The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) found that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) generally administered performance awards effectively; however, the OIG identified deficiencies in administering special act awards that require improvement. Specifically, the NRC granted special act awards frequently, often without sufficient justification, raising concerns about compliance with the policy criteria intended to recognize exceptional or superior achievements or contributions. In some cases, award justifications appeared to be duplicated, and some awards were miscoded in employee records, further highlighting weaknesses in award processing and documentation practices.
The NRC can improve the accuracy and consistency of its performance award determinations. The issues identified by the OIG included overlapping appraisal periods and failure to prorate awards for some part-time employees, resulting in noncompliance with award limits. In addition, time off was granted in excess of the NRC policy limits, underscoring the need to enhance oversight of time-off awards to prevent future occurrences.
The report makes nine recommendations to strengthen the documentation, justification, and oversight of awards to ensure compliance with applicable rules and agency policy.
Open Recommendations
| Recommendation Number | Significant Recommendation | Recommended Questioned Costs | Recommended Funds for Better Use | Additional Details | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.1 | Yes | $0 | $0 | ||
| The OIG recommends that the Executive Director for Operations establish thresholds for special act awards based on award value and frequency. | |||||
| 1.2 | Yes | $0 | $0 | ||
| The OIG recommends that the Executive Director for Operations enforce documentation requirements for special act awards to ensure the awards are properly justified and comply with agency policy. | |||||
| 1.3 | Yes | $0 | $0 | ||
| The OIG recommends that the Executive Director for Operations enforce retention guidelines for award justifications to support third-party reviews and for reconstruction purposes. | |||||
| 2.1 | Yes | $0 | $0 | ||
| The OIG recommends that the Executive Director for Operations develop a formal process to prevent the duplication of awards for the same contribution or achievement. | |||||
| 3.1 | Yes | $0 | $0 | ||
| The OIG recommends that the Executive Director for Operations establish procedures to validate the accuracy of award processing and ensure compliance with the OPM Operating Manual. | |||||
| 4.1 | Yes | $0 | $0 | ||
| The OIG recommends that the Executive Director for Operations implement reconciliation and validation procedures for any office not using the performance award tool to prevent duplicate awards or overlapping appraisal periods. | |||||
| 5.1 | Yes | $0 | $0 | ||
| The OIG recommends that the Executive Director for Operations provide guidance for prorating awards based on an employee’s work schedule and duration of employment during the appraisal period. | |||||
| 5.2 | Yes | $0 | $0 | ||
| The OIG recommends that the Executive Director for Operations implement validation controls within the performance award tool to ensure that cash awards fall within the policy-defined limits for each performance rating. | |||||
| 6.1 | Yes | $0 | $0 | ||
| The OIG recommends that the Executive Director for Operations track time-off awards to maintain compliance with the leave year limit and monitor their impact on productivity. | |||||
