Federal Reports

The OIG evaluated the efficiency of TVA's hiring process from when the need to hire an annual employee was identified until the position was filled. We determined the process was inefficient due to the following: (1) a lack of training in (a) the use of the People Lifecycle Unified System (PLUS) to initiate a vacancy, (b) requesting a recruiting strategy, and (c) policies for obtaining approvals and posting vacancies within and outside TVA; delays in receipt of documentation by the hiring manager and fingerprinting potential candidates; a lack of defined job requirements for job codes; redundancy in the application and background investigation process; lack of a repository to capture feedback on Human Relations' performance; and deficiencies in PLUS that hinders updating of data by applicants, running queries, and issuance of unique employee identification numbers; and (2) issues impacting the usefulness of the time-to-fill metric as a reliable performance measure. In addition, we identified two areas where TVA does not comply with the Office of Personnel Management requirements related to Selective Service registration and internal requirements for psychological evaluations for system operators and dispatchers. Three additional matters came to our attention during the audit related to completing psychological evaluations and motor vehicle checks for certain positions. These three matters were not directly related to our audit objectives but were included in the report for management's consideration and action, as necessary.Except for suggested actions to assess the risk of having armed guards without psychological evaluations and use a single application to reduce redundancy in the application process, TVA management generally agreed with our recommendations.

Nuclear Power Group (NPG) Business Practice (BP) 247, Revision 9, Emerging Regulatory Issues Management Process, "establishes a process to identify, categorize, manage, monitor and provide statuses to senior management on issues that may have regulatory impacts on Nuclear Power Group (NPG) or NPG managed material licenses." The OIG determined the process for addressing nuclear emerging regulatory issues (ERI) is generally effective.During the period of our review, September 26, 2009, through September 26, 2014, we identified no instances where TVA overlooked an ERI related to NRC-proposed rulemaking; however, we did identify areas where the BP 247 was not being followed. Specifically, (1) the ERI Monitoring Table was not being filled out completely and consistently, (2) formal executive briefings were not consistently occurring, and (3) executive sponsors were not being assigned to ERIs with significant impacts on NPG resources. As a result of our audit, TVA began taking corrective action by issuing a revision to BP 247, with an effective date of December 12, 2014.

At the request of TVA Supply Chain, the OIG audited the costs billed to TVA by Hayward Baker, Inc. (HBI), for remediation work performed at Blue Ridge Hydro Dam under Contract No. 6902. Our objective was to determine if the costs billed were in accordance with the contract terms and conditions. The audit included $2,928,773 in costs and fee billed by HBI for work performed between December 2012 and April 2013. TVA disputed $947,282 of the amount billed and paid HBI $1,981,491 on December 31, 2013. The audit found the costs HBI billed to TVA were in accordance with the contract terms and conditions. TVA and HBI reached preliminary agreement on May 27, 2015, and final settlement occurred on June 11, 2015. Summary Only

The OIG audited TVA's invoice 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 non-receiving contracts and purchase orders with fiscal year 2013 payments totaling $3,363,603,152.We found policies and procedures were not followed to ensure effective review and approval of supplier invoices. Specifically, our review of 143 invoices totaling $184,339,674 found inadequate reviews were performed on 104 invoices or 73 percent. Based on our review, we identified several possible underlying causes why effective invoice reviews were not performed: (1) contracts contained unclear and/or conflicting compensation provisions; (2) some contracts do not provide specific requirements regarding invoice detail and for those contracts that do, the requirements are not being followed or enforced; (3) not all relevant contract and purchase orders are attached to the invoice or available in TVA's Enterprise Asset Management (EAM) system; (4) required field invoice approver (FIA) training does not include details on how to access and approve invoices in TVA's EAM system; (5) clear and frequent communication does not always exist between the FIA and contracting officer (CO); (6) an approval stamp used at a nuclear plant implied the OIG reviews the invoices; and (7) the current invoice review process is a manual process within an automated system.We recommended TVA management: (1) develop a contract quality assurance program to ensure clear, concise, and easy to follow compensation terms, (2) ensure the FIAs and contract technical stewards have the most up-to-date terms and conditions of a contract by developing an approach to provide access (dependent upon business need) to contract documents, (3) require training for those accessing and approving invoices in TVA's EAM system, (4) revise policies to require the CO to confirm FIAs understand their responsibilities in approving invoices for payment, and (5) revise policies to clarify CO responsibility for monitoring the invoice approval process and verifying the contractor's invoices contain adequate detail in a format that facilitates the review. In addition, we recommended TVA management utilize the technology available to expedite and improve the invoice review process by implementing automated steps in the invoice review process where possible, including: (1) requiring electronic data from vendors that allows for 100 percent review, (2) setting parameters to identify exceptions, (3) following up on items identified as exceptions before making payment on those items, (4) establishing automatic notifications be sent to FIAs, contract managers, and others regarding exceptions to ensure the exceptions are reviewed, and (5) establishing automated analytical reviews, as necessary.TVA management generally agreed with our findings and stated they would take action to address our recommendations.