An official website of the United States government
Here's how you know
Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock (
) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.
Brought to you by the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency
Federal Reports
Report Date
Agency Reviewed / Investigated
Report Title
Type
Location
Department of Health & Human Services
Indiana Did Not Always Comply With Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting Program Requirements
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 established the Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting Program (MIECHV program) in 2010, and it was to be collaboratively implemented by HHS's Health Resources and Services Administration and the Administration for Children and Families.
New York did not always follow Federal requirements for allocating and claiming contract costs to its grants for establishing New York's marketplace customer service center. Specifically, New York may have misallocated costs totaling nearly $19.6 million and claimed unallowable profit fees and other costs totaling nearly $3.8 million.
Prior Office of Inspector General (OIG) reviews focused on U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) oversight of food recalls. Food recalls are the most effective means of protecting public health when a widely consumed food product is either defective or potentially harmful. At the time of those OIG reviews, FDA did not have statutory authority to require food manufacturers to initiate recalls of most foods.
At the request of the Tennessee Valley Authority's (TVA) Supply Chain, we examined the cost proposal submitted by a company for civil projects and coal combustion residual program management work at TVA's steam electric power plants. Our examination objective was to determine if the company's cost proposal was fairly stated for a planned <br> $50 million contract.In our opinion, the company's cost proposal was overstated. Specifically, we found the company's proposed costs for a Cumberland Fossil Plant (CUF) project and proposed unit rates for a Bull Run Fossil Plant (BRF) project included overstated equipment costs, labor costs, temporary living allowance costs, and material costs. In addition, the company included (1) unallowable contingency costs for the CUF project, (2) a fee rate for the CUF project that exceeded the maximum allowable fee rate in TVA's request for proposal (RFP), and (3) unsupported costs in the BRF project. We also found the company's proposed rate attachments for (1) noncraft labor, craft labor, and contractor-owned equipment contained errors, and (2) fee on cost reimbursable work exceeded the maximum allowable fee rate in TVA's RFP.We estimated TVA could avoid $1.97 million on the planned $50 million contract by (1) negotiating appropriate reductions to equipment, labor, temporary living allowance, and material costs; (2) eliminating contingency costs from the company's CUF project and future cost reimbursable projects; (3) limiting the company's fee rate on the CUF project to the RFP's maximum allowable rate; (4) eliminating unsupported costs from the BRF proposal; and (5) negotiating appropriate reductions to the unit rates in the BRF proposal. In addition, we suggest TVA require revisions to the company's contract rate attachments.(Summary Only)
