Federal Reports

In reviewing FY 2019 through 2020 expenditures and obligations, an independent auditor found an instance of noncompliance with laws and regulations.

We audited the State of Florida’s Housing Repair and Replacement Program (HRRP), one of the programs that the State developed to address its unmet disaster recovery housing needs because of Hurricane Irma in 2017. We audited this program due to the large amount of Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) funding allocated of $346.2 million. Our audit objective was to determine whether the State administered its 2017 CDBG-DR funds for its HRRP effectively and efficiently. Specifically, we focused on determining whether the State (1) effectively used funds for eligible homeowners and properties, (2) effectively ensured that homeowners did not receive duplication of benefits, and (3) administered this housing program in a cost-efficient and prudent manner.The State administered its HRRP effectively for the seven projects reviewed by ensuring that funds were used for eligible homeowners and properties and duplication of benefits did not occur. However, the State did not have cost reasonableness analyses for the overhead and profit amounts paid to contractors totaling $107,036 and allowed percentages up to 65 percent of the contract price. The State also misclassified $134,383 in activity delivery costs that were not eligible to be classified to the HRRP activity. These deficiencies occurred because the State did not have adequate policies and procedures to ensure the cost reasonableness of overhead and profit and proper classification of expenditures. As a result, the State could not provide assurance that disaster recovery grant funds were used in a cost-efficient and prudent manner and funds were properly classified in the reporting system for the projects and activity delivery costs reviewed.We recommend that the Deputy Assistant Secretary require the State to (1) support or reimburse its HRRP for $107,036 in overhead and profit expenditures from non-Federal funds, review the remaining contracts executed under similar circumstances, and support or reimburse overhead and profit expenditures; (2) update policies and procedures to ensure that cost reasonableness analyses are performed on overhead and profit percentages charged by contractors for future contracts; (3) develop and implement procedures to carry out recent changes made to the State’s policy manual; and (4) train staff to ensure the proper classification of expenditures.

We contracted with Williams, Adley & Company-DC, LLC, an independent certified public accounting firm (CPA firm), to audit the financial statements of the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2021. In the Independent Auditors' Report, the CPA firm concluded that the NEA’s financial statements were fairly presented in all material respects and thereby issued an unmodified opinion on those statements. In the Report on Internal Control, the CPA firm did not identify any material weaknesses. In the Report on Compliance, the CPA firm concluded that there were no instances of noncompliance for fiscal year 2021 that would be reportable under U.S. generally accepted government auditing standards.

Without documented procedures governing software management and vulnerability remediation processes, the EPA continues to be at risk of outsiders gaining access to compromise and exploit Agency systems and data.

What We Looked AtUnmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) serve diverse sectors of the economy and are rapidly growing in number across the Nation. As UAS technology and physical and operational characteristics evolve, opportunities for some systems to evade detection and create challenges for the National Airspace System (NAS) arise. Many UAS are used for legitimate operations; however, the systems can also be used for malicious or disruptive activities by terrorists, criminal organizations, or other lone actors. To respond to these threats, private industry has developed countermeasure or mitigation technologies referred to as counter-UAS (C-UAS). Given the increasing safety and security concerns related to UAS, the Ranking Members of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and its Subcommittee on Aviation requested that we assess the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) C-UAS coordination efforts. Accordingly, our objectives were to assess (1) FAA's process for coordinating with other Federal agencies authorized to issue guidance and implement the use of C-UAS technologies and (2) strategies undertaken by FAA to ensure that the use of C-UAS technologies by other authorized agencies do not adversely affect aviation and aerospace safety.What We FoundFAA is coordinating with Federal agencies that use UAS detection and C-UAS technologies to ensure there is no impact to the NAS by such use. However, FAA has not conducted a strategic assessment of the UAS detection and C-UAS program to ensure it has the resources needed and agile coordination processes in place to keep pace with increasing demand. Further, because FAA has not yet completed the necessary testing of UAS detection and C-UAS technologies, the Agency cannot fully assess their impact to aviation safety and security, and may not understand those impacts for several years.Our RecommendationsFAA concurred with all three recommendations to improve the effectiveness of its C-UAS coordination and testing programs and provided appropriate actions and completion dates. We consider these recommendations resolved but open, pending completion of planned actions.

We audited the Housing Authority of Plainfield, NJ’s administration of its public housing programs. We selected the Authority based on a risk analysis of public housing agencies in New Jersey that considered the size of the agency, the amount of operating and capital funds received, and previous work conducted by the Office of Inspector General. The objective of the audit was to determine whether the Authority administered its Public Housing Operating Fund and Capital Fund programs in accordance with U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Federal, and Authority requirements.The Authority did not always comply with Federal, HUD, State, and Authority requirements when administering its public housing programs. Specifically, the Authority (1) made an unauthorized disposition of property by entering into a long-term rooftop lease and did not properly handle nearly $1.3 million in related proceeds and (2) did not comply with procurement requirements when purchasing $4.1 million in goods and services. These conditions occurred because the Authority did not fully understand its relationship with HUD and requirements for property disposition, related proceeds, and procurement and because it did not have adequate controls in place. As a result, (1) HUD did not have assurance that its interest and investment were adequately protected and that $1.3 million in rooftop lease proceeds was properly accounted for and used for planned, approved purposes, and (2) the Authority paid nearly $2.9 million in unsupported costs and may pay an additional $1.2 million for procurements not adequately performed and documented.We recommend that HUD require the Authority to (1) terminate the current rooftop lease; (2) remedy the reporting and use of proceeds issues related to the nearly $1.3 million in proceeds received under the lease; (3) repay from non-Federal funds any proceeds used for unallowable expenses; (4) obtain HUD approval of any new lease agreement; and (5) implement controls to ensure compliance with requirements for third-party agreements and that disposition proceeds are properly accounted for and used. Further, we recommend that HUD require the Authority to (1) support that nearly $2.9 million paid for goods and services was reasonable in accordance with applicable requirements or repay from non-Federal funds any amount that it cannot support; (2) support that $1.2 million in funds not yet spent on the contracts reviewed, along with any new procurements, would be reasonable or reallocate the funds; (3) ensure that its staff receives training on applicable requirements; and (4) improve its controls to ensure that future procurement actions comply with requirements and that prices paid for goods and services are reasonable.

As of November 1, 2021, the EPA had 93 overdue RTRs or TRs, almost half of which were overdue by more than five years. These reviews are used to establish limits for air toxics emissions and to protect public health.