Highlights taken from our Semiannual Report to Congress for the period ending March 31, 2008, include the following:

• An OIG review, “Final Memorandum on the Review of the National Aviation Operations Monitoring Service” (NAOMS), was initiated following the NASA Administrator’s appearance before Congress on October 31, 2007—an appearance prompted by media coverage of NAOMS survey results. We found that NAOMS management conducted NAOMS research, development, and implementation in accordance with applicable NASA directives and guidelines. However, we also found that NASA did not adequately describe or publicize the designed and intended uses of the NAOMS survey, which was to produce data from which trends might be identified and considered in concert with other Aviation Safety Monitoring and Modeling (ASMM) Project activities. Also, NASA had not published an analysis of the NAOMS data nor adequately publicized its primary purpose of contributing to the ASMM Project. Consequently, the NAOMS survey data could be taken out of context and misunderstood in relation to identifying aviation risk. We recommended that NASA take the lead and coordinate efforts to interpret the NAOMS data to determine whether the data were useful for its intended purpose and also release and post on the Internet NAOMS-related information, including articles and research papers as well as a detailed analysis of the NAOMS survey data research, findings, and conclusions. NASA concurred with our recommendation to determine whether NAOMS accomplished its intended purpose of producing data from which aviation safety trends might be identified and also with our recommendation to release and post on NASA’s public Web site NAOMS-related information. NASA nonconcurred, however, with providing a detailed analysis of the research, findings, and conclusions, noting, among other reasons, that the most important work related to NAOMS is developing a better understanding of the validity of the survey methodology. Given that NASA has contracted with the National Research Council to assess the NAOMS methodology, we revised our recommendation to make the publication of a detailed analysis contingent upon the assessment of the methodology. We request that management provide additional comments in response to our revised recommendation.
• The Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990 requires the IG to ensure that NASA’s financial statements are audited annually. The OIG and independent public accountants (IPAs) continue to assess and make recommendations to assist the Agency in reducing financial management weaknesses. Yet, financial management remains a significant management challenge for NASA. The OIG has contracted with one IPA to audit NASA’s financial statements since FY 2004, and in each year since then, NASA has received a disclaimer of opinion. For FY 2007, NASA was again unable to provide auditable financial statements throughout the fiscal year or at year-end and the IPA disclaimed an opinion on NASA’s FY 2007 financial statements, as reported in “Audit of NASA’s FY 2007 Financial Statements.” NASA has made progress in improving its internal controls by, for example, developing tools and reports for analyzing financial statement accounts, but NASA management and the IPA continued to identify weaknesses. The IPA reported two significant deficiencies considered to be material weaknesses: (1) financial systems, analyses, and oversight used to prepare the financial statements; and (2) assuring that property, plant, and equipment and materials are presented fairly in the financial statements. However, during the audit we found that NASA had prepared a corrective action plan to address the material weaknesses and recommendations noted in the FY 2006 financial statement audit report. Therefore, we recommended that NASA update that corrective action plan to address the findings detailed in the IPA’s reports as well as material weaknesses identified in the Administrator’s Statement of Assurance. The plan must be detailed enough to ensure successful implementation with desired results. In addition, NASA must continue to ensure that the Office of the Chief Financial Officer is staffed with properly trained personnel, that accounting practices are consistent with applicable standards and consistently applied, that internal controls are established that provide reasonable assurance that the financial statements are supported, complete, and accurate; and that recommendations made by the IPA, our office, and the Government Accountability Office are implemented.
• In our audit, “Final Memorandum on Audit of Retention of NASA’s Official Electronic Mail,” we sought to determine whether NASA was effectively and efficiently managing its official e-mail records in accordance with statutory and regulatory requirements. We also evaluated whether NASA had (1) established and implemented adequate policies and procedures to ensure that e-mail users identified, designated, stored, and retained official e-mail communication and (2) developed and implemented training to ensure that all Agency e-mail users were aware of and understood the process. We found that NASA was not effectively and efficiently managing its official e-mail records in accordance with applicable statutory and regulatory requirements. NASA had established records management policies and procedures in accordance with National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) regulations; however, NASA’s e-mail retention guidance did not adequately address electronic records management, and NASA’s official e-mail records were not being managed in accordance with applicable requirements. In addition, more than 92 percent of the senior management we surveyed were noncompliant with the requirements to identify, designate, store, and retain official e-mail correspondence. NASA guidance was outdated, but NASA was in the process of revising its guidance to comply with NARA regulations. Therefore, we recommended that the Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO) finalize and issue updated guidance, implement mandatory electronic records management training, and monitor electronic records management reviews. Management concurred with our recommendations and has taken or is taking corrective action.