Federal Reports

OIG reviewed how USDA awards contracts to small and disadvantagedbusinesses to ensure only eligible businesses receive contracts.

At the request of the Tennessee Valley Authority's (TVA) Supply Chain, we examined the cost proposal submitted by a company for civil projects and coal combustion residual program management work at TVA's steam electric power plants. Our examination objective was to determine if the company's cost proposal was fairly stated for a planned <br> $50 million contract.In our opinion, the company's cost proposal was overstated. Specifically, we found the company proposed:Unit rates for a Bull Run Fossil Plant (BRF) project included overstated (1) equipment costs, (2) material costs, (3) indirect costs, and (4) labor costs. In addition, the BRF proposal contained various calculation errors that understated some of the company's costs.</li> Costs for a Cumberland Fossil Plant (CUF) project included (1) overstated subcontractor costs, (2) a fee rate that exceeded the maximum allowable fee rate in TVA's request for proposal, and (3) understated labor costs.</li>Costs for a Paradise Fossil Plant (PAF) project included (1) overstated noncraft labor costs; (2) overstated labor burden markup rates (payroll taxes, insurance, and fringe benefits); and (3) excessive fee.</li>Rate attachments (1) included incorrect craft labor rates, (2) did not include some of the craft labor classifications the company used in the BRF proposal, (3) included noncraft wage ranges that did not reflect the company's current wage ranges, and (4) did not include an information technology markup rate that the company included in its proposals for the PAF and CUF projects.</li>We estimated TVA could avoid about $17.63 million on the planned $50 million contract by negotiating appropriate reductions to (1) unit rates in the BRF proposal; <br> (2) subcontractor, fee, and labor costs in the CUF proposal; and (3) labor costs, labor burden markup rates, and fee in the PAF proposal. In addition, we suggest TVA negotiate revisions to the company's contract rate attachments to correct errors and more accurately reflect the company's actual wage ranges.(Summary Only)

Our audit determined that significant improvements are needed in the Department’s Office of Indian Education’s oversight and monitoring of grantee performance and use of funds for the nearly $100 million in Indian Education Formula Grant program grants awarded annually. Without adequate oversight and monitoring of grantee progress and use of funds, the Office of Indian Education has little assurance as to whether Indian Education Formula Grant program grantees are making progress toward program goals and objectives and spending funds appropriately. In addition to these significant findings, we reported that the Department screened, altered, or withheld information we requested, which led to a scope limitation on our audit.

The Office of the Inspector General conducted an evaluation of the Human Resources (HR) organization (Evaluation Report 2016-15445-05 issued September 26, 2017) to identify operational and cultural strengths and risks that could impact HR’s organizational effectiveness. Our report identified several strengths and risks along with recommendations for addressing those risks. The objective of this follow-up evaluation was to assess management's actions to address the risks included in our initial evaluation for one of HR’s three departments—Employee Health (EH). We determined EH has taken actions to address some of the risks outlined in our initial evaluation. However, two of the five recommendations from the original evaluation remain unresolved, including (1) the medical case management process and (2) inclusion concerns.

The OIG investigated allegations that an FWS contractor falsely certified payments to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) under a construction contract it held in the Southeast Region and that the contractor failed to pay a subcontractor for work performed.We found no evidence that the contractor falsely certified payments to the FWS or that it withheld payment to its subcontractor. We found that the subcontractor did not provide the contractor with timely and accurate support for its invoices and that there were legitimate delays in the contractor’s payments to the subcontractor. In an eventual settlement, the subcontractor acknowledged they had been paid in full for the work performed.