Federal Reports

A 2008 HHS review of its acquisition process concluded that HHS components, including the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), did not always obligate and expend funds in compliance with Federal requirements. As a result, in July 2011, HHS reported a department-wide Antideficiency Act violation totaling more than $1.4 billion. These previously identified deficiencies, combined with issues with the October 2013 launch of the Federal marketplace, raised concerns about CMS's management and oversight of contracts awarded in whole or in part for the support of the Federal marketplace. CMS relies extensively on contractors to operate many of its healthcare programs, including the Federal marketplace.

DHS does not have a unified approach for procuring and using handheld chemical identification devices despite the widespread use of these devices across multiple components. We recommended DHS establish a process to coordinate joint needs across components and maximize savings from strategic sourcing opportunities. We made two recommendations that should help improve unity of effort in procuring and using handheld chemical identification devices. DHS concurred with recommendation 1 but did not concur with recommendation 2.

This report is a review of the Denali Commission’s compliance with the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 2014 (DATA Act). SB & Company (SBC), an independent public accounting firm, planned and performed the examination to obtain reasonable assurance about• Completeness, timeliness, quality, and accuracy of fiscal year (FY) 2019, first quarter financial and award data submitted for publication on USASpending.gov, and• The Denali Commission’s implementation and use of the Government-wide financial data standards established by the Office of Management and Budget and the U.S. Department of the Treasury. In SBC’s opinion, the Denali Commission’s DATA Act submission to Treasury’s DATA Act Broker for the first quarter of FY 2019 was complete and submitted timely. While the data submitted was accurate, the Commission did not consistently report grant information on File D2. As a result, SBC determined that the quality of the Commission’s data is considered “Lower” because of the missing financial assistance award information in file D2.