Federal Reports

The VA Office of Inspector General (OIG) conducted this audit to assess the Veterans Health Administration’s (VHA’s) oversight of VA medical centers’ migration from the Catamaran inventory management system to the Generic Inventory Package and to determine if the medical centers accurately managed expendable supply inventories. In March 2017, the OIG received a confidential complaint that the Washington DC VA Medical Center (VAMC) had equipment and supply issues. The OIG conducted an inspection and issued its report, Critical Deficiencies at the Washington DC VA Medical Center, in March 2018. The report found the DC VAMC had serious issues with its inventory management. The DC VAMC later migrated to the Generic Inventory Package as part of VHA’s change in inventory management systems. The OIG audit found that other VAMCs encountered challenges as part of the migration and that significant discrepancies existed in inventory data for expendable medical supplies. Also, proper inventory monitoring and management were lacking. Some of the issues stemmed from the failure to provide adequate oversight of the migration. The OIG also identified other factors that caused inventory data inaccuracies, including inaccurate or nonexistent general inventory management practices. The OIG made six recommendations that the Office of the Under Secretary for Health implement controls to annotate supply item distribution; strengthen physical inventory documentation procedures; implement controls to ensure storage access procedures are posted and supply item logs are complete; make certain barcode labels are affixed at item storage locations; strengthen procedures for the quality control review process; and update quality control review documentation.

The VA Office of Inspector General (OIG) received allegations that a current VA employee and the employee’s spouse, a former (retired) VA employee, improperly released VA procurement information. There was insufficient evidence to substantiate the allegations. The OIG determined that the complainant’s information was hearsay and there was no direct evidence. The OIG interviewed the complainant’s source and determined that the source’s information did not support the allegations raised by the complainant.