Federal Reports

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) could not monitor the location and status of all unaccompanied migrant children (UCs) or initiate removal proceedings as needed. During our ongoing audit to assess ICE’s ability to monitor the location and status of UCs who were released or transferred from the custody of the Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), we learned ICE transferred more than 448,000 UCs to HHS from fiscal years 2019 to 2023. However, ICE was not able to account for the location of all UCs who were released by HHS and did not appear as scheduled in immigration court. ICE reported more than 32,000 UCs failed to appear for their immigration court hearings from FYs 2019 to 2023.

The Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006 (PAEA) requires the U.S. Postal Service to produce an Annual Compliance Report (ACR) and provide the report to the Postal Regulatory Commission (PRC) within 90 days of the end of each fiscal year (FY). In support of the ACR, the Postal Service provides billing determinant spreadsheets to the PRC. Postal Service management prepares billing determinant spreadsheets quarterly and at the end of each fiscal year. Billing determinants report the volume by rate, weight, and calculated revenue and compares the result to the reported Revenue Pieces and Weight volume. In its annual report to the PRC, the Postal Service is required to use only accepted analytical principles.

We audited the Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles’ management of lead-based paint and lead-based paint hazards in its public housing units. We selected the Authority based on our assessment of the risks of lead‐based paint in public housing agencies’ (PHA) housing developments, including the age of buildings, the number of units, household demographics, and reported cases of childhood lead poisoning. The audit objectives were to determine whether the Authority (1) complied with HUD’s requirements for children with elevated blood lead levels (EBLL) and (2) adequately managed lead‐based paint and lead‐based paint hazards in its public housing units. The Authority appropriately managed a case of a child with an EBLL. It also maintained lead-based paint inspection reports for the 69 units reviewed. However, the Authority did not adequately manage lead-based paint and lead-based paint hazards in its public housing units. Specifically, for all 69 units reviewed, the Authority did not complete visual assessments in a timely manner. The Authority also did not conduct risk assessments and reevaluations for lead-based paint stabilization projects at 5 of the 10 developments reviewed, which included work at approximately 200 buildings. These issues occurred because the Authority (1) misapplied HUD’s waiver of the requirement for physical inspections during the coronavirus 2019 pandemic to visual assessments and (2) misinterpreted HUD’s requirements for visual assessments. The Authority also used standard treatments for remediating lead-based paint hazards; however, that method for remediating lead-based paint hazards does not apply to public housing, and it incorrectly believed that work performed was for lead maintenance in preparation for exterior painting rather than hazard reduction. Further, the Authority lacked adequate policies, procedures, and controls to ensure that it appropriately managed its housing units that contained lead-based paint. As a result, households that participated in the Authority’s program were at an increased risk of exposure to lead-based paint hazards, particularly families with children under 6 years of age.We recommend that the Director of the Los Angeles Office of Public Housing require the Authority to (1) implement adequate procedures and controls to ensure that visual assessments for lead-based paint are completed at least every 12 months; (2) implement adequate procedures and controls to ensure that risk assessments and reevaluations are conducted in accordance with HUD’s requirements; (3) obtain lead-based paint risk assessments and applicable reevaluations for its developments as applicable; and (4) coordinate with HUD’s Office of Lead Hazard Control and Healthy Homes to obtain training for the Authority’s employees on the management of lead-based paint, including the requirements for visual assessments, risk assessments, reevaluations, and hazard reduction.

The Office of the Inspector General performed an audit of costs billed to the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) by Service Electric Company (SEC) for transmission construction services provided under Contract No. 16986. The contract provided for TVA to compensate SEC on either a fixed price or cost reimbursable basis. Our audit objectives were to determine (1) if costs were billed in accordance with contract terms, (2) the reasonableness of TVA’s process for evaluating and awarding proposed fixed price tasks issued under the contract, and (3) if tasks were issued using the most cost-efficient pricing methodology. Our audit scope included approximately $28.2 million in costs billed to TVA from March 8, 2022, through November 30, 2023. This included $24.4 million for fixed price projects and $3.8 million for cost-reimbursable projects. Our audit primarily focused on the fixed price projects under the contract. We determined the $24.4 million in fixed price billings from our audit period had been billed and paid in accordance with purchase order approval limits. Although TVA generally had a good process in place for evaluating and awarding fixed price tasks issued to SEC under the contract, we determined (1) the use of fixed price compensation terms for tasks caused TVA to pay more than it would have if the tasks had been issued under cost-reimbursable payment terms, and (2) there were opportunities to strengthen the process when fixed price tasks are used. Specifically,• The use of fixed price compensation terms for tasks caused TVA to pay at least $3.7 million more than it would have if the tasks had been issued under cost-reimbursable payment terms. Additionally, we estimated TVA could potentially avoid up to $4.69 million in future costs by issuing tasks under cost reimbursable payment terms for the remaining contract spend.• TVA did not always receive price proposals from bidders other than SEC. Without adequate competition TVA is less able to ensure it is paying a fair fixed price amount. Additionally, TVA did not receive detail cost breakouts when changes of scope resulted in significant price changes. Without a price breakout, TVA is less able to determine the reasonableness of the price increase.We also noted opportunities to improve contract administration by TVA. Specifically, (1) the contract contained incomplete terms, (2) Supply Chain was not integrated into business level processes related to procurement, and (3) the contract’s monetary limit was increased without a formal amendment as required by the contract.