The Department of Transportation Found That It Improperly Obligated Motor Carrier Grant Funds
Gao ID: GAO-11-517R May 5, 2011In May 2010, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) alerted your offices that it might have violated statutory restrictions when obligating funds to states for its Commercial Vehicle Information Systems and Networks (CVISN) program. CVISN awards grants to state offices to support improved information technology exchanges between government agencies and the motor carrier industry to enhance motor carrier safety and other efforts. In 2005, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) provided $25 million annually in contract authority and established funding restrictions for CVISN awards. FMCSA temporarily shut down the CVISN program in May 2010 to determine whether it violated funding restrictions and to prevent exacerbating any problems; it has not determined when it will restart the program. In response to congressional request, this report addresses (1) whether FMCSA complied with statutory requirements when awarding CVISN grants to states and (2) actions that the agency is taking to manage the award of CVISN grants effectively.
In summary, FMCSA found that it committed 47 statutory violations. The violations occurred from fiscal years 2006 through 2010 and totaled about $23 million, representing about 18 percent of the $125 million in total contract authority available for the CVISN program during that period. For example, in fiscal year 2007 it obligated about $1 million more than the $25 million that it had available in contract authority. The department is considering possible actions to address the violations, such as recovering improperly awarded funds. FMCSA identified (1) the agency's failure to track grants awarded in previous years and (2) the dissemination of an erroneous policy as the primary factors contributing to the violations and has identified a number of other factors that exacerbated the problems with CVISN awards. FMCSA has taken some actions to address these factors, such as developing a financial history of grants awarded in previous years, but has no estimate for resuming the CVISN program and no plan outlining milestones to achieve that result. Furthermore, several states have had to cancel CVISN contracts because they have been unable to receive CVISN grant funds due to the program shut down.
GAO-11-517R, The Department of Transportation Found That It Improperly Obligated Motor Carrier Grant Funds
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-11-517R
entitled 'The Department of Transportation Found That It Improperly
Obligated Motor Carrier Grant Funds' which was released on May 12,
2011.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as
part of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility.
Every attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data
integrity of the original printed product. Accessibility features,
such as text descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes
placed at the end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters,
are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format
of the printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an
exact electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your
feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or
accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
GAO-11-517R:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
May 5, 2011:
The Honorable Patty Murray:
Chairman:
The Honorable Susan Collins:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development and
Related Agencies:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Tom Latham:
Chairman:
The Honorable John W. Olver:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development and
Related Agencies:
House of Representatives:
Subject: The Department of Transportation Found That It Improperly
Obligated Motor Carrier Grant Funds:
In May 2010, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA)
alerted your offices that it might have violated statutory
restrictions when obligating funds to states for its Commercial
Vehicle Information Systems and Networks (CVISN) program.[Footnote 1]
CVISN awards grants to state offices to support improved information
technology exchanges between government agencies and the motor carrier
industry to enhance motor carrier safety and other efforts. In 2005,
the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act:
A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) provided $25 million annually in
contract authority and established funding restrictions for CVISN
awards.[Footnote 2] FMCSA temporarily shut down the CVISN program in
May 2010 to determine whether it violated funding restrictions and to
prevent exacerbating any problems; it has not determined when it will
restart the program.
In response to your request, this report addresses (1) whether FMCSA
complied with statutory requirements when awarding CVISN grants to
states and (2) actions that the agency is taking to manage the award
of CVISN grants effectively. To determine whether FMCSA complied with
statutory requirements when awarding CVISN grants, we reviewed these
requirements for the program and reviewed the agency's investigation
of its potential statutory violations, including underlying
documentation and summary information. We did not independently review
award decisions and obligations to determine whether FMCSA found all
violations. Additionally, we did not assess FMCSA's interpretation of
the provisions in SAFETEA-LU. Rather, we assessed the reasonableness
of FMCSA's approach, based on its interpretation of statutory
requirements. Based on our review of agency documents and discussions
with its officials, we determined that the agency's approach was
sufficiently reliable to report on whether widespread problems exist.
Because of the way it kept records, FMCSA states that it cannot be
sure that it identified all violations; however, its efforts show
widespread problems that need to be addressed. To determine actions
FMCSA is taking to manage CVISN grant awards effectively, we reviewed
agency documents and discussed them with agency officials to determine
the factors that may have led to the violations and its plans to
address those factors. We compared these actions to our standards for
internal control and criteria discussed in another GAO report.
[Footnote 3] In addition, we reviewed FMCSA's plans for establishing a
grants management office to oversee all of its grant programs. We did
not address opportunities that FMCSA may be missing, if any, to
improve its grant award management. We will cover this topic in a
follow-on report that will assess FMCSA's award of discretionary
grants more broadly. This work is underway.
We conducted this performance audit from November 2010 through May
2011 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit
to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for
our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
In summary, FMCSA found that it committed 47 statutory violations. The
violations occurred from fiscal years 2006 through 2010 and totaled
about $23 million, representing about 18 percent of the $125 million
in total contract authority available for the CVISN program during
that period. For example, in fiscal year 2007 it obligated about $1
million more than the $25 million that it had available in contract
authority. The department is considering possible actions to address
the violations, such as recovering improperly awarded funds. FMCSA
identified (1) the agency's failure to track grants awarded in
previous years and (2) the dissemination of an erroneous policy as the
primary factors contributing to the violations and has identified a
number of other factors that exacerbated the problems with CVISN
awards. FMCSA has taken some actions to address these factors, such as
developing a financial history of grants awarded in previous years,
but has no estimate for resuming the CVISN program and no plan
outlining milestones to achieve that result. Furthermore, several
states have had to cancel CVISN contracts because they have been
unable to receive CVISN grant funds due to the program shut down.
Background:
Determining whether FMCSA violated the law in obligating CVISN funds
involves two fundamental appropriations laws: the purpose statute and
the Antideficiency Act. The purpose statute provides that appropriated
funds may be used only for the purpose for which they were
appropriated.[Footnote 4] Where Congress has specifically prohibited
or otherwise limited an agency from using any of its appropriated
funds for a particular purpose, any obligation of funds in excess of
the amount available would violate the purpose statute.[Footnote 5]
The Antideficiency Act prohibits making or authorizing an obligation
that exceeds its available appropriation or contract authority
amounts.[Footnote 6] Obligations in excess of the amounts legally
available to the agency violate the Antideficiency Act.[Footnote 7]
Where an appropriation or authorizing legislation prohibits an agency
from using any of its appropriation for a particular purpose, the
agency does not have amounts available for that purpose.[Footnote 8]
If the agency nevertheless incurs an obligation for that purpose, it
has incurred an obligation exceeding an amount available in an
appropriation in violation of the Antideficiency Act.
SAFETEA-LU authorized $25 million in contract authority for each
fiscal year 2006 through 2009 for the CVISN program.[Footnote 9] The
act authorized two types of CVISN grants--core deployment grants and
expanded deployment grants--and established different spending caps
for each. Core deployment grants provide funding for the basic CVISN
capabilities in the areas of safety information sharing (e.g.,
inspection reporting), credentials administration (e.g., electronic
processing of fees), and electronic screening (e.g., screening
vehicles automatically at roadside inspection stations). Expanded
deployment grants are awarded to states to develop capabilities beyond
the core capabilities (e.g., driver information sharing). SAFETEA-LU
also provided that FMCSA may not award, in the aggregate, more than
$2.5 million in core deployment grants to a state under SAFETEA-LU and
its predecessor authorizing statute, the Transportation Equity Act for
the 21ST Century (TEA-21).[Footnote 10] After a state completes all
steps necessary for core deployment, FMCSA certifies the state as core
compliant (core-certified). Under SAFETEA-LU, a state must complete
its core deployment to be eligible for expanded deployment grants of
up to $1 million each fiscal year. States must provide a 50 percent
match for funds received for both core and expanded deployment grants.
As of April 2011, 22 states and the District of Columbia were
implementing core deployment and 24 states had become core-certified
and were implementing expanded deployment. (See figure 1.) FMCSA
considered four states to be inactive; they have not received funding
since 2003.
Figure 1: CVISN Deployment Status as of April 2011:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustrated U.S. map]
Implementing core deployment:
Arkansas:
California:
Delaware:
District of Columbia:
Georgia:
Hawaii:
Illinois:
Indiana:
Iowa:
Louisiana:
Maine:
Massachusetts:
Minnesota:
New Jersey:
New York:
North Dakota:
Oklahoma:
Rhode Island:
South Carolina:
South Dakota:
Texas:
West Virginia:
Wyoming:
Implementing expanded deployment (core certified):
Alabama:
Alaska:
Arizona:
Colorado:
Connecticut:
Florida:
Idaho:
Kansas:
Kentucky:
Maryland:
Mississippi:
Missouri:
Montana:
Nebraska:
Nevada:
New Mexico:
North Carolina:
Ohio:
Oregon:
Tennessee:
Utah:
Virginia:
Washington:
Wisconsin:
Inactive:
Michigan:
New Hampshire:
Pennsylvania:
Vermont:
Sources: GAO presentation of FMCSA data and Map Resources (map).
[End of figure]
After FMCSA's Chief Financial Officer and Office of the Chief Counsel
staff noticed irregularities with CVISN grant awards in spring 2010,
the Office of the Secretary of Transportation, Assistant Secretary for
Budget and Programs/Chief Financial Officer established an analysis
team, led by officials from that office and supported by Deloitte
Consulting LLP (Deloitte), to review the awards and disbursements made
under the CVISN program and determine the extent of the problem. Using
the results of Deloitte's review and its own follow-up assessment,
FMCSA found widespread probable problems with the CVISN grant awards
and forwarded its conclusions to the Office of the Secretary in
December 2010, as discussed in the following section. In March 2011,
the department concluded that FMCSA violated the Antideficiency Act
and SAFETEA-LU.
The Department Has Concluded That It Violated the Antideficiency Act
and SAFETEA-LU:
FMCSA found that it committed 47 statutory violations from fiscal
years 2006 through 2010, which totaled about $23 million. These
violations represent about 18 percent of the $125 million in total
contract authority available for the CVISN program during that period.
FMCSA found four categories of violations: (1) an annual program cap
violation, (2) core cap violations, (3) expanded cap violations, and
(4) providing expanded deployment grants before core certification
violations.
Annual program cap violation: FMCSA found that in one instance it
exceeded CVISN's annual contract authority of $25 million resulting
from executing an expanded deployment grant agreement with Nevada in
September 2007 (fiscal year 2007). In October 2007, a portion of the
project number was crossed out by hand and replaced with a fiscal year
2008 project number. FMCSA's financial accounting provider, the
Federal Aviation Administration's Enterprise Service Center, recorded
the obligation in its financial accounting system against FMCSA's
fiscal year 2008 contract authority. According to FMCSA officials,
Nevada's grant is a fiscal year 2007 obligation that exceeded the $25
million in annual CVISN contract authority for that year by a little
more than $1.06 million. FMCSA officials stated that, at the time, the
agency and the Enterprise Service Center sought to correct the problem
by recording the fiscal year 2007 obligation against FMCSA's fiscal
year 2008 contract authority.
According to department officials, since FMCSA incurred the obligation
in fiscal year 2007, it exceeded its available contract authority for
that fiscal year in violation of the Antideficiency Act. FMCSA cannot
record the fiscal year 2007 obligation against its fiscal year 2008
contract authority since amounts from a future fiscal year are not
available for a prior year's obligation.
Core and expanded cap violations: FMCSA identified numerous instances
where it exceeded SAFETEA-LU core and expanded deployment caps. First,
FMCSA provided 22 states more than $2.5 million each in core
deployment grants. These actions resulted in a total of $18.8 million
awarded in violation of the core deployment cap. To calculate the
number of core cap violations, FMCSA considered any grant award
executed before the state was core-certified as a core grant award
unless the grant agreement clearly stated that the grant was for
expanded activities.[Footnote 11] The obligated dollar amount of these
violations by state ranged from $20,000 to over $1.3 million, with 16
of the violations exceeding the cap by $1 million or more. (See table
1 in the enclosure for a list of these violations.)
Second, FMCSA violated the expanded deployment cap by obligating over
$1 million in expanded deployment grants to three states in a given
fiscal year. The combined total of the violations was over $1.8
million.[Footnote 12] To calculate the number of expanded cap
violations, FMCSA counted any grant award executed after the state was
core-certified as an expanded deployment grant unless the grant
agreement clearly stated that the grant was for core deployment
activities. Additionally, FMCSA officials told us that based on its
interpretation of section 4126(c)(3) of SAFETEA-LU, any expanded funds
in excess of the $1 million annual expanded cap may be counted as core
funding as long as FMCSA had previously obligated less than the $2.5
million aggregate core cap to that state and the state was core-
certified.[Footnote 13]
For example, before Arizona became core-certified in 2006, FMCSA
provided the state a total of about $806,000 for core deployment. In
2010, FMCSA provided the state an expanded deployment grant for about
$1.8 million, which exceeded the expanded cap by about $800,000. Since
Arizona was core-certified and had not reached or exceeded the core
deployment cap, FMCSA added the excess expanded grant funds to the
core balance, bringing the core total to about $1.6 million (still
below the $2.5 million core deployment cap) and, therefore, did not
count Arizona as violating the expanded cap. By contrast, FMCSA
provided Colorado $2 million before the state became core-certified in
2005. In 2008, it awarded a grant to Colorado for $2.07 million, which
exceeded the expanded deployment cap by $1.07 million. FMCSA added the
excess expanded grant funds to the core balance (up to the $2.5
million cap), but an excess balance of $570,000 remained, which FMCSA
counted as the dollar amount of the expanded cap violation.
According to department officials, FMCSA violated the purpose statute
when it obligated funds without the adequate contract authority to
incur obligations for such purpose. Specifically, FMCSA made core
grant awards to states, incurring obligations in excess of the $2.5
million in aggregate funding for core deployment that was available
for that purpose. Likewise, FMCSA made expanded grant awards to states
for amounts in excess of the $1 million in contract authority
available for a fiscal year. By exceeding the statutory amount caps,
according to department officials, FMCSA used contract authority for a
purpose for which it was not legally available. Since FMCSA incurred
obligations that exceeded the statutory amount caps, the department
has concluded that it violated the Antideficiency Act.
Providing expanded deployment grants before core certification
violations: FMCSA found that, starting in 2006, it awarded expanded
deployment grants to 21 states before those states were core-
certified. Of those, FMCSA awarded expanded deployment grants to three
states in multiple years before becoming core-certified. For example,
FMCSA awarded South Dakota grants for both core and expanded
deployment activities in 2006, 2007, and 2010 although the state was
not core-certified. FMCSA found an expanded deployment grant before
core certification violation if the grant application explicitly
stated that the grant was for expanded deployment activities and the
grant agreement was executed before the state was core-certified.
Awarding expanded deployment grants to states before they are core-
certified violates SAFETEA-LU, which requires that states become
eligible for expanded deployment grants only after core deployment has
been completed. (See table 2 in the enclosure for a list of these
violations.)
FMCSA was unable to determine the dollar amount of most of these
violations. Of the 21 states that received expanded deployment grants
prior to being certified as core compliant, 15 received grant awards
that clearly covered both core and expanded deployment activities but
did not specify how the grant funding was to be divided between the
activities. In these cases, FMCSA treated the entire grant award as a
core deployment grant for the purposes of calculating violation
amounts.
In total, these four types of violations affect 28 states and total
about $23 million in obligations.[Footnote 14] However, according to
FMCSA, just over 3 percent (over $765,000) of this amount has actually
been disbursed to four states (Alabama, $18,000; Alaska, $373,000;
North Carolina, $48,000; South Dakota, $326,000; all amounts rounded)
in violation of statute.
For the program as a whole, FMCSA has disbursed less than half of the
funds obligated to states. Of the approximate $154 million obligated
to states over the life of the program, FMCSA has disbursed over $73.5
million.[Footnote 15] FMCSA officials said that the low disbursements
are because the states have difficulty meeting SAFETEA-LU's 50/50
match requirement. Other transportation programs typically require a
10 percent or 20 percent match. (See table 3 in the enclosure for
amounts obligated to each state and disbursed over the life of the
program.)
The Antideficiency Act requires that the agency head "report
immediately to the President and Congress all relevant facts and a
statement of actions taken."[Footnote 16] In addition, the agency must
send a copy of the report to the Comptroller General on the same date
it transmits the report to the President and Congress.[Footnote 17]
Department officials told us that the department is preparing the
Antideficiency Act report to the President and Congress identifying
the CVISN violations. They said that the department is working out the
details of the report and has not established a date for transmitting
the report.
In addition, the department has not yet determined the actions it will
take regarding the funds that were obligated in violation of the
Antideficiency Act and SAFETEA-LU. According to FMCSA officials,
options include de-obligating funds, collecting funds disbursed to
states, and pursuing legislative ratification.[Footnote 18] FMCSA
officials told us that the department has not established a date for
deciding which actions it will take.
FMCSA Has Taken Some Actions to Improve Grant Management:
FMCSA officials told us that there were two primary causes of its
improper obligation of grant funds: (1) the agency's failure to keep
track of the grants awarded under TEA-21 and (2) the dissemination of
an erroneous policy to states. Additionally, FMCSA officials told us
that other issues regarding FMCSA's grant management practices
exacerbated these primary causes. The agency has acted to improve its
management of grant awards, and recognizes that it needs to do more.
Grants under TEA-21 not considered: FMCSA officials said that the most
significant factor contributing to the statutory violations was the
agency's failure to keep track of the grants awarded by the Federal
Highway Administration, which administered the program under TEA-21.
As discussed previously, SAFETEA-LU required that certain funds
granted to states under TEA-21 be counted toward the state's aggregate
core cap. When FMCSA assumed responsibility for the CVISN program, it
did not establish a baseline of the funds awarded under TEA-21.
Without this information, FMCSA was unable to track the total amount
of funds awarded to each state over time. Therefore, staff members did
not account for TEA-21 awards when making grant awards to states under
SAFETEA-LU, directly contributing to the core deployment cap
violations FMCSA identified.
FMCSA officials believe that they now have the ability to take
previous awards into account when making CVISN awards. The analysis
team of department officials and Deloitte support staff reviewed grant
information from both FMCSA's and the Federal Highway Administration's
financial systems. The team also obtained information from grant
applications, grant agreements, requests for reimbursement, and
general correspondence from the FMCSA division offices and from the
grantees. The team used this information to construct a funding
history of obligations and disbursements by grantee and by year so
that FMCSA can take TEA-21 funding into account when it determines
whether awarding funds would violate the aggregate core deployment
funding cap.[Footnote 19]
Erroneous policy: FMCSA disseminated a policy that violated
restrictions established by SAFETEA-LU. FMCSA officials told us that,
during a senior management meeting in November 2006, officials decided
that states that were "close" to becoming core-certified should be
eligible to receive expanded grants. FMCSA officials believe this
meeting took place because management at that time wanted to encourage
broader use of the program by states. Following the meeting, FMCSA
sent a letter to states explaining this policy.[Footnote 20] FMCSA
began to provide training to states in March 2007 that incorporated
this policy. As a result, FMCSA entered into grant agreements with
some states that covered concurrent core and expanded deployment
activities, directly contributing to the providing expanded deployment
grants before core certification violations.
FMCSA officials have acknowledged that the policy allowing states to
receive core and expanded deployment grants simultaneously is
inconsistent with SAFETEA-LU restrictions. In June 2010, FMCSA issued
guidance to states that specifically explains that states cannot
receive expanded grants until after core certification.[Footnote 21]
Exacerbating factors: FMCSA officials told us that other factors
exacerbated the problems with CVISN awards: the issuance of incorrect
guidance to states, insufficient program oversight, lack of training
for program staff, and a lack of written policies and procedures for
staff to follow.
* FMCSA issued guidance to states in November 2008 that stated that
states could receive a maximum of $3.5 million in CVISN grants and
that, "nominally," $2.5 million is expected to be applied to core
deployment and $1 million is expected to be applied to expanded
deployment.[Footnote 22] This guidance is incorrect for two reasons.
First, the $2.5 million and $1 million caps are statutory
requirements, not nominal expectations. Second, states are eligible to
apply for an expanded grant every year after they are core-certified.
However, the expanded grant awards must be no more than $1 million to
any state in any fiscal year. FMCSA has acknowledged that this
guidance is inconsistent with SAFETEA-LU and removed it from its Web
site in September 2010.
* FMCSA officials stated that the program awards had insufficient
oversight. Legal review of grant awards was limited, focusing only on
matching funds required of states. Additionally, FMCSA's financial and
budget departments did not review grant packages prior to award. FMCSA
is expanding the scope of its legal review of CVISN grants. FMCSA has
developed a checklist that its Chief Counsel's Office will use to
ensure that each award has received sufficient legal review. Officials
said that they also intend to develop a similar checklist for its
legal reviews of all FMCSA grant programs. Furthermore, for all of its
grant programs, FMCSA is now using GrantSolutions.gov, an automated
grant management tool approved by the Office of Management and Budget,
that controls access over grant approval and, according to FMCSA
officials, helps ensure that the approval process only moves forward
once all of the required steps, including legal, financial, and budget
review, have occurred. It also provides an electronic record of
approval from specific officials.
* FMCSA officials also noted that the agency did not provide CVISN
program or field staff with the necessary training to manage the
program. FMCSA did not train CVISN staff members on their respective
roles and responsibilities and specifically, their grant management
responsibilities. This was particularly problematic, because,
according to FMCSA officials, the staff responsible for awarding
grants did not have expertise in grants management. According to our
Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, all
personnel need to possess and maintain a level of competence that
allows them to accomplish their assigned duties. FMCSA officials
stated that they implemented improved training beginning in 2009 and
that the agency is now creating a new training structure.
* FMCSA officials said that staff members did not have sufficient
written policies and procedures to follow when awarding grants, such
as management directives and operating manuals. Our internal control
standards note that policies and procedures need to be clearly
documented. FMCSA began implementing written processes and procedures
in 2009 and recently updated its grants management manual, which sets
out the policies and procedures staff should follow to manage the
agency's grants.[Footnote 23] FMCSA officials also stated that the
agency has conducted orientation seminars to advise staff of key
changes provided by the manual.
In addition to the actions previously described, FMCSA officials said
that they have consolidated program management of its grant programs
under its Office of Safety Programs. Previously, FMCSA carried out its
program management of its grant programs in a few of its offices.
Ultimately, the agency wants to establish a central grants management
office responsible for oversight and management of all grant programs
it administers. FMCSA has developed a draft charter for the office
that discusses the vision and mission of the proposed office, the
functions the office will provide, and the reporting relationship of
the proposed office. In its fiscal year 2011 budget request, FMCSA
requested $456,000 and 3.5 full-time staff equivalents to create and
staff this office.[Footnote 24] However, in its fiscal year 2012
budget request, FMCSA requests increases in financial and human
capital assets as part of its larger request for enforcement and
intervention.[Footnote 25] FMCSA officials told us that the agency
initially plans to hire a financial specialist, a lawyer, a senior
grant manager, and a grants specialist for the office. FMCSA did award
a contract in fiscal year 2010 for services to assist with
establishing the grants management office and evaluating the skill
sets needed for the office. FMCSA told us that it plans to assess the
office's specific staffing needs now and re-evaluate those needs after
the office is established and take other steps toward implementing a
standard grant management program throughout the agency. We have
reported that it is essential that agencies determine the skills and
competencies that are critical to successfully achieving their mission
goals, especially as factors, such as budget constraints, change the
environment within which federal agencies operate.[Footnote 26] This
would suggest that FMCSA could benefit from conducting this kind of
strategic workforce planning before the grants management office is
established.
In March 2011, FMCSA produced a Grants Management Program Roadmap that
describes its vision for developing a comprehensive program to
effectively award and manage the agency's grants. The key elements of
the program are: (1) the centralized grants management office, (2)
standard policies and procedures that incorporate government best
practices, (3) implementation and integration of automated systems,
(4) documentation for all aspects of the program, and (5)
comprehensive grant management training. We plan to assess this
roadmap in our follow-on review that will address FMCSA's award of
discretionary grants more broadly. We have recently begun this work at
your request, and we will keep your offices informed about our
progress.
Despite FMCSA's efforts to improve the CVISN program, the program has
been shut down much longer than the agency expected. FMCSA officials
originally told states in May 2010 that the program would be shut down
temporarily--approximately 8 to 12 weeks--while the agency reviewed
the program. As of April 2011, the program has been shut down for
approximately 11 months. The ongoing shut down has created problems
for some state grant recipients. FMCSA officials told us that several
states--including, Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Ohio, Oklahoma, and
Texas--have reported that they have had to cancel contracts associated
with the CVISN program due to a lack of funding.
FMCSA has no time estimate for resuming the CVISN program and no plan
outlining milestones to achieve that result. It is our opinion that
FMCSA could benefit from a specific plan that establishes time frames
and milestones for resuming the CVISN program. We also believe that
FMCSA should develop a strategic workforce plan for its proposed
grants management office to ensure that it has determined the skills
and competencies that are critical to achieving its mission goals
before the office is established. Nonetheless, we are not making any
recommendations at this time because we will have a firmer basis for
evaluating FMCSA's actions once we complete our follow-on review to
more broadly assess FMCSA's discretionary grant award activities.
Agency Comments:
We provided a draft of this report to the Department of Transportation
for its review and comment. The department did not provide its overall
assessment of the draft report, but offered technical comments that we
incorporated.
As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents
of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 7 days
from the report date. At that time we will send copies of this report
to congressional committees with responsibilities for surface
transportation issues; the Director, Office of Management and Budget;
the Secretary of Transportation; and the Administrator of the Federal
Motor Carrier Safety Administration. In addition, this report will be
available at no charge on GAO's Web site at [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staffs have any questions regarding this report, please
contact me at (202) 512-2834 or flemings@gao.gov. Contact points for
our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found
on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions
to this report are Thomas Armstrong, Amy Higgins, Delwen Jones, Bonnie
Pignatiello Leer, James Ratzenberger, Rebecca Rygg, Glenn Slocum, and
Crystal Wesco.
Signed by:
Susan A. Fleming:
Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues:
Enclosure:
[End of section]
Enclosure:
Grant Award Violations and Amounts Obligated and Disbursed:
This enclosure provides additional information on improper grant
awards made by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA)
and on funds that it has obligated and disbursed over the life of the
program.
Table 1: Core Deployment Grant Violations:
State: Alabama;
Violation amount: $1,000,000;
Fiscal year(s): 2008.
State: Alaska;
Violation amount: $1,043,312;
Fiscal year(s): 2006.
State: Arkansas;
Violation amount: $1,000,000;
Fiscal year(s): 2008, 2009.
State: Delaware;
Violation amount: $1,000,000;
Fiscal year(s): 2008, 2009.
State: Florida;
Violation amount: $1,020,000;
Fiscal year(s): 2007.
State: Georgia;
Violation amount: $1,000,000;
Fiscal year(s): 2009.
State: Hawaii;
Violation amount: $1,000,000;
Fiscal year(s): 2009.
State: Iowa;
Violation amount: $765,700;
Fiscal year(s): 2007, 2008.
State: Louisiana;
Violation amount: $1,000,000;
Fiscal year(s): 2009.
State: Maine;
Violation amount: $1,000,000;
Fiscal year(s): 2008.
State: Massachusetts;
Violation amount: $1,000,000;
Fiscal year(s): 2010.
State: Mississippi;
Violation amount: $1,000,000;
Fiscal year(s): 2008.
State: Missouri;
Violation amount: $21,850;
Fiscal year(s): 2007.
State: New Jersey;
Violation amount: $1,000,000;
Fiscal year(s): 2007, 2008.
State: New York;
Violation amount: $245,158;
Fiscal year(s): 2006.
State: Oklahoma;
Violation amount: $800,000;
Fiscal year(s): 2006, 2007.
State: Rhode Island;
Violation amount: $580,000;
Fiscal year(s): 2007.
State: South Carolina;
Violation amount: $20,000;
Fiscal year(s): 2008.
State: South Dakota;
Violation amount: $1,326,023;
Fiscal year(s): 2007, 2010.
State: Texas;
Violation amount: $1,000,000;
Fiscal year(s): 2008.
State: West Virginia;
Violation amount: $1,020,000;
Fiscal year(s): 2009.
State: Wyoming;
Violation amount: $1,005,000;
Fiscal year(s): 2009.
State: Total;
Violation amount: $18,847,043.
Source: GAO presentation of FMCSA data.
Note: Amounts are rounded to the nearest dollar.
[End of table]
Table 2: States That FMCSA Provided Expanded Deployment Grant Funds
before They Were Core-Certified:
State: Alaska;
Amount: $545,000;
Fiscal year(s): 2007.
State: Arkansas;
Amount: [A];
Fiscal year(s): 2008.
State: Delaware;
Amount: [A];
Fiscal year(s): 2008.
State: Florida;
Amount: [A];
Fiscal year(s): 2007.
State: Georgia;
Amount: [A];
Fiscal year(s): 2009.
State: Hawaii;
Amount: [A];
Fiscal year(s): 2009.
State: Indiana;
Amount: $100,000;
Fiscal year(s): 2009.
State: Iowa;
Amount: [A];
Fiscal year(s): 2007.
State: Kansas;
Amount: $85,000;
Fiscal year(s): 2007.
State: Louisiana;
Amount: [A];
Fiscal year(s): 2008, 2009.
State: Maine;
Amount: [A];
Fiscal year(s): 2008.
State: Massachusetts;
Amount: [A];
Fiscal year(s): 2010.
State: Mississippi;
Amount: [A];
Fiscal year(s): 2008.
State: New Jersey;
Amount: [A];
Fiscal year(s): 2007, 2008.
State: New York;
Amount: $500,000;
Fiscal year(s): 2007.
State: North Carolina;
Amount: $50,000;
Fiscal year(s): 2006.
State: Oklahoma;
Amount: $100,000;
Fiscal year(s): 2008.
State: South Dakota;
Amount: [A];
Fiscal year(s): 2006, 2007, 2010.
State: Texas;
Amount: [A];
Fiscal year(s): 2008.
State: West Virginia;
Amount: [A];
Fiscal year(s): 2009.
State: Wyoming;
Amount: [A];
Fiscal year(s): 2009.
State: Total;
Amount: $1,380,000.
Source: GAO presentation of FMCSA data.
[A] Grant award clearly covered both core and expanded deployment
activities but did not specify how the grant funding was to be divided
between the activities. In these cases, FMCSA treated the entire grant
award as a core deployment grant for the purposes of calculating
violation amounts.
[End of table]
Table 3: Amounts Obligated to States and Disbursed from 1996 to April
2011:
State: Alabama;
Amount obligated: $3,500,000;
Amount disbursed: $2,518,116.
State: Alaska;
Amount obligated: $4,088,312;
Amount disbursed: $2,873,348.
State: Arizona;
Amount obligated: $3,520,000;
Amount disbursed: $529,032.
State: Arkansas;
Amount obligated: $3,500,000;
Amount disbursed: $1,088,335.
State: California;
Amount obligated: $1,168,934;
Amount disbursed: $1,808,104.
State: Colorado;
Amount obligated: $4,070,000;
Amount disbursed: $2,601,781.
State: Connecticut;
Amount obligated: $3,980,844;
Amount disbursed: $2,919,035.
State: Delaware;
Amount obligated: $3,500,000;
Amount disbursed: $514,314.
State: District of Columbia;
Amount obligated: $975,000;
Amount disbursed: $0.
State: Florida;
Amount obligated: $3,520,000;
Amount disbursed: $358,093.
State: Georgia;
Amount obligated: $3,500,000;
Amount disbursed: $0.
State: Hawaii;
Amount obligated: $3,500,000;
Amount disbursed: $0.
State: Idaho;
Amount obligated: $3,527,687;
Amount disbursed: $1,611,518.
State: Illinois;
Amount obligated: $959,200;
Amount disbursed: $129,232.
State: Indiana;
Amount obligated: $1,304,450;
Amount disbursed: $89,159.
State: Iowa;
Amount obligated: $3,265,700;
Amount disbursed: $267,280.
State: Kansas;
Amount obligated: $3,500,000;
Amount disbursed: $1,315,582.
State: Kentucky;
Amount obligated: $5,828,245;
Amount disbursed: $4,528,308.
State: Louisiana;
Amount obligated: $3,500,000;
Amount disbursed: $680,093.
State: Maine;
Amount obligated: $3,500,000;
Amount disbursed: $1,536,553.
State: Maryland;
Amount obligated: $5,227,116;
Amount disbursed: $3,254,356.
State: Massachusetts;
Amount obligated: $3,500,000;
Amount disbursed: $99,121.
State: Michigan;
Amount obligated: $3,023,092;
Amount disbursed: $3,012,586.
State: Minnesota;
Amount obligated: $2,566,500;
Amount disbursed: $3,123,500.
State: Mississippi;
Amount obligated: $3,500,000;
Amount disbursed: $604,631.
State: Missouri;
Amount obligated: $4,769,639;
Amount disbursed: $4,378,478.
State: Montana;
Amount obligated: $2,194,719;
Amount disbursed: $2,194,719.
State: Nebraska;
Amount obligated: $977,600;
Amount disbursed: $822,441.
State: Nevada;
Amount obligated: $2,638,649;
Amount disbursed: $350,000.
State: New Hampshire;
Amount obligated: $21,119;
Amount disbursed: $6,716.
State: New Jersey;
Amount obligated: $3,500,000;
Amount disbursed: $808,395.
State: New Mexico;
Amount obligated: $3,289,271;
Amount disbursed: $1,886,326.
State: New York;
Amount obligated: $3,245,158;
Amount disbursed: $2,196,351.
State: North Carolina;
Amount obligated: $4,160,721;
Amount disbursed: $2,123,275.
State: North Dakota;
Amount obligated: $1,862,158;
Amount disbursed: $1,848,175.
State: Ohio;
Amount obligated: $2,404,519;
Amount disbursed: $648,892.
State: Oklahoma;
Amount obligated: $4,319,608;
Amount disbursed: $2,098,663.
State: Oregon;
Amount obligated: $0;
Amount disbursed: $0.
State: Pennsylvania;
Amount obligated: $350,000;
Amount disbursed: $0.
State: Rhode Island;
Amount obligated: $3,080,000;
Amount disbursed: $0.
State: South Carolina;
Amount obligated: $2,520,000;
Amount disbursed: $2,191,611.
State: South Dakota;
Amount obligated: $3,826,023;
Amount disbursed: $2,826,023.
State: Tennessee;
Amount obligated: $3,500,011;
Amount disbursed: $1,603,945.
State: Texas;
Amount obligated: $3,500,000;
Amount disbursed: $1,163,537.
State: Utah;
Amount obligated: $3,666,832;
Amount disbursed: $651,083.
State: Vermont;
Amount obligated: $34,000;
Amount disbursed: $14,000.
State: Virginia;
Amount obligated: $4,161,482;
Amount disbursed: $3,881,682.
State: Washington;
Amount obligated: $3,293,185;
Amount disbursed: $2,779,682.
State: West Virginia;
Amount obligated: $3,520,000;
Amount disbursed: $20,000.
State: Wisconsin;
Amount obligated: $4,033,170;
Amount disbursed: $3,587,407.
State: Wyoming;
Amount obligated: $3,505,000;
Amount disbursed: $11,970.
State: Total;
Amount obligated: $154,397,944;
Amount disbursed: $73,555,448.
Source: GAO presentation of FMCSA data.
Note: Amounts obligated include funds that were obligated under the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21ST Century (TEA-21) and the Safe,
Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy
for Users (SAFETEA-LU). Amounts disbursed include funds that were
disbursed under those two statutes, as well as under TEA-21's
predecessor, the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of
1991 (ISTEA). FMCSA told us that funding for CVISN from the ISTEA era
began in 1996. Although SAFETEA-LU requires only funds obligated under
TEA-21 and SAFETEA-LU be counted toward the CVISN core deployment cap,
FMCSA officials told us that they have not been able to separate ISTEA
funds from the total CVISN program disbursements. This is why
California and Minnesota appear to have more funds disbursed than were
obligated. ISTEA disbursements by the Federal Highway Administration
may have occurred in other states as well. Amounts are rounded to the
nearest dollar.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] An obligation is a definite commitment that creates a legal
liability of the government for the payment of goods and services
ordered or received, or a legal duty on the part of the United States
that could mature into a legal liability by virtue of actions on the
part of the other party beyond the control of the United States.
Payment may be made immediately or in the future. GAO, A Glossary of
Terms Used in the Federal Budget Process, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-734SP] (Washington, D.C.: September
2005), at 70. For the CVISN program, the obligation of funds occurs
when a grant agreement is executed.
FMCSA was established as a separate operating administration within
the Department of Transportation (the department) in January 2000. Its
primary mission is to reduce crashes, injuries, and fatalities
involving large commercial trucks and buses. FMCSA administers nine
discretionary grant programs, including CVISN, aimed at increasing
safety and regulatory compliance. The agency was formerly a part of
the Federal Highway Administration.
[2] Pub. L. No. 109-59, § 4101(c)(4). Contract authority is a form of
budget authority that permits an agency to incur obligations in
advance of appropriations, including collections sufficient to
liquidate the obligation or receipts. Contract authority is unfunded,
and a subsequent appropriation or offsetting collection is needed to
liquidate the obligations. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-734SP], at 21.
[3] See, for example,GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the
Federal Government, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1] (Washington, D.C.:
November 1999) and GAO, Human Capital: Key Principles for Effective
Strategic Workforce Planning, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-39] (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 11,
2003).
[4] 31 U.S.C. § 1301(a); B-302973, Oct. 6, 2004. B numbers contained
in this report refer to products issued by the U.S. Comptroller
General.
[5] E.g., B-317450, Mar. 23, 2009; B-300192, Nov. 13, 2002; 60 Comp.
Gen. 440 (1981).
[6] 31 U.S.C. § 1341(a); B-308715, Apr. 20, 2007.
[7] B-317450, Mar. 23, 2009.
[8] Id.
[9] FMCSA has operated the program under several extensions of SAFETEA-
LU since 2009.
[10] SAFETEA-LU provides that "the maximum aggregate amount the
Secretary may grant to a State for the core deployment of commercial
vehicle information systems and networks under this subsection and
sections 5001(a)(5) and 5001(a)(6) of the Transportation Equity Act
for the 21st Century (Pub. L. No. 105-178) may not exceed $2,500,000."
Pub. L. No. 109-59 § 4126(c)(2).
[11] FMCSA officials stated that they did not count core cap
violations if they had awarded core deployment grant(s) to states in
excess of $2.5 million prior to the enactment of SAFETEA-LU because
these grants pre-dated SAFETEA-LU's establishment of the $2.5 million
core cap. However, if FMCSA awarded a core deployment grant to a state
after enactment of SAFETEA-LU, any grant awarded under TEA-21 counted
toward the aggregate core cap.
[12] The dollar amount of violation by state is as follows: Colorado
($570,000 in fiscal year 2008), Kentucky ($808,000 in fiscal year
2007), and North Carolina ($451,000 in fiscal year 2008). All amounts
are rounded.
[13] Specifically, this section says that "An eligible State that has
either completed the core deployment of [CVISN] or completed such
deployment before grant funds are expended under this sub-section may
use the grant funds for the expanded deployment of [CVISN] in the
State."
[14] In addition to the four types of statutory violations, FMCSA
found instances in which it allowed states to continue activities on
expired grants before they were renewed. FMCSA officials stated that
they have not fully investigated this issue, but they plan to do so
after they address the statutory violations.
[15] According to FMCSA, the agency has pending vouchers that total
$11.7 million.
[16] 31 U.S.C. § 1351.
[17] Id.
[18] Congress may give effect to an unauthorized act of a government
official by subsequently ratifying the action. See B-317413, Apr. 24,
2009; B-306353, Oct. 26, 2005.
[19] We did not assess the funding history created by the analysis
team to ensure that it accounted for all CVISN awards. FMCSA officials
told us that they believe the department has done its due diligence to
create an accurate financial history for the program moving forward.
[20] FMCSA officials provided us with a routing slip for this letter
with the initials of the Chief Counsel at that time. The officials
said that this indicated the approval of the legal department to send
the letter to the states.
[21] Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, Department of
Transportation, Commercial Vehicle Information Systems and Networks
(CVISN) Grant Program: Questions and Answers to State Grantees
(Washington, D.C.: June 2010).
[22] Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, Department of
Transportation, Introductory Guide to CVISN, Baseline Version 1.0
(Washington, D.C.: November 2008).
[23] Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, Department of
Transportation, Grants Management Manual, Version 2 (Washington, D.C.:
January 2011).
[24] According to FMCSA officials, in the budget year, a position is
only funded at 50 percent to adjust for the time to receive
appropriations; therefore, 3.5 full-time equivalents would be
equivalent to 7 full-time positions.
[25] FMCSA officials said that they provided a more detailed list of
the additional staff requests for fiscal year 2012 to Congress and
provided a copy to us. This list shows a request for 3.5 full-time
staff equivalents for grants management and oversight.
[26] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-39].
[End of section]
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Phone:
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO‘s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO‘s Web site,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
