Federal Reports

What We Looked AtWe queried and downloaded 90 single audit reports prepared by non-Federal auditors and submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse between April 1, 2022, and June 30, 2022, to identify significant findings related to programs directly funded by the Department of Transportation (DOT). What We FoundWe found that reports contained a range of findings that impacted DOT programs. The auditors reported 19 incidents of significant noncompliance with Federal guidelines related to 12 grantees that require prompt action from DOT’s Operating Administrations (OA). Eight of these were repeat findings related to six grantees. The auditors also identified questioned costs totaling $7,148,093 for five grantees. Of this amount, $6,568,036 was related to the Pit River Tribe. RecommendationsWe recommend that DOT coordinate with the impacted OAs to develop corrective action plans to resolve and close the current and repeat findings identified in this report. We also recommend that DOT determine the allowability of the questioned transactions and recover $7,148,093, if applicable.

The OIG is publishing this compendium to analyze the open and unresolved recommendations listed in the semiannual report covering our work from October 1, 2021, through March 31, 2022.

The OIG investigated an allegation that an attorney at the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (BVA) may have accessed a BVA senior executive’s government email account without permission, including email concerning a personnel matter involving the attorney. The complaint further alleged that the attorney should have known that access to the materials in the executive’s email account was not authorized. The attorney has since left VA employment.After considering the extensive evidence collected, including analyses of audit logs, mailbox content, testimonial evidence, Office of Information and Technology (OIT) service tickets, and a forensic analysis of the attorney’s government-furnished laptop, the OIG did not substantiate that the attorney ever accessed the executive’s email or that the attorney was aware that such access rights had been assigned to them. Moreover, the OIG team could not dismiss the possibility that the attorney’s unauthorized access privileges were the result of an error made by either OIT staff or the executive. Based on these findings, the OIG made no recommendations.