Federal Reports

The Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program was established under the Small Business Innovation Development Act of 1982 and the Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) program was established under the Small Business Technology Transfer Act of 1992. These programs encourage domestic small businesses to engage in federal research/research and development (R/R&D), with the potential for commercialization.The Office of Inspector General (OIG) is issuing this management advisory in accordance with requirements in the SBIR and STTR Extension Act of 2022 (the Act) for the U.S. Small Business Administration’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) to conduct an audit related to small business verification of sales and investments. Specifically, we address our ability to determine whether small businesses are verifying sales and investments in the program and how the Act’s requirements were established.We found limited assurance that small businesses verified sales and investments as outlined in the Act. According to SBA, to determine whether small businesses met increased minimum performance standards, it reviewed the business’ self-reported information on the SBIR website. SBA then performed “spot checks,” or limited reviews, of federal sales against two publicly available databases, Federal Procurement Data System (fpds.gov) and USAspending.gov. The combination of SBA spot checking supporting documentation, along with the Act excluding supporting documentation for federal sales and not requiring supporting documentation for investments, was not sufficient to make such a determine whether small businesses subject to increased minimum performance standards verified covered sales and investments.To address concerns with procedures for assessing whether small businesses are verifying sales and investments in the SBIR and STTR programs and to address risks associated with SBA’s reliance on self-certifications, we recommended the agency establish formal procedures for obtaining and reviewing appropriate supporting documentation to ensure sales and investments are accurately reported. The agency agreed with our recommendation.

An Amtrak electrical journeyman based in Miami, Florida, resigned from his position on April 19, 2024, as a result of our investigation. We found that the former employee violated company policies by failing to disclose a felony criminal conviction on his background investigation questionnaire when he was hired in 2014. In addition, he violated company policies by failing to notify the company of his pending deportation order that resulted from his arrest for alien inadmissibility per the Immigration and Nationality Act and his ineligibility to legally work within the United States since 2019.

Providing consistent, high‐quality customer service has been a longstanding strategic priority for Amtrak (the company).1 To that end, the company uses customer satisfaction surveys and other tools to collect data to help identify issues, inform business decisions, and ultimately improve the customer experience.Our objective was to assess how the company uses the data it collects to improve the customer experience. To address our objective and assess the company’s use of these data, we collected and analyzed its outbound communications to customers; 2 late train reports; call center data,3 including hold times; and reports documenting inbound communications from customers. We also interviewed company executives about customer service goals and initiatives, as well as key officials responsible for providing customer service, including those in charge of call centers and those responsible for analyzing customer feedback from surveys. We reviewed commonly accepted management standards for organizations, including standard practices in the call center industry. Additionally, we interviewed management officials who oversee employees providing front‐facing customer service, such as onboard and station staff.

We audited the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), Office of Asset Sales’ U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)-Held Vacant Loan Sales (HVLS) program. The audit objective was to assess the extent to which HUD achieved its mission objectives for a 2022 vacant loan sale. We noted deficiencies in 52 of 53 HUD-approved applications within the reviewed vacant loan sale. These deficiencies occurred in transactions for all seven purchasers that purchased loans in the sales. HUD risks not achieving its mission objectives to promote sales first to mission-driven entities or to encourage mission outcomes by allowing purchasers that submitted deficient applications to purchase distressed FHA loans.

The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency’s (CISA) planned activities funded by the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) appear related to CISA’s cross-sector role. CISA had only spent a small amount of IIJA funds by the start of fieldwork, limiting our ability to assess how the use of IIJA funding impacted CISA’s cross-sector role. However, CISA has plans for spending all of the $35 million IIJA appropriated funds covered by this report by fiscal year 2026 and had obligated over 45 percent of the funds by the end of FY 2023. CISA’s planned use of these IIJA funds aligns with CISA’s standard financial controls processes and general appropriations requirements.

VA Office of Inspector General (OIG) Vet Center Inspection Program staff evaluated aspects of the quality of care at six randomly selected vet centers throughout Southeast District 2 zone 2: Ft. Lauderdale, Ft. Myers, Gainesville, Lakeland, and Naples in Florida; and San Juan in Puerto Rico. This inspection focused on four review areas: suicide prevention; consultation, supervision, and training; outreach; and environment of care. For the suicide prevention review, the OIG evaluated vet center staff participation on VA medical facility mental health executive councils and High Risk Suicide Flag SharePoint Site client dispositions, which resulted in two recommendations across all six vet centers inspected. In the consultation, supervision, and training review, the OIG identified concerns with external clinical consultation, vet center director monthly chart audits, and completion of select trainings, which resulted in five recommendations across five of the six vet centers inspected. The OIG’s outreach review evaluated outreach plan completion, inclusion of strategic components, and tailoring of outreach activities to cultural background information, which resulted in three recommendations across all six vet centers inspected. During the environment of care review, the OIG evaluated vet centers’ physical environment and general safety, which resulted in seven recommendations across five of the six vet centers inspected.The OIG issued 17 recommendations for improvement.

The VA Office of Inspector General (OIG) Vet Center Inspection Program evaluated aspects of the quality of care delivered at six randomly selected vet centers throughout Southeast district 2 zone 1: Augusta, Marietta, and Savannah in Georgia; Johnson City, Tennessee; Charleston, South Carolina; and Bay County, Florida.This inspection focused on four review areas: suicide prevention; consultation, supervision, and training; outreach; and environment of care. For the suicide prevention review, the OIG evaluated vet center staff participation on VA medical facility mental health executive councils and High Risk Suicide Flag SharePoint Site client dispositions, which resulted in one recommendation across three of the six vet centers inspected. In the consultation, supervision, and training review, the OIG identified concerns with external clinical consultation and completion of select trainings, which resulted in two recommendations across all six vet centers inspected. The OIG’s outreach review evaluated outreach plan completion, inclusion of strategic components, and tailoring of outreach activities to cultural background information, which resulted in three recommendations across all six vet centers inspected. During the environment of care review, the OIG evaluated vet centers’ physical environment and general safety, which resulted in seven recommendations across four of the six vet centers inspected.The OIG issued 13 recommendations for improvement.

The VA Office of Inspector General (OIG) Vet Center Inspection Program evaluated aspects of the quality of care delivered throughout Readjustment Counseling Service (RCS).This inspection evaluated four review areas within Southeast District 2 including leadership stability, morbidity and mortality reviews, high risk suicide flag (HRSF) SharePoint site, and consultation and safety plans.There were no findings in leadership stability. For the morbidity and mortality review, the OIG identified that district leaders did not complete reviews timely for clients who died by suicide based on the active policy at the time of the inspection. Leaders also did not follow established tracking methods and had different processes, as well as unclear criteria, when evaluating the need for morbidity and mortality reviews for clients who had serious suicide attempts. In the HRSF SharePoint Site review, the OIG identified noncompliance with timely documentation by vet center staff in RCSNet and highlighted concerns with the accuracy of information in, and utilization of, the HRSF SharePoint site. Additionally, the OIG found care coordination practices in violation of RCS client confidentiality requirements. In the consultation and safety plan review, the OIG found vet center staff noncompliant with seeking consultation and completing and providing safety plans to clients.The OIG issued six recommendations to the District Director and one to the RCS Chief Officer for improvement.