GAO reviewed the status of IGSA and the guidelines and procedures; evaluates a non-generalisable sample of 8 SELECTED IGSAs based on factors such as military service, amount of expected financial benefits and duration; compared service processes and actions to internal control standards; and interviewed service, facility and local government officers. Subsection (a) (1). Pub. L. 113-291, § 351 (b) (1) (A) replaced “Notwithstanding any other legislation relating to the award of contracts for goods and services by the federal government, the secretary concerned” for “The secretary concerned” and “at the sole source with a state or local” for “a state or local state”. However, the military does not fully control the benefits of implemented GAs, as they do not have formal processes in place to this effect. For example, Navy and Navy officers stated that they were not monitoring the financial and non-financial performance of implemented EGAs because they were at an early stage in the use of IGU. The Air Force monitors some information about the financial benefits realized by the IGSA, but this information is not complete, given that reporting by the facilities is voluntary. The development and documentation of processes for monitoring the benefits achieved by implemented IGAs would provide services with useful information on IGSA`s performance when making decisions regarding the provision of resources for the development and implementation of these agreements at other sites. The 287(g) agreements are contracts between ECI and local law enforcement authorities that allow local authorities to act as immigration agents in their area of competence. This includes interviewing people about their immigration status and detaining people on the basis of immigration allegations. Comments: The Military agreed with this recommendation and finalized and implemented guidelines to reduce costs in military facilities through the use of Intergovernmental Support Agreements (IGSAs).
In particular, the guide instructs military agencies to consult with the Army Installation Management Command headquarters to identify ways to develop and submit IGSA proposals to local or government governments, starting with fixed waste management services. In addition to the solid waste service area, the military facilities will also develop other IGSA ideas and concepts. Through the completion and implementation of this process and documentation in the instructions, the military will have greater visibility into the facilities` opportunities to reduce costs or improve mission efficiency through the use of IGU. Comments: DoD did not accept this recommendation and stated that the Marine Corps was part of the Department of the Navy and that the recommendation was not necessary. GAO made a similar recommendation to the Navy. The DOD agreed with this recommendation and indicated that the Department of the Navy would issue guidelines that would direct the Navy and Navy to establish and implement a process to track the financial and non-financial benefits realized from intergovernmental support agreements (IGSAs) implemented by their respective departments. On March 1, 27, 2019, the Department of the Navy directed the Commander, the Marine Corps Installation Command (MCICOM), to define policies or procedures and implement a process to collect and monitor information on the financial or non-financial benefits realized from all implemented IGSAs. On June 27, 2019, MCICOM published the necessary guidelines as well as an updated order manual that reflects the new requirements.
. . .