Federal Reports

Based on the importance of the System Operations Center to the transmission system, we performed an evaluation of the site-selection process to determine if the selected site (1) met regulatory requirements and established criteria and (2) provided financial or operational benefits over other potential locations considered.We determined the site selected for the System Operations Center met established criteria and regulatory requirements. However, we could not determine if the site selected provided financial or operational benefits over other potential locations considered. We identified several issues in the site-selection process, including (1) inaccurate analysis, (2) cost considerations that were high level and not documented, and (3) duplicate parcels. As a result, we determined 4 of the final 6 sites were incorrectly considered for selection by TVA because they did not meet one or more of TVA’s established criteria. Additionally, we identified 1 site that was prematurely eliminated from consideration that should have been included in TVA’s final site selection evaluation.

National Government Services, Inc., claimed unallowable fiscal intermediary and carrier contract Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan costs of $36,524 on its Final Administrative Cost Proposals for fiscal years 2007 through 2013.

National Government Services, Inc., claimed unallowable fiscal intermediary and carrier contract nonqualified plans costs of $426,123 on its Final Administrative Cost Proposals for fiscal years 2007 through 2013.

The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) established the trust fund known as Superfund. The CERCLA requires the Inspector General of a Federal organization with Superfund responsibilities to audit all uses of the fund in the prior fiscal year (FY).

Our objective was to determine whether the Social Security Administration (SSA) should have resolved Old-Age, Survivors and Disability Insurance overpayments that were pending collection for miscellaneous reasons.

To see our report, click on the link below

DHS OIG conducted this investigation in response to complaints made by Lieutenant Commander [Redacted] (“Complainant 1”), and Lieutenant [Redacted] (“Complainant 2”) of the United States Coast Guard (USCG) alleging that Lieutenant Commander (Responsible Management Official 1 [Redacted] (“RMO 1”) and Captain [Redacted] (“RMO 2”) retaliated against the Complainants for making protected communications, in violation of the Military Whistleblower Protection Act (“MWPA”), 10 U.S.C. § 1034.