CASIS, however, has not been able to coordinate with  the ISS National Laboratory Advisory Committee (INLAC), as required,  because NASA has yet to staff the committee. CASIS Took Steps to Implement Management Activities

CASIS has taken steps to fulfill its responsibilities contained in its  cooperative agreement with NASA, and has initiated the activities  required by the NASA Authorization Act of 2010.the activities contained in the 2010 act as well as the corresponding   Table 1 summarizes  responsibilities for CASIS and NASA outlined in the cooperative  agreement. NASA Has Not Staffed Advisory Committee with Which CASIS Is Required to Interact

The one required activity in the cooperative agreement that CASIS has  been unable to address is its interaction with the ISS National Laboratory  Advisory Committee (INLAC) because the committee has not been  staffed by NASA. We assessed CASIS’s fiscal year 2015 metrics, and found that the  metrics met almost all of these key attributes. We have previously reported  that performance metrics should have quantifiable, numerical targets or  other measurable values, which help assess whether overall goals and  objectives were achieved.it is unclear how NASA objectively assesses CASIS’s performance. CASIS officials initially told us in July 2014 that establishing  targets would be arbitrary because CASIS processes and metrics are still  evolving. The Chairman  of the CASIS Board of Directors told us that measurable targets should  be developed and that this is a priority for the Board. However, CASIS  has not established a date by which measurable targets will be  developed. NASA Assesses CASIS Annually, but Performance Assessment Is Not Documented

NASA performs an annual assessment of CASIS’s performance  consistent with its responsibilities in the cooperative agreement, but this  assessment is not documented. Both CASIS and NASA officials told us that NASA does not document its  annual program review of CASIS performance. While NASA does not document this annual  assessment, NASA officials told us that they were generally satisfied with  CASIS performance. CASIS officials, however, said that the results of the  annual review should be reported in some sort of formal manner to make  the information more actionable. As a result,  CASIS is not able to fulfill its responsibility as outlined in the cooperative  agreement that requires it to coordinate with INLAC as established under  the NASA Authorization Act of 2008 and review recommendations  originated by the INLAC. Not documenting the  results of the annual program assessment is a practice contrary to good  internal controls, which call for information to be recorded and  communicated to management and others who need it to carry out their  responsibilities, to include taking appropriate corrective actions. NASA partially concurred and  CASIS non-concurred with one of our recommendations and both NASA  and CASIS concurred with the other two recommendations. We continue to believe our recommendation is valid. Once complete, this action should address our recommendation to  develop and approve measurable targets for CASIS’s metrics. Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Our objectives were to assess the extent to which (1) the Center for the  Advancement of Science in Space (CASIS) has initiated and  implemented the required management activities for research aboard the  International Space Station (ISS) National Laboratory, and (2) the  National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and CASIS  measure and assess CASIS’s performance. We  reviewed the NASA Authorization Act of 2005, which designated the U.S.  Operating Segment of the ISS as a National Laboratory; the NASA  Authorization Act of 2008, which directed NASA to establish an ISS  National Laboratory Advisory Committee; and the NASA Authorization Act  of 2010, which required NASA to enter into a cooperative agreement with  a nonprofit organization to manage the activities of the ISS National  Laboratory. Appendix IV: Assessment of the (CASIS) FY 2014 Metrics Against GAO’s Key Attributes of Successful Performance Measures

Performance Metric  (18) Number of total flight projects  manifested as a result of solicited proposals  or investments  (20) Describe intended impacts/ outcomes of  ISS NL research and development to life on  Earth  (21) Report scientific or technological  breakthroughs related to use of the ISS NL  (22) Report transformational/ translational  science  (23) Report projects or activities contributing  to national scientific, educational, or  technology initiatives  (26) Report new initiatives to solicit interest  in/engagement with CASIS toward broader  utilization of the ISS  (27) Number of awards given to unsolicited  proposals  (28) Dollar ($) amount given to unsolicited  proposals  (29) Number and dollar ($) amount of  awards by type of responding organization  (other government agencies, academic,  individual, commercial, other)  (30) Dollar ($) amount contributed to  projects by non-CASIS sources, and their  origins (including targeted giving,  commercial entities, private investments)  (31) Dollar ($) amount and description of  flight projects provided by other government  agencies  (32) Describe actual impacts of ISS NL  research and development to life on Earth  (specific examples, as they occur)

Appendix V: Comments from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Appendix VI: Comments from the Center for the Advancement of Science in Space

Appendix VII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

	GAO Contact

	Staff Acknowledgments

In addition to the contact named above, Shelby S. Oakley, Assistant  Director; Richard A. Cederholm; Virginia Chanley; Maria Durant; Laura  Greifner; Ralph Roffo; Sylvia Schatz; and Roxanna T. Sun made key  contributions to this report.
Why GAO Did This Study

The U.S. has spent almost $43 billion to develop, assemble, and operate the ISS over the past two decades. The NASA Authorization Act of 2010 required NASA to enter into a cooperative agreement with a not-for-profit entity to manage the ISS National Laboratory and in 2011 did so with CASIS. CASIS is charged with maximizing use of the ISS for scientific research by executing several required activities. Recently, questions have arisen about the progress being made to implement the required activities and the impact it has had on ISS's return on the investment.
GAO was asked to report on the progress of CASIS's management of the ISS National Laboratory. GAO assessed the extent to which (1) CASIS has implemented the required management activities, and (2) NASA and CASIS measure and assess CASIS's performance. To perform this work, GAO reviewed the cooperative agreement between NASA and CASIS, CASIS's annual program plans, and other documentation and interviewed ISS, CASIS, and NASA officials.

What GAO Found

The Center for the Advancement of Science in Space (CASIS), manager of the International Space Station (ISS) National Laboratory, has taken steps to fulfill its management responsibilities contained in its cooperative agreement with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and has initiated the activities required by the NASA Authorization Act of 2010. GAO found that CASIS implemented procedures for prioritizing research; evaluated 206 proposals and awarded approximately $20 million in grants to 77 research projects through January 2015; and cultivated relationships with academic institutions, research-specific organizations, and other entities. CASIS, however, has not been able to fulfill its responsibility in the cooperative agreement to interact with the ISS National Laboratory Advisory Committee, which NASA was statutorily required to establish under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, because NASA has yet to staff the committee as required by the NASA Authorization Act of 2008. As a result, CASIS is not able to fulfill its responsibility in the cooperative agreement that requires it to coordinate with this committee and review any report or recommendations it originates.
CASIS has established fiscal year 2015 metrics that meet most of GAO's key attributes for successful performance measures (see figure below); however, NASA and CASIS did not establish measurable targets for these performance metrics, and NASA's annual assessment of CASIS was not documented.
Source: GAO analysis. | GAO-15-397
GAO's work on best practices for measuring program performance has found that performance metrics should have quantifiable targets to help assess whether goals and objectives were achieved by easily comparing projected performance and actual results. CASIS officials told GAO in July 2014 that setting measurable targets would be arbitrary because CASIS processes and metrics are still evolving. In January 2015, however, the Chairman of the CASIS Board of Directors told GAO that setting measurable targets is a priority for the board. CASIS, however, has yet to establish a date by which measurable targets will be developed. Using the established metrics, NASA is required by the cooperative agreement to perform an annual program review of CASIS's performance. This review is informal and not documented as ISS program officials provide the results to CASIS orally. This approach is inconsistent with federal internal control standards, which call for information to be recorded and communicated to those who need it to manage programs, including monitoring performance and supporting future decision making. Although NASA officials reported that they were generally satisfied with CASIS's performance, CASIS officials said a formal summary of the results would make the information more actionable.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends NASA fully staff the ISS National Laboratory Advisory Committee; NASA and CASIS work together to develop measurable targets for CASIS's metrics; and NASA begin documenting its annual review of CASIS's performance. NASA partially concurred and CASIS did not concur with the first recommendation, but concurred with the other two. GAO continues to believe the first recommendation is valid, as discussed further in the report.