Federal Reports

We found weaknesses in DOI’s cyber risk management and governance could cause mission disruptions, compromised data, and misuse of public funds.

The Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) uses the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities (rating schedule) to determine monthly compensation to eligible veterans for service connected disabilities based on documented medical severity. In 2021, VA updated the rating schedule for the musculoskeletal body system. The VA Office of Inspector General (OIG) reviewed the effectiveness of VBA’s implementation of the changes to the rating schedule specifically for hip and knee replacements or resurfacing.The OIG estimated that in approximately 33 percent of reviewed claims, VBA rating specialists did not assign the correct number of months when granting periods of convalescence. Ratings specialists lack effective tools to determine convalescence benefits and help calculate the proper period. The specialists rely on manually entered dates, increasing the risk of error. Approximately 18 percent of claims did not accurately consider veterans’ additional entitlement to special monthly compensation, and an estimated 38 percent resulted in improper payments of about $3.3 million dollars in total benefits overpayments and underpayments. Further, VBA did not sufficiently monitor claims decision accuracy following the rating schedule update. The OIG team also determined that although VBA provided training on the rating schedule update, nearly 75 percent of staff did not achieve a passing score of 80 percent and required retraining.The under secretary for benefits concurred with the OIG’s four recommendations: (1) review hip and knee replacements and resurfacing claims completed from February 7, 2021, through August 31, 2022, to ensure benefits to veterans were correct; (2) implement a plan to assist rating specialists in determining accurate benefits; (3) develop procedures to monitor claims and ensure processing is compliant with rating schedule revisions; and (4) supplement training on rating schedule updates to improve comprehension on applying changes.

What We Looked At The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act provided the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) with $10 billion in funding, including about $525 million for airport development expenses. FAA distributed these funds through its Airport Improvement Program (AIP), which requires grant recipients to comply with various Federal procurement requirements, including Buy American Preferences. Previous Office of Inspector General (OIG) audits identified weaknesses in FAA’s processes for awarding and administering AIP grants and its oversight of CARES Act funds. Given the size of the funding allocation, its expeditious distribution, and related findings in prior reports, we initiated this audit. Our objectives were to evaluate FAA’s processes for (1) awarding and administering CARES Act-funded airport development grants and (2) overseeing associated recipient contracts to ensure compliance with Federal and Agency grant and procurement requirements. What We Found FAA did not always follow its processes for awarding and administering its CARES Act airport development grants. Specifically, FAA did not carefully review development grant applications before it distributed CARES Act funds over 20 percent of the time and did not always require sponsors to submit annual financial reports on time. Although the Agency strengthened its oversight of CARES Act-funded invoices, it did not effectively communicate and adhere to these changes. These oversight gaps prevent FAA from assuring that the program operates as intended and in a fiscally responsible manner. FAA’s CARES Act-funded airport development contracts also did not meet several key Federal requirements. The Agency did not ensure that sponsors met the requirements for completing cost or price analyses in more than 55 percent of contracts we reviewed. FAA also did not always ensure that Buy American waivers met all requirements prior to approval. Thus, FAA cannot be certain that project costs were reasonable or that sponsors complied with Made in America Laws. These issues result in a total of $106 million in funds at risk for better use. Our Recommendations We made eight recommendations to strengthen FAA’s oversight of CARES Act funds for airport development projects. FAA concurred with all eight recommendations and provided appropriate completion dates. We consider all recommendations resolved but open pending completion of the planned actions.