NASA's Sloppy FY 2014 Agency Financial Report
NASA FY 2014 Agency Financial Report“Audit of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s Fiscal Year 2014 Financial Statements (IG-15-006, November 14, 2014) The Office of Inspector General contracted with the independent public accounting firm PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (PwC) to audit NASA’s fiscal year (FY) 2014 financial statements. PwC performed the audit in accordance with the Government Accountability Office’s Government Auditing Standards and the Office of Management and Budget’s Bulletin No. 14-02, “Audit Requirements for Federal Financial Statements.”
Keith’s note: Much of this report was assembled rather sloppily starting with page 107. It gets really bad starting on page 147. The words are not words – just fuzzy images of text – not actual text. its like they scanned a document that had been copied 5 or 6 times and then faxed. I’d be willing to bet that large portions of this document are not Section 508 compliant. Things improve after page 160. You’d think that NASA would spend a little more time to make the document legible. in addition, due to the fact that a substantial portion of this report is not text searchable – and that the fuzzy text pictures almost certainly cannot be run through an OCR program, there are certain Open Government non-compliance issues as well.
That is really sad… with all of the technology that NASA is in possession of today they cannot get an electronic copy to insert?
Dangerous territory here but I can only assume someone at 300 E Street has a certified copy of Adobe Acrobat. I mean, my 11 year old knows how to insert one PDF into another.
But on the bright side – blowing it up to 155% on a 27 inch flat panel makes it easy to read.
Try it on a reader – one that reads it back to you audibly. It won’t work. Scanned text is not high enough resolution.
I was generally able to read it. Some pretty funny stuff, if it weren’t so expensive. Twenty years ago NASA was directed by Congress (I assume Robert Byrd had something to do with it) to allocate $10M to West Virginia University to create a new NASA facility for “Independent Verification and Validation”. It would be fine with me if they were just given the money and told to do any research they thought needed doing. But instead they created an actual “NASA facility” in West Virginia that NASA has to pay overhead and salaries on, even more than a million dollars in repairs to an unneeded building. They have to figure out some way to spend the money every year, so they spent thousands on a student picnic for the entire university, mostly on, yes, hundreds of pounds of actual pork. There isn’t any evidence I’m aware of the IV&V has ever done anything useful. When people have to send software there they groan. Obviously an organization so disconnected from the actual users and hardware has little chance of identifying subtle errors if they exist. So the IG report just says NASA will continue to investigate ways to reduce costs, such as selling the buildings and leasing commercial office space.
This is the IG we are talking about. Why not state the obvious? Maybe the same reason they say nothing at all to question the Bo Jiang affair.
It’s probably a Y2K bug in the 1998 Acrobat software that they are just getting around to fixing.
It’s not like anyone ever reads the reports.
I thought the report was the product and responsibility of PricewaterhouseCoopers not NASA.