Federal Reports

RMA Associates, LLC (RMA), under contract with the Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General, concluded that the Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) did not fully comply with Financial Acquisition Regulation and DHS requirements. Specifically, I&A’s internal guidance lacked explicit language delineating contract administration responsibilities; and I&A contract files did not contain required monitoring and closeout documentation. By not specifying the contract administration roles and responsibilities in policy, the I&A program office may duplicate efforts for contract administration. Further, incomplete contract files limit the Office of the Chief Procurement Officer’s ability to remain compliant with Federal guidance, and present readily available documentation for examination.

The Geospatial Data of 2018 (the Act) governs the collection, production, acquisition, maintenance, distribution, use, and preservation of geospatial data of covered agencies, including the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).  We audited the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) efforts to meet the geospatial data requirements stated in the Act.  The Act requires the Inspector General of a covered agency to audit HUD’s efforts to meet the Geospatial data requirements stated in 43 U.S.C. § 2808 at least once every 2 years and report the findings to Congress.The 16 covered agencies, including HUD, will remain in the implementation stage of the Act until the Federal Geographic Data Committee establishes formal standards for use in determining compliance with the responsibilities stated in the Act.  HUD met all 13 responsibilities stated in the Act of 2018 regarding its collection, production, acquisition, maintenance, distribution, use, and preservation of geospatial data, as part of the implementation phase of the Act.  Two previous audits during fiscal years 2020 and 2022 identified a lack of adequate resources as a recurring challenge that prevented HUD from fully meeting its responsibilities under the Act.  However, this year, OIG found HUD now has the necessary resources to meet the responsibilities and implement the geospatial program.  In addition, HUD successfully executed a formal 5-year contract for the management of its Geocode Services Center, which is used to help meet geospatial objectives and responsibilities.  As a result, HUD is meeting the responsibilities and is positioning itself to meet the responsibilities stated in the Act once the implementation phase ends.  HUD’s efforts during this audit period promote transparency and accountability by providing accurate information towards achieving the Act’s purpose to minimize duplication of geospatial activities across agencies and improving collaboration.There are no recommendations.

Objective: To determine whether the Social Security Administration accurately applied the law and policy pertaining to disability waiting period exclusions for Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance beneficiaries.

A junior tamper was terminated following a disciplinary hearing on September 8, 2023. The former employee violated company policy when he transported a firearm in his personal vehicle, without authorization, on company property during a shift spanning March 1 and March 2, 2023

To meet the healthcare needs of eligible veterans, VA contracts with community providers for dialysis. These contracted community providers must accurately price dialysis procedures when submitting claims for payment.
In October 2013, VA awarded a contract to a dialysis provider. When that contract expired in March 2019, the VA Office of Inspector General (OIG) was asked to assist in determining whether money was owed by either party. The OIG provided a report to VA with its finding and recommendation. During that audit, the OIG identified concerns related to pricing accuracy and local billings for both the expired contract and a new contract. As a result, the OIG conducted this attestation examination to determine whether the contractor complied with each contract’s billing terms and conditions.
In the OIG’s opinion, except for instances of incorrect billings to local VA facilities, the contractor’s assertion that it billed in accordance with the terms and conditions of its old and new contracts is fairly stated in all material respects. The OIG found fewer pricing errors in the new contract than the old. But the OIG also found the contractor incorrectly billed 1,212 claims to local VA facilities and received almost $6.4 million from these facilities. For some of these claims, the contractor billed both the Financial Services Center and a local VA facility, thereby receiving payments from both for the same claim. The contractor asserted that incorrect billings have stopped and that it had begun providing refunds. The OIG contacted eight VA facilities for confirmation of these refunds. Some of the eight facilities confirmed refunds, while others did not. Accordingly, the OIG made two recommendations to the contracting officers, requesting that the contractor perform a self-audit of local VA claims and verify that the contractor has completed the process of refunding local VA claims.