Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
Office of Inspector General
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation - Office of Inspector General

The FDIC’s Compliance with the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 2014

This is the accessible text file for FDIC OIG report number Aud-20-002 entitled 'The FDIC’s Compliance with the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 2014'.

This text file was formatted by the FDIC OIG to be accessible to users with visual impairments.

We have maintained the structural and data integrity of the original printed product in this text file to the extent possible. Accessibility features, such as descriptions of tables, footnotes, and the text of the Corporation’s comments, are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed version.

The portable document format (PDF) file also posted on our Web site is an exact electronic replica of the printed version.

[FDIC OIG logo]

October 2019

Aud-20-002

The FDIC’s Compliance with the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 2014

Audit Report

Program Audits and Evaluations

Executive Summary

The Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 2014 (DATA Act) expanded the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (FFATA) to increase accountability and transparency in Federal spending. The DATA Act directs Federal Inspectors General (IGs) to review a statistically valid sample of spending data submitted by their agency and to report the results to Congress. Consistent with the Act, the objectives of our audit were to assess the (1) completeness, timeliness, quality, and accuracy of the financial and award data submitted for the first quarter of Fiscal Year 2019 and published on USASpending.gov; and (2) FDIC’s implementation and use of the Government-wide financial data standards established by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Department of the Treasury (Treasury).

Results

We found that the FDIC’s financial and award data submitted for the first quarter of Fiscal Year 2019 was complete, timely, of sufficient quality, and accurate. We determined that all required transactions and events were recorded in the proper period and within the reporting schedule established by the DATA Act. In addition, we evaluated the FDIC’s use of the Government-wide financial data standards and determined that the Agency’s definitions of the data standards complied with OMB and Treasury guidance.

We also found that the FDIC had established controls to promote complete, accurate, timely, and quality reporting under the DATA Act. Such controls included written procedures to comply with the DATA Act and the designation of a DATA Act Senior Accountability Official. Additionally, the FDIC implemented a quality assurance process that segregated data preparation and review duties, and documented each level of review.

We concluded that the FDIC could reasonably rely on its source financial system for the DATA Act submission for the first quarter of Fiscal Year 2019.

Recommendations

Our report contains no recommendations, and the Deputy Director/Controller, Division of Finance, elected not to provide a written response.

Contents

Background

Applicability of FFATA and the DATA Act to the FDIC

Requirements for Inspectors General

Audit Results

Completeness and Timeliness of the Agency’s Submission

Quality and Accuracy of the Agency Submission

FDIC Comments and OIG Evaluation

Appendices

1. Objective, Scope, and Methodology

2. Glossary

3. Acronyms and Abbreviations

October 30, 2019

Subject: The FDIC’s Compliance with the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 2014

This report presents the results of our audit of the FDIC’s Compliance with the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 2014 (DATA Act), Public Law No. 113-101. Congress enacted the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (FFATA), Public Law No. 109-282, to increase transparency and accountability of Federal contracts and financial assistance awards. Among other things, FFATA required the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to establish a website to provide information on grant and contract awards and sub-awards. The OMB launched the website, USASpending.gov, in December 2007.1

Enacted on May 9, 2014, the DATA Act expanded on the reporting requirements of FFATA. The purpose of the DATA Act is to:

• Mandate disclosure of direct Federal agency expenditures and link Federal contract, loan, and grant spending information to Federal agency programs to enable taxpayers and policymakers to track Federal spending more effectively;

• Establish Government-wide data standards for financial data to provide consistent, reliable, and searchable Government-wide spending data that is displayed accurately for taxpayers and policymakers on USASpending.gov (or a successor system); and

• Improve the quality of data by holding Federal agencies accountable for the completeness and accuracy of the data submitted.

The DATA Act directs Federal Inspectors General (IGs) to review a statistically valid sample of spending data submitted by their agency pursuant to the statute and report the results to Congress. Consistent with the Act, our objective was to assess the (1) completeness, timeliness, quality, and accuracy of the financial and award data submitted for the first quarter of Fiscal Year 2019 and published on USASpending.gov; and (2) FDIC’s implementation and use of the Government-wide financial data standards established by the OMB and Department of the Treasury (Treasury).

Footnote: 1 As required by FFATA, Federal agencies are to post Federal award (such as financial assistance and contract) data on USASpending.gov to give the American public access to information on how tax dollars are spent. Such data includes the name of the entity receiving the award, the amount of the award, the recipient’s location, the primary location of performance under the award, as well as other information. FDIC is not subject to the reporting requirements of the FFATA, according to the Agency’s Legal Division.

To address the objective, we:

• Reviewed Federal statutes and regulations, and Government-wide policy and guidance;

• Assessed the FDIC’s internal controls over the DATA Act program;

• Reviewed and tested financial data elements reported to Treasury under the DATA Act; and

• Interviewed officials in the FDIC’s Division of Finance (DOF) who were responsible for administering and implementing the DATA Act.

We conducted this performance audit in accordance with Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards. These standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objective. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We conducted this performance audit from February through August 2019. We performed our work at the FDIC’s offices at Virginia Square in Arlington, Virginia. Appendix 1 of this report includes additional details about our objective, scope, and methodology.

BACKGROUND

The DATA Act expanded the reporting requirements of FFATA by requiring the disclosure of Federal agency expenditures and linkage between agency spending information and associated Federal program activities. This information facilitates tracking of Federal spending by policymakers and the public. The DATA Act requires Government-wide reporting on a variety of Federal funds, such as budget and financial information, as well as tracking funds at multiple points in the Federal spending lifecycle. The DATA Act requires that agency-reported award and financial information comply with data standards established by the OMB and Treasury. These standards specify the items to be reported under the DATA Act and define and describe what should be included in each element. The aim is to ensure that Government-wide information will be consistent and comparable.

The DATA Act identifies the OMB and Treasury as the two agencies responsible for leading Government-wide implementation of the Act. Toward that end, the OMB has taken a number of steps to help agencies meet their reporting requirements, including establishing 57 standardized data element definitions for reporting Federal spending information. OMB also issued implementation guidance on selected standards and further clarified agency reporting requirements. Treasury also led efforts to develop technical guidance and reporting systems to facilitate agency reporting. In April 2016, Treasury released the DATA Act Information Model Schema (DATA Act Schema),2 which provides information on how to standardize the collection and reporting of financial assistance awards, contracts, and other financial and non-financial data under the DATA Act. Treasury also developed the DATA Act Broker – a system for standardizing data formatting and assisting agencies in validating their data submissions. Agencies submit three files (Files A, B, and C) to the DATA Act Broker based on information in their existing financial management systems. The DATA Act Broker then extracts award and sub-award information from Government-wide reporting systems that contain award data, including grants and loans, as well as procurements (Files D1, D2, E, and F).

Applicability of FFATA and the DATA Act to the FDIC

The FFATA requires Federal agencies to report agency cost information for 49 data elements to the OMB. The DATA Act expanded FFATA to include the reporting of eight new data elements. However, the FDIC’s Legal Division concluded that the FDIC is not subject to the reporting requirements of FFATA. Specifically, the Legal Division noted that only Federal awards which involve the use of funds obtained by a Federal agency through the appropriations process are intended to be subject to FFATA’s reporting requirements. The FDIC does not obtain its funding through the annual appropriations process.3 Rather, the FDIC’s operating expenses are paid from the Deposit Insurance Fund, which is funded by deposit insurance assessments levied on FDIC-insured financial institutions.

Footnote: 2 The DATA Act Schema reporting guidance includes (1) the Reporting Submission Specification, which contains information about the file format, content scope, and file organization agencies should use to extract information from their financial systems to complete required Files A, B, and C, and (2) the Interface Definition Document, which provides guidance for completing required Files D through F, including what information the DATA Act Broker will extract from government-wide feeder systems for procurement and financial assistance awards. Treasury periodically updates and issues revised versions of the DATA Act Schema.

Footnote: 3 To protect the independence of the FDIC OIG, Congress has specified in annual appropriations a funding level for the OIG. However, the OIG’s operating expenses are also derived and allotted from the Deposit Insurance Fund.

Nevertheless, the FDIC Legal Division determined that the FDIC is subject to the reporting requirements of the DATA Act because the statute requires Federal agencies, including the FDIC, to report financial information relating to any Federal funds made available to, or expended by, Federal agencies and entities receiving Federal funds in accordance with Government-wide data standards. The FDIC Legal Division also noted, however, that the DATA Act did not explicitly make the existing contract and grant reporting requirements of FFATA applicable to agencies, including the FDIC, that are: (1) not funded by appropriations, (2) have independent contracting authority, and (3) have not been reporting to the OMB under FFATA.

Between June 2015 and June 2016, the FDIC had a number of communications with the OMB and Treasury officials aimed at seeking guidance and clarification on the application of the DATA Act to the FDIC. On December 7, 2015, the FDIC issued a DATA Act Implementation Plan informing the OMB that the FDIC planned to report only the eight data elements required by the DATA Act. On June 21, 2016, the OMB conveyed that it did not object to the FDIC’s plans for the limited reporting under the DATA Act.4

The FDIC reports on the following eight standardized data elements. These elements are defined in Appendix 2, Glossary of Terms.

• Obligation

• Appropriations Account

• Unobligated Balances

• Outlay

• Program Activity5

• Object Class6

• Budget Authority Appropriated

• Other Budgetary Resources

Footnote: 4 The Government Accountability Office (GAO) report DATA TRANSPARENCY Oversight Needed to Address Underreporting and Inconsistencies on Federal Award Website noted that USASpending.gov states that expenditures made with non-appropriated funds are not to be reported (GAO-14-476) (June 2014). The GAO stated that officials from three Federal agencies, including the FDIC, had informed the GAO that their agency’s contracts were awarded using funds available outside of annual appropriations and, therefore, the agencies were considered to be non-appropriated and exempt from reporting. The GAO recommended that the OMB Director, in collaboration with the Treasury, clarify guidance on agency responsibilities for reporting awards funded by non-annual appropriations. The OMB Director agreed with this recommendation.

Footnote: 5 Program activity is defined as a specific activity or program as listed in the program and financing schedules of the annual budget of the United States Government. 31 U.S.C.§1115(h). FDIC Budget Management reports capture expenses by program, which are defined as Supervision, Insurance, Receivership Management, and General and Administrative.

Footnote: 6 Object class is a category in the classification system that presents obligations by the items or services purchased by the Federal Government. Each specific object class is defined in OMB Circular A-11, Preparation, Submission, and Execution of the Budget (June 2019).

The Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency (CIGIE) has established the Federal Audit Executive Council (FAEC) DATA Act Working Group (Working Group) to assist the IG community in understanding and meeting its DATA Act oversight requirements. On February 14, 2019, the Working Group issued the CIGIE FAEC Inspectors General Guide to Compliance under the DATA Act, to create a common methodology for the IG community to use in performing its mandated work. We used this guide to conduct our audit.

The FDIC’s DOF has overall responsibility for implementing the requirements of the DATA Act. The FDIC has prepared procedures for DATA Act reporting to USASpending.gov that include processes for the quarterly production, review, and submission of DATA Act-required files. The FDIC prepares these files from general ledger data in its financial system. Submitting data for the DATA Act is a four-step process, which includes activities related to:

1. Reviewing DATA Act Schema documents, to identify the data to be submitted and the format for packaging data for submission;

2. Validating and uploading the extracted data to the DATA Act Broker;

3. Reviewing warnings and error reports generated by the DATA Act Broker and correcting and resubmitting data, if necessary; and

4. Certifying the data in the DATA Act Broker for publication on USASpending.gov.

The FDIC submits Files A and B to the DATA Act Broker quarterly in accordance with the schedule established by the Treasury DATA Act Project Management Office (PMO). File A contains appropriation summary-level data that are aligned with the Agency’s SF-1337 reporting, and File B includes obligations and outlay information at the program activity and object class level.8 Files C through F are not applicable to the FDIC because the FDIC does not make Federal awards that involve the use of funds obtained through the appropriations process. File C is also an agency-submitted file and presents obligations at the award level. Files D through F are extracted from intermediary Government-wide systems related to awards and contain detailed information for transactions reported in File C. The Senior Accountable Official (SAO) is responsible for reviewing information contained in Files A through F for accuracy and completeness.

Footnote: 7 The SF-133 Report on Budget Execution and Budgetary Resources is a quarterly report that contains information on the sources of budget authority and the status of budgetary resources by individual fund or appropriation.

Footnote: 8 Files A and B present cumulative, fiscal year information.

Requirements for Inspectors General

The DATA Act also requires agencies’ IGs and the GAO to assess and report on the completeness, timeliness, quality, and accuracy of spending data submitted by Federal agencies. CIGIE identified a timing anomaly with the oversight requirements contained in the DATA Act. That is, the first IG reports were due to Congress on November 2016; however, Federal agencies were not required to report spending data until May 2017. To address this reporting date anomaly, the IGs provided Congress with their first required reports by November 8, 2017, 1-year after the statutory due date, with two subsequent reports to be submitted following on a 2-year cycle. On December 22, 2015, CIGIE’s chair issued a letter detailing the strategy for dealing with the IG reporting date anomaly and communicated the strategy to the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs and the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. This report is part of the second cycle of IG reports, and the final cycle of reports will be issued in 2021.

Our OIG report entitled, The FDIC's Compliance with the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 2014, (FDIC OIG AUD-18-013) (November 2017) found that the FDIC could reasonably rely on its source financial system for the DATA Act submission but identified three reporting errors:

• The FDIC should have reported the Gross Outlays, Delivered Orders Paid element as $1.067 billion and, instead, reported it as zero;

• The FDIC incorrectly overstated the Obligations element by $10.9 million; and

• The FDIC misclassified benefits for former employees as benefits for current employees, which led to an understatement in one object class and an overstatement in another.

The FDIC implemented corrective actions in response to these findings.

AUDIT RESULTS

We found that the FDIC’s Data Act submission for the first quarter of Fiscal Year 2019 was complete, timely, of sufficient quality, and accurate. In addition, the FDIC implemented and is using the data definition standards as defined by OMB and Treasury. Our audit also included an assessment of the FDIC’s internal controls as they related to the extraction of data from the source system and the reporting of data to the Data Act Broker. We concluded that the FDIC could reasonably rely on its source financial system for the DATA Act submission for the first quarter of Fiscal Year 2019.9

Completeness and Timeliness of the Agency’s Submission

We evaluated the FDIC’s DATA Act submission to Treasury’s DATA Act Broker and determined that the submission was complete and submitted timely. To determine whether the FDIC’s DATA Act submission was complete, we evaluated Files A and B to determine that all transactions and events that should have been recorded were recorded in the proper period. As previously noted, FDIC does not submit File C because FDIC does not make such awards.

Foonote: 9 The FDIC’s source financial system is subject to external annual audits by the GAO and internal assessments.

We found that the FDIC’s submission to the Data Act Broker was within the reporting schedule established by the Treasury DATA Act PMO. We also found that File A included all elements listed in the DATA Act Schema Reporting Submission Specification and that the amounts reported in File A matched the SF-133 data for the period ending December 31, 2018. Relying on the FDIC’s source system for data, we determined that the amounts the FDIC reported for File B for all object class and program activity combinations across all data elements were complete and accurate. We also determined that the totals from File B matched the amounts reported in File A for related data elements.

Quality and Accuracy of the Agency Submission

Through our test work, we determined that Files A and B were accurate. Additionally, we determined that the linkages between Files A and B were valid and did not identify any variances.

The FDIC Correctly Implemented Data Standards

We determined that the FDIC has fully implemented and is using the Government-wide financial data standards for spending information as developed by OMB and Treasury. We found that the FDIC reviewed the definitions of the standardized data elements and determined which data elements it must report. The FDIC used Treasury’s DATA Act Schema guidance and the OMB Circular No. A-11, Preparation, Submission, and Execution of the Budget (June 2019) definitions of object classes to map the agency’s financial system accounts to the DATA Act Schema and object classes.

Internal Control Assessment

OMB Management Procedures Memorandum No. 2016-03, Additional Guidance for DATA Act Implementation: Implementing Data-Centric Approach for Reporting Federal Spending Information (May 2016), contains agency certification requirements. According to this OMB Memorandum, agency DATA Act SAOs are to provide a quarterly assurance that their agency’s internal controls support the reliability and validity of the agency account-level and award-level data reported for publication on USASpending.gov.

Additionally, the GAO Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government (GAO-14-704G) (September 2014) states that management should design control activities to achieve objectives and respond to risks. We found that the FDIC had established controls to promote timely, complete, quality, and accurate reporting under the DATA Act. Such controls included written procedures to comply with the DATA Act and the designation of a DATA Act SAO. Additionally, the FDIC implemented a quality assurance process in which data preparation and review duties were segregated and each level of review was documented.

Reliability of Source Financial System

OMB Memorandum M-17-04, Additional Guidance for DATA Act Implementation: Further Requirements for Reporting and Assuring Data Reliability (November 2016), states that agencies should have internal controls in place over all of the data reported for display on USASpending.gov. OMB Memorandum M-17-04 requires that the internal controls over data be in accordance with OMB Circular A-123, Management’s Responsibility for Enterprise Risk Management and Internal Control (July 2016). As prescribed in the CIGIE FAEC Inspectors General Guide, we relied on the FDIC’s internally prepared Assurance Statements and external audit reports when assessing internal controls over the FDIC’s source financial system and financial reporting.

The FDIC’s Assurance Statement process requires that the head of the agency prepare a statement annually on the adequacy of internal, management, and financial system controls. The Assurance Statement addresses compliance with applicable internal control standards and provides reasonable assurance that, among other things, operations and programs are effective and efficient; financial data and reporting are reliable; laws and regulations are followed; internal controls are sufficient to minimize exposure to waste, fraud, and mismanagement; and key current procedures are documented. The FDIC’s 2018 Assurance Statement stated that the FDIC’s management controls, as a whole, provided reasonable assurance that the agency achieved its management control objectives during 2018 and identified no material weaknesses. The Assurance Statement identified several non-material challenges that did not directly relate to DATA Act reporting. The FDIC is due to complete its 2019 Assurance Statement in late 2019, after the release of this report.

We also reviewed the FDIC’s Financial Statement audit report for Calendar Year 2018 prepared by the GAO, the FDIC’s independent auditor. The GAO concluded that the FDIC maintained effective internal controls over financial reporting in all material respects. The results of the 2019 financial statement audit will not be available until early 2020, after release of this report. We also reviewed process memoranda issued by the FDIC, which documented various accounting processes and controls, to ensure there were no significant control changes made during 2019.

Our review of these documents provided us a reasonable level of assurance that the FDIC could rely on the source financial system as an authoritative source for data reported under the DATA Act.

FDIC COMMENTS AND OIG EVALUATION

Our report contains no recommendations, and the Deputy Director/Controller, Division of Finance, elected not to provide a written response.

Appendix 1

Objective, Scope, and Methodology

Objective The objectives of our audit were to assess the (1) completeness, timeliness, quality and accuracy of the financial and award data submitted for the first quarter of Fiscal Year 2019 and published on USASpending.gov and (2) FDIC’s implementation and use of the Government-wide financial data standards established by OMB and Treasury. We conducted this performance audit from February through August 2019 in accordance with Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. Scope and Methodology The scope of our audit covered Fiscal Year 2019 first quarter financial data that the FDIC submitted for publication on USASpending.gov. We followed the CIGIE FAEC Inspectors General Guide to Compliance under the DATA Act to facilitate reporting financial and award data in accordance with the requirements of the DATA Act. To accomplish our objectives, we conducted the following procedures covering the scope of the audit.

• Gained an understanding of DATA Act requirements by reviewing and analyzing Government-wide statutes, policies, procedures, guidance, and reports to gain an understanding of applicable laws, legislation, directives, and other guidance, including, but not limited to:

o The Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 2014 (May 2014);

o Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (September 2006);

o Federal Financial Management Improvement Act of 1996 (September 1996);

o Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity Act of 1982 (September 1982);

o OMB Circular No. A-11, Preparation, Submission, and Execution of the Budget (June 2019);

o OMB M-17-04, Additional Guidance for DATA Act Implementation: Further Requirements for Reporting and Assuring Data Reliability (November 2016);

o OMB Management Procedures Memorandum No. 2016-03, Additional Guidance for DATA Act Implementation: Implementing Data-Centric Approach for Reporting Federal Spending Information (May 2016);

o DATA Act Schema Reporting Submission Specification (February 2019);

o OMB Circular No. A-123, Management’s Responsibility for Enterprise Risk Management and Internal Control (July 2016);

o OMB M-18-16, Appendix A to OMB Circular No. A-123, Management of Reporting and Data Integrity Risk (June 2018); and

o GAO 14-704G, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government (September 2014).

• Interviewed FDIC DOF personnel who had responsibility for administering and implementing the DATA Act program, including members of the Financial Reporting and Analysis Section and Corporate Planning and Performance Management teams; and

• Participated in meetings with the Working Group to stay abreast of current challenges and issues surrounding the DATA Act required audits. As permitted under the CIGIE FAEC Inspectors General Guide, we relied on work performed by the GAO as part of its financial statement audit of the FDIC to assess internal controls. It was not our intention to express an opinion on the FDIC’s internal controls. In this regard, we:

• Interviewed GAO officials regarding the assessment of internal controls over the FDIC’s source system;

• Reviewed DOF’s 2019 revisions to process memoranda to determine any significant changes to relevant control processes;

• Assessed the current FDIC’s internal controls over the financial data reported to USASpending.gov;

• Assessed the FDIC’s current systems, processes, and internal controls over data management under the DATA Act; and

• Assessed the general and application controls pertaining to the FDIC’s financial management systems from which the data elements are derived and linked.

The DATA Act requires the IG of each Federal agency to review a statistically valid sample of the spending data submitted by its Federal agency. As stated earlier, the FDIC only needed to submit appropriation summary-level data (File A) and obligations and outlay information at the program activity and object class level (File B) to the DATA Act Broker. Therefore, we reviewed all eight data elements as contained in Files A and B submissions and supporting schedules as prescribed in the CIGIE FAEC Inspectors General Guide. The eight data elements are: Obligation, Appropriations Account, Unobligated Balances, Outlay, Program Activity, Object Class, Budget Authority Appropriated and Other Budgetary Resources. For Files C – F, we reviewed these files to ensure there were no values reported or extracted from the various award systems since the FDIC is not required to report the award level information that is required in these files.

We performed our work at the FDIC’s offices at Virginia Square in Arlington, Virginia.

Appendix 2

Glossary of Terms

Appropriations Account - The basic unit of an appropriation generally reflecting each unnumbered paragraph in an appropriation act. An appropriation account typically encompasses a number of activities or projects and may be subject to restrictions or conditions applicable to only the account, the appropriation act, titles within an appropriation act, other appropriation acts, or the Government as a whole. (Federal Spending Transparency Data Standards published by OMB and Treasury)

Budget Authority Appropriated - A provision of law (not necessarily in an appropriation act) authorizing an account to incur obligations and to make outlays for a given purpose. Usually, but not always, an appropriation provides budget authority. (Federal Spending Transparency Data Standards published by OMB and Treasury)

Object Class - Categories in a classification system that presents obligations by the items or services purchased by the Federal Government. Each specific Object Class is defined in OMB Circular A-11, Preparation, Submission, and Execution of the Budget. (Federal Spending Transparency Data Standards published by OMB and Treasury)

Obligation - A legally binding agreement that will result in financial outlays, immediately or in the future. When an order is placed, a contract is signed, a grant awarded, a service purchased, or other actions are taken that require the Government to make payments to the public or from one Government account to another, an obligation is incurred. (Federal Spending Transparency Data Standards published by OMB and Treasury)

Other Budgetary Resources - New borrowing authority, contract authority, and spending authority from offsetting collections provided by the Congress in an appropriation act or other legislation, or unobligated balances of budgetary resources made available in previous legislation, to incur obligations and to make outlays. (Federal Spending Transparency Data Standards published by OMB and Treasury)

Outlay - Payments made to liquidate an obligation (other than the repayment of debt principals or other disbursements that are “means of financing” transactions). Outlays are generally equal to cash disbursements but also are recorded for cash-equivalent transactions, such as the issuance of debentures to pay insurance claims, and in a few cases are recorded on an accrual basis such as interest on public issues of the public debt. Outlays are a measure of Government spending. (Federal Spending Transparency Data Standards published by OMB and Treasury)

Program Activity - A specific activity or project as listed in the program and financing schedules of the annual budget of the United States Government. (Federal Spending Transparency Data Standards published by OMB and Treasury)

Unobligated Balances - The cumulative amount of budget authority that remains available for obligations under law in unexpired accounts at a point in time. (Federal Spending Transparency Data Standards published by OMB and Treasury)

Appendix 3

Acronyms and Abbreviations

CIGIE Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency

DATA Act Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 2014

DATA Act Schema DATA Act Information Model Schema

DOF Division of Finance

FAEC Federal Audit Executive Council

FFATA Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006

GAO Government Accountability Office

IG Inspector General

OMB Office of Management and Budget

PMO Project Management Office

SAO Senior Accountable Official

Treasury Department of the Treasury

Working Group Federal Audit Executive Council DATA Act Working Group

[End of report]

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

Office of Inspector General

3501 Fairfax Drive, Room VS-E-9068, Arlington, VA 22226

(703) 562-2035

The OIG’s mission is to prevent, deter, and detect waste, fraud, abuse, and misconduct in FDIC programs and operations; and to promote economy, efficiency, and effectiveness at the agency. To report allegations of waste, fraud, abuse, or misconduct regarding FDIC programs, employees, contractors, or contracts, please contact us via our Hotline or call 1-800-964-FDIC.

FDIC OIG website, www.fdicoig.gov

Twitter, @FDIC_OIG

Oversight.gov - www.oversight.gov/

Print Print
Close