Results:
Archive: 2015

May 5, 2015

Program Manager Medium andHeavy Tactical Vehicles Needs toImprove Acquisition Practices

The objective was to assess the propriety of allegations made to the Defense Hotline concerning acquisition practices at Program Executive Office Land Systems; Program Management Office, Medium and Heavy Tactical Vehicles. Specifically, we determined whether Command followed proper procedures for urgent acquisitions of the Automatic Fire Extinguishing Systems for the Medium Tactical Vehicle Replacement.

May 1, 2015

Navy Officials Did Not Consistently Comply With Requirements for Assessing Contractor Performance

The objective of the audit was to determine whether Navy officials completed comprehensive and timely contractor performance assessment reports (PARs). This is the first in a series of audits of DoD compliance with policies for evaluating contractor performance.

April 30, 2015

Assessment of U.S. and Coalition Efforts to Develop the Sufficiency of Afghan NationalSecurity Forces' Policies, Processes, and Procedures for the Management andAccountability of Class III (Fuel) and V (Ammunition)

The overall objective of this project was to assess U.S. and Coalition efforts to develop the effectiveness of Afghan National Security Forces’ (ANSF’s) policies and procedures for the management and accountability of fuel (Class III [Bulk]) and conventional military ammunition and explosives (Class V).

April 30, 2015

Quality Control Review of the PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, and the DefenseContract Audit Agency FY 2013 Single Audit of The MITRE Corporation

As the cognizant Federal agency for the MITRE Corporation (MITRE), we performed a quality control review of the PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, (PwC) and Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) single audit report and supporting audit documentation for the audit period of October 1, 2012, through September 30, 2013.

April 30, 2015

Complaint Regarding the Award of a $576 Million Navy Contract Without Appropriate Consideration of Audit Findings

We conducted this evaluation to determine the validity of a complaint alleging that a Navy contracting officer awarded a $576 million contract without appropriately considering significant findings reported by the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA).