Federal Reports

We audited costs claimed by the Alabama Department of Conservation, Marine Resources Division (Department), under grants awarded by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) through the Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Program (WSFR). The audit period included claims totaling $5.1 million on 23 grants that were open during the State fiscal years that ended September 30, 2017, and September 30, 2018. The audit also covered the Department’s compliance with applicable laws, regulations, and FWS guidelines, including those related to collecting and using fishing license revenues and reporting program income.We found that the Department generally ensured that grant funds and State fishing license revenue were used for allowable fish activities and complied with applicable laws and regulations, FWS guidelines, and grant agreements. We noted, however, the Marine Resources Division purchased items with grants funds that were unallowable, and we questioned $3,112 ($2,334 Federal share) in ineligible costs associated with these purchases. We also found that the Department overdrew $5,164 ($3,873 Federal share) from a grant because the Department failed to appropriately report program income. We further determined the Department did not comply with Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 2014 requirements by not reporting subawards greater than $25,000 on USASpending.gov.The FWS concurred with all five recommendations and will work with the Department to implement them. Based on the Department’s and FWS’ responses, we considered Recommendation 2 resolved and implemented and Recommendations 1 and 3 – 5 resolved but not implemented.

We conducted an audit of the National Endowment for the Arts (Arts Endowment) charge cards to determine if transactions follow requirements outlined in the Government Charge Card Abuse Prevention Act of 2012. We tested transactions made using Arts Endowment purchase charge cards (“purchase cards”) and travel charge cards (“travel cards”), collectively charge cards, that occurred during fiscal year (FY) 2019. Our audit concluded the following: one purchase card holder did not have a training certificate indicating the employee completed appropriate training; the monthly billing statement for one purchase card transaction was not countersigned by the corresponding Approving Official, per the Arts Endowment Credit Card Holders & Purchase Limits Table; Arts Endowment did not conduct a periodic review to determine whether travel cards are necessary for all travel card holders; Arts Endowment did not conduct a periodic review to determine whether purchase cards are necessary for all purchase card holders; two travel card transaction subsamples occurring in September 2019 did not have associated vouchers; and Subsample 27.2 had an amount discrepancy when reconciling all provided transaction documents.

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, $45 million contract.In our opinion, the company's cost proposal was overstated. Specifically, we found the (1) proposed costs for the request for proposal's (RFP) example projects contained math errors, were not priced in accordance with the RFP requirements, and overstated travel expenses; (2) proposed total labor markup rate, for recovery of the company's indirect costs, was overstated compared to recent actual costs; (3) proposal did not include reduced labor markup rates for employees working in the field and nonbenefited workers; and <br> (4) proposed maximum wage rates were overstated.We estimated TVA could avoid about $3.08 million over the planned $45 million contract by (1) ensuring the company's project estimates and invoices are reviewed for accuracy and comply with contract pricing criteria, (2) negotiating a reduced total labor markup rate based on the company's recent actual costs, (3) including labor markup rates for employees performing work in the field and nonbenefited workers, and (4) requiring the company to revise its wage range maximums.(Summary Only)

The VA Office of Inspector General (OIG) conducted an inspection to evaluate facility oversight and leaders’ response to a pathologist’s practice at the facility. The OIG found the Pathology and Laboratory Medicine Chief (Chief) followed VHA policy and performed a quality review of surgical pathology cases and reported the pathologist’s initial misdiagnosis. Facility leaders ensured the required comprehensive clinical care reviews were conducted, resulting in the discovery of 10 additional misdiagnoses. The pathologist also misdiagnosed a skin biopsy. The Chief followed Veterans Health Administration (VHA) policy for secondary reviews of the misdiagnoses, completed supplemental reports, and documented provider notification. The OIG found no documentation that providers informed three patients of their misdiagnoses. The OIG learned one patient experienced an adverse clinical outcome and did not have any documented disclosures. Also, facility staff and leaders did not report any of the misdiagnoses as adverse events. Facility leaders summarily suspended the pathologist; however, the OIG found no documentation renewing the suspension. The Facility Director then terminated the pathologist. The pathologist appealed the termination through the VHA Disciplinary Appeals Board, which recommended a reinstatement. The pathologist was reinstated, and clinical privileges were restored. Facility leaders did not comply with VHA’s mandated privileging processes and were unaware of who was responsible for state licensing board reporting. Quarterly retrospective reviews of all pathology reports exceeded the 10 percent standard; however, the Chief and staff pathologists did not consistently review 10 percent of each pathologist’s cases. The Chief and staff pathologists reviewed 9.4 percent of the pathologist’s cases, below the 10 percent requirement. The OIG made 10 recommendations related to test results, disclosure and reporting of adverse events, issue briefs, the summary suspension process, the credentialing and privileging process, state licensing board reporting, and quality reviews of the pathologists’ work.