United States Government Publishing Office publisher pbl distributor dst United States Government Accountability Office author aut Government Organization text government publication eng GAOREPORTS Legislative Agency Publications gao legislative 2010-08-12 U.S. Government Printing Office 2001-12-20 monographic deposited born digital 20 p. GA 1.13:GAO-02-252R https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/GAOREPORTS-GAO-02-252R P0b002ee180378a83 f:d02252r DGPO 2010-08-12 2011-03-24 GAOREPORTS-GAO-02-252R machine generated eng fdlp REPORT GAOREPORTS-GAO-02-252R GAO-02-252R Auditing standards Inspectors general Audit reports Audits Quality assurance Quality control Correspondence A02612 A peer review is required by Government Auditing Standards at least once every three years by an organization not affiliated with the organization being reviewed. The 1997 peer review of the Department of Defense (DOD) Inspector General (IG) was performed by the Environmental Protection Agency IG and resulted in a qualified opinion issued. The peer review report stated that the DOD IG's quality assurance system was inadequate and that the reviewed audits did not fully comply with Government Auditing Standards. The 2000 peer review was performed by the Department of the Treasury IG for Tax Administration (TIGTA) and resulted in an unqualified opinion in August 2000. Although TIGTA noted a number of isolated problems, the peer review report stated that the DOD's IG quality assurance system provided reasonable assurance of compliance with auditing standards. However, after the peer review had been completed, the DOD IG, TIGTA, the Office of Management and Budget, the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and representatives of the media, received a letter dated December 2000, that questioned the integrity of the documentation that the DOD IG provided to the TIGTA peer review staff. Subsequently, a DOD IG internal investigation was completed in February 2001, and confirmed that the work papers for one of the audits selected for peer review had been inappropriately altered and destroyed. The report concluded that these inappropriate actions violated Government Auditing Standards, internal DOD IG audit policies, and the expectations of the external peer review staff. Based on this information, TIGTA first withdrew the 2000 peer review opinion in March 2001, and then issued a disclaimer of opinion in May 2001, citing an inability to determine whether the substantiated allegations would materially affect the DOD IG's system of quality control. Because of these actions, the DOD IG did not meet the Government Auditing Standards requirement for obtaining a peer review at least once every three years. Beginning in early June 2001, the DOD IG began qualifying audit reports it issued to explain the lack of compliance with the peer review requirements as set forth in Government Auditing Standards. The DOD obtained the 2001 peer review from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) IG and received a qualified opinion in November 2001. Similar to the results in 1997, the 2001 peer review report stated that the quality assurance system needs improvement and that audits were not always in compliance. Consequently, the DOD IG received a qualified opinion. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GAOREPORTS-GAO-02-252R/html/GAOREPORTS-GAO-02-252R.htm https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GAOREPORTS-GAO-02-252R/pdf/GAOREPORTS-GAO-02-252R.pdf GAO-02-252R https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/GAOREPORTS-GAO-02-252R Correspondence GAO-02-252R; Inspectors General: Department of Defense IG Peer Reviews; Auditing standards Inspectors general Audit reports Audits Quality assurance Quality control