Federal Reports

While the U.S. Postal Service is viewed by the American people as one of the most trusted government organizations, it has suffered a history of financial net losses dating back to 2007. The Postal Service sought to address these challenges through its 10-year strategic plan, Delivering for America (DFA); published in March 2021. The DFA plan calls for over $40 billion in capital investments and calculates projected savings through initiatives that include $24 billion in revenue improvements, $34 billion in management cost savings, $44 billion in regulatory changes, and $58 billion in legislative and administrative actions.

The report summarizes the PRAC’s work during the first half of Fiscal Year 2024 and updates Congress on our efforts to promote transparency and ensure coordinated oversight of more than $5 trillion in pandemic relief. It also highlights the success of the PRAC’s Pandemic Analytics Center of Excellence (PACE), demonstrating the value of the data analytics platform as a good-government initiative that should transition from fighting pandemic-related fraud to preventing and curbing waste in other government spending programs.

During a recent audit of VHA’s personnel suitability program, the VA OIG received a whistleblower complaint alleging that untrained human resources officials from Veterans Integrated Service Network 20 (VISN 20) were overturning pre screening determinations. The complaint included an example in which a candidate who was initially found unsuitable was subsequently advanced for hiring. The complainant later provided four additional examples of candidates initially found unsuitable for employment due to patterns of potentially disqualifying conduct, such as domestic violence and driving under the influence of alcohol. This memorandum outlines VISN 20’s pre-screening process, relevant requirements, and the OIG’s findings to raise VHA leaders’ awareness of risks associated with the inconsistent vetting process. The OIG team determined that VISN 20 human resources officials reversed an adjudicator’s unfavorable pre screening determination in two of the five instances described in the complainant’s documents, but these actions alone did not violate VA policy. The team confirmed that these officials did not complete required adjudicator training for staff reviewing suitability determinations. There were also inconsistencies in managing and monitoring the pre screening process. Lack of national guidance for the pre screening process allowed regional human resources offices to develop their own methods. Variations in approach, supervision, and accountability and the lack of a robust monitoring program can increase risks to VA and veterans. In its comments to the memorandum, VHA reported taking action to establish decision-making roles and improve the review process for suitability coordinators.

The audit objectives were to determine whether program funds were managed in accordance with the ARC and Federal grant requirements.

The audit objectives were to determine whether program funds were managed in accordance with the ARC and Federal grant requirements.

Amtrak (the company) contracted with the independent public accounting firm of Ernst& Young LLP to audit its consolidated financial statements as of and for the fiscal year then ended, September 30, 2023, and to provide a report on internal control over financial reporting and compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts and grant agreements, and other matters, which they issued on December 20, 2023.1 Because the company receives federal financial assistance, it must obtain an audit performed in accordance with U.S. generally accepted government auditing standards. The contract also required Ernst & Young to perform a Single Audit of the company’s federal financial assistance for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2023, in accordance with the audit requirements of Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards(Uniform Guidance). The objective of the Single Audit was to test internal control over compliance with major federal program award requirements and determine whether the company complied with the laws, regulations, and provisions of contracts or grant agreements that may have a direct and material effect on its major federal programs.Major federal programs are those with the larger and higher‐risk expenditures, as determined using the Uniform Guidance. In fiscal year 2023, the company had two such programs: the Department of Transportation’s (DOT) National Railroad Passenger Corporation Grants and Federal‐State Partnership for State of Good Repair programs.On June 14, 2024, Ernst & Young issued an unmodified compliance opinion on the major federal programs it reviewed, concluding that “Amtrak complied, in all material respects, with the compliance requirements . . . that could have a direct and material effect on its major federal programs” for the period covered by its report.2 Ernst & Young identified, however, two significant deficiencies3 in the company’s internal control over compliance. The first was a longstanding finding in the area of Equipment and Real Property Management for the DOT National Railroad Passenger Corporation Grants, and the second was a new finding related to preparation and maintenance of the equipment population. Ernst & Young also identified other deficiencies in internal control over compliance that it determined did not rise to the level of a significant deficiency, which it communicated to the company on June 14, 2024.As required by the Inspector General Act of 1978, we monitored the audit activities of Ernst & Young to help ensure audit quality and compliance with auditing standards. Our review disclosed no instances in which Ernst & Young did not comply, in all material respects, with U.S. generally accepted government auditing standards and Uniform Guidance requirements.We monitored Ernst & Young’s audit activities by attending key meetings and reviewing its reports, audit plans, detailed audit testing results, summary workpapers, audit quality controls, auditor independence, and qualifications. At selected field locations, we also observed Ernst & Young’s testing of the company’s internal controls and compliance for its management of equipment and real property.Our monitoring activities, as differentiated from an audit in accordance with U.S. generally accepted government auditing standards, were not intended to enable us to express an audit opinion. Therefore, we do not express an opinion on compliance for the major program, conclusions about the effectiveness of internal control over compliance, or whether the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards is fairly stated. Ernst & Young is responsible for its report dated June 14, 2024, and the conclusions expressed in the report.