Federal Reports

We audited the Commonwealth of Massachusetts’ (State) Small Cities Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program because the State was the largest recipient of CDBG funds in New England. HUD awarded the State more than $88 million in CDBG funding for program years 2015, 2016, and 2017. In addition, we had not audited any of the State’s community planning and development programs in the last 10 years. Our audit objective was to determine whether the State provided adequate oversight and monitoring to ensure that its grantees complied with applicable State and Federal laws and requirements regarding (1) procurement, (2) conflict of interest, (3) program delivery, and (4) indirect cost rates.The State did not always ensure that its grantees complied with applicable State and Federal laws and requirements. Specifically, grantees did not always (1) properly conduct and document environmental reviews, (2) obtain independent cost estimates, (3) properly charge program delivery costs, and (4) obtain the State’s approval for projects that exceeded program limits.These deficiencies occurred because the State did not provide adequate oversight to ensure that its grantees complied with applicable State and Federal laws and requirements. As a result, we identified more than $1.5 million in questioned costs charged to the program, and HUD did not have assurance that all costs were eligible and supported.We recommend that the Director of HUD’s Massachusetts Office of Community Planning and Development require State officials to (1) repay $665,920 in ineligible program costs; (2) support or repay $896,387 in unsupported program costs; and (3) provide additional guidance to their grantees and strengthen controls over procurement, site-specific environmental reviews, and the definition of which expenses are considered program delivery costs.

The Office of the Inspector General conducted a review of the Hydro Generation, South Western Region (Hydro SW) to identify operational and cultural strengths and risks that could impact Hydro SW’s organizational effectiveness. Our report identified strengths within Hydro SW related to (1) organizational alignment, (2) positive interactions within and outside of Hydro SW, (3) effective leadership, and (4) positive ethical culture. However, we also identified risks that could hinder Hydro SW’s effective execution and its continued ability to meet its responsibilities in support of the PO mission. These were comprised of risks related to (1) inadequate resources including training, materials, and staffing and (2) perceptions of upper management support including spending and lack of hydro experience.

To evaluate internal controls over the accounting and reporting of administrative costs and determine whether the administrative costs claimed by the District of Columbia Disability Determination Division (DC-DDD) for Fiscal Years (FY) 2016 and 2017 were allowable and properly allocated.

What Office of Inspector General Evaluated

We evaluated the Chief Information Office and US Copyright Office's compliance with the Library’s systems development life cycle and project management life cycle policies and directives and to determine if the Recordation IT system modernization project is currently on schedule and within budget.

What Office of Inspector General Found

We found:

• The project status tracking lacks sufficient detail.
• The suitability of system development life cycle methodologies is not assessed before beginning system development.
• The minimum viable product is over-defined.
• Project responsibilities do not follow agile best practices.
• Scrum events depart from best practices. 
• Risk register is missing contingency plans for project risks.

What Office of Inspector General Recommends

We recommended the Library:

• Develop and implement guidance to track and resolve project health issues for projects using agile, hybrid, or similar methodologies.
• Align guidance with standards like PMI and Office of Management and Budget guidelines, incorporate Earned Value Analysis (EVA) to measure project budgeting and progress, and update dashboard tools for improved transparency.
• Ensure all stakeholders understand the development methodology. Implement stakeholder engagement plans, evaluate risks prior to project initiation, and document best practices for governance and meetings, including optimizing meeting size and content.
• Work with project owners and governance boards to standardize program and project report formats and content, aligning reporting with Project Management Institute or other risk management standards.
• Develop directives for blending System Development Life Cycle approaches tailored to project needs. Secure approval from business owners and financial oversight entities like Financial Services Directorate regarding cost management.
• Create a checklist of required elements for initiating projects, including System Development Life Cycle methodology approval and completing an agile suitability scorecard. Require Chief Information Officer or Deputy Chief Information Officer approval of the checklist prior to starting system development.
• Map the development methodology used for Recordation Modernization Initiative minimal viable product to Library of Congress Directive 5-310.2, address deviations with risk mitigation strategies, and obtain concurrence from Financial Services Directorate and the Register of Copyrights.
• Define the purpose of minimum viable product in agile development. Coordinate with relevant offices (e.g., Contracts and Grants Directorate for contract management, Financial Services Directorate for cost management) and codify the definition and process into policies.
• Collaborate with legal counsel and Contracts and Grants Directorate to align development contract responsibilities with Project Management Institute's Agile Practice Guide. Establish risk mitigation strategies for instances where the Library chooses to deviate from agile best practices.
• Update the Agile at the Library site and other relevant guidance to align with The Scrum Guide and Project Management Institute standards.
• Create checklists and supervisory controls to ensure adherence to updated agile guidance. Ensure proper implementation methodologies during projects.
   

Amtrak (the company) contracted with the independent public accounting firm of Ernst & Young LLP to audit its consolidated financial statements as of and for the fiscal year then ended, September 30, 2018, and to provide a report on internal control over financial reporting and compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts and grant agreements, and other matters, which they issued on January 28, 2019.1 Because the company receives federal financial assistance, it must obtain an audit performed in accordance with U.S. generally accepted government auditing standards.The contract also required Ernst & Young to perform a Single Audit of the company’s federal financial assistance for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2018, in accordance with the audit requirements of Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance). The objective of the Single Audit was to test internal control over compliance with major federal program award requirements and determine whether the company complied with the laws, regulations, and provisions of contracts or grant agreements that may have a direct and material effect on its major federal programs.

A review by the Office of Inspector General (OIG) did not identify evidence to corroborate allegations that a Transportation Security Administration (TSA) supervisor at the Orlando airport directed TSA air marshals or other TSA personnel to use behavior detection techniques to racially discriminate against travelers between 2005-2010. This review was requested by members of Congress based on allegations made in the news media by former members of TSA’s Federal Air Marshal Service (FAMS).In a letter to Rep. Bennie G. Thompson, Chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, Rep. Val Butler Demings, Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman and Rep. Darren Soto, the OIG reported that apart from the testimony of the three complainants, it did not identify any additional evidence that substantiated the allegations. During the course of the review, OIG found no previous record of similar complaints against the TSA supervisor. Although some witnesses relayed other prior instances of alleged racial profiling in the behavior detection program, none of the approximately 30 current and former personnel OIG interviewed confirmed the complainants’ specific allegations. TSA has since eliminated the behavior detection officer position, and has largely stopped referring travelers for additional screening using behavior detection techniques.