Federal Reports

Our Objective(s) To evaluate FHWA's construction quality assurance oversight activities. Specifically, we assessed: (1) the 52 FHWA Divisions' oversight of State Department of Transportation (State DOT) construction quality assurance programs, (2) FHWA Headquarters' construction quality assurance reviews, and (3) FHWA's dissemination of construction quality assurance information on the Agency's public website.
Why This Audit We conducted this audit because of increased funding, rising prices, supply chain challenges, and construction workforce shortages amplifying the importance of FHWA's oversight to ensure the quality of construction materials and workmanship on Federal-aid highway projects.
What We Found FHWA's divisions do not effectively oversee State DOTs' construction quality assurance programs.FHWA's Divisions could not demonstrate that they fully approved all their State DOTs' construction quality assurance programs as required for projects on the National Highway System. The Divisions also lack guidance from Headquarters on how to review State DOTs' program implementation. Further, FHWA Headquarters has not provided sufficient guidance to the Divisions on how to adequately oversee certifications of project materials and construction inspections. Furthermore, the guidance on how to oversee certifications of project materials lacks detail and the guidance to oversee construction inspections was outdated.
FHWA Headquarters' reviews of State DOTs' construction quality assurance programs do not fully address compliance and fraud risk.FHWA Headquarters conducts two reviews of State DOT construction quality assurance programs-one that assesses State DOT practices and compliance, and one that evaluates programs' effectiveness and how they minimize risk for fraud, waste, and abuse. However, the first does not fully address all regulatory requirements for the programs and the second does not address how the programs help minimize risk for waste, fraud, and abuse.
FHWA's public webpages on construction quality assurance contain outdated and incomplete information.For instance, FHWA's Policy and Guidance Center website, the central source of policy and guidance documents, has two webpages on construction quality assurance. However, neither includes all relevant documents.
Recommendations We made 13 recommendations to improve FHWA's oversight of State DOTs' quality assurance programs.

Our Objective(s)To determine whether (1) Moss Adams LLP's work complied with the Single Audit Act of 1984, as amended, the Office of Management and Budget's Uniform Guidance and the extent to which we could rely on the auditor's work on the U.S. Department of Transportation's (DOT) major program, and (2) the Port of Portland's reporting package complied with the reporting requirements of the Uniform Guidance.
Why This AuditDuring the fiscal year that ended on June 30, 2022, the Port of Portland (Port) expended approximately $28.6 million from a DOT program. Moss Adams determined that DOT's major program was FAA's Airport Improvement Program. We performed a quality control review on the single audit conducted by Moss Adams to ensure compliance with all Federal laws and regulations.
What We FoundReview of Audit Work

Moss Adams complied with the requirements of the Single Audit Act, the Office of Management and Budget's Uniform Guidance, and DOT's major program.
We found nothing to indicate that Moss Adams' opinion on DOT's major program was inappropriate or unreliable.
We identified a deficiency in Moss Adams' audit work that requires a correction in future audits.

Review of Reporting Package

We did not identify any deficiencies that required correction and resubmission of the Port's reporting package.

Rating We assigned Moss Adams an overall rating of Pass with Deficiencies.