General Accounting Office

GAO: Monitoring and Oversight of Tribal 8(a) Firms Need Attention

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the report.

An excerpt:

Federal dollars obligated to tribal 8(a) firms grew from $2.1 billion in fiscal year 2005 to $5.5 billion in 2010, a greater percentage increase than non-tribal 8(a) obligations (160 percent versus 45 percent). Obligations to 8(a) firms owned by Alaska Native Corporations (ANC) represented the majority of tribal obligationsevery year during the period, rising to $4.7 billion in 2010. While tribal 8(a) firms comprised 6.2 percent of total 8(a) firms, their obligations accounted for almost a third of total 8(a) obligations in fiscal year 2010. Over the 6 years, the percentage of competitively awarded obligations to tribal 8(a) firms rose; however, solesource contracts remained the primary source of growth, representing at least 75 percent of all tribal 8(a) obligations in a given year.

Consistent with GAO’s 2006 review of ANC 8(a) contracting, contracting officials said that awarding contracts to tribal firms under the 8(a) program allows officials to award sole-source contracts for any value quickly, easily, and legally, and helps agencies meet their small business goals. However, the officials added that the program offices’ push for awarding follow-on contracts to the same firm also plays a role. GAO’s review of noncompetitive tribal 8(a) contracts shows the methods used to determine price reasonableness in a sole-source environment. In some cases, when agencies moved away from sole-source tribal 8(a) contracts toward competition, agency officials estimated savings as a result.

To ensure that 8(a) firms do not pass along the benefits of their contracts to their subcontractors, regulations limit the amount of work that can be performed by the subcontractors. Of the 87 contracts in GAO’s review, 71 had subcontractors. GAO found that required monitoring of limitations on subcontracting by procuring agencies was not routinely occurring. Similar to what GAO reported in 2006, some contracting officers do not understand that ensuring compliance is their responsibility under partnership agreements with SBA, and the regulations do not make this clear. Further, agency officials did not know how to monitor subcontracting limitations, particularly for indefinite-quantity contracts, as the data are not readily available. Not monitoring the limits on subcontracting can pose a major risk that an improper amount of work is being done by large firms.

In March 2011, SBA revised 8(a) regulations to clarify program rules, correct misinterpretations, and address program issues. Although a positive step, SBA will have difficulty enforcing new regulations pertaining to tribal 8(a) follow-on contracts and joint ventures given the information currently available. SBA told GAO it is currently in the process of developing the requirements for a new 8(a) tracking database. Further, the new regulations do not address some issues GAO has previously raised, such as ANC 8(a) firms under the same parent corporation generating a majority of revenue in the same line of business. SBA regulations do not allow a tribal organization to have more than one 8(a) subsidiary perform most of its work under the same primary business line. GAO also discusses practices that highlight how some tribal 8(a) firms operate, in effect, as large businesses because of their parent corporation’s backing and interconnectedness with sister subsidiaries. SBA has not reviewed these practices to determine whether they are congruent with the business development purpose of the 8(a) program.

SCIA Press Release on GAO Report on IHS Billing

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

SENATORS URGE IMPROVEMENTS TO INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE

WASHINGTON – A bipartisan group of senators is urging Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and other top administration officials to act quickly to improve health care delivery to American Indians and Alaska Natives.

In a letter to Secretary Sebelius and Indian Health Service Director Dr. Yvette Roubideaux, the senators pointed to a U.S. Government Accountability Office report issued Friday, September 23, that highlights billing and other problems in the IHS system that make it difficult for American Indians and Alaska natives to receive care from health providers and makes it difficult for health care providers offering the services to get reimbursed.

The GAO report, called “Indian Health Service: Increased Oversight Needed to Ensure Accuracy of Data Used for Estimating Contract Health Service Need,” states that due to inadequate and inconsistent data collection by IHS, it has been very difficult for health care providers who contract with IHS to quickly determine a patient’s eligibility for services.  Poor data collection also makes it difficult for IHS to know what contractual services are needed by American Indians and Native Alaskans and whether it has adequate funds to pay for such services.

Continue reading →

New General Accounting Office Report on IHS

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here. H/t Pechanga.

Here is the GAO summary:

The Indian Health Service (IHS), an agency in the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), provides health care to American Indians and Alaska Natives. When care at an IHS-funded facility is unavailable, IHS’s contract health services (CHS) program pays for care from external providers if the patient meets certain requirements and funding is available. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act requires GAO to study the adequacy of federal funding for IHS’s CHS program. To examine program funding needs, IHS collects data on unfunded services–services for which funding was not available–from the federal and tribal CHS programs. GAO examined (1) the extent to which IHS ensures the data it collects on unfunded services are accurate to determine a reliable estimate of CHS program need, (2) the extent to which federal and tribal CHS programs report having funds available to pay for contract health services, and (3) the experiences of external providers in obtaining payment from the CHS program. GAO surveyed 66 federal and 177 tribal CHS programs and spoke to IHS officials and 23 providers.

Continue reading →

GAO Report on Tribal Justice Systems

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the report, and the highlights.

The description:

The Department of Justice (DOJ) reports from the latest available data that from 1992 to 2001 American Indians experienced violent crimes at more than twice the national rate. The Department of the Interior (DOI) and DOJ provide support to federally recognized tribes to address tribal justice issues. Upon request, GAO analyzed (1) the challenges facing tribes in adjudicating Indian country crimes and what federal efforts exist to help address these challenges and (2) the extent to which DOI and DOJ have collaborated with each other to support tribal justice systems. To do so, GAO interviewed tribal justice officials at 12 tribes in four states and reviewed laws, including the Tribal Law and Order Act of 2010, to identify federal efforts to assist tribes. GAO selected these tribes based on court structure, among other factors. Although the results cannot be generalized, they provided useful perspectives about the challenges various tribes face in adjudicating crime in Indian country. GAO also compared DOI and DOJ’s efforts against practices that can help enhance and sustain collaboration among federal agencies and standards for internal control in the federal government.

The 12 tribes GAO visited reported several challenges in adjudicating crimes in Indian country, but multiple federal efforts exist to help address some of these challenges. For example, tribes only have jurisdiction to prosecute crimes committed by Indian offenders in Indian country. Also, until the Tribal Law and Order Act of 2010 (the Act) was passed in July 2010, tribes could only sentence those found guilty to up to 1 year in jail per offense. Lacking further jurisdiction and sentencing authority, tribes rely on the U.S. Attorneys’ Offices (USAO) to prosecute crime in Indian country. Generally, the tribes GAO visited reported challenges in obtaining information on prosecutions from USAOs in a timely manner. For example, tribes reported they experienced delays in obtaining information when a USAO declines to prosecute a case; these delays may affect tribes’ ability to pursue prosecution in tribal court before their statute of limitations expires. USAOs are working with tribes to improve timely notification about declinations. DOI and the tribes GAO visited also reported overcrowding at tribal detention facilities. In some instances, tribes may have to contract with other detention facilities, which can be costly. Multiple federal efforts exist to help address these challenges. For example, the Act authorizes tribes to sentence convicted offenders for up to 3 years imprisonment under certain circumstances, and encourages DOJ to appoint tribal prosecutors to assist in prosecuting Indian country criminal matters in federal court. Federal efforts also include developing a pilot program to house, in federal prison, up to 100 Indian offenders convicted in tribal courts, given the shortage of tribal detention space. DOI, through its Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), and DOJ components have taken action to coordinate their efforts to support tribal court and tribal detention programs; however, the two agencies could enhance their coordination on tribal courts by strengthening their information sharing efforts. BIA and DOJ have begun to establish task forces designed to facilitate coordination on tribal court and tribal detention initiatives, but more focus has been given to coordination on tribal detention programs. For example, at the program level, BIA and DOJ have established procedures to share information when DOJ plans to construct tribal detention facilities. This helps ensure that BIA is prepared to assume responsibility to staff and operate tribal detention facilities that DOJ constructs and in turn minimizes potential waste. In contrast, BIA and DOJ have not implemented similar information sharing and coordination mechanisms for their shared activities to enhance the capacity of tribal courts to administer justice. For example, BIA has not shared information with DOJ about its assessments of tribal courts. Further, both agencies provide training and technical assistance to tribal courts; however, they are unaware as to whether there could be unnecessary duplication. Developing mechanisms to identify and share information related to tribal courts could yield potential benefits in terms of minimizing unnecessary duplication and leveraging the expertise and capacities that each agency brings. GAO recommends that the Secretary of the Interior and the Attorney General direct the relevant DOI and DOJ programs to develop mechanisms to identify and share information related to tribal courts. DOI and DOJ concurred with our recommendation.

 

GAO Report on Federal Prosecution Declinations

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Significantly fewer declinations than some have asserted — namely, the 80 percent figure.

GAO Report “U.S. Department of Justice Declinations of Indian Country Criminal Matters”:

Summary | Full Report

From Indianz:

Federal prosecutors turn down 50 percent of cases in Indian Country, the Government Accountability Office reported.

Between fiscal years 2005 through 2009, 10,000 cases were referred to U.S. Attorney’s Offices. Federal prosecutors resolved 9,000 cases by either filing for prosecution, declining to prosecute or administratively closing the matter.

Of the 9,000 cases, only 50 percent resulted in prosecution. In 2005, the declination rate was as high as 58 percent.

“Declination rates tended to be higher for violent crimes, which were declined 52 percent of the time, than for nonviolent crimes, which were declined 40 percent of the time,” the report said.

The declination rate for sexual abuse offenses was even higher — 67 percent. “USAO officials told us that the difference in declination rates between sexual abuse and assault matters may be the result of the difficulty in obtaining evidence and witnesses in sexual abuse investigations,” the report said.

Continue reading →

GAO Transition Materials

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

From the GAO (via Indianz):

GAO has identified a number of long-standing financial and programmatic deficiencies in Interior’s Indian and Island Community programs.

  • While Interior has taken significant steps in the last 10 years to address weaknesses in certain Indian programs, it is still in the process of implementing key trust fund reforms, including preparation of a timetable for completing remaining activities, to effectively manage more than 300,000 trust fund accounts with assets of more than $3 billion. Further, in the department’s consolidated financial statements, the management of Indian trust funds continues to be reported as a material internal control weakness.

    Highlights of GAO-07-104 (PDF)

  • GAO has also reported on serious delays in the Bureau of Indian Affairs’ (BIA) program for determining whether the department will accept land in trust—as of the end of fiscal year 2005, more than 1,000 land in trust applications from tribes and individual Indians were pending. While BIA generally followed its regulations for processing land in trust applications, it had no deadlines for making decisions on them.

    Highlights of GAO-06-781 (PDF)

  • In addition, the department could be doing more to assist the island communities of American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands and the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the three sovereign island nations with long-standing financial and program management difficulties in accurately accounting for expenditures, collecting taxes and other revenues, controlling the level of expenditures, and delivering program services—all of which resulted in numerous federal agencies designating some of the governments as “high-risk” grantees. Further, the department faces challenges in addressing the failing economy in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands and assisting Guam in preparing for the anticipated expansion of military personnel.

    Highlights of GAO-08-655 (PDF), Highlights of GAO-08-466 (PDF), Full Report of GAO-07-514R (PDF, 74 pages), Highlights of GAO-08-791 (PDF), Highlights of GAO-07-163 (PDF), Highlights of GAO-07-119 (PDF), Highlights of GAO-08-732 (PDF), Highlights of GAO-07-513 (PDF), Highlights of GAO-06-590 (PDF)

Continue reading →