Fiscal Year 2023 Antideficiency Act Reports Compilation

B-335654

December 20, 2023

The Honorable Kamala Harris
President of the Senate

The Honorable Mike Johnson
Speaker of the House of Representatives

Subject: Fiscal Year 2023 Antideficiency Act Reports Compilation

Agencies that violate the Antideficiency Act must report the violation to the President and Congress and transmit a copy of the report to the Comptroller General at the same time. 31 U.S.C. §§ 1351, 1517(b). The report must contain all relevant facts and a statement of actions taken.

Since fiscal year (FY) 2005, GAO, in its role as repository for the Antideficiency Act reports that agencies submit, has produced and publicly released an annual compilation of summaries of the reports. We base the summaries on unaudited information we extract from the agency reports. Each summary includes a brief description of the violation, as reported by the agency, and of remedial actions agencies report that they have taken. We also include copies of the agencies’ transmittal letters. We post the summaries and the agency transmittal letters on our public website. In some cases, the agencies also send us additional materials with their transmittal letters. We make these additional materials available to Members and their staffs upon request.

Please find enclosed the compilation of summaries of the fifteen Antideficiency Act violation reports and agency transmittal letters submitted to GAO in FY 2023. The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) submitted seven reports,[1] the United States Department of Agriculture and the Department of Justice [2] (DOJ) submitted two reports, while the Inter-American Foundation, the Office of Personnel Management, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),[3] and the Consumer Product Safety Commission each submitted one report.

While GAO has not opined on the agency reports or the remedial actions taken, we do note that many of the reported violations resulted from similar agency actions. For example, five of the reported violations resulted from government officials or employees obligating or expending funds in violation of statutory spending restrictions, while two other violations resulted from government officials or employees expending anticipated funds.

If you have any questions, please contact Shirley A. Jones, Managing Associate General Counsel, at (202) 512-8156, or Charlie McKiver, Assistant General Counsel for Appropriations Law, at (202) 512-5992.

Edda Emmanuelli Perez
General Counsel

Enclosure

Antideficiency Act Reports – Fiscal Year 2023

GAO No.: GAO-ADA-23-01

Agency No.: None Reported	Date Reported to GAO: March 1, 2023
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)	Date(s) of Violation(s): Fiscal Years (FYs) 2017-18
Account(s): Environmental Programs and Management	Amount Reported: $52,407.09

Description: EPA reported that it violated the Antideficiency Act (ADA), 31 U.S.C. § 1341(a), when it incurred obligations and made expenditures without providing advance congressional notification in violation of a statutory prohibition.[4]

According to EPA, in FYs 2017 and 2018, a statutory provision required it to notify Congress in advance of obligating or expending amounts in excess of $5,000 to furnish the Administrator’s office. EPA reported that it incurred the following expenses to furnish the Administrator’s office during FYs 2017 and 2018: $43,238.68 on the installation of a soundproof privacy booth[5]; $2,963.05 on a desk; $1,950.00 on delivery and installation of artwork loaned from other government agencies; $1,606.15 on framing, delivering, and installing an American flag; $1,764.46 on miscellaneous framing; and $5,884.75 on two biometric locks. EPA reported that it failed to notify Congress, violating this provision and the ADA.

EPA reported that when the violation occurred, there were no procedures in place to notify employees about the statutory provision.

Remedial Action Taken: To prevent a recurrence of this type of violation, EPA reported that it included information about the section 710 legal requirements in its annual guidance document to all EPA budget officers. According to EPA, because it did not have any procedures in place to make employees aware of the statutory provision when the violations occurred, the violations could not be fairly attributed to any individual. EPA determined there was no knowing or willful intent to violate the ADA.

Source: Unaudited information GAO extracted from agency Antideficiency Act reports.

 

Antideficiency Act Reports – Fiscal Year 2023

GAO No.: GAO-ADA-23-02

Agency No.: None Reported	Date Reported to GAO: November 21, 2022
Agency: United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)	Date(s) of Violation(s): Fiscal Year (FY) 2021
Account(s): Commodity Credit Corporation Fund	Amount Reported: $1,611,127

 

Description: USDA reported that it violated the Antideficiency Act (ADA), 31 U.S.C. § 1517(a), when it incurred obligations in excess of the amount apportioned for its Tree Assistance Program (TAP).

According to USDA, at the end of FY 2021, TAP had an unobligated, apportioned balance of $690.71. However, during FY 2022, USDA discovered that 34 contracts signed and approved in FY 2021 were never recorded, which created $1,611,818 in additional obligations for FY 2021. According to USDA, these obligations exceeded the amounts apportioned for TAP by $1,611,127, and therefore, USDA violated the ADA.

USDA reported that the violation occurred because multiple Farm Service Agency (FSA) county office program technicians failed to record obligations for the contracts at issue on the dates they were approved.

Remedial Action Taken: To prevent a recurrence of this type of violation, USDA reported that FSA program managers will enact controls to ensure timely recording of contracts. According to USDA, these controls will include additional staff training, reminders during monthly calls with state program specialists, adding deadlines to handbooks, sending reminder notices, monitoring contract input timelines, and score carding.

USDA reported that it holds the 19 program technicians who failed to record the obligations for the contracts responsible. USDA determined there was no knowing or willful intent to violate the ADA.

Source: Unaudited information GAO extracted from agency Antideficiency Act reports.

 

Antideficiency Act Reports – Fiscal Year 2023

GAO No.: GAO-ADA-23-03

Agency No.: None Reported	Date Reported to GAO: February 27, 2023
Agency: Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC)	Date(s) of Violation(s): April 29, 2022; June 29, 2022; September 20, 2022
Account(s): Salaries and Expenses	Amount Reported: $1,263.47

 

Description: CPSC reported that it violated the Antideficiency Act (ADA), 31 U.S.C. § 1341, when it incurred obligations and expended funds to purchase clothing with an appropriation that was not available for such purpose.

CPSC reported that during a routine review of purchase card activity and a subsequent administrative investigation, it discovered that a Special Assistant had used their agency-issued purchase card to order clothing with the CPSC logo for their office. The Special Assistant made the first purchase on or about April 29, 2022, for $498.47; the second purchase on or about June 29, 2022, for $425; and the third and final purchase on or about September 20, 2022, for $340. According to CPSC, because CPSC’s FY 2022 appropriation was not available for these apparel purchases, CPSC violated the ADA.

CPSC reported the violation occurred because the Special Assistant saw other CPSC employees wearing clothing with the CPSC logo, and believed CPSC’s appropriations were available to purchase such clothing.

Remedial Action Taken: To prevent a recurrence of this type of violation, CPSC reported that it restructured and centralized its purchase card program to more effectively monitor procurement activities. CPSC also reported that additional training will be provided to personnel, focusing on the types of purchases allowed and prohibited with appropriated funds. Furthermore, CPSC reported that its Office of Financial Management will review relevant merchant category codes not typically associated with authorized agency purchases to identify and potentially restrict them. Finally, CPSC indicated that it will reexamine training for approving officials to improve oversight prior to reconciliation. CPSC also reported that it will ensure that training for purchase card holders is explicit regarding the use of agency funds for personal expenses, and noted that training will emphasize more prominently that employees who violate the ADA may be subject to its penalties.

According to CPSC, the employee responsible for the violation was the Special Assistant who purchased the clothing, and this individual will no longer serve as a purchase card holder or engage in any procurement activities for the duration of their tenure with the agency. CPSC also reported that employee personal funds were used to reimburse the Treasury for these purchases.[6] CPSC determined there was no knowing and willful intent to violate the ADA.

Source: Unaudited information GAO extracted from agency Antideficiency Act reports; Email from Chief Financial Officer, CPSC, to Staff Attorney, GAO (Oct. 24, 2023).

 

Antideficiency Act Reports – Fiscal Year 2023

GAO No.: GAO-ADA-23-04[7]

Agency No.: None Reported	Date Reported to GAO: March 9, 2023
Agency: Department of Justice (DOJ)	Date(s) of Violation(s): FY 2021
Account(s): United States Marshals Service (USMS), Salaries and Expenses	Amount Reported: Approximately $2,700,000

 

Description: DOJ reported a violation of the Antideficiency Act (ADA), 31 USC § 1341(a)(1)(A), when it incurred obligations and made expenditures in violation of a statutory prohibition.

According to DOJ, the Department is subject to a statutory provision, which prohibits DOJ from spending funds to “relocate an office or employees” unless it provides advance notice to Congress.[8] In May 2021, USMS relocated its New York/New Jersey Regional Fugitive Task Force from a building in New York’s 10th Congressional District to a building in New York’s 7th Congressional District without providing notice to Congress. DOJ reported that it incurred approximately $2,700,000 in expenses as a result of the relocation. According to DOJ, it violated the statutory provision and the ADA, when it failed to notify Congress of this relocation.

DOJ reported this ADA violation occurred because the USMS Chief of Construction Management made the determination that the relocation of this office did not require congressional notification.

Remedial Action Taken: To prevent future violations of this provision, the program office and financial employees responsible for sending and reviewing the congressional notices were instructed on the review and oversight of their reporting requirements. Additionally, the Acting Assistant Attorney General for Administration issued a memorandum to Component Heads reminding them of their responsibilities to ensure compliance with the ADA and this statutory provision, and specifically discussed relocations and reorganizations as areas in which components need to comply with the notification provision. According to DOJ, the employee responsible for this violation was the USMS Chief of Construction Management, who has since retired, and DOJ determined there was no knowing and willful intent to violate the ADA.

Source: Unaudited information GAO extracted from agency Antideficiency Act reports.

 

Antideficiency Act Reports – Fiscal Year 2023

GAO No.: GAO-ADA-23-05

Agency No.: None Reported	Date Reported to GAO: March 9, 2023
Agency: Department of Justice (DOJ)	Date(s) of Violation(s): FYs 2019 and 2021
Account(s): USMS, Federal Prisoner Detention	Amount Reported: $2,901.45

 

Description: DOJ reported a violation of the Antideficiency Act (ADA), 31 USC § 1341(a)(1)(A), when it incurred obligations and made expenditures in violation of a statutory prohibition.

According to DOJ, the Department is subject to a statutory provision, which prohibits DOJ and its components from using their appropriations to pay for the abortions of inmates in their custody unless the life of the mother is endangered, or in the case of rape or incest.[9] DOJ reported that in FY 2019, two prisoners requested elective abortion procedures. The Prisoner Operations Division, Office of Medication Operations (POD OMO), authorized only security and transportation costs for the procedures; however, the medical providers submitted bills to USMS that included the costs of elective abortion procedures, which USMS certified and authorized payment for. Additionally in FY 2019, DOJ reported that POD OMO approved a request for routine gynecological services for a prisoner, but an elective abortion was performed during the visit without prior knowledge or approval from USMS. However, when the medical provider submitted a bill for the procedure, USMS certified and authorized payment for the services. Finally, DOJ reported that in FY 2021, USMS approved payment for an abortion procedure which the prisoner personally certified met the requisite conditions to be covered by USMS’s appropriations, but upon further investigation, USMS concluded the procedure was elective. According to DOJ, in each of these cases, it violated this statutory provision and the ADA.

Remedial Action Taken: To prevent future violations of this statutory provision, DOJ identified several steps it has taken or will soon take, including: issuing a memorandum to the field discussing criteria for funding elective abortion procedures with federal funds; updating related forms to ensure prisoners seeking elective abortion procedures acknowledge their fiscal responsibilities and requiring districts to submit the completed forms to POD OMO with their initial request for medical services; hosting a national conference call on the subject with the United States Marshals and the district Chiefs; working to create an internal control process to flag abortion-related codes for review by POD OMO prior to any payment to a medical provider; and updating the Standard Operating Procedures related to abortions to clarify roles and responsibilities and the need for POD OMO review and approval. According to DOJ, two of the Assistant Directors of POD were responsible for these violations because such division has the responsibility for program management and oversight of prisoner medical claims. For these violations, DOJ determined there was no knowing and willful intent to violate the ADA.

Source: Unaudited information GAO extracted from agency Antideficiency Act reports.

 

Antideficiency Act Reports – Fiscal Year 2023

GAO No.: GAO-ADA-23-06

Agency No.: None Reported	Date Reported to GAO: April 10, 2023
Agency: United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)	Date(s) of Violation(s): FY 2017
Account(s): Office of Communications; Office of the Secretary	Amount Reported: $58.47; $10

 

Description: USDA reported that it violated the Antideficiency Act (ADA), 31 U.S.C. § 1341(a)(1)(A), when it incurred obligations and made expenditures in violation of a statutory prohibition.

In FY 2017, USDA was subject to agency-specific[10] and government-wide[11] provisions that prohibited USDA from using appropriations to influence any action on any legislation or appropriation matters. According to USDA, the then-Secretary of Agriculture gave a speech on September 8, 2017, in which he urged state foresters to contact Congress in support of a “permanent fire funding fix” when there was legislation before Congress to facilitate the provision of additional funds for wildfire suppression operations. A press release was subsequently issued containing the same statements. USDA noted that GAO had previously concluded that the speech and press release constituted grassroots lobbying in violation of these two prohibitions, which amounted to violations of the ADA.[12]

Remedial Action Taken: To prevent a recurrence of this type of violation, the staff involved in the drafting and posting of the press release were given a two-hour refresher on the Hatch Act and federal lobbying restrictions through USDA’s Office of Ethics. Additionally, USDA reported that it deleted the offending language in the press release and reposted the edited version to its website.

According to USDA, the employee responsible for the violation was the Director of the Office of Communications, and they are no longer with the Department or in federal service. USDA determined there was no knowing and willful intent to violate the ADA.

Source: Unaudited information GAO extracted from agency Antideficiency Act reports.

 

Antideficiency Act Reports – Fiscal Year 2023

GAO No.: GAO-ADA-23-07

Agency No.: None Reported	Date Reported to GAO: April 27, 2023
Agency: Office of Personnel Management (OPM)	Date(s) of Violation(s): October 2022
Account(s): Employees Health Benefits Fund	Amount Reported: $194,271,795

 

Description: OPM reported that it violated the Antideficiency Act (ADA), 31 U.S.C. § 1517, when it incurred obligations that exceeded the apportionment for the Employees Health Benefits Fund.

According to OPM, in October 2022, based on end of FY 2022 financial information, OPM incurred benefit payment obligations to health plans and insurance carriers who provide health benefits coverage to Federal employees, retirees, and their dependents in an amount that exceeded their apportionment. OPM reported that this occurred because there was a sizeable change in the value of unpaid carrier obligations from the beginning of the fiscal year to the end of the fiscal year that was not fully anticipated by the Office of the Chief Financial Officer’s estimated obligations.

Remedial Action Taken: To prevent a recurrence of this type of violation, OPM reported that it will add a requirement to the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program Carrier Audit Guide for carriers to provide current estimates of fiscal year-end liabilities at the end of August. This will allow time to consider whether reapportionment of the account is necessary prior to the end of the fiscal year.

OPM did not identify any specific individuals that were responsible for the violation, and determined there was no knowing or willful intent to violate the ADA.

Source: Unaudited information GAO extracted from agency Antideficiency Act reports.

 

Antideficiency Act Reports – Fiscal Year 2023

GAO No.: GAO-ADA-23-08

Agency No.: None Reported	Date Reported to GAO: June 23, 2023
Agency: Inter-American Foundation (IAF)	Date(s) of Violation(s): FY 2021[13]
Account(s): IAF	Amount Reported: $220,106.12

 

Description: IAF reported that it violated the Antideficiency Act (ADA), 31 U.S.C. § 1341(a), when the balance of its IAF account reached a temporary negative balance 10 times during the period between December 11, 2020 and May 13, 2021.

IAF reported that it maintains a reimbursable interagency agreement (IAA) with the U.S. Agency for International Development for Building Community Resilience in the Eastern and Southern Caribbean. IAF reported that the agreements did not include authorizations for advance payment, but due to an error in timing on the part of IAF, expenditures were made from the IAF account prior to the agreements being processed. As a result, according to IAF, the account had a temporary negative account balance 10 times, resulting in ADA violations.

IAF reported that multiple factors contributed to the violations, including the reimbursement cycle of the IAAs, the lack of internal controls to verify fund cash balances, and a long-standing practice that did not include real-time monitoring of cash account balances specific to authorized reimbursable obligational authority.

Remedial Action Taken: To prevent a recurrence of this type of violation, IAF reported taking several corrective actions. These include collecting cash advances in all future Economy Act reimbursable agreements, modifying billing processes and implementing new internal controls for planning and monitoring cash flows relating to reimbursable Economy Act authority, and continuing to educate staff on ADA requirements for Economy Act transfers.

IAF did not identify any specific individuals that were responsible for the violations, and determined there was no knowing or willful intent to violate the ADA.

Source: Unaudited information GAO extracted from agency Antideficiency Act reports.

 

Antideficiency Act Reports – Fiscal Year 2023

GAO No.: GAO-ADA-23-09[14]

Agency No.: None Reported	Date Reported to GAO: September 29, 2023
Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)	Date(s) of Violation(s): FY 2017
Account(s): Rental Housing Assistance Program (RAP)	Amount Reported: $2,089,879.17

 

Description: HUD reported that it violated the Antideficiency Act (ADA), 31 U.S.C. § 1517(a)(2), when it exceeded an allotment in the RAP account.

According to HUD, in October and November 2016, HUD misallotted recaptured budget authority to the RAP account from properties that converted to the Project-Based Rental Assistance platform. This made it appear there were greater account balances in the RAP account than there actually were. Despite HUD’s discovery and communication of the error in June 2017, HUD exceeded its allotment in the RAP account from June 14 to June 30, 2017, in the amount of $2,089,879.17.

Remedial Action Taken: To prevent a recurrence of this type of violation, HUD reported that it reinstated a budgetary resource planning workflow for these and other associated recaptures. HUD also advised offices handling these recaptures on the need to more closely coordinate and communicate when funding errors are discovered. Finally, HUD noted that the unique obligations imposed here will not be at issue again in the future, given that the properties eligible for conversion under the program have since been converted.

HUD did not identify any specific individuals that were responsible for the violations. HUD determined there was no knowing or willful intent to violate the ADA.

Source: Unaudited information GAO extracted from agency Antideficiency Act reports.

 

Antideficiency Act Reports – Fiscal Year 2023

GAO No.: GAO-ADA-23-10

Agency No.: None Reported	Date Reported to GAO: September 29, 2023
Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)	Date(s) of Violation(s): FYs 2016-2019
Account(s): Administrative Support Offices, and Program Offices	Amount Reported: $38,137.27

 

Description: HUD reported that it violated the Antideficiency Act (ADA), 31 U.S.C. § 1341(a), when it incurred obligations and made expenditures in violation of a statutory prohibition.

According to HUD, beginning in FY 2016, Congress prohibited the use of its appropriations to issue performance awards to employees who had been subject to administrative discipline during certain periods.[15] HUD reported that performance awards, special act awards, and spot awards were issued to employees who had been subject to administrative discipline. Because appropriations were obligated and expended for this purpose, HUD reported it violated this statutory prohibition and the ADA.[16]

According to HUD, this violation occurred because management did not take sufficient steps to implement these provisions.

Remedial Action Taken: To prevent a recurrence of this type of violation, HUD reported that the Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer (OCHCO) implemented internal procedures to ensure compliance with these provisions. HUD also explained that its Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO) and Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration issued a joint memorandum establishing definitions and protocols for compliance. OCFO and OCHCO will carefully review future appropriations acts to ensure compliance with changing prohibitions.

HUD did not identify any specific individuals that were responsible for the violations. HUD determined there was no knowing or willful intent to violate the ADA.

Source: Unaudited information GAO extracted from agency Antideficiency Act reports.

 

Antideficiency Act Reports – Fiscal Year 2023

GAO No.: GAO-ADA-23-11

Agency No.: None Reported	Date Reported to GAO: September 29, 2023
Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)	Date(s) of Violation(s): FY 2018
Account(s): Working Capital Fund (WCF)	Amount Reported: $12,801,062.85

 

Description: HUD reported that it violated the Antideficiency Act (ADA), 31 U.S.C. § 1517(a)(2), when it incurred obligations in excess of the amounts allotted to the WCF.

According to HUD, its staff allotted the value of planned reimbursable agreements to the WCF and incurred obligations against such amounts even though the agreements had not been executed or reported. As a result, HUD obligated in excess of its allotment because amounts for the planned reimbursable agreements were not legally available for obligation.

HUD reported that several factors contributed to the resulting violation, including its implementation of a budget execution strategy that misunderstood the timing of its ability to obligate the funds, as well as insufficient staff training and lack of documentation and procedures.

Remedial Action Taken: To prevent a recurrence of this type of violation, HUD reported that it revised its procedures for executing these agreements and has reinforced the need for timely execution of its agreements within the Office of the Chief Financial Officer and throughout the Department.

HUD did not identify any specific individuals that were responsible for the violations. HUD determined there was no knowing or willful intent to violate the ADA.

Source: Unaudited information GAO extracted from agency Antideficiency Act reports.

 

Antideficiency Act Reports – Fiscal Year 2023

GAO No.: GAO-ADA-23-12

Agency No.: None Reported	Date Reported to GAO: September 29, 2023
Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)	Date(s) of Violation(s): FY 2019
Account(s): Federal Housing Administration Mutual Mortgage Insurance	Amount Reported: $0.36

 

Description: HUD reported a violation of the Antideficiency Act (ADA), 31 U.S.C. § 1517(a)(1), when it incurred obligations in excess of its apportionment.

According to HUD, the relevant 2019 apportionment included a line item for downward reestimates in the amount of $17,464,951,417.00, and a corresponding footnote stating as follows: “The actual amount apportioned is $17,464,951,416.64.” According to HUD, it failed to take the footnote into account when it obligated $17,464,951,417 for downward reestimates, resulting in an overobligation of its apportionment by $0.36 and a violation of the ADA.

Remedial Action Taken: To prevent a recurrence of this type of violation, HUD reported that it has since improved its policies and procedures relating to rounding on apportionments, and has consulted with staff on the need to carefully review footnotes on its apportionment.

HUD did not identify any specific individuals that were responsible for the violations. HUD determined there was no knowing or willful intent to violate the ADA.

Source: Unaudited information GAO extracted from agency Antideficiency Act reports.

 

Antideficiency Act Reports – Fiscal Year 2023

GAO No.: GAO-ADA-23-13

Agency No.: None Reported	Date Reported to GAO: September 29, 2023
Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)	Date(s) of Violation(s): FY 2019
Account(s): Executive Offices Salaries and Expenses (S&E)	Amount Reported: $35,514.36

 

Description: HUD reported a violation of the Antideficiency Act (ADA), 31 U.S.C. § 1341(a), when it made expenditures in excess of amounts available in its one-year S&E account.

According to HUD, it provides Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) services to other federal agencies through interagency agreements (IAAs) on a reimbursable basis. In FY 2019, a one-year account was maintained for all funds collected pursuant to those IAAs, and HUD’s payroll services obligated relevant ALJ hours against this account. According to HUD, these obligations were incurred before reimbursements from the other agencies’ accounts had been collected, resulting in the account being disbursed into a negative cash position when each payroll was processed in violation of the ADA.

Remedial Action Taken: To prevent a recurrence of this type of violation, HUD reported that it has revised its payroll processing to ensure that when IAAs are operating on a reimbursable basis, up-front payroll processing occurs against direct appropriations available for that purpose.

HUD did not identify any specific individuals that were responsible for the violations. HUD determined there was no knowing or willful intent to violate the ADA.

Source: Unaudited information GAO extracted from agency Antideficiency Act reports.

 

Antideficiency Act Reports – Fiscal Year 2023

GAO No.: GAO-ADA-23-14

Agency No.: None Reported	Date Reported to GAO: September 29, 2023
Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)	Date(s) of Violation(s): FY 2019
Account(s): Homeless Assistance Grants (HAG)	Amount Reported: $6,922,885.93

 

Description: HUD reported that it violated the Antideficiency Act (ADA), 31 U.S.C. § 1341(a)(1)(A), when it incurred obligations and made expenditures in excess of the amount appropriated for a grant program.

According to HUD, in HUD’s FY 2018 appropriation act, Congress authorized “up to” a certain amount within the HAG account for grants to provide critical assistance to survivors of domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking. According to HUD, this set-aside created a legally binding cap on funds available for the program, but program management erroneously misinterpreted the set-aside to provide additional funds to the account. HUD reported that this resulted in the set-aside being implemented in a manner that over-obligated and over-expended the HAG account in violation of the ADA.

Remedial Action Taken: To prevent a recurrence of this type of violation, HUD reported that it took steps to make funds legally available to mitigate the error in its FY 2019 and 2020 funding cycles. HUD also reported that it coordinated with congressional staff to support revisions to the HAG account to remedy the issue. Additionally, HUD reported that it revised its guidance to staff to ensure that projects selected as DV projects receive funding from the DV set-aside. According to HUD, it will further continue to monitor changes in, and implementation of, its appropriations through guidance and Notices of Funding Opportunities.

HUD did not identify any specific individuals that were responsible for the violations. HUD determined there was no knowing or willful intent to violate the ADA.

Source: Unaudited information GAO extracted from agency Antideficiency Act reports.

 

Antideficiency Act Reports – Fiscal Year 2023

GAO No.: GAO-ADA-23-15

Agency No.: None Reported	Date Reported to GAO: September 29, 2023
Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)	Date(s) of Violation(s): FY 2017
Account(s): Administrative Support Offices	Amount Reported: $7,069,232.36

 

Description: HUD reported a violation of the Antideficiency Act (ADA), 31 U.S.C. §§ 1341(a) and 1517(a), when it incurred obligations and made expenditures in excess of the amounts available in its Administrative Support Offices account because refunds were credited to the wrong appropriations account.

According to HUD, it has occupied the Robert C. Weaver Federal Building (Weaver Building) pursuant to a lease and occupancy agreement with the General Services Administration (GSA) for many years. HUD reported that in FY 2016, it made approximately $30 million in rental payments to GSA, and when the building required emergency repairs during such fiscal year, HUD funded the repairs through its own appropriations. GSA determined that the repair costs were “shell items” that were already included in HUD’s rental payments for FY 2016 and refunded these costs to HUD.

According to HUD, GSA refunded the overpayment amount in the form of monetary credits toward HUD’s FY 2017 rental bills for the Weaver Building. The monetary credits were deposited in the FY 2017 account, and obligations and expenditures were incurred against these amounts. However, according to HUD, these credits should have been deposited in the original FY 2016 account from which the erroneous payments were made. This resulted in HUD incurring obligations and making expenditures in the FY 2017 account that were in excess of what was legally available in such account.

Remedial Action Taken: To prevent a recurrence of this type of violation, HUD reported that it altered its internal protocols to require consultation with its appropriations attorneys when GSA proposes alternative funding approaches to its lease and occupancy agreement total charges and credits. HUD has also explained that it will deposit future monetary credits into the appropriate accounts, or else to the Department of the Treasury if applicable.

HUD did not identify any specific individuals that were responsible for the violations. HUD determined there was no knowing or willful intent to violate the ADA.

Source: Unaudited information GAO extracted from agency Antideficiency Act reports.

 

---