Skip to main content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Government Website

Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Safely connect using HTTPS

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock () or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Audits, Inspections, and Evaluations

Report Number Title Issue Date Fiscal Year
OIG-24-56 Coast Guard Needs to Implement Effective Planning for Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act Projects 2024
OIG-24-37 Coast Guard Should Take Additional Steps to Secure the Marine Transportation System Against Cyberattacks 2024
OIG-24-08 Coast Guard National Maritime Center's Oversight of Merchant Mariner Training and Examinations 2024
OIG-23-46 The United States Coast Guard Needs to Determine the Impact and Effectiveness of Its Streamlined Inspection Program 2023
OIG-23-23 The United States Coast Guard Needs to Improve Its Accounting for Non-Capitalized Personal Property Assets 2023
OIG-23-09 Review of U.S. Coast Guard's Fiscal Year 2022 Drug Control Budget Formulation Compliance Report 2023
OIG-23-08 Review of U.S. Coast Guard's Fiscal Year 2022 Detailed Accounting Report for Drug Control Funds 2023
OIG-22-24 Review of U.S. Coast Guard's Fiscal Year 2021 Detailed Accounting Report for Drug Control Funds 2022
OIG-22-23 Review of U.S. Coast Guard's Fiscal Year 2021 Drug Control Budget Formulation Compliance Report 2022
OIG-21-67 During our ongoing audit of DHS law enforcement virtual training, we learned that the Coast Guard uses functional firearms to conduct DVD-based simulation training.  We identified this issue in Coast Guard’s Commandant Instruction 3574.5C, 18 September 2014, Coast Guard Judgmental Use of Force Evaluation and observed a demonstration of this training at one Coast Guard location.  According to testimony or policy from four other DHS components that employ or train law enforcement personnel, the use of functional firearms during video-based simulation training is prohibited within their respective components.  By using functional firearms capable of firing ammunition, even if emptied of ammunition, in DVD-based simulation training, Coast Guard increased the risk of unintentional injury or death.  Coast Guard concurred with our recommendation and took immediate corrective actions to discontinue the use of functional firearms during DVD-based simulation training.  The recommendation is resolved and closed.

>Management Alert - The United States Coast Guard Discontinued the Use of Functional Firearms in DVD Simulation Training 		2021
OIG-21-65 Summary: Rescue 21 Alaska, Coast Guard’s maritime search and rescue communication system, has experienced outages resulting from antiquated equipment in Coast Guard’s District 17.  Challenges and funding shortages during system acquisition caused Coast Guard to limit the purchase of new equipment for Rescue 21 Alaska, requiring District 17 to maintain existing equipment for longer than initially planned.  Alaska’s winter weather conditions and remote access to communication site locations cause lengthy repair times, further exacerbating the outage impacts.  The outages have prevented Coast Guard, at times, from effectively receiving and responding to distress calls from mariners.  Coast Guard has made some upgrades to the Rescue 21 Alaska system to enhance distress communication availability and reliability.  Although Coast Guard plans for further upgrades, outages persist.  When notifying the public about the outages, Coast Guard primarily relies on a “Local Notice to Mariners” posted on their public website.  However, this limits who can receive the notices, as not all mariners go to the internet to determine outage locations.  Alaska mariners shared other effective methods Coast Guard could use to improve its notifications to the public when there are known VHF distress communications outages.  Adequately upgrading the communications equipment and ensuring robust attempts are made to notify the public when outages occur is essential for Coast Guard to achieve its search and rescue mission in Alaska.  We made two recommendations to ensure the Coast Guard is prioritizing Rescue 21 Alaska upgrades and appropriately notifying the public of outages. Coast Guard concurred with both recommendations.

>Coast Guard Should Prioritize Upgrades to Rescue 21 Alaska and Expand Its Public Notifications during Outages 		2021
OIG-20-36 We identified 16 allegations of race-based harassment involving cadets between 2013 and 2018 that the Coast Guard Academy (the Academy) was aware of and had sufficient information to investigate and address through internal hate and harassment procedures.  The OIG identified issues in how the Academy addressed 11 of them.  First, in six incidents, the Academy did not thoroughly investigate the allegations, and/or did not discipline cadets when investigations documented violations of cadet regulations or Coast Guard policy.  In two of these instances, cadets committed similar misconduct again.  The Academy also did not fully include civil rights staff as required in six instances (including two of the instances noted previously).  Therefore, civil rights staff could not properly track these incidents to proactively identify trends and offer the Academy assistance.  In addition, in one incident involving a potential hate allegation, the Academy did not follow the Coast Guard process for hate incidents.  Finally, our review determined that race-based harassment is underreported at the Academy for various reasons, including concerns about negative consequences for reporting allegations.  Underreporting is especially concerning because our questionnaire results and interviews indicate harassing behaviors continue at the Academy.  We made five recommendations that will enhance the Academy’s ability to address harassment and hate allegations, including ensuring the Academy consistently investigates allegations, requiring the reasons for disciplinary decisions be documented after race- or ethnicity-based harassment investigations, informing civil rights staff of all misconduct that could reasonably relate to race or ethnicity; and improving training related to preventing and addressing race-based or ethnicity-based harassment or hate incidents.  The Coast Guard concurred with all recommendations

>The U.S. Coast Guard Academy Must Take Additional Steps to Better Address Allegations of Race-Based Harassment and Prevent Such Harassment on Campus 		2020
OIG-20-16 DHS does not have a unified approach for procuring and using handheld chemical identification devices despite the widespread use of these devices across multiple components.  We recommended DHS establish a process to coordinate joint needs across components and maximize savings from strategic sourcing opportunities.  We made two recommendations that should help improve unity of effort in procuring and using handheld chemical identification devices.  DHS concurred with recommendation 1 but did not concur with recommendation 2.

>DHS Should Seek a Unified Approach when Purchasing and Using Handheld Chemical Identification Devices 		2020
OIG-19-33 The Office of National Drug Control Policy’s (ONDCP) Circular, Accounting of Drug Control Funding and Performance Summary, requires each National Drug Control Program agency to submit to the ONDCP Director a detailed accounting of all funds expended for National Drug Control Program activities during the previous fiscal year. Williams, Adley & Company –DC, LLP (Williams Adley), under contract with the Department of Homeland Security OIG, issued an Independent Accountant’s Report on U.S. Coast Guard’s (Coast Guard) Detailed Accounting Submission. Coast Guard management prepared the Table of FY 2018 Drug Control Obligations and related disclosures in accordance with requirements of ONDCP Circular, Accounting of Drug Control Funding and Performance Summary, dated May 8, 2018 (the Circular). Based on its review, nothing came to Williams Adley’s attention that caused it to believe that the Coast Guard’s FY 2018 Detailed Accounting Submission is not presented in conformity with the criteria in the Circular. Williams Adley did not make any recommendations as a result of its review.

>Review of U.S. Coast Guard's Fiscal Year 2018 Detailed Accounting Submission for Drug Control Funds 		2019
OIG-19-27 The Office of National Drug Control Policy’s (ONDCP) Circular, Accounting of Drug Control Funding and Performance Summary, requires each National Drug Control Program agency to submit to ONDCP Director a detailed accounting of all funds expended for National Drug Control Program activities during the previous fiscal year. Williams Adley & Company – DC, LLP (Williams Adley), under contract with the Department of Homeland Security OIG, issued an Independent Accountant’s Report on U.S. Coast Guard’s (Coast Guard) fiscal year (FY) 2018 Drug Control Performance Summary Report.

>Review of U.S. Coast Guard's Fiscal Year 2018 Drug Control Performance Summary Report 		2019
OIG-19-22 We intended to verify whether the U.S. Coast Guard is properly reporting service members who are prohibited from possessing a firearm (“prohibited individuals”) to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). However, in comparing relevant databases with data into the National Instant Background Check System (NICS), We identified a number of issues that led us to question the reliability of the Coast Guard’s data.  As a result, OIG cannot identify the full scope of prohibited individuals or verify that the Coast Guard properly reported prohibited individuals to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and to Congress.  Despite our concerns about the quality of Coast Guard’s data, OIG identified 210 service members who committed offenses that placed them in one of the categories of prohibited individuals.  Of these 210, Coast Guard did not enter 16 service members (8 percent) into NCIS.  This underreporting occurred because Coast Guard policy did not require attorneys to forward information about all individuals referred for trial by general court martial for reporting to the FBI.  Additionally, Coast Guard’s reporting to the FBI is centralized, and does not allow investigators in field offices to have direct access to NICS.  We made eight recommendations that will enhance Coast Guard’s reporting of prohibited individuals to the FBI.  The Coast Guard concurred with the recommendations.

>United States Coast Guard's Reporting of Uniform Code of Military Justice Violations to the Federal Bureau of Investigation 		2019
OIG-19-03 The Office of Inspector General (OIG) is conducting an investigation into allegations that the whistleblower was retaliated against for, among other things, communicating with Members of Congress regarding discrimination and retaliation against the whistleblower. The whistleblower alleged being subjected to retaliatory investigations by CGIS in violation of the Military Whistleblower Protection Act (MWPA). We recently learned that CGIS executed a search warrant against the whistleblower several months after the whistleblower retired from the Coast Guard, but soon after CGIS became aware of the OIG’s whistleblower retaliation investigation. Our information indicates that a CGIS agent obtained the search warrant in connection with a CGIS-directed investigation.

>Management Alert - Coast Guard Investigative Service Search and Seizure of DHS OIG and Congressional Communications 		2019
OIG-19-02 CBP Should Improve Its Air Coordination of the Rio Grande Valley Sector 2019
OIG-18-88 DHS did not complete an assessment of the security value of the Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC) program as required by law.  This occurred because DHS experienced challenges identifying an office responsible for the effort.  As a result, Coast Guard does not have a full understanding of the extent to which the TWIC program addresses security risks in the maritime environment.  This will continue to impact the Coast Guard’s ability to properly develop and enforce regulations governing the TWIC program. For example, Coast Guard did not clearly define the applicability of facilities that have certain dangerous cargo in bulk when developing a final rule to implement the use of TWIC readers at high-risk maritime facilities.  Without oversight and policy improvements in the TWIC program, high-risk facilities may continue to operate without enhanced security measures, putting these facilities at an increased security risk. In addition, Coast Guard needs to improve its oversight of the TWIC program to reduce the risk of transportation security incidents.  Due to technical problems and lack of awareness of procedures, Coast Guard did not make full use of the TWIC card’s biometric features as intended by Congress to ensure only eligible individuals have unescorted access to secure areas of regulated facilities.  During inspections at regulated facilities from FYs 2016 through 2017, Coast Guard only used electronic readers to verify, on average, about one in every 15 TWIC cards against TSA’s canceled card list.  This occurred because the majority of the TWIC readers in the field have reached the end of their service life.  Furthermore, the Coast Guard’s guidance governing oversight of the TWIC program is fragmented, which led to confusion and inconsistent inspection procedures.  This resulted in fewer regulatory confiscations of TWIC cards.  The Department concurred with our four recommendations, and described the corrective actions it is taking and plans to take.

>Review of Coast Guard's Oversight of the TWIC Program 		2018
OIG-18-44 The Office of National Drug Control Policy’s (ONDCP) Circular, Accounting of Drug Control Funding and Performance Summary, requires National Drug Control Program agencies to submit to the ONDCP Director, not later than February 1 of each year, a detailed accounting of all funds expended for National Drug Control Program activities during the previous fiscal year (FY). The Office of Inspector General (OIG) is required to conduct a review of the agency’s submission and provide a conclusion about the reliability of each assertion in the report. an Independent Accountants’ Report on U.S. Coast Guard’s (Coast Guard) Detailed Accounting Submission. Coast Guard’s management prepared the Table of FY 2017 Drug Control Obligations and related disclosures in accordance with the requirements of the ONDCP Circular, Accounting of Drug Control Funding and Performance Summary, dated January 18, 2013 (Circular).

>Review of U.S. Coast Guard's Fiscal Year 2017 Detailed Accounting Submission for Drug Control Funds 		2018
OIG-18-43 The Office of National Drug Control Policy’s (ONDCP) Circular, Accounting of Drug Control Funding and Performance Summary, requires National Drug Control Program agencies to submit to the ONDCP Director, not later than February 1 of each year, a detailed accounting of all funds expended for National Drug Control Program activities during the previous fiscal year (FY). The Office of Inspector General (OIG) is required to conduct a review of the report and provide a conclusion about the reliability of each assertion made in the report. Independent Accountants’ Report on the U.S. Coast Guard’s (Coast Guard) FY 2017 Drug Control Performance Summary Report. Coast Guard’s management prepared the Performance Summary Report and the related disclosures in accordance with the requirements of the ONDCP Circular, Accounting of Drug Control Funding and Performance Summary, dated January 18, 2013 (Circular).

>Review of U.S. Coast Guard's Fiscal Year 2017 Drug Control Performance Summary Report 		2018
OIG-18-15 Coast Guard IT Investments Risk Failure Without Required Oversight 2018
OIG-17-89 KPMG, under contract with DHS OIG, audited the United States Coast Guard’s financial statements and internal control over financial reporting.  The resulting management letter discusses 12 observations related to internal control for management’s consideration.  The auditors identified internal control deficiencies in several processes including financial disclosure reports; accounts receivable; civilian and military payroll; financial reporting process; and accounts payable accrual.  These deficiencies are not considered significant and were not required to be reported in our Independent Auditors' Report on DHS’ FY 2016 Financial Statements and Internal Control over Financial Reporting, dated November 14, 2016, included in the DHS FY 2016 Agency Financial Report.

>United States Coast Guard's Management Letter for DHS' Fiscal Year 2016 Financial Statements Audit 		2017
OIG-17-74-IQO The objective of this review was to determine whether the United States Coast Guard Investigative Service (CGIS) was complying with applicable policies.  However, significant issues with the agency’s case management system prevented us from making substantive observations about compliance with investigative policies.  We also noted issues with outdated policies, an absence of a Privacy Impact Assessment, poor training records management, and inconsistent documentation of finalized investigations.  CGIS employees voiced concerns with trust in senior leadership as well as questionable hiring practices, and articulated a need for more resources.  We made 32 recommendations to address the findings of our review and CGIS concurred with all of them.

>Oversight Review of the US Coast Guard Investigative Service 		2017
OIG-17-58-UNSUM Since our fiscal year 2015 evaluation, the Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) has continued to provide effective oversight of DHS’ department-wide intelligence system and implemented programs for ongoing monitoring of its security practices. In addition, I&A has relocated its intelligence system to a DHS data center to improve network resiliency and support. The United States Coast Guard (USCG) has migrated its sites that process Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information to a Defense Intelligence Agency owned system. However, USCG must continue to work with the Defense Intelligence Agency to clearly define the oversight responsibilities for this external system that supports its intelligence operations. We identified deficiencies in DHS’ information security program and are making two recommendations to I&A and three recommendations to USCG. I&A concurred with its two recommendations, while USCG non-concurred with its three recommendations. We conducted this review between May and September 2016.

>(U) Annual Evaluation of DHS' INFOSEC Program (Intel Systems - DHS Intelligence and Analysis) for FY 2016 		2017
OIG-17-33 U.S. Coast Guard management prepared the Performance Summary Report and the related disclosures in accordance with the requirements of the ONDCP Circular, Accounting of Drug Control Funding and Performance Summary, dated January 18, 2013 (Circular).  Based on its review, nothing came to KPMG’s attention that caused it to believe that the Coast Guard’s FY 2016 Performance Summary Report is not presented, in conformity with the criteria in ONDCP’s Circular.  KPMG did not make any recommendations as a result of its review.

>Review of U.S. Coast Guard's Fiscal Year 2016 Review of U.S. Coast Guard's Fiscal Year 2016 Drug Control Performance Summary Report 		2017
OIG-17-32 U.S. Coast Guard management prepared the Table of FY 2016 Drug Control Obligations and related disclosures to comply with the requirements of ONDCP’s Circular, Accounting of Drug Control Funding and Performance Summary, dated January 18, 2013.  Based on its review, nothing came to KPMG’s attention that caused it to believe that the Coast Guard’s FY 2016 Detailed Accounting Submission is not presented in conformity with the criteria in ONDCP’s Circular.  KPMG did not make any recommendations as a result of its review. 

>Review of U.S. Coast Guard's Fiscal Year 2016 Detailed Accounting Submission 		2017
OIG-17-03 We determined that the maritime missions and responsibilities of the agencies are not duplicative and their efforts bolster the overall effectiveness of DHS maritime border security. Given the large area of responsibility, different activities, and limited resources, eliminating the maritime law enforcement responsibilities of either agency — or combining them — could be harmful to border security.  However, Air and Marine Operations and the Coast Guard could improve coordination in some areas.  DHS concurred with our two recommendations to improve oversight, and coordination of maritime operations.

>AMO and Coast Guard Maritime Missions Are Not Duplicative, But Could Improve with Better Coordination 		2017
OIG-16-77 The Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990 (Public Law 101- 576) and the Department Of Homeland Security Financial Accountability Act (Public Law 108-330) require us to conduct an annual audit of the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) consolidated financial statements and internal control over financial reporting.

>United States Coast Guard's Management Letter for DHS' FY 2015 Financial Statements Audit 		2016
OIG-16-28 KPMG LLP, under contract with the Department of Homeland Security OIG, issued an Independent Accountants’ Report on the U.S. Coast Guard’s (Coast Guard) fiscal year 2015 Drug Control Performance Summary Report. Coast Guard management prepared the Performance Summary Report and related disclosures to comply with the requirements of the ONDCP Circular, Accounting of Drug Control Funding and Performance Summary, dated January 18, 2013 (Circular). Based on its review, nothing came to KPMG LLP’s attention that caused it to believe that the Coast Guard’s FY 2015 Performance Summary Report is not presented in conformity with the criteria in the ONDCP Circular. KPMG LLP did not make any recommendations as a result of its review.

>Review of U.S. Coast Guard's Fiscal Year 2015 Drug Control Performance Summary Report 		2016
OIG-16-29 KPMG LLP, under contract with the Department of Homeland Security OIG, issued an Independent Accountants’ Report on U.S. Coast Guard’s (Coast Guard) Detailed Accounting Submission. Coast Guard’s management prepared the Table of FY 2015 Drug Control Obligations and related disclosures to comply with the requirements of the ONDCP Circular, Accounting of Drug Control Funding and Performance Summary, dated January 18, 2013 (Circular). Based on its review, nothing came to KPMG LLP’s attention that caused it to believe that the Coast Guard’s FY 2015 Detailed Accounting Submission is not presented in conformity with the criteria in ONDCP’s Circular. KPMG LLP did not make any recommendations as a result of its review.

>Review of U.S. Coast Guard's Fiscal Year 2015 Detailed Accounting Submission 		2016
OIG-15-78-VR We conducted a verification review to assess the U.S. Coast Guard's progress on the recommendations from our August 2012 report, U.S. Coast Guard's Acquisition of the Sentinel Class-Fast Response Cutter, (OIG-12-68). We periodically conduct verification reviews to evaluate progress on selected audit recommendations, including whether corrective actions achieved the intended result. The Coast Guard’s plans to reduce risks during the OPC acquisition show progress toward achieving the intended results of our recommendations. However, it is too early in the OPC acquisition to determine whether the Coast Guard has fully implemented its plans. According to Coast Guard officials, they took steps to mitigate risks early in the OPC acquisition as a result of our audit report recommendations. In January 2013, the Coast Guard revised its Major Systems Acquisition Manual to establish a design maturity level prior to Critical Design Review and to support low-rate initial production decisions with an operational assessment. We determined that the Coast Guard has established a design maturity level for the OPC and plans to conduct two low-rate initial production phases, each supported by operational assessments.

>Verification Review of U.S. Coast Guard's Acquisition of the Sentinel Class – Fast Response Cutter (OIG-12-68) 		2015
OIG-15-87 The USCG has made progress in developing a culture of privacy. Separately, the USCG Privacy Office and Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Office are working to meet requirements of pertinent legislation, regulations, directives, and guidance. These offices ensure their staff annually receive mandatory privacy training, which helps embed shared attitudes, values, goals, and practices for complying with requirements to properly handle sensitive personally identifiable information and protected health information (privacy data). Also, USCG has completed required privacy and security documentation for managing its information technology systems containing privacy data. However, USCG faces challenges in protecting privacy data effectively because it lacks a strong organizational approach to resolving privacy issues.

>United States Coast Guard Safeguards For Protected Health Information Need Improvement 		2015
OIG-15-68 KPMG LLP reviewed the United States Coast Guard’s (U.S. Coast Guard) internal control over financial reporting. The management letter contains six observations related to internal control and other operational matters for management’s considerations. KPMG LLP noted deficiencies and the need for improvements in certain U.S. Coast Guard processes. These deficiencies did not meet the criteria to be reported in the Independent Auditors’ Report on DHS’ FY 2014 Financial Statements and Internal Control over Financial Reporting, dated November 14, 2014, included in DHS’ fiscal year 2014 Agency Financial Report. These observations are intended to improve internal control or result in other operating efficiencies.

>United States Coast Guards' Management Letter for DHS' FY 2014 Financial Statements Audit 		2015
OIG-15-55 USCG has taken some steps to address the risk of insider threats to its information systems and data. For example, USCG established an Insider Threat Working Group designed to implement a holistic program focused on the insider risk. In addition, USCG implemented a process to verify that system administrators have the appropriate level of access to information technology systems and networks to perform their assigned duties. Further, USCG established the Cyber Security Operations Center to monitor and respond to potential insider threat risks or incidents against USCG information systems and networks. However, additional steps are needed to further address the risk posed by trusted insiders at USCG

>United States Coast Guard Has Taken Steps to Address Insider Threats, but Challenges Remain 		2015
OIG-15-47 We contracted with the independent public accounting firm KPMG, LLP to perform the audit of the consolidated financial statements of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security for the year ended September 30, 2014. KPMG, LLP evaluated selected general information technology controls and business process application controls at the United States Coast Guard (USCG). KPMG, LLP determined that USCG took corrective action over designing and consistently implementing certain account management and configuration management controls. However, KPMG, LLP continued to identify general information technology control deficiencies related to security management, logical access, configuration management, segregation of duties, and contingency planning for USCG’s core financial and feeder systems. Such control deficiencies limited USCG’s ability to ensure the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of its critical financial and operational data.

>Information Technology Management Letter for the United States Coast Guard Component of the FY 2014 Department of Homeland Security Financial Statement Audit 		2015
OIG-15-41 The United States Coast Guard (USCG) operates the Biometrics at Sea System (BASS) to collect biometric data from interdicted aliens. The biometrics are sent to the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Automated Biometric Identification System (IDENT) to identify potential persons of interest, including suspected terrorists. We audited BASS interface with IDENT, security roles and responsibilities, and change control management. We determined that USCG did not have a routine reconciliation process to ensure that all biometrics that it captured on the 23 cutters are maintained in IDENT. Not ensuring reconciliation between the total biometrics USCG submitted and the number stored in IDENT may impede future identification of suspected terrorists, aggravated felons, or other individuals of interest. USCG also allowed application programmers with unrestricted system access to share passwords. The control weakness may result in individuals making unauthorized changes to the system without detection. Further, we determined that the authorization for the transition from the 2-fingerprint to 10-fingerprint application system was not properly documented and security documentation had not been updated. Without a proper authorization process, USCG could not provide assurance that senior executives approved the change prior to implementation.

>The Security Posture of the United States Coast Guard's Biometrics At Sea System Needs Improvements 		2015
OIG-15-32 After an alteration of the BNSF Railway bridge (Burlington bridge) in Burlington, Iowa, was completed in 2012, the United States Coast Guard (Coast Guard) requested that we audit the sharing of costs, known as the final apportionment of cost, to determine its accuracy. Coast Guard could not provide proper documentation to support the final apportionment of cost for the Burlington bridge alteration, of which $74 million was allocated to the Coast Guard and $8 million to BNSF Railway (BNSF). Specifically, the Coast Guard did not properly document its review of the construction contractors who bid on the new bridge. In addition, the financial documentation for changes to originally planned work did not always support the cost of the work. The Coast Guard also did not have a process to evaluate and verify BNSF’s reported salvage value or expected savings in maintenance and repair costs. Based on our review of available documentation, we were unable to confirm either the Coast Guard’s or BNSF’s share of the final cost to alter the Burlington bridge. As a result, the Coast Guard cannot be certain it was appropriate to pay $74 million as the Federal share of the final cost of the bridge alteration.

>United States Coast Guard's Alteration of the Burlington Bridge Project 		2015
OIG-15-31 The U.S. Coast Guard’s Travel to Obtain Health Care program is intended to ensure U.S. Coast Guard (Coast Guard) members and their dependents have access to proper medical care while stationed in locations where access to specialty care may not be readily available. From October 2010 through June 2014, the Coast Guard spent almost $4.5 million on this program. We received allegations that unnecessary travel had been approved. As a result, we conducted this audit to determine if the program has sufficient controls to ensure travel is necessary. The program did not have sufficient controls to ensure that travel for medical purposes was necessary. The Coast Guard did not establish, distribute, or ensure implementation of clear policies and procedures for reviewing, approving, and maintaining program requests. Local offices were not provided criteria or training on how to evaluate the requests, did not document that travel was necessary, and did not adequately justify that the location for medical care was appropriate. Ninety-four percent of the records tested were missing essential information, such as physicians’ referrals and cost estimates. Without this information, approving officials may not have been able to evaluate whether the travel was necessary and cost effective. As a result, the Coast Guard may have approved requests for inappropriate health care travel, incurring unnecessary costs and lost productivity.

>The U.S. Coast Guard Travel to Obtain Health Care Program Needs Improved Policies and Better Oversight 		2015
OIG-15-27 KPMG LLP, under contract with the Department of Homeland Security OIG, issued an Independent Accountants’ Report on the U.S. Coast Guard’s (Coast Guard) fiscal year 2014 Drug Control Performance Summary Report. Coast Guard management prepared the Performance Summary Report and related disclosures to comply with the requirements of the ONDCP Circular, Accounting of Drug Control Funding and Performance Summary (Circular), dated January 18, 2013. Based on its review, nothing came to KPMG LLP’s attention that caused it to believe that the Performance Summary Report for the year ended September 30, 2014, is not presented, in all material respects, in conformity with the criteria in the ONDCP Circular. KPMG LLP did not make any recommendations as a result of its review.

>Review of U.S. Coast Guard's FY 2014 Drug Control Performance Summary Report 		2015
OIG-15-28 KPMG LLP, under contract with the Department of Homeland Security OIG, issued an Independent Accountants’ Report on U.S. Coast Guard’s (Coast Guard) Detailed Accounting Submission. Coast Guard’s management prepared the Table of FY 2014 Drug Control Obligations and related disclosures to comply with the requirements of the ONDCP Circular, Accounting of Drug Control Funding and Performance Summary (Circular), dated January 18, 2013. Based on its review, nothing came to KPMG LLP’s attention that caused it to believe that the Detailed Accounting Submission for the year ended September 30, 2014, is not presented, in all material respects, in conformity with the criteria in ONDCP’s Circular. KPMG LLP did not make any recommendations as a result of its review.

>Review of U.S. Coast Guard's FY 2014 Detailed Accounting Submission 		2015
OIG-15-05 The Coast Guard has undertaken a project to modernize information technology onboard certain ships and aircraft. This technology is referred to collectively as Command, Control, Communication, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (C4ISR) systems. The C4ISR project is a major information technology investment with an acquisition life cycle cost of $1.5 billion through fiscal year 2026. The Coast Guard has implemented information technology systems that effectively support the mission needs of some ships and aircraft. Specifically, the systems have met overall performance requirements and have improved operational capabilities, including increased situational awareness, better communication within the Coast Guard and with its partners, and enhanced sensor capabilities. The Coast Guard, however, has not carried out some planned system enhancements that were necessary to support mission needs of certain aircraft and legacy ships. These enhancements were not carried out because of significant budget reductions. Revised plans do not fully address how the Coast Guard will meet the critical technology needs of these aircraft and legacy ships. As a result, these ships and aircraft continue to rely on obsolete technology which impacts mission performance and makes operations and maintenance more difficult and costly.

>U.S. Coast Guard Command, Control, Communication, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Modernization 		2015
OIG-14-140 This report presents our annual review of the United States Coast Guard’s (USCG) mission performance, as required by the Homeland Security Act of 2002. The act defines the USCG’s 11 statutory missions as either non homeland security missions or homeland security. The act also prohibits the Secretary of Homeland Security from substantially reducing any of the USCG’s missions after its transfer to the Department of Homeland Security, except as specified in subsequent acts.

>Annual Review of the United States Coast Guard's Mission Performance (FY 2013) 		2014
OIG-14-69 We contracted with the independent public accounting firm KPMG LLP (KPMG) to conduct the audit of the DHS’ FY 2013 financial statements and internal control over financial reporting. The contract required that KPMG perform its audit according to generally accepted government auditing standards and guidance from the Office of Management and Budget and the Government Accountability Office. KPMG isresponsible for the attached management letter dated January 15, 2014, and the conclusions expressed in it

>United States Coast Guard’s Management Letter for FY 2013 DHS Financial Statements Audit 		2014
OIG-14-42 The April 20, 2010, oil spill that followed the explosion of the Mobile Offshore Drilling Unit, Deepwater Horizon, was the largest in United States history. This spill was also the first Spill of National Significance—a spill so complex that it required extraordinary coordination of Federal, State, local, and responsible party resources to contain and clean up the discharge. As the lead Federal agency for oil spill or hazardous material incidents in United States coastal waters, the United States Coast Guard (USCG) served as the Federal On-Scene Coordinator for response to this oil spill. Seven after action reports containing 549 recommendations were issued in the wake of this incident. Our objective was to determine whether the USCG’s oversight of recommendations made in Deepwater Horizon oil spill after action reports was effective for tracking corrective actions.

>The USCG's Oversight of Recommendations from Deepwater Horizon After Action Reports 		2014
OIG-14-39 We contracted with the independent public accounting firm KPMG LLP to perform the review. KPMG LLP is responsible for the attached independent accountants’ report, dated February 04, 2014, and the conclusions expressed in it. We do not express an opinion on the Detailed Accounting Submission. This report contains no recommendation.

>Independent Review of U.S. Coast Guard's Reporting of FY 2013 Detailed Accounting Submission 		2014
OIG-14-35 We contracted with the independent public accounting firm KPMG LLP to perform the review. KPMG LLP is responsible for the attached independent accountants’ report, dated February 04, 2014, and the conclusions expressed in it. We do not express an opinion on the Performance Summary Report. This report contains no recommendation.

>Independent Review of U.S. Coast Guard’s Reporting of FY 2013 Drug Control Performance Summary Report ( 		2014
OIG-13-122 The objective of this review was to determine the extent to which the USCG Is maintaining Its historical level of effort on non-homeland security missions. To address our objective, we reviewed the resource hours the USCG used to perform its various missions. We also reviewed the USCG's performance measures and results for each non-homeland security and homeland security mission. We did not verify the accuracy of the USCG-provided data. According to the USCG's data, the gap between resource hours for homeland security versus non-homeland security missions has narrowed from approximately 14 percent in fiscal year 2007 to approximately 4 percent in fiscal year 2012 (52 percent of resource hours for homeland security missions versus 48 percent for non-homeland security missions).

>Annual Review of the United States Coast Guard’s Mission Performance (FY 2012) 		2013
OIG-13-93 As of November 2012, the United States Coast Guard (USCG) reported more than 15,000 laptop computers in its inventory. These laptops are used by USCG’s military personnel and civilian employees to perform their job functions both in the United States and abroad. Our overall objective was to determine the effectiveness of USCG’s efforts to protect its laptop computers and controls implemented to safeguard its laptops and wireless networks and devices from potential exploits. We reviewed USCG’s policies and procedures for managing its laptop inventory. In addition, we reviewed the effectiveness of configuration management and technical controls implemented to protect the sensitive information processed by and stored on selected laptops.

>USCG Must Improve the Security and Strengthen the Management of Its Laptops 		2013
OIG-13-92 Our audit objective was to determine whether the USCG has adequate processes to investigate, take corrective actions, and enforce Federal regulations following reported marine casualties. The USCG does not have adequate processes to investigate, take corrective actions, and enforce Federal regulations related to the reporting of marine accidents. These conditions exist because the USCG has not developed and retained sufficient personnel, established a complete process with dedicated resources to address corrective actions, and provided adequate training to personnel on enforcement of marine accident reporting.

>Marine Accident Reporting, Investigations, and Enforcement in the United States Coast Guard 		2013

*NDAA, Pub. L. 117-263, section 5274 Response Received. View responses

Return to top of page