All Reports

At the request of the Tennessee Valley Authority's (TVA) Supply Chain, we performed an audit of costs billed to TVA by ThyssenKrupp Elevator Americas (TKE) for providing elevator maintenance and repair services under Contract No. 8527. Our audit included approximately $2.83 million in costs billed to TVA from October 7, 2014, to December 31, 2016.

The Office of the Inspector General conducted a review of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN) Site Security to identify operational and cultural strengths and risks that could impact BFN Site Security’s organizational effectiveness. Our report identified strengths within BFN Site Security related to (1) organizational alignment, (2) teamwork within departments, and (3) direct management support of employees.

As part of our annual audit plan, we audited costs billed to the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) by Restoration Services, Inc. (RSI) for project control services for TVA's Generation Construction under Contract No. 6122. Our audit included approximately $12.5 million in costs billed to TVA from January 1, 2015, to June 30, 2017.

The Office of the Inspector General conducted an evaluation of Lagoon Creek Combustion Turbine Plant (LCCT) to identify strengths and risks that could impact LCCT’s organizational effectiveness. Our evaluation identified strengths related to (1) teamwork and (2) organizational alignment. However, we also identified issues that could pose risks to LCCT’s effectiveness and its continued ability to meet its responsibilities. These issues related to (1) low morale caused by a lack of accountability and (2) perceptions of unethical behavior.

The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) purchased two new fixed-wing aircraft (FWA) through sole source contracts in May 2015 for $17.7 million. We audited TVA’s FWA to determine (1) whether TVA’s decision to purchase these aircraft was reasonable compared to aircraft used by other utilities, (2) how the cost and use of the aircraft compared to that of other utilities and industry standards, and (3) whether the use of the aircraft is consistent with applicable federal laws and regulations.

We evaluated TVA’s management of employee medical work restrictions and accommodations to determine if they were effectively managed. We determined there were gaps in the management of employee medical work restrictions and accommodations which resulted in the process being ineffective.

We evaluated TVA’s fuel cost adjustment (FCA) calculations to determine whether TVA was using the appropriate data to calculate the FCA. We determined TVA was not using the appropriate sales data to calculate the FCA due to (1) inaccurate unbilled energy sales, (2) the misclassification of sales made to small direct-served customers, and (3) inaccurate hourly energy loads. In addition to the errors identified, we also determined the FCA process could be improved to reduce the risk of errors in the FCA.

At the request of the Tennessee Valley Authority's (TVA) Supply Chain, we examined the cost proposal submitted by a company for civil projects and coal combustion residual program management work at TVA's steam electric power plants. Our examination objective was to determine if the company's cost proposal was fairly stated for a planned <br> $200 million contract.In our opinion, the company's cost proposal was overstated.

At the request of the Tennessee Valley Authority's (TVA) Supply Chain, we examined the cost proposal submitted by a company for civil projects and coal combustion residual program management work at TVA's steam electric power plants. Our examination objective was to determine if the company's cost proposal was fairly stated for a planned <br> $50 million contract.In our opinion, the company's cost proposal was overstated.

We evaluated TVA’s Corrective Action Program (CAP) to determine if the CAP was effective in resolving employee concerns at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. We determined reinforcement is needed on the importance of addressing CAP condition reports (CRs) in an effective and timely manner. Specifically, we determined some CRs classified as CAP were not resolved effectively because (1) a corrective action did not adequately address a condition, and (2) some actions were not completed by scheduled finish dates.