Open Recommendations

Rec. 1.b.ii: The DoD OIG recommended that the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Energy, Installations, and Environment issue guidance to establish metrics that include financial risk management parameters and triggers, including, but not limited to, threshold changes to scope, cost, or timeline; emerging issues; dispute resolution; and statutory reporting requirements when higher headquarters engagement is required.

Rec. 3.a: The DoD OIG recommended that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Commander review the actions of the individuals involved in the Fort Bliss Hospital Replacement project to determine whether any actions resulted in the cost and time increase related to design errors and omissions

Rec. 3.b: The DoD OIG recommended that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Commander issue guidance to improve technical expertise and discipline for medical infrastructure projects and improve understanding of performance specifications and extensions of design and performance metrics for projecting a project at risk.

Rec. 3.c: The DoD OIG recommended that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Commander complete an after action review following the construction of the Fort Bliss Hospital Replacement project.

Recommendation is not publicly available.

Recommendation is not publicly available.

Recommendation is not publicly available.

Recommendation is not publicly available.

Recommendation is not publicly available.

Recommendation is not publicly available.

Recommendation is not publicly available.

Recommendation is not publicly available.

Recommendation is not publicly available.

Recommendation is not publicly available.

We recommend that the State agency refund $74,871,340 to the Federal Government.

(U) Rec. 1.a: The DoD OIG recommended that the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense Energy, Installations, and Environment develop guidance requiring DoD organizations involved with a military construction project to draft a charter early in the project life cycle, focusing on communications and accountability by including at least the following in the project management plan:
(U) 1) establishment of a Program Management Office for each project, where applicable,
(U) 2) establishment of performance goals,
(U) 3) identification of roles and responsibilities for key segments of construction including, but not limited to, budgetary submissions, planning, and execution; and
(U)…

(U) Rec. 1.b: The DoD OIG recommended that the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense Energy, Installations, and Environment develop guidance establishing metrics that include financial risk management parameters and triggers including, but not limited to, threshold changes to scope, cost, or timeline; emerging issues; dispute resolution; and statutory reporting requirements when higher headquarters engagement is required.

(U) Rec. 3.a: The DoD OIG recommended that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Commanding General issue guidance to implement lessons learned from the U.S. Strategic Command Facility Construction Project into other military construction projects that contain DoD-unique requirements.

(U) Rec. 3.d: The DoD OIG recommended that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Commanding General complete an after-action review following the construction of the U.S. Strategic Command replacement facility.

(U) Rec. 4: The DoD OIG recommended that the U.S. Air Force Civil Engineer Center Commander conduct program life-cycle evaluations to determine the success of the Cost Estimating Improvement Plan.

We recommend that the State agency ensure that the 200 instances of noncompliance with health and safety and administrative requirements identified in this report are corrected.

We recommend that the State agency consider developing templates for administrative records the State requires.

We recommend that the State agency ensure the health and safety of vulnerable adults by considering staffing standards and caseload thresholds for State licensors.

Repay to the program from non-Federal funds the $457,192 ($380,526 $48,420 $28,246) in NSP funds spent for the construction, air conditioning, and engineering services in instances in which procurement activities were not adequately performed.

Repay to the program from non-Federal funds $280,979 in NSP funds spent for property 1012 and identify and repay any additional costs spent on this property, including maintenance costs and any program income generated.