Federal Reports

As required by the Inspector General Act of 1978 (as amended), this Semiannual Report summarizes the activities of the Department of Transportation Office of Inspector General for the preceding 6-month period.

This report was issued in conjunction with the Office of Inspector General for the Railroad Retirement Board's Semiannual Report to the Congress. It was incorporated by reference in the corresponding Semiannual Report which is available at the link below.

Action Development Process goals are to deliver actions that are based on sound science, promote economic efficiency, and are implementable and enforceable.

OIG evaluated the effectiveness of SBA’s process for verifying socially disadvantaged eligibility of 8(a) firms owned by enrolled members of a federally or state-recognized Indian tribe.The 8(a) program has several eligibility requirements for individually owned firms, including that the business be at least 51 percent owned, controlled, and managed by U.S. citizens who are socially and economically disadvantaged. Socially disadvantaged individuals include members of certain designated groups or any individuals who have been subjected to racial, ethnic, or cultural bias because of their identities as members of a group without regard to their individual qualities. Native Americans are one of the designated groups which includes Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiians, or enrolled members of a federally or state-recognized Indian tribe.We found that SBA adequately verified the socially disadvantaged eligibility of 8(a) firms owned by enrolled members of a federally or state-recognized Indian tribe for the majority of the applications we reviewed, despite SBA not having documented verification procedures.However, we also found two firms SBA admitted into the 8(a) program although owners were members of tribes not federally or state recognized. Program officials used subjective and inconsistent processes and unofficial information to determine whether Indian tribes were state recognized. These firms received $10.9 million in 8(a) set-aside obligations from FY 2015 through FY 2020 at the expense of eligible disadvantaged firms in the 8(a) program. We recommended that SBA document the process and procedures for verifying that Indian tribes named by individually owned firms claiming socially disadvantaged status as enrolled members are federally or state recognized and train staff on the verification procedures. We also recommended SBA review the two firms we identified that were owned by individuals who were members of Indian tribes not federally or state recognized and take prompt action to remove firms found to be ineligible. Both recommendations from this report are now closed. Socially disadvantaged individuals include members of certain designated groups or any individuals who have been subjected to racial, ethnic, or cultural bias because of their identities as members of a group without regard to their individual qualities. Native Americans are one of the designated groups which includes Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiians, or enrolled members of a federally or state-recognized Indian tribe.

This snapshot presents a summary of pandemic-related impacts to 30 of the Agency's major programs and projects at the end of fiscal year 2020 with an estimated impact of approximately $1.6 billion of the $3 billion total in COVID impact reported by NASA.

NASA Exchange and Morale Support Activities operate cafeterias, gift shops, and recreation facilities at 12 locations around the countries. The NASA Office of Inspector General reviewed financial statement reports for the exchanges.

We investigated an allegation that a program manager with the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP) misused Water-Use Data and Research (WUDR) grant funds awarded by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to pay WVDEP employees who did not perform work related to the grant.Our investigation determined that from February 2018 through January 2020, the WVDEP incorrectly compensated an employee using $24,550 in WUDR grant funds. This employee unknowingly received WUDR funds toward his salary and benefits but did no work in support of the grant. We did not find evidence that the WVDEP intentionally misused the grant funds. Instead, the evidence suggested that the incorrect allocation of funds occurred because of management errors within the WVDEP.As a result of our investigation, the WVDEP corrected its internal WUDR grant funding allocations to accurately reflect the personnel who performed the WUDR grant functions during this time. Our investigation also confirmed that the WVDEP completed the work set forth in the WUDR grant as required and there was no financial loss to the Government.