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
We performed an audit of the Tennessee Valley Authority’s (TVA) invoice review and approval process to (1) assess TVA's policies and procedures related to the review and approval of invoices, (2) determine compliance with applicable policies and procedures, and (3) determine if TVA's invoice approvers have adequate information, including clear contractual compensation provisions and sufficient invoice detail, to effectively perform their role. The scope of our audit included Supply Chain nonreceiving contracts and POs with fiscal year 2021 invoiced costs totaling $3,554,951,594. In summary, we determined:• Policies and procedures were not being followed to ensure effective review and approval of supplier invoices. Our review of 127 invoices found inadequate reviews were performed on 55 invoices (43 percent). Based on our review of sampled invoices and relevant contractual documentation, as well as interviews with field invoice approvers, contracting officers (COs), and contract technical stewards, we identified several potential underlying causes for why effective invoice reviews were not performed. • TVA could clarify policies and procedures to better define roles and responsibilities related to (1) field invoice approver (FIA) approval of invoices related to POs with compensation terms different from the blanket contract and (2) required communications when there are changes in FIA assignments. In addition, we noted several opportunities to improve contract administration. Specifically, we identified opportunities related to (1) documentation inconsistencies between contracts and information in TVA’s EAM system, (2) the issuance of amendments for contract modifications, (3) work performed after the contract’s termination date, and (4) contract clauses containing inconsistent guidance.
Evaluation of KSRQ-FM, Northland Community and Technical College, Compliance with Selected Communications Act and General Provisions Transparency Requirements, Report No. ECR2405-2409
Ricarda Burrell, a former Customer Service Representative, pleaded guilty in U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, to one count of mail fraud and one count of theft of public money involving CARES Act Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA) fraud. Burrell received the PUA while she was employed at Amtrak. The total fraud amount was $9,739. Sentencing has been scheduled for September 3, 2024.
In September 2023, VA announced it had erroneously awarded millions of dollars in critical skill incentive (CSI) payments to senior executives at its central office. VA cancelled the payments, notified Congress, and requested the Office of Inspector General (OIG) review the matter.CSIs are a new recruitment and retention tool authorized by the PACT Act, which significantly expanded access to VA health care and benefits for veterans exposed to toxic substances. CSIs are meant for an employee who “possesses a high-demand skill or skill that is at a shortage,” to help VA meet a projected increase in staffing requirements. In total, VA awarded $10.8 million in CSIs to 182 senior executives (ranging from nearly $39,000 to over $100,000 each) in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) and the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) at VA’s central office.The OIG found the award of CSIs to nearly all VHA and VBA central office executives lacked adequate justification and was inconsistent with the PACT Act and VA policy. This was due, in part, to breakdowns in leadership and controls at multiple levels of VA, including• insufficient transparency from VHA regarding the scope and costs of its CSI plans for VACO senior executives; • excessive deference by VA’s Human Resources and Administration/Operations, Security, and Preparedness leaders to under secretaries and other senior leaders, despite concerns that they or their staff had about the incentives;• missed opportunities by the Office of General Counsel to detect legal issues with the CSIs before payment; and• failure to leverage VA’s existing governance processes to ensure proper risk management of the new CSI authority.VA concurred with the OIG’s two findings and eight recommendations and provided acceptable action plans and completion timelines. The OIG will monitor VA’s progress until sufficient documentation has been received to close the recommendations as implemented.