Federal Reports

Our report made 27 recommendations focused on improving programming, training, and Volunteer support at the post.

To see our report, click on the link below

Department did not comply with IPERA for FY 2016 because it did not meet two of IPERA’s six compliance requirements. First, the Department reported improper payment rates for the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program (Direct Loan) and the Federal Pell Grant (Pell) program that did not meet the FY 2016 reduction targets it established in its FY 2015 Agency Financial Report. Second, the Department’s improper payment risk assessments for its Department-managed grant programs and Federal Student Aid-managed contracting activities did notconform to the Improper Payments Information Act of 2002, as amended, and with Office of Management and Budget guidance, because it did not consider all nine required risk factors in its assessments. In addition, the Department did not report the Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants program as a program that may be susceptible to significant improper payment in its Agency Financial Report even though the Department’s risk assessment showed that the program exceeded the statutory thresholds to be reported as such. We found that the Department’s improper payment estimates, methodologies, and reporting were generally accurate and complete; however, we identified issuesin all three areas. First, the Department needs to improve its policies and procedures over the Direct Loan and Pell programs’ improper payment estimates because we found errors with how the Department included the results of five program reviews in the two programs’ improper payment calculations.

Our review objectives were to (1) assess whether the Department complied with all applicable improper payment requirements and (2) evaluate the accuracy and completeness of its reporting, as well as its performance in recapturing improper payments.

The Program Support Center (PSC) obligated and expended funds for 17 of the 30 contracts we reviewed in accordance with appropriations law and Federal acquisition requirements; however, for the remaining 13 contracts, the PSC did not always obligate and expend funds for its contracts in compliance with applicable law and requirements, resulting in unreported Antideficiency Act obligation violations totaling $20.3 million and expenditure violations totaling $29.2 million. Also, for 4 of the 30 contracts reviewed, the PSC incorrectly extended the period of performance and the fiscal year funding beyond its 12 month period of availability. In addition, the PSC did not always submit contracts to the Office of Grants and Acquisition Policy and Accountability and Office of General Counsel for appropriations funding reviews before awarding the contracts. These conditions occurred because the PSC (1) funded nonseverable service contracts incrementally; (2) expended funds on a first-in, first-out basis instead of on the basis of a fund's period of availability; and (3) did not use correct product/service codes. Further, the Unified Financial Management System did not validate that expenditures were matched to obligations with an appropriate period of availability.