Subcommittee Hears From NSF’s Inspector General
(Washington, DC) - Today the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology’s Subcommittee on Research and Science Education held a hearing entitled “Ensuring the Best Stewardship of American Taxpayer Dollars at the National Science Foundation.” Testifying before the Subcommittee was Ms. Allison C. Lerner, the Inspector General (IG) for the National Science Foundation (NSF).
The NSF, as well as every other Federal agency, has an Office of Inspector General (OIG) that provides independent oversight of an agency’s programs and operations. The OIG is responsible for promoting efficiency and effectiveness in agency programs and for preventing and detecting fraud, waste, and abuse. At NSF, however, the OIG is required by statute to operate independently from the Foundation and instead reports directly to the National Science Board and to Congress. According to the OIG’s September 2011 report to Congress, the OIG closed 50 investigations, had five research misconduct cases result in findings by NSF, and recovered $12,903,449 for the Federal government during the previous six months.
Ranking Member Dan Lipinski (D-IL) said in his opening statement that, “Any incident of research fraud is troubling. Scientists must always hold themselves and their colleagues to the highest ethical standards. This is especially imperative when utilizing taxpayer funds.” Mr. Lipinski went on to say that, “While isolated incidents continue to occur, the IG appears to have a productive and effective partnership with NSF program officers, reviewers, and management in uncovering and dealing with issues swiftly.”
Members and witnesses discussed several oversight issues from grant management activities to the costs associated with the use of Intergovernmental Personnel Act (IPA) employees. The primary topic discussed was the use of contingency funding in the Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction (MREFC) account. NSF has a “no cost overrun policy” on MREFC funded construction projects, but requires that a total project cost estimate have adequate contingency to cover all foreseeable risks. NSF’s IG, Ms. Lerner, has asserted that these contingency funds are “unallowable” based on language from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). OMB has proposed a new cost principle for contingency funds that would appear to resolve the disconnect between NSF’s practice and the current OMB directive; however, it may be several more months before the new language is finalized. In addressing this issue, Mr. Lipinski stated:
“I recognize that contingency funds are necessary to construct large facilities such as the ones in the MREFC account. The definition NSF uses for contingency seems consistent with standards for project management used in the private sector. That said, there is room for legitimate disagreement on this matter... I join the chorus of interested parties urging you to continue working toward resolution.” He continued, “At the same time, we cannot ignore the fact that OMB is undertaking a significant overhaul of OMB circular A-21 that governs agency use and management of contingency funds. The proposed language looks radically different from the current language used by the IG’s office in their critique of NSF’s policy. In the meantime, three MREFC projects already underway are in limbo not knowing which rules to follow, or how to manage their budgets. I hope that OMB will complete their review swiftly to help reduce the confusion.”
Related Content
Next Article Previous Article