National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Nmfss Habitat Conservation Program Awards Were Not Competitively Selected, Cfda No. 11.463

By Department of Commerce

Book Id: WPLBN0000701283
Format Type: PDF eBook:
File Size: 0.5 MB
Reproduction Date: 2000

Title:	National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Nmfss Habitat Conservation Program Awards Were Not Competitively Selected, Cfda No. 11.463
Author:	Department of Commerce
Volume:
Language:	English
Subject:	Government publications, Department of Commerce and Labor Document, Commerce.
Collections:	Government Library Collection, Department of Commerce Collection
Historic Publication Date:
Publisher:	Government Printing Office


Citation APA MLA Chicago Of Commerce, B. D. (n.d.). National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Nmfss Habitat Conservation Program Awards Were Not Competitively Selected, Cfda No. 11.463. Retrieved from https://self.gutenberg.org/

Excerpt
Excerpt: The Office of Inspector General conducted an audit of the fiscal year 1997 procedures and practices for soliciting, reviewing, and selecting applications for financial assistance under the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration?s National Marine Fisheries Service?s (NMFS) Habitat Conservation Program, classified as No. 11.463 in the Catalog of Federal Assistance. This audit was conducted as part of a Department-wide review of Commerce?s discretionary financial assistance program initiated at the request of the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Discretionary financial assistance programs are those programs for which federal agencies have the authority to independently determine the recipients and funding levels of the awards. These programs involve a significant portion of the Commerce Department?s budget and operations, approximately $1 billion annually. If not properly administered, they are susceptible to fraud, waste, and misuse of funds.

Table of Contents
Table of Contents:I. PTFP Used Merit-Based Evaluation Criteria, 6 -- II. PTFP Solicitation Process Obtained a Nationwide Response, 6 -- III. Program Staff Overrode Independent Reviewers? Evaluations, 7 -- A. Review panels rated applications, 8 -- B. PTFP staff adjusted scores, 10 -- C. PTFP director ranked applications for selection, 11 -- IV. PTFP Selection Decisions that Deviated from Program Director?s -- Recommendations Were Not Adequately Documented, 12 -- V. Conclusions., 14 -- VI. NTIA Response, 14 -- VII. OIG Comments, 14 -- VIII. Recommendations, 15