Federal Reports

We evaluated the U.S. Department of Commerce’s process for addressing findings and recommendations identified in single audit reports related to departmental programs. Our objective was to determine whether the Department’s oversight of its grantees is sufficient to ensure selected findings identified in single audit reports are mitigated and recommendations are resolved within the required timeframe.
We found that bureaus are mitigating and resolving single audit findings, but improvements can be made to ensure compliance with federal requirements. We issued two recommendations. The Department concurred with our findings and recommendations.

Our objective was to assess the Postal Service’s CPU and VPO programs. Specifically, we (1) assessed Postal Service oversight of CPUs and VPOs, and (2) evaluated Postal Service strategies for establishing new CPUs and VPOs. We analyzed policies, data, and growth initiatives, and visited select CPUs and VPOs nationwide.

We found that a contractor wrongfully obtained over $10.7 million in Buy Indian Act set-aside contracts from BIA and BIE.

We performed an audit examining HUD’s efforts to prevent duplication of benefits when using Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Disaster Recovery and Mitigation funds.  Our objective was to determine how the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) assesses the adequacy of grantee procedures to prevent a duplication of benefits, both before and after grant execution.

HUD certified grantees’ high-level processes for preventing duplication of benefits before grant execution and allowed grantees to develop more detailed procedures for individual grant activities later.  However, HUD did not review grantees’ more detailed procedures before grantees began spending funds on program activities.  In addition, HUD certified before grant award that grantees had adequate procedures when the grantees’ procedures did not meet the adequacy criteria HUD established in the Federal Register.  Further, HUD’s adequacy criteria did not include all statutory requirements.  Because HUD certified procedures that did not meet requirements and did not review detailed activity-level procedures before grantees began spending funds, HUD risked grantees’ failing to prevent any duplication of benefits in accordance with the law.

We recommended that the Director of the Office of Disaster Recovery (1) review grantees’ activity-level procedures to prevent any duplication of benefits for adequacy before grantees process applications for assistance and (2) ensure that all applicable requirements for preventing any duplication of benefits are included in the adequacy criteria, grantee certifications, and HUD review checklists supporting the certification.