Federal Reports

We performed an audit $3.3 million in payments made by TVA to a contractor for geotechnical services between January 2003 and July 15, 2009. In summary, we determined the contractor overbilled TVA $395,479 as follows:$216,865 in labor costs, including (1) $110,016 due to the use of hourly billing rates instead of actual wages and markup as specified by the contract's compensation section, (2) $98,681 for overtime costs the company did not incur, and (3) $8,168 for miscellaneous duplicate and unsupported charges.$66,071 in estimated travel costs, because the contractor did not bill actual expenses as required by the contract.$55,524 in estimated drilling, sampling, and equipment costs, due to incorrect billing rates and unsupported costs.$51,224 in vehicle charges, because the contractor (1) billed both daily rates and mileage rates for certain vehicles and (2) could not document the accuracy of the billing rates it used for mileage.$5,795 in subcontractor costs, because the contractor billed more than its actual costs for the subcontracts.The contractor agreed it should reimburse TVA at least $173,162 ($98,681 in labor costs, $66,071 in travel costs, $2,615 in vehicle charges, and $5,795 in subcontractor costs). The contractor also provided additional explanations and documentation for certain costs and requested TVA take into consideration certain extenuating circumstances in determining the total amount that should be reimbursed to TVA. Summary Only

TVA Office of the Inspector General retained Marshall Miller & Associates, Inc. (Marshall Miller) to conduct a peer review of the report entitled "Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Slope Stability for Dike C," prepared by Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. (Stantec) of Lexington, Kentucky. In summary, it is Marshall Miller's opinion that Stantec generally performed a reasonable scope of investigation for the portion of Dike C covered in its report and applied appropriate investigative methods and evaluation techniques. However, according to Marshall Miller, Stantec applied site-wide characterization and application of shear strength parameters even though areas of significantly weaker material were identified. In addition, there was a lack of information on seepage and material conditions nearer the downstream toe of Dike C, which caused additional uncertainty about the Stantec study and its associated conclusions and opinions about the Dike C conditions. To address Marshall Miller's report, TVA management had Stantec and AECOM review and respond to the findings in this report. TVA management and its contractors disagreed with many of the findings and recommendations. Marshall Miller provided additional comments in response to AECOM and Stantec responses. In summary, Marshall Miller stands by the findings in the report and disagrees with some of the methodologies used by Stantec to evaluate Dike C. However, Marshall Miller feels that the Dike C improvement planned actions, referenced in the Stantec and AECOM responses, address or will address most of its findings and recommendations. The remaining findings and recommendations not fully addressed were not considered substantial.

We reviewed a contractor's tool program for the Watts Bar Nuclear plant (WBN) Unit 2 construction project. Our objective was to assess the procedures and key control activities used to track and account for tools used in the Watts Bar Nuclear (WBN) Unit 2 construction project. Our review of the WBN Unit 2 tool program determined the contractor's inventory controls were not functioning as intended. Currently, there are significant weaknesses related to tools inventory, checked-out tools, and tools received but not entered into the system processes. Specifically, for the items sampled and reviewed from the contractor's tool inventory system, we could not locate 55 percent of the tools valued at $210,352. In addition, no controls existed to ensure (1) the tools taken from the tool room after hours were properly checked out and (2) random inventories were performed as required by the contractor's procedure. We also identified individuals with tools checked out in their name who (1) had 100 or more tools checked out, (2) had been terminated, or (3) could not locate the tools. Further, we determined 10,948 items totaling $328,137 were paid for but were not received into the contractor's inventory system and we also identified inaccurate information in the inventory system due to keying errors. In addition, we found many issues described above had been cited in previous audit work. We made recommendations to contractor management and TVA. TVA management agreed with most of our recommendations and plans to (1) conduct an inventory count of the tool room and sea land containers, (2) conduct routine cycle counts of large dollar items, (3) implement an exception report to identify inventory with negative quantities or costs in the tool inventory system, (4) properly account for tools removed from the tool room after hours, (5) timely update the tool inventory system for any items issued on paper, damaged, lost, or written off, (6) utilize the tool inventory system's capabilities to identify low inventory items for reorder, (7) perform a periodic review of the Tools Out reports, especially for those individuals with 100 or more tools checked out for large dollar tools, (8) transition the responsibility for managing Measuring & Testing Equipment (M&TE) to Watts Bar Unit 1 personnel and use the Watts Bar Unit 1 program for tracking, (9) create a tool room within the Radiologically Controlled Area (RCA) to track and issue tools, (10) monitor the Tool Crib Clearance process by creating an exception report for identifying all individuals who have been terminated but still have tools checked out in their name, (11) communicate and enforce the use of a lost tool form and update the tool inventory system for damaged, lost, or stolen items timely for large dollar items, and (12) implement a process to ensure all tools on all purchase orders (PO) are processed and received in both the warehouse and the tool inventory system, except consumables. TVA management did not agree with our recommendations to (1) create a formal review process by a second person to verify data entered in the tool inventory system or (2) properly account for all tools from historical POs. In addtion, TVA management did not agree with our recommendation to hold (1) TVA employees and contractors signing out tools accountable for tool loss/theft and/or (2) supervisors with approval authority accountable when the tools were not returned. According to WBN Unit 2 management, the Project Maintenance and Modifications Agreement does not allow employees to be charged for tools used while performing their respective duties. TVA management did not address our recommendation to review the inventories performed by the contractor and any corresponding write-offs. Summary Only