Federal Reports

We audited the Springfield Housing Authority’s Public Housing Operating Fund and Capital Fund programs because the Authority ranked fifth highest on our risk assessment of Massachusetts public housing agencies and is the third largest in the State. In addition, we had not audited the Authority in more than 10 years. The objective of the audit was to determine whether the Authority complied with procurement and contract administration requirements for its Public Housing Operating Fund and Capital Fund programs. Authority officials did not always comply with Federal procurement requirements and their own procurement policy. Specifically, they did not always adequately perform and document procurement, and contract terms were not always consistent with other procurement documents. In addition, Authority officials did not always comply with contract administration requirements. Specifically, they did not always ensure that (1) contract amounts were not exceeded, (2) change orders were approved in a timely manner, and (3) completion documents were submitted as required. These conditions occurred because Authority officials did not always follow their procurement policies and were not always aware of Federal procurement requirements due to a lack of training. Further, the Authority had inadequate controls to ensure that it adequately documented the history of the procurements and did not exceed contract amounts. As a result, the Authority incurred $37,941 in ineligible costs, $916,132 in unsupported costs, and $408,968 in unspent funds that may need to be reallocated.We recommend that the Director of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Boston Office of Public Housing require Authority officials to (1) repay from non-Federal funds the $37,941 in ineligible costs, (2) support that $916,132 spent on contracts was fair and reasonable or repay the funds, (3) support that $408,968 in funds not yet spent on contracts was fair and reasonable or reallocate the funds, (4) establish and implement adequate record-keeping procedures to comply with Federal procurement requirements, and (5) establish and implement adequate controls so the Authority does not exceed the contract amount without appropriate contract amendments and approvals.

The Office of Inspector General evaluated NASA’s development of exploration ground systems software, a critical component of the Agency’s human space flight program.

The Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity Act (FMFIA), P.L. 97-255, as well as the Officeof Management and Budget’s (OMB) Circular No. A-123, Management Accountability andControl, establish specific requirements for management controls. Each agency head mustestablish controls to reasonably ensure that: (1) obligations and costs are in compliancewith applicable laws; (2) funds, property and other assets are safeguarded against waste,loss, unauthorized use, or misappropriation; and (3) revenues and expenditures applicableto agency operations are properly recorded and accounted for to permit the preparation ofaccounts and reliable financial and statistical reports and to maintain accountability overthe assets. FMFIA further requires each executive agency head, based on an evaluationconducted in accordance with applicable guidelines, to prepare and submit a signedstatement to the President and the Congress disclosing whether the agency’s system ofinternal accounting and administrative control fully complies with requirementsestablished in FMFIA.

OIG reviewed AMS’ oversight of the grants it issued through its Farmers Market and Local Food Promotion Program.