Federal Reports

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Office of Inspector General (OIG) initiated an engagement across select USDA facilities to determine how much USDA space was being used by employees and contractors reporting to work in-person.

SUMMARY    This audit was performed by the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) on behalf of the Department of Energy’s Office of Inspector General and examined Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC’s (LLNS) costs incurred and claimed for fiscal year 2021 at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory under management and operating contract No. DE-AC52-07NA27344.

The audit’s objective was to determine if costs charged to Department Contract No. DE-AC52-07NA27344 for fiscal year 2021 were allowable, allocable, and reasonable in accordance with applicable laws, regulations, and contract terms.

The DCAA performed the audit in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

The DCAA identified two audit findings. First, the DCAA questioned over $63 million in management fee in the Laboratory Directed Research and Development allocation base. The DCAA questioned the management fee, which represents a contractual incentive paid by the Department, because LLNS included it as a cost in the Laboratory Directed Research and Development allocation base. The DCAA validated that the proposed fee amount did not exceed the amount in the contract, and the Department determined that the contractor was entitled to the earned fee. Second, the DCAA increased LLNS’ proposed allocation bases for one indirect cost pool because LLNS did not include all activity that had a causal or beneficial relationship to the cost pool. In addition to the two audit findings, the DCAA reported scope limitations regarding: (1) real-time testing was being performed, which resulted in unresolved risk that could materially affect labor and material costs; and (2) unresolved subcontract costs.  

If the issues identified by the DCAA are fully addressed, it should help ensure that costs charged to the Department are appropriately allocated. Accordingly, the DCAA recommends that LLNS conduct a study to determine the method or allocation base that represents a causal or beneficial relationship and results in an equitable allocation of the Site Support costs.

LLNS did not concur with the DCAA’s findings and asserted that its allocation bases were compliant with cost accounting standards.  

The VA Office of Inspector General (OIG) conducted a healthcare inspection at the Oklahoma City VA Medical Center (system) in response to an allegation that patients awaiting possible cancer diagnoses experienced delays in receiving pathology testing results. 

The OIG reviewed nine specimens from five patients and substantiated delays in four specimens from four patients. The chief of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine Service (P&LMS), who processed all four, attributed the delays to competing administrative duties. The OIG found that P&LMS quality staff did not conduct a comprehensive review of the delays and assess for patient harm, limiting leaders’ ability to evaluate risk and improve care.

The OIG also found that routine turnaround time (TAT) metrics for non-gynecological cytopathology reports were not met for 8 of 12 months in 2024. Although comments in quality reports noted plans to improve TAT, corrective actions and improvement plans were not documented, limiting facility leaders’ ability to identify effective interventions.

The chief of P&LMS consistently did not meet the two-day TAT benchmark. In 2024, the chief met the benchmark in 25 percent of cases from January through June and none from July through December. While facility leaders initiated actions to address performance, they did not assess the chief’s non-cytopathology cases to assess patient safety risks.

The OIG identified concerns in laboratory and patient safety event reporting. P&LMS staff did not report variance events or enter patient safety events in the Joint Patient Safety Reporting system despite completing required training.

The System Director concurred with the OIG’s five recommendations and shared plans and actions taken to review potential patient harm, improve documentation and monitoring of TAT metrics, address the chief’s performance, and train staff on event reporting processes.