Federal Reports

We identified poor data management practices in the Bureau of Land Management’s Compensatory Mitigation program.

At the request of the Tennessee Valley Authority's (TVA) Supply Chain, we examined the cost proposal submitted by a company for coal combustion residual (CCR) program management services. Our examination objective was to determine if the company's cost proposal was fairly stated for a planned 20-year contract.In our opinion, the company's proposed markup rates for recovery of indirect costs were fairly stated. However, the company's proposed costs for a $248.2 million CCR project were overstated by a net $1.6 million due to inaccuracies in craft pay and benefits. Subsequently, the company submitted a revised estimate of $246.6 million to correct the inaccuracies.(Summary Only)

We substantiated allegations related to missing National Park Service equipment, including power tools, at the San Juan National Historic Site.

This report presents the results of our self-initiated audit of Efficiency of Operations at the Margaret L. Sellers (MLS) Processing and Distribution Center (P&DC) in San Diego, CA (Project Number 22-061). We conducted this audit to provide U.S. Postal Service management with timely information on operational risks at this P&DC. We judgmentally selected the MLS P&DC based on overtime, penalty overtime, late and extra trips, and low clearance time percentage for package processing. The MLS P&DC is in the Southern California Division; processes letters, flats, and parcels; and services multiple 3-digit ZIP Codes in urban and rural communities.

This audit examined the Agency’s processes for estimating, tracking, and reporting life-cycle costs and questioned whether current practices support transparency and accountability.

In June 2021, a complainant alleged that the then acting principal deputy under secretary for health had been informed in the fall of 2019 that VHA’s patient wait times reporting may be misleading but that no action was taken in response. After an initial examination, the OIG determined that there was no basis to proceed with a misconduct investigation of the then acting principal deputy under secretary for health, as the OIG found no evidence of intent or efforts to mislead. This management advisory memo, however, details how VHA has presented wait times to the public without clearly and consistently disclosing the basis for their calculations. Since 2014, VHA has employed several different methodologies (particularly using different start dates) for calculating wait times reported online, as well as for determining whether wait time criteria are met for community care program eligibility. The methodologies deviated in some instances from VHA’s scheduling directive and its stated wait time measures announced in the Federal Register in 2014. As a result, VHA has presented wait times with different methodologies, using inconsistent start dates that affect the overall calculations without clearly and accurately presenting that information to the public. The OIG found that efforts to improve wait time disclosures had been under consideration but had been deferred by urgent priorities, including the COVID-19 pandemic. VHA’s efforts to improve the accuracy in its reporting of the timeliness of veterans’ access to care are dependent on the consistency of its calculations of wait times and its transparency regarding which methodologies and data sources have been used, together with any limitations. This memo serves to alert VA of the problems identified regarding wait time calculations and reporting, and requests that VA inform the OIG what action is taken to address the identified issues.

The VA Office of Inspector General (OIG) conducted an inspection to assess VA medical facilities’ compliance and processes regarding Veterans Health Administration (VHA) policies for reporting healthcare professionals to state licensing boards (SLBs) and the National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB).The OIG found widespread noncompliance with SLB and NPDB reporting processes applied by facilities to healthcare professionals whose conduct or competence led to separation from employment. Failure to comply with reporting policies leaves SLBs and recipients of NPDB information unaware of a healthcare professional’s practice deficiencies and ultimately violates an important VA commitment to protect the health of veterans and the public. Moreover, the OIG found a lack of programmatic oversight of compliance with SLB and NPDB reporting processes.For a majority of cases involving separated healthcare professionals, facility directors failed to follow mandatory processes for reporting healthcare professionals to SLBs. The OIG identified SLB reporting noncompliance was related to staff misunderstanding policy and poor facility processes.In 15 of 35 physician or dentist cases appealing a separation from employment, facility directors failed to submit NPDB reports as required by federal regulation and VHA policy. Conflicting language in VHA policies, misunderstanding of policies, and poor facility processes contributed to the failures.VHA SLB and NPDB reporting policies did not assign programmatic oversight to ensure facility leaders’ compliance with SLB and NPDB reporting processes. The lack of programmatic oversight contributed to the failure of VHA leaders to detect and intervene upon facility noncompliance.The OIG made four recommendations to the Under Secretary for Health regarding ensuring SLB and NPDB reporting compliance and programmatic oversight as well as aligning NPDB policy with federal regulation.