Open Recommendations

We recommend FEMA’s Administrator communicate non-Federal cost share requirements to grant recipients.

We recommend FEMA’s Administrator obtain the necessary supporting documentation or begin the process to recover $199,083 in Federal reimbursements resulting from $281,045 in unallowable costs for two PSGP recipients to meet their respective cost shares.

We recommend FEMA’s Administrator modify the applicant risk review process to use histories of past noncompliance and document the risk analysis and determination when assessing an applicant’s overall risk level.

We recommend FEMA’s Administrator modify the applicant risk review process to use histories of past noncompliance and document the risk analysis and determination when assessing an applicant’s overall risk level.

We recommend FEMA’s Administrator, in consultation with the Coast Guard, develop and implement a formal plan that includes required actions, projected milestones, and necessary support to track and measure PSGP’s performance in strengthening the security and resiliency of the Nation’s ports against emerging threats.

We recommend the Senior Vice President, Generation Projects and Fleet Services, establish steps to verify implementation estimates include the complete scope of work and are developed using definitive costs.

We recommend the Senior Vice President, Generation Projects and Fleet Services obtain additional support for the five project change requests with insufficient details to determine if the approval amounts should be revised.

We recommend the Senior Vice President, Generation Projects and Fleet Services take steps to reinforce the (1) need for adequate support before approving project change requests and (2) requirement for project change requests to document project estimate revisions.

We recommend that the Senior Vice President, Generation Projects and Fleet Services, in conjunction with the Office of the General Counsel, educate the appropriate individuals on the importance of not sharing confidential contractor information.

The VA Fayetteville Coastal Healthcare System Director reviews the endocrine consult management process and takes actions as needed to ensure compliance with current Veterans Health Administration directives and guidance.

The VA Fayetteville Coastal Healthcare System Director implements a strategy to review patients affected by delayed endocrine consults to evaluate whether harm occurred and the appropriateness of institutional disclosures.

The VA Fayetteville Coastal Healthcare System Director ensures a sustainable and effective service line agreement between endocrine and primary care services is developed and agreed upon by both services, and monitors implementation.

The VA Fayetteville Coastal Healthcare System Director confirms effective utilization of endocrine clinic appointments to ensure timely access to care.

The VA Fayetteville Coastal Healthcare System Director ensures a process is in place for monitoring and tracking clinic profile modification requests.

The VA Mid-Atlantic Health Care Network Director reviews the leadership performance of the chief of medicine related to communication and collaboration and takes action as necessary.

The VA Fayetteville Coastal Healthcare System Director evaluates communication gaps identified in this report between leaders of primary care and the Medicine Service and takes action to ensure consistency with Veterans Health Administration High Reliability Organization goals.

Along with the Vice President, Delivery Operations; Vice President, Processing Operations; and Vice President, Logistics, develop and provide training to staff on the correct processes for the disposal of day-old poultry.

Establish recurring meetings throughout peak shipping season of day-old poultry with the applicable internal and external stakeholders to discuss issues and implement immediate corrective action.

Revise the Handling Lives Workbook and reissue annually, before each peak shipping. At a minimum, revisions to the workbook should include: performing a primary sort by transportation mode; proper bed loading; a limit for stacking packages; following first in, first out methods; and unloading day-old poultry timely from trailers.

Revise Publication 52 to require the mailer to include a "deliver by" date, which is 72-hours after hatching, on all packages of day-old poultry.

Develop electronic methods to uniquely track shipments of day-old poultry, including shipments that have perished.

Develop a written plan for Superfund program continuity that includes procedures for recurring tasks and clearly assigns responsibilities to the Office of Financial Management personnel who will likely inherit the cost reconciliation duties.

Update its guidance to sufficiently detail its reconciliation process, including: (a) identifying and reconciling cost reports, (b) extracting data for Superfund and non-Superfund costs, (c) applying direct labor and indirect cost rates, and (d) accounting for other direct costs. Additionally, this guidance should be maintained as a living document and regularly reviewed and updated, at least annually, to ensure accurate, consistent, and efficient financial reporting.

Revise the indirect cost reconciliation calculation report and Schedule 4 to include descriptive terms that more accurately reflect the fields Superfund Indirect Percentage, Superfund Indirect Rate, and
Total Indirect Rate.

Work with OSP to reevaluate the grant goals and clarify grant expectations and goals for the 15PBJA-23-GG-00975-COVE grant.

Require OSP to develop and formalize performance reporting procedures and documentation to help ensure program results are accurately reported and supported, as required.

Ensure that OSP develops and implements adequate federal financial reporting procedures to help ensure that it submits accurate FFRs.

(U) Rec. 1.a.1: The DoD OIG recommended that the National Information Assurance Partnership Director, in coordination with the National Security Agency Cybersecurity Director, revise the product evaluation process to require National Information Assurance Partnership officials to conduct a search of public records for any vulnerabilities disclosed after the Common Criteria Testing Laboratorys last vulnerability search and, if a new vulnerability is discovered, return the product to the Common Criteria Testing Laboratory for additional testing before certifying a product for inclusion on the Product Compliant List.

(U) Rec. 1.a.2: The DoD OIG recommended that the National Information Assurance Partnership Director, in coordination with the National Security Agency Cybersecurity Director, revise the product evaluation process to require National Information Assurance Partnership officials to conduct a review of statutes, executive orders, and other directives applicable to National Security System owners, including National Security Agency directives, to determine whether the product has been prohibited from use before certifying a product for inclusion on the Product Compliant List.

(U) Rec. 1.b: The DoD OIG recommended that the National Information Assurance Partnership Director, in coordination with the National Security Agency Cybersecurity Director revise the National Information Assurance Partnership Product Compliant List website to include, at a minimum: the core features for each product, the full name of the protection profiles for each product, a list of features of each product that have been tested and certified for use on National Security Systems, and a list of features of each product that have not been tested and not certified for use on National Security Systems.

(U) Rec. 1.c: The DoD OIG recommended that the National Information Assurance Partnership Director, in coordination with the National Security Agency Cybersecurity Director immediately remove Ivanti Policy Secure and Ivanti Connect Secure from the Product Compliant List.

(U) Rec. 1.d.2: The DoD OIG recommended that the National Information Assurance Partnership Director, in coordination with the National Security Agency Cybersecurity Director develop and implement policy and procedures to require National Information Assurance Partnership officials to disclose that a product has been suspended or removed, including the reason for the suspension or removal, on the Product Compliant List website.

We recommend MSAC document its procedures for completing award Federal Financial Reports, including how to calculate indirect costs.

We recommend MSAC establish controls to ensure its Federal financial reporting procedures are followed.

We recommend MSAC document and implement payroll reconciliation procedures that verify recorded payroll costs are accurate and supported (2 CFR 200.430(g)(1)(i)).

We recommend MSAC establish controls to ensure its payroll reconciliation procedures are followed.

We recommend MSAC establish document retention controls that ensure its policy is followed.

We recommend MSAC establish and implement Federal financial reporting controls that ensure honorifics are excluded from
all costs included in award financial reports (General Terms 13).

We recommend MSAC document and implement procedures that ensure prompt and accurate compliance with
Federal Financial Accountability and Transparency Act requirements (2 CFR 170, Appendix A).

We recommend MSAC establish controls that ensure its Federal Financial Accountability and Transparency Act procedures are followed.

We recommend MSAC establish and implement controls that ensure Federal and Arts Endowment subawarding notification (2 CFR 200.332(b), General Terms 1 & 22), cost allowability (General Terms 13 & 2 CFR 200 Subpart E), and acknowledgment requirements (General Terms 3) are included in its grant contract documents.

We recommend MSAC strengthen its controls over subaward closeout to ensure all subawards are closed
before submitting the Federal financial report (General Terms 23).

We recommend MSAC establish procedures to evaluate and monitor its compliance with Federal and Arts
Endowment award requirements (2 CFR 200.303(c)).

We recommend MSAC establish controls that ensure compliance evaluations are conducted and gaps are
addressed (2 CFR 200.303(a)).

We recommend the NEA disallow $674,750 in unsupported Federal financial report costs from the 2019 Award.

We recommend the NEA disallow $16,761 of unsupported payroll costs - $4,507 from the 2020 Award; $7,281 from the 2021 Award; and $4,973 from the 2022 Award.

We recommend the NEA disallow $105,000 in honorifics from reported costs- $10,000 from the 2019 Award, $20,000 from the 2020 Award, $15,000 from the 2021 Award, and $60,000 from the 2022 Award.

We recommend the NEA disallow $194,315 in questioned or unallowable subrecipient costs - $41,211 from the 2019 Award FFR; $42,348 from the 2020 Award FFR; $76,387 from the 2021 Award FFR; and $34,369 from the 2022 Award FFR.

We recommend the NEA disallow the $50,000 unallowable ARP cost from the 2020 Award.

We recommend the NEA determine whether a refund is due for costs questioned in recommendation NEA 5.