Federal Reports

We notified the Department that FSA was not enforcing a contract requirement that PCAs report verbal complaints from borrowers to FSA. The contracts between PCAs and the Department provide that each PCA will adhere to Department complaint procedures. Those procedures mandate specific actions a PCA must take when it receives a complaint from a borrower, including verbal complaints, such as suspending collection activity on the account. During our site visits at three PCAs—Pioneer Credit Recovery, Performant Financial Corporation, and NCO Financial Systems, Inc.—we learned that none considered verbal complaints to be actual complaints because they believed that they had been able to appease the borrower and defuse the complaint. In addition, we found that no PCAs tracked or reported verbal complaints. As a result, FSA was unaware of the number or severity of verbal complaints filed by borrowers against PCAs and how those complaints were resolved. We recommended that FSA enforce the contract requirement that PCAs report verbal complaints to FSA, and develop a quality assurance program to verify that FSA is receiving all verbal complaints.

Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Unit 2 (WBN2) management requested the Office of the Inspector General to perform a review of the commodity tracking process being implemented for the WBN2 construction project. This review was intended to help TVA gain confidence in their commodity tracking process, which is used in conjunction with other tools and metrics to gauge the project's progress.We identified minor vulnerabilities in the commodity tracking process for the WBN2 construction project related to potential duplication of data entry and review. We made recommendations to eliminate the duplication. TVA agreed with our findings and the OIG concurs with WBN2 management's planned action. Summary Only

EAC OIG, through the independent public accounting firm CliftonLarsonAllen LLP, audited the EAC's implementation of privacy and data protection policies and its compliance with Section 522 of the Transportation, Treasury, Independent Agencies, and General Government Appropriations Act, 2005.

TVA provides biweekly vehicle allowances to eligible officers and key managers in accordance with Vehicle Allowance Guidelines that were put into effect April 1, 2006. Additionally, TVA maintains a light fleet of about 2,900 vehicles, which are available for assignment to any TVA employee with a business need. Business units with an assigned vehicle pay a monthly fee to TVA Fleet Services for use of the vehicle. In fiscal year 2011, TVA paid $648,050 in vehicle allowances to 65 employees. Also, business units paid approximately $9.66 million in monthly fees during fiscal year 2011 to Fleet Services for use of assigned vehicles.The Office of the Inspector General audited TVA's vehicle allowance and assigned vehicle programs to determine the cost effectiveness of the programs and if proper controls were in place to ensure program eligibility guidelines were being met. Our specific audit objectives were to determine if (1) TVA employees receiving vehicle allowances met established eligibility requirements and if proper controls were in place to determine eligibility criteria were met, (2) TVA employees with assigned vehicles met established criteria for having an assigned vehicle and if proper controls were in place to determine eligibility criteria were met, and (3) the cost effectiveness of both the vehicle allowance and assigned vehicle programs.Our audit found TVA does not document how officers and key managers who are paid vehicle allowances meet the "business need" eligibility criteria specified in TVA's Vehicle Allowance Program Guidelines. Based on the available data, it appears a large percentage of the personnel who receive vehicle allowances may not meet TVA's stated criteria of significant business related travel. We also noted several administrative matters within the guidance that were not followed.TVA's Fleet Service management did not maintain adequate documentation to validate the adequacy of TVA's controls over vehicle assignments. Additionally, we were unable to determine which program is more cost effective because data obtained during the audit indicated the cost differential between the two programs was small. However, overall cost savings may be available, because there are individuals who either receive a vehicle allowance or have an assigned vehicle who do not appear to have a business need for the allowance or vehicle.We made five recommendations that pertained to (1) documentation of vehicle allowances, (2) periodic review of those receiving an allowance, (3) maintenance of the Vehicle Allowance Guidelines, (4) coordination between those with vehicle allowances and those with assigned vehicles, and (5) review of all employees currently receiving an allowance. We made three additional recommendations that pertained to (1) maintenance of TVA Form 9314A, (2) documentation of vehicle replacements, and (3) review of all employees currently assigned a vehicle.