Federal Reports

Following are observations from the review of documentation for 30 claims:Of the 12 claims that were disputed, 2 of the dispute letters were not submitted within 30 days after the notice of injury, as required by federal code.One claim did not include the supervisor's signature on the form.In one instance, the claim was not submitted to the Office of Workers' Compensation Programs within ten business days, due to a supervisor not forwarding his/her completed portion of the form within the allotted eight days, as required by federal code and TVA policy, respectively.We found prescribed services for TVA's Workers' Compensation (WC) department and assigned site personnel go beyond the Federal Employees' Compensation Act's WC requirements. However, when we interviewed selected managers, nurses, TVA site WC contacts, and other staff at seven TVA site locations, we were told the WC program support could be improved by: (1) increasing the expertise in the WC department, including medical knowledge of personnel; (2) improving education and training for personnel responsible for facilitating the WC process at TVA sites; (3) enhancing communications from the WC department; and (4) addressing the abundance of hearing loss claims.

Audit of the OCIO's controls for laptop security.

We audited $211.6 million of costs billed to TVA by a contractor from January 1, 2006, through December 31, 2007, for the administration of TVA's medical benefit program. Our objective was to determine if the costs billed to TVA were in compliance with the contract terms and conditions. In summary, we found TVA had potentially been overbilled up to an estimated $473,024. The overbilling included (1) $327,513 in potentially duplicate line item charges; (2) $71,518 for unallowable procedures and services; (3) $4,659 for claims that exceeded plan limits; (4) $61,840 of audit recoveries that had not been credited to TVA; and (5) $7,494 of miscalculated claim payments.In addition, we found TVA had been billed an additional $1 million due to payment provisions the contractor had negotiated with some of the providers in its preferred provider organization network. These provisions, referred to as stop-loss provisions, effectively offset discounts TVA would have otherwise received when providers' costs exceeded specified amounts. Summary Only

We reviewed TVA's process for ensuring it does not knowingly contract with vendors that have been: (1) debarred or suspended by the federal government and/or (2) found unsatisfactory within TVA. In summary, we determined:TVA does not have formal procedures for ensuring TVA does not knowingly contract with vendors that have been debarred or suspended by the federal government. However, Procurement requires its Contract Managers/Procurement Agents to review the Excluded Parties Listing System (EPLS), which is the federal government's database of debarred and suspended vendors, before awarding contracts over $100,000. Although we found TVA had not awarded contracts to vendors that were included on the EPLS during our review period (2005-2008), TVA's process was not always followed and/or documented.The Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) include certain requirements that if implemented by TVA could improve TVA's process and further ensure that TVA does not do business with contractors and subcontractors that are debarred or have committed a civil or criminal offense.TVA does not have a formal process for internally identifying vendors that have been found unsatisfactory within TVA. The lack of such a process could result in TVA not being aware of problems it has had with vendors prior to awarding contracts to them.We recommended TVA Procurement develop written procedures detailing its vendor debarment process. In addition, TVA should improve its process by requiring more verification of the debarment status of contractors and subcontractors as prescribed by the FAR, including certifications and notifications by contractors regarding debarment and/or civil or criminal actions. TVA should also develop a process for (1) identifying TVA vendors that should be on a "watchlist" based on certain serious offenses committed by the vendor and (2) reporting any significant misconduct by contractors to the federal government. Summary Only