Federal Reports

This audit was performed by the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) on behalf of the Department of Energy’s Office of Inspector General and examined UChicago Argonne, LLC’s costs incurred and claimed for fiscal years 2021 and 2022 at the Argonne National Laboratory, under management and operating contract No. DE-AC02-06CH11357.

The audit’s objective was to determine if costs charged were allowable, allocable, and reasonable in accordance with applicable laws, regulations, and contract terms.

The DCAA performed the audit in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  

The DCAA identified four audit findings and questioned over $13 million in indirect and direct costs, including $11,487,044 in performance fees. The performance fees represented a contractual incentive paid by the Department and were questioned by the DCAA because UChicago Argonne, LLC included the fee as a cost in the General and Administrative pool. The DCAA reconciled the performance fees to the general ledger, and the Department determined that the contractor was entitled to the earned fee. The DCAA also questioned: (1) $1,176,949 in Board of Governors expenses that were greater than the final approved expenses; (2) $47,183 in executive salaries that were more than the statutory compensation ceiling; and (3) $511,724 of direct laboratory purchase order/subcontract costs with universities because the costs were not incurred specifically for the contract.

If the issues identified by the DCAA are fully addressed, it should help ensure that costs charged to the Department are allowable, allocable, and reasonable in accordance with contract terms. We recommend that the contractor coordinate with the contracting officer to resolve the questioned costs identified in this report.

UChicago Argonne, LLC did not concur with the questioned costs and stated that like all management and operating contractors, it follows longstanding practices and Departmental guidance on performance fees and handles Board of Governors expenses per its contract.

Why We Did This Report

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Inspector General conducted this evaluation to determine whether the EPA implemented effective controls during the selection of Track I grant awardees through the Community Change Grants Program within the EPA Office of Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights.
 

Summary of Findings

The EPA implemented effective controls during its review and selection of Track I Community Change Grants Program applications. The EPA adhered to its Policy for Competition of Assistance Agreements and other applicable requirements during the application review process. Additionally, the EPA ensured that Track I grant awardees met the eligibility requirements stated in the Inflation Reduction Act.

The audit objectives were to determine whether program funds were managed in accordance with the ARC and Federal grant requirements.

An Amtrak conductor based in Fort Worth, Texas, retired from the company on March 4, 2026, while under investigation. The employee was under investigation for failure to report a felony conviction, acting aggressively toward coworkers and passengers, and for posting threatening messages on social media platforms.

The Department of Energy uses management and operating (M&O) contracts to carry out 90 percent of the agency’s mission. The National Nuclear Security Administration’s (NNSA) M&O contractors for the Kansas City National Security Campus and Los Alamos National Laboratory are Honeywell Federal Manufacturing & Technologies, LLC (Honeywell) and Triad National Security, LLC (Triad), respectively. Both Honeywell and Triad utilize subcontracts to achieve their mission. The combined value of firm-fixed-price (FFP) subcontracts issued by Honeywell and Triad from December 2023 through January 2025 was over $1.6 billion.

We initiated this audit to determine if NNSA’s M&O contractors were classifying subcontracts in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation.

We found that NNSA’s M&O contractors, Honeywell and Triad, generally classified subcontracts in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation and had procurement policies for FFP subcontracts consistent with the Federal Acquisition Regulation. During our audit, we requested the universe of subcontracts from Honeywell. While compiling the universe of 14,006 subcontracts, Honeywell initially identified and disclosed 35 subcontracts that were classified as FFP but should have been classified as cost-plus-fixed-fee, and an additional misclassified subcontract was later identified. According to Honeywell officials, the subcontracts were misclassified due to human error, and it took corrective actions to prevent subcontract misclassification in the future. We reviewed a judgmental sample of 65 FFP subcontracts and did not identify any additional subcontracts that were improperly classified. At Triad, we reviewed a judgmental sample of 30 FFP subcontracts and found 1 subcontract that was improperly classified. In addition, a Triad internal audit identified an inconsistent subcontract classification within its procurement system.

A fundamental component of the procurement process is the selection of the appropriate subcontract type. Subcontracts that are incorrectly or inconsistently classified could lead to inaccurate reporting and insufficient oversight.

Because the sites took corrective actions, we are not making any recommendations. Going forward, M&O contractors should ensure subcontracts follow policies related to subcontract classification.

This audit was performed by the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) on behalf of the Department of Energy’s Office of Inspector General and examined the Regents of the University of California’s (UC Regents) costs incurred and claimed for fiscal year ending September 30, 2021, at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory under management and operating contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231.

The audit’s objective was to determine if cost charged to Department Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231 for fiscal year 2021 were allowable, allocable, and reasonable in accordance with applicable laws, regulations, and contract terms.

The DCAA performed the audit in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

The DCAA identified two audit findings and questioned approximately $6.4 million in the management fee in the total cost rate pool. The DCAA questioned the management fee, which represented a contractual incentive paid by the Department of Energy, because the UC Regents included the fee as a cost in the total cost rate pool. The DCAA reconciled the proposed fee amount to the general ledger, and the Department determined that the contractor was entitled to the earned fee. In addition, the DCAA increased the UC Regents’ proposed allocation bases for three indirect cost pools because of the UC Regents’ error in the treatment of several purchase orders that resulted in understated allocation bases.  

If the issues identified by the DCAA are fully addressed, it should help ensure that costs charged to the Department are allowable, allocable, and reasonable in accordance with contract terms. We recommend that the contractor coordinate with the contracting officer to resolve the questioned and adjusted base costs identified in this report.