Federal Reports

We found that the EPA's Brownfields Projects Program, a subset of the overall Brownfields Program, met the Executive Office of the President's Justice40 Initiative reporting requirements for fiscal year 2022 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act-funded projects. The program is also projected to meet the EPA's internal goal of ensuring that at least 40 percent of program benefits go to disadvantaged communities. However, the Agency overestimated the percentage of benefits going to disadvantaged communities for fiscal year 2022.

We audited the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity’s (FHEO) challenges in completing housing discrimination investigations within 100 days.  We initiated the audit due to the number of investigations reported in FHEO’s annual reports to Congress that exceeded 100 days.  Our objective was to survey and assess the challenges FHEO faces in completing investigations within 100 days for Title VIII complaints in accordance with the Fair Housing Act. Based on our survey, FHEO faces several challenges in completing investigations within 100 days for Title VIII complaints, including (1) limited staffing and training, (2) staff workload, (3) complexity of the case work, (4) uncooperative or unresponsive parties, and (5) inconsistent review processes with the Office of General Counsel (OGC).  Aware of these challenges, FHEO took steps to address its limited staffing and increase the availability of training.  However, FHEO does not have control over the complexity of the cases it receives and whether the parties to each case are cooperative or responsive.  Because of these challenges, 81 percent (122 of 150) of the respondents to our survey stated that completing investigations within 100 days was not attainable.  Due to these challenges, FHEO did not complete 70.2 percent of its investigations within 100 days from 2020 to 2022.  Despite being unable to control all the factors that lead to a timely investigation, FHEO has opportunities to review its investigative processes across regions to make processes more efficient and increase the number of timely outcomes.We recommend that HUD’s Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (1)  update protocols to promote consistent expectations for timely supervisory, legal, and headquarters reviews of complex cases; (2) review and update the memorandums of understanding with OGC for each region to identify and remove inefficiencies that can lead to longer FHEO investigation times and OGC review times and identify best practices that can be implemented across all regions; and (3) review and update investigative processes followed by each regional office to identify best practices that can be implemented across all regions and identify and remove inefficiencies that can lead to longer investigation times.

This report presents the results of our audit of delivery operations and property conditions at the Brighton Main Post Office in Brighton, CO.

Congress provided $5.5 billion for the Emergency Assistance to Nonpublic Schools (EANS) program. The purpose of the EANS programs, authorized under the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act (CRRSA) and American Rescue Plan (ARP), is to provide services or assistance to eligible nonpublic schools to address educational disruptions caused by the COVID-19 emergency. We conducted an audit to determine whether the Florida Department of Education (FDOE) designed and implemented (1) application processes that adequately assessed nonpublic schools’ eligibility for EANS-funded services or assistance and complied with other applicable requirements and (2) oversight processes to ensure that EANS-funded services or assistance were used for allowable purposes. The assistance and comply with other applicable requirements were generally adequate; however, it did not have written procedures for its we found that the application that FDOE developed for nonpublic schools to apply for services and assistance did not ensure that it could use the application data to adequately assess nonpublic schools’ eligibility. The ARP EANS application was not adequate because it included instructions that allowed nonpublic schools to use proportionality data as one of five data source options for estimating the number of students enrolled in their school that were from low-income families. Further, FDOE’s oversight of its CRRSA and ARP EANS expenditure and inventory processes needs strengthening. Specifically, FDOE did not have formal written procedures for its expenditure review and approval processes. Also, FDOE’s processes did not ensure that it obtained prior approval from the Department before funding nonpublic school equipment purchases with a per unit cost of $5,000 or more. Additionally, FDOE did not ensure that it inventoried or tracked items, such as supplies, that were purchased with a per unit cost under $5,000.

We performed this review to determine whether the Des Moines Independent Community School District expended ESSER grant funds for allowable purposes in accordance with applicable requirements. We determined that of the 20 expenditures that we reviewed, 17 were allowable and in accordance with applicable requirements. Two expenditures totaling $164,580 were unallowable because they were for advertising and public relations costs prohibited under the Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (2 Code of Federal Regulations part 200), and a portion ($33,326) of the remaining expenditure totaling $666,527 appeared to be allowable but Des Moines either did not pay or adequately support proof of payment for that portion (the other $633,201 of this expenditure was both allowable and supported with documentation). We also identified a cash management issue related to the unsupported amount of $33,326 because Des Moines was reimbursed by the ESSER grant for that amount before it had an immediate need for those funds. Lastly, we found that Des Moines complied with key Federal procurement requirements, including those covering the procurement methods to be followed and contract cost, price, and provisions, when procuring the goods or services associated with each ESSER expenditure we reviewed. We made four recommendations to address the unallowable and unsupported expenditures and the cash management issue that we identified to ensure ESSER funds are used, documented, and managed in accordance with applicable requirements.

We conducted this audit to assess the adequacy of the Bureau of Industry and Security’s (BIS’) efforts to reduce the risk of threats from China’s Military-Civilian Fusion strategy. We specifically reviewed BIS’ process for approving export license applications, as well as its response to a related management alert we issued in October 2023. Based on our sample of export license applications, we found that BIS’ approval process was adequate in reducing the risk of controlled items being inappropriately approved for export to China for potential use to support China’s military advancement. However, we also found that BIS, in consultation with other federal agencies, made a policy decision to exclude certain deemed exports and reexports from regulatory licensing requirements. (A deemed export is a release in the United States of controlled technology to a foreign person; the release is “deemed” an export to the person’s most recent country of citizenship or permanent residency.) BIS and other agencies have concluded that subjecting U.S. companies to deemed export licensing requirements could impair U.S. innovation and technological leadership. However, this decision may allow the release of U.S.-controlled advanced computing and semiconductor manufacturing technology and software source code to China. As a result, China might gain access to technologies and software it could use to enhance its military capabilities. We recommended that BIS take further action to mitigate the risk of unauthorized release of these technologies and software.

Enhanced Planning, Performance Measurement and Evaluation, and Information Can Improve Oversight of Broker-Dealer Examinations report No. 583

The VA Office of Inspector General (OIG) issued a management advisory memorandum to inform the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Under Secretary for Health of concerns facility leaders and staff expressed to OIG staff regarding VA’s new electronic health record (EHR) during Healthcare Facility Inspections. The OIG conducted Healthcare Facility Inspections of the VA Southern Oregon Healthcare System and the Jonathan M. Wainwright Memorial VA Medical Center in Walla Walla, Washington, during the weeks of March 4 and June 3, 2024, respectively. VA deployed the new EHR at the Jonathan M. Wainwright Memorial VA Medical Center and the VA Southern Oregon Healthcare System in March 2022 and June 2022, respectively.Leaders at the VA Southern Oregon Healthcare System described the implementation of the new EHR as “the single largest challenge that we have here,” noting that the new EHR has impacted “every system” and resulted in “rewriting the way VA does business.” The director at the Jonathan M. Wainwright Memorial VA Medical Center described multiple challenges, including timing of deployment, which overlapped with dealing with the effects of the pandemic; limited training; and enterprise-wide communication deficiencies. Additionally, leaders and staff at both medical facilities described notable concerns related to (1) efficiency and loss of productivity, (2) staffing, (3) financial impacts, and (4) patient safety.Since 2020, the OIG has reported on various issues with the new EHR. Interviews of leaders and staff during Healthcare Facility Inspections of the VA Southern Oregon Healthcare System and the Jonathan M. Wainwright Memorial VA Medical Center demonstrate that new and previously-identified issues persist in 2024.The OIG requested the Under Secretary for Health evaluate whether the issues cited in the memorandum warrant process reviews and/or contract enhancements to improve efficiency, user experiences, and patient safety.

The VA Office of Inspector General (OIG) conducted this audit to determine whether VA and its contractor had sufficient controls to prevent, respond to, and mitigate the impact of major performance incidents affecting the electronic health record (EHR) system.In May 2018, VA awarded a 10-year contract to Cerner (now Oracle Health) to implement the system. Since then, it has experienced hundreds of major performance incidents affecting the five VA medical centers where the system was initially deployed.The OIG found VA and Oracle Health did not have adequate controls to prevent system changes from causing major incidents, to respond to those incidents uniformly and thoroughly, or to mitigate their impact by providing standard procedures and interoperable downtime equipment. Further, although major performance incidents can delay care to veterans, VA had no formal process to link reports of these delays to specific major performance incidents. Ultimately, the inadequate controls for handling major incidents stemmed from the May 2018 contract. In May 2023, VA modified the contract to strengthen some requirements for addressing major incidents but could do more.The EHR system’s estimated cost has grown. It was originally $16 billion. If VA does not improve controls, major performance incidents will continue, leading to further costly delays in system implementation and posing an ongoing risk to patient safety.The OIG made nine recommendations, including real-time data sharing to give VA greater awareness of potential problems in system operations, prioritizing major performance incident response in a clear and consistent manner, developing and enforcing response and other performance metrics to hold the contractor accountable, requiring sufficient detail in post-resolution reports, raising staff awareness of procedures and acquiring appropriate backup systems for downtime, and better identifying and addressing major performance incidents linked to negative patient outcomes.

Our audit determined that while the Peace Corps does have an established framework to oversee and monitor domestic awarded contracts, it can improve its management of the following: • Contract oversight including contract modifications, documentation, and guidance for Contract Officer Representatives and Technical Points of Contact; and • Contract completion, including performance assessments and closeout.

The EPA does not have a national process in place to track or verify the status of land-use controls at Resource Conservation and Recovery Act corrective action facilities. The EPA has not identified standard methods for long-term oversight of land-use controls at corrective action facilities. Additionally, the EPA regions vary in their progress toward attainment of Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Corrective Action Program Goal 4. Further, EPA information systems that can be used to access program information contain data issues, and the EPA is not using its information systems to track the status of land-use controls.

The OIG found that the NRC’s NDAs involving federal employees do not comply with the requirements of 5 U.S.C. section 2302(b)(13). Specifically, NRC employees hired before the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act were not informed of their whistleblower rights, as the law required. In addition, the NRC has NDAs with other federal agencies that lack required anti-gag language. Further, the OIG found that anti-gag language is not included in NRC Form 176A, Security Acknowledgement. The OIG makes three recommendations to address the issues identified during the evaluation.

RMA Associates, LLC (RMA), under contract with the Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General, concluded that the Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) did not fully comply with Financial Acquisition Regulation and DHS requirements. Specifically, I&A’s internal guidance lacked explicit language delineating contract administration responsibilities; and I&A contract files did not contain required monitoring and closeout documentation. By not specifying the contract administration roles and responsibilities in policy, the I&A program office may duplicate efforts for contract administration. Further, incomplete contract files limit the Office of the Chief Procurement Officer’s ability to remain compliant with Federal guidance, and present readily available documentation for examination.

The Geospatial Data of 2018 (the Act) governs the collection, production, acquisition, maintenance, distribution, use, and preservation of geospatial data of covered agencies, including the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).  We audited the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) efforts to meet the geospatial data requirements stated in the Act.  The Act requires the Inspector General of a covered agency to audit HUD’s efforts to meet the Geospatial data requirements stated in 43 U.S.C. § 2808 at least once every 2 years and report the findings to Congress.The 16 covered agencies, including HUD, will remain in the implementation stage of the Act until the Federal Geographic Data Committee establishes formal standards for use in determining compliance with the responsibilities stated in the Act.  HUD met all 13 responsibilities stated in the Act of 2018 regarding its collection, production, acquisition, maintenance, distribution, use, and preservation of geospatial data, as part of the implementation phase of the Act.  Two previous audits during fiscal years 2020 and 2022 identified a lack of adequate resources as a recurring challenge that prevented HUD from fully meeting its responsibilities under the Act.  However, this year, OIG found HUD now has the necessary resources to meet the responsibilities and implement the geospatial program.  In addition, HUD successfully executed a formal 5-year contract for the management of its Geocode Services Center, which is used to help meet geospatial objectives and responsibilities.  As a result, HUD is meeting the responsibilities and is positioning itself to meet the responsibilities stated in the Act once the implementation phase ends.  HUD’s efforts during this audit period promote transparency and accountability by providing accurate information towards achieving the Act’s purpose to minimize duplication of geospatial activities across agencies and improving collaboration.There are no recommendations.

Objective: To determine whether the Social Security Administration accurately applied the law and policy pertaining to disability waiting period exclusions for Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance beneficiaries.

A junior tamper was terminated following a disciplinary hearing on September 8, 2023. The former employee violated company policy when he transported a firearm in his personal vehicle, without authorization, on company property during a shift spanning March 1 and March 2, 2023

To meet the healthcare needs of eligible veterans, VA contracts with community providers for dialysis. These contracted community providers must accurately price dialysis procedures when submitting claims for payment.
In October 2013, VA awarded a contract to a dialysis provider. When that contract expired in March 2019, the VA Office of Inspector General (OIG) was asked to assist in determining whether money was owed by either party. The OIG provided a report to VA with its finding and recommendation. During that audit, the OIG identified concerns related to pricing accuracy and local billings for both the expired contract and a new contract. As a result, the OIG conducted this attestation examination to determine whether the contractor complied with each contract’s billing terms and conditions.
In the OIG’s opinion, except for instances of incorrect billings to local VA facilities, the contractor’s assertion that it billed in accordance with the terms and conditions of its old and new contracts is fairly stated in all material respects. The OIG found fewer pricing errors in the new contract than the old. But the OIG also found the contractor incorrectly billed 1,212 claims to local VA facilities and received almost $6.4 million from these facilities. For some of these claims, the contractor billed both the Financial Services Center and a local VA facility, thereby receiving payments from both for the same claim. The contractor asserted that incorrect billings have stopped and that it had begun providing refunds. The OIG contacted eight VA facilities for confirmation of these refunds. Some of the eight facilities confirmed refunds, while others did not. Accordingly, the OIG made two recommendations to the contracting officers, requesting that the contractor perform a self-audit of local VA claims and verify that the contractor has completed the process of refunding local VA claims.

We performed this review to determine whether Anchorage School District (Anchorage) expended ESSER grant funds for allowable purposes in accordance with applicable requirements. We determined that all the ESSER expenditures we reviewed for Anchorage were allowable and in accordance with applicable requirements. We also found that Anchorage complied with key Federal procurement requirements, including those covering the procurement methods to be followed and contract cost, price, and provisions, when procuring the goods or services associated with each ESSER expenditure we reviewed. Because we identified no exceptions, our report does not include recommendations. However, our results are limited to the ESSER expenditures we reviewed, and it is critical that any remaining ESSER funds continue to be used appropriately.

We audited WSFR grants awarded by FWS to New Jersey to ensure compliance and cost allowability.

This report presents the results of our audit of The Effectiveness of the New Regional Processing and Distribution Center in Portland, OR.

Our objective was to assess the Department’s compliance with the 13 covered agency responsibilities in 43 U.S.C. § 2808(a). To meet this objective, we reviewed our audit results from 2020 and 2022 and obtained updated information from the Department for each of the 13 requirements. In addition, we independently tested the Department’s geospatial metadata published on Data.gov. We found that the Department was complying with 12 of the 13 GDA requirements. However, our testing revealed that the Department’s geospatial metadata is not always complete. Without ensuring a consistent approach to completing geospatial metadata, the Department’s geospatial data stakeholders could face challenges in making the most efficient and effective use of the Department’s geospatial data portfolio.

The VA Office of Inspector General (OIG) conducted this audit to determine whether VA complied with the law governing geospatial data and to follow up on recommendations from its previous report. VA’s administrations rely on geospatial data when supporting budgets, performing strategic planning, and making policy decisions to provide health care, benefits, and burial services to veterans.In its previous report, the OIG found VA was not compliant with three covered agency requirements: VA was not compliant with requirements 1 and 3 because all necessary actions had not been completed, and VA was not compliant with requirement 9 because it had not met additional recommended criteria to protect personal privacy and maintain confidentiality. Since the previous report, VA continues to move toward compliance. For this audit, the OIG found VA was not compliant with two of the 12 requirements. According to VA officials, VA does not collect, hold, manage, or consume declassified geospatial data, and the OIG team did not find evidence to the contrary, making the related requirement not applicable.While VA was found not compliant with requirements 5 and 9, the OIG only made two recommendations regarding requirement 9 because VA is working toward satisfying requirement 5. The OIG’s two recommendations follow: (1) reevaluate the risk determination for the Veterans Health Administration Geographic Information System and determine if the system should be set to a security categorization level of moderate based on the personally identifiable information and other sensitive data maintained in the system and (2) reassess whether the security incidents were a breach and instruct staff associated with the incident response process that each security and privacy incident that occurs must be captured on a separate Privacy Security Events Tracking System ticket and investigation details must be accurately documented and confirmed.

The VA Office of Inspector General (OIG) assessed the oversight and stewardship of funds by the VA Northeast Ohio Healthcare System and sought to identify potential cost efficiencies. This inspection examined four financial activities and administrative processes to determine whether appropriate controls and oversight were in place: use of managerial cost accounting information, open obligations oversight, purchase card use, and supply chain management operations.The inspection team found that the healthcare system’s use of managerial cost accounting information did not fully align with federal financial accounting standard practices regarding performance measurement, budgeting, cost control, and making economic decisions. The healthcare system also did not always comply with policy to review open obligations and deobligate funds no longer needed. As a result of the healthcare system’s lack of follow up and reconciliations, the team estimated at least $5.5 million in open obligations were invalid, should have been deobligated, and could have been put to better use.Further, the OIG found that 18 of 52 sampled purchase card transactions did not comply with VA policy. Violations included lack of supporting documentation and untimely approvals of reconciliations. The team estimated 100 transactions totaling about $561,000 were modified into smaller parts. And, the healthcare system could benefit from improving the efficiency of inventory oversight by ensuring inventory values are recorded correctly in the Generic Inventory Package. Establishing local processes and procedures for the timely review of data to detect and correct errors would increase the reliability of inventory data and could help ensure metrics are met.The OIG made 10 recommendations for improvement. The recommendations address issues that, if left unattended, may eventually interfere with financial efficiency practices and the strong stewardship of VA resources.

Since 2020, the Department of Homeland Security has taken certain actions to address cyber and physical security threats to the election infrastructure but has adjusted its efforts to combat disinformation. The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) added a new Election Security Advisor position in each of its 10 regions to provide specialized assistance to election infrastructure stakeholders. CISA also continues to provide security resources to state and local partners to improve election infrastructure security, such as cyber and physical security assessments and tabletop exercises.

Thank you for inviting me here today to discuss the Office of Inspector General’s (OIG) oversight of Amtrak (the company) programs and operations. Although the Amtrak OIG is relatively small, I am proud of our extensive oversight record made through our audits, investigations, and other activities.

The company finds itself in a position unprecedented since it began operations in 1971. Not only is it charged with providing safe, efficient, and effective transportation to its customers, but it is now advancing the largest capital portfolio in its history. With access to as much as $66 billion from the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA),1 the company is in varying stages of modernizing its fleet, tunnels, bridges, stations, and technology systems. At the same time, the company is pursuing ambitious goals of doubling pre‐pandemic ridership to 66 million by fiscal year (FY) 2040 and expanding service to as many as 160 new communities, all while adapting to changes in customer demand in the wake of the pandemic.

The volume of federal funds, the creation of a capital delivery function, and the massive hiring of workers to execute its plans present significant implementation risks and oversight challenges. That said, while the company is pursuing this once‐in‐lifetime effort, it must still meet obligations that are difficult under the best of circumstances: running a safe, efficient passenger railroad, pursuing financial stability, and providing excellent service to its customers. Our work demonstrates that Amtrak recognizes the complexity of this moment and is taking steps to proceed responsibly. Nevertheless, the scope of this undertaking is daunting and, in my opinion, requires robust, coordinated oversight by the OIG, Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Amtrak’s Board of Directors, and Congress.

As I reported in the last three semi‐annual reports to Congress, Amtrak’s Board of Directors is an important element in ensuring the company fulfills its mission effectively and efficiently. The Senate’s recent confirmation of three Board members is encouraging and will help give Amtrak, the Administration, Congress, and the American taxpayers additional assurance that Amtrak has the necessary oversight as it implements historic federal investments. Notwithstanding this progress, the three other Board members are serving far beyond the five‐year terms of their Senate‐confirmed appointments, and we continue to emphasize the urgency to identify, nominate, and confirm additional qualified candidates to help oversee the company during this unprecedented era in passenger rail.

Finally, we trust that our work helps inform congressional oversight, as we provide additional information and insights regarding Amtrak’s stewardship of taxpayers’ funds. Among other duties, our office independently and objectively identifies risks and vulnerabilities that affect Amtrak’s mission and its responsibilities to its partners and the travelling public. With about 100 employees, we strategically align our resources to identify and address Amtrak’s most serious management and program challenges and develop recommendations for improved performance. The remainder of my written testimony focuses on the areas where we currently see the greatest challenges facing the company. These are: (1) running a safe and secure railroad, (2) responsibly executing its historic capital improvement plans, (3) maintaining efficient, reliable, and financially sound operations, and (4) reducing the ever‐present risk of fraud. I will also describe the issues our office has already addressed and the areas it plans to assess in the near future to help Amtrak meet these challenges.

This report presents the results of our audit of the Mail Theft Mitigation and Response – Chicago, IL.

Objective: To determine whether the Social Security Administration ensured the representative payee information in its Electronic Representative Payee System was accurate.

During the week of May 13, 2024, we performed audits at the Kansas City Processing and Distribution Center (P&DC) and three delivery units serviced by the P&DC in the Kansas City, MO, area. The delivery units included the Hickman Mills Station, Kansas City, MO; the Robert L. Roberts Station, Kansas City, KS; and the Shawnee Mission Post Office, Mission, KS.We issued individual reports for the three delivery units and the P&DC. We issued another report summarizing the results of our audits at all three delivery units with specific recommendations for management to address.

The Grant and Per Diem (GPD) Program is VA’s largest program for transitional housing. It awards grants to community partners that provide veterans experiencing homelessness with temporary housing and supportive services, such as mental health and substance use disorder treatment and assistance in obtaining permanent housing. With a budget of over $275 million, the GPD program served almost 24,000 veterans in fiscal year 2022. Given the importance of the GPD program and VA’s reliance on data from the program’s Homeless Operations, Management, and Evaluation System (HOMES), the OIG conducted this review to determine whether VHA has reliable data to monitor grantee performance, veteran outcomes, and progress in preventing the recurrence of veteran homelessness.The review team estimated that HOMES outcome data were unreliable for about 888 (21 percent) of the 4,151 veterans recorded as having exited the program for permanent housing. In these cases, HOMES data did not match VA medical records, did not match the grantee’s files, or lacked supporting documentation. Additionally, HOMES data did not accurately capture all negative exits—case outcomes where veterans are discharged from the GPD program under negative circumstances. Reasons for the inaccuracies included GPD liaisons not verifying grantee-reported information, liaisons not following the HOMES data definitions guide when they recorded veterans’ housing arrangements, and medical facilities not validating data that the liaisons entered.Although VHA took steps to improve data reliability, additional controls would improve leaders’ ability to make informed decisions on the services unhoused veterans need and allow VA to hold grantees accountable for improving their services for veterans.The OIG recommended policies and procedures for GPD liaisons to obtain reliable discharge information from grantees, controls to ensure HOMES data are consistent with grantee files and VA medical records, and quality reviews to check for accuracy.

The United States Coast Guard (Coast Guard) has begun to expend Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) funds for the procurement, construction, and improvements projects identified in its fiscal year 2022 IIJA Spend Plan. At the time of our review, Coast Guard had only spent approximately 1 percent ($5.76 million) and committed and obligated an additional 10.9 percent ($46.8 million) of the $429 million in IIJA funds, limiting our ability to assess whether IIJA funding was used in accordance with Federal requirements. This occurred because Coast Guard did not implement effective planning for its IIJA efforts. For example, it did not complete planning documentation before including projects on its unfunded priorities list; did not promptly finalize its program management plan for IIJA projects; and did not conduct the necessary staffing assessment to execute IIJA projects in a timely manner.

We determined that the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Office of Field Operations used overtime in accordance with policies and procedures. The Customs Officer Pay Reform Act provides guidance on the use of overtime and premium pay for CBP officers and sets a statutory fiscal year maximum on overtime and premium pay earnings (pay cap). Per the Act, an officer may not exceed the pay cap unless the pay cap is waived.

This report presents the results of the System and Organization Controls 1 Type 2 examination conducted in accordance with relevant attestation standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants for the United States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) National Finance Center (NFC) description of its payroll and personnel systems used to process user entities payroll and human resource transactions throughout the period October 1, 2023 to June 30, 2024. The report contains an unmodified opinion on the description and controls that were suitably designed to provide reasonable assurance that the control objectives would be achieved.

This report presents the results of the System and Organization Controls 1 Type 2 examination conducted in accordance with relevant attestation standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants for the United States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO) description of its data center hosting and security systems used to process user entities’ transactions throughout the period October 1, 2023, to June 30, 2024. The report contains an unmodified opinion on the description and controls that were suitably designed to provide reasonable assurance that the control objectives would be achieved.

We performed an audit of costs billed to the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) by Wesco Distribution, Inc., (Wesco) for operations materials and industrial equipment as part of TVA’s integrated supply program under master Contract No. 13421. Under the contract, TVA pays Wesco the established rates in the contract’s pricing schedules for inventory items that have a unique item number assigned. For items that were not established in the contract’s pricing lists or items that do not have a unique item number, TVA pays Wesco the cost of the item plus applicable markups established in the contract. Our audit objective was to determine if the costs billed to TVA under Contract No. 13421 were in accordance with the contract terms. Our audit scope included approximately $190.2 million in costs paid by TVA from January 1, 2021, through September 30, 2023. In summary, we determined Wesco overbilled TVA $149,246, including (1) $88,556 in unsupported costs, (2) a net $37,870 in costs for items whose rates billed exceeded the contract rates, and (3) $22,820 in costs for items that did not have a unique item number and whose rates billed exceeded the cost of the items plus applicable markups established in the contract. In addition, we determined several items should have been added to the contracts’ pricing lists based on how frequently they were purchased. Specifically, we identified 964 transactions with unique item numbers not on a contract pricing list, totaling $17,796,594, that were purchased four or more times in a year.

The Office of the Inspector General conducted an audit of the U.S. Government Publishing Office’s (GPO) management ofexcess and obsolete paper and secure documents. Our objective was to determine if management uses effective processes toaccount for, store, and destroy secure intelligent documents and products. The audit focused on U.S. passport production.

To comply with the VA Transparency & Trust Act of 2021 (Transparency Act), VA must provide a detailed plan to Congress outlining its intent and justification for obligating and expending COVID-19 relief funds covered by the act. Additionally, the Transparency Act requires VA to submit biweekly reports to Congress detailing its obligations, expenditures, and planned uses, as well as justification for any deviation from the plan. The act also requires the VA Office of Inspector General (OIG) to submit semiannual reports comparing how VA is obligating and expending covered funds to the planned obligations and expenditures.In its sixth semiannual report, the OIG found that while VA appropriately obtained congressional approval for American Rescue Plan (ARP) Act spend plan deviations, VA did not always meet deadlines for submitting biweekly and quarterly reports. When these reports are submitted to Congress late or not at all, transparency suffers and oversight of these emergency funds cannot function as intended.The OIG also found that VA generally complied with its obligation policy by submitting quarterly reviews and that the reviewed open obligations met ARP Act requirements. However, VA did not consistently provide explanations as required for obligations that were older than 90 days or that had no activity for 90 days.The OIG made two recommendations to VA’s assistant secretary for management and chief financial officer to confirm VA is submitting biweekly reports as required by law and to confirm that required reports are submitted to Congress within the time frame established by law. The OIG also made one recommendation to the director of the Office of Financial Policy to coordinate with administration and staff office chief financial officers to ensure staff know and understand VA financial policy requirements for the review of open obligations included in quarterly obligation reports.