Federal Housing Finance Agency 

Office of Inspector General

FHFA’s Procurement Awards during the 

Period January 2017 to September 2019 

Followed Most of its Acquisition Policies and 

Procedures but Some Required Internal Peer 

Reviews Were Not Performed

Audit Report • AUD-2020-006 • March 24, 2020
AUD-2020-006

March 24, 2020 

Executive Summary

The Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA or Agency), an independent 

federal agency, buys goods and services for its operations. Although not 

subject to the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), FHFA maintains that 

it follows the FAR on a voluntary basis, except for flexibilities set forth in 

Agency policies and procedures.

We conducted this audit to determine whether FHFA made procurement 

awards in accordance with its policies and procedures. We reviewed a sample 

of 25 procurement awards totaling $18.4 million selected from the population 

of 239 procurement awards totaling roughly $34.6 million made between 

January 1, 2017, and September 30, 2019 (review period). 

We found that for the sample of procurement awards reviewed in this audit, 

FHFA made procurement awards in accordance with most of its policies and 

procedures during the review period. However, we found required internal 

peer reviews, intended to improve the completeness and quality of contract 

files, were not performed for five of the contracts in our sample. 

We make one recommendation in this report. In a written management 

response, FHFA agreed with the recommendation.

This report was prepared by James Lisle, Audit Director; Marco Uribe, 

Auditor-in-Charge; and Christopher Mattocks, Auditor; with assistance from 

Bob Taylor, Senior Advisor. We appreciate the cooperation of FHFA staff, 

as well as the assistance of those who contributed to the preparation of this 

report.

The report has been distributed to Congress, the Office of Management and 

Budget, and others, and will be posted to our website, www.fhfaoig.gov, and 

www.oversight.gov. 

Marla A. Freedman, Deputy Inspector General for Audits /s/
OIG • AUD-2020-006 • March 24, 2020 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................ 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................2

ABBREVIATIONS .........................................................................................................................4

BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................................5

FHFA Procurement Governing Authorities and Process ..........................................................5

FACTS AND ANALYSIS...............................................................................................................7

For the Sample of Procurement Awards Reviewed in this Audit, FHFA’s 

Procurement Awards Followed Most of its Policies and Procedures but Some 

Required Internal Peer Reviews Were Not Performed.............................................................7

Results of Tests for 22 Sampled Contracts.......................................................................7

Results of Tests for Three Sampled IAAs........................................................................9

FINDING.........................................................................................................................................9

Required Peer Reviews Were Not Always Performed .............................................................9

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION .............................................................................10

FHFA COMMENTS AND OIG RESPONSE ...............................................................................10

OBJECTIVE, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY .........................................................................10

APPENDIX: FHFA MANAGEMENT RESPONSE.....................................................................12

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND COPIES .........................................................................13
OIG • AUD-2020-006 • March 24, 2020 4

ABBREVIATIONS ....................................................................... 

APM Acquisition Procedures Manual

BPA Blanket Purchase Agreement

CO Contracting Officer

FAR Federal Acquisition Regulation

FHFA Federal Housing Finance Agency 

GSA Schedule General Services Administration Schedule

GWAC Governmentwide Acquisition Contract 

IAA Interagency Agreement

OGC Office of General Counsel

OIG Federal Housing Finance Agency Office of Inspector General 

PRISM Procurement Request Information System Management

SPE Senior Procurement Executive
OIG • AUD-2020-006 • March 24, 2020 5

BACKGROUND .......................................................................... 

FHFA Procurement Governing Authorities and Process

FHFA, an independent federal agency, is not subject to the FAR. However, FHFA states in 

its Acquisition Policy that it follows the FAR on a voluntary basis, except for flexibilities set 

forth in its Acquisition Procedure Manual (APM). The APM, along with other supplementary 

FHFA memoranda, implements the Acquisition Policy.1

Within FHFA, the Contracting Operations Section is responsible for managing all of FHFA’s 

procurement activities: awarding and administering contracts,2

 including blanket purchase 

agreements (BPAs)3 and interagency agreements (IAAs).

4

 Designated by the FHFA Director, 

the Manager, Contracting Operations, serves as the Agency’s senior procurement executive 

(SPE) responsible for the management direction of FHFA’s procurement system and 

management of all contracting activity. The SPE is also authorized to issue contracting officer 

warrants.5

 Pursuant to their warrants, contracting officers (COs) are delegated the authority 

to procure goods and services and execute and administer contracts, leases, agreements, 

memoranda of understanding, and similar documents that involve the obligation or 

expenditure of funds by FHFA. 

FHFA’s procurement activities follow these general steps:

• Pre-solicitation – Identifying the requirement, performing market research, preparing 

the statement of work, and solicitation.

• Solicitation – Identifying prospective offerors, issuing the solicitation, and receiving 

proposals or quotes. 

1 Supplementary memoranda include FHFA Memorandum re Peer Review System (dated Feb. 4, 2015, and 

updated Sept. 4, 2018) and FHFA Memorandum re Office of General Counsel (OGC) Review of Contract 

Actions (dated Feb. 6, 2014, and updated July 20, 2017).

2 Contracts can be various types, such as firm-fixed price; time and materials; and indefinite-quantity, 

indefinite-delivery.

3 A BPA is a simplified acquisition method that government agencies use to fill anticipated repetitive needs for 

supplies or services.

4 An IAA is a written agreement that establishes the general terms and conditions of an acquisition when a 

federal agency needing supplies or services obtains them from another federal agency. 

5 A warrant is a certificate that identifies the holder as having the authority to bind the agency to contracts up 

to an authorized amount.
OIG • AUD-2020-006 • March 24, 2020 6

• Evaluation – Evaluating the responsive technical and price proposals or quotes 

submitted by offerors or vendors. 

• Award – Making the best value decision for the award, obtaining approvals, and 

executing the contract with the successful offeror. This stage also includes notifying 

the unsuccessful offerors and conducting debriefings, as appropriate. 

• Administration – Ensuring that the contractor delivers the required goods or performs 

the work according to the contract and the delivery schedule, as well as monitoring the 

expenditure of funds in relation to the contract or task order ceiling and approving 

invoices. 

The APM directs that COs ensure each contract file include a documentation checklist. The 

appropriate checklist identifies the level of documentation required for the procurement file, 

depending on the type of and dollar value of the solicitation. For example, contracts that 

exceed $500,000 require more documentation than those below $500,000. Documentation 

for contracts that exceed $500,000 require evidence of pre-solicitation work, such as a 

requisition, detailed work requirements, an independent government estimate of cost,

evidence of market research,

6 a detailed acquisition plan with source selection information,7

and a request for proposal or quote. The files are also required to include offeror submissions, 

evaluation of the submissions against preestablished evaluation criteria, and justification for 

the award. Contracts that exceed $500,000 (or $1 million for orders made from General

Services Administration (GSA) Schedules8 or GSA Governmentwide Acquisition Contracts

(GWACs)) are also subject to internal peer reviews and reviews by FHFA’s Office of General 

Counsel (OGC).9 In contrast, documentation for an IAA is generally more streamlined, 

requiring: requisition/requirements documentation; a determination documenting that the 

6 Market research means collecting and analyzing information about capabilities within the market to satisfy 

agency needs.

7 Source selection information includes various types of information that is prepared for use by an agency for 

the purpose of evaluating a bid or proposal to enter into an agency procurement contract, if that information 

has not been previously made available to the public or disclosed publicly. 

8 GSA Schedules, also known as Federal Supply Schedules, and Multiple Award Schedules, are long-term 

governmentwide contracts with commercial companies that provide access to millions of commercial products 

and services at fair and reasonable prices to the government. Streamlined ordering procedures allow agencies 

to purchase commercial supplies and services faster than buying through open-market procedures.

9 Supplementary guidance, FHFA Memorandum re Peer Review System (dated Feb. 4, 2015, and updated 

Sept. 4, 2018) and FHFA Memorandum re OGC Review of Contract Actions (dated Feb. 6, 2014, and updated 

July 20, 2017), requires that FHFA conduct peer reviews and OGC review for legal sufficiency for all contracts 

that exceed $500,000, except for GSA Schedule or GWACs, which require a review when the contract exceeds

$1 million. The Peer Review System memorandum further explains that the solicitation may not be issued or 

the award executed without consideration of both the peer reviewer’s and OGC’s comments, unless the CO 

receives a written waiver from the SPE and that waiver is included in the file.
OIG • AUD-2020-006 • March 24, 2020 7

agreement is in the best interest of FHFA (referred to as “interagency agreement 

determination”); and for IAAs exceeding $5,000, an OGC review.

The Contracting Operations Section uses the Department of the Treasury’s Procurement 

Request Information System Management (PRISM) to execute the awards.10 Between January 

1, 2017, and September 30, 2019, FHFA made 239 awards totaling roughly $34.6 million.11

FACTS AND ANALYSIS ............................................................... 

We performed this audit to determine whether FHFA made procurement awards in 

accordance with its policies and procedures. We sampled 25 awards totaling $18.4 million 

made by FHFA between January 1, 2017, and September 30, 2019, which consisted of 22 

contracts and 3 IAAs. Our sample represented roughly 10% of the awards made and over 53% 

of the dollars awarded during the review period, and included all awards over $700,000 and a 

random sample of the others. 

For the Sample of Procurement Awards Reviewed in this Audit, FHFA’s Procurement 

Awards Followed Most of its Policies and Procedures but Some Required Internal Peer 

Reviews Were Not Performed

We found that the 25 awards reviewed followed most of FHFA’s procurement policies and 

procedures examined in this audit. However, we found five instances where required peer 

reviews were not performed.

Results of Tests for 22 Sampled Contracts

Pre-solicitation Requirements

APM section 5.201 states that the pre-solicitation responsibilities include the development of 

an independent government estimate of cost, a requisition, detailed work requirements, and 

market research, as necessary. We found that the procurement files for the 22 sampled 

contracts contained this required documentation, without exception.

10 FHFA contracts with the Department of the Treasury, Bureau of the Fiscal Service, Administrative Resource 

Center, for its accounting services and its financial management system.

11 During the review period, FHFA executed over 1,350 contract actions totaling approximately $176 million; 

these actions included initial contract awards, modifications, and orders under blanket purchase agreements.
OIG • AUD-2020-006 • March 24, 2020 8

Solicitation Strategy

APM section 4.504 states that an acquisition plan is required for new awards greater than 

$500,00012 and that the acquisition plan may include the source selection plan. We tested the 

22 sampled contracts to determine whether the solicitation strategy executed was consistent 

with the pre-solicitation documentation and whether the procurement file included a source 

selection plan (evaluation criteria) when required. All 12 contracts in our sample that 

exceeded $500,000 contained an acquisition plan that documented a solicitation strategy

consistent with the pre-solicitation documentation and included a source selection plan 

(evaluation criteria), without exception. For the 10 contracts in our sample that did not exceed 

$500,000, the solicitation strategy and evaluation criteria were documented in the request for 

proposal or quote, and were consistent with the pre-solicitation documentation. 

The APM requires that if a contract is awarded without full and open competition, the 

requesting FHFA program office must document a justification. The solicitation strategies for 

the 22 sampled contracts included 7 contract solicitations that were awarded without full and 

open competition. We found that for these seven contract solicitations, the requisite 

justification was documented.

Contract Evaluation

The APM requires that the rationale for the selection decision be documented. We tested the 

22 sampled contracts to determine whether offers were evaluated in accordance with the 

source selection plan (evaluation criteria); whether the award was justified; when applicable, 

whether unsuccessful offerors were notified; and whether the awarded contract was executed 

by a CO with sufficient warrant. Documentation of the process varied according to the nature 

and size of the solicitation; however, we found that the offers for all 22 contracts were 

evaluated in accordance with the source selection plan (evaluation criteria); a justification 

for the award was documented in the procurement file; and when applicable, unsuccessful 

offerors were notified. We found that all 22 contracts were executed by a CO with sufficient 

warrant.

OGC Review Requirements

FHFA’s supplementary guidance on OGC review of contract actions states that contracts that 

exceed $500,000 (or $1 million for orders from GSA Schedules or GSA GWACs) require review

by OGC. Eleven (11) of the contracts in our sample met this threshold; for all 11, the files 

included documentation of an OGC review. 

12 This particular $500,000 threshold includes BPA and GSA orders but not interagency agreements.
OIG • AUD-2020-006 • March 24, 2020 9

Peer Review Requirements

APM section 4.507 states that “To improve the completeness and quality of contract files, all 

contract awards greater than $500,000 must undergo a peer review by another Contracting 

Officer” and that “Results of all applicable reviews must be included in the contract file.” 

Further, supplementary guidance on the peer review system requires the peer review at two 

relevant points in the contracting process (unless waived by the SPE): before the solicitation 

is issued and again before the award is made.13 The peer review requirement applied to 12 

of the 22 sampled contracts. For 7 contracts, our testing found no exception to the APM 

requirement. For 5 contracts, we found that FHFA failed to conduct the peer reviews, either 

prior to solicitation, prior to award, or—for 3 of the 5 contracts—at both points. 

The SPE acknowledged that the peer reviews should have been performed as required by the 

APM.

Results of Tests for Three Sampled IAAs

While the APM does not set specific documentation requirements for an IAA, the Interagency 

Agreement File Checklist prescribed by the APM calls for an IAA procurement file to include 

requisition/requirements documentation, an interagency agreement determination, and a 

signed interagency agreement. In addition, OGC is required to review all IAAs that exceed 

$5,000. Our review of the three IAAs found that all required documents were in the 

procurement files, the interagency agreement determinations documented justifications for the 

decisions to enter into the IAAs, and the IAAs were executed by a CO with sufficient warrant. 

FINDING ................................................................................... 

Required Peer Reviews Were Not Always Performed

FHFA procedures require that peer reviews, intended to improve the completeness and quality 

of contract files, be performed prior to solicitation and award for 12 of the contracts in our 

sample. However, for 5 of these 12 contracts, FHFA failed to conduct the peer reviews, either 

prior to solicitation, prior to award, or—for 3 of the 5 contracts—at both points. FHFA’s

failure to perform required peer reviews increases the risk that procurement decisions and/or 

documentation that do not comply with FHFA’s policies and procedures would not be 

detected and corrected timely. 

13 FHFA Memorandum re Peer Review System (dated Feb. 4, 2015, and updated Sept. 4, 2018).
OIG • AUD-2020-006 • March 24, 2020 10

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION ................................... 

We found that for the sample of procurement awards reviewed in this audit, FHFA made 

procurement awards in accordance with most of its policies and procedures during the review 

period. However, required internal peer reviews, intended to improve the completeness and 

quality of contract files, were not always performed. 

We recommend that FHFA:

1. Ensure that peer reviews of procurement contract files are performed in compliance 

with requirements defined in the APM and related FHFA supplementary guidance. 

FHFA COMMENTS AND OIG RESPONSE ..................................... 

We provided FHFA an opportunity to respond to a draft of this audit report. FHFA provided 

technical comments on the draft report and those comments were considered in finalizing this 

report. FHFA also provided a management response, which is included as an Appendix to this 

report. In its response, FHFA agreed with the recommendation and stated that, on March 10, 

2020, the Senior Procurement Executive issued updated peer review guidance and checklists 

to FHFA’s contracting officers, which we obtained a copy of and reviewed. 

We consider FHFA’s corrective action responsive to our recommendation.

OBJECTIVE, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY ................................. 

Our objective for this audit was to determine whether FHFA had made procurement awards 

in accordance with its policies and procedures. The scope of this audit covered FHFA’s 

processes for contract pre-solicitation, solicitation, evaluation, and award for the period 

January 1, 2017, to September 30, 2019. Contract administration was not covered in this audit 

but may be the focus of a future OIG audit.

To accomplish our objective, we: 

• Reviewed FHFA’s Acquisition Policy, APM, systems’ manuals and agreements, and 

other relevant policies and procedures to gain an understanding of the governance, 

operations, and reporting criteria for the procurement award process.
OIG • AUD-2020-006 • March 24, 2020 11

• Interviewed FHFA officials to gain an understanding of the systems, processes, and 

controls in place to carry out the procurement award functions.

• Reviewed each CO’s authorizing authority/limits within PRISM and determined 

whether they agree with the CO’s current certifications and warrants.

• Selected a non-projectable sample of 25 awards totaling approximately $18.4 million 

from the population of 239 awards totaling approximately $34.6 million during the 

review period. This sample included 22 contracts and 3 IAAs. We stratified our 

population into three groups. Our sample included all 8 contracts and the 1 IAA 

greater than $700,000, 10 randomly selected contacts between $150,000 and 

$700,000, and 4 randomly selected contracts and 2 randomly selected IAAs between 

$5,000 and $150,000. We tested these awards to determine if they were awarded in 

compliance with FHFA’s Acquisition Policy and APM. Specifically, we performed 

the following.

o Tested each of the 22 contracts in our sample to determine: 

o Whether the procurement files properly documented the pre-solicitation 

process.

o If the solicitation strategy executed was consistent with the presolicitation documentation, included a source selection plan (evaluation 

criteria) and justified any limits to competition based on the nature of 

the procurement.

o Whether offers were evaluated in accordance with the source selection 

plan (evaluation criteria), whether the award was justified, whether 

unsuccessful offerors were notified, and if the awarded contract was 

executed by a CO with sufficient warrant.

o Compliance with established OGC and peer review requirements.

o Tested each of the 3 IAAs in our sample to determine whether the IAAs were 

properly documented, justified, and executed. 

• Reviewed GAO’s website for dispute letters regarding FHFA procurements to 

determine whether any decisions were made that may impact this audit.

We conducted this performance audit from October 2019 through March 2020 in accordance 

with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan 

and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis 

for the findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence 

obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit 

objectives. 
OIG • AUD-2020-006 • March 24, 2020 12

APPENDIX: FHFA MANAGEMENT RESPONSE ............................. 
OIG • AUD-2020-006 • March 24, 2020 13

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND COPIES ................................. 

For additional copies of this report: 

• Call: 202-730-0880 

• Fax: 202-318-0239 

• Visit: www.fhfaoig.gov

To report potential fraud, waste, abuse, mismanagement, or any other kind of criminal or 

noncriminal misconduct relative to FHFA’s programs or operations:

• Call: 1-800-793-7724 

• Fax: 202-318-0358 

• Visit: www.fhfaoig.gov/ReportFraud

• Write:

FHFA Office of Inspector General

Attn: Office of Investigations – Hotline

400 Seventh Street SW

Washington, DC 20219