Skip to main content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Government Website

Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Safely connect using HTTPS

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock () or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Audits, Inspections, and Evaluations

Report Number Title Issue Date Fiscal Year
OIG-11-80  

>Information Technology Management Letter for the United States Coast Guard Component of the FY 2010 DHS Financial Statement Audit ( 		2011
OIG-13-63 We have audited the balance sheet of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS or Department) as of September 30, 2012, and the related statements of net cost, changes in net position, and custodial activity, and combined statement of budgetary resources for the year then ended (referred to as the “fiscal year (FY) 2012 financial statements”). We were also engaged to audit the Department’s internal control over financial reporting of the FY 2012 financial statements. The objective of our audit engagement was to express an opinion on the fair presentation of the FY 2012 financial statements and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of the FY 2012 financial statements.

>Information Technology Management Letter for the United States Coast Guard Component of the FY 2012 Department of Homeland Security Financial Statement Audit 		2013
OIG-15-47 We contracted with the independent public accounting firm KPMG, LLP to perform the audit of the consolidated financial statements of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security for the year ended September 30, 2014. KPMG, LLP evaluated selected general information technology controls and business process application controls at the United States Coast Guard (USCG). KPMG, LLP determined that USCG took corrective action over designing and consistently implementing certain account management and configuration management controls. However, KPMG, LLP continued to identify general information technology control deficiencies related to security management, logical access, configuration management, segregation of duties, and contingency planning for USCG’s core financial and feeder systems. Such control deficiencies limited USCG’s ability to ensure the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of its critical financial and operational data.

>Information Technology Management Letter for the United States Coast Guard Component of the FY 2014 Department of Homeland Security Financial Statement Audit 		2015
OIG-09-47  

>Information Technology Management Letter for the United States Coast Guard Component of the FY2008 DHS Financial Statement Audit 		2009
OIG-12-49  

>IT Matters related to the United States Coast Guard Component of the FY 2011 DHS Financial Statement Audit 		2012
OIG-08-24 Maintenance, Rehabilitation, and Upgrading of Shore Facilities in Support of United States Coast Guard Missions 2008
OIG-19-03 The Office of Inspector General (OIG) is conducting an investigation into allegations that the whistleblower was retaliated against for, among other things, communicating with Members of Congress regarding discrimination and retaliation against the whistleblower. The whistleblower alleged being subjected to retaliatory investigations by CGIS in violation of the Military Whistleblower Protection Act (MWPA). We recently learned that CGIS executed a search warrant against the whistleblower several months after the whistleblower retired from the Coast Guard, but soon after CGIS became aware of the OIG’s whistleblower retaliation investigation. Our information indicates that a CGIS agent obtained the search warrant in connection with a CGIS-directed investigation.

>Management Alert - Coast Guard Investigative Service Search and Seizure of DHS OIG and Congressional Communications 		2019
OIG-21-67 During our ongoing audit of DHS law enforcement virtual training, we learned that the Coast Guard uses functional firearms to conduct DVD-based simulation training.  We identified this issue in Coast Guard’s Commandant Instruction 3574.5C, 18 September 2014, Coast Guard Judgmental Use of Force Evaluation and observed a demonstration of this training at one Coast Guard location.  According to testimony or policy from four other DHS components that employ or train law enforcement personnel, the use of functional firearms during video-based simulation training is prohibited within their respective components.  By using functional firearms capable of firing ammunition, even if emptied of ammunition, in DVD-based simulation training, Coast Guard increased the risk of unintentional injury or death.  Coast Guard concurred with our recommendation and took immediate corrective actions to discontinue the use of functional firearms during DVD-based simulation training.  The recommendation is resolved and closed.

>Management Alert - The United States Coast Guard Discontinued the Use of Functional Firearms in DVD Simulation Training 		2021
OIG-13-92 Our audit objective was to determine whether the USCG has adequate processes to investigate, take corrective actions, and enforce Federal regulations following reported marine casualties. The USCG does not have adequate processes to investigate, take corrective actions, and enforce Federal regulations related to the reporting of marine accidents. These conditions exist because the USCG has not developed and retained sufficient personnel, established a complete process with dedicated resources to address corrective actions, and provided adequate training to personnel on enforcement of marine accident reporting.

>Marine Accident Reporting, Investigations, and Enforcement in the United States Coast Guard 		2013
OIG-17-74-IQO The objective of this review was to determine whether the United States Coast Guard Investigative Service (CGIS) was complying with applicable policies.  However, significant issues with the agency’s case management system prevented us from making substantive observations about compliance with investigative policies.  We also noted issues with outdated policies, an absence of a Privacy Impact Assessment, poor training records management, and inconsistent documentation of finalized investigations.  CGIS employees voiced concerns with trust in senior leadership as well as questionable hiring practices, and articulated a need for more resources.  We made 32 recommendations to address the findings of our review and CGIS concurred with all of them.

>Oversight Review of the US Coast Guard Investigative Service 		2017
OIG-04-50 Re-Engining of the HH-65 Helicopter, United States Coast Guard, September 2004 2004
OIG-18-88 DHS did not complete an assessment of the security value of the Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC) program as required by law.  This occurred because DHS experienced challenges identifying an office responsible for the effort.  As a result, Coast Guard does not have a full understanding of the extent to which the TWIC program addresses security risks in the maritime environment.  This will continue to impact the Coast Guard’s ability to properly develop and enforce regulations governing the TWIC program. For example, Coast Guard did not clearly define the applicability of facilities that have certain dangerous cargo in bulk when developing a final rule to implement the use of TWIC readers at high-risk maritime facilities.  Without oversight and policy improvements in the TWIC program, high-risk facilities may continue to operate without enhanced security measures, putting these facilities at an increased security risk. In addition, Coast Guard needs to improve its oversight of the TWIC program to reduce the risk of transportation security incidents.  Due to technical problems and lack of awareness of procedures, Coast Guard did not make full use of the TWIC card’s biometric features as intended by Congress to ensure only eligible individuals have unescorted access to secure areas of regulated facilities.  During inspections at regulated facilities from FYs 2016 through 2017, Coast Guard only used electronic readers to verify, on average, about one in every 15 TWIC cards against TSA’s canceled card list.  This occurred because the majority of the TWIC readers in the field have reached the end of their service life.  Furthermore, the Coast Guard’s guidance governing oversight of the TWIC program is fragmented, which led to confusion and inconsistent inspection procedures.  This resulted in fewer regulatory confiscations of TWIC cards.  The Department concurred with our four recommendations, and described the corrective actions it is taking and plans to take.

>Review of Coast Guard's Oversight of the TWIC Program 		2018
OIG-09-93  

>Review of U.S. Coast Guard Enterprise Architecture Implementation Process 		2009
OIG-16-29 KPMG LLP, under contract with the Department of Homeland Security OIG, issued an Independent Accountants’ Report on U.S. Coast Guard’s (Coast Guard) Detailed Accounting Submission. Coast Guard’s management prepared the Table of FY 2015 Drug Control Obligations and related disclosures to comply with the requirements of the ONDCP Circular, Accounting of Drug Control Funding and Performance Summary, dated January 18, 2013 (Circular). Based on its review, nothing came to KPMG LLP’s attention that caused it to believe that the Coast Guard’s FY 2015 Detailed Accounting Submission is not presented in conformity with the criteria in ONDCP’s Circular. KPMG LLP did not make any recommendations as a result of its review.

>Review of U.S. Coast Guard's Fiscal Year 2015 Detailed Accounting Submission 		2016
OIG-16-28 KPMG LLP, under contract with the Department of Homeland Security OIG, issued an Independent Accountants’ Report on the U.S. Coast Guard’s (Coast Guard) fiscal year 2015 Drug Control Performance Summary Report. Coast Guard management prepared the Performance Summary Report and related disclosures to comply with the requirements of the ONDCP Circular, Accounting of Drug Control Funding and Performance Summary, dated January 18, 2013 (Circular). Based on its review, nothing came to KPMG LLP’s attention that caused it to believe that the Coast Guard’s FY 2015 Performance Summary Report is not presented in conformity with the criteria in the ONDCP Circular. KPMG LLP did not make any recommendations as a result of its review.

>Review of U.S. Coast Guard's Fiscal Year 2015 Drug Control Performance Summary Report 		2016
OIG-17-32 U.S. Coast Guard management prepared the Table of FY 2016 Drug Control Obligations and related disclosures to comply with the requirements of ONDCP’s Circular, Accounting of Drug Control Funding and Performance Summary, dated January 18, 2013.  Based on its review, nothing came to KPMG’s attention that caused it to believe that the Coast Guard’s FY 2016 Detailed Accounting Submission is not presented in conformity with the criteria in ONDCP’s Circular.  KPMG did not make any recommendations as a result of its review. 

>Review of U.S. Coast Guard's Fiscal Year 2016 Detailed Accounting Submission 		2017
OIG-17-33 U.S. Coast Guard management prepared the Performance Summary Report and the related disclosures in accordance with the requirements of the ONDCP Circular, Accounting of Drug Control Funding and Performance Summary, dated January 18, 2013 (Circular).  Based on its review, nothing came to KPMG’s attention that caused it to believe that the Coast Guard’s FY 2016 Performance Summary Report is not presented, in conformity with the criteria in ONDCP’s Circular.  KPMG did not make any recommendations as a result of its review.

>Review of U.S. Coast Guard's Fiscal Year 2016 Review of U.S. Coast Guard's Fiscal Year 2016 Drug Control Performance Summary Report 		2017
OIG-18-44 The Office of National Drug Control Policy’s (ONDCP) Circular, Accounting of Drug Control Funding and Performance Summary, requires National Drug Control Program agencies to submit to the ONDCP Director, not later than February 1 of each year, a detailed accounting of all funds expended for National Drug Control Program activities during the previous fiscal year (FY). The Office of Inspector General (OIG) is required to conduct a review of the agency’s submission and provide a conclusion about the reliability of each assertion in the report. an Independent Accountants’ Report on U.S. Coast Guard’s (Coast Guard) Detailed Accounting Submission. Coast Guard’s management prepared the Table of FY 2017 Drug Control Obligations and related disclosures in accordance with the requirements of the ONDCP Circular, Accounting of Drug Control Funding and Performance Summary, dated January 18, 2013 (Circular).

>Review of U.S. Coast Guard's Fiscal Year 2017 Detailed Accounting Submission for Drug Control Funds 		2018
OIG-18-43 The Office of National Drug Control Policy’s (ONDCP) Circular, Accounting of Drug Control Funding and Performance Summary, requires National Drug Control Program agencies to submit to the ONDCP Director, not later than February 1 of each year, a detailed accounting of all funds expended for National Drug Control Program activities during the previous fiscal year (FY). The Office of Inspector General (OIG) is required to conduct a review of the report and provide a conclusion about the reliability of each assertion made in the report. Independent Accountants’ Report on the U.S. Coast Guard’s (Coast Guard) FY 2017 Drug Control Performance Summary Report. Coast Guard’s management prepared the Performance Summary Report and the related disclosures in accordance with the requirements of the ONDCP Circular, Accounting of Drug Control Funding and Performance Summary, dated January 18, 2013 (Circular).

>Review of U.S. Coast Guard's Fiscal Year 2017 Drug Control Performance Summary Report 		2018
OIG-19-33 The Office of National Drug Control Policy’s (ONDCP) Circular, Accounting of Drug Control Funding and Performance Summary, requires each National Drug Control Program agency to submit to the ONDCP Director a detailed accounting of all funds expended for National Drug Control Program activities during the previous fiscal year. Williams, Adley & Company –DC, LLP (Williams Adley), under contract with the Department of Homeland Security OIG, issued an Independent Accountant’s Report on U.S. Coast Guard’s (Coast Guard) Detailed Accounting Submission. Coast Guard management prepared the Table of FY 2018 Drug Control Obligations and related disclosures in accordance with requirements of ONDCP Circular, Accounting of Drug Control Funding and Performance Summary, dated May 8, 2018 (the Circular). Based on its review, nothing came to Williams Adley’s attention that caused it to believe that the Coast Guard’s FY 2018 Detailed Accounting Submission is not presented in conformity with the criteria in the Circular. Williams Adley did not make any recommendations as a result of its review.

>Review of U.S. Coast Guard's Fiscal Year 2018 Detailed Accounting Submission for Drug Control Funds 		2019
OIG-19-27 The Office of National Drug Control Policy’s (ONDCP) Circular, Accounting of Drug Control Funding and Performance Summary, requires each National Drug Control Program agency to submit to ONDCP Director a detailed accounting of all funds expended for National Drug Control Program activities during the previous fiscal year. Williams Adley & Company – DC, LLP (Williams Adley), under contract with the Department of Homeland Security OIG, issued an Independent Accountant’s Report on U.S. Coast Guard’s (Coast Guard) fiscal year (FY) 2018 Drug Control Performance Summary Report.

>Review of U.S. Coast Guard's Fiscal Year 2018 Drug Control Performance Summary Report 		2019
OIG-22-24 Review of U.S. Coast Guard's Fiscal Year 2021 Detailed Accounting Report for Drug Control Funds 2022
OIG-22-23 Review of U.S. Coast Guard's Fiscal Year 2021 Drug Control Budget Formulation Compliance Report 2022
OIG-23-08 Review of U.S. Coast Guard's Fiscal Year 2022 Detailed Accounting Report for Drug Control Funds 2023
OIG-23-09 Review of U.S. Coast Guard's Fiscal Year 2022 Drug Control Budget Formulation Compliance Report 2023
OIG-15-28 KPMG LLP, under contract with the Department of Homeland Security OIG, issued an Independent Accountants’ Report on U.S. Coast Guard’s (Coast Guard) Detailed Accounting Submission. Coast Guard’s management prepared the Table of FY 2014 Drug Control Obligations and related disclosures to comply with the requirements of the ONDCP Circular, Accounting of Drug Control Funding and Performance Summary (Circular), dated January 18, 2013. Based on its review, nothing came to KPMG LLP’s attention that caused it to believe that the Detailed Accounting Submission for the year ended September 30, 2014, is not presented, in all material respects, in conformity with the criteria in ONDCP’s Circular. KPMG LLP did not make any recommendations as a result of its review.

>Review of U.S. Coast Guard's FY 2014 Detailed Accounting Submission 		2015
OIG-15-27 KPMG LLP, under contract with the Department of Homeland Security OIG, issued an Independent Accountants’ Report on the U.S. Coast Guard’s (Coast Guard) fiscal year 2014 Drug Control Performance Summary Report. Coast Guard management prepared the Performance Summary Report and related disclosures to comply with the requirements of the ONDCP Circular, Accounting of Drug Control Funding and Performance Summary (Circular), dated January 18, 2013. Based on its review, nothing came to KPMG LLP’s attention that caused it to believe that the Performance Summary Report for the year ended September 30, 2014, is not presented, in all material respects, in conformity with the criteria in the ONDCP Circular. KPMG LLP did not make any recommendations as a result of its review.

>Review of U.S. Coast Guard's FY 2014 Drug Control Performance Summary Report 		2015
OIG-10-06 Review of USCG's Expenditure Plans for the ARRA of 2009 2010
OIG-11-22 Revisions to the Marine Safety Performance Plan and Annual Update Supplement Will Facilitate Improved Management 2011
OIG-05-35 Security Weaknesses Increase, Risks to Critical United States Coast Guard Database (Redacted) 2005
OIG-10-85  

>The Coast Guard's Boat Crew Communications System Is Unreliable 		2010
OIG-10-89  

>The Coast Guard's Maritime Safety and Security Team Program  		2010
OIG-15-41 The United States Coast Guard (USCG) operates the Biometrics at Sea System (BASS) to collect biometric data from interdicted aliens. The biometrics are sent to the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Automated Biometric Identification System (IDENT) to identify potential persons of interest, including suspected terrorists. We audited BASS interface with IDENT, security roles and responsibilities, and change control management. We determined that USCG did not have a routine reconciliation process to ensure that all biometrics that it captured on the 23 cutters are maintained in IDENT. Not ensuring reconciliation between the total biometrics USCG submitted and the number stored in IDENT may impede future identification of suspected terrorists, aggravated felons, or other individuals of interest. USCG also allowed application programmers with unrestricted system access to share passwords. The control weakness may result in individuals making unauthorized changes to the system without detection. Further, we determined that the authorization for the transition from the 2-fingerprint to 10-fingerprint application system was not properly documented and security documentation had not been updated. Without a proper authorization process, USCG could not provide assurance that senior executives approved the change prior to implementation.

>The Security Posture of the United States Coast Guard's Biometrics At Sea System Needs Improvements 		2015
OIG-20-36 We identified 16 allegations of race-based harassment involving cadets between 2013 and 2018 that the Coast Guard Academy (the Academy) was aware of and had sufficient information to investigate and address through internal hate and harassment procedures.  The OIG identified issues in how the Academy addressed 11 of them.  First, in six incidents, the Academy did not thoroughly investigate the allegations, and/or did not discipline cadets when investigations documented violations of cadet regulations or Coast Guard policy.  In two of these instances, cadets committed similar misconduct again.  The Academy also did not fully include civil rights staff as required in six instances (including two of the instances noted previously).  Therefore, civil rights staff could not properly track these incidents to proactively identify trends and offer the Academy assistance.  In addition, in one incident involving a potential hate allegation, the Academy did not follow the Coast Guard process for hate incidents.  Finally, our review determined that race-based harassment is underreported at the Academy for various reasons, including concerns about negative consequences for reporting allegations.  Underreporting is especially concerning because our questionnaire results and interviews indicate harassing behaviors continue at the Academy.  We made five recommendations that will enhance the Academy’s ability to address harassment and hate allegations, including ensuring the Academy consistently investigates allegations, requiring the reasons for disciplinary decisions be documented after race- or ethnicity-based harassment investigations, informing civil rights staff of all misconduct that could reasonably relate to race or ethnicity; and improving training related to preventing and addressing race-based or ethnicity-based harassment or hate incidents.  The Coast Guard concurred with all recommendations

>The U.S. Coast Guard Academy Must Take Additional Steps to Better Address Allegations of Race-Based Harassment and Prevent Such Harassment on Campus 		2020
OIG-15-31 The U.S. Coast Guard’s Travel to Obtain Health Care program is intended to ensure U.S. Coast Guard (Coast Guard) members and their dependents have access to proper medical care while stationed in locations where access to specialty care may not be readily available. From October 2010 through June 2014, the Coast Guard spent almost $4.5 million on this program. We received allegations that unnecessary travel had been approved. As a result, we conducted this audit to determine if the program has sufficient controls to ensure travel is necessary. The program did not have sufficient controls to ensure that travel for medical purposes was necessary. The Coast Guard did not establish, distribute, or ensure implementation of clear policies and procedures for reviewing, approving, and maintaining program requests. Local offices were not provided criteria or training on how to evaluate the requests, did not document that travel was necessary, and did not adequately justify that the location for medical care was appropriate. Ninety-four percent of the records tested were missing essential information, such as physicians’ referrals and cost estimates. Without this information, approving officials may not have been able to evaluate whether the travel was necessary and cost effective. As a result, the Coast Guard may have approved requests for inappropriate health care travel, incurring unnecessary costs and lost productivity.

>The U.S. Coast Guard Travel to Obtain Health Care Program Needs Improved Policies and Better Oversight 		2015
OIG-23-46 The United States Coast Guard Needs to Determine the Impact and Effectiveness of Its Streamlined Inspection Program 2023
OIG-23-23 The United States Coast Guard Needs to Improve Its Accounting for Non-Capitalized Personal Property Assets 2023
OIG-09-107  

>The United States Coast Guard's Program for Identfying High Interest Vessels ( 		2009
OIG-14-42 The April 20, 2010, oil spill that followed the explosion of the Mobile Offshore Drilling Unit, Deepwater Horizon, was the largest in United States history. This spill was also the first Spill of National Significance—a spill so complex that it required extraordinary coordination of Federal, State, local, and responsible party resources to contain and clean up the discharge. As the lead Federal agency for oil spill or hazardous material incidents in United States coastal waters, the United States Coast Guard (USCG) served as the Federal On-Scene Coordinator for response to this oil spill. Seven after action reports containing 549 recommendations were issued in the wake of this incident. Our objective was to determine whether the USCG’s oversight of recommendations made in Deepwater Horizon oil spill after action reports was effective for tracking corrective actions.

>The USCG's Oversight of Recommendations from Deepwater Horizon After Action Reports 		2014
OIG-15-05 The Coast Guard has undertaken a project to modernize information technology onboard certain ships and aircraft. This technology is referred to collectively as Command, Control, Communication, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (C4ISR) systems. The C4ISR project is a major information technology investment with an acquisition life cycle cost of $1.5 billion through fiscal year 2026. The Coast Guard has implemented information technology systems that effectively support the mission needs of some ships and aircraft. Specifically, the systems have met overall performance requirements and have improved operational capabilities, including increased situational awareness, better communication within the Coast Guard and with its partners, and enhanced sensor capabilities. The Coast Guard, however, has not carried out some planned system enhancements that were necessary to support mission needs of certain aircraft and legacy ships. These enhancements were not carried out because of significant budget reductions. Revised plans do not fully address how the Coast Guard will meet the critical technology needs of these aircraft and legacy ships. As a result, these ships and aircraft continue to rely on obsolete technology which impacts mission performance and makes operations and maintenance more difficult and costly.

>U.S. Coast Guard Command, Control, Communication, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Modernization 		2015
OIG-12-68  

>U.S. Coast Guard's Acquisition of the Sentinel Class- Fast Response Cutter 		2012
OIG-09-82  

>U.S. Coast Guard's Acquisition of the Vertical-Takeoff-and-Landing Unmanned Aerial Vehicle 		2009
OIG-11-82  

>U.S. Coast Guard's Anti-Deficiency Act Violations for the Response Boat-Medium Major Acquisition Project for Fiscal Years 2004 Through 2009 		2011
OIG-11-59  

>U.S. Coast Guard's Management Letter for FY 2010 DHS Consolidated Financial Statements Audit 		2011
OIG-09-34  

>U.S. Coast Guard's Management of 2005 Gulf Coast Hurricanes Mission Assignment Funding 		2009
OIG-11-86  

>U.S. Coast Guard's Marine Safety Program-Offshore Vessel Inspections 		2011
OIG-12-73  

>U.S. Coast Guards Maritime Patrol Aircraft 		2012
OIG-15-55 USCG has taken some steps to address the risk of insider threats to its information systems and data. For example, USCG established an Insider Threat Working Group designed to implement a holistic program focused on the insider risk. In addition, USCG implemented a process to verify that system administrators have the appropriate level of access to information technology systems and networks to perform their assigned duties. Further, USCG established the Cyber Security Operations Center to monitor and respond to potential insider threat risks or incidents against USCG information systems and networks. However, additional steps are needed to further address the risk posed by trusted insiders at USCG

>United States Coast Guard Has Taken Steps to Address Insider Threats, but Challenges Remain 		2015
OIG-15-87 The USCG has made progress in developing a culture of privacy. Separately, the USCG Privacy Office and Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Office are working to meet requirements of pertinent legislation, regulations, directives, and guidance. These offices ensure their staff annually receive mandatory privacy training, which helps embed shared attitudes, values, goals, and practices for complying with requirements to properly handle sensitive personally identifiable information and protected health information (privacy data). Also, USCG has completed required privacy and security documentation for managing its information technology systems containing privacy data. However, USCG faces challenges in protecting privacy data effectively because it lacks a strong organizational approach to resolving privacy issues.

>United States Coast Guard Safeguards For Protected Health Information Need Improvement 		2015
OIG-15-32 After an alteration of the BNSF Railway bridge (Burlington bridge) in Burlington, Iowa, was completed in 2012, the United States Coast Guard (Coast Guard) requested that we audit the sharing of costs, known as the final apportionment of cost, to determine its accuracy. Coast Guard could not provide proper documentation to support the final apportionment of cost for the Burlington bridge alteration, of which $74 million was allocated to the Coast Guard and $8 million to BNSF Railway (BNSF). Specifically, the Coast Guard did not properly document its review of the construction contractors who bid on the new bridge. In addition, the financial documentation for changes to originally planned work did not always support the cost of the work. The Coast Guard also did not have a process to evaluate and verify BNSF’s reported salvage value or expected savings in maintenance and repair costs. Based on our review of available documentation, we were unable to confirm either the Coast Guard’s or BNSF’s share of the final cost to alter the Burlington bridge. As a result, the Coast Guard cannot be certain it was appropriate to pay $74 million as the Federal share of the final cost of the bridge alteration.

>United States Coast Guard's Alteration of the Burlington Bridge Project 		2015

*NDAA, Pub. L. 117-263, section 5274 Response Received. View responses

Return to top of page