An official website of the United States government
Here's how you know
Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock (
) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.
Brought to you by the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency
Audit of the Office of Justice Programs Office of Justice Programs’ Recovery Act and Non-Recovery Act Programs for Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grants and Byrne Competitive Grants
Review of the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program, Recovery Act Formula Awards Administered by the Department of Justice’s Office of Justice Programs
We reviewed the design of a TVA contractor's process for administering subcontracted work for the Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Unit 2 construction project. Specifically, we reviewed the contractor's (1) invoice review process, (2) process for scheduling work, and (3) process for ensuring subcontractor work meets the contractor's specifications. In addition, we made inquiries regarding concerns raised about the management of measuring and testing equipment (M&TE). Although we performed interviews and reviewed documentation to determine how the contractor schedules subcontracted work, we did not test the effectiveness of this scheduling. Our audit determined the design of the invoice review process was sufficient to achieve the desired results, and we found nothing to indicate the contractor's process for ensuring subcontractor compliance with contractor specifications was ineffective. However, we determined (1) invoices were not being approved by the engineering or construction manager as required by the subcontract administration procedure; (2) verification of the qualifications of certain key subcontractor personnel was not performed; (3) subcontractor invoices were not compared to the contractor's invoice concurrence forms to ensure TVA reimbursed the contractor accurately; and (4) shortages of measuring and testing equipment caused work inefficiencies and were identified as a potential cause of future work inefficiencies and/or delays. In addition, we identified one instance where travel time and mileage for a subcontract employee to travel to the job site to prevent their badge from expiring was billed to TVA. TVA management agreed with our recommendations and will ensure the contractor (1) amends the Subcontract Administration Procedure to provide review and approval authority to the Project Director or his designee for subcontractor invoices, (2) reinforces their process related to delegation for subcontract invoice approvals by reviewing subcontract invoice approval authorization letters to verify they are current, and (3) transfers the responsibility for M&TE from Unit 2 to Unit 1. In addition, TVA management agreed to evaluate the conditions surrounding termination of badges for subcontractors on a case-by-case basis to determine the most cost-efficient arrangement and will begin adding subcontractor invoices to the list of randomly reviewed billing data. TVA management agreed with our recommendations and will ensure the contractor (1) amends the Subcontract Administration Procedure to provide review and approval authority to the project director or designees for subcontractor invoices received, (2) reinforces its process related to delegation for subcontract invoice approvals by reviewing subcontract invoice approval authorization letters to verify these are current, and (3) transfers the responsibility for M&TE from Unit 2 to Unit 1. In addition, TVA management agreed to evaluate the conditions surrounding termination of badges for subcontractors on a case-by-case basis to determine the most cost-efficient arrangement and will begin adding subcontractor invoices to the list of randomly reviewed billing data. Summary Only
HUD OIG performed an audit of the Housing Authority of DeKalb County’s use of its net restricted assets based on a request from the Atlanta Office of Public Housing. The request indicated that a significant amount of net restricted assets was used to pay for items other than the required housing assistance payments. The purpose of the audit was to determine how the Authority expended its net restricted assets and what controls were in place to ensure that net restricted assets were not used for non–housing assistance payments.
The Authority used more than $2.5 million of its net restricted assets to pay ineligible program and administrative expenses for other assisted housing programs. The Authority did not (1) maintain separate bank accounts, (2) properly track its net restricted asset funds, and (3) have proper policies and controls in place. As a result, it misused net restricted asset funds that could have provided assistance to eligible families in its housing voucher program.
OIG recommended that the Director of Public and Indian Housing require the Authority to (1) reconcile its books and records to determine the amount of net restricted asset funds used to pay program and administrative expenses for various housing programs, (2) reimburse the net restricted assets fund account from non-Federal funds the $2.5 million or the current amount owed from various housing programs, and (3) implement its established policy for the use of net restricted assets to ensure that net restricted assets are properly used and bank accounts remain separated for the various programs.
