FEDERAL SUPPLY 

CHAINS

Opportunities to 

Improve the 

Management of 

Climate-Related Risks

Report to the Honorable Matthew

Cartwright, House of Representatives

October 2015

GAO-16-32

United States Government Accountability Office
Highlights of GAO-16-32, a report to the 

Honorable Matthew Cartwright, House of 

Representatives

October 2015

FEDERAL SUPPLY CHAINS

Opportunities to Improve the Management of ClimateRelated Risks

Why GAO Did This Study

The federal government obligated 

about $445 billion in fiscal year 2014 

for goods and services such as 

disaster response products and 

telecommunications. Agencies with 

missions that depend on the secure

and efficient transit of goods and 

services have had their supply chains 

disrupted by weather-related events, 

such as Superstorm Sandy. According 

to the National Climate Assessment,

the severity and frequency of such 

events is expected to increase. 

Agencies developed adaptation plans 

in response to executive orders and 

implementing guidance issued by 

CEQ, which coordinates federal 

environmental efforts. GAO was asked 

to review climate-related risks to 

federal supply chains.

This report examines (1) the extent to 

which selected federal agencies have 

identified climate-related risks to their 

critical supply chains, (2) the extent to 

which they have identified and 

implemented actions to manage these 

risks, and (3) what is known about the 

federal government’s fiscal exposure to 

such risks. GAO reviewed executive 

orders; surveyed 24 agencies selected 

because they account for over 98 

percent of federal contract obligations;

analyzed their adaptation plans; and

interviewed officials from 5 of these

agencies selected because of mission 

and other factors.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that CEQ clarify its 

guidance on including supply chain 

risks in adaptation plans and develop a 

plan for convening an interagency 

working group on supply chain climate 

vulnerability. CEQ agreed with GAO’s 

findings and recommendations.

What GAO Found

Selected federal agencies have identified climate-related risks to their critical 

supply chains to varying degrees—including not at all—based on GAO’s analysis 

of survey responses and adaptation plans from 24 selected agencies. According 

to GAO’s analysis of these plans, 12 included information on agency-specific 

risks, 6 acknowledged general risks, and 6 did not mention risks. In survey 

responses and interviews with GAO, agencies reported facing several challenges

identifying these risks, including among others, unclear guidance on adaptation 

planning. According to interviews with officials from several agencies and survey 

responses, the Council on Environmental Quality’s (CEQ) guidance does not 

clearly specify how agencies should meet Executive Order 13653’s directive for 

them to consider in their adaptation plans the need to improve climate adaptation 

and resilience with respect to suppliers and supply chains. GAO reviewed the 

guidance and found that, although the executive order directs agencies to identify 

and assess risks to their ability to accomplish their missions in their adaptation 

plans, CEQ’s guidance does not discuss how agencies should do so for risks to 

suppliers and supply chains. CEQ officials said this guidance was broadly written 

to allow agencies flexibility for differing missions. While CEQ has documented 

guidance, which is consistent with federal standards for internal control, 

discussing how agencies should identify and assess supply chain risks in 

adaptation plans could better position agencies in the early stages of planning.

Few selected federal agencies have identified and implemented actions to 

manage climate-related risks to their supply chains, in part because they are in 

the early stages of planning and have not yet fully identified these risks. Of the 24

adaptation plans GAO analyzed, 4 identified agency-specific actions to manage 

climate-related risks to their supply chains. In survey responses and interviews 

with GAO, agencies reported facing challenges in identifying and implementing 

actions to manage climate-related risks to their supply chains, such as planning 

timelines that do not align with budget cycles and limited expertise. Executive 

Order 13693 directs CEQ to establish, as appropriate, temporary interagency 

working groups, including one on agency supply chain climate vulnerability, but 

CEQ has no planned date for convening it. Developing a plan to do so could be 

an important step toward helping agencies share experiences and information 

about climate-related supply chain risks as they update their adaptation plans.

The federal government’s fiscal exposure to climate-related disruptions in supply 

chains is unknown, largely because agencies have not identified their exposure. 

Of the 24 adaptation plans GAO analyzed, one discussed budget or resource 

needs for managing climate-related risks to supply chains, and none identified

fiscal exposure from supply chain disruptions. According to survey respondents, 

4 of the 24 agencies have tried to identify this exposure, and 3 identified a small 

number of qualitative examples, such as greater suppression costs for increased 

wildfires. Seven survey respondents said they did not try, or were unable, to 

identify their exposure because of the challenges discussed above—particularly 

limited information about risks. Many respondents described other challenges, 

including the lack of a standardized process for determining fiscal exposure. In 

survey responses and interviews with GAO, several agencies reported that an 

interagency working group could help agencies address such challenges.

View GAO-16-32. For more information, 

contact J. Alfredo Gómez at (202) 512-3841 or 

gomezj@gao.gov.

United States Government Accountability Office
Letter 1

Background 7

Selected Agencies Have Identified Climate-Related Risks to Their 

Supply Chains to Varying Degrees and Face Several 

Challenges in Doing So 15

Few Selected Agencies Have Identified and Implemented Actions 

to Manage Climate-Related Risks to Their Supply Chains and 

Face Several Challenges in Doing So 24

The Federal Government’s Fiscal Exposure to Climate-Related 

Disruptions in Supply Chains Is Unknown, and Agencies Face 

Challenges Identifying Their Exposure 30

Conclusions 37

Recommendations for Executive Action 38

Agency Comments 38

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 41

Appendix II Summary Results of GAO Survey of Senior Sustainability Officers 45

Appendix III Comments from the United States Postal Service 60

Appendix IV GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 61

Related GAO Products 62

Table

Table 1: Extent to Which Selected Agencies Include Information 

on Climate-Related Risks to Their Supply Chains in Their 

Climate Change Adaptation Plans 16

Contents

Page i GAO-16-32 Federal Supply Chains
Figures

Figure 1: New York Army National Guard Engineers Clear Debris 

from Roads in New York State after Superstorm Sandy 11

Figure 2: Members of the Maryland National Guard Help Recover 

a Utility Vehicle Stuck in Mud Following Heavy Snowfall 

That Occurred during Superstorm Sandy 12

Abbreviations

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

DHS Department of Homeland Security

DOD Department of Defense

GIS geographic information system

GSA General Services Administration

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

OMB Office of Management and Budget

SSO Senior Sustainability Officer

USGCRP U.S. Global Change Research Program

USPS U.S. Postal Service

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.

Page ii GAO-16-32 Federal Supply Chains
441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

October 13, 2015

The Honorable Matthew Cartwright

House of Representatives

Dear Mr. Cartwright:

The federal government obligated approximately $445 billion in fiscal year 

2014 to purchase goods and services, such as military base supplies, 

disaster response products, and data and telecommunications services, 

according to federal procurement data.1 The General Services 

Administration (GSA), which makes common-use items available to 

federal agencies, alone provides the federal government with 11 million 

different goods and services totaling more than $54 billion in annual 

sales.2 As we and others have found, the efficient and secure transit of 

goods and services through federal supply chains is critical to agencies’

missions.3 For example, in July 2010, we found that the Department of 

Defense (DOD) spends billions of dollars to manage a vast and complex 

supply chain network—providing everything from spare parts and base 

support items to food and fuel—that is vital to supporting operations and 

maintaining readiness and is a critical link in determining outcomes on the 

battlefield and meeting national security goals.4 However, federal 

agencies with missions that depend upon their supply chains have had 

their activities disrupted by weather-related disasters. For example, in 

October 2012, Superstorm Sandy caused widespread damage to logistics 

and transportation networks throughout the Northeast, leading to major 

fuel shortages for agencies to overcome while providing critical federal 

1

Federal Procurement Data System - Next Generation database, accessed July 6, 2015. 

2

GSA’s acquisition solutions offer private-sector professional and other services, 

equipment, supplies, telecommunications, and information technology to federal 

government organizations and the military. More than 18,000 commercial companies hold 

long-term governmentwide contracts. 

3

The National Institute of Standards and Technology has defined the term “supply chain”

to mean a set of organizations, people, activities, information, and resources for creating 

and moving a product or service from suppliers through to an organization’s customers. 

4

GAO, DOD’s High-Risk Areas: Observations on DOD’s Progress and Challenges in 

Strategic Planning for Supply Chain Management, GAO-10-929T (Washington, D.C.: July 

27, 2010). 

Letter

Page 1 GAO-16-32 Federal Supply Chains

 
services, such as disaster relief and mail delivery, and causing an 

estimated $70 billion in direct damages and lost economic output.5

Further, according to a study commissioned by GSA, because of the 

complex nature of supply chains, which typically span many tiers of direct 

and indirect suppliers and have wide geographic dispersion, disruptions in 

one region of the world can have wide-ranging implications for parts of 

the supply chain in other regions of the world.6

According to the U.S. Global Change Research Program’s (USGCRP) 

May 2014 National Climate Assessment,7 climate change is expected to 

increase the severity and frequency of certain extreme weather events.8

In February 2013, we recognized that climate change is a complex, 

crosscutting issue that presents a significant financial risk to the federal 

government and placed limiting the federal government’s fiscal exposure 

by better managing climate change risks on our high risk list.9 In the 

February 2015 update to our high risk list, we recognized that climate 

change also poses risks to private-sector decision makers by, for 

example, disrupting supply chains that provide the food, medicine, 

energy, and products that support the U.S. economy.10 Because the 

federal government both relies on private-sector supply chains to provide 

5

In late October 2012, Superstorm Sandy, which had been a hurricane in the Atlantic 

Ocean, made landfall in southern New Jersey as an intense post-tropical cyclone, with 

effects felt across 11 states and the District of Columbia, particularly the densely 

populated New York and New Jersey coasts. 

6

Riverside Technology, Inc. and Acclimatise. Climate Risks Study for Telecommunications 

and Data Center Services. Report prepared for the General Services Administration (Fort 

Collins, CO: 2014). 

7

USGCRP coordinates and integrates the activities of 13 federal agencies that conduct 

research on changes in the global environment and their implications for the United 

States. USGCRP began as a presidential initiative in 1989 and was codified in the Global 

Change Research Act of 1990 (Pub. L. No. 101-606, § 103 (1990)). The act requires 

USGCRP to periodically prepare a scientific assessment—known as the National Climate 

Assessment—which is an important resource for understanding and communicating 

climate change science and impacts in the United States. 

8 Jerry M. Melillo, Terese (T.C.) Richmond, and Gary W. Yohe, eds., Climate Change 

Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment, U.S. Global 

Change Research Program (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, May 

2014). 

9

GAO, High-Risk Series: An Update, GAO-13-283 (Washington, D.C.: February 2013). 

10GAO, High-Risk Series: An Update, GAO-15-290 (Washington, D.C.: February 2015). 

Page 2 GAO-16-32 Federal Supply Chains

 
these goods and services and provides disaster assistance, including to 

the private sector, in the aftermath of extreme weather events, risks to the 

private sector also increase the federal government’s fiscal exposure to a 

changing climate. While it may not be possible to link any individual 

weather event to climate change, these and other observed impacts of 

such events disrupt people’s lives and affect many sectors of our 

economy, including the budgets of federal, state, and local governments.

To establish an integrated strategy towards sustainability in the federal 

government and prepare the United States for the impacts of climate 

change, the President signed two executive orders in 2009 and 2013, 

respectively.11 The implementing instructions for the 2009 executive 

order, and the 2013 executive order itself, directed federal agencies to 

submit climate change adaptation plans—known as adaptation plans—to 

the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)12 and the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB). Under the 2013 executive order, these 

adaptation plans are to be updated regularly and are to evaluate 

agencies’ most significant climate change related risks to, and 

vulnerabilities in, agency operations and missions in both the long and 

short term and outline actions the agency will take to manage such risks 

and vulnerabilities. In addition, under the 2013 executive order, agency 

adaptation plans are to describe how the agency will consider the need to 

improve climate adaptation and resilience with respect to suppliers and 

supply chains, among other things.13 In response to these executive 

orders, agencies submitted the first round of adaptation plans to CEQ and 

11Exec. Order No. 13514, 74 Fed. Reg. 52,117 (Oct. 8, 2009); Exec. Order No. 13653, 78 

Fed. Reg. 66,819 (Nov. 6, 2013). In March 2015, Executive Order 13693 revoked 

Executive Order 13514. See 80 Fed. Reg. 15,871, 15,880 (Mar. 25, 2015). 

12CEQ coordinates federal environmental efforts and works closely with agencies and 

other entities within the Executive Office of the President in the development of 

environmental initiatives. CEQ was established within the Executive Office of the 

President by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, and additional responsibilities 

were provided by the Environmental Quality Improvement Act of 1970. 

13Executive Order 13653 defines “adaptation’’ as adjustment in natural or human systems 

in anticipation of or response to a changing environment in a way that effectively uses 

beneficial opportunities or reduces negative effects; and ‘‘resilience’’ as the ability to 

anticipate, prepare for, and adapt to changing conditions and withstand, respond to, and 

recover rapidly from disruptions. 

Page 3 GAO-16-32 Federal Supply Chains

 
OMB in June 2012 and submitted the second, and most recent, round of 

plans in June 2014.14

You asked us to examine climate-related risks to federal supply chains.15

In this report, we (1) evaluate the extent to which selected agencies have 

identified climate-related risks, if any, to their critical supply chains and 

challenges, if any, that they face in doing so; (2) evaluate the extent to 

which these agencies have identified and implemented actions to manage 

climate-related risks to their critical supply chains and challenges, if any, 

that they face in doing so; and (3) describe what is known about the 

federal government’s fiscal exposure to climate-related disruptions in 

federal supply chains and challenges, if any, agencies face in identifying 

such exposure.16

To address these objectives, we analyzed the adaptation plans that 24 

selected federal agencies submitted in 2012 and 2014 to determine the 

extent to which these agencies had identified climate-related risks to their 

supply chains and identified and implemented actions to manage these 

14Agencies publicly released final versions of these plans in February 2013 and October 

2014, respectively. Agencies, as defined in 5 U.S.C. § 105 with the exception of GAO, 

were subject to Executive Order 13514. Executive Order 13653 directs agencies to 

develop and update adaptation plans but does not define agencies. Not all agencies, as 

defined in 5 U.S.C. § 105, submitted adaptation plans in 2012 or 2014. For example, the 

Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board and the National Science Foundation are 

agencies as defined in 5 U.S.C. § 105, but neither submitted an adaptation plan. In 

addition, according to CEQ, the U.S. Postal Service voluntarily submitted an adaptation 

plan. Executive Order 13653 directs agencies to regularly update their adaptation plans 

with updates due not later than 1 year after the publication of each quadrennial National 

Climate Assessment report. 

15This review was conducted in response to a 2014 request from Representative Matt 

Cartwright—then Ranking Member, House Subcommittee on Economic Growth, Job 

Creation, and Regulatory Affairs; Committee on Oversight and Government Reform—to 

review the management of climate-related risks to federal supply chains. 

16This report refers to “climate-related risks,” which we define as vulnerabilities of natural 

and human systems, such as environmental and economics systems, due to changes in 

the earth’s climate—including higher temperatures, changes in precipitation, rising sea 

levels, and increases in the severity and frequency of severe weather events. 

Page 4 GAO-16-32 Federal Supply Chains

 
risks.17 We selected these 24 agencies because they were expected to 

receive an OMB Sustainability and Energy Scorecard for fiscal year 2014 

and, according to CEQ documents, are responsible for a significant 

portion of the federal government’s spending on goods and services.18 In 

particular, these agencies account for over 98 percent of the federal 

government’s fiscal year 2014 contract obligations, according to federal 

procurement data.19 In addition, we surveyed the Senior Sustainability 

Officers at these 24 agencies to better understand federal agency 

adaptation efforts and any challenges agencies face in these efforts and 

received responses from all 24 agencies.20 From these 24 agencies, we 

selected a nonprobability sample of 5 key agencies—DOD, the 

Department of Homeland Security (DHS), GSA, the National Aeronautics 

and Space Administration (NASA), and the U.S. Postal Service (USPS)—

for a more detailed review and to discuss specific examples of efforts to 

identify and manage climate-related risks to their supply chains. We 

selected these 5 key agencies based on a range of different factors such 

as agency size, geographic dispersion of facilities and infrastructure, 

17The 24 agencies are the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education, 

Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban 

Development, the Interior, Justice, Labor, State, Transportation, the Treasury, and 

Veterans Affairs; Environmental Protection Agency; General Services Administration; 

National Archives and Records Administration; National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration; Office of Personnel Management; U.S. Postal Service; Smithsonian 

Institution; Tennessee Valley Authority; and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 

18OMB and CEQ use this annual scorecard process to assess key agencies’ performance 

in achieving, among other things, federal energy and environmental goals. Because the 

fiscal year 2014 scorecards were not yet released at the time of our review, we selected 

the 24 agencies that, according to CEQ officials and documents, were expected to receive 

scorecards for fiscal year 2014. Based on this information, we did not include the Social 

Security Administration, which went on to receive a 2014 scorecard. CEQ’s instructions 

clarify that the U.S. Postal Service voluntarily receives a scorecard. See CEQ, 

Implementing Instructions for Executive Order 13693 Planning for Federal Sustainability in 

the Next Decade (Washington, D.C.: June 10, 2015). 

19Federal Procurement Data System - Next Generation database, accessed August 31, 

2015. 

20Executive Order 13514 directed agencies to designate, within 30 days of the date of the 

executive order, a Senior Sustainability Officer to be accountable for agency conformance 

with the executive order, including preparing and implementing a multiyear Strategic 

Sustainability Performance Plan and updating and submitting this plan annually to OMB 

and CEQ for review. In March 2015, Executive Order 13693 revoked Executive Order 

13514 and directed agencies to designate, within 45 days of the date of the executive 

order, an agency Chief Sustainability Officer and made the agency head responsible for 

developing, implementing, and updating the Strategic Sustainability Performance Plan. 

Page 5 GAO-16-32 Federal Supply Chains

 
types of supply chains, and mission. Because this is a nonprobability 

sample, our findings cannot be generalized to other agencies but provide 

us with examples of the extent to which agencies identify and manage 

climate-related risks to their supply chains. We conducted interviews with 

officials from these 5 key agencies. We refer to the 24 agencies we 

surveyed as “selected agencies” and to the 5 agencies with officials we 

interviewed as “key agencies.” We also interviewed officials and staff from 

the coordinating entities that review and approve agency adaptation 

plans—that is, CEQ and OMB, respectively—and one that provides 

science support to agencies—USGCRP—regarding their roles and 

agencies’ adaptation planning efforts and challenges. We compared 

agency efforts to relevant executive orders and related guidance21 and 

compared the related guidance to federal standards for internal control.22

To describe what is known about the federal government’s fiscal 

exposure to climate-related disruptions in federal supply chains, we 

conducted a literature review to determine what has been reported about 

the government’s fiscal exposure to climate-related disruptions in federal 

supply chains. We interviewed officials from the 5 key agencies to obtain 

examples of fiscal exposure based on particular instances of supply chain 

disruptions and, through our survey results and interviews with officials 

and staff, identified challenges selected agencies and coordinating 

entities face in identifying such exposures. Appendix I contains more 

detailed information on the objectives, scope, and methodology of our 

review.

We conducted this performance audit from October 2014 to October 2015 

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.

21Exec. Order No. 13693, 80 Fed. Reg. 15,871 (Mar. 25, 2015); Exec. Order No. 13653, 

78 Fed. Reg. 66,819 (Nov. 6, 2013); and Exec. Order No. 13514, 74 Fed. Reg. 52,117 

(Oct. 8, 2009). 

22GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1

(Washington, D.C.: Nov. 1, 1999). 

Page 6 GAO-16-32 Federal Supply Chains

 
This section describes (1) executive orders directing agencies to manage 

climate-related risks, (2) growing concerns about climate-related risks to 

supply chains, and (3) risk management as a strategy for managing 

climate-related risks to supply chains.

In 2009, the President signed Executive Order 13514 which, among other 

things, called for agencies to designate a Senior Sustainability Officer 

responsible for preparing and implementing a multiyear Strategic 

Sustainability Performance Plan and updating and submitting this plan 

annually to OMB and CEQ for review and ultimate approval by OMB.23

The executive order called for agencies’ plans to evaluate climate change 

risks and vulnerabilities to manage the effects of climate change on their 

operations and missions, among other things.24 It also called for agencies 

to participate in the existing Interagency Climate Change Adaptation Task 

Force co-chaired by CEQ. The executive order directed the task force to 

develop recommendations for the federal government on adapting to 

climate change impacts.

In 2010, the task force recommended, among other things, that agencies 

establish and implement coordinated adaptation plans that address 

unique challenges to their missions, operations, and programs. In 2011, 

based on these recommendations, CEQ issued detailed implementing 

instructions for adaptation planning.25 The instructions directed each 

federal agency subject to the executive order to issue an agency-wide 

climate change adaptation policy statement that commits the agency to 

adaptation planning to address challenges posed by climate change to 

the agencies’ missions, programs, and operations; pursue opportunities 

for sharing and coordination across the federal community; complete a 

high-level analysis of agency vulnerability to climate change; and submit 

to CEQ and OMB adaptation plans that reflect and advance, where 

2374 Fed. Reg. 52,117 (Oct. 8, 2009). 

24Under Executive Order 13514, agencies are to develop, implement, and annually 

update a plan that prioritizes actions based on a life-cycle return on investment and 

achieves greenhouse gas emissions, energy, water, and waste reduction goals and 

targets. 

25CEQ, Instructions for Implementing Climate Change Adaptation Planning in Accordance 

with Executive Order 13514 Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic 

Performance (Mar. 4, 2011) and CEQ, Implementing Climate Change Adaptation Planning 

in Accordance with Executive Order 13514, Support Document (Mar. 4, 2011). 

Background

Executive Orders Directing 

Agencies to Manage 

Climate-Related Risks

Page 7 GAO-16-32 Federal Supply Chains

 
appropriate, interagency crosscutting national adaptation planning efforts. 

In June 2012, as directed by CEQ’s instructions, these agencies 

submitted the first round of adaptation plans for implementation in fiscal 

year 2013 to CEQ and OMB as an appendix to their annual Strategic 

Sustainability Performance Plans.

In November 2013, the President signed Executive Order 13653, which 

directs federal agencies to develop or update comprehensive adaptation 

plans that include, among other things, a description of how the agency 

will consider the need to improve climate adaptation and resilience, 

including the costs and benefits of such improvement, with respect to 

agency suppliers and supply chain.26 Agencies are to prepare such plans 

approximately every 4 years, although some agencies may choose to 

update their plans annually, according to officials and staff from CEQ, 

OMB, and USGCRP. In addition, the executive order terminated the task 

force and established an interagency Council on Climate Preparedness 

and Resilience to continue and build upon the task force’s work. The 

council, co-chaired by the Chair of CEQ and other officials from the 

Executive Office of the President, was tasked with coordinating 

interagency efforts on and tracking implementation of priority federal 

government actions related to climate preparedness and resilience, 

among other things.27 In December 2013, CEQ issued guidance for 

agencies on preparing adaptation plans in accordance with Executive 

Order 13653 and, in June 2014, agencies submitted the second and most 

recent round of adaptation plans to OMB and CEQ. These plans were 

made public at the end of October 2014.

In March 2015, the President signed Executive Order 13693, which 

replaced and revoked Executive Order 13514. Executive Order 13693 

directs the Chair of CEQ to establish and disband, as appropriate, 

temporary interagency working groups to provide recommendations to the 

Chair of CEQ associated with the goals of the executive order, including 

agency supply chain climate vulnerability. In June 2015, CEQ issued 

26 78 Fed. Reg. 66,819 (Nov. 6, 2013). 

27Executive Order 13653 defines ‘‘preparedness’’ as actions taken to plan, organize, 

equip, train, and exercise to build, apply, and sustain the capabilities necessary to 

prevent, protect against, ameliorate the effects of, respond to, and recover from climate 

change related damages to life, health, property, livelihoods, ecosystems, and national 

security. 

Page 8 GAO-16-32 Federal Supply Chains

 
implementing instructions for Executive Order 13693.28 These instructions 

directed both temporary and existing working groups to provide 

recommendations for policies, guidance, reporting metrics, and other 

tools to CEQ to improve agency implementation of the executive order.

According to the Quadrennial Energy Review, extreme weather events 

resulting in more than $1 billion in damages have increased over the past 

decade.29 The review states that these events can have a range of 

impacts on energy transmission, storage, and distribution infrastructures, 

which are key supply chain components. For example, according to the 

review, hurricane impacts on certain energy infrastructure, such as ports 

and electrical power, can have a high probability of damage, and the 

severity of the damage can be catastrophic (i.e., disrupting infrastructure 

for months, in addition to requiring rebuilding). Further, heat waves affect 

energy infrastructure in several ways, including reducing the efficiency of 

electric transmission and distribution circuits; increasing the load on the 

grid associated with additional demand for air-conditioning; and reducing 

the efficiency of cooling at thermal power plants that can result in lower 

power plant output. Drought and extreme cold pose challenges to energy 

infrastructure by, for example, impeding barge transport of energy 

products.

There is also growing recognition in reports and studies that climaterelated impacts can pose significant financial risks to businesses 

worldwide. USGCRP has reported that climate change is projected to 

increase the likelihood or severity of certain extreme weather events, 

28CEQ, Implementing Instructions for Executive Order 13693. 

29Quadrennial Energy Review: Energy Transmission, Storage, and Distribution 

Infrastructure (Washington, D.C.: April 2015). In 2013, the President initiated a 

quadrennial cycle of energy reviews to provide a multiyear guide for U.S. energy policy. 

The President formed a task force—comprising 22 federal agencies and offices with 

equities in energy—to develop the review and directed the Department of Energy to 

provide analytical support for it and to help manage the interagency process. The review 

states that, in its development, the Department of Energy convened stakeholders through 

different efforts, including technical workshops, 13 formal public stakeholder meetings, 

and a series of roundtables. The review also states that it is envisioned as a focused, 

actionable document designed to provide policymakers, industry, investors, and other 

stakeholders with data and analysis on energy challenges, needs, requirements, and 

barriers to inform a range of policy options. 

Growing Concerns about 

Climate-Related Risks to 

Supply Chains

Page 9 GAO-16-32 Federal Supply Chains

 
such as heat waves, floods, and droughts.30 Further, some reports note 

that supply chains may be a particular source of climate-related 

vulnerability to business interests.31 According to industry surveys, many 

businesses and investors are concerned about climate-related risks to 

supply chains and have begun taking steps to manage these risks.32 For 

example, the Securities and Exchange Commission requires certain 

companies to disclose, among other things, known trends, events, and 

uncertainties that are reasonably likely to have a material effect on the 

company’s financial condition or operating performance to investors 

through regular filings.33 In 2010, the Securities and Exchange 

Commission issued guidance to these companies on how existing 

disclosure requirements apply to climate-related matters, including 

physical effects of climate change that can impact supply chains.34

In recent years, climate-related events have caused major disruptions to 

supply chains used by governments and businesses. For example, 

Superstorm Sandy destroyed communities along the New Jersey and 

New York coasts and knocked out power to over 8 million customers from 

North Carolina to Maine and as far west as Illinois. (See figs. 1 and 2.)

30Jerry M. Melillo, Terese (T.C.) Richmond, and Gary W. Yohe, eds., The Third National 

Climate Assessment (2014). 

31See S. Agrawala, et al., Private Sector Engagement in Adaptation to Climate Change: 

Approaches to Managing Climate Risks, OECD Environment Working Papers, No. 39 

(OECD Publications: 2011); Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, Weathering the 

Storm: Building Business Resilience to Climate Change (Arlington, Virginia: July 2013); 

and Gary L. Hanifan, Aditya E. Sharma, and Paras Mehta, Supply Chain Management: 

Why a Sustainable Supply Chain is Good Business, Outlook, No. 3 (Accenture: 2012). 

32See Accenture Strategy. Supply Chain Sustainability Revealed: A Country Comparison. 

Report prepared for CDP (2014) and Accenture. CDP Supply Chain Report 2012, A New 

Era: Supplier Management in the Low-Carbon Economy. Report prepared for the Carbon 

Disclosure Project (2012). 

33Material means that there is a substantial likelihood that a reasonable investor would 

consider the information important in making an investment decision or deciding how to 

vote. 

34Securities and Exchange Commission, Commission Guidance Regarding Disclosure 

Related to Climate Change, 75 Fed. Reg. 6,290 (Feb. 8, 2010). 

Page 10 GAO-16-32 Federal Supply Chains

 
Figure 1: New York Army National Guard Engineers Clear Debris from Roads in 

New York State after Superstorm Sandy

Page 11 GAO-16-32 Federal Supply Chains
Figure 2: Members of the Maryland National Guard Help Recover a Utility Vehicle 

Stuck in Mud Following Heavy Snowfall That Occurred during Superstorm Sandy

Superstorm Sandy cost the United States an estimated $70 billion in 

direct damages and lost economic output. According to the Quadrennial 

Energy Review, Sandy’s impact on the region’s petroleum 

infrastructure—a key supply chain component—was severe, with flooding 

and power outages at refineries, pipelines, and petroleum terminals in the 

New York Harbor area, leading to depressed supplies of petroleum 

products in the Northeast and stock drawdowns and temporary price 

increases.35 Nearly 2 weeks after the storm, deliveries from petroleum 

terminals in the New York Harbor had returned to only 61 percent of their 

prestorm levels, according to the review. The supply issues at New York 

Harbor terminals, combined with power outages at retail fueling stations, 

led to widespread gasoline shortages in the New York City area in the 

weeks after landfall. This was largely caused by flooding damage to major 

terminals and docks in New Jersey. As a result, portable generators sat 

unused, and lines at fueling stations were long and problematic, while 

35See Quadrennial Energy Review (2015).

Page 12 GAO-16-32 Federal Supply Chains

 
consumers struggled to identify which gas stations had power and were 

operational. According to the review, these fuel shortages delayed first 

responders and other disaster response and recovery officials.

According to a 2014 study GSA commissioned, climate impacts to one 

part of the supply chain in one part of the world can have consequences 

for other parts of the supply chain in other parts of the world, and a single 

climate-related event can have compound effects, with a range of direct 

and indirect impacts, across sectors.36 According to the study, these 

effects were demonstrated in 2011 when severe flooding during 

successive monsoons disrupted electronics manufacturing in Thailand, 

leading to delays and disruptions to companies around the world. At the 

time of the flood, 45 percent of the world’s computer hard drives were 

manufactured in Thailand. As a result of the flood, an international airport 

was closed for 6 months; 1,700 roads were damaged or destroyed, 

requiring $4.5 billion in repairs; and over 9,800 factories closed, resulting 

in more than a 35 percent decline in total manufacturing output. The 

flooding caused $45 billion in economic losses worldwide, including 

damage to global supply chains, and caused the global price of hard 

drives to double.37

Risk management strategies are used extensively where decision makers 

are faced with incomplete information or unpredictable outcomes that 

may have negative impacts.38 This includes the management of supply 

chain risks. For example, in 2012 the White House issued its National 

Strategy for Global Supply Chain Security, which states that, as the global 

supply chain becomes more complex and global in scope, it is 

increasingly at risk from disruptions, including natural hazards.39 The 

strategy’s goals are to promote the efficient and secure movement of 

goods and to foster a resilient supply chain by, among other things, 

36Riverside Technology, Inc. and Acclimatise, Climate Risks Study for 

Telecommunications and Data Center Services (2014).

37The World Bank, Thai Flood 2011: Rapid Assessment for Resilient Recovery and 

Reconstruction Planning (2012). 

38Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, Extreme Weather & Climate Change: 

Understanding the Link and Managing the Risk (December 2011). 

39The White House, National Strategy for Global Supply Chain Security (Washington, 

D.C.: Jan. 23, 2012). 

Risk Management as a 

Strategy for Managing 

Climate-Related Risks to 

Supply Chains

Page 13 GAO-16-32 Federal Supply Chains

 
managing supply chain risk for businesses and government. The strategy 

states that managing supply chain risks includes identifying, assessing, 

and prioritizing efforts to manage risk by using layered defenses, such as 

information gathering, technology, and effective partnerships.

Similarly, DOD supply chain policy emphasizes that supply chain risk 

management strategies should be employed to identify, monitor, assess, 

and reduce or eliminate potential disruptions within DOD’s supply chain 

(e.g., unreliable suppliers, machine breakdown) and outside of it (e.g., 

terrorism, natural disasters).40 Agencies generally have direct contractual 

relationships with the primary tier of their supply chains, which provides 

final goods and services, as suppliers in secondary and tertiary tiers, for 

example, provide goods or services to other suppliers.

Some businesses use risk management strategies to manage climaterelated risks to supply chains. The Center for Climate and Energy 

Solutions identified a set of emerging practices based on the experiences 

of case-study companies that are working proactively to better 

understand and manage climate-related risks.

41 According to the Center 

for Climate and Energy Solutions, these companies generally follow a 

four-step process for managing climate-related risks: (1) identifying 

potential risks; (2) assessing and prioritizing them using corporate risk 

management frameworks; (3) developing plans and guidance to inform 

management decisions; and (4) incorporating risk factors into an ongoing, 

iterative review process.42

According to the National Research Council, adaptation is essentially a 

risk management strategy.43 This is consistent with what we found in our 

adaptation reports. Specifically, in October 2009, we found that 

policymakers are increasingly viewing adaptation as a risk management 

40DOD Instruction 4140.01, Supply Chain Materiel Management Policy (Dec. 14, 2011). 

41The Center for Climate and Energy Solutions identifies itself as an independent, 

nonpartisan, nonprofit organization working to advance policy and action to address 

energy and climate-related challenges. It was formerly known as the Pew Center on 

Global Climate Change. 

42See Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, Weathering the Storm: Building Business 

Resilience to Climate Change (Arlington, VA: July 2013). 

43National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences, Adapting to the 

Impacts of Climate Change (Washington, D.C.: May 19, 2010). 

Page 14 GAO-16-32 Federal Supply Chains

 
strategy to protect vulnerable sectors and communities that might be 

affected by changes in the climate.44 Further, in April 2013, we reported 

on adaptation as a risk management tool.45 We found that risk 

management is a strategic process for helping policymakers make 

decisions about assessing risk, allocating finite resources, and taking 

actions under conditions of uncertainty. We also found that leading risk 

management guidance recommends a sequence of activities that begins, 

in part, with identifying risks.

The 24 selected agencies we reviewed have identified climate-related 

risks to their critical supply chains to varying degrees, based on our 

review of their adaptation plans and their responses to our survey. 

According to survey responses from the 24 selected agencies and 

interviews with officials from 5 key agencies, agencies face several 

challenges in identifying these risks. These challenges include unclear 

guidance on adaptation planning for supply chains—which includes 

identifying risks—and limited availability of some climate-related data, 

varying degrees of expertise and skills, and limited information about 

critical supplies and locations of supply chains.

According to our analysis of 24 selected agencies’ 2012 and 2014 

adaptation plans and their responses to our survey, these agencies 

identified climate-related risks to their supply chains to varying degrees—

from not including them at all to proposing a long-term plan with resource 

needs identified—as shown in table 1.

44GAO, Climate Change Adaptation: Strategic Federal Planning Could Help Government 

Officials Make More Informed Decisions, GAO-10-113 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 7, 2009). 

45GAO, Climate Change: Future Federal Adaptation Efforts Could Better Support Local 

Infrastructure Decision Makers, GAO-13-242 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 12, 2013). 

Selected Agencies 

Have Identified 

Climate-Related 

Risks to Their Supply 

Chains to Varying 

Degrees and Face 

Several Challenges in 

Doing So

Selected Agencies Have 

Identified Climate-Related 

Risks to Their Supply 

Chains to Varying 

Degrees, in Part Because 

They Are in the Early 

Stages of Planning

Page 15 GAO-16-32 Federal Supply Chains

 
Table 1: Extent to Which Selected Agencies Include Information on Climate-Related Risks to Their Supply Chains in Their 

Climate Change Adaptation Plans

Source: GAO analysis of agency climate change adaptation plans. | GAO-16-32

Note: We reviewed plans submitted by the following 24 agencies: the Departments of Agriculture, 

Commerce, Defense, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Housing 

and Urban Development, the Interior, Justice, Labor, State, Transportation, the Treasury, and 

Veterans Affairs; Environmental Protection Agency; General Services Administration; National 

Archives and Records Administration; National Aeronautics and Space Administration; Office of 

Personnel Management; U.S. Postal Service; Smithsonian Institution; Tennessee Valley Authority; 

and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

a

We analyzed the plans made available on a federal website where, according to officials from the 

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), we could find all plans submitted by agencies. We 

accessed the plans available on the website on several dates from September 2014 to June 2015. 

We verified the number of plans with CEQ officials and with information on two other federal websites 

where plans had also been made available. Based on this work, plans for 20 of the 24 selected 

agencies were available among the plans submitted in 2012. In technical comments provided on 

September 28, 2015, CEQ indicated that it had plans submitted in 2012 from 23 of the selected 

agencies. We received these comments too late to confirm or review the 3 additional plans.

The plans agencies submitted in 2012 were developed in response to 

CEQ’s implementing instructions and supporting document for Executive 

Order 13514. Executive Order 13514 did not direct agencies to address 

climate-related risks to supply chains; rather, it provided a foundation for 

coordinated action on climate change preparedness and resilience across 

the federal government. More specifically, it directed agencies to evaluate

agency climate-change risks and vulnerabilities to manage the effects of 

Extent to which information on climate-related risks to supply chains is included

Plans

submitted in 2012a Planssubmitted in 2014

Not at all (i.e., the plan does not include climate-related risks to the agency’s supply 

chains) 12 6

To a little extent (i.e., the plan acknowledges general climate-related risks to the 

agency’s supply chains but does not identify agency-specific risks) 4 6

To some extent (i.e., the plan identifies potential agency-specific climate-related risks 

to the agency’s supply chains, but does not propose actions or only proposes broad 

concepts or strategies) 3 8

To a moderate extent (i.e., the plan identifies potential agency-specific climate-related 

risks to the agency’s supply chains and proposes targeted or systematic, agencyspecific actions) 1 3

To a great extent (i.e., the plan proposes a long-term plan, including a general 

discussion of budget or other resource needs, for implementing agency-specific actions 

to address climate-related risks to the agency’s supply chains; the plan does not 

necessarily acknowledge or estimate the cost of actual actions taken, if any) 0 1

Total number of plans submitted by selected agencies 20 24

Page 16 GAO-16-32 Federal Supply Chains
climate change on the agency’s operations and mission in both the short 

and long term, among other things.46

The plans agencies submitted in 2014 were developed in response to 

Executive Order 13653, which built on efforts under Executive Order 

13514. Executive Order 13653 directed agencies to, among other things, 

develop or continue to develop, implement, and update comprehensive 

plans that integrate consideration of climate change into agency 

operations and overall mission objectives and submit those plans to CEQ 

and OMB for review.47 In addition, the executive order directed agencies 

to include in their adaptation plans a description of how the agency will 

consider the need to improve climate adaptation and resilience, including 

the costs and benefits of such improvement, with respect to agency 

suppliers and supply chain, among other things. For any climate change 

related risk the agency deems so significant that it impairs an agency’s 

statutory mission or operation, the executive order directs agencies to 

describe in their plans how that risk will be addressed.

According to our analysis of these agencies’ 2014 adaptation plans, 18 of 

the 24 agencies’ plans included information on climate-related risks to 

supply chains to varying degrees, and 6 agencies’ plans did not mention 

climate-related risks to their supply chains at all. For example, one 

agency’s plan states that transportation infrastructure may be damaged or 

obstructed by extreme weather events, disrupting operations and 

endangering employees, but this plan does not identify risks specific to 

this agency. In contrast, another agency’s plan includes agency-specific 

risks with targeted actions to address these risks, including the specific 

division that would lead the actions. Another agency’s plan identified 

agency-specific risks and also included long-term goals and a general 

discussion of resource needs for implementing agency-specific actions to 

manage these risks. In their survey responses, 11 agencies indicated that 

they have taken or plan to take actions to identify climate-related risks to 

their supply chains. These actions include initiating a review to better 

understand climate-related risks to supply chains and conducting 

4674 Fed. Reg. 52,117 (Oct. 8, 2009).

4778 Fed. Reg. 66,819 (Nov. 6, 2013). Executive Order 13653 directs agencies to 

regularly update their adaptation plans, completing the first update within 120 days of the 

executive order’s issuance, with additional regular updates thereafter due not later than 1 

year after the publication of each quadrennial National Climate Assessment report 

required by section 106 of the Global Change Research Act of 1990 (15 U.S.C. § 2936).

Page 17 GAO-16-32 Federal Supply Chains

 
readiness surveys aimed to assess operational capability in the event of 

emergencies or disasters.

According to officials and staff from CEQ and USGCRP, the reason that 

the 24 selected agencies have identified climate-related risks to their 

supply chains to such varying degrees—including not at all—is that they 

are generally in the early stages of climate change adaptation planning 

and have different levels of internal expertise and capacity. This reason 

was echoed by officials we interviewed from 3 of the 5 key agencies, who 

also said that agencies are in the early stages of planning for climaterelated risks. This viewpoint is also consistent with a 2015 Congressional 

Research Service report that noted most agencies are in formative stages 

of their climate change vulnerability assessments and strategic 

planning.48

According to our analysis of agencies’ 2014 plans, the plans that include 

information on agency-specific climate-related risks to supply chains 

describe risks such as sea level rise and extreme weather events that 

could affect communication and transportation infrastructure, including 

ports, roads, and airports, as well as energy infrastructure, such as oil 

and gas production. Of the 24 agencies we surveyed, 16 indicated that 

climate-related events, such as floods, hurricanes, droughts, and extreme 

cold, have already disrupted their agencies’ supply chains in the past 15 

years. For example, 7 of these 16 agencies described episodes of 

flooding that, among other things, disrupted fuel deliveries, altered 

transportation routes, and damaged agency equipment or facilities. 

According to officials we interviewed from NASA and USPS, a hurricane 

can be the worst-case immediate climate-related risk to supply chains 

due to the far-reaching effects of these storms. In their survey responses, 

several agencies described examples of supply chain disruptions that 

resulted from hurricanes, including the following:

• Damage from Hurricane Ivan in 2004 seriously disrupted the 

operations of one of an agency’s laboratories when it flooded certain 

buildings with as much as 10 inches of water and washed away parts 

of the facility’s piers.

48Congressional Research Service, Climate Change Adaptation by Federal Agencies: An 

Analysis of Plans and Issues for Congress, Publ. No. R43915 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 23, 

2015). 

Page 18 GAO-16-32 Federal Supply Chains

 
• Superstorm Sandy disrupted normal deliveries to one of an agency’s 

sites, cut off electrical power, and severely reduced the site’s ability to 

communicate via phone and Internet.

• Superstorm Sandy affected project schedules for an agency installing 

telecommunication services in areas not directly impacted by the 

storm, as telecommunication service crews from the Washington, 

D.C., area were redirected to the New York City area.

In addition, when we interviewed NASA officials, they expressed concern 

that a climate-related event that affects the power grid could disrupt a 

particularly critical component of their agency’s supply chains. According 

to these officials, NASA tracks about 240 spacecraft at any given time, 

and any loss of power could mean losing navigational contact with these 

craft. Moreover, they told us that NASA pays for spacecraft up front and 

then downloads and stores unique data from the craft over time. 

Therefore, they said any gap in their access to these data could result in 

less data for the same cost.

According to their responses to our survey and our interviews with 

officials and staff from CEQ, USGCRP, and key agencies, the 24 selected 

agencies we reviewed face several challenges in identifying climaterelated risks to supply chains, including those below.

CEQ has provided guidance to agencies for Executive Order 13653 but, 

according to the officials we interviewed from four of the five key 

agencies, several responses to our survey, and our review of CEQ’s 

guidance, the guidance does not clearly specify how agencies should 

consider climate-related risks to agency suppliers and supply chain. For 

example, GSA officials we interviewed said many agencies they work with 

are just now thinking about climate-related risks to their supply chains and 

do not know where to begin to identify those risks because there is little 

guidance, in general, for how they should do so. In its survey response, 

one agency commented that guidance to better and more consistently 

define supply chain risks and governmentwide goals and objectives would 

help agencies identify climate-related risks to supply chains. Another 

agency indicated that, at this point, agencies are working mostly 

independently on these issues without a broader understanding of 

governmentwide goals and objectives or a federal approach to identifying 

climate-related risks to supply chains. We reviewed the guidance and 

Selected Agencies 

Reported Facing Several 

Challenges in Identifying 

Climate-Related Risks to 

Their Supply Chains

Unclear Guidance Related to 

Supply Chain Risks

Page 19 GAO-16-32 Federal Supply Chains
found that, although Executive Order 13653 directs agencies to identify 

and assess climate change related impacts on and risks to their ability to 

accomplish their missions, operations, and programs in their adaptation 

plans, CEQ’s guidance does not discuss how agencies should do so for 

risks to suppliers and supply chain. CEQ officials noted that some 

agencies asked for clarification—for example, whether Executive Order 

13653’s references to supply chains applied to supplies they receive, 

supplies they provide, or both.

CEQ officials told us that its guidance was broadly written so that it would 

be useful for agencies with different missions. These officials also stated 

that agencies manage their supply chains differently, depending on their 

missions, which could be reflected in agencies’ efforts to identify climaterelated risks. Nonetheless, in its survey response, one agency 

commented that critical supply chain issues could be common across 

many federal agencies, and that guidance identifying some specific and 

broadly-applicable critical supply chain issues and their associated 

vulnerabilities and potential impacts to agency operations would be a 

useful starting point for agencies to identify climate-related risks to their 

supply chains. In addition, agencies that are in earlier stages of 

adaptation planning may not be aware of or know how to identify climaterelated risks to their supply chains.

CEQ officials also told us they provided some informal feedback on 

agencies’ efforts to implement the goals of the executive orders, including 

the development of their adaptation plans, by reviewing and providing 

comments on the plans, holding interagency workshops, and requesting 

agency input on guidance. According to officials and staff from CEQ, 

OMB, and USGCRP, agencies could also communicate with CEQ as they 

carried out these efforts. In response to our survey, 9 of 24 agencies 

indicated that CEQ provided feedback—formal, informal, or both—on 

their adaptation plans, and 2 of these agencies indicated that this 

feedback related to climate-related risks to their supply chains.49

Executive Order 13653 does not direct CEQ to emphasize supply chains 

in its review of adaptation plans, and CEQ officials told us that their 

reviews, to date, did not specifically focus on supply chains.

49In our survey, we did not ask agencies whether they requested feedback from CEQ on 

their adaptation plans. 

Page 20 GAO-16-32 Federal Supply Chains

 
Under federal standards for internal control, agencies are to clearly 

document internal controls, and the documentation is to appear in 

management directives, administrative policies, or operating manuals.50

CEQ has documented guidance, which is consistent with these 

standards. Nonetheless, by clarifying the guidance to discuss how 

agencies’ are to consider the need to improve climate adaptation and 

resilience with respect to their suppliers and supply chains, CEQ will have 

better assurance that the guidance is helping more agencies to achieve 

the executive order’s directive when they submit future updates to their 

adaptation plans.

According to officials and staff we interviewed from USGCRP, three of the 

five key agencies, and agency responses to our survey, climate-related 

data are often unavailable or exist in different formats, which poses 

challenges for agencies in identifying climate-related risks to supply 

chains. As we found in the February 2015 update to our high risk list,51

the federal government’s climate-related data—composed of 

observational records from satellites and weather monitoring stations, 

projections from complex climate models, and other tools—are 

fragmented across many individual agencies that use the information in 

different ways to meet their respective missions. As we concluded in 

February 2015, federal, state, local, and private-sector decision makers 

may be unaware that this information exists or may be unable to use what 

is available. Officials and staff we interviewed from USGCRP and three of 

the five key agencies told us that the physical impacts of a changing 

climate differ by location and can be very localized, but they do not have 

access to standardized, local-level data, which can pose challenges to 

identifying climate-related risks to supply chains at an agency-wide level. 

For example, USPS officials we interviewed said they use the geographic 

information system (GIS) mapping software to assess risks to its network 

facilities but, according to these officials, they are not aware of local-level 

data on floodplains (i.e., lowland and relatively flat areas adjoining inland 

and coastal waters) available in a format easily integrated into GIS.52

50GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1. 

51GAO-15-290.

52The primary function of a GIS is to link multiple sets of geospatial data and display the 

combined information as maps with different layers of information. Assuming that all of the 

information is at the same scale and has been formatted according to the same geospatial 

standards, users can potentially overlay geospatial data about any number of specific 

topics to examine how the data in the various layers interrelate. 

Limited Availability of Some 

Climate-Related Data

Page 21 GAO-16-32 Federal Supply Chains

 
Therefore, USPS is not able to overlay these data onto its maps to 

identify potential flood risks to its network facilities, limiting its ability to 

devise plans to minimize disruptions to its internal supply chain.

We have previously found similar challenges. For example, in April 2013, 

we found that infrastructure decision makers have not systematically 

incorporated potential climate change impacts in planning because, 

among other factors, they face challenges identifying and obtaining 

available climate change information best suited for their projects.53

Further, in that report, we also found that, even when information is 

available, it may not be in the actionable, practical form needed for 

decision makers to use in planning and designing infrastructure. In this 

review, officials and staff we interviewed from CEQ, OMB, USGCRP, and 

three of the five key agencies told us that not having reliable, forwardlooking data based on, for example, predictions or forecasting, poses a 

challenge to identifying climate-related risks to supply chains. For 

instance, DHS officials we interviewed said that a common practice for 

managing risks is to consider historical data, not future projections. They 

said this poses a challenge with adaptation planning when, for instance, 

there is a lot of uncertainty around sea level rise and engineers plan longterm projects using historical data. USGCRP officials and staff told us that 

no standard climate projections exist because (1) a range of future 

climate scenarios is typically assessed given the long time frames that 

need to be considered and (2) associated impact and risk assessments 

from those scenarios are currently drawn from a number of different 

climate models.54

According to our interviews with officials and staff from CEQ, USGCRP, 

and GSA, agencies have identified climate-related risks to their supply 

chains to varying degrees due, in part, to differences across agencies in 

the sophistication of internal expertise and skills. For example, CEQ 

53GAO-13-242. 

54According to GSA and NASA officials we interviewed, the U.S. Climate Resilience 

Toolkit is an example of a resource that could help agencies access certain climate 

projection information. According to the U.S. Climate Resilience Toolkit’s website, this 

resource provides scientific tools, information, and expertise to help people manage their 

climate-related risks and opportunities, and improve their resilience to extreme events. 

Version 1.0 of the U.S. Climate Resilience Toolkit was developed in 2014 by a partnership 

of federal agencies and organizations led by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration. See https://toolkit.climate.gov. 

Varying Degrees of Expertise 

and Skills

Page 22 GAO-16-32 Federal Supply Chains

 
officials told us that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

(NOAA) and NASA have staff scientists who could provide weather 

projections to help NOAA and NASA make progress identifying climaterelated risks, but GSA officials told us that agencies without particular 

skills such as these might need to contract out such expertise. In addition, 

officials from GSA told us that, while the agency could determine that its 

telecommunication and data centers are critical components of its supply 

chains, the agency did not have the technical expertise to identify the 

climate-related risks to the complex services provided through these 

supply chain components. DHS officials said that they rely on the 

expertise of other agencies or resources, such as NOAA and USGCRP, 

for the science involved in identifying climate-related risks to supply 

chains because DHS does not have the relevant scientific expertise.

Officials we interviewed from four of the five key agencies said mapping 

their supply chains is a complex and expensive process that may 

compete with other agency priorities. In addition, several agency officials 

and staff we interviewed said it is too early in the planning process for 

agencies to conduct this type of effort. Specifically, officials from GSA and 

NASA said agencies generally only have direct contractual relationships 

with the primary tier of their supply chains and, therefore, have limited 

direct insight and influence regarding subcontractors at secondary or 

tertiary tiers, including any climate-related risks to them. Moreover, 

officials from GSA said supply chains are increasingly global and 

complex, with parts sourced, and systems accessed from around the 

world. According to these officials, this makes climate-related risks 

difficult to identify because they differ by location and can be very 

localized.

At this early stage of federal adaptation planning, several agency officials 

we interviewed said they believe that agencies should focus on identifying 

climate-related risks to their critical supply chains. According to officials 

we interviewed, and several agency responses to our survey, while 

critical supply chains are generally unique to each agency, most 

agencies’ critical supply chains depend on certain components, such as 

telecommunications, fuel supplies, and electricity, which could serve as a 

starting point for agencies to identify climate-related risks to their supply 

chains. According to GSA officials, information about the mission-critical 

products and services customer agencies purchase through GSA would 

help GSA prioritize climate risk management activities with its suppliers. 

These officials told us that they have asked customer agencies to provide 

this information and that, to date, few have done so, but they are 

continuing to pursue this information.

Limited Information about 

Critical Supplies and Locations 

of Supply Chains

Page 23 GAO-16-32 Federal Supply Chains
According to our analysis of agency adaptation plans and interviews with 

officials and staff from CEQ, USGCRP, and the five key agencies, few of 

the selected agencies have identified and implemented actions to 

manage climate-related risks to their supply chains, in part because, as 

discussed above, most agencies are in the early stages of identifying 

these risks. According to these officials and agency survey responses, 

agencies also face several challenges in identifying and implementing 

actions to manage these risks, such as planning timelines that do not 

align with budget cycles or processes, limited expertise, and limited 

visibility into critical suppliers.

Based on our analysis of agencies’ 2014 adaptation plans, 4 of 24 

selected agencies identified agency-specific actions to manage climaterelated risks to their supply chains. For instance, one agency’s adaptation 

plan identified its intent to partner with its acquisition workforce to 

consider whether climate change will affect its ability to procure critical 

materials and to revise procurement procedures (e.g., through 

diversifying its supply chains), as necessary. CEQ and GSA officials told 

us that many agencies have not yet identified or implemented actions 

because they are at the very early stages of identifying the climate-related 

risks to their supply chains and, as discussed above, identifying risks is 

the first step in risk management. According to our analysis of agencies’ 

2014 adaptation plans, of the 20 agencies that did not identify agencyspecific actions to manage climate-related risks to their supply chains, 12 

had not yet identified such risks.

Officials from four of the five key agencies told us that, although they are 

in the early stages of planning, they have taken certain limited steps to 

identify actions to manage climate-related risks to their supply chains. For 

example, GSA officials told us that a 2014 study the agency 

commissioned identified several actions agencies could take to manage 

climate-related risks to telecommunications and data centers, which GSA 

had previously determined were critical components of agency supply 

Few Selected 

Agencies Have 

Identified and 

Implemented Actions 

to Manage ClimateRelated Risks to Their 

Supply Chains and 

Face Several 

Challenges in Doing 

So

Few Selected Agencies 

Have Identified Actions to 

Manage Climate-Related 

Risks to Their Supply 

Chains

Page 24 GAO-16-32 Federal Supply Chains
chains.55 GSA officials stated that they plan to share the results of this 

study with GSA acquisition staff, their customer agencies, and federal 

climate change working groups, so that more agencies can take actions 

to better manage these risks. In addition, USPS officials told us that, in 

2014, the agency conducted a pilot project to evaluate increased climaterelated risk to facilities in its internal supply chain in 2 USPS districts and 

plans to use the results of this pilot to develop an approach across all 67 

districts. According to USPS officials, the agency has conducted risk 

assessment and planning for continuity of operations and demonstrated 

the effectiveness of these plans through actual climate-related events. 

USPS officials stated that the agency’s efforts allow it to quickly restore 

distribution, transportation, and delivery capability.

According to our survey results and interviews with officials and staff from 

CEQ, USGCRP, and the five key agencies, selected agencies that have 

attempted to identify or have already identified climate-related risks to 

their supply chains cited several challenges in identifying and 

implementing actions to manage those risks. Specifically:

• Planning timelines that do not align with budget cycles or 

processes. Officials we interviewed from three of the five key 

agencies identified the annual budget cycle as a challenge to 

identifying and implementing actions to manage climate-related 

supply chain risks that may not be seen for a number of years.56 For 

example, GSA officials said that it is difficult to secure funding to build 

resilience to climate-related impacts when these impacts are expected 

to take more than 20 years to emerge, yet the federal budget process 

is on a 1-year cycle. In addition, DOD officials told us that, although 

military construction can be a long-term project, consideration of the 

long-term effects of climate-related risks may not align with the 2- or 

55Riverside Technology, Inc. and Acclimatise. Climate Risks Study for 

Telecommunications and Data Center Services (2014). 

56USPS, an independent establishment of the executive branch, is intended to be a 

financially self-sustaining entity that covers its expenses almost entirely through postal 

revenues. See 39 U.S.C. §§ 201, 2003. See also, Payments on Unfunded Liability by the 

U.S. Postal Service to Civil Service Retirement Fund: Hearing Before the Committee on 

Post Office and Civil Service, United States Senate, on H.R. 29, 93rd Cong. 1 (1974) 

(statement by Post Office and Civil Service Committee Chairman Gale McGee). 

Selected Agencies Face 

Several Challenges in 

Identifying and 

Implementing Actions to 

Manage Climate-Related 

Risks to Their Supply 

Chains

Page 25 GAO-16-32 Federal Supply Chains

 
3-year time frames of DOD decision makers.57 This is consistent with 

our February 2015 update to our high risk list and July 2014

testimony, in which we found that the federal budget generally does 

not account for the long-term impacts of climate change on existing 

federal infrastructure and programs.58

• Limited expertise. Officials from four of the five key agencies told us 

that they did not have the internal expertise to identify and implement 

actions to manage climate-related risks to their supply chains and 

would need to rely on staff from other agencies or contractors. For 

example, GSA officials said that they do not have actuaries who could 

provide quantifiable justification to allow GSA to invest in resilience 

efforts. According to these officials, climate-related risks need to be 

examined through their budget impacts, and this is currently not being 

done. This is a challenge for GSA because, according to these 

officials, the development of the necessary accounting standards and 

insurance or valuation methods are not part of GSA’s core mission, 

and GSA does not have the expertise to conduct this type of analysis. 

Another agency indicated in its survey response that it relies on the 

expertise of other agencies to identify actions required to manage 

climate-related risks and that to add this expertise internally would be 

a fundamental change that would likely require significant additional 

resources. Similarly, DHS officials told us that it is challenging for the 

agency to understand climate-related risks because DHS is not a 

science agency. They stated that many agency staff are not yet 

familiar with the specific challenges climate change may present to 

57In May 2014, we found that, according to DOD officials at selected DOD installations, 

they generally had not proposed projects to address potential climate change impacts or 

vulnerabilities because they believed that adaptation projects would not compete well in 

the military services’ processes for approving and funding potential projects. These 

processes—often called “scoring” processes—generally consist of the following elements: 

they assign numerical values—or “points”—to certain project characteristics; potential 

projects’ relative scores are used to rank the projects; and senior decision makers at the 

military services’ headquarters review the rank-order list, selecting projects based on 

service priorities. In addition, even if a potential adaptation project is included in an 

installation’s master plan, the projects must still be approved by the military-service 

headquarters, before being approved by the Office of the Secretary of Defense, OMB, and 

ultimately, by Congress. See GAO, Climate Change Adaptation: DOD Can Improve 

Infrastructure Planning and Processes to Better Account for Potential Impacts, 

GAO-14-446 (Washington, D.C.: May 30, 2014). 

58GAO-15-290 and GAO, Budget Issues: Opportunities to Reduce Federal Fiscal 

Exposures Through Greater Resilience to Climate Change and Extreme Weather, 

GAO-14-504T (Washington, D.C.: July 29, 2014). 

Page 26 GAO-16-32 Federal Supply Chains

 
the agency’s operations and mission. As a provider of professional 

services to the federal government, GSA has recognized that other 

federal agencies without climate change expertise may need 

contractor assistance in developing and implementing adaptation 

plans. According to GSA officials, the agency has taken steps to 

incorporate this type of expertise in its Multiple Awards Schedule 

Program.59 For example, in September 2013, GSA issued a request 

for information to assess the marketplace for services to support 

federal climate change adaptation activities.60

• Limited visibility into critical suppliers. According to interviews with 

officials from GSA and NASA, and narrative comments from several 

agencies responding to our survey, agencies have limited visibility into 

their suppliers. This is consistent with our October 2010 report, in 

which we found that government visibility into subcontracts for major 

weapon systems is generally limited.61 Among other things, we found 

that, while primary contractors have significant visibility into and 

control of their first-tier subcontractors, they acknowledged the 

challenges of managing sub-tier suppliers across highly complex 

supply chains. We recommended that DOD develop additional 

guidance for contracting officers on implementing acquisition 

provisions aimed at gaining insight into subcontractor performance. 

DOD concurred with our recommendation and, in October 2011, 

issued additional guidance on implementing such provisions. Limited 

visibility into its suppliers could hinder an agency’s ability to identify all 

of its climate-related risks and, consequently, its ability to determine 

actions to manage these risks. For example, NASA officials told us 

that the agency’s programs only have direct contractual relationships 

with the primary contractors in their supply chains, many of which they 

said overlap with other federal agencies; therefore, they have limited 

direct insight and influence regarding subcontractors that are 

components of NASA’s complete supply chains. Officials from GSA 

59GSA’s Multiple Awards Schedule Program consists of contracting vehicles that establish 

long-term governmentwide contracts with commercial companies to provide access to 

commercial products and services at volume discount pricing. 

60A request for information is generally used to ask for information about the capabilities of 

various suppliers to address a problem or an issue. It is primarily used to gather 

information to help make decisions. 

61GAO, Defense Acquisitions: Additional Guidance Needed to Improve Visibility into the 

Structure and Management of Major Weapon System Subcontracts, GAO-11-61R

(Washington, D.C.: Oct. 28, 2010). 

Page 27 GAO-16-32 Federal Supply Chains

 
and NASA said clauses in future procurement contracts could help 

agencies manage risks in their supply chain by, for example, requiring 

vendors to complete climate-related risk management plans. Officials 

from both agencies said such clauses could help individual agencies 

gain enough visibility to manage the impact of climate-related risks to 

their vendors’ supply chains and, thus, could improve the 

management of these risks across the government.

Ten of the 24 agencies responding to our survey indicated that additional 

guidance or tools to help agencies define critical supply chains and 

identify associated climate-related risks could help agencies identify and 

implement actions to manage climate-related risks to their supply chains. 

In addition, in narrative comments, agencies responding to our survey 

mentioned other support, guidance, or tools, such as recommended 

climate scenarios and easy-to-use tools that identify regional and local 

supply chain systems at risk, would help.

In its survey response, one agency commented that interagency 

coordination is likely needed to develop a more systematic and consistent 

approach for understanding and managing climate-related supply chain 

risks and suggested that CEQ form a working group to improve 

coordination. Executive Order 13653 directs the Council on Climate 

Preparedness and Resilience to develop and coordinate interagency 

efforts on priority federal government actions related to climate 

preparedness and resilience, and provides for the council co-chairs and a 

steering committee to establish working groups, as needed. However, 

according to CEQ officials, while the council has several working groups, 

it does not have a working group specifically to develop information or 

support decision making regarding federal supply chains. More recently, 

Executive Order 13693 specifically directs the Chair of CEQ to establish, 

as appropriate, temporary interagency working groups, including one for 

agency supply chain climate vulnerability.

Officials and staff we spoke with from USGCRP and three of the five key 

agencies also expressed an interest in forming a working group to share 

knowledge on climate-related risks to supply chains. For example, a 

NASA official told us that officials from DOD, GSA, NASA, and the 

Environmental Protection Agency met twice to discuss whether to 

establish a working group focused on federal supply chains. However, 

GSA officials stated that participation in this working group had been 

limited. A USGCRP staff member told us that such a working group could 

be a good idea because, even though there is a lot of climate-related 

information available, the information is not focused on supply chains, 

Page 28 GAO-16-32 Federal Supply Chains
and agencies have expressed an interest and have identified a need for 

additional information and expertise. For example, in one survey 

response, an agency commented that several of its sites are collocated 

with another agency’s sites, so the two agencies could share many of the 

same risks to their supply chains. Therefore, similar risk mitigation 

strategies could help both agencies. This is consistent with one of the 

practices we found in October 2005 that can help enhance and sustain 

collaboration among federal agencies.62 We found that, by assessing their 

relative strengths and limitations, collaborating agencies can look for 

opportunities to address resource needs by leveraging one another’s 

resources, thus obtaining additional benefits that would not be available if 

they were working separately. In addition, as we concluded in the 

February 2015 update to our high risk list, the federal government would 

be better positioned to respond to the risks posed by climate change if 

federal efforts were more coordinated and were directed toward common 

goals.63

CEQ officials said they agree that a working group could be useful and 

that they plan to convene one, but that they are busy implementing other 

aspects of Executive Order 13693 that are higher priorities due to 

imminent deadlines and have no planned date for when they will convene 

one. CEQ officials later stated that they have recently begun discussions 

with federal partners about related work that is taking place in order to 

determine how best to proceed. Standards for Internal Control in the 

Federal Government state that agencies are to assess the risks they face 

from both external and internal sources and that, because operating and 

other conditions continually change, mechanisms should be provided to 

identify and deal with any special risks prompted by such changes.64

Developing a plan describing when CEQ will convene an interagency 

working group to provide recommendations on agency supply chain 

climate vulnerability could be an important step toward providing a 

62GAO, Results-Oriented Government: Practices That Can Help Enhance and Sustain 

Collaboration among Federal Agencies, GAO-06-15 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 21, 2005).

63GAO-15-290. 

64GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1. In addition to federal standards for internal control, OMB 

instructions on internal control state that management should identify internal and external 

risks that may prevent the organization from meeting its objectives and that identified risks 

should then be analyzed for their potential effect or impact on the agency. See OMB, 

Circular A-123, Management’s Responsibility for Internal Control. 

Page 29 GAO-16-32 Federal Supply Chains

 
mechanism that could help agencies systematically share information and 

experiences as they update their adaptation plans. It could also help them 

begin addressing the challenges they have identified.

According to our literature review and interviews with officials from key 

agencies and coordinating entities, the federal government’s overall fiscal 

exposure to climate-related disruptions in supply chains is unknown. 

Based on our analysis of the 24 selected agencies’ 2014 adaptation plans 

and agency survey responses, this is largely because these agencies 

have not identified their fiscal exposure. In addition, according to 

interviews with officials from key agencies and agency survey responses, 

agencies face challenges in identifying their fiscal exposure to climaterelated disruptions in their supply chains.

The federal government’s fiscal exposure to climate-related disruptions in 

federal supply chains is unknown, in large part, because many agencies 

have not yet identified this exposure. In January 2003, we began using 

the term “fiscal exposure” to provide a conceptual framework for 

considering the wide range of responsibilities, programs, and activities 

that may explicitly or implicitly expose the federal government to future 

spending.65 The aim is not to provide strict definitional guidelines, but 

rather to improve understanding of the exposures associated with certain 

activities. By extending beyond conventional accounting and fiscal 

analysis, the concept of fiscal exposure is meant to provide a broad 

perspective on long-term costs and uncertainties—which is particularly 

relevant for considering climate-related risks and future costs.

According to our literature review and interviews with officials from key 

agencies and coordinating entities, there is no information on the federal 

government’s overall potential fiscal exposure to climate-related 

65GAO, Fiscal Exposures: Improving the Budgetary Focus on Long-Term Costs and 

Uncertainties, GAO-03-213 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 24, 2003). 

The Federal 

Government’s Fiscal 

Exposure to ClimateRelated Disruptions in 

Supply Chains Is 

Unknown, and 

Agencies Face 

Challenges 

Identifying Their 

Exposure

The Federal Government’s 

Fiscal Exposure to 

Climate-Related 

Disruptions in Supply 

Chains Is Unknown

Page 30 GAO-16-32 Federal Supply Chains

 
disruptions in federal supply chains. In addition, according to our analysis 

of the most recent adaptation plans for the 24 selected agencies, one 

plan includes a general discussion of budget or other resource needs for 

implementing agency-specific actions to manage climate-related risks to 

supply chains. Moreover, according to our analysis, none of the plans 

identifies the fiscal exposure agencies may face from potential disruptions 

to their supply chains.

None of the recent executive orders regarding climate change directs 

agencies to identify such fiscal exposures. Executive Order 13693 directs 

agencies—as part of the development of agencies’ Strategic 

Sustainability Performance Plans and consistent with Executive Order 

13653’s directive to develop adaptation plans—to calculate the potential 

cost and risk to mission associated with agency operations that do not 

take into account information on projected impacts of climate change in 

operational preparedness planning and consider that cost in agency 

decision making.

Of the 24 agencies surveyed, 4 agencies indicated that they have tried to 

identify their fiscal exposure to any potential climate-related disruptions to 

their supply chains. In doing so, 3 of these agencies were able to identify 

a small number of qualitative examples of exposure, such as greater fire 

suppression costs due to increases in the size and severity of wildfires, 

but they did not include estimated dollar values of any associated fiscal 

exposure. As we found in the February 2015 update to our high risk list, it 

is unclear how the various agency adaptation planning efforts relate to 

each other or what they amount to as a governmentwide approach for 

reducing federal fiscal exposures.66

In their survey responses, 7 of the 24 agencies commented that they did 

not try or were unable to identify their fiscal exposure because of the 

challenges discussed above in identifying climate-related risks to supply 

chains and actions to manage them—particularly limited information 

about climate-related risks to their supply chains and actions to manage 

these risks. For example, several survey respondents commented that 

their agencies have not completed risk assessments to provide 

information necessary for determining fiscal exposure. In addition, NASA 

66GAO-15-290. 

Selected Agencies Face 

Challenges in Identifying 

Their Fiscal Exposure to 

Climate-Related 

Disruptions in Their Supply 

Chains

Page 31 GAO-16-32 Federal Supply Chains

 
officials we interviewed told us that they are in the early stages of thinking 

about how to estimate the agency’s fiscal exposure, and that, to make 

progress, they would need to identify actions to manage these risks 

before quantifying this exposure.

Further, in other comments to the survey, 8 of 24 agencies described 

facing additional challenges in their efforts to identify their fiscal exposure 

to any potential climate-related disruptions to their supply chains, 

including limited information about climate-related events, a lack of risk 

assessments for quantifying fiscal exposure, and a lack of a standardized 

framework or process.67 Several of these agencies cited the lack of a 

process for determining the advantages of costs avoided by investing in 

adaptation efforts to manage potential climate-related disruptions to their 

supply chains.68 In addition, DHS, GSA, and NASA officials told us that 

the annual budget process does not generally include a standardized 

framework, including ways to determine the advantages of costavoidance, for funding activities across the long-term time horizons 

necessary for implementing most adaptation efforts. According to these 

officials, if funds are not spent at the end of the fiscal year, then budgets 

may be reduced the next fiscal year. Further, officials from key agencies 

told us that they believe managing these risks should be incorporated into 

agencies’ overall budget processes. According to USPS officials, potential 

adaptation and other costs for facility and infrastructure investments 

include installing cables for alternate power, revisions to building design 

67In their survey responses, 7 of the 24 agencies indicated that they have faced 

challenges in their efforts to identify their fiscal exposure to any potential climate-related 

disruptions to their supply chains. These agencies include the 4 agencies that tried to 

identify such exposure. In addition to these 7 agencies, several other agencies described 

challenges in their narrative responses to other questions in the fiscal exposure section of 

the survey. Of the 20 agencies indicating that they have not tried to identify their fiscal 

exposure, 9 indicated that they did not know or were not sure regarding challenges they 

have faced, and 8 agencies indicated that they have not faced challenges. 

68Executive Order 13693 directs agencies—as part of the development of their Strategic 

Sustainability Performance Plans and consistent with Executive Order 13653’s directive to 

develop adaptation plans—to identify and address projected impacts of climate change on 

mission critical water, energy, communication, and transportation demands and consider 

those climate impacts in operational preparedness planning for major agency facilities and 

operations. Further, the executive order directs agencies to calculate the potential cost 

and risk to mission associated with agency operations that do not take into account this 

information and consider that cost in agency decision making. See Exec. Order No. 

13693, § 13, 80 Fed. Reg. 15871, 15880 (Mar. 25, 2015). 

Page 32 GAO-16-32 Federal Supply Chains

 
standards, facility leasing and closures, and network technology to 

support remote locations.

Similarly, according to our interviews with officials from several key 

agencies, agencies can face challenges breaking out specific costs for 

climate-related disruptions when preparing their budgets because they do 

not typically budget for activities associated with responding to specific 

types of climate-related events, such as hurricanes or floods.69 For 

example, USPS officials stated that they track costs for certain mitigating 

activities, such as mobile fuel purchases, for “extraordinary” events, such 

as Superstorm Sandy or Hurricane Katrina, with significant disruptions 

over a long period. However, according to these officials, determining 

what constitutes an extraordinary event is a judgment call because there 

is no guidance on classifying budget activities for weather-related events. 

DOD officials told us that the agency opened limited budget codes for 

Superstorm Sandy, but that it does not examine the fiscal impacts of 

climate-related risks.70 In addition, according to DHS officials, financial 

considerations of disruptions are part of the agency’s planning efforts, but 

climate-related risks do not have a budget line item.

OMB provides guidance on preparing budgets; however, OMB staff told 

us this guidance does not include directions for assessing agency supply 

chains, including the fiscal exposure of these supply chains to climaterelated disruptions. OMB staff also stated that they do not focus on supply 

chain disruptions in their review of agency adaptation plans. Nonetheless, 

over the past year, the Director of OMB has stated publicly that OMB 

should focus on ensuring that agency budgets fully reflect the costs of a 

changing climate. In January 2003, we recommended that OMB should 

report annually on fiscal exposures, including a concise list and 

description of such exposures, cost estimates, where possible, and an 

assessment of methodologies and data used to produce cost estimates 

69In 2015, the Congressional Research Service analyzed agency adaptation plans and 

found that costs for federal adaptation efforts may be difficult to estimate or identify in 

agency budget requests because they may be incremental to and obscured within existing 

program efforts. See Congressional Research Service, Climate Change Adaptation by 

Federal Agencies. 

70Agencies can use budget codes to track funding, such as obligations and expenditures 

related to a designated purpose. See GAO, Climate Change: State Should Further 

Improve Its Reporting on Financial Support to Developing Countries to Meet Future 

Requirements and Guidelines, GAO-13-829 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 19, 2013).

Page 33 GAO-16-32 Federal Supply Chains

 
for such exposures.71 We further recommended that OMB should ensure 

that agencies focus on improving cost estimates for fiscal exposures, 

though the recommendation has not yet been implemented. In oral 

comments on our January 2003 report, OMB staff agreed that our 

concept of fiscal exposure is a valuable one, noting that it focuses 

attention on the fact that 1-year’s surplus or deficit is not the only, or even 

the best, measure of the government’s fiscal condition. OMB staff also 

stated that a number of the ideas and recommendations in the report are 

very good and point to improvements that should be made in the budget. 

However, OMB staff stated, among other things, that the analysis of 

recommendations should more explicitly consider their effects on the 

main purposes of budgeting to allocate resources, control agency 

spending, and set aggregate fiscal policy. In our response to OMB’s 

comments, we agreed that the various purposes of the budget should be 

considered in assessing the merits of approaches and options for 

improving the budget treatment of fiscal exposures and stated that we 

did, in fact, structure our discussion around objectives of budget reforms. 

Also, we agreed that these issues warrant further investigation if specific 

reforms are pursued. We continue to believe this recommendation has 

merit and should be implemented.

In October 2013, we found that fiscal exposure for catastrophic weatherrelated events is difficult to estimate due to uncertainty over whether the 

events will occur, when they will occur, and their severity.72 We also found 

that all estimates of future spending introduce some degree of uncertainty 

and that the ease of implementation differs based on several factors, 

such as whether estimation measures are new concepts that may involve 

developing new technical skills. We concluded that, even with 

implementation challenges, approximate estimates of the full cost to 

government may be preferable to, for instance, current measures that are 

incomplete. While we made no new recommendations in October 2013, 

we stated that we continue to support many past recommendations to 

improve budget recognition of fiscal exposures, both to increase the 

attention given to them and also to allow for more comparable cost 

information for decision makers to consider when determining the best 

way to achieve various policy goals or to design a program.

71GAO-03-213. 

72GAO, Fiscal Exposures: Improving Cost Recognition in the Federal Budget, GAO-14-28

(Washington, D.C.: Oct. 29, 2013). 

Page 34 GAO-16-32 Federal Supply Chains

 
Of the 24 agencies surveyed, 12 identified additional support, guidance, 

or tools that could assist them in efforts to identify their fiscal exposure to 

climate-related disruptions in their supply chains. In particular, many of 

these agencies cited a need for guidance with directions for assessing 

agency supply chains to determine fiscal exposure. GSA officials told us 

that it is important to include directions in OMB budget guidance for 

assessing the fiscal exposure of climate-related risks to supply chains; 

otherwise, agencies face challenges prioritizing these risks over other 

expectations in the guidance. Several survey respondents also cited a 

need for opportunities to develop and share common information across 

agencies, and 3 agencies cited a need for technical assistance assessing 

risks. GSA’s 2014 adaptation plan states that the federal government 

needs information on how to monetize costs avoided by investing up front 

in risk management because such information is critical to measure the 

long-term benefits of adaptation efforts. GSA’s plan states further that 

agencies need an open-source risk model and approach to monetizing 

the cost and payoff of risk management.

As we concluded in the February 2015 update to our high risk list, the 

impacts of climate change risks will result in increased fiscal exposure for 

the federal government in many areas.73 For example, according to 

NASA’s 2012 adaptation plan, supply chain risks are a particular concern 

to the agency because 80 to 90 percent of NASA’s budget is spent on 

acquisitions. In addition, DOD officials stated that thawing sea ice in the 

Arctic is opening shipping channels that will likely cause the Navy to incur 

additional costs for creating new supply chains for fueling its ships in that 

region,74 which has historically been unnavigable.75 According to GSA 

documents, GSA and its customer agencies have experienced a variety 

73GAO-15-290. 

74In July 2015, DOD reported that, regarding the integration of climate-related risk 

management into planning processes, acquisition and supply chain requirements for the 

Arctic are considerably longer and much more costly than other areas of responsibility for 

the North American Aerospace Defense Command/U.S. Northern Command. See DOD, 

National Security Implications of Climate-Related Risks and a Changing Climate (July 23, 

2015). 

75In June 2015, we found that DOD is in the process of updating its regional plans for the 

Arctic and is conducting analysis to determine future capability needs. See GAO, Arctic 

Planning: DOD Expects to Play a Supporting Role to Other Federal Agencies and Has 

Efforts Under Way to Address Capability Needs and Update Plans, GAO-15-566

(Washington, D.C.: June 19, 2015). 

Page 35 GAO-16-32 Federal Supply Chains

 
of climate-related impacts, such as extreme weather, that could disrupt 

some of the more than 11 million commercial products and services 

totaling more than $54 billion in annual sales that GSA procures for the 

federal government. GSA’s 2014 adaptation plan states that the agency’s 

vulnerabilities—including to fluctuations in demand exceeding its 

suppliers’ ability to deliver in a timely manner and supply chain 

disruptions in manufacturing, transportation, or other capacities—could be 

increased substantially by climate-related events and, thus, have 

cascading impacts on GSA’s customers, which include most federal 

agencies. Further, a 2014 study commissioned by GSA found that climate 

change poses a significant risk—including global risks to supply chains—

to the telecommunications and data center services sectors, which 

represent $20 billion in potential sales to federal agencies through GSA 

service contracts.76 According to this study, these sectors provide mission 

critical services to federal agencies and serve as the backbone for much 

of the work that is executed in today’s technology dependent workplace.

Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government state that 

agencies are to assess the risks they face from both external and internal 

sources,77 and an improved understanding of their fiscal exposure to 

climate-related disruptions in supply chains could help agencies more 

fully assess the potential costs or resources needed to manage these 

risks.78 Further, Executive Order 13653 calls for agencies’ adaptation 

plans to describe how the agency will consider the need to improve 

climate adaption and resilience, including the costs and benefits of such 

improvement, with respect to supply chains, among other things. In the 

February 2013 update to our high risk list,79 we found that while 

implementing adaptive measures may be costly, there is a growing 

recognition that the cost of inaction could be greater and—given the 

76Riverside Technology, Inc. and Acclimatise. Climate Risks Study for 

Telecommunications and Data Center Services (2014).

77GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1. 

78In October 2013, we found that expanding the availability and use of supplemental 

information, including measures that can signal significant changes in the magnitude of 

fiscal exposure, would be an important first step to enhancing oversight over federal 

resources and can aid in monitoring the financial condition of programs over the longer 

term. Incorporating measures of the full cost into primary budget data would provide 

enhanced control over future spending, which can help both improve the nation’s fiscal 

condition and enhance budgetary flexibility. See GAO-14-28. 

79GAO-13-283. 

Page 36 GAO-16-32 Federal Supply Chains
government’s precarious fiscal position—increasingly difficult to manage 

given expected budget pressures, which will constrain not just future ad 

hoc responses but other federal programs as well.80 An interagency 

working group on agency supply chain climate vulnerability could help 

agencies begin working together to address challenges they face 

identifying this fiscal exposure.

Supply chain disruptions due to weather-related events, such as 

Superstorm Sandy and the 2011 floods in Thailand, have resulted in 

billions of dollars in economic damages. Because such events are 

expected to increase in frequency and severity, they could increase the 

vulnerability of the supply chains that the federal government relies on to 

provide billions of dollars in goods and services. Many agencies have 

begun taking steps to plan for these risks to their supply chains and, since 

late 2013, the administration has issued executive orders and guidance 

aimed at helping agencies identify these risks and possible solutions to 

manage them. Since most agencies are at the early stages of planning, 

clearer guidance from CEQ could help agencies understand how to 

identify and assess climate-related risks to their supply chains to include 

in future updates to their adaptation plans.

Because the extent to which agencies have identified climate-related risks 

to their supply chains varies, agencies do not have a complete 

understanding of the risks they face. Without knowing about their 

potential risks, agencies are not well-positioned to identify and implement 

actions to manage these risks, which could compromise their missions 

and stretch limited resources. Further, because this information is limited, 

Congress and other decision makers do not have the information to 

understand the magnitude of the government’s potential fiscal exposure 

to climate-related disruptions to federal supply chains and, thus, cannot 

accurately gauge trade-offs between adaptive measures and inaction.

As we have found, the federal government would be better positioned to 

respond to climate-related risks if federal efforts were more coordinated 

and were directed toward common goals. Executive Order 13693 directs 

the Chair of CEQ to establish, as appropriate, temporary interagency 

80Regarding fiscal exposure, in October 2013, we found that the budget provided 

incomplete information or potentially misleading signals about the full cost of the 

commitments made today. See GAO-14-28. 

Conclusions

Page 37 GAO-16-32 Federal Supply Chains

 
working groups to provide recommendations on, among other things, 

agency supply chain climate vulnerability, but CEQ officials have no 

planned date for when they will convene one. By developing a plan 

describing when it will do so, CEQ could take an important step toward 

providing agencies an opportunity to systematically share information 

about and experiences with climate-related supply chain risks as they 

prepare their next adaptation plans.

To help agencies manage climate-related risks to their supply chains, we 

recommend that the Chair of CEQ take the following two actions:

• Clarify the guidance for Executive Order 13653 to better assist 

agencies in including information on climate-related risks to their 

supply chains in their adaptation plans.

• Develop a plan describing when CEQ will convene an interagency 

working group to provide recommendations on, among other things, 

agency supply chain climate vulnerability to assist agencies as they 

are preparing their next adaptation plans.

We provided a draft of this report for review and comment to CEQ, DOD, 

DHS, GSA, NASA, OMB, USGCRP, and USPS. In oral comments 

provided on September 25, 2015, senior officials and staff speaking on 

behalf of CEQ, OMB, and USGCRP confirmed that their agencies agreed 

with the report findings and recommendations. CEQ officials stated that 

convening a working group on supply chain climate vulnerability is a 

priority for CEQ and that CEQ is in the process of working with other 

agencies to determine options for doing so.

In a follow-up e-mail received on September 25, 2015, CEQ’s acting 

Chief Sustainability Officer stated that CEQ is aware of ongoing efforts to 

examine potential supply chain impacts from climate in more than one 

federal agency that may overlap with an effort to stand up a new working 

group and is facilitating discussions to determine what the scope of 

ongoing efforts is and how to best proceed to leverage existing efforts. 

The e-mail further stated that, over the past 2 months, CEQ has been 

working with several agencies, including DOD and GSA, to develop 

options for convening a working group on supply chain climate 

vulnerability and that their goal is to produce an options paper in late fall 

of 2015. USGCRP officials stated that it is important for the report to 

emphasize that the long time horizons associated with climate change, 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action

Agency Comments

Page 38 GAO-16-32 Federal Supply Chains
alongside the difficulty in identifying regional and local climate-related 

impacts, make it challenging for any entity, not just federal agencies, to 

identify climate-related risks to their supply chains.

Only USPS provided written comments, which are reproduced in 

appendix III. In its written comments, USPS stated that it is in general 

agreement with the report and its findings and provided two technical 

corrections, on which it stated it believed agreement had been reached. 

However, USPS also stated that it had a general concern that the report 

does not appear to reflect the risk assessment and planning for continuity 

of operations that had already taken place at USPS. We added a 

statement to the report acknowledging that, according to USPS, the 

agency has conducted risk assessment and planning for continuity of 

operations and demonstrated the effectiveness of these plans through 

actual climate-related events.

In e-mails received on September 21, 2015, from DOD and NASA, and 

on September 25, 2015, from DHS, the respective liaisons stated that 

their agencies did not have any comments on the draft report. GSA 

provided technical comments only, and CEQ, OMB, and USGCRP also 

provided technical comments, which we incorporated into the report, as 

appropriate.

As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of 

this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the 

report date. At that time, we will send copies to the appropriate 

congressional committees, the Chair of CEQ, the Secretaries of Defense 

and Homeland Security, the Administrators of GSA and NASA, the 

Director of OMB, the Executive Director of USGCRP, the Postmaster 

General, 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 members have any questions about this report, please 

contact me at (202) 512-3841 or gomezj@gao.gov. Contact points for our 

Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on 

Page 39 GAO-16-32 Federal Supply Chains
the last page of this report. GAO staff members who made key 

contributions to this report are listed in appendix IV.

Sincerely yours,

J. Alfredo Gómez

Director, Natural Resources and Environment

Page 40 GAO-16-32 Federal Supply Chains
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

In this report, we (1) evaluate the extent to which selected agencies have 

identified climate-related risks, if any, to their critical supply chains and 

challenges, if any, that they face in doing so; (2) evaluate the extent to 

which these agencies have identified and implemented actions to manage 

climate-related risks to their critical supply chains and challenges, if any, 

that they face in doing so; and (3) describe what is known about the 

federal government’s fiscal exposure to climate-related disruptions in 

federal supply chains and challenges, if any, agencies face in identifying 

such exposure.

To evaluate the extent to which selected agencies have identified climaterelated risks to their critical supply chains and identified and implemented 

actions to manage these risks, we analyzed climate change adaptation 

plans publicly released in February 2013 and October 2014 by 24 federal 

agencies.1 We selected these 24 agencies because they were expected 

to receive an Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Sustainability and 

Energy Scorecard for fiscal year 2014 and, according to the Council on 

Environmental Quality’s (CEQ) documents, are responsible for a 

significant portion of the federal government’s spending on goods and 

services.2 In particular, these agencies account for over 98 percent of the 

federal government’s fiscal year 2014 contract obligations, according to 

federal procurement data.3 To perform this analysis, two analysts 

separately reviewed each adaptation plan and then, based on this review, 

1

The 24 agencies are the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education, 

Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban 

Development, the Interior, Justice, Labor, State, Transportation, the Treasury, and 

Veterans Affairs; Environmental Protection Agency; General Services Administration; 

National Archives and Records Administration; National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration; Office of Personnel Management; U.S. Postal Service; Smithsonian 

Institution; Tennessee Valley Authority; and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 

2

OMB and CEQ use this annual scorecard process to assess key agencies’ performance 

in achieving, among other things, federal energy and environmental goals. Because the 

fiscal year 2014 scorecards were not yet released at the time of our review, we selected 

the 24 agencies that, according to CEQ officials and documents, were expected to receive 

scorecards for fiscal year 2014. Based on this information, we did not include the Social 

Security Administration, which went on to receive a 2014 scorecard. CEQ’s instructions 

clarify that the U.S. Postal Service voluntarily receives a scorecard. See CEQ, 

Implementing Instructions for Executive Order 13693 Planning for Federal Sustainability in 

the Next Decade (Washington, D.C.: June 10, 2015). 

3

Federal Procurement Data System - Next Generation database, accessed August 31, 

2015. 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 41 GAO-16-32 Federal Supply Chains

 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

categorized the extent to which the plans include information on supply 

chain climate-related risks according to the following scale:

• Not at all (i.e., the plan does not include climate-related risks to the 

agency’s supply chains);

• To a little extent (i.e., the plan acknowledges general climate-related 

risks to the agency’s supply chains but does not identify agencyspecific risks);

• To some extent (i.e., the plan identifies potential agency-specific 

climate-related risks to the agency’s supply chains, but does not 

propose actions or only proposes broad concepts or strategies);

• To a moderate extent (i.e., the plan identifies potential agency-specific 

climate-related risks to the agency’s supply chains and proposes 

targeted or systematic, agency-specific actions); or

• To a great extent (i.e., the plan proposes a long-term plan, including a 

general discussion of budget or other resource needs, for 

implementing agency-specific actions to address climate-related risks 

to the agency’s supply chains; the plan does not necessarily 

acknowledge or estimate the cost of actual actions taken, if any).

The analysts then compared and discussed results to resolve any 

differences in their categorization.

To address each of our objectives, we obtained information from a survey 

we emailed to the Senior Sustainability Officers (SSO) at the 24 selected 

agencies.4 In our survey, we collected information on, among other 

things, agency efforts to (1) identify climate-related risks to agency supply 

chains, (2) develop climate change adaptation plans, (3) identify and 

estimate fiscal exposure due to climate-related risks to supply chains, and 

(4) coordinate with other agencies to support adaptation regarding supply 

chains. Before we e-mailed the survey to SSOs, we revised the survey to 

reflect comments from an independent reviewer within GAO. We revised 

the survey again after we further pretested it in person and over the 

4

Executive Order 13514 directed agencies to designate, within 30 days of the date of the 

executive order, a Senior Sustainability Officer to be accountable for agency conformance 

with the executive order, including preparing and implementing a multiyear Strategic 

Sustainability Performance Plan and updating and submitting this plan annually to OMB 

and CEQ for review. In March 2015, Executive Order 13693 revoked Executive Order 

13514 and directed agencies to designate, within 45 days of the date of the executive 

order, an agency Chief Sustainability Officer and made the agency head responsible for 

developing, implementing, and updating the Strategic Sustainability Performance Plan. 

Page 42 GAO-16-32 Federal Supply Chains

 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

telephone with three SSOs from the study population. The survey used 

for this review is in appendix II. We e-mailed the survey in an attached 

Microsoft Word form that SSOs could return electronically after marking 

checkboxes or entering narrative responses into open answer boxes. In 

an e-mail or phone call in advance of distributing the survey, we asked 

relevant officials at the 24 selected agencies if we had the correct name 

of their current SSO, based on CEQ’s most recent list of SSOs. Five 

officials indicated that someone else was serving as their agency’s SSO, 

and we addressed further correspondence to those individuals. We emailed the survey on April 20, 2015. After the requested return date 

passed, we e-mailed or telephoned respondents who had not returned 

the survey and asked them to respond. All surveys were returned by May 

28, 2015. Surveys were completed by SSOs or their designates from 24 

selected agencies, for a response rate of 100 percent. Because this was 

not a sample survey, it has no sampling errors. However, the practical 

difficulties of conducting any survey may introduce nonsampling errors, 

such as difficulties in interpreting a particular question or sources of 

information available to respondents, which can introduce unwanted 

variability into the survey results. We took steps in developing the survey, 

collecting the data, and analyzing them to minimize such nonsampling 

error. Surveys may also be subject to error in entering, processing, and 

analyzing data. We verified the accuracy of a randomly-selected sample 

of keypunched records by comparing them with their corresponding 

surveys, and there were no errors found in the verified files. We noted 

any missing, irregular, or incorrect marks by the respondent and resolved 

these marks, as needed, through e-mail correspondence with the relevant 

agencies.

To address each of our objectives and gather information on specific 

examples of efforts to identify and manage climate-related risks to their 

supply chains, we identified the following 5 key agencies from the 24 

selected agencies: Department of Defense, Department of Homeland 

Security, the General Services Administration, the National Aeronautics 

and Space Administration, and the U.S. Postal Service. We selected 

these 5 key agencies based on a range of different factors such as 

agency size, geographic dispersion of facilities and infrastructure, types of 

supply chains, and mission. We conducted semistructured interviews with 

officials from these 5 key agencies and, during these interviews, we 

asked officials about their (1) agency’s critical supply chains, (2) 

adaptation planning efforts, (3) agency’s fiscal exposure from climaterelated risks to supply chains, and (4) views on interagency efforts to 

manage climate-related risks to federal supply chains. Because this is a 

nonprobability sample, our findings cannot be generalized to other 

Page 43 GAO-16-32 Federal Supply Chains
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

agencies but provided us with examples of the extent to which agencies 

identify and manage climate-related risks to their supply chains. We also 

interviewed officials and staff from the coordinating entities that review 

and approve agency adaptation plans—that is, CEQ and OMB, 

respectively—and one that provides science support to agencies—the 

U.S. Global Change Research Program—regarding their roles and 

agencies’ adaptation planning efforts and challenges. In addition, in 

evaluating the extent to which the selected agencies have identified and 

implemented actions to manage climate-related risks to their supply 

chains, we compared agency efforts to relevant executive orders and 

related guidance5 and compared the related guidance to federal 

standards for internal control.6

To describe what is known about the federal government’s fiscal 

exposure to climate-related disruptions in federal supply chains, we 

conducted a literature review to determine what has been reported about 

the government’s fiscal exposure to climate-related disruptions in federal 

supply chains. We interviewed officials from the five key agencies to 

obtain examples of fiscal exposure based on particular instances of 

supply chain disruptions and, through our survey results and interviews 

with officials and staff, identified challenges selected agencies and 

coordinating entities face in identifying such exposures.

We conducted this performance audit from October 2014 to October 2015 

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.

5

Exec. Order No. 13693, 80 Fed. Reg. 15,871 (Mar. 25, 2015); Exec. Order No. 13653, 78 

Fed. Reg. 66,819 (Nov. 6, 2013); and Exec. Order No. 13514, 74 Fed. Reg. 52,117 (Oct. 

8, 2009). 

6GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1. 

Page 44 GAO-16-32 Federal Supply Chains
We distributed this survey to the 24 federal agencies that were expected 

to receive a Sustainability and Energy Scorecard from the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) for fiscal year 2014.1 In this survey, we 

collected information on, among other things, agency efforts to (1) identify 

climate-related risks to agency supply chains, (2) develop climate change 

adaptation plans, (3) identify and estimate fiscal exposure due to climaterelated risks to supply chains, and (4) coordinate with other agencies to 

support adaptation regarding supply chains. The following copy of the 

survey includes a summary of the agencies’ survey responses. This 

summary includes the responses to questions that could be answered 

‘Yes,’ ‘No,’ or ‘Don’t know/not sure,’ as well as the number of instances of 

‘Missing data’—i.e., when a survey respondent did not provide a 

response to a question or provided a response that was inconsistent with 

the question (e.g., the respondent responded ‘No’ to a question but then 

responded to an “if Yes” follow-up to that question).

1

The 24 agencies are the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education, 

Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban 

Development, the Interior, Justice, Labor, State, Transportation, the Treasury, and 

Veterans Affairs; Environmental Protection Agency; General Services Administration; 

National Archives and Records Administration; National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration; Office of Personnel Management; U.S. Postal Service; Smithsonian 

Institution; Tennessee Valley Authority; and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. OMB and 

the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) use this annual scorecard process to assess 

key agencies’ performance in achieving, among other things, federal energy and 

environmental goals. According to CEQ documents, the scorecard agencies are 

responsible for, among other things, a significant portion of the federal government’s 

spending on goods and services. Because the fiscal year 2014 scorecards were not yet 

released at the time of our review, we selected the 24 agencies that, according to CEQ 

officials and documents, were expected to receive scorecards for fiscal year 2014. Based 

on this information, we did not include the Social Security Administration, which went on to 

receive a 2014 scorecard. CEQ’s instructions clarify that the U.S. Postal Service 

voluntarily receives a scorecard. See CEQ, Implementing Instructions for Executive Order 

13693 Planning for Federal Sustainability in the Next Decade (Washington, D.C.: June 10, 

2015).

Appendix II: Summary Results of GAO 

Survey of Senior Sustainability Officers

Page 45 GAO-16-32 Federal Supply Chains

 
Appendix II: Summary Results of GAO Survey 

of Senior Sustainability Officers

Page 46 GAO-16-32 Federal Supply Chains
Appendix II: Summary Results of GAO Survey 

of Senior Sustainability Officers

Page 47 GAO-16-32 Federal Supply Chains
Appendix II: Summary Results of GAO Survey 

of Senior Sustainability Officers

Page 48 GAO-16-32 Federal Supply Chains
Appendix II: Summary Results of GAO Survey 

of Senior Sustainability Officers

Page 49 GAO-16-32 Federal Supply Chains
Appendix II: Summary Results of GAO Survey 

of Senior Sustainability Officers

Page 50 GAO-16-32 Federal Supply Chains
Appendix II: Summary Results of GAO Survey 

of Senior Sustainability Officers

Page 51 GAO-16-32 Federal Supply Chains
Appendix II: Summary Results of GAO Survey 

of Senior Sustainability Officers

Page 52 GAO-16-32 Federal Supply Chains
Appendix II: Summary Results of GAO Survey 

of Senior Sustainability Officers

Page 53 GAO-16-32 Federal Supply Chains
Appendix II: Summary Results of GAO Survey 

of Senior Sustainability Officers

Page 54 GAO-16-32 Federal Supply Chains
Appendix II: Summary Results of GAO Survey 

of Senior Sustainability Officers

Page 55 GAO-16-32 Federal Supply Chains
Appendix II: Summary Results of GAO Survey 

of Senior Sustainability Officers

Page 56 GAO-16-32 Federal Supply Chains
Appendix II: Summary Results of GAO Survey 

of Senior Sustainability Officers

Page 57 GAO-16-32 Federal Supply Chains
Appendix II: Summary Results of GAO Survey 

of Senior Sustainability Officers

Page 58 GAO-16-32 Federal Supply Chains
Appendix II: Summary Results of GAO Survey 

of Senior Sustainability Officers

Page 59 GAO-16-32 Federal Supply Chains
Appendix III: Comments from the United States Appendix III: Comments from the United Postal Service

States Postal Service

Page 60 GAO-16-32 Federal Supply Chains
Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

J. Alfredo Gómez, (202) 512-3841 or gomezj@gao.gov

In addition to the individual named above, Barbara Patterson (Assistant 

Director), Ben Atwater, John Bumgarner, Cindy Gilbert, Chad M. Gorman, 

Caryn Kuebler, Jessica Mausner, Celia Rosario Mendive, Marmar Nadji, 

Alison O’Neill, Jeanette Soares, Kiki Theodoropoulos, and Michelle R. 

Wong made key contributions to this report.

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 61 GAO-16-32 Federal Supply Chains
Related GAO Products

High-Risk Series: An Update. GAO-15-290. Washington, D.C.: February 

2015.

Climate Change: Better Management of Exposure to Potential Future 

Losses Is Needed for Federal Flood and Crop Insurance. GAO-15-28. 

Washington, D.C.: October 29, 2014.

Budget Issues: Opportunities to Reduce Federal Fiscal Exposures 

Through Greater Resilience to Climate Change and Extreme Weather. 

GAO-14-504T. Washington, D.C.: July 29, 2014.

Defense Inventory: Actions Needed to Improve the Defense Logistics 

Agency’s Inventory Management. GAO-14-495. Washington, D.C.: June 

19, 2014.

Climate Change Adaptation: DOD Can Improve Infrastructure Planning 

and Processes to Better Account for Potential Impacts. GAO-14-446. 

Washington, D.C.: May 30, 2014.

Extreme Weather Events: Limiting Federal Fiscal Exposure and 

Increasing the Nation’s Resilience. GAO-14-364T. Washington, D.C.: 

February 12, 2014.

Climate Change: Energy Infrastructure Risks and Adaptation Efforts. 

GAO-14-74. Washington, D.C.: January 31, 2014.

Climate Change: Federal Efforts Under Way to Assess Water 

Infrastructure Vulnerabilities and Address Adaptation Challenges. 

GAO-14-23. Washington, D.C.: November 14, 2013.

High-Risk Series: An Update. GAO-13-283. Washington, D.C.: February 

2013.

Climate Change Adaptation: Federal Efforts to Provide Information Could 

Help Government Decision Making. GAO-12-238T. Washington, D.C.: 

November 16, 2011.

Climate Change Adaptation: Aligning Funding with Strategic Priorities. 

GAO-11-876T. Washington, D.C.: July 28, 2011.

Climate Change: Improvements Needed to Clarify National Priorities and 

Better Align Them with Federal Funding Decisions. GAO-11-317. 

Washington, D.C.: May 20, 2011.

Related GAO Products

Page 62 GAO-16-32 Federal Supply Chains
Related GAO Products

Climate Change Adaptation: Strategic Federal Planning Could Help 

Officials Make More Informed Decisions. GAO-10-175T. Washington, 

D.C.: October 22, 2009.

Climate Change Adaptation: Strategic Federal Planning Could Help 

Government Officials Make More Informed Decisions. GAO-10-113. 

Washington, D.C.: October 7, 2009.

Climate Change: Observations on Federal Efforts to Adapt to a Changing 

Climate. GAO-09-534T. Washington, D.C.: March 25, 2009.

(361603) Page 63 GAO-16-32 Federal Supply Chains
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. 

GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through GAO’s website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday 

afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, 

and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted 

products, go to http://www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537.

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube.

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. 

Listen to our Podcasts and read The Watchblog.

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov.

Contact:

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.