misleading information, the more challenges they will face in trying to limit children’s exposure to lead. After EPA revises the LCR, the agency would have greater assurance that school districts are limiting children’s exposure to lead by considering whether to develop, as part of its guidance, a health-based level for schools that incorporates available scientific modeling regarding vulnerable population exposures. Finally, although Education provides information to states and school districts on lead testing and remediation through the agency’s websites, that information is difficult to find. Further, Education’s website does not include all of EPA’s quarterly webinars to highlight school district efforts to test for lead. By making guidance accessible, Education could improve school district awareness of EPA resources about lead in school drinking water. In addition, EPA and Education should improve their collaboration to encourage and support lead testing and remediation efforts by states and school districts. EPA has the expertise to develop guidance and provide technical assistance to states and school districts, while Education, based on its mission to promote student achievement, should collaborate with EPA to disseminate guidance and raise awareness of lead in drinking water as an issue that could impact student success. Although over one-third of districts that tested found elevated levels of lead, many districts have still not been tested. Unless EPA and Education encourage additional school districts to test for lead, many students and school staff may be at risk of lead exposure. We are making a total of seven recommendations, including five to EPA and two to Education: The Assistant Administrator for Water of EPA’s Office of Water should promote further efforts to communicate the importance of testing for lead in school drinking water to address what has been a varied approach by regional offices. For example, the Assistant Administrator could direct those offices with limited involvement to build on the recent efforts of several regional offices to provide technical assistance and guidance, and other forms of support. (Recommendation 1) The Assistant Administrator for Water of EPA’s Office of Water should provide interim or updated guidance to help schools choose an action level for lead remediation and more clearly explain that the action level currently described in the 3Ts guidance is not a health-based standard. (Recommendation 2) The Assistant Administrator for Water of EPA’s Office of Water should, following the agency’s revisions to the LCR, consider whether to develop a health-based level, to include in its guidance for school districts, that incorporates available scientific modeling regarding vulnerable population exposures and is consistent with the LCR. (Recommendation 3) The Assistant Administrator for Water of EPA’s Office of Water should provide information to states and school districts concerning schedules for testing school drinking water for lead, actions to take if lead is found in the drinking water, and costs of testing and remediation. (Recommendation 4) The Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education should improve the usability of Education’s websites to ensure that the states and school districts can more easily find and access federal guidance to address lead in school drinking water, by taking actions such as clarifying which links contain guidance; highlighting new or important guidance; improving their websites’ search function; and categorizing guidance. (Recommendation 5) The Assistant Administrator for Water of EPA’s Office of Water and the Director of the Office of Children’s Health Protection should collaborate with Education to encourage testing for lead in school drinking water. This effort could include further dissemination of EPA guidance related to lead testing and remediation in schools or sending letters to states to encourage testing in all school districts that have not yet done so. (Recommendation 6) The Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education should collaborate with EPA to encourage testing for lead in school drinking water. This effort could include disseminating EPA guidance related to lead testing and remediation in schools or sending letters to states to encourage testing in all school districts that have not yet done so. (Recommendation 7) We provided a draft of this report to EPA, Education, and CDC for review and comment. EPA and Education provided written comments that are reproduced in appendixes VII and VIII respectively. EPA also provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. CDC did not provide comments. We also provided relevant excerpts to selected states and incorporated their technical comments as appropriate. In its written comments, EPA stated that it agreed with our recommendations and noted a number of actions it plans to take to implement them. For example, EPA said its Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water is holding regular meetings with regional offices and other EPA offices to obtain input on improving the 3Ts guidance. Potential revisions include updates to implementation practices, the sampling protocol, and the action level, including clarifying descriptions of different action levels and standards. Also, EPA said that while it has not yet determined the role of a health-based benchmark for lead in drinking water in the revised LCR, it sees value in providing states, drinking water systems, and the public with a greater understanding of the potential health implications for vulnerable populations of specific levels of lead in drinking water. EPA said it would continue to reach out to states and schools to provide information, technical assistance, and training and will continue to make the 3Ts guidance available. EPA also said it would work with Education to ensure that school districts and other stakeholders are aware of additional resources EPA is developing. In its written comments, Education stated that it agreed with our recommendations and noted a number of actions it plans to take to implement them. In response to our recommendation to improve Education’s websites, Education said it would identify and include an information portal dedicated to enhancing the usability of federal resources related to testing for and addressing lead in school drinking water. Also, Education said it is interested in increasing coordination across all levels of government and it shares the view expressed in our report that improved federal coordination, including with EPA, will better enhance collaboration to encourage testing for lead in school drinking water. Education said it would develop a plan for disseminating relevant resources to its key stakeholder groups and explore how best to coordinate with states to disseminate EPA’s guidance on lead testing and remediation to school districts. As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the report date. At that time, we will send copies to interested congressional committees, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, the Secretary of Education, the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and other interested parties. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov. If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact us at (617) 788-0580 or nowickij@gao.gov or (202) 512-3841 or gomezj@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report are listed in appendix IX. In this report, we examined three objectives: (1) the extent to which school districts are testing for, finding, and remediating lead in school drinking water; (2) the extent to which states require or support testing for and remediating lead in school drinking water by school districts; and (3) the extent to which federal agencies are supporting state and school district efforts to test for and remediate lead. To address these objectives, we conducted a web-based survey of school districts, interviews with selected state and school district officials, a review of applicable requirements in selected states, a review of relevant federal laws and regulations, and interviews with federal agency officials and representatives of stakeholder organizations. We conducted this performance audit from October 2016 through July 2018 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. To examine the extent to which school districts are testing for and remediating lead in school drinking water, we designed and administered a generalizable survey of a stratified random sample of U.S. local educational agencies (LEA), which we refer to as school districts throughout the report. The survey included questions about school district efforts to test for lead in school drinking water, such as the number of schools in which tests were conducted, the costs of testing, and whether parents or others were notified about the testing efforts. We also asked questions about remediation efforts, such as whether lead was discovered in school drinking water, the specific remediation efforts that were implemented, and whether parents or others were notified about the remediation efforts. Further, we asked about officials’ familiarity with the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) guidance entitled 3Ts for Reducing Lead in Drinking Water in Schools, (3Ts guidance) whether the guidance was used, and the extent to which it was helpful in conducting tests, remediating lead, and communicating with parents and others. We directed the survey to school district superintendents or other cognizant officials, such as facilities directors. See appendix II which includes the survey questions and estimates. We defined our target population to be all school districts in the 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia that are not under the jurisdiction of the Department of Defense or Bureau of Indian Education. We used the LEA Universe database from Department of Education’s (Education) Common Core of Data (CCD) for the 2014-2015 school year to our sampling frame. For the purpose of our survey, our sample was limited to school districts that: were located in the District of Columbia or the 50 states; had a LEA type code of 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, and 8; had one or more schools and one or more students; and were not closed according to the 2014-2015 School Year. The resulting sample frame included 16,452 school districts and we selected a stratified random sample of 549 school districts. We stratified the sampling frame into 13 mutually exclusive strata based on urban classification and poverty classification. We further stratified the school districts classified as being in a city by charter status. We selected the largest 100 school districts with certainty. We determined the minimum sample size needed to achieve precision levels of plus or minus 12 percentage points or fewer, at the 95 percent confidence level. We then increased the sample size within each stratum for an expected response rate of 70 percent. We defined the three urban classifications based on the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) urban-centric locale code. To build a general measure of the poverty level for each school district we used the proportion of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch (FRPL) as indicated in the CCD data and classified these into the following three groups: High-poverty – More than 75 percent of students in the school district were eligible for FRPL; Mid-poverty – Between 25.1 and 75.0 percent of students in the school district were eligible for FRPL; and Low-poverty – 25 percent or fewer students in the school district were eligible for FRPL. We assessed the reliability of the CCD data by reviewing existing documentation about the data and performing electronic testing on required data elements and determined they were sufficiently reliable for the purpose of our report. We administered the survey from July to October 2017 (the survey asked school districts to report information based on the 12 months prior to their completing the survey.) To obtain the maximum number of responses to our survey, we sent reminder emails to nonrespondents and contacted nonrespondents over the telephone. We identified that four of the 549 sampled school districts were closed and one was a “cyber-school” with no building, so these were removed from the sample. Of the remaining 544 eligible sampled school districts, we received valid responses from 373, resulting in an unweighted response rate of 68 percent. We conducted an analysis of our survey results to identify potential sources of nonresponse bias using a multivariate logistic regression model. We examined the response propensity of the sampled school districts by several demographic characteristics. These characteristics included poverty, urbanicity, and charter status. We did not find any other population characteristics significantly affected survey response propensity except those used in stratification (charter schools and the largest 100 school districts). Based on the response bias analysis and the 68 percent response rate across stratum, we determined that estimates based on adjusted weights reflecting the response rate are generalizable to the population of eligible school districts and are sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report. We took steps to minimize non-sampling errors, including pretesting draft instruments and using a web-based administration system. As we began to develop the survey, we met with officials from seven school districts to explore the feasibility of responding to the survey questions. We then pretested the draft instrument from April to June 2017 with officials in eight school districts—including one charter school district—in cities and suburbs in different states. In the pretests, we asked about the clarity of the questions and the flow and layout of the survey. The EPA also reviewed and provided us comments on a draft version of the survey. Based on feedback from the pretests and EPA’s review, we made revisions to the survey instrument. To further minimize non-sampling errors, we used a web-based survey, which allowed respondents to enter their responses directly into an electronic instrument. Using this method automatically created a record for each respondent and eliminated the errors associated with a manual data entry process. We express the precision of our particular sample’s results as a 95 percent confidence interval (for example, plus or minus 10 percentage points). This is the interval that would contain the actual population value for 95 percent of the samples we could have drawn. As a result, we are 95 percent confident that each of the confidence intervals in this report will include the true values in the study population. To analyze differences in the percentages of school districts that reported they tested for lead in school drinking water and those that discovered lead, we compared weighted survey estimates generated for school districts in different levels of the following subgroups: Poverty: low poverty, mid poverty, and high poverty; Racial composition: majority-minority and majority white; Region: Northeast, South, Midwest, and West; Population density: urban, suburban, and rural/town; Urban charter school: in urban areas, charter district and non-charter Largest 100: largest 100 districts (based on student enrollment) and all other districts. For each subgroup, we produced percentage estimates and standard errors for each level and used these results to confirm the significance of the differences between weighted survey estimates. To examine school districts’ testing and remediation efforts and state support of those efforts, we conducted site visits in five states—Georgia, Illinois, Massachusetts, Oregon, and Texas—from February to October 2017. We selected these states because they varied in the extent to which they required testing of school drinking water for lead and they are located in geographic areas covered by different EPA regional offices. Within these states, we selected 17 school districts that had tested for lead in school drinking water and to achieve variation in the size and population density (urban, suburban, and rural) of the district as well as including one charter school district. Site visits generally consisted of interviews with officials in state agencies and school districts and officials in the local EPA regional office: State interviews: We interviewed officials in state environment, education, and health agencies, depending on whether they had information related to school district testing for lead in school drinking water in their state. The topics we discussed were the agencies’ roles and responsibilities related to testing for and remediation of lead in school drinking water, any related state requirements, policies, and guidance, communication and public notification about testing and remediation efforts and, as appropriate, coordination among multiple state agencies. We also discussed similar topics related to lead-based paint. In Massachusetts, we interviewed representatives with the University of Massachusetts, because of their role in implementing the state’s program to support school district efforts to test for lead in school drinking water. School Districts: Within the five site visit states, we interviewed officials in 14 school districts in person and in three school districts by phone (because we were not able to meet with them in person). We also selected one charter school that functions as its own school district which had conducted tests for lead in school drinking water. Similar to our school district survey, the interview topics we discussed with district officials included testing for and remediation of lead in school drinking water, use of guidance (such as the 3Ts guidance) and efforts to communicate or coordinate with any federal, state, or local agencies, including any other school districts. Within 13 of the school districts, we visited at least one school in which the district had tested for lead in drinking water and, as needed, took remedial action in order to gain an in-depth understanding of their testing and remediation efforts. EPA Regional Offices: We interviewed officials in all 10 EPA Regional offices. We met in-person with officials in the regional offices 1, 4, 5, and 6 and conducted phone interviews with officials in regional offices 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, and 10. We generally discussed EPA officials’ roles and responsibilities related to testing for lead in school drinking water and paint and efforts in states and school districts in their region. Information we gathered from these interviews, while not generalizable, represents the conditions present in the states and school districts at the time of our interviews and may be illustrative of efforts in other states and school districts. As part of our effort to examine school districts’ testing and remediation efforts and state support of those efforts, we reviewed related state requirements. To determine whether states had related requirements, we asked all EPA regional offices if states in their region had requirements related to testing for lead in school drinking water. EPA provided examples of eight states (California, Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Virginia, and the District of Columbia that had such requirements. We reviewed relevant laws, regulations, and policy documents for these states. We then confirmed the details of the related requirements with the appropriate state officials via structured questionnaires. Also, we used available documentation to corroborate and verify the testing requirements of the states that EPA identified. GAO did not conduct an independent search of state laws. To examine the extent to which federal agencies have collaborated in supporting state and school district efforts to test for and remediate lead, we reviewed relevant federal laws, including the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act of 2016, Reduction of Lead in Drinking Water Act of 2011, the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974, as amended, and the Lead Contamination Control Act of 1988; regulations, such as the Lead and Copper Rule; and guidance, such as the 3Ts guidance. We also reviewed documentation including the Memorandum of Understanding on Reducing Lead Levels in Drinking Water in Schools and Child Care Facilities signed in 2005 by EPA, Education and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC); Federal Partners in School Health Charter; EPA training webinar information; and other relevant guidance including the 3Ts guidance tool kit. We interviewed officials from EPA’s Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water and Office of Children’s Health Protection and officials in all 10 of EPA regional offices regarding their approach to providing support to states and school district on lead testing and remediation. We interviewed officials from Education’s Office of Safe and Healthy Students and officials from the CDC. During these interviews, we interviewed officials about the Memorandum of Understanding and about the Federal Partners in School Health initiative, both of which represent collaborative efforts that address lead in school drinking water, among other topics. We evaluated federal efforts to collaborate and support lead testing and remediation in schools against federal standards for internal control, which call for agencies to communicate quality information to external parties, among other things. We also evaluated federal efforts against the Memorandum of Understanding, in which EPA, Education, and CDC agreed to encourage testing drinking water for lead and communicate with key stakeholders, among other things. To inform all of our research objectives, we interviewed representatives with the National Conference of State Legislatures, National Center for Healthy Housing, National Alliance of Public Charter Schools, the DC Public Charter School Board, and the 21st Century School Fund. We also attended a workshop entitled “Eliminating Lead Risks in Schools and Child Care Facilities” in December 2017. The questions we asked in our survey of local educational agencies (referred to in this report as school districts) are shown below. Our survey was comprised of closed- and open-ended questions. In this appendix, we include all survey questions and aggregate results of responses to the closed-ended questions; we do not provide information on responses provided to the open-ended questions. Estimates noted with superscript “a” are based on 20 or fewer responses and were not included in our findings. For a more detailed discussion of our survey methodology, see appendix I. 1. Do any schools in your local educational agency (LEA) obtain drinking water from a public water system such as a city or municipal water plant? (Check one.) 95 percent confidence interval – lower bound (percentage) 95 percent confidence interval – upper bound (percentage) No (Skip to 20) Don’t know (Skip to 20) Section B: Testing for Lead in School Drinking Water 2. Is there a requirement that the drinking water in your LEA’s schools be tested for lead? (Please answer “Yes” regardless of whether that requirement comes from your state, municipality, local educational agency or any other governmental entity.) (Check one.) 95 percent confidence interval – lower bound (percentage) 3. Regardless of whether your LEA is required to test for lead in school drinking water, have tests been conducted for lead in the drinking water in at least one of your schools in the past 12 months? (Check one.) 95 percent confidence interval – lower bound (percentage) 95 percent confidence interval – upper bound (percentage) If yes to 3: 3A. What is the number of schools in which tests were conducted in the past 12 months? Estimated Number (Mean) 95 percent confidence interval – lower bound (number) 95 percent confidence interval – upper bound (number) (Respondent reported number) 3B. About how many samples were taken from sources of drinking water such as water fountains and sinks in each school? (Check one.) 95 percent confidence interval – lower bound (percentage) 3C. Did any of the following develop the sampling plan, draw the samples of water, and analyze the samples? (Check all that apply.) 95 percent confidence interval – lower bound (percentage) 95 percent confidence interval – upper bound (percentage) 3D. What size samples were taken? (Check one.) 95 percent confidence interval – lower bound (percentage) 95 percent confidence interval – upper bound (percentage) If ‘other’ to 3D: What sample size was used? 3E: To the best of your knowledge, did the personnel drawing or analyzing samples follow a testing protocol that offers guidance on developing the sampling plan, drawing samples of water, or analyzing samples? (Check one.) 95 percent confidence interval – lower bound (percentage) 95 percent confidence interval – upper bound (percentage) No (Skip to 3F) Don’t know (Skip to 3F) If ‘yes’ to 3E: a. To the best of your knowledge, were any of the following entities involved in developing the protocol? (Check one per row.) 95 percent confidence interval – lower bound (percentage) 95 percent confidence interval – upper bound (percentage) Contractor / water testing company EPA or another federal government agency A local government agency (aside from your LEA) If ‘other’ to 3Eh: What other entities were involved in developing the protocol? 3F. If tests were conducted in some schools in your LEA in the past 12 months—but were not conducted in every school—how was it determined which schools would be tested? (Check one per row.) Not applicable: tests were conducted in every school (Skip to 3G) 95 percent confidence interval – lower bound (percentage) 95 percent confidence interval – upper bound (percentage) 95 percent confidence interval – lower bound (percentage) 95 percent confidence interval – upper bound (percentage) If ‘other’ to 3Fe: In what other ways did your LEA use to determine which schools would be tested? 3G. How much do you estimate your LEA has spent on testing for lead in school drinking water in the past 12 months? (Please answer this question for lead testing only; the survey asks about expenditures to address concerns identified through testing later. Also, please include materials, labor, and any other expenditures related to lead testing in your estimate.) Estimated Number (Median) 95 percent confidence interval – lower bound (number) 95 percent confidence interval – upper bound (number) (Respondent reported number) 3H. Did your LEA use any of the following sources of funding for the testing in the past 12 months? (Check one per row). 95 percent confidence interval – lower bound (percentage) 95 percent confidence interval – upper bound (percentage) If ‘other’ to 3H: What other sources of funding did your LEA use? 3I. In the past 12 months, did your LEA notify the following groups that it was planning to test for lead in school drinking water before conducting the tests? (Check one per row). 95 percent confidence interval – lower bound (percentage) 95 percent confidence interval – upper bound (percentage) General public (e.g., media) If ‘other’ to 3I: What other groups did your LEA notify that it was planning to test for lead in school drinking water before conducting the tests? 3J. In the past 12 months, did your LEA report the testing results to the following groups after completing the tests? (Check one per row). 95 percent confidence interval – lower bound (percentage) 95 percent confidence interval – upper bound (percentage) General public (e.g., media) If ‘other’ to 3J: To what other groups did your LEA report the testing results? 3K. If ‘no’ to 3: Were any of the following a reason your LEA did not conduct any tests in any schools in the last 12 months? (Check one per row). 95 percent confidence interval – lower bound (percentage) 95 percent confidence interval – upper bound (percentage) If ‘other’ to 3K: For what other reasons did your LEA not conduct any tests in any schools in the last 12 months? 4. Does your LEA have a schedule for recurring tests to determine the amount of lead in the drinking water in your schools within any of the following time frames? (Check one.) 95 percent confidence interval – lower bound (percentage) 95 percent confidence interval – upper bound (percentage) Section C: Remediation of Lead in School Drinking Water 5. Has your LEA discovered any level of lead in the drinking water of any of your schools (as a result of testing) in the last 12 months? (Check one.) 95 percent confidence interval – lower bound (percentage) 95 percent confidence interval – upper bound (percentage) 5A. What lead concentration (measured in “parts per billion” or “ppb”) did your LEA use to initiate remedial action? (Check one.) 95 percent confidence interval – lower bound (percentage) 95 percent confidence interval – upper bound (percentage) If ‘other’ to 5A: What lead concentration did your LEA use to initiate remedial action? 5B. In the last 12 months, how many schools had at least one test result–including as few as one sample in one school–greater than the lead level your LEA used to initiate action? (Please answer regardless of whether these results were discovered in the first of multiple rounds of testing.) 5C.To address lead discovered in school drinking water, has your LEA taken any of the following actions in any of your schools in the past 12 months? 95 percent confidence interval – lower bound (percentage) 95 percent confidence interval – upper bound (percentage) 5D. If ‘no’ to every item in 5C: What are the reasons why your LEA has not taken actions in any of your schools in the past 12 months? 5E. If ‘yes’ to any item in 5C: How much do you estimate your LEA has spent on taking actions in the past 12 months? (Please include materials, labor, and any other expenditures related to lead remediation in your estimate.) Estimated Number (Median) 95 percent confidence interval – lower bound (number) 95 percent confidence interval – upper bound (number) (Respondent reported number) 5F. Did your LEA use any of the following sources of funding to take actions in the past 12 months? (Check one per row). 95 percent confidence interval – lower bound (percentage) 95 percent confidence interval – upper bound (percentage) If ‘other’ to 5F: What other sources of funding did your LEA use to take actions in the past 12 months? 5G. Did your LEA notify the following groups about its actions in the past 12 months? (Check one per row). 95 percent confidence interval – lower bound (percentage) 95 percent confidence interval – upper bound (percentage) General public (e.g., media) If ‘other’ to 5G: What other groups has your LEA notified about its remedial actions in the past 12 months? 6. Does your LEA have a schedule to flush the water system as a result of concerns about lead in drinking water in at least one of your schools within any of the following time frames? (Check one.) 95 percent confidence interval – lower bound (percentage) 95 percent confidence interval – upper bound (percentage) 7. Does your LEA have plans to take actions to eliminate or reduce lead in school drinking water (for example, replace drinking water fountains, replace pipes) in at least one of your schools? (Check one.) 95 percent confidence interval – lower bound (percentage) 95 percent confidence interval – upper bound (percentage) If ‘according to a schedule’ to 7: how would you describe the schedule that your LEA has developed? Section D: Guidance Regarding Lead Testing and Remediation 8. Prior to receiving this survey, were you familiar with guidance issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency entitled “3Ts for Reducing Lead in Drinking Water in Schools”? (Please answer “Yes” if you had read or used the”3Ts” prior to receiving this survey.) (Check one.) 95 percent confidence interval – lower bound (percentage) 95 percent confidence interval – upper bound (percentage) If ‘yes’ to 8: did your LEA (or a contractor working on behalf of your LEA) follow or refer to “3Ts” during your efforts to test for or remediate lead in school drinking water? (Check one.) 95 percent confidence interval – lower bound (percentage) 95 percent confidence interval – upper bound (percentage) If ‘yes’ to 8A: How helpful was 3Ts for conducting tests for lead in your schools’ drinking water? (Check one.) 95 percent confidence interval – lower bound (percentage) 95 percent confidence interval – upper bound (percentage) If ‘yes’ to 8A: How helpful was 3Ts for remediating lead in your schools’ drinking water? (Check one.) 95 percent confidence interval – lower bound (percentage) 95 percent confidence interval – upper bound (percentage) If ‘yes’ to 8A: How helpful was 3Ts for communicating with parents and other stakeholders about lead in your schools’ drinking water? (Check one.) 95 percent confidence interval – lower bound (percentage) 95 percent confidence interval – upper bound (percentage) What else, if anything, would make 3Ts more helpful? 9. Did your LEA (or a contractor working on behalf of your LEA) use any other guidance (for example, best practices, manuals, protocols, webinars) in your LEA’s efforts to test for lead in your schools’ drinking water, take remedial actions, or for notification purposes? (Check one.) 95 percent confidence interval – lower bound (percentage) 95 percent confidence interval – upper bound (percentage) What other guidance was used? 10. Would your LEA find any of the following helpful? (Check one per row). 95 percent confidence interval – lower bound (percentage) 95 percent confidence interval – upper bound (percentage) Clearer guidance on a level of lead in school drinking water at which we should take action Additional guidance on determining a schedule for 41 95 percent confidence interval – lower bound (percentage) 95 percent confidence interval – upper bound (percentage) regularly testing for lead in school drinking water Additional guidance on actions to take if lead is found in school drinking water Information on the costs of testing for lead in school drinking water Information on the costs of remediating lead in school drinking water 18 95 percent confidence interval – lower bound (percentage) 95 percent confidence interval – upper bound (percentage) If ‘other guidance or information’ to 10: What other guidance or information would be helpful? Section E: Inspecting Schools for Lead Based Paint Section F: Remediation of Lead Based Paint in Schools Section G: Other Questions 16. How many schools are owned or operated by your LEA? Estimated Number (Mean) 95 percent confidence interval – lower bound (number) 95 percent confidence interval – upper bound (number) (Respondent reported number) 17. How many schools in your LEA were built before 1986? (If a building has additions, we mean the original structure/the original part of the building.) Estimated Number (Mean) 95 percent confidence interval – lower bound (number) 95 percent confidence interval – upper bound (number) (Respondent reported number) 18. How many schools in your LEA were built before 1978? (If a building has additions, we mean the original structure/the original part of the building.) Estimated Number (Mean) 95 percent confidence interval – lower bound (number) 95 percent confidence interval – upper bound (number) (Respondent reported number) 19. Is there anything else you would like to share with us regarding lead testing, inspection, or remediation efforts in your school or LEA (drinking water or paint)? 20. What is the name, title, e-mail address, and telephone number of the person responsible for completing this survey? Section H: Completion 21. Please check one of the options below. Clicking on “Completed” indicates that your answers are official and final. Your answers will not be used unless you have done this. (Check one.) 95 percent confidence interval – lower bound (percentage) Charter schools comprise a small but growing group of public schools. In contrast to most traditional public schools, many charter schools are responsible for financing their own buildings and other facilities. As a result, charters schools vary in terms of whether they own their own building or pay rent, and whether they operate in buildings originally designed as a school or in buildings which have been redesigned for educational purposes. Sometimes charter schools may also share space in their building with others, such as non-profit organizations. In addition to differences in facility access and finance, charter school governance also varies. In some states, charter schools function as their own school district, while in other states, charter schools have the option to choose between being a distinct school district or part of a larger school district. To determine the extent to which charter school districts were testing for lead in school drinking water and finding and remediating lead, our survey included charter school districts in two ways: our sampling design included three strata specifically for charter school districts in urban areas; in addition, charter school districts were retained in the sampling population, such that they could be randomly selected in our other strata. While we generally received too few responses from charter school districts to report their data separately, we are able to estimate that about 36 percent of charter school districts tested for lead in school drinking water. To learn more about experiences of charter schools, we visited one charter school district and interviewed representatives of the DC Public Charter School Board (DC PCSB). The charter school district we visited consisted of one charter school in a building it leased. The school had 10 sources of consumable water, all of which were tested in 2016 and were found to have lead below the district’s selected action level of 15 parts per billion. Before testing, district officials met with the building owner who agreed to cover the cost of any remediation. Officials with the DC PCSB told us that it paid to have tests conducted in every charter school in the District of Columbia. According to DC PCSB officials, between March and June 2016, 95 charter schools were tested, and lead above their action level of 15 parts per billion was discovered in 20 schools. Officials estimated their testing costs to be about $100,000, which was subsequently reimbursed by the District of Columbia’s Office of State Superintendent of Education. They also said that charter schools were responsible for taking steps to remediate the lead and recommended schools flush their water systems and use filters. Communication of results Not specified 5 ppb in a 250 ml sample (from filtered fixture) The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) provides information on its website for the public on lead in drinking water. EPA’s website includes, among other documents, a December 2005 brochure for the public and school districts entitled “3Ts for Reducing Lead in Drinking Water in Schools” (see fig.10). In addition to the individuals named above, Diane Raynes (Assistant Director), Scott Spicer (Assistant Director), Jason Palmer (Analyst-in- Charge), Amanda K. Goolden, Rich Johnson, Grant Mallie, Jean McSween, Dae Park, James Rebbe, Sarah M. Sheehan, and Alexandra Squitieri made significant contributions to this report. Also contributing to this report were Susan Aschoff, David Blanding, Mimi Nguyen, Tahra Nichols, Dan C. Royer, Kiki Theodoropoulos, and Kim Yamane. Lead Paint in Housing: HUD Should Strengthen Grant Processes, Compliance Monitoring, and Performance Assessment. GAO-18-394. Washington, D.C.: June 19, 2018. Drinking Water: Additional Data and Statistical Analysis May Enhance EPA’s Oversight of the Lead and Copper Rule. GAO-17-424. Washington, D.C.: September 1, 2017. Environmental Health: EPA Has Made Substantial Progress but Could Improve Processes for Considering Children’s Health. GAO-13-254. Washington, D.C.: August 12, 2013. Lead in Tap Water: CDC Public Health Communications Need Improvement. GAO-11-279. Washington, D.C.: March 14, 2011. Environmental Health: High-level Strategy and Leadership Needed to Continue Progress toward Protecting Children from Environmental Threats. GAO-10-205. Washington, D.C.: January 28, 2010. Drinking Water: EPA Should Strengthen Ongoing Efforts to Ensure That Consumers Are Protected from Lead Contamination. GAO-06-148. Washington, D.C.: January 4, 2006.

 

 Report 2:
The Department of Defense (DOD) obligates more than $300 billion annually to pay for goods and services (including research and development). Most of these acquisitions are governed by numerous statutes and regulations found in Title 10 of the United States Code, the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), and the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS). DOD can also enter into certain transactions without triggering most of the standard acquisition statutes and regulations by using other transaction (OT) authorities. In recent years, Congress has expanded these authorities and DOD is increasingly using OTs for research, prototyping, and production. This report examines (1) how OTs work, (2) why they were established, (3) potential benefits and risks of using OTs, and (4) whether there are data available against which to measure their effectiveness. Appendix A provides a legislative history of DOD's other transaction authorities. On October 4, 1957, the Soviet Union triggered a space race with the United States when it successfully launched Sputnik I into orbit, becoming the first nation to send a man-made satellite into space. Congress, concerned that the United States was falling behind in space, held a series of hearings on an "emergency" effort to respond to the Soviet launch of Sputnik. At the same time, a bill was introduced in the Senate to create an agency with the means to quickly and efficiently develop a national space program. These efforts led to passage of the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 (Space Act, P.L. 85-568) in July 1958, which established the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). In an effort to give the new agency "the necessary freedom to carry on research, development, and exploration ... to insure the full development of these peaceful and defense uses without unnecessary delay," the Space Act granted NASA broad authority to "enter into and perform such contracts, leases, cooperative agreements, or other transactions as may be necessary" to accomplish its mission of research and exploration (emphasis added). Congress extended different variations of OT authorities to other select agencies, granting the authority to DOD in the FY1990 & 1991 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA, P.L. 101-189 ). For an analysis of which non-DOD agencies can use OTs and how the authorities differ by agency, see Appendix B . Other transactions are legally binding contracts that are generally exempt from federal procurement laws and regulations such as the Competition in Contracting Act and the Federal Acquisition Regulation. In contrast, traditional procurement contracts must adhere to the procurement rules set forth in statute and regulation. Generally, DOD can use other transaction authorities for three purposes: 1. conduct research, 2. develop prototypes, or 3. contract for follow-on production of a successful prototype project. DOD's other transaction authorities are found in two sections of law: 10 U . S . C . 2371 grants DOD the authority to use other transactions to carry out basic, applied, and advanced research projects. DOD regulations treat these projects as financial assistance instruments, not as contracts. 10 U . S . C . 2371b permits the use of other transactions to conduct prototype projects and follow-on production. OTs can only be used for prototypes if one of the following applies: at least one nontraditional defense contractor significantly participating in the project; all significant participants are small businesses or nontraditional defense contractors; at least one-third of the total cost of the prototype project is provided by nongovernment participants; or the senior procurement acquisition official provides in writing an explanation of the exceptional circumstances justifying an OT. Follow-on production can only be conducted when the underlying prototype OT was competitively awarded, and the prototype project was successfully completed. 10 U . S . C . 2373 , while generally not considered an o ther t ransaction authority , allows DOD to buy certain items and designs for experimental or test purposes without having to adhere to the procurement laws set forth in Chapter 137 of Title 10. OT authorities grant government officials the flexibility to include, amend, or exclude contract clauses and requirements that are mandatory in traditional procurements (e.g., termination clauses, payments, audit requirements, intellectual property, and contract disputes). OTs can be structured in numerous ways, including a direct relationship between a single government agency and a single provider; joint ventures; partnerships; multiple agencies joining together to fund an agreement encompassing multiple providers; or through a consortium. One common application of OTs is to forge an agreement with a consortium. A consortium is an organized group— it can consist of nonprofits, academic institutions, or contractors— focusing on a specific technology area. Generally, a lead entity coordinates and directs a consortium's activities. Consortia have consisted of a handful to as many as 1,000 members. Consortia can act to facilitate multiparty agreements whereby each member is akin to its own co-prime contractor with the government. In such a case, the government articulates the need or problem it is trying to solve, and the various members of the consortium can submit white papers for consideration. In this scenario, OTs can serve as an efficient way for all members to send unsolicited technology suggestions and solutions to solve a defined challenge. Consortia can also be used to develop an ecosystem of entities working together on a project, whereby members of a consortium pool resources and collaborate with DOD. A number of analysts argue that using consortia in this way gives the federal government a unique ability to leverage and pool the technological expertise and innovation of multiple entities in a particular sector, thereby strengthening and advancing a sector of the industrial base that may have defense applications. Seen like this, OTs can be considered a mechanism to promote defense technology and the defense industrial base, with the potential added benefit of advancing the domestic commercial technology base. Some analysts, however, have argued that many of today's consortia do not operate as collaborative organizations, but function more like managed multiple award task order contracts. These analysts argue that DOD should seek to foster more collaboration in consortia. Some analysts have argued that consortia reduce competition, since only members of the consortium under contract can participate in the project or submit white papers for consideration and funding. Others counter that even when an OT is signed with a single consortium, competition could be increased, since all members of the consortium are notified of the opportunity (expanding the pool of potential competitors aware of the opportunity), and the OT will foster internal competition among consortium members. OTs are not procurement contracts and thus are exempt from numerous procurement statutes and regulations, including the statutes in Chapter 137 of Title 10 ( Procurement Generally ). They are, however, bound by standard contract and other select laws and regulations. Examples of laws that do not apply include the Truth in Negotiations Act, Competition in Contracting Act, Cost Accounting Standards, Contract Disputes Act, and select intellectual property statutes such as the Bayh-Dole Act. A number of these laws are aimed at oversight and protecting the interests of taxpayers. While the Competition in Contracting Act does not apply, 10 U.S.C. 2371b requires that research and prototype projects be competed "to the maximum extent practicable." DOD policy mirrors the statutory language, stating "[C]ompetition is a good thing. It helps keep prices low, quality high, and gives the government leverage in negotiations." To the extent that OTs induce nontraditional contractors to work with DOD, OTs can be viewed as promoting competition among (and within) entities that would not normally compete for DOD contracts. However, the lack of explicitly defined competition requirements could result in less competition for certain OTs. OTs are not free from all legislative and regulatory requirements. Generally, statutes and regulations that are not procurement-specific apply, including the Trade Secrets Act, (18 U.S.C. 1905); the Economic Espionage Act (18 U.S.C. 1831-39); elements of the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552); and fiscal and property laws, such as the Anti-deficiency Act (31 U.S.C. 1341); and the Tucker Act (28 U.S.C. 1491). As can be seen by these citations, many of these statutes are not located in the procurement titles of Title 10 or Title 41. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has held that OTs are not procurement contracts, and therefore it will not review protests of such an award or solicitation. However, GAO will review "a timely protest that an agency is improperly using its other transaction authority." OT contracts can be protested to the Court of Federal Claims, although there is debate as to the extent of the court's jurisdiction. The limited protest jurisdiction of GAO is appealing to many government procurement officials. One senior Air Force official reportedly stated that OTs are "just so much faster and so much more attuned to getting something that we want today and not have to spend a couple of years going through a protest, going through this huge process to get something we wanted two years ago." It generally does not take that long to go through a GAO protest. By statute, GAO must issue an opinion on a protest within 100 days of the protest being filed, and 70% of cases are resolved in less than 60 days. While exempt from GAO bid protests, OTs are not exempt from GAO audits. Generally, OTs that include government payments exceeding $5 million are required to include a clause granting GAO the right to examine the records of any related party. However, this requirement has a number of limitations. Used properly, OTs can provide significant benefits to DOD. Along with the potential benefits come certain risks. Some of the potential benefits to OTs highlighted by analysts and officials include providing a mechanism to pool R&D resources with industry to facilitate development of, and obtain "the latest state-of-the-art, dual use technologies"; attracting nontraditional contractors with promising technological capabilities to work with DOD; lowering costs by eliminating requirements associated with the Federal Acquisition Regulations (i.e., costs associated with required reporting and administrative activities) or sharing costs with industry; and "speeding up" the acquisition process. A number of experts argue that OTs provide a unique mechanism for DOD to invest in, and influence the direction of, technology development even when the end result is not directly tied to a military capability. As one observer noted, the real benefit to DOD may be that [t]he R&D has been accomplished and is available to the technical and scientific communities. As a result, a subsequent phase of research can begin or a particular approach can be demonstrated to be of no value. Some argue that OTs have particular import today. Drawing parallels to the space race, these analysts argue that DOD is engaged in a defense technology race. According to the 809 Panel: DoD is now in a period during which the time a particular technology is a dominant force on the battlefield is getting increasingly shorter, disruptive technologies are emerging at a faster pace, and these technologies are more widely dispersed…In a world with rapidly changing technology, time is a valuable resource that must not be taken for granted. It is difficult to predict what capabilities DoD will need 5 to 10 years from now—biotechnology, nanotechnology, artificial intelligence, robotics, or a new technology area not even known today. It also is unclear on what plane the military will conduct warfare—traditional battlefields, space, cyberspace, or some other domain. The current acquisition system lacks the agility needed to adapt to new paradigms. These analysts argue that OTs and similar rapid acquisition authorities are critical for DOD to compete in such a fast-paced global environment where technology and innovation are no longer driven by DOD, but by industry and foreign competitors. In 1960, the United States accounted for 69% of global R&D, with U.S. defense-related R&D alone accounting for more than one-third of global R&D. The federal government funded approximately twice as much R&D as U.S. business. However, from 1960 to 2016, the U.S. share of global R&D fell to 28%, and the federal government's share of total U.S. R&D fell from 65% to 24%, while business's share more than doubled from 33% to 67%. As a result of these global, national, and federal trends, federal defense R&D's share of total global R&D fell to 3.7% in 2016. Given the shift in the global R&D landscape, and the diminishing influence of DOD as a market mover, analysts suggest that the current procurement system is overburdened by regulations and bureaucratic processes that slow the system, increase costs, and dissuade companies from doing business with DOD. In contrast, OTs are viewed as faster, attracting companies that would otherwise forgo working with DOD and promoting broader investment in critical defense capabilities. As one analyst wrote: OTAs are currently the only way to remove the barriers necessary to get these nontraditional sources of innovation to do business with the military. Properly constructed, OTAs help speed up the process, respect a company's IP through negotiation rather than regulatory fiat, and result in contracting under commercial terms and conditions. Congress also appears to have shifted its view on appropriate use of other transactions. In the FY1999 conference report, Congress stated that [OT] authority should only be used in the exceptional cases where it can be clearly demonstrated that a normal contract or grant will not allow sufficient access to affordable technologies. By comparison, in the FY2018 NDAA, Congress expanded OT authorities and stated the following: In the execution of science and technology and prototyping programs, the Secretary of Defense shall establish a preference, to be applied in circumstances determined appropriate by the Secretary, for using transactions other than contracts, cooperative agreements, and grants. Along with the potential benefits come potential risks, including that of diminished oversight and exemption from laws and regulations designed to protect government and taxpayer interests. Some analysts, while acknowledging the important role of OTs, raise concerns over transparency and how these agreements are being employed. As one industry official stated, OTs are a contracting method, not a substitute for good acquisition practices. Discussing a particular OT for cloud services that was protested and ultimately cancelled by DOD, one observer argued The cloud contract provides a teachable moment for procurement reform-minded officials in the Pentagon and Capitol Hill. The problem was not with the OTA mechanism, which remains an essential element of reforming Pentagon procurement. Rather, the problem was with a lack of transparency with how the mechanism was employed. Scott Amey, general counsel of the Project on Government Oversight, cautioned We have to seriously consider how we are using [OTs]; whether we are using them as intended, whether we are getting the goods and services that we really want and need, whether we are getting them at the best cost and process, and we are using this procurement vehicle as a way to just circumvent the rules and have contractors not have the administration and oversight they need to hold them accountable. I'm just afraid this is going to result in a lot of waste, fraud, and abuse in the future. Congress has expressed repeated concerns that OTs could be used to circumvent congressional intent. In the FY1999 NDAA, the committees emphasized that the authority should only be used in a limited manner. The conference report stated the following: The conferees are especially concerned that such authority not be used to circumvent the appropriate management controls in the standard acquisition and budgeting process. Congress echoed a similar concern in the FY2019 NDAA. According to the House report: The committee also urges the Department to reiterate through established guidelines that OTA is not a means for circumventing appropriate use of the Federal Acquisition Regulations, and that full and open competition should be used to the maximum extent possible to maintain a sense of integrity, fairness, and credibility in the Federal Procurement process. Other transactions are also exempt from many of the socioeconomic policies put in place by Congress to promote public policies, including some Buy America requirements. Some analysts have raised concerns that OTs are a way to circumvent many of the public policies enshrined in the acquisition process. A number of analysts and officials have raised concerns that if DOD uses OTs in ways not intended by Congress—or is perceived to abuse the authority—Congress could clamp down on the authority. Under Secretary of the Army Ryan McCarthy reportedly stated that the military department is "trying to be very judicious about this authority so we don't lose it." Some analysts argue that Congress is already clamping down on the use of OTs. These analysts point to language in the FY2019 NDAA and FY2019 appropriations legislation ( P.L. 115-245 ) requiring additional reporting and notification (see Appendix A ). Such notification and reporting requirements, however, are not new; when Congress expanded OT authorities in the past, reporting and notification requirements were commonly included. The reporting requirements may also be a result of congressional frustration with a lack of transparency and data on how DOD uses OTs. DOD lacks authoritative data that can be used to assess OT effectiveness and better understand broader trends associated with these agreements. The most frequently cited source for such data is the Federal Procurement Data System-Next Generation (FPDS-NG), which is the primary source for tracking data on contract obligations, including other transactions for prototypes and follow-on production. FPDS-NG is configured to track data on cost-sharing, other transaction award type, and prevalence of nontraditional contractors. Obligations connected to OTs for research are tracked by the Defense Assistance Awards Data System, which is primarily used to track grants and cooperative agreements. This bifurcation of how OT data are tracked makes it more difficult to get a consolidated view of OT data. According to DOD, all OT data will be reported through FPDS-NG starting in late 2019. The procurement data in FPDS-NG are not fully reliable. There are quality issues relating to accuracy, completeness, and timeliness of data. CRS reviewed FPDS-NG data for prototype OT agreements signed or modified between FY2015 and FY2017 and found similar data inconsistencies. DOD officials acknowledge that they do not have sufficiently reliable data upon which to conduct analysis on the use of OTs and are taking steps to try to improve the data. The analyses below reflect CRS's effort to analyze DOD's use of other transaction authority based on the best available data. According to FPDS-NG, in FY2017, DOD obligated $2.1 billion—and received $360 million in cost-share contributions—on prototype other transaction agreements, representing less than 1% of DOD's total FY2017 contract obligations (approximately $320 billion). Despite the small percentage of obligations, OTs are growing quickly and are expected to continue to grow at a rapid pace. From FY2013 to FY2017, the number of new prototype agreements increased from 12 to 94, an increase of over 650% (see Table 1 ). DOD's Defense Innovation Unit (DIU, formerly known as the Defense Innovation Unit Experimental, or DIUx) was involved with approximately half of the prototype agreements executed in 2017. DOD officials have stated their intent to further increase the department's use of OTs. Officials say that this increase is due to Congress expanding the statutory authority. The Army executed more than 66% of the prototype OT agreements between FY2013 and FY2017, often on behalf of other military departments and components (see Table 2 ). Army Contracting Command-New Jersey at Picatinny Arsenal executes many of these agreements. DIU currently uses Picatinny Arsenal to execute all of its other transaction agreements. A number of private sector companies do not pursue federal government contracts because they are unwilling to forfeit intellectual property rights or adhere to some of the procurement regulations. One of the goals of OTs is to expand the defense marketplace by creating a mechanism for access to technologies and services of companies that would not otherwise work with DOD, particularly startups and companies developing innovative technology. As one industry representative stated: Because they are "outside" the FAR, OT agreements do not require such cumbersome oversight and audit requirements such as those imposed by the Truth in Negotiations Act, cost and pricing data or an expensive Cost Accounting System (CAS) qualified financial system. CAS compliant financial systems can cost a company millions of dollars to implement and maintain — and are therefore a significant, if not potentially fatal, barrier to government market entry for startups and small, innovative companies. These requirements tend to reinforce the "legacy advantage" of large traditional contractors, who can afford to hire and staff these requirements with large staffs of accountants and lawyers. A number of nontraditional companies told CRS that they are more likely to work with DOD because of the department's other transaction authorities. Despite these claims, some observers question whether OTs are effectively bringing nontraditional contractors into the defense marketplace. A DOD Inspector General report examining other transactions from FY1994 to FY2001 found that OTs did not attract significant numbers of nontraditional defense contractors to do business with DOD. The report found that of the 209 prototype agreements examined, traditional defense contractors received 95% of the $5.7 billion in funds awarded. A recent analysis of FPDS-NG data by Federal News Network had similar findings. According to the report, from FY2015 to FY2017, while nontraditional defense contractors were awarded most of the new OTs (66% vs. 33% for traditional defense contractors), the dollar value of the OTs favored traditional contractors ($20.8 billion vs. $7.4 billion for nontraditional contractors). Some observers have questioned the accuracy of the data published by Federal News Network. According to Charlie McBride, president of Consortium Management Group (which manages two consortia working with DOD through OTs), 88% of the total dollar value of awards to CMG Group has gone to nontraditional prime contractors, and nontraditional entities have participated in the remaining 12%. This debate highlights the lack of authoritative data on OTs. The currently available data may not accurately reflect the extent to which nontraditional contractors are engaged in OT agreements. FPDS-NG does not collect data regarding subcontractors or consortia composition, making it difficult to determine the nature and extent to which nontraditional defense contractors and entities may be working under OT agreements with DOD directly or as subcontractors. When Congress extended OT authority to DOD, it authorized inserting a clause requiring a person or entity to make payments to DOD as a condition of receiving support under the agreement. Such funds were to be merged into an account dedicated to support DARPA advanced research projects. The intent of this provision was to permit DARPA to "recoup the fruits of such arrangements, when there is a 'dual use' potential for commercial application" and reinvest the funds to develop other technologies. In addition to the recoupment authority, DOD can share costs with other parties under an OT. Using this approach, the amount of each party's share is negotiated and incorporated into the agreement. Congress believed that OTs and cooperative agreements were ideal vehicles for promoting DOD-industry collaboration in developing dual-use technologies. For example, the FY1992 & 1993 NDAA ( P.L. 102-190 ) authorized DOD to enter into cooperative and other transaction agreements to develop critical dual-use technologies as set forth in the Defense Critical Technologies Plan. According to the Senate report: ... the United States tends to underinvest in dual-use technologies. National security requirements alone often do not justify major DOD support, and market prospects alone often appear to be too long-term or high risk to justify US industry carrying the entire development burden.... The committee encourages use of cooperative agreements and other transactions in lieu of grants or contracts.... The provision would require that at least 50 percent of funding over the life of a partnership derive from non-federal sources but would allow for a smaller industry share at the start. In the 1990s, some DARPA OTs required participants to share costs because the types of work completed generally involved R&D that was mutually beneficial to government needs and industry commercial goals. In certain instances, present-day OTs have cost-sharing requirements that foster collaborative research. Some analysts believe that DOD is not always realizing all the benefits that OTs have to offer, such as sufficiently leveraging private capital or forming true consortia of multiple parties pooling resources. Some of these analysts believe that DOD does not sufficiently use consortia to leverage private investment through the pursuit of collaborative, mutually beneficial, dual-use technologies. Some observers argue that as the legislation on OTs has evolved, the cost-sharing provision for prototype projects has come to create an unfair playing field biased against traditional defense contractors. For prototype projects, traditional contractors generally are required to assume one-third of costs whereas nontraditional defense contractors and small businesses generally do not have to cost share. From a fairness perspective, these observers argue that traditional contractors should not have a mandatory cost share. These observers also point out that some nontraditional defense contractors are companies with billions of dollars of revenue that should not be granted a competitive cost advantage. Putting traditional defense contractors at a competitive disadvantage could deny DOD access to those companies with the most experience working on defense products, potentially depriving the military of access to leading defense-related research and technology. Other observers argue that the cost share as currently structured is appropriate: traditional defense contractors hold a significant competitive edge in their understanding of, and have the systems in place to manage, traditional contracts. In contrast, nontraditional and small businesses, which generally cannot compete with the traditional defense contractors, need the exemption from the cost-share requirement to be able to work with DOD. These observers also argue that traditional contractors are awarded the majority of dollars obligated to OTs, proving how difficult it is for nontraditional suppliers to break into the defense marketplace. Additionally, traditional contractors could avoid the cost-sharing requirement by teaming with a nontraditional contractor. DOD has not effectively tracked data on cost sharing. A 2017 report to Congress indicated that in FY2016 DOD obligated $1 billion for prototype agreements and received $68 million in cost-share contributions. A CRS review found numerous concerns with the data underlying the report, and with DOD's analytical conclusions. See Appendix C for further discussion. A number of analysts and industry officials have raised concerns that DOD could use OTs to avoid competitions, as OTs are exempt from the Competition in Contracting Act. According to statute, follow-on production using other transaction authority can only be awarded if the underlying R&D agreement was competed. In addition, 10 U.S.C. 2371b states that "to the maximum extent practicable" OTs must be competed. Determining whether OTs are being used to circumvent competition requires a two-step analysis: 1. Are OTs competed less often that traditional contracts? 2. Is there a benefit to these OTs being competed? Available FPDS-NG data suggest that DOD is broadly complying with 10 U.S.C. 2371b's competition mandate. Between FY2013 and FY2017, approximately 89% of all new OT prototype agreements were competed in some fashion. Many observers and analysts believe that OT agreements can be executed substantially faster, sometimes in a matter of weeks, compared to the months or years it typically takes to execute traditional contracts. Based in part on this belief, some officials and analysts are touting OTs as a new model for conducting acquisitions and the answer to many of the problems in defense acquisition. These analysts argue that in a world of increasingly fast technology development, DOD acquisitions must go faster or risk being left behind. Many acquisition professionals argue that OT contracts are not inherently faster than traditional contracting; instead, they are executed faster because they are not encumbered by the reviews, protests, and bureaucratic layers that have been overlaid on traditional contracting. According to these officials, OTs take just as long as traditional contracts if the same execution and oversight processes are applied. And because all terms are negotiable, complex negotiations could make OTs take longer to execute than traditional contracts that have required, nonnegotiable conditions. The Other Transactions Guide states The OT award process will not always be faster than the traditional procurement processes and sometimes can be as long or longer. The speed of award is tied to many factors, many of which are internal to the organization. DOD has not tracked data on the relative time it takes to execute OTs vs. traditional contracts, making it impossible to objectively assess these claims. Analysts and officials generally agree that the workforce plays a critical role in determining the success or failure of an acquisition. Because there are fewer predefined requirements, OTs can be more difficult to negotiate than traditional contracts, putting DOD at greater risk of not getting what it wants at a reasonable price. The complexity and difficulty of negotiations is particularly high when there are intellectual property/patent rights issues, as is the case with most OTs. Given these challenges, OTs often require more experienced and capable government representatives to ensure implementation of agreements that are in the government's best interest. Some analysts question the extent to which the workforce is sufficiently trained and equipped to negotiate OTs. In response to this concern, in the FY2018 NDAA, Congress required workforce education and training for OTs, and required DOD to establish a cadre of intellectual property experts to advise, assist, and provide resources to program offices that are developing intellectual property strategies for contracts and agreements (see Appendix A ). DOD officials acknowledge that more training and education is required. Given the complexity of OTs and the limited extent to which they are used, some analysts and industry officials suggested that there may be a benefit to establishing a centralized office within DOD responsible for executing or overseeing all other transaction agreements. Such a structure could help ensure that those members of the acquisition workforce engaged in other transactions are sufficiently experienced, trained, and qualified. A number of analysts have argued that DOD should take steps to improve its use of OTs. Many of these analysts have suggested that data are not consistently and accurately tracked, regulations and guidance on when and how to use OTs are vague or insufficient, and the workforce is not sufficiently prepared to effectively use OTs. A number of officials have acknowledged these shortcomings and DOD is reportedly taking steps to address them. For example, in December 2018, DOD issued an updated Other Transactions Guide , a comprehensive guide containing best practices, case studies, and a clarification of myths related to other transaction authorities. In addition, Defense Acquisition University developed new course materials addressing OTs and is working to expand its offerings of relevant training and classes. However, numerous acquisition officials question whether it is possible, or even desirable, to try to quickly implement training aimed at preparing the thousands of DOD acquisition officials to execute OTs. Some of these officials have suggested it might be appropriate to only allow a limited and vetted number of acquisition professionals to be OT agreements officers. Some argue that OTs are just one "tool in the tool box," appropriate for only specific types of contracts, and should not be used to avoid the statutory and regulatory framework or to try to accelerate the process just for the sake of speed. Others have suggested that OTs should be used to cut through bureaucracy, speed up the acquisition process, avoid regulations and bid protests, and perhaps eventually supplant the regular FAR-based contracting process. Given the benefits and risks associated with OTs, questions for Congress include the following: 1. To what extent and in what circumstances do the potential benefits of OTs in terms of cost, schedule, and added capabilities outweigh concerns over potential fraud, waste, abuse, diminished oversight, and other public policy objectives? 2. Should OT authorities be extended further, curtailed, or maintained? The FY2019 NDAA required DOD to submit a report annually through 2021, summarizing DOD's use of OTs, including organizations involved; number of transactions; amounts of payments; and purpose, description, and status of projects. The NDAA also required the Defense Innovation Unit to submit a report to Congress, to include the number of traditional and nontraditional defense contractors with DOD contracts or other transactions resulting directly from the unit's initiatives. The conference report for the FY2019 defense appropriations bill included language expressing the conferees' "[concern] with the lack of transparency surrounding the employment of OTA, particularly for follow-on production." The conferees directed DOD to provide quarterly reports to the House and Senate appropriations committees listing each active OT, and to include additional information for each agreement. The conferees also directed GAO to review DOD's use of OTs to determine whether the "employment of this authority conforms to applicable statutes and guidelines, to include the identification of any potential conflicts." GAO was also required to report on the extent to which OTs have been used since FY2016. The multitude of reporting requirements, and the questionable reliability of the available data, raise a number of questions that Congress may wish to explore, such as the following: 1. To what extent, if any, should the current reporting requirements be consolidated to create a more streamlined and consistent flow of information to Congress? 2. What specific data does Congress need in these reports to effectively conduct oversight? For example, what percentage of research OTs result in prototype projects and follow-on production? 3. To what extent are the data sufficiently reliable, and will such data be easily retrievable in the future, to allow Congress to conduct effective, timely, and ongoing oversight? If the data are not sufficiently reliable or accessible in the future, what other data collection and tracking methods could Congress mandate to ensure ongoing access to reliable data? 4. How are OTs being used? Where and when in the acquisition lifecycle is the authority being used? To what extent is the requirements process being circumvented when DOD awards an OT follow-on production contract for a major system? One analyst suggested that "no efficiency is lost if only the most able personnel are authorized to procure and administer" OT agreements and further argued that expanding the use of OTs would increase the training costs by expanding the number of people who can "weave complex agreements in a relatively unstructured environment." Congress may consider whether DOD should establish an acquisition innovation lab or center of excellence responsible for overseeing, executing, and approving all OTs across the department. Such a lab or center could be staffed and supported by a cadre of professionals with experience across the acquisition lifecycle who have a willingness and ability to embrace new ideas and rethink existing practices. Alternatively, such labs or centers could be established in the military departments. Having centers in each organization could allow for consideration of the different missions and business approaches of the departments and help educate the workforce on a more systematic basis. Proponents argue that such an office would help ensure that only experienced and capable officials, with the appropriate training, use OT authorities. Such an office could also help protect against layering internal DOD policies and bureaucracies onto OTs by placing OTs outside of the traditional bureaucratic acquisition process. Proponents could further argue that such an office could better propagate best practices and ensure that OTs are used appropriately and are consistent with guidance and legislation. Having a single office responsible for executing or approving all OTs could also help ensure more timely and accurate information, giving Congress more visibility into DOD's use of other transaction authorities. To the extent that a single, high-level official is responsible for managing and overseeing all OTs, Congress might wish to consider repealing or modifying existing statutory approval requirements. If such an office was able to provide timely and accurate information, Congress might also consider some of the current reporting requirements unnecessary, and may choose to repeal some of the reporting requirements. Opponents of such a proposal argue that centralizing OTs would have the opposite effect, increasing bureaucracy by adding yet another office within DOD. Opponents also argue that such an office could make it more time-consuming to get a project underway and may discourage program offices from attempting or suggesting OTs. Some also argue that a single office may not have the resources to execute and approve agreements in a timely manner, and would inhibit spreading expertise on how to execute OT agreements more broadly across the acquisition workforce. Even proponents who might in theory support establishing such an office could raise significant concerns regarding how such an office would function in practice. A number of alternative options could be pursued to address concerns raised by opponents of establishing a centralized office. Some of these alternative options include the following: Granting such an office primary, but not exclusive, authority to execute OTs. For example, agreement officers specifically authorized to do so could execute OTs, with the centralized office conducting a peer review. Under this construct, the office could also be charged with providing information and expertise/consulting services on the use of OTs to program offices contemplating using the authorities. Establishing centers within each military department, with a designated office in OSD serving a coordinating function (with nondelegable approval authority residing in the military department office designated for OTs). Creating the office as a pilot program for three years, to help DOD manage OTs until such time as the workforce becomes more experienced and proficient in using these agreements. Appendix A. Legislative History Other transaction authority first appeared in the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958. Since then, Congress has extended OT authorities to 11 federal agencies and a number of other federal offices (see Appendix B for information on other federal entities with similar authorities). This appendix traces the legislative history of OT authorities and select related statutes applicable to DOD. To read the full text of the three statutory provisions related to OTs (10 U.S.C. 2371, 2371b, and 2373), see Appendix D . National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 (P.L. 85-568) Creation of Other Transaction Authority On July 29, 1958 President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed into law the National Aeronautics and Space Act (P.L. 85-568), which established the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). The purpose of the act included the expansion of human knowledge, preservation of the role of the United States as a leader in space science and technology, and pursuing the most effective utilization of the scientific and engineering resources of the United States. Section 203(b)(5) of the Space Act provided NASA the authority (emphasis added) to enter into and perform such contracts, leases, cooperative agreements, or other transactions as may be necessary in the conduct of its work and on such terms as it may deem appropriate, with any instrumentality of the United States ... or with any person, firm, association, corporation, or educational institution. To the maximum extent practicable and consistent with the accomplishments of the purpose of this Act, such contracts, leases, agreements, and other transactions shall be allocated by the Administrator in a manner which will enable small-business concerns to participate equitably and proportionately in the conduct of the work of the Administration. Intellectual Property Rights The Space Act specifically addressed NASA's "property rights in inventions." Section 305 stated that any invention made in the performance of any work under any contract is the exclusive property of the United States "unless the Administrator waives all or any part of the rights." This was true even when the person who created the invention "was not employed or assigned to perform research, development, or exploratory work, but the invention is nevertheless related to the contract" and was made during working hours, or with a contribution of the government. The act granted the Administrator wide latitude to "waive all or any part of the rights of the United States under this section" if doing so was deemed to be in the best interests of the United States. When such rights were waived, NASA retained an irrevocable, nonexclusive, nontransferable royalty-free license by or on behalf of the United States. National Defense Authorization Act for FY1990 & FY1991 ( P.L. 101-189 ) The FY1990 & FY1991 NDAA granted DARPA temporary authority to enter into "cooperative agreements and other transactions" for the purpose of conducting advanced research projects. The statute clarified that OTs should only be used when "the use of standard contracts or grants is not feasible or appropriate." Congress restricted funding for OTs and cooperative agreements to $25 million of appropriated funds for FY1990 and FY1991, and set the authority to expire on September 30, 1991. Cost Sharing The FY1990 & FY1991 NDAA permitted OTs (or cooperative agreements) to include a clause requiring a person or entity to make payments to DOD as a condition of receiving support under the agreement. Such funds were to be merged into an account dedicated to supporting DARPA advanced research projects using cooperative agreements and other transactions. The act required, to the extent practicable, that funds provided by the government not exceed the total amount provided by the other parties to the project. According to the Senate report, one of the intents of the cost-sharing provision was to permit DARPA to "recoup the fruits of such arrangements, when there is a 'dual use' potential for commercial application" and to reinvest the funds to develop other technologies. Reporting Requirements The FY1990 & FY1991 NDAA required DOD to submit an annual report on the use of OTs and cooperative agreements, to include a description of each agreement and the technologies involved, the potential military and commercial utility of the technology, the reasons a contract or grant was not feasible to support the research, and the amount of payments, if any, received by the federal government under the agreement. National Defense Authorization Act for FY1991 ( P.L. 101-510 ) Section 244 increased the funds authorized for cooperative agreements and OTs from $25 million to $50 million. However, no such funding was appropriated. Reporting and Notification Requirements The conference report required DOD to submit to Congress a report listing the cooperative agreements and consortia intended to be used in FY1991-1992. The conference report also required DOD to provide the armed services and appropriations committees 30 days' notice prior to DOD signing a cooperative agreement or agreement with a consortia under OT authority. The Senate report focused on consortia as a method to pool resources, share research among numerous participants, and promote critical dual-use technology. Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 1992 ( P.L. 102-172 ) Limitations on the Use of OTs Section 8113A of P.L. 102-172 placed temporary limitations on the use of agreements undertaken pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 2371: Section 8113A limited the use of OTs and cooperative agreements exclusively to DARPA (to the exclusion of the rest of DOD) for FY1992. Section 8113A limited DARPA to obligating or expending no more than $37.5 million in FY1992 for cooperative agreements or OTs undertaken pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 2371. Section 8113A further established that no more than $75 million could be obligated or expended by DARPA in FY1992 for DOD dual-use critical technology partnerships. National Defense Authorization Act for FY1992 & FY1993 ( P.L. 102-190 ) Expanded Authority Section 826 extended other transaction authority to the military departments, and established separate fund accounts in each department for cost sharing. Section 826 also repealed the sunset for cooperative agreements and OTs, making the authorities permanent. Section 821 authorized DOD to enter into cooperative and other transaction agreements to develop critical dual-use technologies as set forth in the Defense Critical Technologies Plan. According to the Senate report ... the United States tends to underinvest in dual-use technologies. National security requirements alone often do not justify major DOD support, and market prospects alone often appear to be too long-term or high risk to justify US industry carrying the entire development burden.... The committee encourages use of cooperative agreements and other transactions in lieu of grants or contracts.... The provision would require that at least 50 percent of funding over the life of a partnership derive from non-federal sources but would allow for a smaller industry share at the start. The conference report stated that the partnerships should focus on programs that fit into the security needs within DARPA. The conference report also stated that OTs are appropriate for those cases where the "regulations applicable to the allocation of patent and data rights under the procurement statutes may not be appropriate to partnership arrangements in certain cases." National Defense Authorization Act for FY1993 ( P.L. 102-484 ) Cost Sharing Section 4221 established 10 U.S.C. 2511, which required DOD to establish cooperative arrangements with industry, educational institutions, federal labs, and other entities, to pursue research, development, and application of dual-use technologies. The section authorized DOD to use grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, or OTs to create these partnerships, and that the Federal government should not contribute more than 50% of the costs related to projects under this authority. National Defense Authorization Act for FY1994 ( P.L. 103-160 ) Expanded Authority Section 827 established 10 U.S.C. 2358, which gave the Secretary of Defense and the Secretaries of the military departments the authority to conduct basic, advanced, and applied research through the use of contracts, cooperative agreements, grants, and OTs. Previously, OTs were only authorized for advanced research. Prototype Authorities Section 845 granted DARPA the authority to use OTs for prototype projects directly related to weapons or weapon systems proposed to be acquired by DOD. Section 845 required that "to the maximum extent practicable," prototypes be competitively awarded. This authority was set to terminate after three years. Section 845 remained as a note to 10 U.S.C. 2371 until separately codified as 10 U.S.C. 2371b in the FY2016 NDAA ( P.L. 114-92 ). Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 ( P.L. 103-355 ) Section 1301 redesignated the language in 10 U.S.C. 2358 (granting the authority to use OTs) to 10 U.S.C. 2371. Reporting Requirements Section 1301 also required DOD to submit an annual report to the armed services committees, to include a general description of the other transactions, including the technologies involved in the research, the potential military and, if any, commercial utility of such technologies, the reasons for not using a contract or grant to provide support for such research, and the amount of payments, if any, received during the fiscal year pursuant to a clause in the other transactions and to what accounts such payments were credited. National Defense Authorization Act for FY1997 ( P.L. 104-201 ) Section 203 required that a senior DOD official be designated in OSD, and that the officials' sole responsibility be developing policy related to, and ensuring implementation of, DOD's dual-use technology program. This section authorized DOD to use OTs (as well as contracts, cooperative agreements, and grants) for dual-use projects only if the project "is entered into through the use of competitive procedures." Section 743 granted DOD the authority to use OTs to conduct research on Gulf War Syndrome, to determine its relationship to possible exposures of members of the Armed Forces to chemical warfare agents and hazardous materials, and the use of inoculations and new drugs. Expanded Prototype Authorities Section 804 amended Section 845 of the FY1994 NDAA by extending to the military departments and officials designated by the Secretary of Defense, the authority to use OTs for certain prototype projects. This authority, originally granted solely to DARPA and set to expire after three years, was given a new termination date of September 30, 1999. Reporting Requirements Section 267 modified elements of the annual report to the armed services committees. National Defense Authorization Act for FY1998 ( P.L. 105-85 ) Section 832 amended 10 U.S.C. 2371 by clarifying that certain information submitted to DOD (i.e. a proposal, business plan, technical information) be protected from disclosure pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552 for a period of five years. Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for FY1999 ( P.L. 105-261 ) Section 241 extended the sunset day for the authority to use OTs for prototypes from September 30, 1999, to September 30, 2001. Section 817 amended Section 2371 of Title 10, United States Code, clarifying that information submitted by outside parties in cooperative agreements for basic, applied, and advanced research is protected from disclosure under Section 552 of Title 5, United States Code. Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 1999 ( P.L. 105-262 ) While the enacted FY1999 defense appropriations bill ( P.L. 105-262 ) did not include legislative language addressing OTs, H.Rept. 105-591 , which accompanied the House-reported version of H.R. 4103 , included language expressing the House Appropriations Committee's "serious reservations" regarding the Air Force's then-proposed use of an OT agreement—instead of a contract— to develop the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) program. The committee noted that "under [OTs] traditional safeguards which protect the government's interest in large acquisition programs are largely absent," and required the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (now the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment) and the DOD Inspector General to certify to the congressional defense committees that the use of an OT was appropriate for the EELV program, and that "adequate safeguards exist[ed] to protect the government's interest and monitor program performance." National Defense Authorization Act for FY2000 ( P.L. 106-65 ) Section 801 required that for prototypes using OT authorities, DOD ensure that GAO, under its audit authority, have access to records relating to other transaction prototype agreements exceeding $5 million. Section 801 allowed for a waiver to GAO access and exempted entities that over the last year have not entered into an agreement with DOD that provided for audit access by a government entity. According to the Senate report: Senior DOD officials have sought legislation to extend other transaction authority to production contracts. Under current authority, there is some debate about whether GAO has audit access to other transactions. As the size, costs, and complexity of programs being funded using other transactions increases, the committee wants to ensure that the GAO has audit access in relation to the higher levels of spending and added risks. Reporting Requirements The Senate report also addressed reporting requirements and congressional intent to review the use of OTs. The report stated the following: The committee is assessing the utility of other transaction prototype authority. The statement of managers accompanying the Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act of 1999 directed the Secretary of Defense to report on the use of this authority to the congressional defense committees, no later than March 1, 1999. In addition, both the Department of Defense Inspector General and the General Accounting Office are reviewing the use of other transaction prototype authority and will report to Congress in the coming year. The committee is interested in the extent that new commercial firms are entering the DOD marketplace through the use of other transaction authority, as well as the degree of cost sharing between the government and non-federal government parties. The committee is also interested in any lessons learned from the broad exemptions to federal law provided by other transaction authority. For example, other transactions are exempt from the Competition in Contracting Act, Truth in Negotiations Act, Contract Disputes Act, Antikickback Act of 1986, Procurement Integrity Act, Service Contract Act, Buy American Act, and chapter 137 of title 10, United States Code. Questions have been raised about whether the government's interest is adequately protected in the absence of the applicability of these statutes. Conversely, advocates of the view that the government should take advantage of the flexibility of other transactions have championed proposals to extend other transaction authority to production. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a new report that updates information in the March 1999 report on the use of other transaction prototype authority to the congressional defense committees by February 1, 2000. National Defense Authorization Act for FY2001 ( P.L. 106-398 ) Limitations on the Use of OTs Section 803 limited the use of OTs for prototype projects to only those circumstances when at least one nontraditional defense contractor significantly participates in the project, one-third of the total cost of the project is paid out of funds provided by parties to the transaction other than the federal government, or the senior procurement executive determines in writing that exceptional circumstances justify use of an OT. Nontraditional defense contractor was defined as an entity that for a period of one year has not entered into or performed "any contract that is subject to full coverage under the cost accounting standards" or "any other contract in excess of $500,000 to carry out prototype projects or to perform basic, applied, or advanced research projects for a Federal agency, that is subject to the Federal Acquisition Regulation.'' Section 803 also extended the authority to use OTs for prototypes from September 30, 2001, to September 30, 2004. According to the Senate report, the intent of using OTs for prototypes is to attract companies that typically do not do business with the Department of Defense and encourage cost sharing and experimentation in potentially more efficient ways of doing business with traditional defense contractors. Other transaction authority is an important acquisition tool that can facilitate the incorporation of commercial technology into military weapon systems. In an environment where, in many areas, commercial technology is now more advanced than defense technology, it is imperative that the Department continue to have the flexibility to use innovative contractual instruments that provide access to this technology. There are, however, improvements that can be made in managing and overseeing these contractual arrangements. Section 804 clarified the extent of GAO's access to records in instances where the party in question has only done business with the government in the preceding year through an OT or cooperative agreement. National Defense Authorization Act for FY2002 ( P.L. 107-107 ) Expanded Authority—Follow-on Production Section 822 of the FY2002 NDAA granted DOD the authority to award a follow-on production contract for prototype projects when at least one-third of the total cost of the prototype project is to be paid out of funds provided by non-federal government sources. Under this authority, such a follow-on contract could be awarded without competition if the prototype project was successfully completed, the number of units in the production contract does not exceed the number of units specified in the underlying prototype agreement, and the price for each unit does not exceed the price specified in the underlying transaction. Department of Defense and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Recovery from and Response to Terrorist Attacks on the United States Act, 2002 ( P.L. 107-117 ) Establishment of Army Venture Capital Initiative (AVCI) Section 8150 designated $25 million of the FY2002 funds made available for Army Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E) to be made available to the Secretary of the Army for the purpose of funding a venture capital investment corporation established pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 2371. A 2014 RAND report stated that OT authorities were used only to form the AVCI, and were not used to acquire products or services: "While OT authorities were used to form [AVCI] itself, any volume of the Army's purchase of products and services from [AVCI] companies is conducted under the FAR." National Defense Authorization Act for FY2004 ( P.L. 108-136 ) Expanded Authority Section 847 of the FY2004 NDAA extended the authority to use an OT for developing prototypes to improve weapons or weapon systems currently in use by the Armed Forces. Previously, such authority was restricted to prototypes "directly relevant to weapons or weapon systems proposed to be acquired or developed" by DOD. Section 847 also established a pilot program for transitioning prototypes to follow-on contracts for production for nontraditional defense contractors. Under the pilot program, such a follow-on contract could be treated as a commercial item or an item developed with both federal and private sector funds (for purposes of negotiating intellectual property rights). The pilot program was restricted to contracts with nontraditional defense contractors, where the value of the contract does not exceed $50 million (approximately $70 million in FY2018 dollars), and that are firm-fixed price or fixed price with economic adjustment. The pilot program was set to sunset September 30, 2008. Section 1441 authorized any agency that engages in basic, applied, or advanced research and development projects that facilitated defense against or recovery from terrorism or nuclear, biological, chemical, or radiological attack to exercise the same general authority given to DOD as found in 10 U.S.C. 2371 (including for prototype projects). Reporting Requirements Section 1031 sunset the annual reporting requirement for OT after the report covering FY2006 was submitted. National Defense Authorization Act for FY2006 ( P.L. 109-163 ) Restricted Authority and Notification Requirements Section 212 of the FY2006 NDAA directed the Army to procure the Future Combat System using contract procedures set forth in part 15 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation, in lieu of an OT. Section 823 extended ethics requirements to OT prototype authority and required the congressional defense committees be notified in writing at least 30 days before such authority is exercised. Certification Requirements Section 823 also amended Section 845 of the FY1994 NDAA, requiring a written determination by a senior procurement executive for other transaction prototype projects estimated between $20 million and $100 million, and for a written determination by the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics for prototype projects that exceed $100 million. According to the Senate report: Section 845 was intended to be used for limited prototype projects, particularly those in which the Department seeks to engage nontraditional defense contractors that may be averse to the requirements imposed by a standard Department procurement contract. For this reason, the statement of managers accompanying the Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (Public Law 105–261) states: The conferees continue to believe that the section 845 authority should only be used in the exceptional cases where it can be clearly demonstrated that a normal contract or grant will not allow sufficient access to affordable technologies. The conferees are especially concerned that such authority not be used to circumvent the appropriate management controls in the standard acquisition and budgeting process. …. The committee does not believe that the $20.9 billion agreement entered between the Army and the Lead Systems Integrator for the FCS program is consistent with the language and intent of section 845 authority. Section 845 authority is intended to be used for limited prototype projects, particularly those in which the Department of Defense seeks to engage nontraditional defense contractors that may be averse to the requirements imposed by a standard Department contract. Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2007 ( H.R. 5631 ) Reporting Requirement The FY2007 defense appropriations bill ( P.L. 109-289 ) did not include language addressing OTs. The conference report ( H.Rept. 109-676 ) included language expressing the conferees' "[concern] with the continued use of OTA contracts by the Missile Defense Agency," as such contracts "lack the customary safeguards found under FAR-based contracts for organizational conflict of interest, truth in negotiations and submission of cost and pricing data." The conferees "strongly encourage[d]" the Missile Defense Agency to convert "large development and procurement contracts using OTA to FAR-based contracts," and directed the Missile Defense Agency to submit a report to the congressional defense committees on the use of OTs, to include the number, value, and justification for the use of such agreements. National Defense Authorization Act for FY2008 ( P.L. 110-181 ) Section 823 extended the authority for prototype projects for five more years, from September 30, 2008, to September 30, 2013. National Defense Authorization Act for FY2009 ( P.L. 110-417 ) Section 822 required DOD to issue guidance on rights in technical data under non-FAR agreements, including OTs. Section 822 also required that appropriate provisions relating to rights in technical data be included in non-FAR agreements, consistent with policy guidance. This requirements is in statute at 10 U.S.C. 2320 note. Section 824 expanded the scope of the pilot program for transition to follow-on contracts for certain prototype projects to include research projects carried out under 10 U.S.C. 2371. Authority to use the pilot program, set to expire September 30, 2008, was extended to September 30, 2010. Section 874 required OT data be included in the Federal Procurement Data System. National Defense Authorization Act for FY2011 ( P.L. 111-383 ) Section 866 changed the definition of nontraditional defense contractor, conforming the definition to that found in 10 U.S.C. 2302(9). National Defense Authorization Act for FY2013 ( P.L. 112-239 ) Section 863 extended the authority for using OTs for prototype projects from September 30, 2013, to September 30, 2018. Carl Levin and Howard P. "Buck" McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for FY2015 ( P.L. 113-291 ) Expanded Authority Section 812 expanded the authority to use OT for prototypes, to include those "directly related to enhancing the mission effectiveness of military personnel and the supporting platforms, systems, components, or materials proposed to be acquired or developed by the Department of Defense, or to improvement of platforms, systems, components, or materials in use by the Armed Forces." Prior to the FY2015 NDAA, OTs could only be used for prototypes relating to weapons or weapon systems proposed to be developed, or for the improvement of weapons or weapon systems currently in use. Reporting Requirements Section 1071 repealed the reporting requirement language found in 10 U.S.C. 2371, relating to OTs for research projects. National Defense Authorization Act for FY2016 ( P.L. 114-92 ) Until the FY2016 NDAA, the prototyping and follow-on production authority established in Section 845 of the FY1994 NDAA (as amended) was found in 10 U.S.C. 2371 note. Section 815 of the FY2016 NDAA simultaneously repealed Section 845 of the FY1994 NDAA and put the repealed language into the newly created 10 U.S.C. 2371b. The FY2016 NDAA also modified 2371b by making the authority permanent. Expanded Authority and Small Business The authorities in Section 2371b were expanded to allow their use when "all significant participants in the transaction other than the Federal government are small businesses or nontraditional contractors" and when the agency determines that using an OT would expand the defense supply base in a manner that could not be accomplished through a contract. Section 815 eased the restriction on follow-on production contracts or transactions. Section 815 amended the definition of a nontraditional defense contractor found in 10 U.S.C. 2302 to be an entity that is not currently performing, and for one year prior to an OT has not performed on any contract or subcontract that is subject to full coverage under the cost accounting standards pursuant to Section 1502 of Title 41, U.S.C. Section 815 also required DOD to update its guidance to reflect changes in the statute. The conference report stated that Congress believed OTs are an attractive option for firms and organizations that do not usually participate in government contracting due to typical overhead burdens and the "one size fits all" rules governing defense acquisition. The report also stated that OTs could support DOD's effort to access new sources of technological innovation, specifically with Silicon Valley startup firms and small commercial firms. National Defense Authorization Act for FY2018 ( P.L. 115-91 ) Expanded Authority Section 216 of the FY2018 NDAA authorized nonprofit research institutions to enter into OTs with DOD for prototype projects. Section 862 amended 10 U.S.C. 2358, granting the Secretary of Defense and the military departments the authority to pursue basic research, applied research, advanced research, and development projects under the OT authorities granted in Sections 2371 and 2371b of Title 10. Workforce Section 802 required DOD to establish a cadre of intellectual property experts to advise, assist, and provide resources to program offices who are developing intellectual property strategies for contracts and agreements. Section 863 required training and education for personnel involved in OTs and other innovative contracting methods. Certification Requirements and Small Business Section 864 adjusted the language of the statute to state that the dollar threshold relates to the specific transaction for a prototype project and not for the value of the entire project. Section 864 defined a transaction for follow-on production to include "all individual prototype sub-projects awarded under the transaction to a consortium of United States industry and academic institutions." Section 864 also increased the dollar thresholds for required approvals and defined the term small business to include small businesses under Section 9 of the Small Business Act to ensure that companies participating in the Small Business Innovation Research and Small Business Technology Transfer programs were considered small businesses for the purposes of the cost-sharing requirements. Miscellaneous Section 867 required the Secretary of Defense to establish a preference for OTs in the "execution of science and technology and prototyping programs." Section 1711 required DOD to carry out a pilot program to "assess the feasibility and advisability of increasing the manufacturing capability of the defense industrial base." Pursuant to the pilot, Section 1711 authorized DOD to use OTs to support production capabilities in small and medium-sized manufacturers. John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for FY2019 ( P.L. 115-232 ) Section 211 of the FY2019 NDAA clarified that follow-on production of a prototype or subproject within a consortium may occur if the individual prototype or subproject is complete; all projects associated with the consortium do not need to be completed before follow-on production of a specific prototype. Expanded Authority The FY2019 NDAA authorized the use of OTs to develop enhanced personal protective equipment (Section 226) and to carry out research under the Explosive Ordnance Disposal Defense Program (Section 311). Reporting Requirements Section 244 required the Defense Innovation Unit to submit a report to Congress, to include the number of traditional and nontraditional defense contractors with DOD contracts or other transactions resulting directly from the unit's initiatives. Section 873 required DOD to submit an annual report through 2021, summarizing DOD's use of OTs, including organizations involved; number of transactions; amounts of payments; and purpose, description, and status of projects. Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2019 ( P.L. 115-245 ) Reporting Requirements While the enacted FY2019 defense appropriations bill did not include legislative language addressing OTs, the conference report included language expressing the conferees' "[concern] with the lack of transparency surrounding the employment of OTA, particularly for follow-on production." The conferees directed DOD to provide quarterly reports to the House and Senate appropriations committees listing each active OT, and to include the following information on each agreement: funding military service or DOD component; major command (if applicable); contracting activity; appropriation title; budget line item; minimum and maximum award value; vendor; obligations and expenditures to date; product service code; period of performance; and indication if the OT agreement included an option for follow-on production (with a description of the scope of anticipated follow-on production). The conferees also directed GAO to review DOD's use of OTs to determine whether the "employment of this authority conforms to applicable statutes and guidelines, to include the identification of any potential conflicts." GAO was also required to report on the extent to which OTs have been used since FY2016. Notification Requirements The House report to accompany H.R. 6157 acknowledged OTs as an "important tool to provide flexibility and agility for cutting-edge research and development projects and prototypes." However, the report stated its concern "with the lack of transparency on the use of OTA authority for follow-on production procurements," and directed that no funds could be obligated or expended for a follow-on production contract or a transaction carried out under 10 U.S.C. 2371b, until 30 days after the Secretary of Defense provides the congressional defense committees with a notification of the proposed contract or transaction, to include a justification of why an OT is being used for production. Appendix B. Non-DOD Federal Agencies with Agency-Wide OT or Related Authorities A number of agencies have varying other transaction or similar authorities, as reflected in Table B-1 . The table below is not a comprehensive or definitive listing of every federal government entity with OT or related authorities. In some instances, offices, agencies, commissions, and other federal government entities have OT or related authorities that are only associated with certain programs or projects, such as the National Institutes of Health (which has OT authority for such specific activities such as the National Heart, Blood Vessel, Lung, and Blood Diseases and Blood Resources Program [42 U.S.C. §285b-3] and the Cures Acceleration Network [42 U.S.C. §287a]). Appendix C. Reliability of Data on Other Transactions All data have imperfections and limitations. FPDS-NG data can be used to identify broad trends and produce rough estimates, or to gather information about specific contracts. Some observers say that despite their shortcomings, FPDS-NG data are substantially more comprehensive than what is available in most other countries in the world. Understanding the limitations of government procurement data—including knowing when, how, and to what extent to rely on data—can help policymakers incorporate FPDS-NG data more effectively into their decisionmaking process. FPDS-NG OT Data Quality and Accuracy Issues Decisionmakers should be cautious when using data from FPDS-NG to develop policy or otherwise draw conclusions, especially with respect to OTs. In some cases, the data themselves may not be reliable. In other instances, a query for particular data may return differing results, depending on the parameters and timing of the analysis. In particular, all DOD data entered into FPDS-NG are subject to a 90-day delay, and updates to "data, including new actions, modifications, and corrections are made on a regular basis," which could result in changes to "data ... for current and/or prior fiscal years." Inconsistencies in FPDS-NG Data Within FPDS-NG, two primary collections of obligation data exist: one associated with standard government procurement contracts or modifications to such contracts, and the other associated with prototype OT agreements or modifications to such agreements. FPDS-NG's collection of prototype OT data allows for the input of additional data elements—such as nongovernment dollars associated with cost-share prototype OT agreements—not included in FPDS-NG's collection of standard government procurement contract data. More consequentially, FPDS-NG's prototype OT data include two similar data elements that allow users to identify the fiscal year a prototype OT agreement was signed or modified. One, labeled in the database as "Fiscal Year," appears to allow users entering data into the system to manually assign a fiscal year to a transaction. FPDS-NG users entering data into the system appear to have interpreted this data element in various, conflicting ways. For example, a Department of the Air Force OT agreement was signed in February 2016 for the development of rocket propulsion system prototypes under the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) program. FPDS-NG records an obligation of $115 million in FY2020 for this agreement. Fiscal law bars DOD from obligating money now for future fiscal years that have not yet occurred. The second, labeled "Contract Fiscal Year," appears to be based on the date the prototype OT agreement was signed or modified. See Table C-1 for a comparison of the "Fiscal Year" and "Contract Fiscal Year" elements for selected new prototype OT agreements signed between FY2013 and FY2017. If a user selects the Fiscal Year data element when attempting to review high-level data on recent trends in the use of prototype OT agreements within DOD—such as the total amount obligated for prototype OT agreements on an annual basis—that user will obtain a substantially different result than if he or she selects the Contract Fiscal Year data element for a similar analysis. See Table C-2 for a comparison of action obligations and nongovernment contributions using the Fiscal Year and Contract Fiscal Year data elements for new prototype OT agreements signed between FY2013 and FY2017. DOD OT Data Analysis Methodological Issues in Congressional Reports A March 2017 report to Congress entitled "An Assessment of Cost-Sharing in Other Transaction Agreements for Prototype Projects," completed by the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics indicated that In FY2016, DOD obligated (Note: Two outliers in 2016 excluded) $1 billion in section 2371b awards and received $68 million in cost-share contributions after excluding two significant trend outliers. DOD cited FPDS-NG as the source for its analysis, and defined the "significant trend outliers" excluded as "two $40 million OTAs with total cost-share of $270 million," likely referring to two DARPA prototype OT agreements conducted on a cost-share basis initiated in FY2016. However, a CRS analysis of the same FPDS-NG data identified numerous inconsistencies in DOD's methodological approach. Recreation of DOD Methodology Specifically, DOD appears to have conducted its analysis using the "Fiscal Year" data element referenced in this report's discussion of FPDS-NG OT data quality and accuracy issues, which would attribute some prototype OT activities to the wrong fiscal year for the purposes of comparative trend analysis. DOD also compared two disparate transaction types: the reported "$1 billion in Section 2371b awards" includes all action obligations associated with ongoing prototype OT activities in FY2016, including transactions associated with prototype OT indefinite delivery contracts, while the "$68 million in cost-share contributions" includes only cost-share contributions associated with new prototype OT agreements. If DOD used the "Contract Fiscal Year" data element, excluded the identified "trend outliers," and focused on all action obligations and cost-share contributions associated with ongoing prototype OT activities, it would have found instead that the department obligated $1.4 billion for prototype OT agreements in FY2016, with an additional $313.5 million in cost-share contributions from the private sector. On the other hand, if DOD used the "Contract Fiscal Year" data element, excluded the identified "trend outliers," and focused on only action obligations and cost-share contributions associated with new prototype OT agreements, it would have found instead that the department obligated $400 million for prototype OT agreements in FY2016, with an additional $272.1 million in cost-share contributions from the private sector. Appendix D. Other Transaction Authority Statutes 10 U.S.C. §2371. Research projects: transactions other than contracts and grants (a) ADDITIONAL FORMS OF TRANSACTIONS AUTHORIZED.— The Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of each military department may enter into transactions (other than contracts, cooperative agreements, and grants) under the authority of this subsection in carrying out basic, applied, and advanced research projects. The authority under this subsection is in addition to the authority provided in Section 2358 of this title to use contracts, cooperative agreements, and grants in carrying out such projects. (b) EXERCISE OF AUTHORITY BY SECRETARY OF DEFENSE.— In any exercise of the authority in subsection (a), the Secretary of Defense shall act through the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency or any other element of the Department of Defense that the Secretary may designate. (c) ADVANCE PAYMENTS.— The authority provided under subsection (a) may be exercised without regard to Section 3324 of Title 31. (d) RECOVERY OF FUNDS.— (1) A cooperative agreement for performance of basic, applied, or advanced research authorized by Section 2358 of this title and a transaction authorized by subsection (a) may include a clause that requires a person or other entity to make payments to the Department of Defense or any other department or agency of the Federal Government as a condition for receiving support under the agreement or other transaction. (2) The amount of any payment received by the Federal Government pursuant to a requirement imposed under paragraph (1) may be credited, to the extent authorized by the Secretary of Defense, to the appropriate account established under subsection (f). Amounts so credited shall be merged with other funds in the account and shall be available for the same purposes and the same period for which other funds in such account are available. (e) CONDITIONS.— (1) The Secretary of Defense shall ensure that- (A) to the maximum extent practicable, no cooperative agreement containing a clause under subsection (d) and no transaction entered into under subsection (a) provides for research that duplicates research being conducted under existing programs carried out by the Department of Defense; and (B) to the extent that the Secretary determines practicable, the funds provided by the Government under a cooperative agreement containing a clause under subsection (d) or a transaction authorized by subsection (a) do not exceed the total amount provided by other parties to the cooperative agreement or other transaction. (2) A cooperative agreement containing a clause under subsection (d) or a transaction authorized by subsection (a) may be used for a research project when the use of a standard contract, grant, or cooperative agreement for such project is not feasible or appropriate. (f) SUPPORT ACCOUNTS.— There is hereby established on the books of the Treasury separate accounts for each of the military departments and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency for support of research projects and development projects provided for in cooperative agreements containing a clause under subsection (d) and research projects provided for in transactions entered into under subsection (a). Funds in those accounts shall be available for the payment of such support. (g) EDUCATION AND TRAINING.—The Secretary of Defense shall— (1) ensure that management, technical, and contracting personnel of the Department of Defense involved in the award or administration of transactions under this section or other innovative forms of contracting are afforded opportunities for adequate education and training; and (2) establish minimum levels and requirements for continuous and experiential learning for such personnel, including levels and requirements for acquisition certification programs. (h) REGULATIONS.— The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe regulations to carry out this section. (i) Protection of Certain Information From Disclosure.-(1) Disclosure of information described in paragraph (2) is not required, and may not be compelled, under Section 552 of Title 5 for five years after the date on which the information is received by the Department of Defense. (2)(A) Paragraph (1) applies to information described in subparagraph (B) that is in the records of the Department of Defense if the information was submitted to the Department in a competitive or noncompetitive process having the potential for resulting in an award, to the party submitting the information, of a cooperative agreement for performance of basic, applied, or advanced research authorized by Section 2358 of this title or another transaction authorized by subsection (a). (B) The information referred to in subparagraph (A) is the following: (i) A proposal, proposal abstract, and supporting documents. (ii) A business plan submitted on a confidential basis. (iii) Technical information submitted on a confidential basis. 10 U.S.C. §2371b. Authority of the Department of Defense to carry out certain prototype projects (a) AUTHORITY.— (1) Subject to paragraph (2), the Director of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, the Secretary of a military department, or any other official designated by the Secretary of Defense may, under the authority of Section 2371 of this title, carry out prototype projects that are directly relevant to enhancing the mission effectiveness of military personnel and the supporting platforms, systems, components, or materials proposed to be acquired or developed by the Department of Defense, or to improvement of platforms, systems, components, or materials in use by the armed forces. (2) The authority of this section- (A) may be exercised for a transaction (for a prototype project) that is expected to cost the Department of Defense in excess of $100,000,000 but not in excess of $500,000,000 (including all options) only upon a written determination by the senior procurement executive for the agency as designated for the purpose of Section 1702(c) of Title 41, or, for the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency or the Missile Defense Agency, the director of the agency that- (i) the requirements of subsection (d) will be met; an d (ii) the use of the authority of this section is essential to promoting the success of the prototype project; and (B) may be exercised for a transaction (for a prototype project) that is expected to cost the Department of Defense in excess of $500,000,000 (including all options) only if- (i) the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics determines in writing that- (I) the requirements of subsection (d) will be met; an d (II) the use of the authority of this section is essential to meet critical national security objectives; and (ii) the congressional defense committees are notified in writing at least 30 days before such authority is exercised. (3) The authority of a senior procurement executive or director of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency or Missile Defense Agency under paragraph (2)(A), and the authority of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics under paragraph (2)(B), may not be delegated. (b) EXERCISE OF AUTHORITY.— (1) Subsections (e)(1)(B) and (e)(2) of such Section 2371 shall not apply to projects carried out under subsection (a). (2) To the maximum extent practicable, competitive procedures shall be used when entering into agreements to carry out projects under subsection (a). (c) COMPTROLLER GENERAL ACCESS TO INFORMATION.— (1) Each agreement entered into by an official referred to in subsection (a) to carry out a project under that subsection that provides for payments in a total amount in excess of $5,000,000 shall include a clause that provides for the Comptroller General, in the discretion of the Comptroller General, to examine the records of any party to the agreement or any entity that participates in the performance of the agreement. (2) The requirement in paragraph (1) shall not apply with respect to a party or entity, or a subordinate element of a party or entity, that has not entered into any other agreement that provides for audit access by a Government entity in the year prior to the date of the agreement. (3) (A) The right provided to the Comptroller General in a clause of an agreement under paragraph (1) is limited as provided in subparagraph (B) in the case of a party to the agreement, an entity that participates in the performance of the agreement, or a subordinate element of that party or entity if the only agreements or other transactions that the party, entity, or subordinate element entered into with Government entities in the year prior to the date of that agreement are cooperative agreements or transactions that were entered into under this section or Section 2371 of this title. (B) The only records of a party, other entity, or subordinate element referred to in subparagraph (A) that the Comptroller General may examine in the exercise of the right referred to in that subparagraph are records of the same type as the records that the Government has had the right to examine under the audit access clauses of the previous agreements or transactions referred to in such subparagraph that were entered into by that particular party, entity, or subordinate element. (4) The head of the contracting activity that is carrying out the agreement may waive the applicability of the requirement in paragraph (1) to the agreement if the head of the contracting activity determines that it would not be in the public interest to apply the requirement to the agreement. The waiver shall be effective with respect to the agreement only if the head of the contracting activity transmits a notification of the waiver to Congress and the Comptroller General before entering into the agreement. The notification shall include the rationale for the determination. (5) The Comptroller General may not examine records pursuant to a clause included in an agreement under paragraph (1) more than three years after the final payment is made by the United States under the agreement. (d) APPROPRIATE USE OF AUTHORITY.— (1) The Secretary of Defense shall ensure that no official of an agency enters into a transaction (other than a contract, grant, or cooperative agreement) for a prototype project under the authority of this section unless one of the following conditions is met: (A) There is at least one nontraditional defense contractor or nonprofit research institution participating to a significant extent in the prototype project. (B) All significant participants in the transaction other than the Federal Government are small businesses (including small businesses participating in a program described under Section 9 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 638)) or nontraditional defense contractors. (C) At least one third of the total cost of the prototype project is to be paid out of funds provided by sources other than other than the Federal Government. (D) The senior procurement executive for the agency determines in writing that exceptional circumstances justify the use of a transaction that provides for innovative business arrangements or structures that would not be feasible or appropriate under a contract, or would provide an opportunity to expand the defense supply base in a manner that would not be practical or feasible under a contract. (2) (A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), the amounts counted for the purposes of this subsection as being provided, or to be provided, by a party to a transaction with respect to a prototype project that is entered into under this section other than the Federal Government do not include costs that were incurred before the date on which the transaction becomes effective. (B) Costs that were incurred for a prototype project by a party after the beginning of negotiations resulting in a transaction (other than a contract, grant, or cooperative agreement) with respect to the project before the date on which the transaction becomes effective may be counted for purposes of this subsection as being provided, or to be provided, by the party to the transaction if and to the extent that the official responsible for entering into the transaction determines in writing that- (i) the party incurred the costs in anticipation of entering into the transaction; and (ii) it was appropriate for the party to incur the costs before the transaction became effective in order to ensure the successful implementation of the transaction. (e) Definitions.—In this section: (1) The term "nontraditional defense contractor" has the meaning given the term under Section 2302(9) of this title. (2) The term "small business" means a small business concern as defined under Section 3 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632). (f) FOLLOW-ON PRODUCTION CONTRACTS OR TRANSACTIONS.— (1) A transaction entered into under this section for a prototype project may provide for the award of a follow-on production contract or transaction to the participants in the transaction. A transaction includes all individual prototype subprojects awarded under the transaction to a consortium of United States industry and academic institutions. (2) A follow-on production contract or transaction provided for in a transaction under paragraph (1) may be awarded to the participants in the transaction without the use of competitive procedures, notwithstanding the requirements of Section 2304 of this title, if - (A) competitive procedures were used for the selection of parties for participation in the transaction; and (B) the participants in the transaction successfully completed the prototype project provided for in the transaction. (3) Contracts and transactions entered into pursuant to this subsection may be awarded using the authority in subsection (a), under the authority of Chapter 137 of this title, or under such procedures, terms, and conditions as the Secretary of Defense may establish by regulation. (g) AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE PROTOTYPES AND FOLLOW-ON PRODUCTION ITEMS AS GOVERNMENT-FURNISHED EQUIPMENT.— An agreement entered into pursuant to the authority of subsection (a) or a follow-on contract or transaction entered into pursuant to the authority of subsection (f) may provide for prototypes or follow-on production items to be provided to another contractor as Government-furnished equipment. (h) APPLICABILITY OF PROCUREMENT ETHICS REQUIREMENTS.— An agreement entered into under the authority of this section shall be treated as a Federal agency procurement for the purposes of Chapter 21 of Title 41. 10 U.S.C. §2373. Procurement for experimental purposes (a) AUTHORITY.— The Secretary of Defense and the Secretaries of the military departments may each buy ordnance, signal, chemical activity, transportation, energy, medical, space-flight, and aeronautical supplies, including parts and accessories, and designs thereof, that the Secretary of Defense or the Secretary concerned considers necessary for experimental or test purposes in the development of the best supplies that are needed for the national defense. (b) PROCEDURES.— Purchases under this section may be made inside or outside the United States and by contract or otherwise. Chapter 137 of this title applies only when such purchases are made in quantities greater than necessary for experimentation, technical evaluation, assessment of operational utility, or safety or to provide a residual operational capability.

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

Answer: No federal law requires testing of drinking water for lead in schools that receive water from public water systems, although these systems are regulated by the EPA. Lead can leach into water from plumbing materials inside a school. The discovery of toxic levels of lead in water in Flint, Michigan, in 2015 has renewed awareness about the danger lead exposure poses to public health, especially for children. GAO was asked to review school practices for lead testing and remediation. This report examines the extent to which (1) school districts are testing for, finding, and remediating lead in drinking water; (2) states are supporting these efforts; and (3) federal agencies are supporting state and school district efforts. GAO administered a web-based survey to a stratified, random sample of 549 school districts, the results of which are generalizable to all school districts. GAO visited or interviewed officials with 17 school districts with experience in lead testing, spread among 5 states, selected for geographic variation. GAO also interviewed federal and state officials and reviewed relevant laws and documents. An estimated 43 percent of school districts, serving 35 million students, tested for lead in school drinking water in 2016 or 2017, according to GAO's nationwide survey of school districts. An estimated 41 percent of school districts, serving 12 million students, had not tested for lead. GAO's survey showed that, among school districts that did test, an estimated 37 percent found elevated lead (lead at levels above their selected threshold for taking remedial action.) (See figure.) All school districts that found elevated lead in drinking water reported taking steps to reduce or eliminate exposure to lead, including replacing water fountains, installing filters or new fixtures, or providing bottled water. According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), at least 8 states have requirements that schools test for lead in drinking water as of 2017, and at least 13 additional states supported school districts' voluntary efforts with funding or in-kind support for testing and remediation. In addition, the five states GAO visited provided examples of technical assistance to support testing in schools. EPA provides guidance and other resources to states and school districts regarding testing and remediating lead in drinking water, and the Department of Education (Education) provides some of this information on its websites. School district officials that used EPA's written guidance said they generally found it helpful. Although EPA guidance emphasizes the importance of addressing elevated lead levels, GAO found that some aspects of the guidance, such as the threshold for taking remedial action, were potentially misleading and unclear, which can put school districts at risk of making uninformed decisions. In addition, many school districts reported a lack of familiarity with EPA's guidance, and their familiarity varied by region of the country. Education and EPA do not regularly collaborate to support state and school district efforts on lead in drinking water, despite agreeing to do so in a 2005 memorandum of understanding. Such collaboration could encourage testing and ensure that more school districts will have the necessary information to limit student and staff exposure to lead. GAO is making seven recommendations, including that EPA update its guidance on how schools should determine lead levels requiring action and for EPA and Education to collaborate to further disseminate guidance and encourage testing for lead. EPA and Education agreed with the recommendations.