voting-by-mail?-election-workers-are-worried-about-issues-at-the-postal-service

Voting by mail? Election workers are worried about issues at the Postal Service

by Uncategorized

Top election officials this week sounded the alarm about ongoing delays within America’s mail delivery system and the potential effect on mail-in voting in the upcoming presidential election, a warning that comes as former President Donald Trump continues to sow distrust about how some of those ballots will be counted.

Some people who vote by mail may be disenfranchised this fall if the issues are not addressed, the officials said in a letter to the head of the United States Postal Service that detailed challenges with the delivery of mail-in ballots over the past year.

“We implore you to take immediate and tangible corrective action to address the ongoing performance issues with USPS election mail service,” officials say in the letter, which was signed by representatives for the National Association of Secretaries of State and the National Association of State Election Directors — two organizations that include state and local election officials in all 50 states, the District of Columbia and the U.S. territories. “Failure to do so will risk limiting voter participation and trust in the election process.”

Election officials, who are overwhelmingly women, have long highlighted the challenges to running the country’s decentralized elections, particularly after 2020 — challenges that include debunking ongoing lies about election security. Trump and some Republicans have for years spread disinformation about elections, including how and when mail-in ballots are counted.

A handful of secretaries of state also testified to members of Congress on Wednesday that they continue to deal with the ramifications of those lies, including responding to threats of violence.

In the letter dated Wednesday, election officials said mail-in ballots have at times been erroneously held for remediation, significantly delayed or “otherwise improperly processed.” Election officials “in nearly every state” have received postmarked ballots “well after Election Day and well outside the three to five business days USPS claims as the First-Class delivery standard.”

In multiple states, election officials reported receiving “anywhere from dozens to hundreds of ballots 10 or more days after postmark.”

“There is no amount of proactive communication election officials can do to account for USPS’s inability to meet their own service delivery timelines,” said the letter.

Election officials also reported instances in which mail that was sent to and from voters was marked as “undeliverable” at higher-than-usual rates. The potential ripple effect, they cautioned, was voters being placed on inactive voter rolls or getting their registration record canceled, and ballots not reaching voters or being delivered to election offices.

The letter was addressed to U.S. Postmaster General Louis DeJoy, who came under scrutiny in 2020 for his handling of mail services around the last presidential election. In August, DeJoy told The Associated Press that he is “confident” in the Postal Service’s delivery of election mail. 

Adrienne Marshall, director of election mail and government services for the Postal Service, told The 19th that the agency has been in “close communication” with the National Association of Secretaries of State, the National Association of State Election Directors and other election officials throughout the year. She said each time they have brought up an issue, it has been “promptly addressed” and will continue to be.

“We are ready to deliver. We were successful in 2020 delivering a historic volume of mail in ballots; also in 2022 and will do so again in November 2024,” she said in an email. The Postal Service said it encourages people to mail back ballots at least a week before their state’s deadline to receive them. 

While election officials in the letter acknowledged some efforts that the Postal Service will take around the election, they added: “Temporary measures will not be sufficient to address the persistent issues highlighted by election officials.”

Maria Benson, senior director of communications for the National Association of Secretaries of State, told The 19th that the organization is not trying to dissuade people from voting by mail if their state allows it.

“We do encourage voters, however, to give themselves plenty of time to return their ballot via USPS,” she wrote in an email.

Amy Cohen, executive director of the National Association of State Election Directors, told The 19th that rules around voting by mail vary by state, so it’s important that eligible voters be proactive. They should request a mail-in ballot early, track the ballot if possible and put it in the mail early or be prepared to return the ballot in person (if permissible).

“Most importantly, if you have a question about receiving or returning your ballot, ask your election officials,” Cohen said in an email. “Election officials are the most reliable source for information about how to participate in the upcoming election.”

The use of mail-in voting has risen in recent years, spiking during the coronavirus pandemic when public health guidance forced more people to consider voting options outside of Election Day.

But while it used to be popular among both Democrats and Republicans, Democrats are now more likely than Republicans to say it should be more accessible. Now in his third bid for office, Trump has at times seemed to change his position on mail voting. During the Republican National Convention, the party repeatedly aired a video that showed the former president encouraging his supporters to vote by mail. But Republicans are also still challenging how vote-by-mail ballots are counted, especially in battleground states like Nevada and Pennsylvania.

In 2020, Trump tried to sow doubt about legally cast ballots that arrive by mail at vote-counting sites after Election Day, which is legal in some states, though deadlines vary. 

Now, Republican voters are more likely to trust Trump and his campaign than information from the government about election results, according to a new survey from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research and USAFacts. The survey also found a majority of Americans have at least “a moderate” amount of trust in official election results.

According to a new 19th News/SurveyMonkey poll, Americans are more likely to trust that elections in their precinct will be run securely compared with their trust in the country’s elections overall. The largest difference was with Republicans, with 76 percent saying they trust elections in their precinct and 43 percent saying they trust elections in the country.

Originally published by The 19th

The 19th is committed to covering the unfinished business of voting rights. Read more about how we’re approaching that in this pivotal election.

the-peaceful-transfer-of-power-starts-now

The peaceful transfer of power starts now

by Uncategorized

As another contentious election unfolds, a familiar sound echoes through federal workplaces: silence. This silence stems from the Hatch Act, a critical law designed to protect the neutrality of the civil service. But the problem isn’t the law itself—it’s the application. 

Misunderstandings and hypervigilance often stifle essential—and fully legal—conversations about mental health, political diversity, and the peaceful transfer of power. This silence leaves federal employees, among the most impacted by elections, alone with their anxiety. This can intensify fear, isolation, and reinforce the harmful perception that political diversity isn’t welcome. 

Instead, the federal workplace needs both clear boundaries and open, empathetic conversation around political transitions. Federal leaders should go beyond reiterating Hatch Act prohibitions to create space for employees to share concerns and wisdom with each other as they renew their commitment to nonpartisan service. Doing so is a vital down payment for the peaceful transfer of power to come.

The Hatch Act in Practice

Every four years, agencies remind employees about the Hatch Act’s strict rules against political activities like campaigning, fundraising, and misusing official titles or uniforms.

These reminders are effective—perhaps too effective. In practice Hatch also curtails essential conversations about well-being, political diversity, and the important role federal employees play in transfers of power. Even casual mentions of transitions can prompt nervous jokes like, “Oops, hope that wasn’t a Hatch Act violation,” revealing widespread confusion about what the Act actually prohibits. In my 15 years in government, I’ve yet to see an agency address the elephant—or donkey—in the room: this is a tough time to be a federal employee.

The Hidden Cost of Silence

The Hatch Act, created nearly a century ago to address blatant vote-buying, hasn’t kept up with our modern understanding of human behavior. While federal employees are rightly expected to remain nonpartisan in their work, it’s entirely normal for them to have emotions about important, uncertain events, especially in today’s polarized environment. The de facto silence around these emotions isn’t just awkward—it’s harmful.

First, repressing emotions doesn’t make them disappear, it drives them underground, where they can manifest in harmful ways. For instance, ignoring anxieties can lead to catastrophizing—where employees fixate on worst-case scenarios—which only amplifies their stress and fear. In his seminal book Emotional Intelligence, Daniel Goleman explains: “When we ignore emotions, they only become stronger.”

Second, unspoken anxieties harm workplace relationships. Leaders are responsible for helping their teams navigate change, and when they remain silent, employees notice. Instead of engaging in productive, if challenging, conversations about how transitions might affect long term goals or the experience of holding personal views at odds with policy, these concerns are bottled up. This can lead to disengagement and even drive post-election resignations, particularly among younger employees who haven’t been through transitions before.

Finally, while the Hatch Act rightly prohibits overt political markers at work, like buttons or posters or in social media profiles, the 2.3 million federal employees are undeniably politically diverse. Silence prevents us from affirming that political identities are a valuable form of diversity and fuels subconscious and unconscious bias that could influence hiring decisions, promotions, and daily interactions. I’ve seen colleagues clam up when they sense they’re in the minority in casual conversations about policy issues, while those perceived as aligned with current leadership—based perhaps on their resume or stray comment—might be favored. It is possible to acknowledge these identities without indulging them, fostering a more inclusive environment that will be crucial in the months ahead.

The Power of Dialogue to Transform Anxiety

During my first transition as a federal employee, a State Department supervisor changed the course of my career. She listened with genuine empathy as I shared my concerns about the political shift, then offered her perspective based on a prior transition. She helped me understand that adaptation —whether to a new president, other changing leadership, or even new laws—is a fundamental part of a long and meaningful career in public service. While a leadership change might occasionally prompt a federal employee to consider leaving, if that mindset becomes widespread—or a knee jerk reaction—it undermines the foundation of a professional, nonpartisan federal workforce.

As David Brooks notes in his excellent book about conversation How to Know a Person, we learn best through meaningful conversation, not isolated reflection. As we approach another transition, conversations like the one I had can help federal employees step out of the disorienting news cycle. 

How might conversation help? For one, dialogue on election anxiety can transform stress into connection. We can recognize that we aren’t alone and start to move towards accepting that uncertainty and political cycles are part of life.  

Second, dialogue helps us find our agency. When stressed, it’s easy to lose sight of practical ways to manage anxiety. Conversations can prompt us to focus on what we can control, such as scenario planning, reframing priorities in ways that resonate across party lines, and brainstorming ways to build on common ground.

Finally, talking to our fellow public servants can remind us of the crucial role we play in the peaceful transfer of power. It’s a responsibility and privilege that I often take for granted – and one that resonates across the political spectrum. John F. Kennedy said, “A strong and courageous administration can meet the needs of a nation, but only when it respects the peaceful transfer of power.” Ronald Reagan echoed this sentiment: “The peaceful transfer of power is an extraordinary example of how democracy works.”

Open Dialogue in Practice

There are valid reasons that federal leaders are cautious about engaging with these charged topics. But there is ample space between blanket silence and an illegal political free-for-all. Here are three practical steps federal leaders can take to foster open and bounded dialogue as agencies, teams, or one-on-one:

  • Name the Anxiety: Recognize and validate the stress and uncertainty that employees feel during election seasons. “Name it to tame it” is a science-backed approach to help disarm reactivity and channel emotions into practical action.
  • Welcome Political Diversity: A politically diverse workplace is a strength. Encourage active listening and curiosity in conversations. Political debate doesn’t belong in the federal workplace but bridging differences and identifying shared values certainly do.
  • Facilitate Conversations on Core Values: In these turbulent times, agency leaders might reinforce values like nonpartisanship, resilience, innovation, and openness. Encourage employees to share insights from past transitions, allowing them to better appreciate their role in a long history of peaceful transfers of power. Although these times feel unprecedented, federal employees have been here before and know what to do.

A Mindset, Not a Moment

It’s understandable that federal leaders might want to steer clear of sensitive topics, especially given the tense times and potential legal liability. However, doing so carries its own risks—creating a less human work environment that ignores real concerns and missing an opportunity to reinforce the proud tradition of nonpartisan federal service. 

The peaceful transfer of power isn’t just a moment, it’s a mindset. So, let’s go beyond Hatch Act compliance and engage in meaningful conversations that uphold its true purpose.

For authoritative guidance on the Hatch Act, check out the Office of Special Council’s FAQs.

Alex Snider is a strategy lead in the federal government. Previously he worked as a diplomat in the State Department, in the U.S. Senate, and at the World Bank. He is a certified mindful facilitator and is involved in various efforts to improve employee wellbeing in government. You can find him on LinkedIn. He has written on bringing humanity to government, including emotions in the workplace, authenticity, and the need to take breaks.

This op-ed is written in Snider’s personal capacity and the views expressed in this article do not necessarily represent the views of his agency or the United States.

cms-wants-feedback-on-impact-of-ai-in-healthcare

CMS Wants Feedback on Impact of AI in Healthcare

by Uncategorized

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services is soliciting information on current artificial intelligence capabilities that could enhance its program executions.

In a request for information posted on Monday, CMS said it seeks input on AI technologies that could inspire the workforce on AI capabilities and increase efficiencies within agency operations.

The government expects to receive submissions from healthcare companies, providers, payers and tech startups.

The input from interested parties should focus on discussing the impact of key AI functionalities in healthcare, including generative AI, diagnostics and imaging analysis, business automation, workforce enablement, direct-to-patient communication, robotic-assisted healthcare delivery and fraud detection.

In their submissions, the organizations should also outline their experience and describe how their AI technology would address risks and benefits.

CMS will then select organizations to demonstrate their AI products and services during a series of “CMS AI Demo Days,” which aim to educate the CMS community on AI products.

During the demo phase, the chosen organization will work with the agency’s technical panel and will prepare a 15-minute presentation of their products or services.

Interested parties should submit their questions before Sept. 27 and their capability statements by Oct. 7.

On Dec. 11, join the Potomac Officers Club’s 2024 Healthcare Summit to explore the transformative trends and innovations shaping the future of the healthcare sector.

pentagon-establishes-new-special-access-program-policy

Pentagon Establishes New Special Access Program Policy

by Uncategorized

The Department of Defense has released a directive establishing policy and providing governance structure for the management of all special access programs, or SAPs, across DOD.

The latest DOD Instruction, which took effect Thursday, outlines the responsibilities of the director of the DOD Special Access Program Central Office—or DOD SAPCO—the undersecretary of defense for research and engineering and USD for acquisition and sustainment, among other officials, for the oversight of SAPs.

The directive states that the director of DOD SAPCO should serve as the proponent for developing and implementing policies for SAP execution, management and governance and publish and maintain security classification guides, among other functions.

According to the document, the department will develop and apply SAP security protection to classified national security information in compliance with an executive order and other regulations to protect sensitive classified data related to advanced technologies and capabilities.

Kathleen Hicks, deputy secretary of DOD and a 2024 Wash100 awardee, approved the latest directive.

Register here to join the Potomac Officers Club’s 2024 Intel Summit on Sept. 19 and hear top U.S. intelligence community officials and industry executives discuss the challenges, innovation initiatives, opportunities and technologies shaping the future of American intelligence.

POC - 2024 Intel Summit

state-department-wants-to-see-‘a-lot-more’-self-assessments-from-vendors

State Department wants to see ‘a lot more’ self-assessments from vendors

by Uncategorized

Up to 60% of all federal procurement spending happens at the end of the fiscal year, leaving little time for the government to conduct thorough contractor performance assessments.

And while self-assessments have emerged as a potential solution to the challenges of the contractor performance assessment ratings reporting process, Michael Derrios, the senior procurement executive at the State Department, said vendors rarely submit their self-assessments.

“Little to none,” Derrios said when asked what percentage of CPARS include vendor self-assessments. “It’s an incredibly underutilized tool. We would love to see more of it.”

“I will be the first to admit that our ratings at the State Department are not high. It’s challenging, and it almost always happens at the end of the fiscal year. It’s hard for people to find the time to do it. I also think there’s something skittish on the government side about, ‘I don’t want to really engage in a conflict with you.’ But if there’s a self-assessment that can serve as a starting point for that dialog, I think that kind of breaks the ice.”

Too often, there is little to no engagement between the vendor and the government from the beginning of the contract performance, so continuous communication throughout the contract period to avoid any surprises when CPARS ratings are finalized is crucial, said Derrios. “If any of you are ever shocked and surprised by a bad CPARS rating — somebody on the contract probably needs to get fired. Your program manager is not doing their job if they’re shocked that there’s a bad rating.”

“The dialog has to be happening throughout the year, and it’s almost like you have to be writing your CPARS the entire time with direct questions like, ‘How do you think this is going to play into CPARS ratings? You have to be that direct about the dialog.”

Dion Turner, the supervisory contracting officer at the Interior Department, said while CPARS can be somewhat subjective based on the contracting officer, documentation is key to ensuring fair evaluations.

“What’s not subjective is your documentation and what you did performing under that contract. One of the things I try to push is it’s not just about putting in rebuttals. That’s another reason why I’m a huge fan of the self-assessments because we should see your performance in the highlights that you have, even the ones that we have problems that the government didn’t know about that you resolved, but you did, just performing normally on the contract. Those are the types of things that I like to push for documenting your performance.”

“From a government’s perspective, I always push to have those conversations early on and to ensure you’re talking about performance. From a business perspective, you don’t know what to fix if you don’t know that there’s a problem and that leads to us having a project on the government side that may not go to full fruition or may have performance problems. At the end of the day, we’re always pushing for that win, win. It’s just a matter of how you document that,” said Turner.

Getting exceptional rating is possible even if you encounter problems

Contractors can still get an exceptional rating even after encountering progress — it’s more important how a company recovers from setbacks.

Soraya Correa, former chief procurement officer at the Department of Homeland Security and the CEO of the National Industries for the Blind, said contractors tend to hesitate to admit any contract problems during self-evaluation, but most of the time the strategy is counterproductive.

“Believe it or not, a lot of times it’s okay to have something go wrong. It’s how you recover. I’ll be very honest with you when I’m looking at self-assessment, if you tell me you’re great and wonderful and walk on water and never made a mistake — frankly, I don’t want you on my team. I want people that know how to recover from problems, know how to address failures and how to solve issues,” said Correa.

Copyright © 2024 Federal News Network. All rights reserved. This website is not intended for users located within the European Economic Area.

dla-turns-to-automation-for-head-start-on-incorporating-cmmc-requirements-in-contracting

DLA turns to automation for head-start on incorporating CMMC requirements in contracting

by Uncategorized

Defense contractors aren’t the only ones preparing for the launch of the Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification 2.0. The Defense Logistics Agency is in the process of automating some of its contracting systems, including verifying a contractor’s compliance with the National Institutes of Standards and Technology’s Special Publication 800-171. This is a step in the direction of implementing the new CMMC proposed rule, released last month, which would incorporate CMMC requirements into contracts and solicitations once finalized.

“We’re gearing up as we speak to implement that into our processes as well as our automated program to assess the cybersecurity processes or practices, I would say, of our vendors,” said Jajuan Evans, systems procurement analyst for DLA, on Federal Monthly Insights — Contract Management Modernization. “NIST is the precursor. So we are in a position now where we validate that a vendor is covered by a NIST assessment if they’re going to have access to unclassified data or covered defense information. And then it’s going to be an overlap where we start to update our systems to implement CMMC.”

Evans said DLA analyzes risk in relation to vendors and the item being purchased, in relation to the price quoted for that item. That’s part of the supplier performance risk system, DLA’s authoritative source for vendor performance. As the supplier performance risk system lead for the DLA enterprise, Evans said he’s been involved specifically in tying certain cybersecurity assessments into that system, allowing DoD to access the system security plans of vendors who use controlled unclassified information or covered Defense information. DLA’s efforts to increase the use of automation in their contracting system include using that information to asses a supplier’s risk and quality score as a necessary validation before making an award.

Improving contracting efficiency

DLA already uses an extensive amount of automation in its contracting system, Evans said, as part of a recent push to improve contracting efficiency.

“Over the last few years, we really made a push to automate processes where we can. We already have a really robust automated solicitation program that, without any manual intervention, publicizes solicitations, requests for quotes, as well as an automated award program that will award procurements that meet certain criteria automatically,” Evans told the Federal Drive with Tom Temin. “So really reducing that need for manual intervention or for a contracting officer to make that award decision. We’re also leveraging new technology to improve contracting efficiency.”

That includes the use of robotic process automation, he said, to free up contracting professionals from repetitive tasks. For example, DLA created a “master solicitation” — a 12-to-15 page master list of clauses and provisions that apply to solicitations. Automated solicitations then refer back to the latest revision of that document, so that vendors can refer to that document, determine what applies to them and their particular proposal, and ensure they’re in compliance.

Evans said there’s a bit of a learning curve for new contractors working with the federal government, but with a little time and investment, they’re able to learn it and use it effectively.

That’s not to say every contract goes through this automated process; Evans said some more critical solicitations still require manual assembly by a contracting officer. In those cases, it’s incumbent upon the contracting officer to manually include the required provisions.

“So the goal is to leverage that capability as much as possible where it makes sense,” Evans said. “And then for more complex contract actions, we’ll lean on the acquisition specialist or the contracting officer to create those.”

Similarly, DLA is using an automated system to make awards in certain cases, where it determines the product is an correct fit and within pricing parameters. In other instances, however, it will flag an award for manual review. For example, it would do so if a contractor objected to a specific term.

Reducing acquisition lead time

DLA has implemented all of this automation as part of a larger effort to reduce procurement acquisition lead time. DLA tracks time-to-award in on-time deliveries. Acquisition specialists and contracting officers have certain metrics they’re required to meet, like specific solicitation or award times. This helps DLA identify and address bottlenecks in the acquisition process.

“At the end of the day, our goal is to provide that item or that service to our customers, to the warfighter, where it needs to be, when it needs to be there,” Evans said.

Copyright © 2024 Federal News Network. All rights reserved. This website is not intended for users located within the European Economic Area.

army-advances-ftuas-program-with-prototype-evaluations,-flight-demos

Army Advances FTUAS Program With Prototype Evaluations, Flight Demos

by Uncategorized

The U.S. Army has reportedly made significant progress with its Future Tactical Uncrewed Aircraft System, or FTUAS, program.

Two competitors — Griffon Aerospace and Textron Systems — completed the modular open system approach, or MOSA, conformance evaluations in May and later conducted flight demonstrations of their prototype aircraft, the Army announced Tuesday.

The FTUAS are intended to help brigade combat teams by providing reconnaissance and surveillance. The data they collect will enable the BCT commanders to make the right decisions during multi-domain operations.

The MOSA certification was done by replacing the hardware and software of the vendors’ prototype aircraft with the mission computer from a third-party surrogate. This allowed the independent assessor to determine the openness and modularity of the prototype.

During the flight demonstrations, held at the Army Redstone Test Center, the unmanned systems were evaluated based on their vertical takeoff and landing, on-the-move command and control, reduced acoustic signature, system integration, rapid emplacement and flight performance.

The FTUAS program is in accordance with the mission of the Program Executive Office for Aviation, particularly the Uncrewed Aircraft Systems Project Office, of modernizing the Army’s aviation fleet of crewed and uncrewed aircraft.

fedramp-should-expand-metrics-to-include-assessment-reciprocity,-mitre-says

FedRAMP Should Expand Metrics to Include Assessment Reciprocity, MITRE Says

by Uncategorized

MITRE has released its response to a request for information issued by the Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program regarding a set of metrics meant to measure the end-to-end FedRAMP authorization experience.

Public input had been sought for those metrics with the aim of focusing and refining them, MITRE said Tuesday.

Input was solicited from a variety of stakeholders, including cloud service providers and third-party assessment organizations. Responses were to be submitted no later than Aug. 29.

For its part, MITRE recommended that the metrics be expanded to enhance the effectiveness of FedRAMP beyond cost and timeliness to include the streamlining of compliance and the reduction of redundant assessments.

Concerning the latter, MITRE specifically proposed that FedRAMP processes and metrics be revised to bring about “reciprocity-at-scale,” a concept that calls for the reuse of assessment information across risk management frameworks and assessment and authorization processes.

MITRE believes that through reciprocity, the government would be able to deploy secure cloud services faster by being able to recognize certifications and authorizations across varying frameworks, while service providers would be able to expand their services into new markets while enjoying savings from not having to undergo multiple certifications.

MITRE’s other recommendations include those concerning continuous monitoring and support for the adoption of quantum resistant cryptography and zero trust.

gsa’s-18f-issues-de-risking-government-technology-guide-2.0

GSA’s 18F Issues De-risking Government Technology Guide 2.0

by Uncategorized

The 18F digital services agency within the General Services Administration’s Technology Transformation Services has released an updated guide to help federal, state and local government agencies reduce the risk of failure of government technology projects.

GSA said Wednesday the De-risking Government Technology Guide 2.0 includes an in-depth section on vendor management to help agencies manage the implementation of their tech projects and marks the first update since the document’s publication in 2020.

“The new section on vendor management adds even more value to a guide that’s already proven to be a useful resource across federal and state governments,” said TTS Director Ann Lewis. 

“Thoughtful acquisition of software requires collectively understanding existing systems, programs, and agency goals. The updated guide offers foundational knowledge that helps reduce cost, time, and risk during technology procurement, making service delivery more efficient and effective,” she added.

The updated guide offers modern software development best practices and information on 18F’s experience working with federal and state partners. It also combines the original document’s two parts: the Federal Field Guide and the State Software Budgeting Handbook.

The document covers topics such as the differences and tradeoffs between custom and commercial software, how to buy custom software development services using performance-based services contracting and key principles for effective custom software development.

gao-says-dod-lacks-data-for-managing-national-defense-stockpile

GAO Says DOD Lacks Data for Managing National Defense Stockpile

by Uncategorized

The Government Accountability Office has found that the Department of Defense does not have sufficient information to determine all the critical materials that should be included in its national defense stockpile.

A review of the DOD’s stockpile management also revealed a lack of clear guidelines for when to release and use products from the stockpile, GAO said Tuesday.

The DOD stores items that are strategic and critical to defense and essential civilian needs in times of national emergency.

GAO acknowledged the DOD processes for identifying material requirements and managing the stockpile but said the agency does not have program offices and other relevant entities providing the necessary data for stockpile modeling, resulting in the DOD not having stock of its highest priority materials.

DOD reports indicate that from fiscal years 2019 to 2023, the agency primarily stored up the same 50 types of materials but the number of items in shortfall increased by 167 percent, the government watchdog said.

GAO made six recommendations, including identifying the roles and responsibilities for providing data needed to model DOD’s requirements.

The Defense Department concurred with all of the recommendations.