Federal Reports

We audited $249million of costs for parts and services for Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant paid by TVA to a contractor from January1, 2000, through May31, 2006. We found the contractor overbilled TVA about $960,000 because the contractor had not always included discounts on prices it billed TVA as required by the contract. TVA management is working with the contractor to determine what impact, if any, a previous verbal agreement regarding the contract discount structure may have on the amount owed to TVA. Summary Only

We audited $58.5million of costs billed to TVA by a contractor for staff augmentation support services during FYs 2005 and 2006. We determined TVA was overbilled about $540,000 for labor costs due to duplicate billings, overpayments of labor hours, and use of incorrect wage rates. We also found the contractor had not maintained documentation to support approximately $340,000 of travel expenses billed to TVA. The contractor and TVA management agreed with our findings, and TVA management is planning to (1)recover the overbilled amount and (2)implement a requirement for the contractor to maintain documentation of travel expenses that are billed to TVA. Summary Only

EAC OIG conducted this audit to determine whether (1) travel was performed in accordance with the Federal Travel Regulation, (2) travel cards were properly controlled and used for only official purposes, and (3) travelers paid their travel card bills in a timely manner.

We were requested by the Vice President, Paradise Fossil Plant (PAF), to assess the procedures and key controls used to track and account for PAF tools. In summary, we found: No policies or procedures exist for tools at PAF.Tools can be ordered without management approval.Controls at the PAF for contractor tool rooms are inadequate to properly track and account for tools.Management agreed with our findings and recommendations and is taking or plans to take corrective action.

The objective of our review was to determine (1) vendor compliance with contract force majeure provisions and (2) the adequacy of coal contract terms and conditions related to force majeure events. In summary, we found: No documented instances in which (1) a vendor did not provide formal notification of a force majeure event and (2) the force majeure justification was not in accordance with the force majeure contract language.Standard contract language exists for the development of a contract force majeure clause; however, the force majeure clause is often modified either in initial contract negotiations or subsequent contract supplements. This variation could result in increased cost to TVA. Most of the force majeure events were not verified. In addition, we also found (1) no policies and/or procedures specifically governing how to manage force majeure events, (2) no central repository for documenting force majeure events declared and the impact resulting from these force majeure events, and (3) limited and/or inconsistent documentation pertaining to force majeure events and Fuel Supply actions. Management agreed with our findings and recommendations and is taking or plans to take corrective action.

As part of our annual audit plan, we reviewed the processes related to identifying and managing surplus materials to determine if surplus material was identified and managed in accordance with TVA policies and procedures. We identified areas of noncompliance and recommended corrective action to management. Management provided comments on our findings, including corrective action taken.