Department of Veterans Affairs 

Office of Inspector General 

Review of Allegations of Contracting 

Irregularities, VA Medical Center, 

Tuscaloosa, Alabama 

Report No. 08-02110-02 October 6, 2008

VA Office of Inspector General 

Washington, DC 20420 
To Report Suspected Wrongdoing in VA Programs and Operations 

Call the OIG Hotline – (800) 488-8244 
Review of Allegations of Contracting Irregularities, VAMC, Tuscaloosa, Alabama

Contents 

Executive Summary .................................................................................................i

Introduction 

 Purpose ................................................................................................................1 

 Background..........................................................................................................1 

 Scope and Methodology......................................................................................4 

Results and Conclusions 

Issue 1: Whether the Tuscaloosa VA Medical Center improperly used 38 

U.S.C. § 8153 authority to hire administrative staff for the Human 

Resources Management Services department..............................................5 

Issue 2: Whether the contracting entity followed Federal Acquisition 

Regulation requirements to procure the services of two 

administrative contract employees for the Human Resources 

Management Services department. ..........................................................6 

Recommendations ...................................................................................................8 

Appendices 

A. Management Comments......................................................................................9 

B. OIG Contact and Staff Acknowledgements ......................................................11 

C. Report Distribution............................................................................................12 

VA Office of Inspector General 
Review of Allegations of Contracting Irregularities, VAMC, Tuscaloosa, Alabama

Executive Summary 

Introduction

On May 20, 2008, an anonymous complaint was received at the VA Office of 

Inspector General’s Hotline alleging that 38 U.S.C. § 8153 (implemented by VA 

Directive 1663) was being improperly used to hire two contracted administrative 

employees in the Human Resources Management Services (HRMS) department at 

the Tuscaloosa VA Medical Center (VAMC). Section 8153 gives VA certain 

authority to contract for healthcare resources. A review was conducted to 

determine whether the resources were procured; whether the VAMC used § 8153 

authority; and, whether proper procedures were followed. 

Results 

Our review did not substantiate the allegation that the VAMC improperly used 

§ 8153 authority to purchase services for HRMS because § 8153 authority was not 

used in the procurement. The VAMC issued two purchase orders against a 

General Services Administration Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) contract to 

purchase the services of two individuals to provide services to the HRMS. We 

found that the VAMC did not comply with the requirements of Federal 

Acquisition Regulations (FAR) Part 8.405, that establish the procedures to be 

followed when purchasing services at hourly rates from FSS contracts. 

We found that on two occasions the HRMS improperly selected the contractor and 

negotiated the terms and conditions of the procurement, which included 

improperly referring to the contractor two retired VA employees to perform the 

work. Instead of having a contracting officer or purchasing agent provide a 

Request for Quotation (RFQ) with a statement of work to the FSS contractor, as 

required by FAR, and having the contractor identify individuals to provide the 

services, the HRMS identified two retired VA employees to provide the services 

and arranged for them to be hired by an FSS contractor solely for the purpose of 

providing services to the VAMC. 

The HRMS then completed each purchase order, which included a statement of 

work, the identity of the individual to provide the services, and the negotiated 

price, and sent it to the Purchasing Agent stating that it was a “special” or 

expedited procurement. The Purchasing Agent then issued the completed 

purchase orders to the FSS vendor. No one prepared or issued a RFQ to at least 

three FSS contractors as required under FAR 8.405-2. In addition, neither the 

HRMS nor the Purchasing Agent prepared a justification for restricted 

consideration as required under FAR 8.405-6. We also found no justification for 

VA Office of Inspector General i 

 
Review of Allegations of Contracting Irregularities, VAMC, Tuscaloosa, Alabama

HRMS to have required these purchase orders to be issued as expedited 

procurements or to justify a sole-source purchase. 

We found that the Purchasing Agent was not aware of the provisions of FAR 

Part 8.405 that establish the procedures to be followed when ordering supplies and 

services from the FSS. We also found that the Purchasing Agent’s actions may 

have been due in part to a provision in her Performance Plan that states that action 

should be taken on a “special” (expedited) request within three workdays. The 

Purchasing Agent told us that her annual performance appraisal is affected if she 

fails to acquire goods or services within the time-frame requested on the purchase 

order, VA Form 2237, submitted by the requesting service. Such a requirement is 

inconsistent with the standard in the performance plan requiring the Purchasing 

Agent to comply with the FAR. 

Recommendations 

We recommend that the VISN 7 Director: 

1. Take action to ensure that program offices and purchasing agents comply with 

the provisions of FAR 8.405 when purchasing off FSS contracts. 

2. Provide training to the Purchasing Agent and other warranted contracting 

personnel in VISN 7 regarding the provisions of FAR Part 8.4 relating to the use 

of the FSS. 

3. Issue policy requiring all program offices to provide written justification in 

accordance with FAR Part 8.405-6 or Part 6 when procuring supplies or services 

on a sole-source or expedited basis. 

4. Clarify provisions in performance plans for this and other warranted 

contracting personnel that require the processing of expedited requests within a 

certain time frame, unless the program office has provided adequate justification 

showing an urgent need and the time period is adequate to ensure compliance 

with applicable acquisition rules and regulations. 

5. Take action to ensure that purchase orders issued to obtain the services of the 

two contract employees are not extended or modified to add additional services. 

VA Office of Inspector General ii 

 
Review of Allegations of Contracting Irregularities, VAMC, Tuscaloosa, Alabama

VISN 7 Director’s Comments 

The VA Integrated Services Network (VISN) 7 Director concurred with all 

recommendations of the report and set forth a plan of action to correct the 

problems. The VISN 7 Director stated that action had been taken to ensure that 

program officials and purchasing agents complied with FAR Part 8.4 when 

purchasing from the FSS and that training on the requirements of FAR Part 8.4 

would be provided to VISN 7 contracting personnel. In addition, all procurements 

that require written justification when purchasing on a sole-source or expedited 

basis would be reviewed and justified by someone at the highest levels at the 

facility and the procurement would be reviewed by the Chief of Logistics or 

Assistant Chief of Logistics prior to placement of the order. 

The requirements in the performance plan for the purchasing agents were 

discussed and clarified with the purchasing agents. Finally, the Director stated 

that the Tuscaloosa VAMC would not approve any alterations, extensions, or 

modifications to the purchase orders addressed in this report. 

(original signed by:) 

MAUREEN REGAN

Counselor to the Inspector 

General 

VA Office of Inspector General iii 

 
Review of Allegations of Contracting Irregularities, VAMC, Tuscaloosa, Alabama

INTRODUCTION 

Purpose 

The Office of Inspector General conducted a review of a Hotline complaint 

alleging that two contract employees at the Tuscaloosa, Alabama VAMC “were 

hired under the provisions outlined in VA Directive 1663, designed to address 

short-term shortages of clinical staff.” The complainant alleged two contract 

employees were hired for the HRMS department to perform administrative work, 

while the hospital’s clinical staff continued to be short-staffed. 

Background 

At the request of the HRMS, the Purchasing Agent for the Tuscaloosa VAMC 

issued two purchase orders to procure the services of two retired annuitants for 

HRMS from an FSS contractor without competition. The HRMS contacted the 

vendor, negotiated the terms and conditions of the purchase order, identified and 

referred to the vendor two retired VA employees to work under the contract, and 

prepared the purchase orders that were ultimately issued by the Purchasing Agent. 

Purchase Order One

Purchase Order One was issued on January 28, 2008, to procure the services of a 

retired annuitant in HRMS. The purchase order called for approximately 800 

hours of services and was valued at $36,476. The HRMS told us that the VAMC 

had a need for a Lead Human Resources (HR) Assistant because the former 

incumbent had been promoted. On June 20, 2007, the position was initially 

advertised VA-wide through the Office of Personnel Management’s USAJobs 

website, and they continued to recruit to fill the position. The HRMS told us that 

hiring from within her organization was not a viable option because the HR 

assistants currently on staff did not have the training and expertise for the position. 

Eventually, the position was offered to an employee at another VAMC, who 

declined the offer. 

Subsequently, the HRMS spoke with a VISN 7 Contract Manager to determine if 

she could hire a retired annuitant as a contract employee, specifically under a solesource contract. The individual previously worked in HRMS and the HRMS was 

familiar with her work and experience. The VISN 7 Contract Manager told her a 

sole-source contract would not be feasible as the work to be performed was 

administrative in nature. The Contract Manager then referred the matter to a 

VISN 7 Contract Office Supervisor who advised the HRMS that JHT, Inc. had a 

General Services Administration (GSA) contract that could be used. The Contract 

Office Supervisor then gave the HRMS the contact information for JHT, Inc. The 

VA Office of Inspector General 1
Review of Allegations of Contracting Irregularities, VAMC, Tuscaloosa, Alabama

HRMS contacted JHT, Inc. and requested they provide an estimate of costs. She 

also advised JHT, Inc. that she knew someone who could do the work. JHT, Inc. 

asked the HRMS to have the retired annuitant contact them. JHT, Inc. provided 

the HRMS with a cost estimate which she then presented to the Tuscaloosa 

VAMC Associate Director who approved the procurement action. The HRMS 

then prepared and submitted the purchase order to purchase the services for the 

retired annuitant from JHT, Inc. to the purchasing department. The purchase order 

was issued with a priority level of “special,” which means that the request should 

be expedited. 

The retired annuitant retired in 2005 after working at Tuscaloosa VAMC for 35 

years in HRMS. After retirement, she returned to work in the HRMS department 

for a short period of time as a fee-basis employee. After the HRMS contacted her 

about coming back to work as a contract employee through JHT, Inc., she made 

arrangements with JHT, Inc. to begin the employment process. She began 

working in February 2008 as a contract employee 24 hours a week. Although she 

does not supervise other employees, she assigns work and conducts training 

classes for the HR assistants. 

Purchase Order Two

Purchase Order Two was issued on April 25, 2008 to obtain the services of 

another retired annuitant to assist the HRMS department with a high priority 

project for the Tuscaloosa VAMC – the transitioning from paper Official 

Personnel Files (OPF) to the new electronic Official Personnel Files (e-OPF). The 

purchase order was for approximately 648 hours of services valued at $19,380. 

This purchase order was also issued with a priority level of “special,” meaning that 

the request should be expedited. The HRMS told us she needed experienced, 

qualified help for this high priority project. Although she attempted to use the 

current HR assistants to perform this task, this did not prove successful. The 

HRMS did not provide written documentation justifying why this procurement 

needed to be expedited or sole-sourced to JHT, Inc. 

The HRMS knew an HR specialist who had worked for the Tuscaloosa VAMC for 

31 years and would be retiring on February 29, 2008. The HRMS presented a 

proposal to the Position Management Committee at the facility to hire this 

individual to work on the e-OPF project on a contract basis. The committee 

approved the proposal and the VAMC Director approved the committee’s 

decision. The HRMS then contacted the individual and inquired whether she 

would be interested in returning to work in the HRMS department on the e-OPF 

project after her retirement. The individual accepted the offer and the HRMS and 

the retired annuitant contacted JHT, Inc. to begin the process. 

VA Office of Inspector General 2
Review of Allegations of Contracting Irregularities, VAMC, Tuscaloosa, Alabama

Based on review of e-mail correspondence between the HRMS and JHT, Inc., the 

HRMS negotiated the price and the terms and conditions of the purchase order 

with JHT, Inc. The HRMS then completed the purchase order to purchase the 

services of this individual from JHT, Inc. through its FSS contract and provided it 

to the Purchasing Agent. The Purchasing Agent processed the purchase order and 

the retired annuitant began working in May 2008 as a contract employee. Her 

current duties include auditing the paper OPFs that are to be transferred to e-OPFs 

as well as other administrative duties. Since the HRMS was hiring this employee 

on a contract basis to assist with the project, there was no vacancy announcement 

for this position. The project was to last from May 2008 to December 2008. 

Contracting Process

The Purchasing Agent told us she received the requests for the two contract 

employee positions on two separate VA Forms 2237, purchase orders, from the 

HRMS. Each purchase order was completely filled out including a full description 

of the positions, a description of the retired annuitants who were going to fill the 

positions, the hourly rate VA would be charged, number of hours, the vendor’s 

name (JHT, Inc.), address, and was marked as a “special,” which the Purchasing 

Agent told us meant that the requests needed to be expedited. Although the 

Purchasing Agent verified that JHT, Inc. was a GSA contractor, she was not 

familiar with the company or any of its employees, and did not know either of the 

two individuals that the HRMS referred to JHT, Inc. to provide services under the 

contract. The Purchasing Agent also stated that the labor category used to 

determine the hourly rate for the two employees was determined by the contractor 

and the HRMS and she did not assess whether the work to be provided met the 

designated labor category. She merely processed the purchase orders that were 

prepared by the HRMS. 

The Purchasing Agent told us that she did not issue an RFQ or otherwise solicit 

offers for either of the two purchase orders because of time limitations due to the 

fact that the HRMS requested that both purchase orders be expedited. She also 

stated that since GSA FSS contractors were a mandatory source, (see 48 C.F.R. § 

8.002(a)(2)(ii)), she did not believe she had to solicit proposals. 

The Purchasing Agent told us her annual performance appraisal is affected if she 

failed to acquire goods or services within the time-frame requested on the VA 

Form 2237. Therefore, if she receives a request that is to be expedited, she is 

required to obtain the goods or services as soon as possible. If the request is to be 

expedited, the end user must request a certain contractor. If no contractor is 

requested, the Purchasing Agent stated that she would send the request back to the 

end user to change the request to a standard, so she could bid the request out to 

various contractors. After receiving clarification from her supervisor, the 

VA Office of Inspector General 3
Review of Allegations of Contracting Irregularities, VAMC, Tuscaloosa, Alabama

Purchasing Agent stated that her Performance Plan requires her to begin the 

contracting process within three days after receipt of the purchase order when the 

purchase order is marked as a “special” (expedited) request. The deadline for 

awarding the contract is the delivery date chosen by the end user that is designated 

on the purchase order. The Purchasing Agent’s performance plan shows that in 

“Technical Support,” a critical element, she has three work days to take action on 

a “special” request. 

The Purchasing Agent admitted that she was not familiar with the requirements of 

FAR Part 8.4 and was under the impression that no competition was required 

when ordering from FSS schedules. She stated that she has not received specific 

training regarding the FAR and the proper procedures for ordering from FSS 

schedules. 

The VISN 7 Contract Office Supervisor told us she had suggested JHT, Inc. to the 

HRMS as a possible contractor. JHT, Inc. had previously been used to provide 

employment services at the Augusta VAMC, which is how she became familiar 

with the company. She was not involved in the contracting process at Tuscaloosa 

for the HRMS employees and did not give advice regarding whether the 

procurement required that proposals be sought from at least three FSS vendors or 

whether there was justification to purchase on a sole-source basis from JHT, Inc. 

Scope and Methodology 

To assess the allegation, a site visit was conducted on July 1-2, 2008. We 

interviewed the HRMS, the Purchasing Agent, the two contract employees in the 

HRMS Department, and the VISN 7 Contract Office Supervisor. We reviewed 

appropriate documentation to include: the purchase orders (VA Forms 2237 – 

Requests for Services to the Purchasing Department), the position descriptions for 

each contract employee, job announcement for the Lead HR Assistant position, the 

GSA FSS contract, the Purchasing Agent’s performance plan, e-mail 

correspondence, and other relevant documents. 

VA Office of Inspector General 4
Review of Allegations of Contracting Irregularities, VAMC, Tuscaloosa, Alabama

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS 

Issue 1: Whether the Tuscaloosa VAMC improperly used 38 

U.S.C. § 8153 authority to hire administrative staff for the 

HRMS department. 

Findings 

We did not substantiate the allegation. 

VA Directive 1663 (Health Care Resources Contracting – Buying, Title 38 U.S.C. 

§ 8153) implements the provisions of 38 U.S.C. § 8153 that allows VA to avoid 

certain Federal laws and regulations when contracting for health care resources 

that might otherwise not be feasibly available by direct hire. Section 8153 

authority was not used to procure the services of the two contract employees 

identified in the complaint or the services of any HRMS employee or other nonclinical employee. 

Conclusion 

The allegation was not substantiated because the Tuscaloosa VAMC did not use 

38 U.S.C. § 8153 authority or the provisions of VA Directive 1663 to hire 

administrative staff for the HRMS department. 

VA Office of Inspector General 5
Review of Allegations of Contracting Irregularities, VAMC, Tuscaloosa, Alabama

Issue 2: Whether the contracting entity followed FAR 

requirements to procure the services of two administrative 

contract employees for the HRMS department. 

Findings 

We concluded that the VA contracting entity did not follow FAR Part 8.4 

requirements to procure services using the Federal Supply Schedules. 

FAR Requirements: FAR Part 8.4 establishes the procedures for ordering supplies 

and services against GSA Federal Supply Schedule contracts. FAR Part 8.405-2 

establishes the procedures to be used when ordering services priced at hourly rates 

or requiring a statement of work (SOW). This section delineates what shall be 

included in the SOW and the procedures for developing and issuing a Request for 

Quotation (RFQ) to FSS vendors. When purchasing services at hourly rates or 

requiring a SOW, for orders exceeding the micro-purchase threshold of $3,000, an 

RFQ is required be sent to at least three FSS vendors that offer services that would 

meet the agency’s needs. The RFQ must include a SOW and evaluation criteria, 

e.g., experience, past performance, etc. 

Under § 8.405-6 of the FAR, an ordering activity may restrict consideration of 

schedule contractors to less than three contractors, but must justify its action. For 

orders exceeding the micro-purchase threshold, but not exceeding the simplified 

acquisition threshold of $100,000, the ordering activity contracting officer shall 

document the circumstances when restricting consideration. Circumstances that 

may justify restricting consideration include: (1) only one source is capable of 

responding due to the unique or specialized nature of the work, (2) the new work 

is a logical follow-on to an original FSS order, (3) and/or that an urgent and 

compelling need exists, and following the ordering procedures would result in 

unacceptable delays. 

Because the purchase orders issued to JHT, Inc. were for services to be procured at 

hourly rates, FAR Part 8.405-2 required that an RFQ be issued to at least three 

FSS vendors. Because the order was above the micro-purchase threshold, written 

justification was required to restrict consideration to less than three vendors. 

This procurement violated the provisions of FAR Part 8.4 because an RFQ was not 

issued to at least three FSS contractors before issuing the purchase orders and 

there was no justification for restricting consideration, as required under FAR Part 

8.405-6. There was no urgent need to fill either position and there is no evidence 

that JHT, Inc. was the only contractor to provide services due to the specialized 

VA Office of Inspector General 6
Review of Allegations of Contracting Irregularities, VAMC, Tuscaloosa, Alabama

nature of the work or that the work to be provided was follow-up to a previous 

contract with JHT, Inc. 

We also concluded that the process within the Tuscaloosa VAMC was flawed. 

The HRMS has no authority to contact JHT, Inc. and negotiate the terms and 

conditions of the purchase order, including hiring certain individuals to perform 

the services required under the contract. The HRMS should have prepared a 

SOW, conducted market research to identify potential vendors who could provide 

the services, and presented this information to the Purchasing Agent who should 

have issued the RFQ. It is the vendor’s responsibility to identify key personnel to 

perform the services required and for VA to verify that the individuals proposed 

meet the requirements. While it would have been appropriate for the Tuscaloosa 

VAMC management to approve the contracting for the necessary services, they 

had no authority to approve the hiring of any particular individuals without going 

through the procurement process. 

The errors in this procurement occurred in part due to inconsistencies in the 

Purchasing Agent’s performance plan. The performance plan requires action to be 

taken on “special” (expedited) requests within three work days; however, the 

performance plan also requires that the Purchasing Agent award all purchase 

orders in accordance with applicable Federal Acquisition regulations. The 

Purchasing Agent also believes that she is required to complete the transaction 

within the time frame specified by the using services, which may preclude 

compliance with FAR 8.405-2 when an RFQ is required or with FAR 8.405-6 

when justification is required for restricting consideration. 

The errors in this procurement also occurred because the Purchasing Agent was 

not knowledgeable regarding FAR requirements for purchasing off the FSS. 

Conclusion 

The Tuscaloosa VAMC failed to comply with the provisions of the FAR when 

issuing purchase orders to procure the services of two contract employees for 

HRMS. In addition to not preparing an RFQ and issuing it to at least three FSS 

vendors, there was no justification for expediting the procurement or restricting 

consideration to less than three vendors. Further, the Purchasing Agent was not 

knowledgeable regarding the provisions in FAR Part 8.4 for purchasing off the 

FSS. Moreover, the Purchasing Agent’s Performance Plan is vague, which does 

not provide guidance as to adequate compliance with the FAR. In addition, the 

HRMS inappropriately negotiated the terms and conditions of the procurement 

with the vendor, including identifying and referring two former VA employees to 

be hired by the contractor to fulfill the requirements. 

VA Office of Inspector General 7
Review of Allegations of Contracting Irregularities, VAMC, Tuscaloosa, Alabama

Recommendations 

We recommend that the VISN 7 Director: 

1. Take action to ensure that program offices and purchasing agents comply with 

the provisions of FAR 8.405 when purchasing off FSS contracts. 

2. Provide training to the Purchasing Agent and other warranted contracting 

personnel in VISN 7 regarding the provisions of FAR Part 8.4 relating to the use 

of the FSS. 

3. Issue policy requiring all program offices to provide written justification in 

accordance with FAR Part 8.405-6 or Part 6 when procuring supplies or services 

on a sole-source or expedited basis. 

4. Clarify provisions in performance plans for this and other warranted 

contracting personnel that require the processing of expedited requests within a 

certain time frame, unless the program office has provided adequate justification 

showing an urgent need and the time period is adequate to ensure compliance 

with applicable acquisition rules and regulations. 

5. Take action to ensure that purchase orders issued to obtain the services of the 

two contract employees are not extended or modified to add additional services. 

VA Office of Inspector General 8
Review of Allegations of Contracting Irregularities, VAMC, Tuscaloosa, Alabama

Appendix A 

Management Comments 

Date: October 3, 2008

From: Director, VA Southeast Network, VISN7 (10N) 

Subj: OIG Report, Review of Allegations of Contracting Irregularities, VA 

Medical Center, Tuscaloosa, Alabama 

To: Deputy Assistant Inspector General for Management and Administration 

(53A) 

The following is a response to the recommendations within the OIG Report 

on Contracting Irregularities at TVAMC: 

Recommendations: 

1. Take action to ensure that program offices and purchasing agents 

comply with the provisions of FAR 8.405 when purchasing off FSS 

contracts. 

RESPONSE: Concur. Action has been taken to ensure that program 

officials and purchasing agents comply with the provision of FAR 8.405 

when purchasing from FSS contracts. In addition all procurements that 

pertain to contracting for administrative support will be fully justified and 

approved by the responsible official, the Associate Director and Director of 

the facility. The Chief of Logistics or Assistant Chief of Logistics will review 

each procurement and documentation before placement of the order to 

insure all regulations have been complied with and all justifications 

provided. 

2. Provide training to the Purchasing Agent and other warranted 

contracting personnel in VISN 7 regarding the provisions of FAR Part 8.4 

relating to the use of the FSS. 

 

RESPONSE: Concur. The VISN 7 Contracting Office is currently in the 

process of providing bi-monthly training on all aspects of small purchase 

procedures and Chapter 8 will be among the subjects covered in this 

training. On a local level, review of the regulations has taken place with the 

purchasing agents and an understanding reached that all future 

procurements of this type are to be reviewed by the Chief of Logistics 

before placement. 

VA Office of Inspector General 9
Review of Allegations of Contracting Irregularities, VAMC, Tuscaloosa, Alabama

3. Issue policy requiring all program offices to provide written justification 

in accordance with FAR Part 8.405-6 or Part 6 when procuring supplies or 

services on a sole-source or expedited basis. 

RESPONSE: Concur. Checks and balances have been put in place to 

ensure that all procurements of this type have been reviewed and justified 

at the highest levels at the facility. It is the policy of the VA Medical Center 

Tuscaloosa to comply with all procurement regulations and program 

officials will be provided additional training to insure they understand these 

requirements. 

4. Clarify provisions in performance plans for this and other warranted 

contracting personnel that require the processing of expedited requests 

within a certain time frame, unless the program office has provided 

adequate justification showing an urgent need and the time period is 

adequate to ensure compliance with applicable acquisition rules and 

regulations. 

RESPONSE: Concur. The performance standard referenced also states 

that the procurements are in accordance with applicable VA and Federal 

Acquisition regulations. The statement made by the purchasing agent 

responsible for this procurement was a misinterpretation of the standard. 

Action means to begin the process not to ensure that it has been 

completed. The Purchasing Agent has never been held to such a strict 

standard as completion in previous evaluations. This issue has been 

discussed with the Purchasing Agents and they now understand the true 

meaning of this requirement. 

5. Take action to ensure that purchase orders issued to obtain the services 

of the two contract employees are not extended or modified to add 

additional services. 

RESPONSE: Concur. Facility leadership will not approve any alterations, 

extensions, or modifications to the issued purchase orders. 

If you have questions or need additional information Gary D. Trende at 

(205) 554-2003. 

(original signed by:) 

Lawrence A. Biro

 

VA Office of Inspector General 10
Review of Allegations of Contracting Irregularities, VAMC, Tuscaloosa, Alabama

Appendix B 

OIG Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 

OIG Contact Maureen Regan 

Acknowledgments Timothy McGrath 

Marsha O’Mara 

VA Office of Inspector General 11
Review of Allegations of Contracting Irregularities, VAMC, Tuscaloosa, Alabama

Appendix C 

Report Distribution 

VA Distribution

Office of the Secretary 

Veterans Health Administration 

Veterans Benefits Administration 

National Cemetery Administration 

Assistant Secretaries 

Office of General Counsel 

Non-VA Distribution

House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Military Construction, 

Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies 

House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

Senate Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Military Construction, 

Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies 

Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

National Veterans Service Organizations 

Government Accountability Office 

Office of Management and Budget 

This report is available at http://www.va.gov/oig/publications/reports-list.asp.

VA Office of Inspector General 12