Federal Reports

This report presents the results of the U.S. Government Publishing Office (GPO) product billing rates, Project No. A-20-005. We contracted with the Independent Public Accounting firm, KPMG LLP (KPMG), to conduct this review. The objective was to determine if GPO’s rate structure allows the agency to identify and recover total costs for products and services in accordance with 44 U.S.C. § 309(b)(1).

The VA Office of Inspector General (OIG) conducted an inspection to assess an allegation that the Cardiac Catheterization Lab (CCL) was closed due to concerns of risk to patients at the Samuel S. Stratton VA Medical Center (facility) in Albany, New York. The OIG did not receive a response from Veterans Integrated Service Network (VISN) 2 staff following an inquiry and subsequently opened the healthcare inspection.The OIG substantiated that the CCL was closed due to concerns of risk to patients and determined the closure was in response to issues including use of improper clinical procedural techniques, personnel disputes, and a hostile work environment. A facility fact-finding review identified concerns with communication and team dynamics among staff and suspended CCL procedures. The OIG found that VISN and facility leaders acted promptly to obtain unbiased assessments when they arranged for an external review of the CCL by the National Cardiology Program Office (NCPO). The NCPO made recommendations addressing the clinical judgment and technical skills of the CCL cardiologists. Facility leaders convened an administrative investigation board and initiated management reviews. Clinicians independent of the facility and well versed in interventional cardiology assessed the CCL cardiologists’ clinical competence. VISN and facility leaders decided that the CCL should remain closed indefinitely.According to the NCPO, its role is typically confined to advising the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) and facilities on policy matters. In this instance, the offering of recommendations by NCPO extended beyond policy matters and addressed operations, including the safe resumption of interventional cardiology at the facility. The OIG made three recommendations: two recommendations to the Under Secretary for Health regarding the designation of a VHA specialty leader in interventional cardiology and one recommendation to the VISN Director to review the circumstances that led to the failure to respond to an OIG inquiry.

We evaluated the U.S. Department of the Interior’s Land Buy-Back Program for Tribal Nations. We found that the Bureau of Indian Affairs violated Federal regulations by delegating land title authority to its Acquisition Center. The delegation of land title authority resulted in confusion about roles and responsibilities, allegations of title document defects, breakdown in communication between offices, and the potential for litigation. In addition, the improper delegation of land title authority could result in claims that the Department breached its fiduciary trust responsibilities by mismanaging tribal trust funds and could potentially place all program actions at risk of being invalidated.The offices involved in the Land Buy-Back Program have been working to address the land title authority and title document defect issues. On February 24, 2020, and May 22, 2020, the Bureau, in coordination with the Office of the Solicitor, updated two policies regarding the delegation of land title authority issues. An Office of the Solicitor official told us that these policy changes resolved the issues and that no further policy changes were needed. On June 3, 2020, the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs signed a corrective action plan regarding the missing land title document identified by a 2019 document review project.We make three recommendations to help the Department’s leadership ensure that program land acquisitions are legally defensible and to minimize risks that the Department will face liability. The Department responded to our draft report on September 10, 2020, and based on the response, we consider Recommendations 1 and 2 resolved and implemented and Recommendation 3 resolved but not implemented. Throughout the course of our review, we communicated our findings to the Department, and the Department took corrective actions to implement two of our recommendations before issuance of our draft report. We will refer Recommendation 3 to the Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management and Budget to track implementation.

We audited the costs claimed by the State of Alabama, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries (Division), under grants awarded by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) through the Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Program. The audit included claims totaling $89.3 million on 70 grants that were open during the State fiscal years that ended September 30, 2017, and September 30, 2018. The audit also covered the Division’s compliance with applicable laws, regulations, and FWS guidelines, including those related to the collection and use of hunting and fishing license revenue and the reporting of program income.We found that the Division generally ensured that grant funds and hunting and fishing license revenue were used for allowable fish and wildlife activities and complied with applicable laws and regulations, FWS guidelines, and grant agreements. We noted, however, issues with an ineligible subaward payment in the amount of $5,000 (Federal share $3,750). In addition, we noted multiple control deficiencies, including opportunities to improve controls in subaward oversight, tracking of volunteer hours for hunter education, program income reporting, barter disclosure, timeliness of Federal financial reports, and reconciliation of real property.The FWS concurred with our 15 recommendations and will work with the Division to implement corrective actions.

What We Looked AtUnder the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) Circular, National Drug Control Program Agency Compliance Reviews, when drug-related obligations total less than $50 million and a full compliance with the Circular would constitute an unreasonable reporting burden, agencies may submit alternative reports. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) submitted alternative Budget Formulation Compliance, Detailed Accounting, and Performance Summary reports. We reviewed the reports and related management assertions to determine the reliability of those assertions in compliance with the Circular. We conducted our review in accordance with generally accepted Government auditing standards for attestation engagements. We limited our review to inquiries and analytical procedures appropriate for an attestation review according to the Circular’s criteria. What We FoundWe were not able to validate the budget amounts in FAA’s Budget Formulation Compliance Report because FAA did not provide sufficient supporting documentation to allow a review. As a result, we were not able to conclude that the funding levels in the budget submission provided by the budget decision units to FAA were without alteration or adjustment. We were not able to verify the reasonableness of FAA’s reported Air Traffic Organization (ATO) obligations because FAA did not provide documentation to support the obligations. We also noted that the estimation method FAA used to determine its ATO obligations included a baseline full-time equivalent level last updated in 2003. Because FAA did not provide a signed assertions letter with its Performance Summary Report, as required, we were unable to perform procedures related to performance assertions. Based on our review of FAA’s fiscal year 2020 Budget Formulation Compliance, Detailed Accounting, and Performance Summary reports, we were not able to conclude on the reliability of FAA’s management assertions.