Federal Reports

The OIG contracted with the independent public accounting firm CliftonLarsonAllen LLP (CLA) to audit VA’s financial statements. This audit is an annual legislative requirement. CLA provided an unmodified opinion on VA’s financial statements for FY 2020 and FY 2019. It identified five material weaknesses in internal control in the following areas: (1) controls over significant accounting estimates; (2) obligations, undelivered orders, and accrued expenses; (3) financial systems and reporting; (4) IT security controls; and (5) entity level controls including chief financial officer organizational structure. The material weakness involving information technology security controls has been reported for more than 10 years. CLA made recommendations for addressing each of the material weaknesses. The firm is responsible for its audit report dated November 24, 2020, and the conclusions expressed in it. CLA also reported instances of noncompliance with laws and regulations. Among these, VA did not substantially comply with federal financial management systems requirements and the United States Standard General Ledger at the transaction level, as required by the Federal Financial Management Improvement Act. The auditors attributed this to VA’s complex, disjointed, and legacy financial management system architecture, which no longer supports stringent and demanding financial management and reporting requirements. VA continued to be challenged in consistently enforcing established policies and procedures throughout its geographically dispersed portfolio of outdated applications and systems.

We conducted this audit in response to a January 27, 2020 congressional request from Senator Margaret Hassan, who raised concerns regarding complaints at multiple Postal Service facilities in New Hampshire. Our objective was to evaluate mail delivery and customer service operations at selected locations.

The objective of our inspection was to assess the U.S. Department of Education’s (Department) plans and procedures for returning employees to the federal office in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic, including what existing guidance the Department considered when developing its plans and procedures. We found that the Department generally incorporated available guidance, which was intended to provide for a safe and gradual return to federal offices, in its Workplace Reconstitution Transition Plan (Reconstitution Plan). However, we noted that the Department’s Reconstitution Plan does not address anti-retaliation as recommended in OSHA guidance. In addition, we found that the Department did not periodically reassess and update self-screening questions as necessary in its Reconstitution Plan as suggested by OMB.