Federal Reports

The OIG investigated allegations that a senior official from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) encouraged natural resource specialists to overlook regulations so they could process Applications for Permit to Drill more quickly, and to protect any staff members who overlooked the regulations Our investigation did not substantiate the allegations and found no evidence to indicate the senior official encouraged staff to overlook the regulations as alleged. We found the senior official did meet with a group of natural resource specialists and encouraged them to streamline processes, but he did not direct staff to overlook regulations.

The OIG investigated allegations that Great Western Drilling Corporation (GWD) misreported mineral royalty data to the Office of Natural Resources Revenue (ONRR) and underpaid Federal mineral royalties.We substantiated the allegations and found that for more than 6 years, the GWD violated Federal regulations and ONRR rules when they deducted their costs incurred transporting and processing natural gas and associated natural gas liquids into marketable condition from its royalty obligations to the ONRR. Because of these violations, the GWD underpaid Federal royalties to the ONRR.The United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Colorado entered into a civil settlement agreement with the GWD for $600,000 to resolve this case.

Seek link below for the full report, report summary, multimedia or any agency follow-up.

The VA Office of Inspector General (OIG) conducted a focused evaluation of the quality of care delivered in the inpatient and outpatient settings of the Bay Pines VA Healthcare System (Facility). The review covered key clinical and administrative processes associated with promoting quality care—Leadership and Organizational Risks; Quality, Safety, and Value; Credentialing and Privileging; Environment of Care; Medication Management: Controlled Substances Inspection Program; Mental Health Care: Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Care; Long-Term Care: Geriatric Evaluations; Women’s Health: Mammography Results and Follow-Up; and High-Risk Processes: Central Line-Associated Bloodstream Infections. The OIG also provided crime awareness briefings to 164 employees. The Facility is moving towards establishing a stable leadership team with the addition of a new Associate Director and Assistant Director since the OIG’s site visit. The OIG also noted active engagement with employees and patients. Organizational leaders support patient safety, quality care, and other positive outcomes. The OIG’s review of accreditation organization findings, sentinel events, disclosures, Patient Safety Indicator data, and Strategic Analytics for Improvement and Learning (SAIL) results did not identify any substantial organizational risk factors. The senior leadership team was knowledgeable about selected SAIL metrics but should continue to take actions to improve care and performance of selected Quality of Care and Efficiency metrics likely contributing to the “3-Star” ranking. The OIG noted findings in four of the clinical operations reviewed and issued four recommendations that are attributable to the Director, Chief of Staff, Associate Director for Patient Care Services, and Associate Director. The identified areas with deficiencies are: (1) Environment of Care • Cleanliness of patient care areas (2) Medication Management: Controlled Substances Inspection Program • Alternate Controlled Substances Coordinator (CSC) position description (3) Long-Term Care: Geriatric Evaluations • Comprehensive psychosocial assessments (4) High-Risk Processes: Central Line-Associated Bloodstream Infections • Staff education

The OIG investigated allegations that a former Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) manager influenced the award of a $21 million environmental consulting contract to a firm that employed him after he left the USBR. The allegations further stated that a USBR supervisory contract specialist had a conflict of interest with managing the contract process because of her romantic relationship with the USBR manager.We found no evidence that the manager personally or substantially participated in the contract or that he influenced the award while he was employed by the USBR. We also investigated whether the manager violated post-Government employment restrictions with his employment at the firm, whether he used his position to gain employment, or whether he shared sensitive information with the firm. We found no evidence that the manager violated any restrictions, that he used his position to gain employment, or that he shared sensitive information with the firm. We also found no evidence that the supervisory contract specialist had a conflict of interest with managing the contracting staff, or that she should have recused herself from the contract process. The contract was deemed invalid and canceled because the award exceeded the contracting officer’s warrant authority. That decision was unrelated to this investigation.