All Reports

At the request of the Tennessee Valley Authority's (TVA) Supply Chain, we examined the cost proposal submitted by a contractor for non-nuclear modification and supplemental maintenance services and technical support services. Our objective was to determine if the cost proposal was fairly stated for a planned $950 million contract. In our opinion, the cost proposal was overstated. Specifically, the proposal included overstated nonmanual payroll tax rates and fringe benefit rates.

The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) vendor management system is a cloud based system physically located away from TVA facilities and outsourced to a third party. The OIG audited the vendor management system to assess the (1) data processing and application controls to ensure data integrity and reliability and (2) logical security controls to ensure only authorized access to system resources and protection of sensitive information. Our scope included TVA's vendor management system and its interfaces to TVA systems.

At the request of the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) Supply Chain, the OIG examined the cost proposal submitted by a company for construction services for TVA bottom ash dewatering facilities. Our objective was to determine if this company's cost proposal was fairly stated for a planned $100 million contract. In our opinion, the company's cost proposal was overstated. Specifically, the company's cost proposal for the Kingston Fossil Plant (KIF) baseline project included overstated fees and costs.

At the request of the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) Supply Chain, the OIG examined the cost proposal submitted by a company for engineering and management services for hydroelectric power train and associated systems. Our objective was to determine if the company's cost proposal was fairly stated for a planned $90 million contract. In our opinion, the markup rates included in the company's proposal were fairly stated.

In keeping with its responsibilities under the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, the OIG monitored the audit of TVA's fiscal year 2016 financial statements performed by Ernst and Young LLP (EY) to assure their work complied with Government Auditing Standards. Our review of EY's work disclosed no instance in which the firm did not comply in all material respects with generally accepted government auditing standards.

At the request of the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) Supply Chain, the OIG examined a cost proposal submitted by a company for construction services for TVA bottom ash dewatering facilities. Our objective was to determine if the company's cost proposal was fairly stated for a planned $100 million contract. In our opinion, the cost proposal was overstated. Specifically, the company's proposal included: (1) overstated fees, (2) excessive subcontractor craft labor costs, and (3) contingency costs that could inflate the final costs paid for the services.

The OIG performed procedures which were requested and agreed to by TVA management solely to assist management in determining the validity of the Winning Performance (WP) payout awards for fiscal year (FY) ended September 30, 2016. The WP payout award data that was provided to the OIG and to which the agreed-upon procedures were applied is the responsibility of TVA management.

The OIG audited Information Technology's (IT) use of non-craft staff augmentation (SA) contractor employees working in IT positions during February 2016 for which TVA paid about $1.8 million in labor costs and associated labor markups. Overall, we found the majority of the 207 SA contractor employees had straight-time hourly pay rates less than or equal to TVA midpoint hourly pay rates and the rates were comparable to TVA employee pay rates for the corresponding job codes.

The OIG audited the physical and logical network architecture at a TVA location and found (1) TVA management used proven best practices in the design of the physical and wireless corporate networks; (2) the network was appropriately architected; and (3) the cable plant was installed in a neat and organized manner. However, we found the TVA network equipment was located in an unsecured room and configurations of some network devices did not follow TVA suggested baselines.(Summary Only)