Federal Reports

o We intended to verify whether the U.S. Coast Guard is properly reporting service members who are prohibited from possessing a firearm (“prohibited individuals”) to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). However, in comparing relevant databases with data into the National Instant Background Check System (NICS), We identified a number of issues that led us to question the reliability of the Coast Guard’s data. As a result, OIG cannot identify the full scope of prohibited individuals or verify that the Coast Guard properly reported prohibited individuals to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and to Congress. Despite our concerns about the quality of Coast Guard’s data, OIG identified 210 service members who committed offenses that placed them in one of the categories of prohibited individuals. Of these 210, Coast Guard did not enter 16 service members (8 percent) into NCIS. This underreporting occurred because Coast Guard policy did not require attorneys to forward information about all individuals referred for trial by general court martial for reporting to the FBI. Additionally, Coast Guard’s reporting to the FBI is centralized, and does not allow investigators in field offices to have direct access to NICS. We made eight recommendations that will enhance Coast Guard’s reporting of prohibited individuals to the FBI. The Coast Guard concurred with the recommendations.

At Congressman Bill Posey’s request, the VA Office of Inspector General (OIG) conducted a healthcare inspection at the Orlando VA Medical Center, Florida, following allegations that a patient died while experiencing a delay in obtaining approval for surgery outside VA. It was additionally alleged that the facility failed to timely approve, process, and coordinate non-VA care coordination (NVCC) consults, and these delays were causing adverse clinical outcomes The patient died prior to receiving scheduled heart surgery for asymptomatic severe aortic stenosis (narrowing of a heart valve); however, the OIG did not substantiate that the death occurred because of a long delay in approval for NVCC services. Facility staff complied with consult processing and scheduling guidelines when coordinating an evaluation with an NVCC provider, except for the 46 days that elapsed between the time the NVCC provider submitted a request for additional services (RAS) and acknowledgement of the request by the facility The OIG substantiated delays in the processing of other thoracic surgery NVCC consults entered during a 10-month period in 2017 related to an increase in the number of consults and limited staff available to process consults. The OIG did not identify adverse clinical outcomes associated with the delays. Problems were identified with providers’ assigning of clinically indicated dates (CID) and staff adhering to the assigned CIDs. The facility lacked a mechanism to track RASs. The OIG concluded the absence of a fully implemented tool to assist with care coordination increased the possibility of disruptions in the care coordination for the NVCC patients. Six recommendations were made related to a practitioner’s care who evaluated the patient six months prior to death, implementation of a tool to track the NVCC process, evaluation of providers’ assignments of CIDs, tracking of RASs, and ensuring NVCC appointments are scheduled within 30 days of CID.

We audited the City of San Bernardino, CA’s HOME Investment Partnerships program. We audited the City based on the Region 9 Office of Inspector General’s 2016 risk analysis of Los Angeles area community planning and development grantees. In addition, although the County of San Bernardino had been administering the City’s recent HOME grants, the City still had several of its own HOME activities underway and others that had closed within the past 2 years. Our audit objective was to determine whether the City administered its HOME program in accordance with HUD requirements.The City did not fully administer its HOME program in accordance with HUD requirements. For the most part, the City used its HOME funding in accordance with program requirements. However, accounting and drawdown errors resulted in $22,402 in duplicative overcharges to the program. This error was due to the City’s not having adequate policies, procedures, and controls to ensure that HOME draws were accurate and in accordance with HUD requirements. As a result, these funds were not available to carry out eligible HOME activities.We recommend that the Director of HUD’s Los Angeles Office of Community Planning and Development require the City to (1) repay its program $22,402 for erroneous costs charged to HOME activity 2292 from non-Federal funds and (2) update and implement changes to its policies and procedures to prevent similar errors and ensure that HOME draws are accurate and in accordance with HUD requirements.

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> $10 million contract.In our opinion, the company's cost proposal was understated. Specifically, we found the company's proposed costs for a Bull Run Fossil Plant (BRF) project included (1) markup rates that were misstated and (2) overstated materials, travel, and equipment costs. We also found the company's proposed rate attachments included (1) a contractor owned equipment attachment containing equipment that the company anticipates will be leased or rented from third parties, (2) fee on cost reimbursable work that exceeded the maximum allowable fee rate in TVA's request for proposal (RFP), and (3) excessive time and material (T&M) billing rates for most labor classifications because the rates were based on the company's maximum pay rates.We suggest TVA negotiate appropriate adjustments to the BRF unit rates to more accurately reflect the company's actual costs. In addition, we suggest TVA negotiate (1) revisions to the company's contract rate attachments to correct errors and more accurately reflect the company's actual equipment usage, (2) a reduction to the company's proposed fee for cost reimbursable work to the maximum allowable fee rate in TVA's RFP, and (3) T&M billing rates based on the wage ranges' midpoint pay rates.(Summary Only)