U.S. Department of Commerce 

Office of Inspector General 

Semiannual Report to Congress
 

March 2014 
 

OFFICE OF 

INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Deputy 

Inspector General 

Inspector General Office of Counsel

Office of 

Administration 

Office of Audit 

and Evaluation 

Office of 

Investigations 

Oversight Areas 

Office of the Secretary 

Bureau of Economic Analysis 

Bureau of Industry and Security 

Economic Development Administration 

Economics and Statistics Administration 

International Trade Administration 

Minority Business Development Agency 

National Institute of Standards and Technology 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

National Technical Information Service 

National Telecommunications and 

Information Administration 

U.S. Census Bureau 

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office 

OIG Main Number 

Inspector General. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .202.482.4661 

OIG Hotline 

Telephone. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .202.482.2495 

or 800.424.5197 

TDD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .202.482.5923 

or 800.854.8407 

E-mail. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .hotline@oig.doc.gov 

More Information 

Visit www.oig.doc.gov to learn more about our 

activities and subscribe to our RSS feed for website 

updates. We are also on Facebook and Twitter. 

E-mail website comments to oigweb@oig.doc.gov. 
U.S. Department of Commerce 

Office of Inspector General 

Semiannual Report to Congress
 

March 2014 
d Office of Inspector General | Semiannual Report to Congress | March 2014

 

 

TABLE OF 


CONTENTS
 

01 FROM THE INSPECTOR GENERAL 

02 TOP MANAGEMENT CHALLENGES FACING THE DEPARTMENT 

10 OVERSIGHT AREAS 

10 DEPARTMENT-WIDE MANAGEMENT 

18 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION 

20 ECONOMICS AND STATISTICS ADMINISTRATION 

22 NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY 

26 NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION 

30 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 

32 AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT 

36 WORK IN PROGRESS 

40 STATISTICAL DATA 

50 REPORTING REQUIREMENTS 

52 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 
1 

FROM THE 

INSPECTOR GENERAL 

I am pleased to present the Department of Commerce Office of Inspector General’s 

Semiannual Report to Congress for the 6 months ending March 31, 2014. 

This report summarizes work we initiated and completed during this semiannual 

period on a number of critical departmental activities. Over the past 6 months, our 

office issued 13 audits, inspections, and responses to Congressional requests 

addressing programs carried out by the Economics and Statistics Administration, 

National Institute of Standards and Technology, National Telecommunications and 

Information Administration, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and the Department itself. 

In November 2013, we issued our annual report identifying what we consider 

from our oversight perspective to be the top management challenges facing the 

Department in fiscal year 2014, a summary of which appears on page 2. We will 

continue to work closely with the Department and with Congress to meet these and 

other challenges facing Commerce, especially as it tackles the ambitious strategies 

and initiatives outlined in America Is Open for Business, its strategic plan for fiscal 

years 2014–2018. 

We thank Secretary Pritzker, senior officials throughout the Department, and members 

of Congress and their staffs for their support of our work and for their receptiveness 

to our recommendations to improve Commerce programs and operations. 

TODD J. ZINSER
 
2 Office of Inspector General | Semiannual Report to Congress | March 2014

TOP MANAGEMENT 

CHALLENGES FACING 

THE DEPARTMENT 

The Reports Consolidation Act of 2000 requires inspectors general to identify 

the top management challenges facing their departments. In November 2013, 

the Department of Commerce OIG identified five challenges that require 

significant Departmental attention in FY 2014 and beyond. 

1. STRENGTHEN COMMERCE INFRASTRUCTURE TO SUPPORT THE NATION’S 

ECONOMIC GROWTH 

As reflected in the President’s FY 2014 proposed budget, the Department is a key player in the 

federal government’s efforts to stimulate economic growth and job creation. Four bureaus that 

hold pivotal roles in providing the infrastructure for economic growth—the International Trade 

Administration (ITA), the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS), the U.S. Patent and Trademark 

Office (USPTO), and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA)— 

face a variety of challenges. 

Promoting U.S. Exports While Protecting National Security Interests. Promotion and 

regulation of U.S. exports are two critical missions of the Department. With the approved FY 2014 

budget, the Department received $470 million for export promotion (ITA) and $101.5 million for 

export regulation (BIS). ITA’s U.S. and Foreign Commercial Service provides a broad range of 

services and counseling to U.S. exporters while other ITA business units enforce trade agreements 

and protect domestic industries such as manufacturing and textiles. 

ITA plays a leading role as one of 16 executive departments and federal agencies that support 

the National Export Initiative (NEI), which was formalized by executive order in March 2010. 

The NEI aims to double 2009 U.S. export levels by the end of 2014 and, in turn, help grow 

the nation’s $17 trillion economy. To support many of its priorities, the NEI called for enhanced 

collaboration among federal trade agencies and strategic partnerships with state, local, and 

other trade organizations. In our 2012 review of the U.S. Export Assistance Centers we noted 

that—while protections of client data inhibited information sharing and guidance on collaboration 

was limited—fostering partnerships with other federal agencies such as the Small Business 

Administration and the Export–Import Bank can enhance service to exporters. In FY 2014, ITA will 

be challenged to improve and build on the coordination and partnership efforts developed to date. 

BIS programs ensure that trade in dual-use exports is consistent with national security interests. 

Future trade in controlled dual-use exports is expected to increase significantly as a result of the 

current Export Control Reform Initiative. Launched by the Administration in 2010, the initiative 

aims to streamline the country’s export control system and facilitate U.S. export of high-tech 

goods while protecting U.S. national security interests. Beginning October 15, 2013, new rules 

transferred the first of many items from the U.S. Munitions List to the Commerce Control List 

in a process expected to continue throughout FY 2014. To address the increase of licensable 

items under its jurisdiction, BIS has requested additional resources in its FY 2014 budget for its 

licensing and enforcement units. To complete its mission, BIS’ challenge is to coordinate with its 

federal partners, such as the Departments of Defense and State, to revise federal export control 

regulations to effectively implement export control reform. 
Top Management Challenges Facing the Department 3 

Enhancing Economic Growth Through Intellectual Property and Wireless Initiatives. 

USPTO, in its mission to foster innovation through high-quality patent and trademark examination, 

must implement several remaining provisions of the 2011 America Invents Act (AIA) and faces 

several difficulties in reducing backlogs associated with initial patent applications, requests for 

continued examination, and appeals. The agency’s recent efforts to address its application and 

appeal backlogs and related pendency issues have yielded mixed results. Both the backlog and 

pendency for patent applications decreased in FY 2013. The patent appeals backlog, which we 

reported on in our 2012 audit, has stabilized—yet, as of May 2013, still stood at more than twice 

the size of the backlog in October 2010. However, USPTO’s backlog for requests for continued 

examination (RCE) has grown from 17,800 applications in October 2009 to approximately 

78,000 in September 2013, an increase of more than 340 percent. As a consequence, during 

the same period, the average waiting time between filing an RCE and receiving an initial decision 

has grown from 2.1 to 7.8 months. In June 2013, OIG initiated an audit to evaluate the reason for 

the increase in the RCE backlog and review USPTO’s efforts to address the issue. As it works 

to reduce its patent backlog and pendency, USPTO’s challenge is to ensure that the quality of its 

patent examination process is not adversely affected and to avoid requiring applicants and the 

public to file unnecessary and costly challenges to examiners’ decisions. 

Due to the increase in spectrum demand and the limitations of available spectrum capacity, NTIA 

must increase spectrum access for commercial wireless broadband use—via sharing between 

federal and commercial users or sale of spectrum for commercial use—while protecting federal 

missions and overseeing development of a broadband network for public safety. 

In June 2010, the President directed that 500 megahertz (MHz) of federal or nonfederal spectrum 

be freed up for commercial wireless broadband. In response, NTIA announced in March 2012 

that the federal government intends to repurpose 95 MHz of prime spectrum for commercial use. 

However, the $18 billion that NTIA estimates it will cost to relocate existing federal users to other 

parts of the spectrum could make this cost prohibitive. Recent technology advances will make 

such shared-use architecture feasible in the near future. However, many challenges—such as 

lack of incentive for commercial providers to bid for shared spectrum (i.e., the cooperative use 

of common spectrum by accessing the same frequencies in different geographical areas or at 

different times), revenue generation, and rights-of-use issues—must be addressed to make this 

effort a possibility. 

The February 2012 Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act allocated some existing 

public safety radio frequency spectrum, along with the D-Block spectrum, and authorized 

$7 billion in funding for the establishment of an interoperable Nationwide Public Safety Broadband 

Network (NPSBN). The law established the First Responder Network Authority (FirstNet) as an 

independent authority within NTIA. The law requires FirstNet to oversee the existing public-safety 

spectrum and the establishment and deployment of the NPSBN. FirstNet faces several challenges 

in establishing the NPSBN, including (1) fostering cooperation among various state and local 

public-safety agencies, (2) integration of seven Broadband Technology Opportunities Program 

(BTOP) grants funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 into the NPSBN, 

and (3) the physical construction of a nationwide long-term evolution network. 

2. STRENGTHEN OVERSIGHT OF NOAA PROGRAMS TO MITIGATE POTENTIAL 

SATELLITE COVERAGE GAPS, ADDRESS CONTROL WEAKNESSES IN 

ACCOUNTING FOR SATELLITES, AND ENHANCE FISHERIES MANAGEMENT 

NOAA plays a critical role in protecting life and property, as well as supporting national economic 

vitality. To achieve these missions, NOAA must overcome the challenges associated with the 

acquisition, accounting, and operation of weather satellites and has to balance the competing 

interests concerning marine fisheries. 
4 Office of Inspector General | Semiannual Report to Congress | March 2014

Enhancing Weather Satellite Development and Mitigating Coverage Gaps. Cost 

increases and budget shortfalls may delay the development and launch of two of NOAA’s 

most vital environmental satellite systems. The Joint Polar Satellite System (JPSS) and the 

Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite-R Series (GOES-R) are the Department’s 

largest investments, accounting for more than 20 percent of its 2014 budget request. These 

environmental satellites are essential components in weather forecasting: they provide data used 

to track severe storms and predict climate. However, long-standing cost overruns and schedule 

delays—as well as the aging of the current constellation of satellites—are threatening adequate 

coverage of these critical functions. 

Strong program management and close oversight of these programs are needed to reduce 

risks associated with their development. The JPSS program must successfully execute to cost, 

schedule, and performance baselines established August 1, 2013. The program must also ensure 

that its flight and ground segments’ schedules are fully integrated. JPSS must also effectively 

coordinate with the newly established NOAA Polar Free Flyer program, the planned NASA climate 

instrument project, and NOAA’s data distribution and archive systems. Over the course of the 

JPSS program, we have analyzed the schedules of the JPSS predecessor Suomi National Polarorbiting Partnership (Suomi NPP) and JPSS, to assess potential gaps in weather forecast data. 

Consistent with our September 2012 JPSS audit report, we continue to project a 10–16-month 

gap between the Suomi NPP’s end of design life and when JPSS-1 satellite data become 

available for operational use. NOAA’s medium-range weather forecasting (3–7 days) could be 

significantly degraded during the period of time JPSS data are unavailable. 

The GOES-R program must continue to manage its development to meet requirements within its 

long-standing baselines. The program also needs to ensure sufficient ground system, instrument, 

and spacecraft development maturity to enter and successfully complete the integration and 

test phase. In addition, the program must effectively manage activities between flight and 

ground projects in a compressed development schedule and constrained budget environment. 

In our 2013 GOES-R audit report, we found that schedule slips and a potential reduction in 

testing activities have raised concerns about the satellite’s readiness to launch. NOAA needs to 

implement a comprehensive plan to mitigate the risk of potential launch delays and communicate 

to users (e.g., in the National Weather Service and Department of Defense) and other 

stakeholders (e.g., the Administration, Congress) the changes that may be necessary to maintain 

GOES-R’s launch readiness date. 

Addressing Material Weakness over Satellite Accounting. During FY 2012, the accounting 

firm KPMG noted several material control weaknesses at NOAA related to accounting for 

satellites—which, as of the end of FY 2012, totaled more than $6 billion (or approximately more 

than one-fifth of the Department’s assets). NOAA’s accounting for satellites is highly complex; 

challenges have resulted in material deficiencies in NOAA’s satellite accounting during FY 2012. 

Specifically, KPMG identified the incorrect classification of a satellite ground system, unrecorded 

transfer of a satellite from another federal agency, and corrections to the satellite impairment 

amount. These errors resulted in approximately $900 million in adjustments to correct the amount 

of satellites included in NOAA’s accounting records. In addition, KPMG identified uncapitalizable 

costs included in construction work-in-progress, as well as a lack of documentation evidencing 

review and approval of intragovernmental payments related to satellites. Program and finance 

officials must work together to ensure that satellite investments are accurately identified, recorded, 

and reported—a basic principle of asset management. 

Enhancing Fisheries Management. In 2011, commercial fishing accounted for approximately 

1 million jobs and recreational fishing accounted for 327,000 jobs. U.S. fishermen at ports in 

the 50 states brought in 9.9 billion pounds of fish valued at $5.3 billion in 2011—an increase 

of 1.63 billion pounds (up 19.7 percent) and $769 million (up 17 percent) compared to 2010. 

Fishing is an important industry in our nation’s economy as a whole and in the many coastal 
Top Management Challenges Facing the Department 5 

communities and port towns. However, NOAA—as part of its mission—also considers the health 

of our oceans and coastal ecosystems, which are impacted by coastal development, pollution, 

and the destructive impact of invasive species. For several years, we have reported on NOAA’s 

challenges in balancing two competing interests: promoting commercial and recreational fishing 

as vital elements of our national economy and preserving populations of fish and other marine life. 

Considering the importance of fisheries to the U.S. economy, it is critical that NOAA and the 

fishery management councils balance the interests of the fishing community with conservation 

concerns. Regardless of long-term sustainability and conservation concerns, many stakeholders 

claim that measures such as limiting catch in fisheries and enforcing limited access privilege 

programs have had a negative impact on some local fishing communities. NOAA’s challenge is to 

effectively balance those interests—and effectively communicate to stakeholders how the agency’s 

efforts serve the long-term economic interests of the fishing industry. 

3. CONTINUE ENHANCING CYBERSECURITY AND MANAGEMENT OF INFORMATION 

TECHNOLOGY INVESTMENTS 

The administration has identified cybersecurity as among the most serious economic and national 

security challenges we face. To bolster the national cybersecurity program, federal agencies have 

been asked to implement cross-agency cybersecurity priorities—including strong authentication, 

Trusted Internet Connections (TIC), and continuous monitoring. 

We reported our concerns about the Department’s fragmented information technology (IT) 

governance in previous years. In response to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) direction, 

the Acting Secretary issued a June 2012 memorandum that described a strategy to strengthen 

the Department’s Chief Information Officer’s (CIO’s) ability to oversee the bureaus’ annual 

$2.5 billion IT investments. The CIO has leveraged this increased authority to lead the effort to 

consolidate commodity IT Department-wide—and continues to strengthen IT oversight through the 

Commerce IT Review Board. However, the CIO’s responsibility to oversee satellite IT investments 

has been diminished, and IT investments still need to close the gap between planned and actual 

schedule and cost performance. 

Establishing a Robust Capability to Respond to Cyber Incidents. Our June 2013 review 

of a perceived massive malware infection at the Economic Development Administration also 

highlighted challenges for the Department when responding to a cyber incident. We made 

recommendations to improve the Department’s Computer Incident Response Team (DOC CIRT), 

which provides response services to the seven bureaus located in the Department’s headquarters 

at the Herbert C. Hoover Building (HCHB). To deal successfully with cyber threats, the 

Department needs to establish a robust incident response capability at DOC CIRT. Furthermore, 

because DOC CIRT primarily provides incident response services to bureaus located at HCHB, 

ensuring productive collaboration among all bureaus is critical for the Department to effectively 

respond to a cyber event. This includes bureaus that have their own CIRT capabilities, such as 

the Census Bureau, the International Trade Administration, the National Institute of Standards 

and Technology, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the U.S. Patent and 

Trademark Office. OIG is currently conducting an audit of the incident detection and response 

capabilities of several bureaus within the Department. 

Continuing Sustainable Implementation of Enterprise Cybersecurity Initiatives. The 

Department has three enterprise cybersecurity initiatives underway to address mandates from 

OMB. The Enterprise Cybersecurity Monitoring and Operations and Enterprise Security Oversight 

Center initiatives support OMB’s mandate to continuously monitor security-related information 

from across the enterprise. The TIC initiative supports the mandate that federal agencies 

optimize and standardize their individual external network connections, including connections 

to the Internet. Collectively, these undertakings should significantly improve the Department’s 
6 Office of Inspector General | Semiannual Report to Congress | March 2014

 

cybersecurity posture. The Department needs to ensure that current efforts for these initiatives 

move forward as planned and that operating units cooperate and participate to the fullest extent. 

Preserving the CIO’s Oversight Responsibility of Satellite-Related IT Investments. 

OMB has directed agencies to expand federal CIO responsibility from a traditional role of 

policymaking and infrastructure maintenance to managing the agency’s entire major IT investment 

portfolio. However, the CIO oversaw about a quarter fewer IT investments in FY 2013 than in 

FY 2012. In particular, in an effort to streamline oversight, the Department has waived the 

requirement to follow CIO oversight practices for six satellite-related investments totaling 

$642 million in FY 2013 spending. In particular, four satellite-related investments—the 

maintenance and enhancement of two satellite ground systems and two satellite data processing 

and distribution systems—do not receive as much oversight as the JPSS and GOES-R programs. 

Although the Department has established quarterly reviews for executives to discuss high-level 

investment issues, the reviews do not replace the CIO’s in-depth tracking and evaluation of these 

satellite investments. The Department should reinstate the CIO oversight process for these 

four investments. 

Continuing Vigilant Oversight of IT Investments. We remain concerned, as we reported last 

year, about IT investments with a history of being high-risk. For example, in December 2010, the 

Department’s CIO assessed one National Weather Service (NWS) investment and designated it a 

high-risk project. In that same year, OMB designated a Bureau of Industry and Security system as a 

high-risk Departmental project. Although both investments have made some progress since 2010, 

the former is still assessed as a high-risk investment and the latter recently ran into significant 

development roadblocks and was again evaluated high-risk in FY 2013. Both investments now 

require re-planning to move forward. The challenge for Departmental IT investment oversight 

is to identify the fundamental reasons that high-risk projects continue not to make adequate 

progress; implement necessary changes to their acquisition approach, management structure, 

and development plans; and, if necessary, bring in outside expertise to identify weaknesses and 

recommend mitigation actions. 

Maintaining Momentum in Consolidating Commodity IT to Cut Costs. The Department’s 

CIO is leading the effort to reduce commodity IT costs per full-time equivalent by about 

25 percent annually to be more in line with costs at comparable agencies. Departmental and 

bureau CIOs are employing three basic approaches to break down costly and inefficient IT: 

(1) consolidating infrastructure, (2) sharing procurement vehicles to leverage economies of scale, 

and (3) hosting services for other Department bureaus. Department and bureau heads must 

ensure that their respective CIOs continue to have full cooperation in overcoming bureaucratic 

impediments to consolidating and sharing IT commodity resources. 

4. EXERCISE STRONG PROJECT MANAGEMENT CONTROLS OVER 2020 CENSUS 

PLANNING TO CONTAIN COSTS 

The Census Bureau has promised bold design changes for the 2020 Census, seeking to reduce 

per household costs (on an inflation-adjusted basis) to an amount lower than the 2010 Census. 

To reach this goal, the Bureau must complete research and testing early enough in the decade to 

plan and build the necessary infrastructure for the projected workload and workforce. The Bureau 

will be making key 2020 Census design decisions during FYs 2015–16 that drive the program’s 

methodology, quality, and cost. As a result of our 2010 Census oversight, we noted challenges 

the Census Bureau faces to innovate its 2020 Census design. Overcoming these challenges calls 

for fundamental improvements in decennial planning, management, testing, and transparency, to 

help ensure that the missed opportunities of previous decades are not repeated in 2020. 

Ensuring Timely Design Decision Making. The Census Bureau is approaching critical 

2020 Census design decision points that require planning and developing a decennial census in 

a significantly more constrained budget environment than experienced during the 2010 Census. 
Top Management Challenges Facing the Department 7 

Soon, the Bureau must rapidly analyze 2020 decennial design alternatives and make key design 

decisions based on the results of its research and testing phase. Our office has conducted several 

reviews of the Census Bureau’s approach and progress toward the planning and development of 

a new cost-effective 2020 decennial design (e.g., research and testing programs). We found that, 

as research and testing continues, the Bureau must contend with and plan for several challenges 

that could adversely impact the next decennial census. 

Focusing on Human Capital Management, Timely Research, and Testing Implementation. 

During our December 2013 evaluation of 2020 Census redesign efforts, we noted significant 

schedule slippage in the Census Bureau’s key research and testing programs. If continued, 

missed deadlines will translate into an untenable continuation of an already expensive design. 

The cost (in constant dollars) of counting each housing unit could reach $151, compared with 

$97 for 2010. Through our ongoing work on the Bureau’s approach to and progress on planning 

for 2020 decennial census we have identified three time-sensitive Bureau management priorities: 

managing human capital to align with the Bureau’s mission and programmatic goals; completing 

timely research for making evidence-based design decisions; and implementing a stable, agile 

field-testing strategy. 

5. CONTINUE TO FOSTER A CULTURE OF MANAGEMENT ACCOUNTABILITY TO 

ENSURE RESPONSIBLE SPENDING 

As the government experiences an extended period of tightened budgets, it is imperative to foster 

a culture of management accountability. OIG’s determination to audit, investigate, or provide 

hotline complaint information to Departmental or bureau management for appropriate action 

helps to instill a culture of ethical conduct and ensure that spending is appropriate, complies with 

laws and regulations, and promotes investments with long-term benefits. The increasing number 

of hotline complaints related to the use of appropriated funds by NOAA, as well as complaints 

about other bureaus, highlights the Department’s need to implement stricter control over funds 

Department-wide. The Department and most of its bureaus use outdated financial management 

systems that impede the Department’s ability to oversee and manage Department-wide financial 

activities. Plans to replace the legacy systems by FY 2018 face significant challenges. Regarding 

its annual acquisitions, the Department reported it exceeded its goals in reducing the dollar 

amount of high-risk contracts, per 2009 OMB guidance. However, our audits indicate that 

reducing the use of several types of high risk contracts remains a critical challenge. Finally, the 

potential misuse of federal funds by award recipients requires stronger oversight of Departmental 

programs that award grants or cooperative agreements. 

Responding to Concerns of Mismanagement and Ethical Violations. OIG operates 

a hotline for reporting information about alleged wrongdoing, misconduct, waste, or 

mismanagement. Some hotline complaints become the basis of OIG audits and investigations. 

Complaints that detail management issues are provided promptly to Departmental and bureau 

leadership for inquiry and action. Over the past year, bureaus have worked closely with OIG to 

look into and resolve many management issues raised through OIG’s hotline. Timely and thorough 

action to resolve these issues helps to create a culture of compliance and accountability in the 

Department. While the Department’s management has increased its capacity and ability to deal 

with hotline complaints, employees and members of the public have provided an increasing 

volume of complaints to OIG. In order to continue managing potential issues and resolving 

problems, Departmental management must remain vigilant in its efforts to seriously look into and 

address hotline complaints. 

Implementing Stricter Controls over Funds. In response to hotline complaints about 

mismanagement of appropriated funds within NOAA NWS in 2010 and 2011, the Department 

conducted a May 2012 review—and the then-Deputy Secretary and then-Under Secretary of 

Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere issued separate decision memorandums in the same 
8 Office of Inspector General | Semiannual Report to Congress | March 2014

month. Their memorandums required a total of 20 specific actions for correcting the conditions 

that led to the report’s findings. In our September 2013 review of these actions, we found that the 

Department and NOAA have taken steps to address the findings identified in the Department’s 

internal inquiry and completed many action items, but additional work is needed to complete 

several key action plan items and ensure proper stewardship of funds and compliance with laws 

and regulations. Continued Departmental leadership attention is essential to ensuring a culture of 

transparency, accountability, and effective oversight. 

Modernizing the Enterprise Financial Management System to Strengthen Financial 

Oversight. A lack of centralized data systems poses reporting and oversight challenges to the 

Department, such as effectively reporting financial data and monitoring financial activity across its 

bureaus. The Department and most of its bureaus use a financial system developed with aging 

technology and augmented with in-house software increasingly difficult to maintain. Limitations 

such as high support costs and a lack of system integration and lack of centralized reporting 

capability impede the Department’s ability to oversee and manage Department-wide financial 

activities. The Department plans to replace these legacy systems—collectively known as the 

Commerce Business System—with Business Application Solutions, a commercially available 

system, by FY 2018. While the Department has provided OIG with regular updates on the status 

of this modernization project, significant challenges remain. 

Strengthening Controls over High-Risk Contract Actions and Developing the 

Acquisition Workforce. In FY 2012, the Department obligated about $2.4 billion for goods 

and services that include satellite acquisitions, intellectual property protection, broadband 

technology opportunities, management of coastal and ocean resources, information technology, 

and construction and facilities management. Although the Department’s requirements have not 

diminished, available funding resources likely will. Continuing to address high-risk contracts and 

maintaining a qualified acquisition workforce will enable better management of the Department’s 

day-to-day spending. 

Addressing Grant Management Issues. OIG also provides oversight of the Department’s 

management of more than 70 programs authorized to award grants or cooperative agreements. 

Annually, we review an average of 340 reports with findings; of those, about 6 percent will have 

significant procedural or internal control findings. Grant oversight requires that recipients of 

awards meeting certain dollar thresholds submit either a single audit report or a program-specific 

audit report. These types of awards pose particular oversight challenges for the Department. OIG 

continues to review these audit reports to identify trends in findings across bureau programs, as 

well as to monitor whether findings are resolved in a timely manner. 

With approximately $3.8 billion in grant awards, the Broadband Technology Opportunities 

Program (BTOP)—funded by the Recovery Act—represents the Department’s largest grant 

program. Management must remain committed to monitoring BTOP recipient compliance with 

grant award terms and achievement of intended benefits. Awards for which the grantee has 

requested extensions to complete projects merit close attention. As grant awards end, the audit 

closeout process—how the award recipient and the grants office ensure that project activity is 

complete and the award recipient has met all the requirements under applicable laws, regulations, 

OMB circulars, and award terms and conditions—calls for particular attention. 

10 Office of Inspector General | Semiannual Report to Congress | March 2014

DEPARTMENT-WIDE MANAGEMENT
 

The U.S. Department of Commerce works to help American 

companies become more innovative and successful at home and more 

competitive abroad. It creates the conditions for economic growth and 

opportunity by promoting innovation, entrepreneurship, competitiveness, 

and stewardship. 

The Department accomplishes its mission by providing national and 

local weather services; developing key economic and demographic data 

(including the decennial census); advancing technological and scientific 

innovation; protecting and restoring environmental resources; promoting 

international trade; and supporting local, regional, and national economic 

development. These activities affect U.S. business and industry daily and 

play a critical role in the nation’s economic well-being. 
Department-Wide Management 11 

COMPLETED WORKS (BY OVERSIGHT AREA) 

During this reporting period, OIG completed 13 audits, inspections, and responses to 

Congressional requests. 

6

2 2

1 1 1

Department­wide USPTO NTIA ESA NIST NOAA

THE DEPARTMENT’S AWARDING AND ADMINISTERING 

OF TIME-AND-MATERIALS AND LABOR-HOURS 

CONTRACTS NEEDS IMPROVEMENT (OIG-14-001-A) 

For FYs 2009–2011, the Department awarded 1,383 timeand-materials (T&M) and labor-hour (LH) contracts, with a total 

obligated value of approximately $1.3 billion. In our Departmentwide audit, we reviewed 43 contracts composed of 62 various 

T&M/LH contract actions to determine whether NOAA, the 

Census Bureau, and NIST properly awarded and administered 

these contract actions. 

We determined that contracting and program officials did not 

properly award and administer T&M/LH contracts and task 

orders for work performed. These conditions occurred because 

contracting and program officials did not follow Federal Acquisition 

Regulation and the Commerce Acquisition Manual for awarding 

and administering T&M/LH contract actions, specifically regarding 

contract and task order award procedures and contract oversight 

procedures. Our findings include potential monetary benefits to the 

Department—in the form of unsupported costs and funds put to 

better use—totaling more than $170 million. 

Further, we found that 

Time-and-Materials and Labor-Hour 

(T&M/LH) Contracts 

These contract types require contractors to provide 

their best effort, up to a maximum number of hours 

authorized. Each hour of work authorizes a contractor to 

charge the government an established labor rate, which 

includes profit. T&M/LH contracts are considered high 

risk because the government assumes the risk for cost 

overruns. 

Because of this high risk, the Federal Acquisition 

Regulation (FAR) requires appropriate government 

monitoring of contractor performance for reasonable 

assurance of efficient methods and effective cost 

controls. Further, FAR directs that T&M/LH contracts 

may only be used when it is not possible at the time of 

award to estimate accurately the extent or duration of the 

work or to anticipate costs with any reasonable degree 

of confidence. 

•	 The Department’s volume of T&M/LH contracts was unclear because bureaus’ reported data 

and maintained records on T&M/LH contracts were inaccurate and incomplete. 

•	 Contract files were missing or lack key contract documentation. 

•	 Funds on completed T&M/LH contracts were not always deobligated. 
12 Office of Inspector General | Semiannual Report to Congress | March 2014

We recommended that the Director of Acquisition Management 

•	 Include a review of T&M/LH contracts, as part of the Department’s annual acquisition 

management reviews, for (a) proper determination and findings, (b) documented changes in 

established ceiling prices, (c) quality assurance surveillance plans to document contractor 

performance, and (d) verified contractor invoices with supporting documentation. 

•	 Monitor and evaluate the use and management of T&M/LH contracts through the acquisition 

review board and investment review board processes. 

•	 Improve the process for entering accurate and complete data into FPDS-NG. 

•	 Improve controls to properly maintain and safeguard contract files. 

LETTER TO BICAMERAL TASK FORCE ON CLIMATE CHANGE RE: REVIEW 

OF COMMERCE DEPARTMENT’S CLIMATE CHANGE-RELATED POLICIES, 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS, AND ACTIVITIES (OIG-14-004-M) 

In December 2013, the Inspector General responded to a February 2013 request from the 

Bicameral Task Force on Climate Change to review the Department’s policies, environmental 

programs, and activities to carry out requirements that federal agencies address climate change. 

Overall, we found that Commerce views federal sustainability directives and the pursuit of a robust 

sustainability policy as central to the Department’s core values and mission. The Commerce 

Strategic Sustainability Performance Plan, issued in June 2012, put forth a number of priorities 

and initiatives for Commerce. Among these are 

•	 adding six sustainable buildings to its real property portfolio. 

•	 ensuring at least 5 percent of the Department’s electricity comes from renewable energy. 

•	 continuing to right-size its vehicle fleet. 

•	 empowering employees to approach energy-conservation challenges creatively through energy 

working groups, employee “Green Teams,” and energy-awareness campaigns. 

•	 continuing to implement EPA’s Energy Star® Portfolio Manager to track energy usage and 

overall building performance across Commerce facilities. 

Despite notable initiatives undertaken by the Department in response to congressional and 

executive directives, we had concerns about the completeness of sustainability data being 

reported. Even though the most recent OMB Sustainability and Energy Scorecard shows 

the Department to be on track for 3 of the 7 federal sustainability goals, not all bureaus 

provide complete data. Based on our discussions with the Office of Sustainable Energy and 

Environmental Programs (OSEEP) and NOAA, we determined that NOAA does not report 

accurate or complete information for the OMB Scorecard for reasons that include 

•	 historical records contain incomplete and estimated information. 

•	 NOAA headquarters staff are unable to compel the bureau’s operating units to comply with 

sustainability directives. 

•	 sustainability reporting is an additional duty beyond the typical work assignments for many 

NOAA staff members, which often results in inattention to implementation and reporting. 
Department-Wide Management 13 

We recommended that the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Administration take action to improve the 

Department’s sustainability performance and the accuracy and completeness of Commerce’s data 

in order to identify ways to reduce emissions or strengthen resiliency throughout the Department. 
14 Office of Inspector General | Semiannual Report to Congress | March 2014

FY 2013 CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AUDITS 

(OIG-14-006-A, OIG-14-007-A, OIG-14-009-A) 

KPMG LLP, an independent public accounting firm, performed the audit in accordance with U.S. 


generally accepted government auditing standards and OMB Bulletin 14-02, Audit Requirements 


for Federal Financial Statements. In its audit of the Department, KPMG determined that the 


financial statements were fairly presented in all material respects and in conformity with U.S. 


generally accepted accounting principles.
 

KPMG identified two significant deficiencies in (a) internal control over financial reporting 


related to accounting for NOAA’s property and (b) controls over information technology access, 


configuration management, and segregation of duties. (A significant deficiency in internal control 


exists when the design or operation of a control does not allow management or employees—in 


the normal course of performing their assigned functions—to prevent or detect and correct 


misstatements on a timely basis and merits attention by those charged with governance.)
 

Specifically, KPMG found that accounting for NOAA property needs improvement. NOAA 


made improvements in its satellite accounting during FY 2013 including the formation of a 


Satellite Accounting Review Board to identify and deliberate on complex accounting issues 


regarding satellites. Despite those improvements, KPMG identified control deficiencies related 


to accounting for property other than satellites, such as unclear policies, timeliness issues, and 


enforcement issues. In addition, KPMG identified areas for improvement related to the consistent 


application of accounting standards for accounting for satellites. Because of these matters, NOAA 


needs to continue making improvements to effectively account for its property, including satellites. 


IT access, configuration management, and segregation of duties controls also need improvement. 


While KPMG noted some progress towards remediating prior year control deficiencies during 


FY 2013, it identified control deficiencies relating to systems access, configuration management, 


and segregation of duties that require management’s attention. Despite the progress made by the 


Department, the Department needs to make improvements in its general IT controls to fully ensure 


that financial data processed on the Department’s systems has integrity, is securely maintained, 


and is available only to authorized users. 


KPMG also reported that potential Antideficiency Act compliance matters at NOAA, the Census 


Bureau, and the Department are under review. 


It identified no instances in which the Department’s financial management systems did not 


substantially comply with the requirements of the Federal Financial Management Improvement Act 


of 1996. 


KPMG also audited the Department’s closing package financial statements and determined 


its compliance with financial reporting requirements in the Treasury Financial Manual. These 


statements are used to assist in preparing the Financial Report of the U.S. Government. KPMG
 

issued an unmodified opinion and reported no material weakness in internal control and no 


instance of noncompliance.
 

AUDITS OF COMMERCE FUND RECIPIENTS BY NONFEDERAL INDEPENDENT 

AUDITORS (REVIEWED BY OIG DURING THE 6 MONTHS ENDING MARCH 31, 2014) 

In addition to undergoing OIG-performed audits, certain recipients of Department of Commerce 

financial assistance or cost-reimbursable contracts are periodically examined by state and 

local government auditors and by independent public accountants. OMB Circular A-133 

establishes requirements for most of these audits. For-profit organizations audited in accordance 

with Government Auditing Standards include those that receive NIST awards from both the 

Technology Innovation Program and the Measurement and Engineering Research and Standards 
 

 

 

 

Department-Wide Management 15 

program. Some for-profit organizations are audited in accordance with other specific audit 

guides. These include Advanced Technology Program awards that are audited in accordance with 

the NIST Program-Specific Audit Guidelines for Advanced Technology Program Cooperative 

Agreements, as well as BTOP awards that are audited in accordance with the NTIA ProgramSpecific Audit Guidelines for the Broadband Technology Opportunities Program. 

We examined 118 audit reports during this semiannual period to determine whether they 

contained audit findings related to departmental programs. For 84 of these reports, the 

Department acts as an oversight agency and monitors the audited entity’s compliance with OMB 

Circular A-133, Government Auditing Standards, or program-specific reporting requirements. The 

other 34 reports cover entities for which other federal agencies have oversight responsibility. We 

identified 18 reports with material findings related to the Department. 

Report Category OMB A-133 Audits Program-Specific Total 

Audits 

Pending Review (October 1, 2013) 47 9 56 

Received 78 29 107 

Examined 84 34 118 

Pending Review (March 31, 2014) 41 4 45 

The following table shows a breakdown by bureau of approximately $768 million in Department 

funds audited through the A-133 or program-specific guidelines. 

Agency Funds Audited 

Economic Development Administration 41,529,719 

Minority Business Development Administration 262,939 

National Institute of Standards and Technologya 42,629,740 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 27,537,350 

National Telecommunications and Information Administrationb 579,096,516 

Multibureau 76,533,637 

Total 767,589,901 

a Includes $10,598,818 in program-specific audits; A-133 audits account for the remaining amount of $32,030,922. 

b Includes $401,160,183 in program-specific audits; A-133 audits account for the remaining amount of $177,936,333. 

The audits identified a total of $2,598,627 in the federal share of questioned costs, $574,760 

in federal unsupported costs and $152,000 in funds to be put to better use. In most reports, 

the subject programs were not considered major programs; thus, the audits involved limited 

transaction and compliance testing against laws, regulations, and grant terms and conditions. The 

18 reports with material findings are listed in table 7-a on page 47. 

DEPARTMENT MAKES PROGRESS ADDRESSING HOTLINE ISSUES 

During the last reporting period, the Department continued to make progress dealing with issues 

raised by whistleblowers and the public via OIG’s hotline. OIG refers hotline complaints from 

employees and members of the public about ethics, compliance, or management issues to 

operating unit leadership to address and resolve. This program ensures that information about 
16 Office of Inspector General | Semiannual Report to Congress | March 2014

 

 

 

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0 

Total pending hotline complaint referrals 

Referrals older than 60 days without a 

response to OIG at end of reporting period 

Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 (FY12) (FY12) (FY13) (FY13) (FY13) (FY13) (FY14) (FY14)

potential risks is communicated promptly so that operating unit management can quickly address 

any problems. In some cases, OIG asks that operating units respond to us with a summary of 

their findings. 

Since the beginning of FY 2013, operating units have worked effectively to resolve hotlinereferred issues, reducing by more than half what had become a major backlog in early FY 2013. 

As of March 31, 2014, the Department had only 40 hotline complaints for which OIG was 

awaiting an initial findings report—compared with 98 pending only 1 year prior. In FY 2013, 

OIG received almost 1,300 contacts over our hotline, of which about 600 were whistleblower 

complaints related to the Department’s programs and operations. 

As a result of the Department and operating units prioritizing and addressing OIG hotline referrals 

several issues have been resolved, resulting in better management practices and administrative 

remedies. In fact, of the hotline referrals resolved in FY 2013, the Department’s leadership found 

about one in four contained matters that were substantiated in their management inquiries. 

Even in cases where inquiries did not find issues, the process of looking into issues often helps 

communicate to staff that compliance and ethics issues are taken seriously. 

Complaint Referrals to Bureaus Awaiting Initial Response 

120 

Source: OIG 

Although not all fall within this reporting period, examples of successfully resolved issues from 

OIG hotline referrals include the following: 

•	 In mid-2013, as the result of a whistleblower tip to OIG’s hotline, USPTO confirmed that an 

employee had been improperly claiming work time and overtime while on vacation in a foreign 

country. During the course of its inquiry, USPTO discovered that the employee had provided 

username and password information to a second USPTO employee, who logged into his 

account and submitted previously completed work while on leave. This gave management the 

impression that the employee was working while actually on vacation. Administrative action is 

pending against both. 

•	 In early FY 2013, OIG referred a whistleblower complaint to NTIA, which confirmed that a 

BTOP grantee had not paid employees appropriate wages as mandated by the Davis-Bacon 

Act. NTIA informed the grantee of the issue and appropriate action was taken to remunerate 

employees as required by the law. 
Department-Wide Management 17 

•	 In late 2011, OIG received a whistleblower’s hotline complaint alleging that a Census Bureau 

employee was publishing political opinions while on duty. Census looked into the issues and, 

with additional support from OIG, uncovered evidence demonstrating that the employee had 

used Twitter to publish political opinions while at work. In 2012, we referred our file to the 

Office of Special Counsel (OSC), which has the authority to look into Hatch Act violations. In 

February 2014, OSC issued a press release announcing that it had confirmed the allegations 

and was concluding its investigation. The employee resigned prior to OSC concluding its case. 

While the Office of the Secretary and most operating units have made progress handling OIG 

hotline complaints, NOAA still faces challenges in this area. Leadership needs to give more timely 

attention to resolving recommendations made at the conclusion of OIG investigations and its own 

management reviews. When OIG or management substantiates allegations, we frequently transmit 

to program management our concluding report, which may be accompanied by recommendations 

to take appropriate administrative, disciplinary, or other policy actions. Departmental policy 

requires operating units to respond to OIG within 60 days of receiving our report to inform 

us of any actions that have been taken or that are planned. Improved coordination among the 

Department’s Office of General Counsel, operating unit leadership, and human resources offices 

would help ensure that appropriate action is executed in a timely manner. 

FUNDS REMITTED TO THE GOVERNMENT IN FALSE CLAIMS CASE RELATED TO 

BULLETPROOF VESTS 

Early in the current reporting period OIG learned that, in June 2013, the trustee for Second 

Chance Body Armor, Inc. (SCBA) remitted $384,429 to the government as a result of a prior 

civil false claims settlement with the company. After filing for bankruptcy protections, SCBA’s 

assets were placed into receivership with a trustee organizing the distribution of debts to SCBA’s 

creditors. In July 2012, the court approved that $36.3 million be paid to the government to settle 

claims brought as part of an investigation into the body armor industry’s use of Zylon ballistic 

material in body armor. Prior to the latest money being transferred to the government, $3.6 million 

had been transmitted. OIG is including the latest disbursement in the statistical appendix with an 

asterisk, as the $36.3 million figure was reported in a prior period. 

The companies manufactured and sold Zylon bulletproof vests despite possessing information 

showing that the Zylon materials degraded quickly over time and were not suitable for ballistic 

use. The SCBA vests were purchased by the federal government and by various state, local, and 

tribal law enforcement agencies that were partially reimbursed by the United States under the 

U.S. Department of Justice’s (DOJ’s) Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program. This payout, 

along with others reported in previous Semiannual Reports to Congress, was the result of a 

joint investigation involving DOJ and investigative units from our office and eight other federal 

departments and agencies. Our office coordinated with NIST scientists for expert support at 

various phases of this investigation. 
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 

ADMINISTRATION

The U.S. Economic Development Administration’s mission is to 

lead the federal economic development agenda by promoting innovation 

and competitiveness, preparing American regions for growth and 

success in the worldwide economy. Its investment policy is designed 

to establish a foundation for sustainable job growth and the building 

of durable regional economies throughout the United States. This 

foundation builds on two key economic drivers: innovation and regional 

collaboration.
Economic Development Administration 19 

EDA CONTRACTOR DEBARRED AFTER VIOLATING THE BUY AMERICA ACT 

In January 2013, we transmitted to EDA the findings from our investigation into allegations that an 

entity supplying materials on a grant award violated the Buy America Act. Our investigation found 

evidence that the owner of the contracting company falsely certified that products were made in 

the United States, when they were actually made in China. By creating a fraudulent letter made to 

appear as though it was on letterhead from an American manufacturer, the contracting company 

owner created a false statement. 

The cognizant U.S. Attorney’s Office declined to prosecute the matter, and we advised the 

Department and EDA to work together to suspend and debar the contractor from engaging in 

future business with the government. In December 2013, the Department notified the contractor 

that he had been debarred from directly or indirectly benefiting from federal assistance programs 

for a period of 3 years. 
20 Office of Inspector General | Semiannual Report to Congress | March 2014

ECONOMICS AND STATISTICS 

ADMINISTRATION 

The Economics and Statistics Administration analyzes economic 

activity, formulates policy options, and produces a major share of the 

U.S. government’s economic and demographic statistics. ESA has one 

constituent operating unit and two primary operating units. 

Office of the Chief Economist—Provides the Department with 

expertise on key economic forces affecting the U.S. economy, 

delivering timely, relevant, and credible economic analysis and advice to 

government leaders and the public. 

Census Bureau—Publishes a wide variety of statistical data about the 

nation’s people and economy, conducting approximately 200 annual 

surveys in addition to the decennial census of the U.S. population and 

the quinquennial census of industry. 

Bureau of Economic Analysis—Prepares, develops, and interprets 

national income and product accounts (summarized by the gross 

domestic product), as well as aggregate measures of international, 

regional, and state economic activity. 
Economics and Statistics Administration 21 

2020 CENSUS PLANNING: RESEARCH DELAYS AND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT 

CHALLENGES THREATEN DESIGN INNOVATION (OIG-14-003-A) 

Our audit objectives for reviewing the 2020 Census research program were to (1) assess the 

implementation status of each individual project in the 2020 Census design effort, including the 

extent of implementation, time frames for completion, milestones, deliverables, and impact on the 

overall design program, (2) assess the bureau’s plans to evaluate each research project, including 

whether accurate and reliable data will be available to determine each project’s impact on design 

efforts, and (3) determine whether governance and internal controls are adequate to manage the 

design effort. 

We found that 

•	 The current Census schedule shows research delays and lacks budget integration. 

•	 Research quality assurance strategy is undeveloped. 

•	 Program management plans incorporate best practices, but implementation is inconsistent. 

We recommended that the director of the Census Bureau 

•	 Determine when 2020 Census design decisions must be 

made; adhere to an activity schedule that aligns with those 

decision points; and develop a critical path for the 2020 2020 Census 

Census R&T schedule. 


Though several years away, the 2020 Census is a 


•	 Determine whether efforts to resolve internal data-sharing massive undertaking that requires extensive planning and 

problems are progressing adequately. 	 testing. For 2020, the Census Bureau plans to design 

and conduct a high-quality decennial operation that will

•	 Incorporate earned value management and budgets at the cost less per household on an inflation-adjusted basis

project level to prioritize projects as well as assess and quantify than the 2010 Census.
 

2020 Census research program results. 


To achieve this goal, the bureau is focusing on three 

•	 Define and adhere to a final testing schedule. Determine how primary design features: (1) offering the Internet as a

iterative testing and the American Community Survey can be response option, (2) targeted address canvassing, and 

used for the operational testing phase. (3) using administrative records to follow up on cases of 

non-response. Implementing these changes could save •	 Require research and testing (R&T) teams to update the the government hundreds of millions of dollars.
 Knowledge Management Database with the status of current 


Census Program Evaluation and Experiments recommendations 


and develop a bureau-wide solution for knowledge 


management. 


•	 Create a more structured process for R&T review by drafting guidelines that specify 

responsibilities of the Scientific and Methodological review panels and the research teams. 

•	 Ensure research outputs are usable and on time to drive the trade-off analysis process and 

develop a vehicle for communicating key decisions and events. 

•	 Establish a formal process to review, approve, and monitor R&T project teams’ risk registers 

to ensure timely identification of risks and development of mitigation and contingency plans as 

appropriate. 
22 Office of Inspector General | Semiannual Report to Congress | March 2014

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS 

AND TECHNOLOGY 

The National Institute of Standards and Technology promotes 

U.S. innovation and industrial competitiveness by advancing 

measurement science, standards, and technology in ways that enhance 

economic security and improve our quality of life. NIST carries out its 

mission via three cooperative programs. 

NIST Laboratories—Conduct research that advances the nation’s 

technology infrastructure and is needed by U.S. industry to continually 

improve products and services. 

Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership—Works with 

small- and mid-sized U.S. manufacturers through a nationwide network 

of 350 field offices to help them create and retain jobs, expand into new 

markets and new products, increase profits, and save time and money. 

Baldrige Performance Excellence Program—Promotes 

performance excellence among U.S. manufacturers, service companies, 

educational institutions, health care providers, and nonprofit 

organizations through outreach programs and the annual Malcolm 

Baldrige National Quality Award. 
National Institute of Standards and Technology 23 

MANUFACTURING EXTENSION PARTNERSHIP INCURRED AVOIDABLE 

CONFERENCE COSTS (OIG-14-013-A) 

In response to a July 2012 request from U.S. Senator Susan 

Collins, OIG conducted an audit of NIST-Manufacturing Extension Manufacturing Extension 

Partnership (MEP) conference spending over FYs 2011 and Partnership Program 2012. Our audit’s objectives were to (a) develop a reasonable 

cost estimate for the 2012 NIST-MEP annual conference held in NIST’s MEP program is a network of technical experts 

Orlando and (b) determine the legitimacy and reasonableness of and business advisers who work with small and midsized 

travel costs for major NIST-MEP conferences in FYs 2011 and U.S. manufacturers, helping these businesses identify 

2012. growth opportunities. NIST-MEP funds approximately 

60 MEP Centers across the United States. 

Despite media allegations that $3–5 million in federal funds were 

spent at the May 2012 Manufacturing Innovation Event in Orlando, Since 2006, NIST MEP has hosted an annual 

we found that federal conference costs were estimated at $1.1 conference in Orlando to help MEP Centers learn about 

million. We calculated the NIST-MEP share of this amount to be the latest tools, services, best practices, and strategies 

almost $710,000. to advance the innovation and competitiveness of their 

clients. In addition, the annual conference is intended 

We concluded that to provide attendees the opportunity to connect directly 

with manufacturers. 

•	 The NIST-MEP event planner retained concessions and 

benefits for the May 2012 conference that could have been 

used to reduce the government’s conference cost. 

•	 The NIST-MEP event planner raised funds to pay for an evening reception by selling 

sponsorships in exchange for conference attendee lists and logo branding opportunities 

on conference materials; none of the sponsorship fees were used to reduce the cost of the 

conference to the federal government. 

•	 The NIST-MEP event planner retained and/or spent $236,341 in sponsorship fees, 

commissions, concessions, and excess registration fees instead of returning these funds and 

benefits to the government. 

•	 NIST-MEP management agreed to room rates for government attendees that exceeded 

allowable maximum conference lodging rates in order to standardize rates for government and 

nongovernment attendees. 

•	 NIST-MEP did not sufficiently process travel claims to guard against waste. 

We recommended that the Director, NIST-MEP, implement controls to ensure that 

•	 Contractors comply with Federal Travel Regulation (FTR) cost restrictions when choosing a 

conference location; NIST-MEP monitors contractor performance thoroughly; and NIST-MEP 

documents contractor compliance with the contract terms and conditions and applicable 

government regulations, including the FTR. 

•	 Funds collected from the sales of sponsorships are not used to pay for alcohol and live 

entertainment but rather to reduce the costs of the conference to the government. 

•	 NIST-MEP does not accept upgraded suites or any other valuable items related to government 

travel from government contractors. 
24 Office of Inspector General | Semiannual Report to Congress | March 2014

We further recommended that the Director, NIST-MEP 

•	 Make a determination on the recovery of $148,000 that IMC collected for sponsorship 

fees and $88,341 that the event planner retained for both registration fees and a 

concession refund. 

•	 Evaluate and determine whether administrative disciplinary action is appropriate if NIST 

management made decisions to subsidize private attendee room rates by increasing 

government attendees’ room rates in violation of the FTR maximum allowable rates. 

•	 Evaluate and determine whether administrative disciplinary action is appropriate for 

attendees who claimed and reviewing officials who approved expenses that were not incurred 

for the 2011 or 2012 or who misused government travel card privileges. The bureau should 

pursue reimbursement of overpayments and correctly reimburse underpaid attendees, 

wherever possible. 

26 Office of Inspector General | Semiannual Report to Congress | March 2014

NATIONAL OCEANIC AND 

ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION 

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration mission is to 

understand and predict changes in Earth’s environment, as well as conserve 

and manage coastal and marine resources to meet our nation’s economic, 

social, and environmental needs. NOAA does this through six line offices. 

National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service— 

Observes the environment by operating a national satellite system. 

National Marine Fisheries Service—Conducts a program of 

management, research, and services related to the protection and rational use 

of living marine resources. 

National Ocean Service—Provides products, services, and information 

to promote safe navigation, support coastal communities, sustain marine 

ecosystems, and mitigate coastal hazards. 

National Weather Service—Reports the weather of the United States and 

provides weather forecasts and warnings to the general public. 

Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research—Conducts research 

related to the oceans and Great Lakes, the lower and upper atmosphere, 

space environment, and the earth. 

Office of Program Planning and Integration—Develops and 

coordinates NOAA’s strategic plan, supports organization-wide planning 

activities, guides managers and employees on program and performance 

management, and integrates policy analysis with decision making. 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 27 

AUDIT OF NOAA’S GEOSTATIONARY OPERATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL SATELLITE-R 

SERIES CORE GROUND SYSTEM OBSERVATIONS (OIG-14-014-M) 

In June 2013 OIG began conducting an audit of NOAA’s Geostationary Operational 

Environmental Satellite-R (GOES-R) Series program. Our audit objective is to assess the 

adequacy of GOES-R development activities, as the program completes the ground system, 

the fabrication of flight instruments and the spacecraft, and transitions to system integration and 

test. We are also monitoring NOAA’s progress in developing and vetting with stakeholders a 

comprehensive set of trade-off approaches to mitigate launch delays, as well as its oversight of 

GOES-R systems engineering. 

In March 2014 we provided the then-Acting Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and 

Atmosphere with our initial observations concerning the core ground system that warranted 

immediate attention. These observations can be summarized as follows: 

•	 The first re-plan did not give high priority to the development of functions essential for launch. 

•	 The first re-plan was based on the contractor’s over-optimistic assumptions. 

•	 The GOES-R program office waited too long to intercede to correct schedule slips with the 

first re-plan. 

•	 Technical problems, multiple development plans, and inadequate contingency funding caused 

schedule slips. 

•	 The second re-plan focuses on essential functions, but time constraints could lead to delayed 

satellite operations. 

OIG Estimate of the Core Ground System Completion Date, Based on Progress Made 

in Implementing Core Ground System Re-Plan 

Original Plan 

15 months 

behind schedule

First Re­Plan 

• Cost: $89 million 

• Still 11 months 

behind schedule

Second Re­Plan 

• Potential cost overrun 

• Potential reduced 

ground system capability 

OIG Estimate a 

In October 2015, core 

ground system is

projected to be 5

months behind schedule

15 

months 

late 

11 

months 

late 

5 

months 

late 

Schedule Summit 

(June 2013) 

Contract award 

(May 2009) Original Plan 

First Re­Plan 

Second Re­Plan 

Re­plan proposal 

(submitted October 2011) 

Launch readiness date: 

October 2015 

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 

Source: OIG analysis of NOAA data 

a OIG’s estimate of months remaining to develop the core ground system on October 2015 assumes that (1) the contractor 

was able to start the second re-plan immediately when it was determined that development was 11 months behind schedule 

(i.e., at a June 2013 schedule summit meeting) and (2) development time can be regained at the same rate as was regained 

by the first re-plan (i.e., 4 months regained over 20 months duration). 
28 Office of Inspector General | Semiannual Report to Congress | March 2014

Based on previous performance, we believe that, without leadership’s attention, the core ground 

system may not meet minimum requirements for launch in October 2015. We estimated that 

the earliest the core ground system will be completed is March 2016, 5 months after the launch 

readiness date. 

OIG recommended that the Under Secretary establish periodic discussions with both 

Departmental and contractor leadership to ensure the core ground system will meet the October 

2015 launch readiness date. 

GOES-R STAFF REIMBURSE NOAA FOR TIME SPENT WATCHING STAR TREK 

In mid-2013, OIG received an anonymous whistleblower tip about a team-building exercise 

conducted by the GOES-R ground segment project staff that was improperly billed to the 

government. In our subsequent investigation, we found that 21 NOAA employees and consultants 

employed by private companies were invited to attend a group lunch at a local restaurant, followed 

by a daytime showing of Star Trek: Into Darkness. Twenty individuals working on the GOES-R 

ground project attended the lunch and 18 attended the movie; the vast majority of participants 

mischarged the government for participating in these activities. As a result of our investigation, 

those participants worked with NOAA to amend their time and attendance records to claim 

personal leave for time spent at the lunch and movie. 

As a result of our investigative activities, approximately $3,500 that was mischarged to the 

government was returned. OIG suggested that clear written guidance on proper timekeeping 

be communicated to agency and contractor staff in advance of any similar work group outings. 

Commendably, one consultant made a self-disclosure that more time was spent at the offsite 

event than determined by the program office. We are currently looking into whether the amount 

returned is adequate. 

FIVE INDICTED FOR CONSPIRACY AND FRAUD RELATED TO NOAA 

FISHERIES FUNDS 

In November 2013, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Mississippi announced 

indictments from federal and state grand juries against five individuals for conspiracy, bribery, 

federal program fraud, mail fraud, and money laundering. Four of the individuals charged were 

employees of the State of Mississippi’s Department of Marine Resources (MDMR), which received 

nearly $62 million in Emergency Disaster Relief Program (EDRP) grant funds through NOAA’s 

National Marine Fisheries Service, from 2006 to 2013. MDMR received eight different awards 

in part for oyster reef restoration, oyster and shrimp ground restoration, research, testing, and 

assistance to businesses and fishers. 

Our investigation, which was conducted in coordination with the Federal Bureau of Investigation 

and Mississippi’s Office of the State Auditor, found MDMR’s former executive director embezzled 

$210,000, most of which came from EDRP funds, to purchase land on behalf of a family member. 

The FBI’s investigation involved a larger-scale public corruption scandal that encompassed 

elected officials and several people who held senior positions within MDMR. According to the 

indictment, these individuals set up a private not-for-profit entity named “Mississippi Marine 

Resources Foundation,” where they proceeded to allegedly transfer funds intended for the State 

of Mississippi. In addition to the indictments, the State of Mississippi issued civil demands against 

10 individuals totaling more than $1 million. A trial date has been set for June 2014. Despite 

the severity of the charges, subjects of criminal indictments are presumed innocent until 

proven otherwise. 

30 Office of Inspector General | Semiannual Report to Congress | March 2014

UNITED STATES PATENT 

AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 

The United States Patent and Trademark Office administers the 

nation’s patent and trademark laws. Patents are granted and trademarks 

registered under a system intended to provide incentives to invent, 

invest in research, and commercialize new technology. USPTO also 

collects, assembles, publishes, and disseminates technological 

information disclosed in patents. 
United States Patent and Trademark Office 31 

FY 2013 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AUDIT (OIG-14-005-A, OIG-14-0008-A) 

Independent auditor KPMG LLP performed the audit in accordance with U.S. generally accepted 

government auditing standards and OMB Bulletin 14-02, Audit Requirements for Federal 

Financial Statements. In its audit of USPTO, KPMG determined that the financial statements 

were fairly presented in all material respects and in conformity with U.S. generally accepted 

accounting principles. 

KPMG identified no instances of internal control over financial reporting that were considered 

to be a material weakness, as defined in its report. (A material weakness is a deficiency, or a 

combination of deficiencies, in internal control such that there is a reasonable possibility that a 

material misstatement of the entity’s financial statements will not be prevented, or detected and 

corrected, on a timely basis.) 

In addition, KPMG identified no instances of reportable noncompliance with applicable laws, 

regulations, and contracts. 

KPMG also issued a report that summarized information technology deficiencies noted in access 

controls, configuration management and contingency planning, which collectively were not 

considered to be a material weakness or significant deficiency. 

PATENT EXAMINER SUSPENDED FOR 45 DAYS FOR ETHICS ISSUES 

In the September 2013 Semiannual Report to Congress, we noted that our investigation into 

ethics violations by a patent examiner found that the individual purchased stock from a public 

company for which he was simultaneously processing and examining patent applications. In 

October 2013, USPTO informed us that the examiner had been suspended for 45 days. As 

a result of our findings related to internal control weaknesses, USPTO previously agreed to 

implement annual ethics training for patent examiners at all grade levels. 
32 Office of Inspector General | Semiannual Report to Congress | March 2014

AMERICAN RECOVERY 

AND REINVESTMENT ACT 

The Recovery Act—signed into law by President Barack Obama on 

February 17, 2009—had three immediate goals: (1) create new jobs 

and save existing ones, (2) spur economic activity and invest in longterm growth, and (3) foster unprecedented levels of transparency and 

accountability. 

Five Department of Commerce bureaus—the Census Bureau, EDA, 

NIST, NOAA, and NTIA—and OIG received $7.9 billion under the 

Act, with $1.2 billion ultimately rescinded or transferred to other 

agencies. Financial and activity reporting for the Recovery Act ended 

as of December 31, 2013. As of December 31, 2013, the Department 

had obligated and disbursed almost all of the approximately $6 billion 

remaining. (The disbursal amount includes funding for the nowcompleted NTIA Digital Television Converter Box Coupon Program.) 
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 33 

OIG RECOVERY ACT OVERSIGHT, FEBRUARY 2009–MARCH 2014 

Funded by $16 million for proactive oversight of the Department’s Recovery Act programs and 

activities, OIG has been evaluating whether agencies are using Recovery Act funds efficiently and 

effectively and following up on complaints, including whistleblower reprisal allegations. 

Key Activities Cumulative Results 

Published audit and evaluation reports 23 

Other work products (correspondence to Congress and the 

Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board) 8 

Audits/evaluations in progress 3 

OIG recommendations for action, correction, or improvement 92 

Recommendations implemented to take corrective action by 

making improvements, reducing risk, or preventing waste 78 

Investigations completed 27 

Investigations in progress 4 

Whistleblower reprisal allegations received 16 

Whistleblower reprisal allegations accepted 15a 

Debarments and corporate compliance agreements implemented 1 

Testimonies 6 

Proactive training and outreach sessions held 129 

Individuals trained 6,624 

Hours of training provided 8,259 

a Adjusted for previous reporting error. 

CLOSEOUT PROCEDURES FOR THE BROADBAND 

TECHNOLOGY OPPORTUNITIES PROGRAM NEED 

STRENGTHENING (OIG-14-010-A) 

As part of our continued oversight of NTIA’s BTOP awards, 

we conducted an audit to evaluate (1) whether policies and 

procedures were adequate to effectively administer closeout 

activities and (2) whether closeout procedures were being 

followed. Closeout consists of the steps taken by the award 

recipient and the grants office to ensure that project activity is 

complete and the award recipient has met all the requirements 

under applicable laws, regulations, OMB circulars, and the award 

terms and conditions. 

At the time of our fieldwork (March–May 2013), only 5 of the 

current 224 total grants (a small number were terminated) had 

been closed out under the program. NTIA, along with the grants 

offices at NIST and NOAA, developed closeout procedures to 

ensure that laws, regulations, and award conditions are met. 

Grant procedures were documented in various handbooks, 

checklists, fact sheets, and other publications; all three agencies 

held webinars to help recipients understand the grant 

closeout process. 

Broadband Technology 

Opportunities Program 

The Recovery Act of 2009 provided $4.7 billion for 

NTIA to establish BTOP. The agency awarded more 

than 230 BTOP grants totaling $3.9 billion to deploy 

broadband Comprehensive Community Infrastructure 

(CCI), create and expand Public Computer Centers 

(PCC), and promote the Sustainable Broadband 

Adoption (SBA) services. 

NIST administers the PCC and SBA grants; NOAA 

administers the CCI grants. All BTOP grants were 

awarded before September 30, 2010, and each project 

was required to be completed within three years after 

the award date. In support of implementation of the 

awards, grant recipients have disbursed 78 percent of 

BTOP funds as of June 30, 2013. 

We found that NTIA, along with the grants offices at NIST and NOAA, encountered challenges 

in effectively closing out the first awards. Delays have occurred due to computer system issues 
34 Office of Inspector General | Semiannual Report to Congress | March 2014

that were not identified until those initial closeouts, time-consuming Uniform Commercial Code1 filings (to secure federal interest in property), audits of for-profit companies that must be 

completed before closeout, and extension requests. 

Although NTIA and the grants offices have established and continue to refine an initial closeout 

process, we identified specific weaknesses that should be addressed to ensure more effective 

closeout of BTOP awards: 

•	 Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) at NIST and closeout procedures at NOAA 

were incomplete. 

•	 SOPs and closeout procedures were not always followed and grant files were incomplete. 

•	 NTIA’s federal program officers had an inconsistent approach to grant closeouts. 

•	 A post-fieldwork issue was identified with a lack of a single audit for a BTOP recipient. 

We recommended that the Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information of 

NTIA direct 

•	 NIST and NOAA grants offices to update their closeout procedures to include all required 

documentation to be obtained and reviewed before closing the grant; require that all grant 

recipients who will not meet the 90-day reporting period request an extension before the 

award period ends; work with NTIA to develop procedures to address unused supplies with an 

aggregate value of greater than $5,000; and implement a procedure to ensure that adequate 

grants funds are available to cover the cost of required financial and compliance audit reports. 

•	 The NIST grants office to update its SOPs to include a process for recovering unspent 

advances and a record-retention requirement in the body of the SOP. 

•	 NOAA to update its closeout procedures to include the following requirements: Real Property 

Status Report (SF-429); Tangible Personal Property Report (SF-428); Financial Status Report 

(SF-269) and Outlay Report and Request for Reimbursement for Construction Programs 

(SF-271) for BTOP grants with a construction component; audit report requirements; Uniform 

Commercial Code-1 filing requirement, where applicable; and notification to recipients 30 days 

prior to award end. 

•	 NTIA to remind all federal program officers to follow the predefined process for guiding grant 

recipients through closeout—which could be accomplished through staff training, webinars, or 

a memorandum to staff reminding them of their responsibility to follow procedures. 

In responding to our September 23, 2013, draft memorandum, NTIA, NOAA, and NIST provided 

separate responses acknowledging our recommendations, and described the steps they have 

taken and are taking to address them. 

LETTER TO REPRESENTATIVES WALDEN, GARDNER, AND TIPTON RE: REVIEW OF 

NTIA’S BROADBAND TECHNOLOGY OPPORTUNITIES PROGRAM GRANT TO EAGLENET ALLIANCE OF COLORADO (OIG-14-011-M) 

In January 2014, the Inspector General responded to a May 2013 Congressional request to 

review NTIA’s BTOP grant award to EAGLE-Net Alliance (ENA). The $100.6 million award was 

one of the Recovery Act’s largest broadband grants and became a source of controversy that 

attracted national media coverage. 
35

NTIA has had to provide substantial oversight to this award as ENA experienced challenges in 

such areas as meeting award match requirements, project management, and financial controls. 

Ultimately, the award was suspended in December 2012 due to the grantee’s failure to comply 

with a special award condition related to environmental and historic compliance, an action 

that could have eventually resulted in termination of the award. NTIA subsequently lifted the 

suspension in April 2013 after the grantee had addressed this issue.

We established five objectives for our review. These objectives included determining: (1) 

whether ENA’s network design changed after the transfer of the grant from Centennial Board of 

Cooperative Educational Services (CBOCES) or during the grants administration; (2) how much 

of the project had been completed and what was planned with the remaining grant funds; (3) 

whether ENA had laid fiber-optic cable next to existing fiber; (4) the amount of monthly expense 

and revenue recorded by ENA; and (5) whether grant terms and conditions of the grant were 

being met. 

As part of our review, we found that

• ENA made unapproved changes to its network plan, moving from a primarily microwave 

network to a predominately fiber-optic network comprised of new and leased fiber and some 

components of microwave. ENA also reduced the number of community anchor institutions 

(CAIs), from 234 to 131, that it planned to reach with award funds.

• As of June 2013, ENA had drawn down approximately $90 million of the $100.6 million grant, 

yet significant work remains to be completed. As of that date, ENA had reached 102 CAIs, or 

44 percent of the CAIs in the original plan. ENA plans to reach 131 of 223 CAIs with grant 

funds. The remaining 92 will only be connected if additional, non-grant funding is obtained.

ENA faces additional challenges, including the project’s inability to fully achieve the award’s 

intended results and continued internal control issues related to financial recordkeeping and 

monitoring of grant disbursements. Ensuring sustainability is also a concern.

BTOP INVESTIGATION CLOSED BASED ON WITHDRAWAL BY COMPLAINANT

ARRA Section 1553(3)(C) requires that inspectors general report a “list of those investigations 

the inspector general decided not to conduct or continue.” In November 2013, OIG discontinued 

investigation into the circumstances involving the termination of an employee from a BTOP 

grantee, who reported that this was done as a result of an earlier refusal to circumvent rules to 

provide funds to pre-selected entities. During an interview with OIG investigators, the complainant 

requested to formally withdraw the complaint, which was followed up by a written request. Though 

the statute does not specify whether an inspector general should report the withdrawn complaint 

in this report, out of an abundance of caution, we have decided to include information on this 

case, which was closed during this reporting period.

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
36 Office of Inspector General | Semiannual Report to Congress | March 2014

WORK IN 

PROGRESS 

WORK IN PROGRESS (BY OVERSIGHT AREA) 

During this reporting period, 23 OIG audit and evaluation projects were initiated or underway. 

5 

4 4 

3 

2 2 

1 1 1 

Department­wide NOAA Recovery Act a USPTO ESA NIST b BIS EDA ITA 

a All Recovery Act-related works in progress concern NTIA. 

b Both ESA works in progress concern the Census Bureau. 

DEPARTMENT-WIDE 

Office of Secretary Working Capital Fund 

Evaluate controls over the Department’s Working Capital Fund, including a review of the 

Department’s budget process and financial management of the fund. 

FY 2014 Audit of the Department’s Financial Statements 

Determine whether the Department’s financial statements are presented fairly, in all material 

respects, in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. (The audit will also 

consider the Department’s internal control over financial reporting and compliance with certain 

provisions of applicable laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements that could have a 

direct and material effect on the financial statements). 

Audit of the Department’s Incident Detection and Response Capabilities 

Determine, as part of our FY 2013 FISMA audit, whether key security measures are in place to 

adequately monitor the Department’s computer networks, detect malicious activities, and handle 

cyber incidents. 
Work in Progress 37 

Review of the Department’s FY 2013 Compliance with Improper 

Payments Requirements 

Review the Department’s compliance with the requirements of IPIA (i.e., the Improper Payments 

Information Act of 2002, as amended by the Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Act 

of 2010 and the Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Improvement Act of 2012) and 

OMB Circular A-123, Appendix C, which requires federal inspectors general to review improper 

payment reporting annually. 

Audit of Commerce’s Cloud-Computing Environments 

Evaluate the Department’s efforts to adopt cloud-computing technologies and review executed 

contracts between the Department’s bureaus and cloud service providers for compliance with 

applicable standards. 

BUREAU OF INDUSTRY AND SECURITY 

BIS Export Control Reform Preparedness 

Audit BIS’ plans to implement changes to its licensing and enforcement operations resulting 

from the Export Control Reform Initiative, including (a) a review of the adequacy of BIS program 

plans and budget requests to address the increased workloads in FYs 2014–2016 and (b) an 

evaluation of existing BIS licensing, outreach, and enforcement activities to identify any areas for 

increased efficiencies. 

Audit of BIS’ IT Security 

Assess, as part of our FY 2014 FISMA audit, whether BIS’ continuous monitoring strategy and 

practices—including ongoing security control assessments of its critical information systems— 

provide adequate information for authorizing officials to make proper risk-based decisions. 

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION 

Audit of Revolving Loan Fund (RLF) Program 

Audit EDA’s controls and processes associated with management of its RLF program to determine 

how EDA responds to performance problems, such as low utilization rates, high default rates, or 

noncompliance with reporting requirements. Also, determine how EDA responds to communities 

that may no longer be considered distressed or underserved. 

ECONOMICS AND STATISTICS ADMINISTRATION 

Census Budget Reduction Implementation 

Review the Census Bureau’s process for implementing budget reductions to the 2020 Census 

Research Program in FYs 2013 and 2014. 

Audit of the Census Bureau’s IT Security 

Determine, as part of our FY 2014 FISMA audit, whether the Census Bureau’s continuous 

monitoring strategy and practices—including ongoing security control assessments of its critical 

information systems—provide adequate information for authorizing officials to make proper riskbased decisions. 
38 Office of Inspector General | Semiannual Report to Congress | March 2014

INTERNATIONAL TRADE ADMINISTRATION 

Audit of ITA Consolidation 

Evaluate and report on the progress, efficacy, and management of the October 2013 

consolidation of ITA’s four units into three, and specifically (1) assess the status of ITA 

consolidation, (2) evaluate whether resource changes as a result of the consolidation are aligned 

with ITA’s strategic priorities and are sufficient for providing services to ITA’s customers and 

stakeholders, and (3) identify management and leadership challenges that might hinder the 

consolidation effort. 

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY 

Audit of NIST’s Oversight of Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) Contracts 

Determine whether (1) NIST has managed and administered FFP contracts in accordance with 

federal and Departmental guidelines, policies, and procedures, and (2) officials with performance 

monitoring responsibilities possess the requisite training, technical expertise, and certification. 

NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION 

Audit of NOAA’s IT Security Program 

Assess, as part of our FY 2013 FISMA audit, the effectiveness of NOAA’s information security 

program by determining whether key security measures adequately protect NOAA’s systems. 

Review of NOAA’s Catch Share Program 

Review fisheries management at NOAA and eight regional fishery management councils regarding 

NOAA’s catch share programs (i.e., allocation of the total allowable fishery catch or a specific 

fishing area to individuals, cooperatives, communities, or other entities) to determine the adequacy 

of related NOAA controls and processes. 

Joint Polar Satellite System (JPSS) Implementation Risks 

Review the adequacy of JPSS development activities, including the flight, ground, and “free-flyer” 

projects, as the program completes system definition and transitions to implementation per NOAA 

and NASA standards. Monitor NOAA’s overall progress in establishing the program’s capabilities 

(requirements), schedule, and cost baselines by the end of summer 2013 and its efforts in 

mitigating the projected data gap between Suomi National Polar-orbiting Partnership satellite’s 

end-of-design life and the planned operational availability of the first JPSS satellite (JPSS-1). 

Audit of Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite-R Series 

(GOES-R) Program 

Assess the adequacy of GOES-R development activities in accordance with NOAA and 

NASA standards. Monitor NOAA’s progress in developing and vetting with stakeholders a 

comprehensive set of trade-off approaches to mitigate launch delays and its oversight of GOES-R 

systems engineering. 

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 

Audit of USPTO’s Use of Time-Materials and Labor-Hour Contracts 

Evaluate USPTO’s awarding and administering of time-and-materials and labor-hour contracts, 

which constitute high risk to the government. This is part of a risk-based oversight strategy 

developed to help the Department address management challenges in its acquisition function 

and comply with OMB’s directive that federal agencies reduce their use of high-risk contracting 

authorities. 
Work in Progress 39 

Audit of USPTO IT Modernization Projects 

Assess the impact of IT contract termination decisions made as a result of the $110 million 

reduction in USPTO’s IT budget, review progress USPTO has made in implementing the 

recommendations from the FY 2011 Patent End-to-End audit, and assess the project 

management and technical progress USPTO has made in development and implementation of the 

Trademark Next Generation project. 

Audit of USPTO’s Delays in Processing Request for Continued Examination (RCE) 

Patent Applications 

Assess why there has been an increase in average RCE pendency and the RCE backlog, and 

assess USPTO’s efforts to monitor and address them. The audit will also review specific USPTO 

programs intended to resolve issues during the initial processing of patent applications. 

AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT 

Broadband Technology Opportunities Program Equipment Review 

Determine whether NTIA has the personnel and processes in place to monitor BTOP grantees’ 

equipment acquisitions; assess whether grantees have appropriately acquired, tested, and 

implemented the most effective equipment; and evaluate whether grantees are on track to 

complete BTOP projects on schedule and achieve project goals. 

Audit of Broadband Technology Opportunities Program Public Computer 

Centers (PCCs) 

Review NTIA’s procedures to ensure that (1) PCC recipients used appropriate procurement 

practices; (2) recipient equipment purchases are installed, functioning effectively, and utilized to 

achieve intended program outputs; (3) controls are in place to ensure effective accountability for 

the purchased equipment; and (4) claimed results are verifiable. 

Audit of Broadband Technology Opportunities Program Inventory Excess 

Review BTOP grantees’ inventory of excess equipment to (1) determine whether grantees 

purchased equipment outside of the needs of the program, (2) assess procedures taken by 

NTIA to identify recipients maintaining excess inventory, and (3) evaluate NTIA’s procedures for 

disposition of excess BTOP award inventory. 

Audit of FirstNet Procurement Issues 

Review certain ethics and procurement issues concerning the operations of FirstNet, assessing 

whether (a) contracts were appropriately awarded and administered in accordance with relevant 

acquisition regulations, (b) the acquired services were delivered to meet contract requirements, 

and (c) the processes undertaken by FirstNet pertaining to ethics-related matters of the board 

were adequate. 
40 Office of Inspector General | Semiannual Report to Congress | March 2014

STATISTICAL DATA 

The Inspector General Act Amendments of 1988 require us to present the statistical data 

contained in tables 1–8. 

TABLES 	 Page 

1. Office of Investigations Statistical Highlights for This Period 	 40
 

2. Audit Resolution and Follow-up 	 41
 

3. Audit, Evaluation, and Inspection Statistical Highlights for This Period 	 42
 

4. Audits with Questioned Costs 	 43
 

5. Audits with Recommendations That Funds Be Put to Better Use 	 44
 

6. Report Types for This Period 	 44
 

6-a. Performance Audits 45
 

6-b. Financial Statement Audits 45
 

6-c. Evaluations and Inspections 46
 

7. Single Audit and Program-Specific Audits 	 47
 

7-a. Processed Reports with Material Audit Findings 48
 

8. Audits Unresolved for More Than 6 Months 	 49
 

TABLE 1. OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS STATISTICAL HIGHLIGHTS FOR THIS PERIOD 

Investigative activities cover investigations opened and closed by OIG; arrests by OIG 

agents; indictments and other criminal charges filed against individuals or entities as a result of 

OIG investigations; convictions secured at trial or by guilty plea as a result of OIG investigations; 

and fines, restitution, and all other forms of financial recoveries achieved by OIG as a result of 

investigative action. 

Allegations processed presents the number of complaints from employees, stakeholders, and 

the general public that were handled by our Complaint Intake Unit. Of these, some resulted in 

the opening of investigations; others were referred to bureaus for internal administrative followup. Others were unrelated to departmental activities or did not provide sufficient information for 

any investigative follow-up and so were not accepted for investigation or referral. Fines and other 

financial recoveries refer only to agreements that a judge accepted. 
Statistical Data 41 

Allegations Received 

Total hotline contacts 482 

Of which, are complaints related to Commerce programs 257 

Number of hotline referrals to Commerce management 142 

Investigative Caseload 

Investigations opened this period 33 

Investigations closed this period 28 

Investigations in progress as of March 31, 2014 109 

Prosecutive Actions and Monetary Results 

Indictments/Informations 3a 

Arrests 0 

Convictions 1 

Fines and other financial recoveries $384,429b 

Administrative Actions 

Suspension/Debarment 1 

Disciplinary action 1 

a Two indictments are detailed in this report, and one remains under seal.
 

b This amount reflects a disbursement in a larger settlement that was claimed in a previous reporting period.
 

TABLE 2. AUDIT RESOLUTION AND FOLLOW-UP 

The Inspector General Act Amendments of 1988 require us to present in this report audits 

issued before the beginning of the reporting period (October 1, 2013) for which no management 

decision had been made by the end of the period (March 31, 2014). One audit report remains 

unresolved for this reporting period (see page 49). 

Audit resolution is the process by which the Department of Commerce reaches an effective 

management decision in response to audit reports. Management decision refers to 

management’s evaluation of the findings and recommendations included in the audit report and 

the issuance of a final decision by management concerning its response. 

Department Administrative Order 213-5, Audit Resolution and Follow-up, provides procedures 

for management to request a modification to an approved audit action plan or for a financial 

assistance recipient to appeal an audit resolution determination. The following table summarizes 

modification and appeal activity during the reporting period. 
42 Office of Inspector General | Semiannual Report to Congress | March 2014

 

 

Report Category Modifications Appeals 

Actions pending (October 1, 2013) 0 3 

Submissions 0 5 

Decisions 0 3 

Actions pending (March 31, 2014) 0 5 

TABLE 3. AUDIT, EVALUATION, AND INSPECTION STATISTICAL HIGHLIGHTS 

FOR THIS PERIOD 

Audits comply with standards established by the Comptroller General of the United States for 

audits of federal establishments, organizations, programs, activities, and functions. 

Evaluations and inspections include evaluations, inquiries, and similar types of reviews that do 

not constitute an audit or a criminal investigation. 

Questioned costsa $172,334,968 

Value of audit recommendations that funds be put to better useb $1,452,000 

Value of audit recommendations agreed to by managementc $175,802,360 

These amounts include costs questioned by state and local government auditors or independent 

public accountants. 

a Questioned cost: This is a cost questioned by OIG because of (1) an alleged violation of 

a provision of a law, regulation, contract, grant, cooperative agreement, or other agreement or 

document governing the expenditure of funds; (2) a finding that, at the time of the audit, such cost 

is not supported by adequate documentation; or (3) a finding that an expenditure of funds for the 

intended purpose is unnecessary or unreasonable. 

b Value of audit recommendations that funds be put to better use: This results from an 

OIG recommendation that funds could be used more efficiently if Department management 

took action to implement and complete the recommendation. Such actions may include 

(1) reductions in outlays; (2) deobligation of funds from programs or operations; (3) withdrawal of 

interest subsidy costs on loans or loan guarantees, insurance, or bonds; (4) costs not incurred by 

implementing recommended improvements related to the Department, a contractor, or a grantee; 

(5) avoidance of unnecessary expenditures identified in preaward reviews of contracts or grant 

agreements; or (6) any other savings specifically identified. 

c Value of audit recommendations agreed to by management: This is the sum of 

(1) disallowed costs and (2) funds put to better use that are agreed to by management during 

resolution. Disallowed costs are the amount of costs that were questioned by the auditors or the 

agency action official and subsequently determined—during audit resolution or negotiations by a 

contracting officer—not to be charged to the government. 
 

 

 

Statistical Data 43 

TABLE 4. AUDITS WITH QUESTIONED COSTS 

See table 3 for a definition of “questioned cost.” An unsupported cost is a cost that is not 

supported by adequate documentation at the time of the audit. Questioned costs include 

unsupported costs. 

Report Category Number Questioned Unsupported 

Costs Costs 

A.	 Reports for which no management decision 

had been made by the beginning of the 9 $3,713,694 $2,813,299 

reporting perioda 

B. 	 Reports issued during the reporting period 11 172,334,968 574,760 

Total reports (A+B) requiring a management 

decision during the periodb 20 176,048,662 3,388,059 

C. 	 Reports for which a management decision 

was made during the reporting periodc 11 173,338,354 2,762,594 

i. Value of disallowed costs	 172,815,671 2,762,594 

ii. Value of costs not disallowed	 522,683 0 

D. 	 Reports for which no management decision 

had been made by the end of the 

reporting period 9 2,710,308 625,465 

a One audit report included in this table is also included among reports with recommendations that funds be put to better 

use (see table 5). However, the dollar amounts do not overlap. 

b In category C, lines i and ii do not always equal the total line in C because resolution may result in values greater than the 

original recommendations. 
44 Office of Inspector General | Semiannual Report to Congress | March 2014

 

 

 

 

TABLE 5. AUDITS WITH RECOMMENDATIONS THAT FUNDS BE PUT TO BETTER USE 

See table 3 for a definition of “recommendation that funds be put to better use.” 

Report Category 	 Number Value 

A. 	 Reports for which no management decision had been made by 

the beginning of the reporting period 1 $1,686,689 

B. 	 Reports issued during the reporting period 2 1,452,000 

Total reports (A+B) requiring a management decision during the periodb 3 3,138,689 

C. 	 Reports for which a management decision was made 

during the reporting periodc 

i. Value of recommendations agreed to by management 2 2,986,689 

ii. Value of recommendations not agreed to by management 0 

D. 	 Reports for which no management decision had been made by 

the end of the reporting period 1 152,000 

a One audit report included in this table is also included among reports with questioned costs (see table 4). However, the 

dollar amounts do not overlap. 

b	 In category C, lines i and ii do not always equal the total line in C because resolution may result in values greater than the 

original recommendations. 

TABLE 6. REPORT TYPES FOR THIS PERIOD 

Performance audits are engagements that provide assurance or conclusions based on an 

evaluation of sufficient, appropriate evidence against stated criteria, such as specific requirements, 

measures, or defined business practices. Performance audits provide objective analysis so that 

management, and those charged with governance and oversight can use the information to 

improve program performance and operations, reduce costs, facilitate decision making by parties 

with responsibility to oversee or initiate corrective action, and contribute to public accountability. 

Financial statement audits provide reasonable assurance through an opinion (or disclaimer 

of an opinion) about whether an entity’s financial statements are presented fairly in all material 

respects in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles, or with a comprehensive 

basis of accounting other than these principles. 

Evaluations and inspections include evaluations, inquiries, and similar types of reviews that 

do not constitute an audit or a criminal investigation. An inspection is defined as a process that 

evaluates, reviews, studies, or analyzes the programs and activities of a department or agency to 

provide information to managers for decision making; make recommendations for improvements to 

programs, policies, or procedures; and identify where administrative action may be necessary. 

Type Number of Reports Table Number 

Performance audits 4 Table 6-a 

Financial statement audits 5 Table 6-b 

Evaluations and inspections 4 Table 6-c 

Total 13 

0 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Statistical Data 45 

TABLE 6-A. PERFORMANCE AUDITS 

Report Title Report 

Number 

Date 

Issued 

Funds to Be 

Put to 

Better Use 

Amount 

Questioned 

Amount 

Unsupported 

Economics and Statistics Administration 

2020 Census Planning: Research 

Delays and Program Management 

Challenges Threaten Design Innovation 

OIG-14-003-A 12.03.2013 0 0 0 

National Institute of Standards and Technology 

Manufacturing Extension Partnership 

Incurred Avoidable Conference Costs 

OIG-14-013-A 2.21.2014 0 236,341 0 

National Telecommunications and Information Administration 

Closeout Procedures for the 

Broadband Technology Opportunities 

Program Need Strengthening 

OIG-14-010-A 12.20.2013 0 0 0 

Office of the Secretary 

The Department’s Awarding and 

Administering of Time-and-Materials 

and Labor-Hours Contracts 

Needs Improvement 

OIG-14-001-A 11.08.2013 1,300,000 169,500,000 0 

TABLE 6-B. FINANCIAL STATEMENT AUDITS 

Report Title Report 

Number 

Date 

Issued 

Funds to Be 

Put to 

Better Use 

Amount 

Questioned 

Amount 

Unsupported 

Office of the Secretary 

FY 2013 Financial Statements 

Audit: Assessment of Information 

Technology Controls Supporting 

Financial Management Systems 

OIG-14-006-A 12.13.2013 0 0 0 

FY 2013 Consolidated Financial 

Statements Audit 

OIG-14-007-A 12.16.2013 0 0 0 

FY 2013 Closing Package 

Financial Statements 

OIG-14-009-A 12.17.2013 0 0 0 

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office 

FY 2013 Financial Statements OIG-14-005-A 12.16.2013 0 0 0 

FY 2013 Financial Statements 

Audit: Assessment of Information 

Technology Controls Supporting 

Financial Management Systems 

OIG-14-008-A 12.16.2013 0 0 0 
46 Office of Inspector General | Semiannual Report to Congress | March 2014

TABLE 6-C. EVALUATIONS AND INSPECTIONS 

Report Title Report 

Number 

Date 

Issued 

Funds to Be 

Put to 

Better Use 

Amount 

Questioned 

Amount 

Unsupported 

Office of the Secretary 

Top Management Challenges 

Facing the Department of 

Commerce 

OIG-14-002 11.25.2013 0 0 0 

Letter to Bicameral Task Force on OIG-14-004-M 12.06.2013 0 0 0 

Climate Change re: Review of 

Commerce Department’s Climate 

Change-Related Policies, 

Environmental Programs, 

and Activities 

National Telecommunications and Information Administration 

Letter to Representatives Walden, OIG-14-011-M 01.23.2014 0 0 0 

Gardner, and Tipton re: Review of 

NTIA’s Broadband Technology 

Opportunities Program Grant to 

Eagle-Net Alliance of Colorado 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

Interim Memorandum to Acting OIG-14-014-M 03.06.2014 0 0 0 

Secretary Sullivan re: Audit of 

NOAA’s Geostationary Operational 

Environmental Satellite-R Series 

Core Ground System Observations 
Statistical Data 47 

TABLE 7. SINGLE AUDIT AND PROGRAM-SPECIFIC AUDITS 

OIG reviewed and accepted 118 audit reports prepared by independent public accountants 

and local, state, and other federal auditors. The reports processed with questioned costs, 

recommendations that funds be put to better use, and/or nonfinancial recommendations are listed 

in table 7-a. 

Agency Audits 

Economic Development Administration 28 

Minority Business Development Administration 1 

National Institute of Standards and Technologya 21 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 14 

National Telecommunications and Information Administrationb 38 

Multibureau 12 

No Departmental expenditures 4 

Total 118 

a Includes 9 program-specific audits. 

b Includes 25 program-specific audits. 
48 Office of Inspector General | Semiannual Report to Congress | March 2014

TABLE 7-A. PROCESSED REPORTS WITH MATERIAL AUDIT FINDINGS

Report Title Report 

Number 

Date 

Issued 

Funds to 

Be Put to 

Better Use

Amount 

Questioned 

Amount

Unsupported

Economic Development Administration

East Alabama Regional ATL-09999-14-4868 

Development Commission

Scioto County ATL-09999-14-4943 

South Jersey Economic OIG-14-04730 

Development District, Inc. 

(FY ending 03.31.12)

South Jersey Economic OIG-14-04589 

Development District, Inc. 

(FY ending 03.31.11)

11.14.2013 

03.07.2014 

03.28.2014 

03.28.2014 

0 

152,000 

0 

0 

141,065 

6,337 

355,556 

0 

0 

0

0 

0 

National Institute of Standards and Technology

L-3 Communications DBA OIG-14-04725 

Warrior System Division

Massachusetts MEP OIG-14-03560 

(FY ending 06.30.08)

Massachusetts MEP OIG-14-03886 

(FY ending 06.30.09)

Massachusetts MEP OIG-14-04164 

(FY ending 06.30.10)

Massachusetts MEP OIG-14-04480 

(FY ending 06.30.11)

Massachusetts MEP OIG-14-04785 

(FY ending 06.30.12)

Florida MEP OIG-14-03735 

(FY ending 04.30.08)

Florida MEP OIG-14-03754 

(FY ending 04.30.09)

Florida MEP OIG-14-04033 

(FY ending 04.30.10)

Florida MEP OIG-14-04399 

(FY ending 04.30.11)

Florida MEP OIG-14-04872 

(FY ending 04.30.12)

HyperTech Research, Inc. OIG-14-04893 

03.28.2014 

03.28.2014 

03.28.2014 

03.28.2014 

03.28.2014 

03.28.2014 

03.31.2014 

03.31.2014 

03.31.2014 

03.31.2014 

03.31.2014 

03.31.2014 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

21,285 

0 

0 

0 

0 

35,143 

0 

0 

0 

0 

574,760 

224,931 

0 

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

574,760

0

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Silver Star Telephone ATL-09999-14-4929 

Company, Inc.

Institute for Marine OIG-14-04932 

Mammal Studies

11.27.2013 

03.28.2014 

0 

0 

34,300 

1,205,250 

0 

0 
 

 

Statistical Data 49 

TABLE 8. AUDITS UNRESOLVED FOR MORE THAN 6 MONTHS 

National Oceanic and Republic of the Marshall Islands 

Atmospheric Administration 

OIG is waiting for a decision by the NOAA contracting officer. 

Office of the Secretary	 Classified Information Policies and Practices at the 

Department of Commerce Need Improvement 

OIG is waiting for the Department’s action plan. 
50 Office of Inspector General | Semiannual Report to Congress | March 2014

 

REPORTING 

REQUIREMENTS 

The Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, specifies reporting requirements for semiannual 

reports. The requirements are listed below and indexed to the applicable pages of this report. 

Section Topic Page 

4(a)(2) Review of Legislation and Regulations 50 

5(a)(1) Significant Problems, Abuses, and Deficiencies 10-35 

5(a)(2) Significant Recommendations for Corrective Action 10-35 

5(a)(3) Prior Significant Recommendations Unimplemented 50 

5(a)(4) Matters Referred to Prosecutorial Authorities 33 

5(a)(5) and 6(b)(2) Information or Assistance Refused 51 

5(a)(6) Listing of Audit Reports 47-48 

5(a)(7) Summary of Significant Reports 10-35 

5(a)(8) Audit Reports—Questioned Costs 43 

5(a)(9) Audit Reports—Funds to Be Put to Better Use 44 

5(a)(10) Prior Audit Reports Unresolved 51 

5(a)(11) Significant Revised Management Decisions 51 

5(a)(12) Significant Management Decisions with Which OIG Disagreed 51 

5(a)(14) Results of Peer Review 51 

SECTION 4(A)(2): REVIEW OF LEGISLATION AND REGULATIONS 

This section requires the inspector general of each agency to review existing and proposed 

legislation and regulations relating to that agency’s programs and operations. Based on this 

review, the inspector general is required to make recommendations in the semiannual report 

concerning the impact of such legislation or regulations on (1) the economy and efficiency 

of the management of programs and operations administered or financed by the agency or 

(2) the prevention and detection of fraud and abuse in those programs and operations. 

Comments concerning legislative and regulatory initiatives affecting departmental programs 

are discussed, as appropriate, in relevant sections of the report. 

SECTION 5(A)(3): PRIOR SIGNIFICANT RECOMMENDATIONS UNIMPLEMENTED 

This section requires identification of each significant recommendation described in previous 

semiannual reports for which corrective action has not been completed. Section 5(b) requires 

that the Secretary transmit to Congress statistical tables showing the number and value of audit 

reports for which no final action has been taken, plus an explanation of why recommended action 

has not occurred, except when the management decision was made within the preceding year. 

However, information on the status of any audit recommendations can be obtained through OIG 

upon request. 
Reporting Requirements 51 

SECTIONS 5(A)(5) AND 6(B)(2): INFORMATION OR ASSISTANCE REFUSED 

These sections require a summary of each report to the Secretary when access, information, 

or assistance has been unreasonably refused or not provided. There were no reports to the 

Secretary during this semiannual period. 

SECTION 5(A)(10): PRIOR AUDIT REPORTS UNRESOLVED 

This section requires (1) a summary of each audit report issued before the beginning of the 

reporting period for which no management decision has been made by the end of the reporting 

period (including the date and title of each such report); (2) an explanation of why a decision has 

not been made; and (3) a statement concerning the desired timetable for delivering a decision on 

each such report. There is one NOAA report more than 6 months old for which no management 

decision has been made. There is one Office of the Secretary report more than 6 months old for 

which OIG is awaiting the action plan. (See table 8.) 

SECTION 5(A)(11): SIGNIFICANT REVISED MANAGEMENT DECISIONS 

This section requires an explanation of the reasons for any significant revision to a management 

decision made during the reporting period. Department Administrative Order 213-5, Audit Resolution 

and Follow-up, provides procedures for revising a management decision. For financial assistance 

audits, OIG generally must concur with any decision that would change the audit resolution proposal in 

response to an appeal by the recipient. There are three appeals pending at the end of this period. 

SECTION 5(A)(12): SIGNIFICANT MANAGEMENT DECISIONS WITH WHICH 

OIG DISAGREED 

This section requires information concerning any significant management decision with which 

the inspector general disagrees. Department Administrative Order 213-5 provides procedures 

for elevating unresolved audit recommendations to higher levels of Department and OIG 

management, including their consideration by an audit resolution council. During this period, no 

audit issues were referred. 

SECTION 5(A)(14): RESULTS OF PEER REVIEW 

The most recent peer review of the Office of Audit and Evaluation was conducted in 2012 by the Office 

of Personnel Management (OPM) Office of Inspector General. OPM OIG’s System Review Report of our 

audit operations is available on our website. We received a pass rating, the highest available rating. We 

are implementing all of OPM OIG’s recommendations for process and policy improvements. 

The most recent peer review of the Office of Investigations was conducted in 2011 by OPM’s OIG. 

We received a compliant rating. The final report of this peer review was issued on April 30, 2012. 

In 2012, we conducted our latest peer review, which examined NASA OIG’s audit operations. 

NASA OIG has informed us that it is implementing the recommendation we made in our review. 
52 Office of Inspector General | Semiannual Report to Congress | March 2014

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
 

AIA America Invents Act 

BIS Bureau of Industry and 

Security 

BTOP Broadband Technology 

Opportunities Program 

CBOCES Centennial Board of 

Cooperative Educational 

Services 

CCI Comprehensive Community 

Infrastructure 

CIRT Computer Incident Response 

Team 

CAM Commerce Acquisition Manual 

DOC CIRT Department of Commerce 

Computer Incident 

Response Team 

DOJ Department of Justice 

EDA Economic Development 

Administration 

EDRP Emergency Disaster Relief 

Program 

ENA EAGLE-Net Alliance 

ESA Economics and Statistics 

Administration 

FAR Federal Acquisition Regulation 

FFP firm fixed price 

FirstNet First Responder Network 

Authority 

FISMA Federal Information Security 

Management Act of 2002 

FTR Federal Travel Regulation 

FY fiscal year 

GOES Geostationary Operational 

Environmental Satellite 

GOES-R Geostationary Operational 

Environmental Satellite-R 

Series 

HCHB Herbert C. Hoover Building 

IPERA Improper Payments 

Elimination and Recovery 

Act of 2010 

IT information technology 

ITA International Trade 

Administration 

JPSS Joint Polar Satellite System 

LH labor hour 

MDMR State of Mississippi’s 

Department of Marine 

Resources 

MHz Megahertz 

MEP Manufacturing Extension 

Partnership 

NPSBN Nationwide Public Safety 

Broadband Network 

NEI National Export Initiative 

NIST National Institute of Standards 

and Technology 

NOAA National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration 

NTIA National Telecommunications 

and Information Administration 

NWS National Weather Service 
 

 

 

Acronyms and Abbreviations 53 

OIG Office of Inspector General RLF Revolving Loan Fund 

OMB Office of Management 

and Budget 

SBA Sustainable Broadband 

Adoption 

OPM Office of Personnel 

Management 

SCBA Second Change Body 

Armor, Inc. 

OSC Office of Special Counsel SOP standard operating procedure 

OSEEP Office of Sustainable Energy 

and Environmental Programs 

Suomi NPP Suomi National Polar-orbiting 

Partnership 

PCC Public Computer Centers T&M time-and-materials 

RCE 

R&T 

request for continued 

examination 

research and testing 

TIC 

USPTO 

Trusted Internet Connections 

U.S. Patent and 

Trademark Office 

>> Call: 800.1'21'.5197 

>> Email: holline@oig.doc.gov 

>> Or visit our website al www.oig.doc.gov 
U.S. Department of Commerce 

Office of Inspector General 

1401 Constitution Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20230 

www.oig.doc.gov 

OUR MISSION 

To improve the programs and operations of the 

Department of Commerce through independent 

and objective oversight.