On July 22, 2010, President Obama signed into law the Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Act of 2010 (the "Act"). The Act significantly modifies and expands the Improper Payments Information Act of 2002 by placing a greater obligation on the federal government to reduce the amount of improper payments made every year. The President estimated that approximately $110 billion was improperly paid by the government last year, including improper payments made to government contractors. The new legislation will now require executive agencies to conduct recovery audits in an effort to reduce this figure by $50 billion by 2012.
The Act requires that every agency conduct "recovery audits
with respect to each program and activity of the agency that
expends $1,000,000 or more annually." If past is prologue,
such a renewed focus on auditing will likely create greater
scrutiny of programs at all levels. Moreover, the Act specifically
permits agencies to outsource the performance of these recovery
audits. Any agency that decides to contract for these services,
however, must include the prescribed mandatory terms and conditions
in the contract. These contractor-auditors will be required not
only to notify the agency of any identified overpayments, provide
periodic reports on the conditions causing the identified
overpayments, and make recommendations on how to mitigate
overpayments, but they are also required to report "credible
evidence of fraud or vulnerabilities to fraud," and must
specifically train their personnel "on identification of
fraud." This privatization of fraud investigators raises a
series of questions, not the least of which are what constitutes
"credible evidence of fraud?" and what is a
"vulnerability to fraud?"
The Act also gives agencies the power to grant these contractors
administrative authority when performing these recovery audits.
Under section 2(h)(2)(C) of the Act, agencies may grant authority
to these contractors to take administrative actions on behalf of
the agency, including notifying contractors of potential
overpayments made and responding to questions concerning potential
overpayments. However, the Act specifically prohibits these
contractors from having any authority to make final determinations
relating to whether any overpayment occurred and whether to
compromise, settle, or terminate overpayment claims.
The new audit requirements are certainly intended to focus on the
recovery of overpayments and reduction of such future improper
payments but whether they have that effect remains to be seen.
Contractors, agencies, taxpayers, Medicare recipients, etc. are
already subject to numerous, and some may say duplicative and
overlapping, government audits. How adding yet another audit to the
mix is supposed to cure the problem is a question the statute
simply does not address
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.