Federal Reports

Why We Did This Report

We conducted this audit to determine whether EPA Region 1 evaluated grant applications and awarded Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act funds from the Emerging Contaminants in Small or Disadvantaged Communities Grant Program in accordance with pre-award requirements under 2 C.F.R. part 200 and EPA grant policies and guidance.

Summary of Findings

Without sufficient oversight, clearly defined responsibilities, and implemented quality control processes, the EPA does not have adequate assurance that nearly $133 million in funds were awarded and are being managed in accordance with program and regulatory requirements.

This memorandum presents the results of our limited review of the circumstances related to the loss incurred by the National Credit Union Share Insurance Fund (Share Insurance Fund) with respect to Team Financial Federal Credit Union (Team Financial), Houston, Texas, chartered on January 1, 1970.

The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) has four coal plants that include 24 units with a combined net capacity of 5,815 megawatts.  These coal plants have operated well beyond their original book life and are among the oldest still in operation in the nation. Due to the performance and cost risks of operating an aging coal fleet, we performed an evaluation of coal plant asset condition to determine if TVA had assessed the condition of assets and had plans in place to address degradation.  

We determined that TVA did not assess the condition of some assets annually, as required.  We also determined that some assets were not properly classified as “Tier 1” critical assets in TVA’s asset management system and/or tracked in the Generation Asset Health dashboard.  In addition, while TVA has plans to address some asset degradation, there are several assets in poor condition without a plan for remediation. 

NASA relies on large and highly complex facilities and infrastructure, such as launch pads, utility systems, and transportation networks, to launch missions from Kennedy Space Center and Wallops Flight Facility. However, NASA’s launch infrastructure is dated and often does not provide the capacity to meet the growing demands of the Agency and its partners.

This Office of Inspector General (OIG) Healthcare Facility Inspection program report describes the results of a focused evaluation of the care provided at the VA Wilmington Healthcare System in Delaware. 

This evaluation focused on five key domains:
     •    Culture
     •    Environment of care
     •    Patient safety
     •    Primary care
     •    Veteran-centered safety net

The OIG made one recommendation for VA to correct an identified issue in one domain:
   1. Patient safety
     •    Service-level workflows for the communication of test results

We determined that Rural Development allocated approximately $335.7 million in ARA DAF funding without a documented framework for evaluating and prioritizing 160 competing submissions totaling approximately $754.6 million of the $362.5 million authorized.

In February 2025, the White House issued two Executive Orders with the goals of transforming the Federal workforce and Federal spending on contracts, grants, and loans. Agencies were instructed to prepare for large-scale reductions in force (RIF), develop Agency Reorganization Plans, and review all existing contracts and grants and, where appropriate and consistent with applicable law, terminate or modify contracts and grants to reduce overall Federal spending or reallocate spending to promote efficiency and advance the policies of the Administration. As part of its workforce optimization efforts, the Department of Education (Department) offered several voluntary separation programs in January and February 2025, including the deferred resignation program (DRP), Voluntary Early Retirement Authority (VERA), and Voluntary Separation Incentive Payment (VSIP). On March 11, 2025, the Department initiated a RIF and subsequently notified impacted staff that their position was being abolished. As part of its cost efficiency initiative, the Department terminated and modified many contracts and grants. 

The purpose of the review was to describe changes in staffing, operations, contracts, and grants at the U.S. Department of Education from January 20, 2025, through March 31, 2025.  As noted in the report, the Department did not provide all requested information, or permit unfettered access to Department staff, which limited our ability to fully address our review objective, including making definitive determinations in several areas (see page 1 for Scope Limitation; see page 61 for how we compiled the information presented in the report.) We found: 

• Staffing:
  • There were staffing changes in 16 of the Department’s 17 offices and an overall reduction in the workforce of at least 1,579 of its 3,902 employees (40 percent). Specifically, 1,227 employees were separated by RIF actions and at least 352 employees voluntarily separated through other available options.
• Contracts:  
  • Terminated 129 contracts with a total value of $1.3 billion; 
  • Descoped an additional 27 contracts; 
  • Awarded 77 new contracts with a total value of $610.4 million; and 
  • Reversed 3 previously terminated contracts with a total value of $100.2 million. 
• Grants:
  • Terminated 90 grants with total obligations totaling $504 million; 
  • Identified 223 additional grants totaling $252 million for termination; 
  • Moved 84 grants totaling $316 million in obligated funds to closeout; 
  • Awarded 15 new grants totaling $22 million; and 
  • Modified the terms and conditions of 21 grants totaling $18 million awarded to 2 grantees. 

The impact of the staffing changes resulted in the elimination of several suboffices in 15 of the 17 Department offices, including some that appear to have been performing statutory functions or oversight and monitoring functions. Remaining suboffices could be indirectly impacted should staff be reassigned or the suboffices’ functions be expanded. The terminated contracts with the highest total contract value were related to various educational studies, some of which appear to have been statutorily required. The grant programs most impacted by the terminations include those related to teacher training and mental health services. The report did not include any recommendations as it was informational in nature. In its response to the draft report, the Department expressed its concerns that the report did not make it clear enough that the constraints described in the scope limitation were due to binding judicial orders and that the report could be interpreted as suggesting that certain statutory responsibilities were no longer being executed as a result of the RIF. We did not make any changes to the report as a result of the Department’s comments. Although the Department has repeatedly cited concerns about ongoing judicial proceedings and court orders, it has not explained how granting us access to requested documents and to staff would place it at risk of noncompliance with those proceedings and court orders. Further, no corroborating evidence has been provided by the Department to support its assertion that it has continued to discharge the responsibilities referenced in the report since the RIF.