Federal Reports

The VA Office of Inspector General (OIG) conducted this review to determine whether Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) staff properly created deferrals for disability compensation claims in its web based electronic program and if they resolved these deferrals in a timely manner. VBA claims processors generated nearly 676,000 deferrals in Fiscal Year 2017 and nearly 832,000 in Fiscal Year 2018. VBA employees use the Veterans Benefits Management System (VBMS) to process veterans’ disability compensation claims. A deferral permits VBA employees to return a claim to an earlier phase in the claims process for correction or additional action. Within the three-month review period, an estimated 23,200 unwarranted deferrals occurred. Unwarranted deferrals can result in needless examination costs, delayed processing, unnecessary rework, and improper guidance to claims processors. The unwarranted deferrals occurred because the national oversight process did not specifically assess the accuracy of deferrals, local oversight did not assess all aspects of deferral accuracy, some VBA claims processing employees lacked feedback and accountability, deferral processing guidance was unclear, and the VBMS system had limitations. The team determined that VBA claims processors generally resolved sample VBMS deferrals in a timely manner. The OIG recommended the Under Secretary for Benefits improve local and national oversight, create internal documentation controls, update deferral guidance, and plan to update VBMS with more space for documentation. Although the Under Secretary agreed with the recommendations, the Under Secretary did not concur with OIG’s projection of estimated unwarranted deferrals associated with unnecessary medical examinations and their cost provided. The OIG will monitor VBA’s progress and follow up on implementation until all proposed actions are completed.

We audited the Weslaco Housing Authority, Weslaco, TX, based on a referral to our office concerning issues with the Authority’s process for awarding its 2014 legal services contract. Our audit objective was to determine whether the Authority procured its U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Housing Choice Voucher Program- and operating subsidy-funded legal services contract in accordance with Federal, State, and Authority requirements.The Authority did not follow Federal, State, and Authority procurement and Federal cost principle requirements when contracting for legal services. Specifically, it (1) did not competitively procure its 2014 legal services contract and (2) paid unreasonable and unsupported costs. These conditions occurred because the Authority’s chairman of the board mistakenly believed that State rules allowed the Authority to list a professional services contract on the board meeting agenda and approve it without competition or a cost analysis. Thus, the Authority could not support that it obtained the best provider and price for its legal services, resulting in its paying $118,170 in unsupported and unreasonable costs for legal services.We recommend that the Director of HUD’s San Antonio, TX, Office of Public Housing require the Authority to (1) support or repay $118,170 in questioned costs paid for legal services, (2) revise its procurement policies to include current Federal cost principles, and (3) provide training on Federal procurement requirements and cost principles to its board members and staff.

The Office of the Inspector General previously conducted an evaluation of Materials and Transportation Management (M&TM) (Evaluation 2016-15586, July 27, 2017) to identify strengths and risks that could affect M&TM's organizational effectiveness. Our report identified several strengths and risks along with recommendations for addressing those risks. We subsequently completed a follow-up evaluation (Evaluation 2018-15578, September 28, 2018) that assessed management's actions to address risks from our initial organizational effectiveness evaluation. Our follow-up evaluation determined management had taken actions to address most of the risks outlined in our initial evaluation. However, three recommendations remained unresolved, including (1) one manager's behavior and teamwork at one location, (2) instances where goals were not SMART, and (3) cross functional risks related to business units. The objective of this follow-up evaluation was to assess management's actions to address the remaining risks from our initial organizational effectiveness evaluation. In summary, we determined TVA management has taken actions to address the three remaining risks outlined in our initial organizational effectiveness evaluation.

Based upon concerns regarding the reliability of data in Maximo, we conducted an evaluation of inventory data in Maximo to determine if (1) data entered into key inventory fields in Maximo was valid and (2) key inventory fields were utilized consistently. We found most key inventory fields were utilized; however, some of the key fields contained invalid data. Specifically, we determined there was invalid data in fields related to (1) quality assurance levels, (2) inventory status, (3) item descriptions, (4) units of measure, and (5) sites.