Many of our reports and testimonies include recommendations that, if acted upon, may result in tangible benefits for the U.S. taxpayer by improving the federal government’s efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability. Implemented recommendations can result in financial or nonfinancial benefits for the federal government. An estimated financial benefit is based on actions taken in response to our recommendations, such as reducing government expenditures, increasing revenues, or reallocating funds to other areas. For example, in fiscal year 2015, our work resulted in $74.4 billion in financial benefits across the federal government. Other benefits that result from our work cannot be measured in dollar terms, and we refer to them as nonfinancial or other benefits. These benefits are linked to specific recommendations or other work that we completed over several years and could include improvements to agency programs, processes, and policies. During fiscal year 2015, we recorded a total of 1,286 other benefits government-wide that resulted from our work, including improved services to the public and government business operations. As part of our responsibilities under generally accepted government auditing standards, we follow up on recommendations we have made and report their status to Congress. Agencies also have a responsibility to monitor and maintain accurate records on the status of our recommendations. After issuing a report, we follow up with reviewed agencies at least once a year to determine the extent to which our recommendations have been implemented and the benefits that have been realized. During this follow-up, we identify what additional actions, if any, would be needed to address our recommendations. A recommendation is considered implemented when actions have been taken that, consistent with our recommendation, address the issue or deficiency we identified and upon which the recommendation is based. Experience has shown that it takes time for some recommendations to be implemented. For this reason, we actively track each unaddressed (i.e., open) recommendation for 4 years and review them to determine whether implementation can be reasonably expected. The review includes consideration of alternative strategies the agency may have for implementing the recommendations. We will close the recommendation as not implemented if TSA has indicated that it was not taking action or we determined that it was unlikely that TSA would take action to close these recommendations. We maintain a publicly available database with information on the current status of most open recommendations. The database allows searches by agency, congressional committee, or key words and is available at http://www.gao.gov/openrecs.html. TSA has implemented 51 of the 58 recommendations we made from October 1, 2003, through July 31, 2015, intended to improve TSA’s acquisition of security-related technology, and has not implemented the remaining 7 recommendations (see fig. 1). The 58 recommendations relating to the acquisition of security-related technology fall into three general categories: actions requiring the agency to (1) develop a plan, process, protocol, or strategy; (2) implement a plan, program, policy, procedure, or best practice; and (3) conduct a test, study, or analysis. For example, in 2011 we recommended that TSA develop a process to communicate information to EDS vendors in a timely manner regarding EDS acquisition and to ensure that TSA takes a comprehensive and cost-effective approach to procuring and deploying EDS that meet the 2010 explosives detection requirements and any subsequent revisions. Separately, in 2008 we recommended that TSA fully incorporate best practices into developing Secure Flight life-cycle cost and schedule estimates and develop a plan for mitigating cost and schedule risks, among other things. In 2009, we recommended that TSA conduct a cost-benefit analysis to assist in prioritizing investments in new checkpoint screening technologies to help TSA take a comprehensive, risk-informed approach to procuring and deploying airport passenger screening technologies. As shown in figure 2, we identified 31 recommendations for the first category, 7 recommendations for the second category, and 20 recommendations for the third category. TSA has not implemented 7 recommendations we made from fiscal year 2003 through July 31, 2015. Four of the 7 recommendations have been closed, while 3 remain open. The 3 open recommendations are focused on improving AIT operations, while the 4 closed recommendations were related to establishing the effectiveness of canine screening, conducting technical assessments to strengthen airport perimeter security, and AIT operations. For example: In 2014, we recommended that TSA establish protocols to facilitate capturing operational data on secondary passenger screening at the checkpoint to determine the extent to which rates of false alarms for various AIT systems affect operational costs once Advanced Imaging Technology-Automated Target Recognition (AIT-ATR) systems are networked. TSA concurred with this recommendation. In its comments on our report, TSA stated that it would monitor, update, and report the results of its efforts to capture operational data and evaluate its associated impacts on operational costs. When contacted in November 2015 for an update on this recommendation, TSA officials stated that they have taken steps toward implementing this recommendation by evaluating the impact of false alarm rates on operational costs (such as staffing) during testing for new AIT systems. This recommendation remains open pending additional actions by TSA to collect secondary screening data on an ongoing basis, which could be used to obtain valuable insights on false alarm rates and the resulting operational costs. By fully implementing the recommendation, TSA could improve the overall performance of the AIT system and make more informed decisions about checkpoint screening. In 2013, we recommended that TSA expand and complete testing, in conjunction with the DHS Science and Technology Directorate, to assess the effectiveness of passenger screening canines (PSC) and conventional canines in all areas of an airport deemed appropriate by TSA before deploying more passenger screening canine teams to help (a) determine whether PSCs are effective at screening passengers, and expenditures for PSC training are warranted and (b) inform decisions about the type of canine teams to deploy and their optimal locations in airports. TSA concurred with the recommendation and took some action, but did not fully address the recommendation. Specifically, in June 2014, TSA reported that it had assessed PSC teams deployed to 27 airports, cumulating in a total of 1,048 tests. On the basis of these tests, TSA determined that PSC teams are effective and should be deployed at the checkpoint queue. However, when contacted in December 2014, officials reported that they did not plan to expand or complete testing to compare the effectiveness PSCs with the effectiveness of conventional canine teams as we recommended, citing concerns about potential liability in using conventional canines that have not been evaluated for their suitability for screening passengers in an unfamiliar passenger screening environment and the related risks to the program. We disagreed and pointed out that conventional canines paired with handlers already work in proximity with passengers since they patrol airport terminals, including ticket counters and curbside areas. Given that TSA does not plan on taking further action on this program, we closed the recommendation as not implemented. However, we continue to believe that the recommendation has merit and should be fully implemented. Since fiscal year 2003, we have identified approximately $1.7 billion in financial benefits, largely representing funds that TSA used to support other programs and activities, based on implementation of our recommendations as well as findings from our related reports and testimonies on security-related technology acquisitions. We have also identified additional benefits, including programmatic and process improvements to TSA’s programs stemming from implementation of our recommendations and related work. The following are examples of the financial, programmatic, and process benefits we identified. In January 2012, we issued a report on TSA’s adherence to DHS acquisition policy and efforts to test the effectiveness of AIT. Among other things, we reported on the effectiveness of the systems and recommended that TSA brief Congress. Congressional response to a TSA briefing combined with our body of work on AIT resulted in TSA’s decision to reduce the number of planned AIT purchases amounting to approximately $1.4 billion. In several reports and testimonies in fiscal year 2004, we reported on delays and challenges in TSA’s development of the Computer- Assisted Passenger Prescreening System II (CAPPS II). We found that TSA had not fulfilled statutory requirements concerning the development and operations of CAPPS II. For example, TSA had not determined the accuracy of the databases that would be used to prescreen passengers, and had not conducted tests that would stress the program and ensure system functionality. We made several recommendations relating to developing project plans, including schedules and estimated costs, conducting system testing; and developing a process by which passengers can get erroneous information corrected, among others. In part because of our initial and subsequent evaluations, and congressional oversight hearings, TSA reprogramed approximately $46 million in funding for CAPPS II to other TSA activities in fiscal years 2003 through 2005. TSA canceled CAPPS II development in August 2004 and, shortly after that, announced plans to develop a successor passenger prescreening program called Secure Flight. The projected program funding for the canceled CAPPS II program resulted in total programmatic savings of approximately $304 million. In April 2012, we found that TSA had established cost estimates for the EBSP to help identify total program cost, recapitalization cost, and potential savings resulting from installing optimal systems, but its processes for developing these estimates did not fully comply with best practices. We recommended that in order to strengthen the credibility, comprehensiveness, and reliability of TSA’s cost estimates and related savings estimates for EBSP, TSA should follow cost- estimating best practices. In response, TSA implemented a management directive that applies DHS guidance and best practices from the GAO Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide and updated its cost estimating best practices to include four characteristics of a high quality and reliable cost estimate—comprehensive, well- documented, accurate, and credible. By implementing this recommendation, TSA improved its ability to determine the cost of the program and plan for the resources required to develop and manage the EBSP.