Federal Reports

We determined CBP’s use of tear gas on these dates, in response to physical threats, appeared to be within CBP’s use of force policy. However, U.S. Border Patrol obtained an acoustic device and used it in an “alert tone” mode on November 25, 2018, which did not conform to CBP’s Use of Force policy because Border Patrol did not get advance authorization to have a device with this capability. CBP’s Use of Force policy would have permitted use of the alert tone in a manner reasonable and necessary for self-defense or the defense of another person in threatening, emergent situations. However, the policy does not authorize the carrying of any weapon for duty use that is not authorized, included on the Authorized Equipment List, or specifically approved by the LESC director. Using the acoustic device in alert mode may increase the risk of temporary or permanent hearing loss to those exposed to the sound and thereby increase the Government’s liability. CBP’s own internal investigation of the November 25, 2018 incident regarding the acoustic device was incomplete and inaccurate and did not provide all the information CBP needed to determine whether the CBP officer and Border Patrol agents involved had complied with the use of force policy. In addition, not all Border Patrol agents had the required training and certification to carry less-lethal devices. This occurred because Border Patrol lacked internal controls to ensure agents had fulfilled these requirements. Border Patrol agents using less-lethal devices for which they are not certified could result in unintended serious injury or death, increasing the Government’s liability. We made four recommendations to CBP to ensure compliance with its Use of Force policy and improve its investigative process. CBP concurred with all four recommendations.

In accordance with our Annual Performance Plan Fiscal Year 2020, the Office of Inspector General OIG) conducted a performance audit of the United State Capitol Police (USCP or the Department) Student Loan Repayment Program (SLRP).  OIG objectives were to determine if the Department (1) established adequate internal control and processes for ensuring compliance with Department policies and 2) complied with applicable policies and procedures. a well as applicable laws, regulations, and best practices. Our scope included controls, processes, and operations during Fiscal Year (FY) 2019.

We audited the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) oversight of lead in the water of Housing Choice Voucher Program and public housing program (assisted) units based on our goal of strengthening the soundness of public and Indian housing. The audit was part of the activities in our fiscal year 2019 audit plan. Our objective was to determine whether HUD’s Office of Public and Indian Housing had sufficient policies, procedures, and controls to ensure that households living in assisted units had a sufficient supply of safe drinking water.HUD’s Office of Public and Indian Housing did not have sufficient policies, procedures, and controls to ensure that households living in assisted units had a sufficient supply of safe drinking water. Public housing agencies had assisted units served by public water systems that reported levels of lead above the Environmental Protection Agency’s lead action level. However, HUD had limited requirements concerning lead in the drinking water of assisted units and generally did not require public housing agencies to take action regarding the potential for lead in the drinking water. These weaknesses occurred because HUD relied on the Agency to ensure that public water systems provided water that was safe to drink. As a result, HUD lacked assurance that households, including households with children age 6 or under, lived in assisted units that had a sufficient supply of safe drinking water.We recommend that the General Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing develop and implement an action plan that includes sufficient policies, procedures, and controls that address households living in assisted units having a sufficient supply of safe drinking water.

At the request of the Tennessee Valley Authority's (TVA) Supply Chain, we examined the cost proposal submitted by a company for engineering, design, and construction support services. Our examination objective was to determine if the company's cost proposal was fairly stated for a planned 5-year, $200 million contract.In our opinion, the company's cost proposal was fairly stated. However, we found the company's proposed labor rate ranges were not reflective of the actual salary costs for company employees. Specifically, we found the company had actual salary rates (1) lower than the minimum labor rates proposed for some categories and (2) higher than the maximum labor rates proposed for some labor categories. (Summary Only)

We audited the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) oversight of lead in the water of multifamily housing units based on our goal of strengthening the soundness of multifamily housing. The audit was part of the activities in our fiscal year 2019 audit plan. Our objective was to determine whether HUD’s Office of Multifamily Housing Programs had sufficient policies, procedures, and controls to ensure that households living in multifamily housing units had a sufficient supply of safe drinking water.HUD’s Office of Multifamily Housing Programs did not have sufficient policies, procedures, and controls to ensure that households living in multifamily housing units had a sufficient supply of safe drinking water. Multifamily housing properties were served by public water systems that reported levels of lead above the Environmental Protection Agency’s lead action level. However, HUD had limited requirements concerning lead in the drinking water of multifamily housing units and did not require multifamily property owners or management agents to take action regarding the potential for lead in the drinking water. These weaknesses occurred because HUD relied on the Agency to ensure that public water systems provided water that was safe to drink. As a result, HUD lacked assurance that households lived in multifamily housing units that had a sufficient supply of safe drinking water.We recommend that the Director of Multifamily Asset Management and Portfolio Oversight develop and implement an action plan that includes sufficient policies, procedures, and controls that address households living in multifamily housing units having a sufficient supply of safe drinking water.