266 1- 'OS
jjodey |enu
jopedsui |o
09VOZ 00
966 L JequjeAON
LOO-96-N-Oge-Vd3
-------
On the cover: Kings River Canyon in the Sierras, by Ansel Adams
(Photo courtesy of the National Museum of American Art,
Smithsonian Institution).
Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Recycled Paper (50% Postconsumer)
-------
Foreword
During this semiannual reporting period, the Office of
Inspector General has been involved in change, both in Agency
operations and in our own. We have continued helping the
Agency make strategic planning and streamlining decisions and
have continued identifying cost saving opportunities through our
report recommendations and direct consultations. We have
expanded our performance and management audits into new
program areas to help the Agency deliver its environmental
mission. We have also continued monitoring Agency progress
in correcting some of its longstanding problems. The OIG itself
has performed a rigorous self examination to further improve our
own economy, efficiency and effectiveness by reducing our
investment in administrative functions while maximizing our
application of resources to the Agency's greatest needs.
This report highlights some our most significant audits,
investigations and concerns, along with Agency actions to
implement our recommendations. Among the subjects
discussed in this report is the threat of contamination to the
nation's drinking water, inappropriate use of cooperative agreements, problems in monitoring the
transportation of hazardous waste, faulty air quality reporting, and Agency, contractor and grantee
accounting problems. We have also recognized significant achievement and innovative approaches
by the Agency resulting in operational improvement and cost savings.
We will continue to encourage the successful cooperative efforts between the OIG and
Agency management to help bring about meaningful change and make difficult resource decisions.
Through this shared commitment of pursuing economy, efficiency and effectiveness, we look forward
to working with EPA management to meet its current and future challenges.
C. Martin
Inspector General
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 5, Library (PL42J)
?7 West Jackson Boulevard, 12th Floor
Chicago, IL 60604-3590
-------
-------
Contents
EPA's Progress in Improving Areas of Significant DIG Concern 1
Executive Summary 4
Major Laws Administered by EPA 6
Profile of Activities and Results 7
Establishment of the OIG in EPA-lts Role and Authority 8
Purpose and Requirements of the Office of Inspector General
Semiannual Report 8
Who's Who in the Office of Inspector General 9
Section 1--Significant Findings and Recommendations
Costs and Benefits 10
Agency Management 11
Extramural Resources Management 20
Construction Grants 24
Superfund 26
Section 2-Report Resolution
Status Report on Perpetual Inventory of Reports in Resolution Process
for the Semiannual Period Ending September 30,1995 30
Status of Management Decisions on IG Reports 31
Resolution of Significant Reports 34
Section 3—Prosecutive Actions
Summary of Investigative Activity 35
Description of Selected Prosecutive and Administrative Actions 36
Civil and Administrative Actions to Recover EPA Funds 37
Section 4-Fraud Prevention and Management Improvements
Review of Legislation and Regulations 38
Suspension and Debarment Activities 39
OIG Management Initiatives 40
President's Council on Integrity and Efficiency 42
Committee on Integrity and Management Improvement 42
Hotline Activities 42
Appendices
Appendix 1-Reports Issued 44
Appendix 2-Reports Issued Without Management Decisions 54
-------
EPA's Progress in Improving Areas of Significant OIG Concern
This section of our report presents the
Office of Inspector General's (OIG)
perspective on significant problems
which the Agency must continue to
address to ensure its programs are
conducted in an effective, efficient, and
economical manner. OIG and EPA
personnel have cooperated extensively
to address these problems. The
Agency has also taken a number of
actions either independently or in
prompt response to our reports to
improve its operations. However,
EPA's most significant problems were
created over a long period of time, and
resolution will require long term
commitments and constant attention
throughout the Agency. Therefore, it is
too soon to determine whether EPA
management's corrective actions will
fully solve these problems.
The following presents the areas of
significant current concern to the OIG,
and some of EPA's actions taken during
the last year to address them.
DRINKING WATER DATA INTEGRITY
OIG Concerns
The Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention estimate that over 940,000
people become ill every year from
drinking contaminated water, 900 of
whom die. EPA and the states are
responsible for ensuring that drinking
water is safe. However, we found
weaknesses in the way that EPA and
the states conduct the data
management process for monitoring
the nation's drinking water data,
especially for small and very small
suppliers. Only 4 states out of the 44
reviewed had formal documented
procedures for reviewing reported test
data. We projected nationwide that
11.6 percent of operators at community,
surface public water systems reported
erroneous data one or more times from
1991 through 1994, including 20 public
water systems which might have
deliberately falsified data. If water
system operators report invalid or
falsified test data, serious health risks
could go undetected and negate EPA's
and the states' ability to take proactive
measures to prevent water supply
contamination. In addition, many states
required water system operators to
report more test data than EPA
required, but the states usually did not
review the data. Therefore, EPA should
work with the states to determine the
necessary level of reporting
requirements to ensure water quality,
given the severe resource constraints at
all levels of government.
We also found that states in Region 7
needed automated data management
systems for more consistent and
efficient data management. EPA relied
upon disjointed and manual or partially
automated state systems to update its
primary water management automated
data base, the Federal Reporting Data
System. This condition could be
representative of states in other regions.
Agency Actions
Agency officials generally agreed with
our concerns on drinking water data
integrity, but stated that budget
constraints may prevent them from
taking any actions. At the time of the
Region 7 audit, two states were
committed to adopting EPA's new
automated data management system
and a third was seriously considering it;
Region 7 was working with the fourth
state to encourage it to use the system.
ENVIRONMENTAL, SAFETY AND
HEALTH PROGRAM AT EPA LABS
OIG Concerns
In July 1993, an EPA laboratory paid a
$2,500 fine to a state as a penalty for
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) violations. Since 1991, at
least one other EPA laboratory has
received Notices of Violation of RCRA
regulations, but corrective actions were
taken and no sanctions applied. Not
adhering to its own environmental
regulations could be costly to EPA both
financially and, more importantly, in the
way the Agency is perceived by the
community which it regulates. A recent
audit found serious problems in the
environmental, safety and health (ESH)
program at Agency laboratories and
facilities. Problems were found in
meeting RCRA, safety and health
regulations in every location visited,
placing the health and safety of EPA
employees and their surrounding
environment at risk.
Agency Actions
The Agency is taking a number of
actions including establishing a team to
assist program managers in correcting
ESH problems at their facilities,
updating senior managers on the status
of corrective actions, and evaluating
alternatives for communicating the most
significant problems to top EPA
management for resolution.
HAZARDOUS WASTE
OIG Concerns
RCRA establishes a framework for
managing hazardous waste from
"cradle to grave," that is, from
generation to disposal. EPA developed
a manifest system to assure hazardous
waste shipped off site by generators
arrives at proper destinations. However,
a recent audit of these manifesting
requirements found that EPA does not
know the level of generator compliance
with the system. Because of the high
cost of proper hazardous waste
management, companies have
deliberately bypassed manifesting
requirements, posing significant threats
to human health and the environment.
The manifest system does not always
provide generators, EPA, or the states
with the means to track hazardous
waste to its final destination. Also,
EPA's inspections of generators were
not always targeted to ensure the most
effective use of resources.
APRIL 1,1995 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30,1995
-------
Agency Actions
EPA has begun working with the
Department of Transportation and the
states to better coordinate the
regulation of shipments of hazardous
waste, and has initiated pilot projects to
introduce electronic reporting of
compliance data for hazardous waste
management programs.
FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT
OIG Concerns
The Agency team that conducted a
National Performance Review of EPA's
financial management reported three
weaknesses: insufficient time and
funds; the complex financial
management systems and processes;
and a wide disparity in expertise and
attention paid to financial management
among EPA managers. In addition, the
OIG has repeatedly reported that EPA's
accounting systems do not provide
complete, consistent, reliable and timely
data. Although the Agency has made a
number of significant improvements in
financial management, additional
actions are needed to ensure that EPA
has trained staff, policies, procedures
and systems to carry out these
responsibilities effectively. For
example, during fiscal 1995, the OIG
found the following problems.
• An audit showed that EPA has not
aggressively pursued collecting user
fees; through fiscal 1994 EPA had
collected only $22 million of the
congressionally directed $148 million in
new user fees.
• Another audit identified that EPA was
not charging for its indirect costs
incurred in performing the work on 178
active interagency agreements (lAGs),
a loss to the Agency of an estimated $5
million to $23 million.
• An audit of EPA's fiscal 1994
financial statements identified accounts
receivable problems at three of the four
regional offices audited, including two
receivables valued at $4.7 million which
were not recorded timely; the allowance
for doubtful accounts was understated
by $346,701; and $4.7 million in
marketable securities accepted in
settlement of accounts receivable were
not recorded.
• An audit of one region's budget
execution practices showed that it had
funded management and support
activities with resources meant to
operate environmental programs,
disregarded reprogramming rules,
routinely overobligated program
elements, and not provided program
managers with sufficient budget and
financial information.
• Two separate audits identified
continuing problems with some Agency
officials not aggressively identifying and
deobligating unliquidated obligations
that are no longer needed; the audits
estimated that $38 million of unused
funds may have been utilized to pay for
other government programs or EPA
initiatives.
• Finally, an audit found that EPA
offices were not using the government
bankcard when allowable, costing the
Agency hundreds of thousands of
dollars (as much as $700,000 in fiscal
1994 alone) and significant
inefficiencies.
Agency Actions
The Agency recently took action to
streamline the processing of grantees'
financial status reports in order to
deobligate unused funds more timely.
The new process will help alleviate any
additional growth in the backlog;
however action is still required to
reduce the existing backlog. In
addition, EPA has agreed to take
greater advantage of the savings
. offered by the bankcard program. The
Agency, for various reasons such as
staffing and budget constraints, has not
taken action on all of our concerns and
much more work is necessary to
address the problem areas we have
identified.
INFORMATION RESOURCES
MANAGEMENT (IRM)
OIG Concerns
IRM is critical to the success of all
program activities. For a number of
years, EPA's IRM program has been
hampered by serious problems such as
data quality deficiencies, significant cost
overruns and delays in developing
information systems, development of
duplicate information systems, and
difficulties in addressing cross-media
pollution problems. While EPA has
been taking actions to improve its IRM
program, we still have concerns about
EPA's ability and commitment to
address its long-standing IRM
problems. For example, a proposed
reorganization for the Office of
Information Resources Management
(OIRM) was initiated which, among
other changes, provides for
appointment of a Chief Information
Officer (CIO). Although this action is a
step in the right direction, the proposal
does not invest the CIO with full-time
responsibility for both internal and
external IRM issues;. Therefore, formal
lines of authority for IRM matters will
remain fragmented between two
Assistant Administrators. In addition,
this year an OIG audit found that
application software maintenance is still
not adequately managed in areas such
as recording and analyzing system
failures, tracking changes dictated by
new legislation or evolving user needs,
or monitoring resource utilization.
Agency Actions
EPA continues to take a number of far-
reaching actions in response to a series
of reports on the IRM program. For
example, the top level Executive
Steering Committee for IRM held
meetings during 1995, and issued the
IRM Strategic Plan. In response to the
report on software maintenance, EPA
has begun developing performance
indicators for application software, and
is taking steps to distinguish system-
level operations costs from
maintenance costs. The Agency is
continuing to implement the
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
-------
recommendations from our September
28, 1994, report on the Integrated
Financial Management System, but
some problems still warrant high-level
attention, such as accounting for
Agency property.
MANAGEMENT OF EXTRAMURAL
RESOURCES
OIG Concerns
EPA relies extensively on contractors
and other outside entities to assist in:
cleaning up pollution; developing
national policy; setting the
environmental agenda for the future;
and providing goods and services.
EPA funds public organizations, such
as universities or state and local
organizations, and other Federal
agencies, to pursue areas of mutual
environmental concern through
cooperative agreements and
interagency agreements. EPA needs
to continue improving its extramural
resources management and to
emphasize that Agency officials are
accountable for their actions. While
we commend and support the
Agency's initiatives, EPA's resource
management problems continue to be
identified by our recent work.
• Grants and Cooperative
Agreements (CAs)
Grant and cooperative agreement
audits at four university research
centers funded through Congressional
earmarks showed instances of
mischarging costs, not delivering
products, and working outside the
scope of the agreement. On one
project, neither the project officer nor
the grants specialist reviewed or
approved training manuals that cost
EPA an estimated $90,000. In another
instance, four years after EPA
awarded an agreement to a university,
the research center proposed in the
agreement was not properly
established.
An audit of Economy Act agreements
showed that EPA did not adequately
consider cost in determining to use
lAGs rather than its own procurement
process when purchasing goods and
services. Independent Government
Cost Estimates, cost comparisons, and
better justification in the Decision
Memorandum would ensure that the
program offices focus on cost
reasonableness, not just convenience.
Also, project officers were generally
not obtaining and reviewing cost
information before approving invoices
for payment.
Another audit identified that Grants
Administration Division (GAD)
personnel did not comply with EPA
policies and procedures when
administering assistance agreements.
Most project officers did not visit or
correspond with recipients, review
financial matters and audit reports, or
notify GAD that projects were
completed, and some project officers
destroyed or lost the Agency's records.
While GAD and Region 3 administered
the same types of agreements, GAD
did not manage as well as Region 3.
• Subcontracting
During fiscal 1995, an audit showed
that EPA managers interfered with
prime contractors' responsibilities to
manage and competitively award
subcontracts by directing prime
contractors to use specific
subcontractors or to subcontract
specific tasks. EPA program
managers used prime contractors as
subcontract brokers, avoided
competition requirements for direct
Federal procurement, and
noncompetitively obtained the services
of desired contractors through directed
subcontract awards.
• Superfund Contracting
A recent audit found that the contractor
at EPA's Edison, New Jersey
laboratory did not adequately control
government furnished property. The
contractor did not routinely perform
annual inventories at the laboratory; an
unannounced OIG inventory revealed
missing items; automobiles were
prematurely auctioned without the
Regional Project Officer or Contracting
Officer's knowledge; and general
purpose equipment was routinely
provided to contractors at the Edison
and Lexington labs without meeting
Federal Acquisition Regulation
exceptions.
• Air Program Grants
Section 105 of the Clean Air Act
requires grantees to spend an amount
equal to or greater than the previous
year's expenditures to remain eligible
for federal assistance. However, a
fiscal 1995 audit found that six of eight
grantees in two EPA regions
underreported their expenditures in
one year to reduce the funds they
would otherwise have been required to
spend in the following year. The
regions did not identify and correct this
situation.
Agency Actions
The Agency is nearly finished
implementing the 40 recommendations
in its June 1992 report on EPA's
contracts management; to date EPA
has implemented 38 of the
recommendations and is progressing
on the remaining 2. In response to the
reports mentioned above, EPA has
taken a number of actions. For
example, EPA officials acknowledged
the OIG's concerns about GAD's
compliance with policies and
procedures in the administration of
assistance agreements, stating that
awarding the agreements was given a
higher priority than monitoring or
closing them. The Agency is
correcting some of the problems, but
cited resource constraints as
preventing them from addressing
others. EPA has issued policies and
procedures to improve its
subcontracting practices, and is
drafting policies to reduce the amount
of equipment that can be provided to
contractors and to clarify the
circumstances in which it can be
provided.
APRIL 1,1995 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30,1995
-------
Executive Summary
Section 1-
Significant Findings
and
Recommendations
1. Improved Controls
Needed To Track
Hazardous Waste
The manifest system for
controlling the movement of
hazardous waste does not
always ensure generators,
EPA, or the states track
waste from generation to
disposal. In addition, the
hazardous waste activity
notification process is
inadequate and inspections
were not always prioritized
or properly documented
(page 11).
2. Better Drinking Water
Data Can Reduce the Risk
of Diseases and Illnesses
Nationwide, about 12
percent of community,
surface public water
systems (PWS) reported
invalid or potentially falsified
data at least once from
1991 through 1994.
Without state officials or
EPA reviewing the validity of
the data, serious health
risks could go undetected
and negate EPA's and the
states' ability to prevent
water supply contamination
page 12).
3. Despite Improvements,
the Environmental, Safety,
and Health Program at
EPA Laboratories
Remains Inadequate
EPA's Environmental,
Safety, and Health (ESH)
program at laboratories,
while improving, is
inadequate to protect
employees, facilities, and
the environment. Also, the
Agency's ESH audit process
needs strengthening to
improve its effectiveness in
detecting deficiencies and
promoting corrective action
(page 13).
4. Laboratory Quality
Assurance Program
Saved Over $1.5 Million
The Risk Reduction
Engineering Laboratory's
(RREL) quality assurance
(QA) program was well-
managed, innovative, and
resulted in savings to RREL
of over $1,500,000
(page 14).
5. Hundreds of
Thousands in Savings
Possible Through
Increased Use of
Bankcards
EPA could have saved as
much as $700,000 in
administrative costs during
fiscal 1994 if all
procurement officials made
maximum use of the
bankcard program instead
of less efficient, more costly
small purchase methods.
The Agency's added
restrictions further hindered
use of the program
(page 15).
6. IRS Not Notified of
Millions in Contract
Payments
Although EPA generally
complied with Internal
Revenue Code (IRC)
requirements for reporting
taxpayer identification
numbers (TINs), it did not
issue information returns
(Forms 1099) for contract
payments in excess of $4
million. In addition, the
Agency has not taken
appropriate actions to obtain
correct TINs in response to
IRS notices (page 16).
7. Drinking Water Cross-
Connections Need to Be
Assessed
Cross-connections between
drinking water systems and
contaminated sources that
threaten many drinking
water supplies are largely
undetected, not
investigated, or not
sufficiently reported. EPA
needs to work with the
states to measure the public
health significance of cross-
connections (page 16).
8. Symposium Funded by
Unauthorized Means and
Cooperative Agreement
Used Improperly
EPA arranged for the
collection of fees and
donations without statutory
authority to defray the costs
of its 1995 Gulf of Mexico
Program (GMP)
Symposium. The Agency
also improperly modified a
cooperative agreement to
obtain services and pay
costs such as food,
entertainment, and travel
unallowable under a
contract (page 17).
9. Improvements Required
in the Minority Business
Enterprise (MBE)
Program's Process and
Data
We determined that the
reported MBE data was
incomplete, inconsistent,
untimely, and inaccurate
(page 18).
10. Ohio Leaking
Underground Storage
Tank (LUST) Program
Costs Lack Support
The Ohio Bureau of
Underground Storage
Tanks Regulation (BUSTR)
had an inadequate financial
management system and
was unable to support costs
claimed under the 1995
LUST cooperative
agreement (page 19).
11. Air Program Grant
Oversight Process Needs
Improvement
EPA oversight of Section
105 grants under the Clean
Air Act (CAA) did not
effectively persuade
grantees to correct
performance problems and
resolve unmet
commitments to improve air
quality. In addition, grantee
eligibility was questionable
because financial data
submitted by grantees was
often inaccurate (page 20).
12. Better Controls
Needed Over Assistance
Agreements
EPA grants specialists and
project officers did not
properly administer and
monitor assistance
agreements to determine if
performance requirements
were met, nor did they
identify an estimated $33
million in unused funds for >
allocation elsewhere
(page 21).
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
-------
13. University Misuses
Millions of Cooperative
Agreement Funds
Clark Atlanta University
(CAU) mismanaged
congressionally earmarked
funds provided under an
EPA cooperative agreement
to establish a hazardous
substance research center.
As a result, the center was
not properly established and
serious control weaknesses
contributed to $3.6 million of
ineligible or unsupported
costs (page 22).
14. Los Angeles,
California, Claimed Over
$28 Million of Ineligible
Costs
The City of Los Angeles,
California, claimed
$28,168,662 of ineligible
construction, engineering,
and force account costs for
the Terminal Island and
Hyperion wastewater
treatment facilities. An
additional $207,100 of
unnecessary costs were
questioned (page 24).
15. Nearly $1.8 Million of
Questioned Costs
Claimed for Morristown,
New Jersey, Project
The Town of Morristown,
New Jersey, claimed
$1,589,626 of ineligible
architectural engineering,
construction and
administrative costs for the
construction of sewer lines
and a sewer crossing. An
additional $177,971 of
unsupported costs were
questioned (page 25).
16. Millions of Dollars in
Superfund Site Data
Rejected
Region 9 had not
significantly strengthened its
oversight program over
Department of Defense
(DOD) laboratories or
required DOD to improve its
quality assurance project
plans. Partly as a result of
this, hazardous waste
cleanups at five DOD
Superfund sites in Region 9
were delayed up to 2 Vz
years, and $5.5 million in
data were rejected due to
the poor quality of
laboratory analyses (page
26).
17. Superfund Cost
Estimates May Be
Unreliable
EPA used outdated cost
factors which may have
substantially
underestimated response
costs and budgets for
Superfund sites. Further,
the incompatibility of
management information
systems may limit
managers' abilities to
properly monitor the
Superfund program
(page 27).
18. Improvements Needed
in Management of
Contractor Activities
Many aspects of the
Environmental Services
Assistance Team contract
management activities
performed at EPA's
Lexington, MA, and Edison,
NJ, facilities were well
managed. However, better
financial management and
controls were needed over
contractor's work products,
government furnished
property (GFP), costs and
resources (page 28).
Section 2-Report
Resolution
This section, required by the
IG Act, reports on the status
and results of Agency
management actions to
resolve audit reports. At the
beginning of the semiannual
period, there were 295
reports for which no
management decision had
been made. During the
second half of fiscal 1995,
the Office of Inspector
General issued 449 new
reports and closed 405. At
the end of the reporting
period, there were 335
reports for which no
management decision had
been made. Of the 335
reports, there were 130 for
which no management
decision was made within 6
months of issuance (page
30).
For the 207 reports closed
that required agency action,
EPA management
disallowed $75.4 million of
questioned costs and
agreed with our
recommendations that
$17.8 million be put to
better use (page 33). In
addition, cost recoveries in
current and prior periods
included $4.5 million in
cash collections, and at
least $54.3 million in offsets
against billings (page 7).
Section 3-
Prosecutive Actions
During this semiannual
reporting period, our
investigative efforts resulted
in 4 convictions and 4
indictments. Also, our
investigative work led to
$69, 396 in fines and
recoveries (page 35).
Section 4-Fraud
Prevention and
Management
Improvements
During this semiannual
period, we reviewed 4
legislative and 74 regulatory
items. The most significant
comments were on the
proposed Clean Water Act,
the Superfund statute, a
proposed revision to the
Federal Acquisition
Regulation, the role of
project officers in grants and
cooperative agreements, a
proposal to streamline small
grants, a proposed Agency
delegation involving the
responsibilities of Senior
Resource Officials, and a
draft policy on flexiplace
(page 38).
The Office of Grants and
Debarment completed
action on 18 OIG-generated
suspension and debarment
cases during this reporting
period, resulting in 9
debarments, 7 suspensions,
and two compliance
agreements (page 39).
The EPA Committee on
Integrity and Management
Improvement (CIMI),
chaired by the Inspector
General, published a
bulletin on Employee
Suitability Determinations
and Security Clearances,
and sponsored Public
Service Recognition Week
(page 42).
Twenty-four new Hotline
cases were opened and 19
were closed during the
reporting period. Of the
closed cases, 4 resulted in
environmental, prosecutive,
or administrative corrective
action (page 42).
APRIL 1, 1995 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 1995
-------
Major Laws Administered by EPA
Statute
Pollution Prevention Act
Toxic Substances Control Act
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,
and Rodenticide Act
Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
and Solid Waste Disposal Act
Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act
Clean Air Act
Clean Water Act
Safe Drinking Water Act
Marine Protection, Research and
Sanctuaries Act
Asbestos School Hazard Abatement Act
and Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response
Act
Emergency Planning and Community Right-
to-Know Act
Oil Pollution Act of 1990
Environmental Research, Development, and
Demonstration Authorization Act
National Environmental Education Act
Provisions
Provides that pollution should be prevented or reduced at the source,
recycled safely when not preventable, treated safely when not preventable
or recyclable, and as a last resort, disposed of or otherwise released into
the environment in a safe manner.
Requires EPA notification of any new chemicaf prior to its manufacture
and authorizes EPA to regulate production, use, or disposal of a
chemical.
Authorizes EPA to register all pesticides, specify the terms and conditions
of their use, and remove unreasonably hazardous pesticides from the
marketplace.
Authorizes EPA in cooperation with FDA to establish tolerance levels for
pesticide residues on food.
Authorizes EPA to identify hazardous wastes and regulate their
generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal.
Requires EPA to designate hazardous substances that can present
substantial danger and authorizes the cleanup of sites contaminated with
such substances.
Authorizes EPA to set emission standards to limit the release of criteria
pollutants and hazardous air pollutants.
Requires EPA to establish a list of toxic water pollutants and set
standards.
Requires EPA to set drinking water standards to protect public health
from hazardous substances.
Regulates ocean dumping of toxic contaminants.
Authorizes EPA to provide loans and grants to schools for abatement of
asbestos hazards and to establish a comprehensive regulatory framework
for controlling asbestos hazards in schools.
Requires States to develop programs for responding to hazardous
chemical releases and requires industries to report on the presence and
release of certain hazardous substances.
Makes EPA responsible for oil spill prevention, preparedness, response,
and enforcement activities associated with non-trartsportation-related
onshore oil facilities.
Authorizes all EPA research and development programs.
Provide for a program of education on the environment through activities
in schools, institutions of higher education and related educational
activities, and to encourage students to pursue careers
Yrelated to the environment.
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
-------
Profile of Activities and Results
Office of Inspector General
April 1,1995 to
September 30,1995
Fiscal 1995
April 1,1995 to
September 30,1995
Fiscal 1995
Audit Operations
OIG Managed Reviews:
- Reviews Performed by EPA, Independent
Public Accountants and State Auditors
- Questioned Costs*
- Total $51.9 Million
- Federal Share $41.1 Million
Recommended Efficiencies*
(Funds be Put to Better Use)
- Total**" $3.4 Million
- Federal Share**** $3.4 Million
$152.3 Million
$105 3 Million
$145.1 Million
$145.1 Million
Reports Issued:
- OIG Managed Reviews:
- EPA Reviews Performed by the OIG 75
- EPA Reviews Performed by Independent Public
Accountants 4
- EPA Reviews Performed by State Auditors 9
- Other Reviews:
- EPA Reviews Performed by
another Federal Agency 257
- Single Audit Act Reviews 104
Total Reports Issued 449
157
16
10
487
896
Cost Disallowed to be Recovered
- Federal Share (costs which EPA
management agrees are unallowable
and is committed to recover or
offset against Mure payments) $74.8 Million $118.9 Million
Cost Disallowed as Cost Efficiency
- Federal Share (funds made available
by EPA management's commitment to
implement recommendations in OIG
performance andpreaward audits) $16.1 Million $162 Million
Other Reviews:
• Reviews Performed by another
Federal Agency or Single Audit Act Auditors
- Questioned Costs*
-Total $14.0 Million $14.9 Million
- Federal Share $14.0 Million $14.9 Million
- Recommended Efficiencies*
- Total $151.7 Million $185.3 Million
- Federal Share $151 7 Million $185.1 Million
- Cost Disallowed to be Recovered
- Federal Share $0.6 Million $1.4 Million
- Cost Disallowed as Cost Efficiency
- Federal Share $1.7 Million $1.8 Million
Reports Resolved (Agreement by
Agency officials to take satisfactory
corrective action)*** 207 356
Investigative Operations
- Fines and Recoveries (including civil) $69,396 $4 3 million
- Investigations Opened 88 177
- Investigations Closed 78 153
- Indictments of Persons or Firms 4 16
- Convictions of Persons or Firms 4 13
- Admin. Actions Against EPA Employees 4 17
Fraud Detection and Prevention Operations
- Debarments, Suspensions, and
Compliance Agreements 18
- Hotline Cases Opened 24
- Hotline Cases Processed and Closed 19
- Personnel Security Investigations Adjudicated 376
44
42
50
696
Agency Recoveries:
- Recoveries from Audit Resolutions of
Current and Prior Periods (cash collections
or offsets to future payments.)* $58.8 Million
$89.9 Million
•Questioned Costs (Ineligible, Unsupported, and Unnecessary/Unreasonable) and Recommended Efficiencies (Funds be Put to Better Use) are subject to change
pending further review in the audit resolution process.
"Information on recoveries from audit resolution is provided from the EPA Financial Management Division and is unaudited.
"•Reports resolved are subject to change pending further review.
****$! 40.4 Million previously unreported for the period ending 3/31 /95 was added after subsequent consideration.
APRIL 1, 1995 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 1995
-------
Establishment of the OIG in EPA~lts Role And Authority
The Inspector General Act of
1978 (Public Law 95-452), as
amended, created Offices of.
Inspector General to consolidate
existing investigative and audit
resources in independent
organizations headed by
Inspectors General.
EPA established its Office of
Inspector General (OIG) in
January 1980. As an agency
with a massive public works
budget, EPA is vulnerable to
various kinds of financial
abuses The OIG's role is to
review EPA's financial
transactions, program
operations, contracts, and
administrative activities;
investigate allegations or
evidence of possible criminal
and civil violations; and promote
economic, efficient, and effective
Agency operations The OIG is
also responsible for reviewing
EPA regulations and legislation.
The EPA Inspector General
reports directly to the
Administrator and the Congress
and has the authority to:
• Initiate and carry out
independent and objective
audits and investigations,
• Issue subpoenas for
evidence and information,
• Obtain access to any
materials in the Agency,
• Report serious or flagrant
problems to Congress,
• Select and appoint OIG
employees,
• Fill Senior Executive Service
positions,
• Administer oaths, and
• Enter into contracts.
The Inspector General is
appointed by, and can be
removed only by, the President.
This independence protects the
OIG from interference by
Agency management and
allows it to function as
the Agency's fiscal and
operational watchdog.
Organization and
Resources
The Office of Inspector General
functions through three major
offices, each headed by an
Assistant Inspector General:
Office of Audit, Office of
Investigations, and Office of
Management. Nationally, there
are eight Divisional Inspectors
General for Audit and three
Divisional Inspectors General for
Investigations who direct staffs
of auditors and investigators and
who report to the appropriate
Assistant Inspector General in
Headquarters.
For fiscal 1995, the Agency was
appropriated $7.2 billion and
authorized 19,069 full time
equivalent (FTE) positions to
conduct the environmental
programs authorized by
Congress to restore and protect
the environment. As a separate
appropriation account, the
Office of Inspector General
(OIG) received $44.5 million to
carry out the provisions of the
Inspector General Act of 1978,
as amended. Nearly $154
million of the OIG's
appropriation was derived from
the Hazardous Substance
Superfund trust fund and
$669,000 was derived from the
Leaking Underground Storage
Tank trust fund. The OIG had a
funded staffing level of 447 FTE
positions.
Purpose and
Requirements of the
Office of Inspector
General Semiannual
Report
The Inspector General Act of
1978 (Public Law 95-452), as
amended, requires the
Inspector General to keep the
Administrator and Congress
fully and currently informed of
problems and deficiencies in the
Agency's operations and to
recommend corrective action.
The IG Act further specifies that
semiannual reports will be
provided to the Administrator by
each April 30 and October 31,
and to Congress 30 days later.
The Administrator may transmit
comments to Congress along
with the report, but may not
change any part of it.
The specific reporting
requirements prescribed in the
Inspector General Act of 1978,
as amended, are listed below.
Source
Inspector General Act, as amended.
Section/Page
Section 4(a)(2) Review of Legislation and Regulations 4 43
Section 5(a)(1) Significant Problems, Abuses, and 1 10
Deficiencies
Section 5(a)(2) Recommendations with Respect to 1 10
Significant Problems, Abuses, and
Deficiencies
Section 5(a)(3) Prior Significant Recommendations on
Which Corrective Action Has Noil
Been Completed Appendix 2 54
Section 5(a)(4) Matters Referred to Prosecutive
Authorities 3 35
Section 5(a)(5) Summary of Instances
Where Information Was Refused *
Section 5(a)(6) List of Audit Reports Appendix 1 44
Section 5(a)(7) Summary of Significant Reports 1 10
Section 5(a)(8) Statistical Table 1-Reports With 2 32
Questioned Costs
Section 5(a)(9) Statistical Table 2-Reports With
Recommendations That Funds Be Put 2 33
To Better Use
Section 5(a)(10) Summary of Previous Audit
Reports Without Management
Decisions
Appendix 2 54
Section 5(a)(11) Description and Explanation of Revised
Management Decisions Appendix 2 54
Section 5(a)(12) Management Decisions with Which the
Inspector General Is in Disagreement **
* There were no instances where information or assistance requested by
the Inspector General was refused during this reporting period.
** There were no instances of management decisions with which the
Inspector General was In disagreement.
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
-------
Office of Inspector General-Who's Who
Headquarters
Inspector General
John C. Martin
Deputy Inspector General
Nikki L. Tinsley
Office of Audit
Kenneth A. Konz
Assistant Inspector General
Janes 0. Rauch
Principal Deputy
Elissa R. Karpf
Deputy for Acquisition and
Assistance
Michael D. Sinmons
Deputy for Internal and
Performance Audits
Policy and Resources
Management
Kenneth D. Hockman
Engineering and Scientific
Assistance
Robert F. Eagen
ADP Audits and Assistance
Patricia H. Hill
Special Projects and Reviews
Gordon C. Mil bourn III
Office of Management
John C. Jones
Assistant Inspector General
Program Management Division
John T Walsh
Resources Management Division
Michael J. Binder
Office of Investigations
Allen P. Fallin
Assistant Inspector General
Eorett D. Dashiell
Deputy
Divisional Inspectors General for Audit
Divisional Inspectors General for Investigations
Regions 1 & 2
Paul D McKechnie
Region 3
Paul R Gandolfo
Regions 4 & 6
Mary M Boyer
Region 5
Anthony C Carrollo
Regions 7 & 8
Bennie S SalAm 'Acting)
Regions 9 & 10
Truman R Beeler
Headquarters:
HQS Audit Division
Edward Gekosky
Financial Audit Division
Melissa M He'st
Regions 1, 2, & 3
Thomas L Papmeau
Regions 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, & 10
Ailverdes Comelious (Acting)
Procurement Fraud Division
Michael J Loughnane (Acting)
wv
APRIL 1, 1995 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30. 1995
-------
Section 1 -- Significant Findings and Recommendations
As required by sections 5(a)(1) and
(2) of the Inspector General Act of
1978, as amended, this section
identifies significant problems,
abuses, and deficiencies relating to
the Agency's programs and
operations along with
recommendations for the current
period. The findings described in
this section resulted from audits
and reviews performed by or for the
Office of Audit. Audit findings are
open to further review but are the
final position of the Office of
Inspector General. This section is
divided into four areas: Agency
Management, Extramural Resources
Management, Construction Grants,
and Superfund.
(photo by Steve Defaney, EPA).
10
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
-------
Agency Management
The Inspector General Act requires
the OIG to initiate reviews and other
activities to promote economy and
efficiency and to detect and prevent
fraud, waste, and mismanagement
in EPA programs and operations.
Internal and performance audits and
reviews are conducted to
accomplish these objectives largely
by evaluating the economy,
efficiency, and effectiveness of
operations. During this semiannual
reporting period, the OIG conducted
a number of major reviews of EPA
programs, including manifest
requirements for hazardous waste
shipments; the environmental,
safety and health program at EPA
laboratories; drinking water data
integrity; and EPA's use of the
Government bankcard. The
following are the most significant
internal audit, performance audit,
and special review findings and
recommendations pertaining to
Agency management resulting from
our efforts during this semiannual
reporting period.
Improved Controls Needed
To Track Hazardous Waste
Findings in Brief
The manifest system for controlling
the movement of hazardous waste
does not always ensure generators,
EPA, or the states track waste from
generation to disposal. In addition,
the hazardous waste activity
notification process is inadequate
and inspections were not always
prioritized or properly documented.
Background
The Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) establishes a
framework for managing hazardous
waste from generation to disposal.
EPA developed the manifest system to
assure that hazardous waste shipped
off site by generators arrived at a
permitted treatment, storage, and
disposal facility (TSDF). There is no
Federal requirement for manifests to
be sent to EPA or the states for routine
shipments.
We Found That
The hazardous waste manifest system
is self-initiated and self- monitored with
only limited oversight by Federal and
state authorities. Additionally, there
are economic incentives for generators
to avoid the high costs of compliance
with regulations for hazardous waste
shipped off site. The system is less
effective when (1) wastes are
commingled at transfer facilities; (2)
shipments are rejected by TSDFs; (3)
residues are left in hazardous waste
containers; or (4) hazardous residues
are shipped out after treatment. Under
these conditions, a new manifest is
often created. Since there is no
requirement to link original and new
manifests, the generators do not have
the ability to track the disposition of
their wastes.
EPA instructions for the "Notification of
Hazardous Waste Activity" form do not
clearly state when generators must
obtain new identification numbers.
Consequently, there was inaccurate
data on generators in EPA's data base.
The Agency's limited inspection
resources were not always used
effectively and some inspection reports
contained inadequate documentation.
In our samples, up to 25 percent of
inspections in fiscal 1994 were
performed at generator facilities that
had been found to be in compliance in
fiscal 1993, while a large portion of the
other facilities were never inspected.
In addition, 33 percent of the
inspection reports we reviewed had
insufficient or no narrative description
of what the inspector found, and 29
percent had inadequate checklists of
what was inspected. Proper inspection
report documentation is crucial to the
enforcement system.
We Recommended That
The Assistant Administrator for Solid
Waste and Emergency Response:
• Require that original generators and
manifest numbers be referenced on
any new manifests, and that
generators be informed or consulted
when waste is commingled or rejected.
• Change the hazardous waste
notification form and instructions to
state that new EPA hazardous waste
identification numbers must be
obtained when generators change
location, and EPA must be notified
when generators go out of business or
cease being generators.
• Develop a standard requiring
generators to thoroughly document
their facility processes when using
"knowledge of process" for waste
determination.
The Assistant Administrator for
Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance issue guidance that
regions:
APRIL 1,1995 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 1995
11
-------
• Assess the rate of repeat inspections
at compliant facilities to ensure that
inspection resources are being used
effectively in accordance with risk-
based priorities.
• Sample and evaluate inspection
reports annually for quality
assurance/quality control, using the
RCRA Inspection Manual as a
standard, and discuss with the states
areas needing improvement.
What Action Was Taken
The final audit report (5100512) was
issued to the Assistant Administrator
for Solid Waste and Emergency
Response and the Assistant
Administrator for Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance on September
28, 1995. In response to the draft
report, the Agency agreed with the
findings on transfer facilities, rejected
loads, and container residues, and,
while working to reduce the paperwork
burden, stated that it will consider the
recommended corrective actions. The
Agency stated that the suggestions for
changes in the hazardous waste
notification forms were helpful. A
response to the final report is due by
December 27, 1995.
Better Drinking Water Data
Can Reduce the Risk of
Diseases and Illnesses
Findings in Brief
Nationwide, about 12 percent of
community, surface public water
systems (PWS) reported invalid or
potentially falsified data at least
once from 1991 through 1994.
Without state officials or EPA
reviewing the validity of the data,
serious health risks could go
undetected and negate EPA's and
the states' ability to prevent water
supply contamination.
Background
The Centers for Disease Control and
A public water system setting tank h New Mexico.
Prevention estimate that over 940,000
people become ill every year from
drinking contaminated water. Of
those, an estimated 900 people die
each year. The Safe Drinking Water
Act of 1974, as amended, requires that
EPA ensure that PWSs test the quality
of drinking water and distribute water
that is safe for consumption. EPA has
delegated this authority to states
meeting the Act's requirements and
EPA's implementing regulations. The
Agency published guidance in 1991 to
assist regions and states in detecting
falsified data. Community, surface
public water systems serve
approximately one-tenth of one
percent of the American people.
We Found That
While operators at community, surface
PWSs generally reported valid data,
we projected from our statistical
sample review that operators at 11.6
percent of PWSs nationwide reported
erroneous test data one or more times
from 1991 to 1994. Of the 48 PWSs
we identified as reporting incorrect test
data, 28 reported invalid data and 20
reported data that we believe might
have been deliberately falsified. Thirty-
four of these 48 systems were very
small or small PWSs (i.e., serving less
than 3,300 people), and operators at
these systems often reported invalid
test data because they lacked training
and knowledge on how to properly test
water samples and record and report
results, or had malfunctioning
equipment. Some operators may have
reported falsified data to cover up
problems at PWSs or to avoid
additional requirements or corrective
actions.
Regional oversight of drinking water
data falsification issues was minimal,
and state officials generally trusted that
data reported by PWSs was accurate.
Invalid or falsified data can pose
serious health threats if undetected.
EPA and state officials placed low
priority on reviewing records for invalid
or falsified data, primarily because they
had higher public health-related
priorities and did not believe
falsification was widespread. State
officials were unaware that EPA
guidance existed which addressed the
importance of reviewing data for
falsification and the significance that
sanitary surveys can play in detecting
erroneous data. Only two states had
formalized sanitary survey procedures
that included reviews of data quality.
Although the Safe Drinking Water Act
and EPA's regulations do not address
falsified data or potential penalties,
12
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
-------
take enforcement actions through
either general false claims statutes or
specific drinking water regulations.
However, most states did not require
PWS operators to certify by signature
on monthly operational reports that the
data submitted was accurate and true.
In addition, some states required PWS
operators to report data that was not
required by EPA. Although states have
the authority to require additional
reporting, state officials generally
reviewed operational data only to
identify compliance related violations,
and did not look for unusual reporting
patterns. Currently, the Agency is
reviewing its priorities for drinking water
regulations based on an analysis of
public health risks and discussions with
stakeholders.
We Recommended That
The Assistant Administrator for Water
require the Director of EPA's Office of
Ground Water and Drinking Water to:
• Request that the regions coordinate
with the states to follow up on the 48
PWSs or operators which we found
reported invalid or potentially falsified
data, and consider providing training or
taking enforcement actions against
them.
• Revise EPA's guidance to include
additional steps to identify erroneous
data and provide updated examples to
illustrate the types of data patterns
indicative of erroneous data.
• Update EPA's sanitary survey training
materials to include reviews of data
quality.
• Discuss with EPA regions and state
officials the feasibility of including a
certification block on Monthly
Operational Reports for PWS
operators to sign and certify to the
accuracy of the reported data.
• Continue to work with regional and
state stakeholders to minimize
operational data reporting in
streamlining the regulatory paperwork
requirements.
What Action Was Taken
In responding to the draft report, the
Assistant Administrator for Water
generally agreed with our
recommendations and provided
planned or initiated actions. However,
the Assistant Administrator stated that
they could not commit to implementing
all recommendations due to resource
constraints. The final report (5100516)
was issued to the Assistant
Administrator on September 29, 1995.
A response to the final report is due by
December 28, 1995.
Despite Improvements, the
Environmental, Safety and
Health Program at EPA
Laboratories Remains
Inadequate
Findings in Brief
EPA's Environmental, Safety and
Health (ESH) program at
laboratories, while improving, is
inadequate to protect employees,
facilities, and the environment.
Also, the Agency's ESH audit
process needs strengthening to
improve its effectiveness in
detecting deficiencies and
promoting corrective action.
Background
In 1986, the Agency established an
environmental auditing program, which
was then combined with the existing
safety and health program to ensure
EPA complies with its own
environmental regulations. Since
1991, one EPA laboratory paid a
$2,500 fine to a state as a penalty and
another received notices for violations
of the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA).
We Found That
The Agency's ESH program at
laboratories, while improving, is still
inadequate overall. All five of the EPA
laboratories we visited were rated
inadequate in at least two of ten critical
ESH program elements, with the
laboratory at Gulf Breeze, FL, being
rated inadequate in nine of the ten.
Four of the laboratories were rated
inadequate in industrial hygiene and
building fire and safety support, due to
inadequately trained or experienced
people conducting the ESH program.
An inadequate rating in any element
leaves a facility, and the Agency,
vulnerable to potentially dangerous
situations. In addition, we identified a
RCRA violation at the Gulf Breeze
laboratory during our review.
The Office of Research and
Development (ORD) has been
identifying the ESH program at ORD
laboratories as a vulnerability in its
Federal Managers' Financial Integrity
Act (FMFIA) reports since 1992. In
1994, the ESH program was proposed
as an Agency-level weakness, but top
EPA executives believed that ORD
should continue to address the
weakness internally. However, the
ESH inadequacies are not confined to
ORD laboratories and should be
considered an Agency-wide weakness.
We did not observe any major
differences in the implementation of
the ESH program at EPA laboratories,
regardless of whether they belonged to
ORD, another program office, or a
Region. Headquarters ESH audits
also had similar findings.
The ESH audit process had many
deficiencies, limiting its effectiveness.
Agency ESH audits, performed by a
headquarters technical expert and a
contractor team of two to five experts,
involve a thorough review of facility
compliance with ESH regulations,
Agency policy, and professional
practices, followed by a written report
with corrective actions. However, EPA
laboratory managers consistently
criticized the current ESH audit
APRIL 1, 1995 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 1995
13
-------
process, citing such areas as the
timeliness of reports, responsiveness
to laboratory comments on the reports,
and contractor expertise. We found
many of these concerns to be valid.
Also, there was no established system
to elevate serious ESH concerns to the
Administrator, Deputy Administrator, or
appropriate Assistant or Regional
Administrators for corrective action.
We Recommended That
The Deputy Administrator:
• Identify and prioritize specific
laboratory ESH needs in determining
ESH position requirements.
• Take immediate action to reduce
ESH risks at the Environmental
Research Laboratory, Gulf Breeze, FL.
• Declare EPA's ESH program, at a
minimum, an Agency-level weakness
during the 1995 FMFIA process.
• Develop a model environmental
program which also addresses
occupational safety and health
requirements.
• Improve the ESH headquarters audit
process and establish a procedure to
elevate reports identifying significant
risks to top EPA managers.
What Action Was Taken
The final report (5100484) was issued
on September 28, 1995. Agency
officials generally agreed with the
findings and recommendations in the
draft report, and headquarters ESH
management has already begun
actions to improve the ESH audit
process. A response to the final report
is due by December 27, 1995.
Laboratory Quality
Assurance Program Saved
Over $1.5 Million
Findings in Brief
The Risk Reduction Engineering
Laboratory's (RREL) quality
assurance (QA) program was well-
managed, innovative, and resulted
in savings to RREL of over
$1,500,000.
Background
QA activities are crucial in maintaining
superior scientific research, and EPA
scientific projects involving
environmentally-related data
measurements must adhere to EPA
QA requirements. RREL's QA office
was responsible for QA activities at the
laboratory, including oversight of its
two support contractors. In May 1995,
RREL was consolidated with several
other EPA organizations to form the
National Risk Management Research
Laboratory (NRMRL).
We Found That
RREL met EPA QA requirements in an
innovative manner by modifying
Agency QA procedures to meet
specific needs. Top-level
management commitment to achieving
RREL's QA goals and objectives was
evident in its QA reporting structure,
philosophy of continuous
improvement, and level of resources
dedicated to QA functions. QA policies
and procedures (internal controls)
were well-documented and
implemented, and the QA office
performed review functions in a timely
and thorough manner, and maintained
good oversight of its two QA support
contracts. RREL had adequate
procedures to ensure that its QA
support contractors were not
performing inherently governmental
functions.
RREL QA officials adopted a proactive
approach to problem-solving, resulting
in significant dollar savings to the
Agency as indicated by the following
examples.
• A 1993 QA audit of a Superfund
Innovative Technology Evaluation
(SITE) demonstration project related to
the biogenesis soil washing process
saved about $800,000. According to
the QA office, if the audit had not been
performed when it was, all data from
the project would have been biased
and the entire project would have had
to be repeated.
• A 1992 QA audit saved about
$450,000. By identifying sampling
concerns related to a SITE
demonstration, corrective actions were
implemented early enough to allow
collection of data of known and
adequate quality to meet project
needs. Consequently, the
demonstration did not have to be re-
run.
• Another 1992 SITE project
involving low temperature thermal
treatment saved about $270,000 by
avoiding a complete re-run of the
project.
We identified two iss.ues which could
potentially impact the program : (1)
some RREL work assignment
managers (WAMs) had not taken a
required contract-related training
course, and (2) additional
organizational conflict of interest (COI)
controls were needed. However, we
did not identify any negative effect from
these conditions.
We Recommended That
RREL management:
• Review the training records of all
RREL staff and ensure they take
required contract-related courses.
• Establish control procedures to
identify and avoid potential
organizational COIs; between QA
support contractors and other RREL
contractors.
14
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
-------
What Action Was Taken
In response to our recommendations,
the NRMRL Director stated that his
staff had developed detailed
procedures to address both the
training issue and the organizational
CO/ issue that we identified. The
corrective actions taken by NRMRL
officials, if properly implemented,
should resolve the issues in the
report. The final report was issued to
the NRMRL Director on September 8,
1995, and we closed the report in our
tracking system.
Hundreds of Thousands in
Savings Possible Through
Increased Use of Bankcards
Findings in Brief
EPA could have saved as much as
$700,000 in administrative costs
during fiscal 1994 if all procurement
officials made maximum use of the
bankcard program instead of less
efficient, more costly small
purchase methods. The Agency's
added restrictions further hindered
use of the program.
Background
In 1987, EPA piloted the Government
Bankcard Program which empowered
Agency employees to make small
purchases of specified supplies and
services for the Federal government
using a commercial credit card. Use
of the bankcard is the least expensive
small purchase method, and a
governmentwide study determined that
cost savings averaged $53.77 per
transaction when the bankcard was
used rather than the purchase order
method. EPA placed restrictions on
use of the bankcard beyond the
governmentwide prohibitions.
We Found That
EPA does not have a policy requiring
the use of bankcards whenever it is
Annual Bankcard Transactions
/ : I ' i o ns
$10
allowable. As many as half of all fiscal
1994 purchases under $2,500 made
with purchase orders would have been
allowable with bankcards. Had these
purchases been made with the
bankcard, over $700,000 in
administrate costs could have been
saved. Some examples include $36
for boxes, a $21 magazine
subscription, a $12 book, and $11 for
office supplies. Additional efficiencies
could have resulted if the bankcard
was used rather than the imprest fund
method.
EPA hindered bankcard use by adding
restrictions to those already specified
in governmentwide guidance, such as
prohibiting the purchase of calculators,
typewriters, and awards/plaques.
Several cardholders said that rather
than streamlining the procurement
process, they found EPA's excessive
bankcard restrictions to be confusing,
which discouraged use. Also, the
Agency's guidance had not been
updated to remove items no longer
restricted for purchase.
Inconsistencies in program
management and internal control
implementation weaknesses could
jeopardize the integrity of the program.
The Agency had not
prepared written
guidance for the
bankcard program
team, the group
responsible for
monitoring the
program. The
bankcard team had
not updated and
disseminated
current bankcard
information, and it
granted special,
undocumented
approvals to some
cardholders
allowing them to
purchase items on
the restricted list.
Also, attendance at
the bankcard
training course was
not mandatory for approving officials,
and almost one-third of those in our
sample had not attended training and
were not familiar with specific program
requirements.
We Recommended That
The Acting Assistant Administrator for
Administration and Resources
Management:
• Establish an Agency-wide policy
requiring the use of the bankcard
whenever allowable.
• Implement a policy of periodically
updating the restrictions list and
disseminate this information to
cardholders and approving officials.
• Develop written procedures for the
bankcard program team to provide
consistent program management and
oversight.
• Require all approving officials to
attend bankcard training.
What Action Was Taken
The final report (5100486) was issued
on September 19, 1995. In response
APRIL 1, 1995 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 1995
15
-------
to the draft report, the Acting Assistant
Administrator agreed with our
recommendations and has begun
revising policies and developing
written procedures to address them. A
response to the final report is due By
December 18, 1995.
IRS Not Notified of Millions in
Contract Payments
Findings In Brief
Although EPA generally complied
with Internal Revenue Code (IRC)
requirements for reporting taxpayer
identification numbers (TINs), it did
not issue information returns
(Forms 1099) for contract payments
in excess of $4 million. In addition,
the Agency did not know it needed
to correct certain TINs because IRS
notices were mailed to a non-EPA
address.
Background
The IRC requires Federal agencies to
provide the Internal Revenue Service
(IRS) with Federal tax information
(including TINs) on government
contractors who are paid over $25,000
during a calendar year, and to issue
Form 1099 information returns for
contract payments aggregating $600
or more during a calendar year.
We Found That
IRS issued notices to EPA for tax years
1992 and 1993 that listed incorrect and
missing TINs for 37 EPA contractors
which had received payments totalling
over $533,000 during this time. The
notices also identified six other
contractor TINs that were incorrectly
reported twice within a three year
period. For these contractors, EPA
should have withheld up to 31 percent
of contract payments until the
contractors provided valid TINs.
However, Agency officials stated they
were not aware that IRS had issued
these notices because they were
mailed to a non-EPA address. As a
result, EPA did not respond to the
notices, take actions to obtain valid
TINs, or institute required backup
withholdings. Correct TINs are used
by IRS to ensure tax compliance and
to identify contractors with delinquent
tax liabilities.
EPA historically has not issued Form
1099s as required for contract
payments. The Agency does not have
a tracking system for identifying
contractors subject to Form 1099
requirements, and did not issue any of
these forms in 1994. Office of
Acquisition Management (OAM)
officials did not provide Financial
Management Center (FMC) officials
with the taxpayer information
necessary to identify contractors who
met the requirements for Form 1099
issuance. In a sample of 161
contracts out of the 1,308 that had
aggregate 1994 payments exceeding
$600, we identified 37 contractors
accounting for payments totalling over
$4 million which met IRC requirements
for Forms 1099s issuance. However,
since no tracking system existed, we
could not project the total number of
contractors and contract payment
amounts subject to Form 1099
requirements. Without these forms,
IRS does not have all the information
needed to determine whether
contractors are reporting all contract
payments on their Federal tax returns.
We Recommended That
The Acting Assistant Administrator for
Administration and Resources
Management:
• Direct OAM to review contract files
and provide the FMC with taxpayer
identification information for
contractors who meet Form 1099
requirements for calendar year 1995.
• Establish formal procedures to
ensure the effectiveness of the steps
that OAM has already taken to ensure
taxpayer identification information on
new contracts is submitted to the FMC.
• Modify EPA's contract payment
system to identify contractors and
contract payments that meet Form
1099 requirements, and establish
controls for issuing Form 1099s.
• Establish controls to ensure that
EPA reports correct TINs to IRS, or
institute backup withholding
requirements, in response to IRS
notices, and advise IRS of EPA's
correct mailing address for these
notices.
• Review compliance with Federal tax
reporting requirements during the
Federal Managers' Financial Integrity
Act process.
What Action Was Taken
The final report (5100474) was issued
to the Acting Assistant Administrator
for Administration and Resources
Management on August 24, 1995. In
response to the draft report, the Acting
Assistant Administrator agreed with
our recommendations, and established
an action plan for their implementation
Since the initiation of our review, OAM
has also taken steps to provide
taxpayer identification information to
FMC. The corrective action plan was
responsive to our recommendations
and we closed the audit report in our
tracking system.
Drinking Water Cross-
Connections Need to be
Assessed
Findings in Brief
Cross-connections between
drinking water systems and
contaminated sources that threaten
many drinking water supplies are
largely undetected, not
investigated, or not sufficiently
reported. EPA needs to work with
the states to measure the public
health significance of cross-
connections.
16
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
-------
Background
Cross-connections are an actual or
potential connection between a
drinking (potable) water system and an
unapproved water supply or other
source of contamination which can
enter a potable water supply. It is the
states' responsibility to ensure that
local water suppliers have proper
maintenance programs to include
monitoring cross-connections to
decrease the chances of water supply
contamination. -Under the principles
for reinventing environmental
regulation, Federal, state, tribal, and
local governments must work as
partners to achieve common
environmental goals, with non-Federal
partners taking the lead when
appropriate.
We Found That
Although EPA recognizes the risk of
cross-connections, the Agency does
not require states to have a cross-
connection control program.
Presently, there are no Federal
reporting requirements for potable
water contamination caused by cross-
connection deficiencies.
Consequently, there are no national
statistics available which show whether
this is a problem.
Of the 45 states we contacted, 29 have
some type of cross-connection
program. However, the
comprehensiveness of cross-
connection programs varies due to
Federal mandates taking precedence
over state initiatives and requirements.
These programs vary significantly
among states and there is little
enforcement since responsibility is at
the local level. We were informed by
experts that most water supply
personnel are unable to find the
source of a cross-connection problem
because they have not been
adequately trained.
All but one of the states without a
program advised that it was needed,
and the most common type of
assistance requested was for a
Federal mandate or a clearer definition
or recognition of the necessity for such
a program from EPA. Although
contamination of the potable water
supply by cross-connections is largely
undetected, not investigated, or not
sufficiently reported, we did not find
evidence of a nationwide problem
justifying the need for a Federal cross-
connection program.
We Recommended That
Although our survey report included no
audit recommendations, we
encouraged the Director, Office of
Ground Water and Drinking Water, to:
• Work with the states to identify the
most cost-effective approaches for
measuring the public health
significance of cross-connections at
the state and local levels.
• Cite cross-connection activities as an
example of local issues states can
prioritize or include in their overall
program strategies, when EPA revises
the Public Water System Supervision
guidance.
• Address cross-connections in EPA's
new program intended to help identify
and study emerging environmental
problems, under the guiding principles
for reinventing environmental
regulation.
What Action Was Taken
The final survey report (5400070) was
is sued on May 16, 1995. In a
discussion, officials in the Office of
Ground Water and Drinking Water
stated that they have taken or agreed
to take actions that will satisfy some of
our suggestions.
Symposium Funded by
Unauthorized Means and
Cooperative Agreement Used
Improperly
Findings In Brief
EPA arranged for the collection of
fees and donations without
statutory authority to defray the
costs of its 1995 Gulf of Mexico
Program (GMP) Symposium. The
Agency also improperly modified a
cooperative agreement to obtain
services and pay costs such as
food, entertainment, and travel
unallowable under a contract.
We Found That
As part of its public education and
outreach program, the EPA Gulf of
Mexico Program Office (GMPO)
conducted symposiums biennially.
However, the Agency's control over the
planning and implementation of the
GMP symposium, and the collection
and use of registration and exhibit fees
and donations by intermediaries (a
contractor, a cooperator, and a private
foundation) to pay obligations incurred
by an EPA contractor, may have
created an unauthorized augmentation
of EPA's appropriations. Although
GMPO officials (in consultation with the
Grants Administration Division) took
action to address perceived problems
with the collection and use of fees and
donations by its on-site contractor, they
improperly modified a cooperative
agreement with the Texas General
Land Office (TGLO) to accumulate
and use fees to pay for symposium
costs unallowable under a Federal
contract. This modification was
actually a procurement of services for
the direct benefit of EPA, and was
inconsistent with Federal guidance and
appropriation law and in violation of
Texas state law.
The planning process for the GMP
symposium conflicted with Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) and
EPA guidlines concerning Federally
APRIL 1, 1995 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 1995
17
-------
sponsored conferences. EPA did not
document the rationale used in
selecting the symposium site, nor did
the Agency perform a cost comparison
of at least three alternate sites to
ensure that costs were kept to a
minimum. The Agency also
improperly directed its contractor to
subcontract with specific firms for
symposium services, and EPA
employees dealt directly with
subcontractors, violating privity of
contract between the prime contractor
and the subcontractor. Further, we
identified nearly $100,000 of costs paid
by EPA (such as meals, entertainment,
travel, and souvenir items) as
unnecessary, unreasonable, or
unallowable for a Federally sponsored
conference.
In addition, the relationship between
EPA staff, its advisory committees, and
the principal officers of the private
foundation used to collect symposium
donations, created the appearance of
a conflict of interest. This relationship,
and EPA's indirect use of the donations
to pay symposium costs, created a
potential EPA liability for the private
foundation's actions in soliciting and
using these funds.
We Recommended That
The Assistant Administrator for Water:
• Re-evaluate EPA's planning and
funding process for the biennial Gulf of
Mexico symposiums to ensure
compliance with applicable laws and
regulations.
• Allow host states or other
appropriate organizations to plan and
implement future symposiums to
preclude improper use of assistance
agreements and unauthorized
augmentations.
• Establish an arm's-length
relationship with the private foundation
and obtain a written agreement for any
future use of donations solicited by the
foundation.
The Acting Assistant Administrator for
Administration and Resources
Management clarify Agency guidance
on the use of procurement versus
assistance as it relates to significant
modifications to existing assistance
agreements.
What Action Was Taken
The final report (510030) was issued
on September 29, 1995. A response
to the final report is due by
December 29,.1995.
Improvements Required in
the Minority Business
Enterprise (MBE) Program's
Process and Data
Findings in Brief
We determined that the reported
MBE data was incomplete,
inconsistent, untimely, and
inaccurate.
Background
Past legislation directed EPA to
establish a minimum 8 percent goal for
procuring goods and services from
MBEs. The Agency's Office of Small
and Disadvantaged Business
Utilization (OSDBU) is responsible for
establishing policy and providing
procedural guidance for the utilization
of MBEs. Congress had received
allegations of various abuses such as
prime contractors using MBEs as
passthroughs for money, naming
MBEs on bid documents without their
knowledge, and awarding MBEs large
dollar contracts but only exercising a
fraction of it.
We Found That
Alleged abuse by recipients and prime
contractors was not evident in the
three states we reviewed. In two of the
three states, recipients encouraged the
use of MBEs through their contracting
procedures. Although there were
indications that MBEs were used as
passthroughs for one of the six
projects reviewed, the recipient took
proactive steps to identify and correct
these instances.
For the 10 year period ended
September 30, 1993, EPA reported
that its financial assistance recipients
awarded 15 percent of their
contracting dollars to MBEs. However,
the MBE utilization data the Agency
reported to Congress were incomplete,
inconsistent, and filled with errors. For
example, in fiscal 1992, a
typographical error resulted in one
state inflating its MBE utilization by $19
million.
Numerous errors identified in the
reporting and compiling of data at all
levels were the result of a defective
reporting process, misunderstood
requirements, or human error. The
absence of data validation procedures
allowed the errors to go uncorrected.
Consequently, the reports may have
understated or overstated the actual
MBE utilization rate, distorting EPA's
MBE accomplishnrujnts.
OSDBU had not established clear
definitions for reporting MBE data.
States and EPA regions knew about
problems with data definitions and
reporting practices, but were unable to
obtain improved direction from
OSDBU.
We Recommended That
The Director, OSDBU:
• Modify the reporting form and related
guidance to collect utilization data
based on actual, rather than planned,
awards.
• Work with EPA regions and state
agencies to develop specific and
consistent reporting definitions.
• Institute data validation procedures
throughout the reporting process.
What Action Was Taken
The final report (5400068) was issued
to the Chief of Staff, Office of the
Administrator, on May 3, 1995. In an
18
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
-------
August 16, 1995, final response, the
Chief of Staff stated that a workgroup
was revising the reporting form and
developing more specific and
consistent reporting definitions. Also,
the Agency is developing requirements
to modify the Grants Information and
Control System and the Contract
Information System to better meet the
needs for MBE data collection and
validation. Finally, senior regional
personnel have been requested to
undertake several actions aimed at
ensuring better program oversight and
monitoring.
Ohio Leaking Underground
Storage Tank (LUST)
Program Costs Lack Support
Findings in Brief
The Ohio Bureau of Underground
Storage Tanks Regulation (BUSTR)
had an inadequate financial
management system and was
unable to support costs claimed
under the 1995 LUST cooperative
agreement.
Background
Subtitle II of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) authorizes EPA to award
LUST cooperative agreements to
States for the cleanup of LUSTs.
BUSTR, which is part of the Ohio
Department of Commerce,
administers the LUST program in
Ohio.
We Found That
BUSTR's inadequate financial
management system and the absence
of necessary controls made costs
claimed under its LUST cooperative
agreements with EPA questionable.
Specifically, the system did not permit
tracing expenditures to supporting
documents or prevent costs from
being billed to more than one
cooperative agreement. Thus, we
could not verify the accuracy of
BUSTR's financial reports or that funds
were used in accordance with laws
and regulations.
A review of the $143,343 in costs
claimed between January and March
1995 disclosed that all costs were
either ineligible or unsupported.
BUSTR claimed $66,016 in direct
costs that were not allowable. For
example, BUSTR claimed costs for
unallowable items such as site specific
laboratory fees and bottled water, and
non-site specific rent and office
equipment.
BUSTR was unable to support the
remaining $77,327 of labor costs
claimed. BUSTR billed EPA for labor
charges based on the cooperative
agreement budget and not on actual
hours employees worked on LUST
activities, and did not maintain time
records for employees devoting only
part of their time to LUST-related
activities. Region 5 had determined,
during its 1994 mid-year review, that
BUSTR did not have an adequate
means to track time charges, but
BUSTR did not take corrective action.
Without time records, we could not
determine the allowability of labor
charges.
We Recommended That
The Regional Administrator, Region 5:
• Take immediate action to require
BUSTR to submit documentation
supporting future costs claimed before
disbursing Federal monies.
• Require BUSTR to submit
documentation supporting the costs
claimed on LUST cooperative
agreements that have not been closed
out.
• Determine the allowability of the
costs based on the documentation.
What Action Was Taken
We issued a flash report (5400095) to
the Regional Administrator, Region 5,
on August 29, 1995. A response is
due by November 27, 1995.
APRIL 1, 1995 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 1995
19
-------
Extramural Resources
Management
Over the past several years, the OIG
has repeatedly identified problems
in the Agency's award and
administration of contracts,
interagency agreements, and
cooperative agreements at various
EPA offices and facilities. During
this semiannual reporting period,
the OIG conducted major reviews to
examine EPA's programs for
overseeing research funds provided
to a university, controlling
assistance agreements in
Headquarters and Region 3, and
overseeing air program grants. We
audited the records and
performance of individual
contractors and assistance
agreement recipients. These audits
determine whether costs claimed by
contractors and assistance
agreement recipients are eligible,
supported by documentation,
necessary, and reasonable.
Summaries follow of the most
significant findings and
recommendations reported during
this semiannual period.
Air Program Grant Oversight
Process Needs Improvement
Findings in Brief
EPA oversight of Section 105 grants
under the Clean Air Act (CAA) did
not effectively persuade grantees to
correct performance problems and
resolve unmet commitments to
improve air quality. In addition,
grantee eligibility was questionable
because financial data submitted by
grantees was often inaccurate.
Background
Under the authority of Section 105 of
the CAA, EPA awards grants to
state, local, and
tribal agencies to
assist them in
operating their air
pollution control
and prevention
programs. A
workplan outlines
the specific work
commitments that
the grantees agree
to complete, and
Agency regional
administrators are
required to
oversee each
grantee's
performance.
EPA awarded over
$170 million in
Section 105 grant
funds during fiscal
1993. Recent
developments are
changing the
structure of the
Section 105
program. Many
activities previously
funded by Section
105 grants will be
solely funded by
the Title V CAA
operating permit
program, and EPA
plans to allow
states and tribes
to combine
categorical grants into a single
performance partnership grant (PPG).
We Found That
Although the Section 105 grant
performance oversight process was
generally effective in identifying unmet
workplan commitments, it did not
effectively persuade grantees to
implement EPA policy and guidance or
ensure compliance with CAA
requirements. For example, four
grantees in Region 4 did not sign
EPA's enforcement agreement
because of disagreements with EPA's
penalty assessment policy. Several
grantees in Region 3 did not assess
penalties for violations of air pollution
laws or perform compliance
inspections sufficiently to detect
violations. Moreover, grantees in
Region 3 did not complete over fifty
percent of the workplan commitments
that we reviewed, many of which were
necessary for the achievement of an
adequate air program. Although the
regions were aware of these problems,
none of the grant funds was withheld.
Financial data that grantees submitted
to EPA was often inaccurate, and
these inaccuracies v/ere not detected
by the financial oversight process.
Several grantees significantly under-
reported their total Section 105
expenditures to remain eligible for their
grant, and this situation was not
20
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL.
-------
identified and corrected because the
regions we reviewed did not routinely
assess the accuracy of Section 105
costs. Regional officials stated that
they relied on the Single Audit process
for evaluating the accuracy of grantee
accounting systems. However, the
Single Audits did not review the
accuracy of costs reported on Section
105 Financial Status Reports (FSR).
Without reliable financial data, EPA
cannot accurately determine whether
grantees are meeting their cost-
sharing and annual expenditure
requirements to maintain eligibility for
their grants.
The planned use of PPGs presents
EPA with an opportunity to correct
problems that have occurred in the
categorical grant process. The PPGs
should provide not only the obvious
benefit of reducing paperwork but also
the opportunity for EPA to improve the
effectiveness of its grant oversight
process. However, we also believe
there are potential shortfalls that EPA
needs to address to ensure that the
PPG process operates as effectively
as possible. Ultimately, effective
implementation of the PPG process
would help to ensure the desired
benefits of more productive
environmental programs.
We Recommended That
The Assistant Administrator for Air and
Radiation:
• Take actions that would apply to the
Section 105 grants not included in
PPGs, such as improving the
performance oversight process and
considering revisions to the regulations
that implement the Section 105 grant
maintenance of effort (MOE)
requirement to allow for reasonable
fluctuations of MOE levels and to
encourage accurate reporting of state
Section 105 program costs.
• Alert ongoing work groups to
consider including minimum guidelines
in PPG and oversight reform policy to
help assure that the planned
implementation of PPGs results in the
environmental benefits and
improvements desired by EPA.
• Instruct the regional offices to
periodically include, as part of their
oversight reviews, limited checks of the
support for costs claimed by grantees
on their Section 105 FSRs.
What Action Was Taken
The final audit report (5100510) was
issued to the Assistant Administrator
for Air and Radiation on September 29,
1995. In response to the draft audit
report, the Agency generally agreed
with our findings and
recommendations. However, it did not
agree with our recommendations
concerning implementation of PPGs,
stating that it was premature to impose
"audit structures" on the PPG program
while it is still being defined. Also, the
Agency believed our
recommendations did not conform to
the multi-media approach to grant
oversight. We revised our draft report
recommendations to reflect the
Agency's second concern. However,
we continue to believe the Assistant
Administrator for Air and Radiation
should coordinate with the PPG Task
Force and the Oversight Task Force to
consider our recommendations during
the development of the new PPG and
oversight policies. A response to the
final report is due by December 29,
1995.
Better Controls Needed Over
Assistance Agreements
Findings In Brief
EPA grants specialists and project
officers did not properly administer
and monitor assistance agreements
to determine if performance
requirements were met, nor did they
identify an estimated $33 million in
unused funds for allocation
elsewhere.
Background
EPA awards assistance agreements
through Grants Management Offices
(GMO) to states, non-profit
organizations, universities and other
entities to help accomplish its mission.
GMOs are responsible for managing
the review, negotiation, award, and
administration of assistance
agreements including audit resolution
and final closeout. EPA project
officers are responsible for managing
and monitoring the recipient's
performance under the terms of the
assistance agreement. In EPA
Headquarters, the Grants
Administration Division (GAD)
performed the GMO functions.
We Found That
GAD personnel did not give sufficient
priority to managing assistance
agreements or complying with
applicable EPA policies and
procedures. While GAD and Region 3
administered the same types of
assistance agreements, various
functions performed by the Region 3
GMO were not performed by GAD
including: (a) reviewing the recipients'
proposals; (b) monitoring progress on
the projects; or (c) requiring recipients
to complete projects and submit the
required close out documentation.
GAD performed annual evaluations to
ensure that the regions completed this
type of post-award management, but
did not follow similar standards itself.
Personnel in GAD attributed these
problems to a shortage of grants
specialists in Headquarters.
Similar to GAD, project officers did not
follow EPA's requirements for
managing assistance agreements.
Most project officers did not visit or
correspond with recipients, review
financial matters and audit reports,
notify GAD that projects were
completed, or maintain adequate
documentation of actions to monitor
recipient progress and ensure that
EPA received what it paid for. In some
cases, the project officers destroyed or
APRIL 1, 1995 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 1995
21
-------
lost the Agency's records.
In addition, GAD needs to close 4,500
inactive assistance agreements, and
Region 3 an additional 500, that
provided almost $700 million to
recipients. By not closing these
agreements timely, EPA could not
ensure that all required technical work
and administrative requirements were
completed. Moreover, we estimated
that by closing these assistance
agreements, $33 million of unused
funds may be used to pay for current
Superfund projects, or other
Government programs or EPA
initiatives.
We Recommended That
The Acting Assistant Administrator for
Administration and Resources
Management:
• Require grants specialists and
project officers to comply with Agency
procedures for managing assistance
agreements.
• Perform periodic evaluations to
ensure assistance agreements are
adequately managed.
• Develop a plan to close out the
backlog of completed assistance
agreements.
What Action Was Taken
The audit report (5100513) was issued
to the Acting Assistant Administrator
for Administration and Resources
Management and the Regional
Administrator, Region 3, on September
28, 1995. In response to the draft
report, the Agency agreed with one of
the nine recommendations and
partially agreed with a second. The
response indicated a disagreement
with two other recommendations, and
did not address the remaining five.
The Agency did take action to
streamline the process for closing
agreements more timely to deobligate
unused funds and alleviate any growth
of the backlog. A response to the final
report is due by December 28, 1995.
University Misuses Millions of
Cooperative Agreement
Funds
Findings In Brief
Clark Atlanta University (CAU)
mismanaged congressionally
earmarked funds provided under an
EPA cooperative agreement to
establish a hazardous substance
research center. As a result, the
center was not properly established
and serious control weaknesses
contributed to $3.6 million of
ineligible or unsupported costs.
Background
EPA awarded CAU a noncompetitive
cooperative agreement funded under a
congressional earmark of the Agency's
1991 Superfund appropriation to
establish a Center for Environmental
Policy, Education, and Research (the
Center). The Center received
additional earmarked funds in fiscal
1992,1993, and 1995, and was
included in EPA's base budget in fiscal
1994. At the end of fiscal 1994, CAU
had received over $10.7 million in
assistance awards.
We Found That
Almost four years after the award of
the cooperative agreement and
expenditure of millions of dollars in
EPA funds, CAU had not formally or
physically established the Center
required by the agreement.
Specifically, CAU had not properly or
adequately: (1) designated a Center
Director or Fiscal Officer to direct the
operations and expenditures of the
Center; (2) established administrative
offices for support of the Center; (3)
established an advisory board to plan,
advise, and monitor Center activities;
(4) ensured that Center activities
directly related to hazardous waste
policy, education, and research; and
(5) controlled Center activities and
costs. Consequently, Center
objectives were not accomplished and
many projects were outside the scope
of the authorizing statute.
CAU substantially mismanaged the
cooperative agreement both financially
and administratively. CAU top
management circumvented University
internal controls and requirements
related to Center procurements,
contracts and disbursements. Also,
CAU management disregarded many
special conditions, EPA regulations,
and agreement objectives related to
Center oversight and monitoring.
CAU's noncompliance with
requirements for progress reports and
financial status information precluded
effective EPA oversight of the Center.
CAU did not establish and maintain an
adequate system of controls over
agreement funds and property, nor did
CAU ensure that costs claimed were
allowable and adequately supported.
Our review of $5,132,757 in costs
claimed disclosed ineligible costs of
$3,373,619 and unsupported costs of
$299,422 for the first two-year budget
period of the Center (October 1991-
September 1993).
We Recommended That
The Director, National Center for
Environmental Research & Quality
Assurance, Office of Research and
Development:
• Require Clark Atlanta to properly
establish the research center as
proposed to EPA.
• Assist Clark Atlanta in revising
workplans and preparing budgets for
funded projects to ensure agreement
funds are effectively used within the
scope of the authorizing statute under
which the agreement was awarded.
• Instruct Clark Atlanta to implement
adequate controls and oversight for
research center programs, projects,
property, and expenditures.
22
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
-------
The Director, Grants Administration
Division, Office of Grants and
Debarment, recover the Federal share
of ineligible costs ($3,002,521),
determine the eligibility of the Federal
share of unsupported costs
($266,486), and recover the applicable
amount from CAU.
What Action Was Taken
The final report (5100526) was issued
to the Director, Grants Administration
Division, Office of Grants and
Debarment, on September 30, 1995,
for coordination of the Agency's overall
response. In response to our draft
report, Agency officials generally
agreed with our findings and
recommendations. A response to the
final report is due by December 30,
1995.
APRIL 1, 1995 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 1995
23
-------
Construction Grants
Since EPA was established, the
construction grants program has
been one of its largest and most
successful undertakings. The
program was established under the
provisions of Public Law 92-500, as
amended, and has provided over
$52 billion in financial assistance to
thousands of communities all over
the country. The Agency is now in
the process of completing the
construction grant program. The
goal is to substantially close out the
program by September 30,1997.
Fiscal year 1990 was the last year
funding was authorized for the
program.
The Agency developed, in
consultation with the OIG, a
Completion/Close-Out Strategy for
the program. The goal of the
Agency's strategy is to bring the
program to a successful completion
as expeditiously as possible to
assure that the environmental
benefits of the program are fully
realized and its fiscal and technical
integrity are protected.
To assist the Agency in this effort,
the OIG, in consultation with the
Agency, implemented a revised
audit strategy in October 1994 that
focuses effort on the most
vulnerable grants, based on a risk
analysis of each remaining grant
subject to audit. As of September
30,1995, there were 153
grants valued at $6.3 billion which
are expected to receive OIG review
during the next three years.
Summaries of some audits of
construction grants with significant
issues follow.
' ^*" *»"' —»--»---»•
Los Angeles, California,
Claimed Over $28 Million of
Ineligible Costs
Findings in Brief
The City of Los Angeles, California,
claimed $28,168,662 of ineligible
construction, engineering, and force
account costs for the Terminal
Island and Hyperion wastewater
treatment facilities. An additional
$207,100 of unnecessary costs were
questioned.
We Found That
EPA awarded two grants totaling
$35,623,692 for the planning, design,
and construction of the sludge
processing and disposal systems at
the Terminal Island Treatment Plant
and for construction management and
engineering services for the Hyperion
Energy Recovery System project. The
grantee claimed $28,168,662 of
ineligible costs under
the grant, including:
• $22,313,894 of consultant and force
account costs claimed in excess of the
amounts approved by the California
State Water Resources Control Board;
• $2,866,636 of engineering and force
account costs incurred after the
authorized construction contract
completion date, and considered
excessive, unreasonable basic
engineering costs;
• $2,838,684 of construction costs
resulting from errors in the calculation
of approved construction costs, claims
in excess of the approved construction
amount, and ineligible change orders;
24
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
-------
and
• $149,448 of claims defense costs
determined to be ineligible by the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, not
substantiated by invoices, and
allocable to the ineligible portion of the
construction project.
We also questioned, as unnecessary,
$207,100 of construction and change
order costs related an Interplant Data
Acquisition System (IDAS). The IDAS
was a separate computer system
located at the Hyperion treatment plant
that was designed to eliminate the
manual accumulation and compilation
of data for reports at the three
surrounding treatment plants. The
IDAS has never been able to
automatically retrieve the data and the
treatment plant operators and
engineers continue to manually input
this data.
Similar findings of questioned costs
totalling over $30 million were reported
in our previous report to Congress for
the period ended March 31, 1995.
We Recommended That
The Regional Administrator, Region 9,
not participate in the Federal share of
ineligible costs ($22,040,839),
determine the eligibility of the
unnecessary costs ($155,326), and
recover the applicable amount from
the grantee.
What Action Was Taken
The audit report (5300036) was issued
to the Regional Administrator, Region
9, on September 28, 1995. The
Agency has agreed not to reimburse
the grantee for $22,313,894 of
consultant and force account costs
claimed in excess of the amounts
approved by the California State Water
Resources Control Board. A response
to the audit report is due by December
28, 1995,
Nearly $1.8 Million of
Questioned Costs Claimed
for Morristown, New Jersey,
Project
Findings In Brief
The Town of Morristown, New
Jersey, claimed $1,589,626 of
ineligible architectural engineering,
construction and administrative
costs for the construction of sewer
lines and a sewer crossing. An
additional $177,971 of unsupported
costs were questioned.
We Found That
EPA awarded a grant of $2,093,850 to
the Town of Morristown, New Jersey,
for the construction of sewer lines
along the Whippany River and a sewer
crossing. The grantee claimed
$1,589,626 of ineligible costs under the
grant, including:
• $630,751 of construction costs
related to incremental construction
increases incurred for the grantee's
convenience and which were not
necessary for completing the project;
• $558,249 of administration costs
considered outside the scope of the
project approved by the New Jersey
Department of Environmental
Protection and Energy (NJDEPE);
• $272,371 of architectural
engineering costs for unallowable
rebidding services, services outside of
scope of the grant, unapproved
preliminary services, and services not
related and allocable to the grant; and
• $128,255 of inspection costs for
duplication of project inspection fees
claimed, and unrefunded deposits for
construction plans and specifications
that were not reported as project
income.
We also questioned $177,971 of
unsupported costs not approved by
NJDEPE.
We Recommended That
The Regional Administrator, Region 2,
not participate in the Federal share of
ineligible costs ($1,192,220),
determine the eligibility of the Federal
share of unsupported costs
($133,478), and recover the applicable
amount from the grantee.
What Action Was Taken
The final report (5100410) was issued
to the Regional Administrator, Region
2, on July 11, 1995. A response to the
audit report is due by October 10,
1995.
APRIL 1, 1995 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 1995
25
-------
Superfund
Tfce Superfund program was
created by the Comprehensive
Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act
of 1980 (CERCLA). The Act
provided a $1.6 billion trust fund
to pay for the costs associated
with the cleanup of sites
contaminated with hazardous
waste. The Superfund
Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1986
(SARA) provided $8.5 billion to
continue the program for 5 more
years, and the Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1990
authorized appropriations for 3
additional years and extended
the taxing authority for 4 years.
The authorization expired
September 30, 1994, and the
taxing authority will expire on
December 31,1995, unless
extended.
The parties responsible for the
hazardous substances are liable
for cleaning up the site or
reimbursing the Government for
doing so. States in which there
is a release of hazardous
materials are required to pay 10
percent of the costs of Fund-
financed remedial actions, or 50
percent if the source of the
hazard was operated by the
State or local government.
SARA increased the audit
requirements for the Inspector
General. In addition to providing
a much larger and more complex
program for which the OIG needs
to provide audit coverage, SARA
gave the Inspector General a
number of specific
responsibilities. Mandatory
annual audit areas include:
* Audit of all payments,
obligations, reimbursements, or
other uses of the Fund (this
requirement is met through the
financial statements audit
required by the Chief Financial
Officers Act of 1990);
• Audit of Superfund claims;
• Examination of a sample of
agreements with States carrying
out response actions; and
» Examination of remedial
investigations and feasibility
studies.
The Inspector General is
required to submit an annual
report to the Congress regarding
the required Superfund audit
work, containing such
recommendations as the
Inspector General deems
appropriate. The eighth annual
report, covering fiscal 1994, was
issued in April 1995.
Millions of Dollars in
Superfund Site Data
Rejected
Findings in Brief
Region 9 had not significantly
strengthened its oversight
program over Department of
Defense (DOD) laboratories or
required DOD to improve its
quality assurance project plans.
Partly as a result of this,
hazardous waste cleanups at
five DOD Superfund sites in
Region 9 were delayed up to 2 1/2
years, and $5.5 million in data
were rejected due to the poor
quality of laboratory analyses.
Background
DOD has 100 bases on the
Superfund national priorities list, a
register of the nation's worst
contaminated sites, 24 of which are
in Region 9. EPA, DOD, and states
26
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
-------
signed Federal facility agreements
for the cleanup of DOD Superfund
sites. These agreements required
DOD to prepare quality assurance
project plans (QAPP) to help
ensure that laboratory analyses
produced data of sufficient quality
and quantity for cleanup remedy
decision making. EPA was
responsible for approving QAPPs
and verifying implementation.
We Found That
Lack of adequate EPA oversight of
quality asurance activities
contributed to serious problems,
surfacing in 1992, with the quality of
laboratory data on DOD cleanups
in Region 9. These problems
eventually caused $5.5 million of
environmental data to be rejected
and cleanup delays of up to 2 %
years at the five DOD bases we
reviewed. At one DOD base,
extensive laboratory fraud was
found, and DOD later determined
that the laboratory involved had
performed analyses for 24 military
installations in the Region since
1989. At another DOD site, the
Region certified a portion of the
cleanup effort as complete
although the laboratory data is of
unknown quality.
Region 9's remedial project
managers were unfamiliar with
DOD's specific laboratory quality
assurance procedures, and they
accepted the description of
procedures provided by DOD's
activities at face value. Site-specific
data quality objectives, a
prerequisite to QAPPs, were
generally not prepared at all.
QAPPs were typically not designed
to detect poor laboratory work, and
not always officially approved or
fully implemented. Further, the
Region did not effectively monitor
compliance with QAPPs, or
perform sufficient oversight to verify
the quality of laboratory data. In
addition, QAPPs were not modified
Hunters Point Naval Shipyard, California, one of five DOD
Superfund sites reviewed.
to correct deficiencies after
laboratory data problems were
found.
We Recommended That
The Regional Administrator, Region
9, improve the Region's oversight
and assist DOD in avoiding future
data quality problems and cleanup
delays by:
• Strengthening oversight of quality
assurance activities.
• Including key quality assurance
activities in the QAPPs.
• Ensuring compliance with the
QAPPs.
What Action Was Taken
The final audit report (5100505)
was issued to the Regional
Administrator on September 26,
1995. In response to the draft
report, the Region stated that it
recognized the essential role that
data quality assurance plays in
environmental programs, and the
Region identified ten ongoing and
planned corrective actions to
improve data quality. A response
to the final report is due by
December 26, 1995.
Superfund Cost Estimates
May Be Unreliable
Findings in Brief
EPA used outdated cost factors
which may have substantially
underestimated response costs
and budgets for Superfund sites.
Further, the incompatibility of
management information
systems may limit managers'
abilities to properly monitor the
Superfund program.
Background
For each event in the Superfund
cleanup process, EPA developed
cost factors for budgeting funds. A
APRIL 1,1995 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 1995
27
-------
cost factor is the amount of funds
the Agency plans to spend on a
cleanup event such as a Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study
(RI/FS), Remedial Design (RD),
Remedial Action (RA), or oversight
of RD/RA performed by potentially
responsible parties. The
Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and
Liability Information System
(CERCLIS), the Integrated
Financial Management System
(IFMS), and its predecessor, the
Financial Management System
(FMS), are used to track Superfund
cost data.
We Found That
In the last three years, the Agency
has not updated the RI/FS, RD, and
RD/RA oversight cost factors used
to estimate funding needs for the
Superfund program. As a result,
the ongoing program costs may be
understated and did not account for
the wide range of costs associated
with Superfund site cleanups. The
Agency uses the same cost factors
for relatively inexpensive cleanups
(under $1 million) and mega-site
cleanups (over $100 million), even
though a single cost factor may not
be appropriate for every site.
In addition, the Agency could not
provide cost information for each
event in the Superfund cleanup
process because of the
incompatibility of CERCLIS, IFMS,
and FMS. Consequently,
managers may not have the
information needed to effectively
oversee the Superfund program.
Since EPA has initiated efforts to
improve the compatibility of the
information systems, we did not
make any recommendations for
corrective actions regarding the
systems.
We Recommended That
The Assistant Administrator for
Solid Waste and Emergency
Response:
• Review and update the current
Superfund cost factors for RI/FS,
RD, and RD/RA oversight to more
accurately reflect ongoing costs.
• Consider using a tiered approach
for cost factors to allow for more
accurate Superfund budget
requests.
What Action Was Taken
We discussed our findings with
Agency officials during the review
and developed our
recommendations in consultation
with the Agency before the draft
report was written. As a result,
Agency officials agreed to
implement the proposed corrective
actions and our report (5700005)
was closed upon issuance on
August 31, 1995.
Improvements Needed in
Management of Contractor
Activities
Findings in Brief
Many aspects of the
Environmental Services
Assistance Team contract
management activities
performed at EPA's Lexington,
MA, and Edison, NJ, facilities
were well managed. However,
better financial management and
controls were needed over
contractor's work products,
government furnished property
(GFP), costs and resources.
Background
Environmental Services Assistance
Teams (ESAT) were contracted to
assist EPA Headquarters and
regions in many analysis-related
activities, including samples and
extensive laboratory data for
remedial decisions under the
Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act.
We Found That
Although many aspects of the
ESAT contract management
activities were effectively
administered, improvements were
necessary in the financial
management of the ESAT contract
at the Lexington, MA, and Edison,
NJ, laboratories to assure that only
reasonable and authorized
contractor charges were paid. We
found that regional project officers
(RPO) and the national project
officer (NPO) did not adequately
determine whether costs were
reasonable and appropriate prior to
recommending payment. Instead,
they generally relied on the
contractor's submission without
performing independent
verifications for questionable items.
General purpose equipment was
routinely provided to contractors at
both facilities without meeting
Federal Acquisition Regulation
(FAR) requirements, and EPA did
not take effective action to assure
that GFP was properly accounted
for, maintained, safeguarded,
reported, and used for its intended
purpose. Clear roles and
responsibilities of the RPO, NPO,
contracting officer, and the property
administrator were not defined, and
EPA did not review, approve, or
periodically analyze the contractor's
property control s,ystem. In
addition, RPOs at both facilities had
limited knowledge of GFP
procedures and regulations. EPA
recognized there was a problem
with their use of GFP and was
addressing the issue.
In addition, the planning, monitoring
and evaluation process used for
contractor work products at the
Lexington, MA, facility was
inadequate to assure that all costs
incurred were necessary and
reasonable. Actual time charged
for tasks could not be accurately
28
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
-------
measured, procedures were not
being followed for labor hour
estimate overruns, and completed
tasks were not always reviewed
and evaluated in a timely manner.
These conditions were caused by
inadequate priority, oversight and
control over technical instruction
documents (TID), and by the lack
of an effective system to track the
status of TIDs and
acknowledgement of completion
forms.
We Recommended That
The Acting Assistant Administrator
for Administration and Resources
Management:
• Clearly define roles and
responsibilities of EPA contract
management officials to provide
effective administrative oversight of
financial management activities,
GFP, and contractor work
assignments.
• Develop and implement an
Agency strategy for GFP to comply
with the FAR, address incentives to
encourage contractors to provide
their own equipment, include review
and approval of the contractor's
management system, and require
contractors to perform an accurate
annual inventory and reconcile it
against property records.
The Assistant Administrator for
Solid Waste and Emergency
Response:
• Enforce controls directing the
RPOs and NPO to not recommend
or authorize payment of
questionable contractor costs until
documented.
• Instruct RPOs to track estimated
and actual hours assigned and
used for contractor work
assignments.
What Action Was Taken
The final audit report (5100515)
was issued to the Acting Assistant
Administrator for Administration and
Resources Management and the
Assistant Administrator for Solid
Waste and Emergency Response
on September 29, 1995. In
response to the draft report, the
Agency generally disagreed with
the findings, but concurred with our
recommendations. A response to
the final report is due by December
29, 1995.
APRIL 1, 1995 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 1995
29
-------
Section 2 -- Report Resolution
As required by the Inspector
General Act, as amended, this
section contains information on
reports in the resolution process for
the semiannual period. This section
also summarizes OIG reviews of the
Agency's follow-up actions on
selected reports completed in prior
periods. In addition, information is
presented on the resolution of
significant reports issued by the
OIG involving monetary
recommendations.
Current Period
As of September 30,1995, EPA had
343 OIG reports requiring resolution,
which was 16 percent more than the
beginning balance of 295 reports six
months ago. The number of past due
responses (over six months from
report issue date) rose 9 percent from
119 to 130 during this six-month
reporting period. At the end of March
1995, the number of past due
responses was 40 percent of the
reports to be resolved compared to 38
percent of the reports in the follow-up
system as of the end of this reporting
period. The costs questioned on the
OIG reports for which management
decisions were past due as of
September 30,1995, represented 75
percent of the total to be resolved.
These reports need to be resolved and
the funds recovered more
expeditiously. While the OIG
recognizes that it takes time to reach a
management decision on some
reports, swift, appropriate resolution
makes the government run better and
saves taxpayers the added cost of
financing Agency operations through
borrowing.
During this reporting period four EPA
Action Officials-the Office of
Acquisition Management's (OAM)
Contracts Management Division,
Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina; and three of OAM's Cost
Advisory and Financial Analysis
Division branches-had 71 percent (92)
of the 130 unresolved OIG reports
exceeding 180 days.
About 31 percent (40) of the 130 past
due reports were pre-award audits.
From September 30,1992, to
September 30,1995, the number of
unresolved pre-award audits has
grown from 20 to 31 percent of the
total unresolved reports over 180 days.
EPA is one of the few agencies that
reports on resolution of audits
conducted on pre-award contract
proposals. There may be multiple pre-
award audits for any particular EPA
contract solicitation. Resolution of
these audits occurs when the
contracting officer makes the contract
award. When there are lengthy
negotiations required or a series of
proposals required from the
contractor, it is common for these
audits to remain in the "unresolved"
pre-award stage for longer than 180
days. It is crucial that EPA take every
step possible to resolve pre-award
audits quickly.
As of March 31,1995, we reported that
Region 9 and Region 10 had not been
timely in resolving reports with large
dollar issues, accounting for 21.8
percent (26) of all the unresolved
reports exceeding 180 days. This
amounted to 48 percent ($117.2
million of
$243.3
million) of the
total
questioned
costs
needing
resolution.
These two
regions are to
be
commended
for working
with the
Office of
Inspector
General to
reduce the
26
unresolved
reports
exceeding 180 days by 50 percent.
More importantly, these regions'
unresolved reports now account for
only 29 percent ($44.4 million) of the
$153.8 million of the total questioned
costs needing resolution.
Trends
Although EPA has made progress in
the past in reducing the number of
overdue unresolved reports, the
unresolved backlog is now rising.
From September 1994 to September
1995, the number of past due reports
rose 78 percent from 73 to 130. From
September 1992 to September 1995,
the number increased 27 percent while
the reports requiring resolution
averaged about 300 each year.
Management at all levels needs to (1)
make audit follow-up a top priority, (2)
ensure that report resolution is timely,
and (3) reduce the growing backlog of
overdue resolutions.
Unresolved Reports Exceeding 180 Days
Number of fUport*
160 -
126 -
100
145
130
1992
1993
1994
1996
Reporting Period
]March •September
30
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
-------
Status Report On Perpetual Inventory of Reports in Resolution Process For The Semiannual Period Ending
September 30,1995 (Dollar Values in Thousands)
Report Issuance
Questioned Recommended
Costs Efficiencies
A. For which no management decision
has been made by the commencement
of the reporting period
B. Which were issued during the
reporting period
C. Which were issued during the
reporting period that required
no resolution
Subtotals (A + B - C)
D. For which a management decision
was made during the reporting
period
E. For which no management decision
decision has been made by the end
of the reporting period
Reports for which no management
decision was made within six months
of issuance
295
449
194
550
207
343
130
318,532
54,971
173
373,330
166,895
206,435
153,814
197,479
155,099
92
352,486
145,726
206,760
148,507
Report Resolution
Costs Sustained
To Be As
Recovered Efficiencies
75,426
17,797
* Any difference in number of reports and amounts of questioned costs or recommended efficiencies between this report and our previous
semiannual report results from corrections made to data in our audit tracking system.
Status of Management
Decisions on IG Reports
This section presents statistical
information as required by the
Inspector General Act
Amendments of 1988 on the status
of EPA management decisions on
reports issued by the OIG
involving monetary
recommendations. In order to
provide uniformity in reporting
between the various agencies, the
President's Council on Integrity
and Efficiency issued guidance on
reporting the costs under required
statistical tables of sections
5(a)(8) and (9) of the Act, as
amended.
As presented, information
contained in Tables 1 and 2 cannot
be used to assess results of
reviews performed or controlled
by this office. Many of the reports
counted were performed by other
Federal auditors or independent
public accountants under the
Single Audit Act. EPA OIG staff do
not manage or control such
assignments. In addition,
amounts shown as costs
questioned or recommended to be
put to better use contain amounts
which were at the time of the
review unsupported by adequate
documentation or records. Since
auditees frequently provide
additional documentation to
support the allowability of such
costs subsequent to report
issuance, we expect that a high
proportion of unsupported costs
will not be sustained. EPA OIG
controlled reports resolved during
this period resulted in $81.7
million being sustained out of
$113.9 million considered
ineligible in reports under OIG
control. This is a 72 percent
sustained rate.
APRIL 1, 1995 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 1995
31
-------
Table 1 - Inspector General Issued Reports With Questioned Costs
Semiannual Period Ending: September 30,1995
Dollar Values (thousands)
A. For which no management decision has been made by
the commencement of the reporting period**
B. New Reports issued during period
Subtotals (A + B)
C. For which a management decision was made during
the reporting period
Number
113
70
183
62
Questioned Unsupported
Costs*
318,301
54,798
373,099
166,664
103,155
5,918
109,073
26,622
(i) Dollar value of disallowed costs
(ii) Dollar value of costs not disallowed
D. For which no management decision has been made by
the end of the reporting period
Reports for which no management decision was
made within six months of issuance
50
***42
121
64
75,426
91,238
206,435
153,814
14,517
12,105
82,451
76,533
* Questioned costs include the unsupported costs.
** Any difference in number of reports and amounts of questioned costs or recommended efficiencies between
this report and our previous semiannual report results from corrections made to data in our audit tracking
system.
*** 12 audit reports totaling $3,248 were not agreed to by management.
32
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
-------
Table 2 - Inspector General Issued Reports With Recommendations That Funds Be Put To Better Use
Semiannual Period Ending: September 30,1995
A. For which no management decision has been made by
the commencement of the reporting period*
B. Which were issued during the reporting period
Subtotals (A + B)
C. For which a management decision was made during
the reporting period
(i) Dollar value of recommendations that
were agreed to by management
- based on proposed management action
- based on proposed legislative action
(ii) Dollar value of recommendations that were
not agreed to by management
(iii) Dollar value of non-awards or unsuccessful
bidders
D. For which no management decision has been made by
the end of the reporting period
Reports for which no management decision was
made within six months of issuance
Number
57
45
102
40
10
n/a
n/a
4**
28
62
21
Dollar Value
(in thousands)
197,479
155,008
352,487
145,726
17,797
n/a
n/a
14,168
113,760***
206,761
148,507
* Any difference in number of reports and amounts of questioned costs or recommended efficiencies between
this report and our previous semiannual report results from corrections made to data in our audit tracking
system.
** Two reports were included in C(i) and C(ii). Only the related dollars disallowed were included in C(i), whereas
the dollars which were not disallowed were included in C(ii).
'** This amount represents the dollar value of recommendations that funds be put to better use.
APRIL 1, 1995 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 1995 33
-------
Resolution of Significant Reports
Report Number
Report Date
Grantee/
Contractor
Report Issuance
FS Questioned/
Recommended
Efficiency
Report Resolution
Federal Share
to be Recovered/
Sustained
Efficiency
P2CWL2-01-0353 BRISTOL
5100230 CT
REPORT DATE
3/27/95
S2CWL2-01-0205 BARNSTABLE
5100269 MA
REPORT DATE
4/10/95
P2CWL1-02-0104 NYCDEP
3100374 NY
REPORT DATE
9/14/93
P2CWL1-02-0128 ROCKLAND CO
5100190 SD1 NY
REPORT DATE
2/21/95
P2CWL4-02-0060 MIDDLETOWN
5100217 NY
REPORT DATE
3/21/95
INEL 1,846,542 INEL 1,846,542
UNSP 2,155,282 UNSP 2,155,282
UNUR 0 UNUR 0
RCOM
INEL
UNSP
UNUR
RCOM
INEL
UNSP
UNUR
RCOM
INEL
UNSP
UNUR
RCOM
INEL
UNSP
UNUR
RCOM
0 SUST
628,254 INEL
0 UNSP
0 UNUR
0 SUST
605,106
0
0
0
12,731,984 INEL 7,186,505
15,416,534 UNSP10,165,561
11,018,236 UNUR10,596,360
0 SUST 0
1,290,906 INEL 1,290,906
2,959,420 UNSP 1,082,036
0 UNUR 0
0 SUST 0
D8AML5-03-0151 ARMSTRONG INEL
5100279 DATA SERV VA UNSP
REPORT DATE UNUR
4/13/95 RCOM
P2CWN2-03-0456 HOWARD CO INEL
4300043 DPW MD UNSP
REPORT DATE UNUR
8/23/94 RCOM
P2CWN3-03-0031 ARLINGTON INEL
4300045 COUNTY VA UNSP
REPORT DATE UNUR
9/ 1/94 RCOM
E1BMF2-04-0373 EPA USE OF INEL
5100247 SUBCONTRAC- UNSP
REPORT DATE TORS UNUR
3/31/95 RCOM
P2CWP6-05-0298 W LAKE INEL
2400004 SUPERIOR MN UNSP
REPORT DATE UNUR
12/21/91 RCOM
P2CWN1-08-0063 SOUTH VALLEY INEL
4300005 UT UNSP
REPORT DATE UNUR
10/25/93 RCOM
699,268 INEL
0 UNSP
0 UNUR
0 SUST
654,909
0
0
0
0 INEL 0
0 UNSP 0
0 UNUR 0
913,634 SUST 913,634
1,160,894 INEL 726,182
206,000 UNSP 4,401
0 UNUR 0
0 SUST 0
1,055,887 INEL 822,185
354,861 UNSP 159,551
0 UNUR 0
0 SUST 0
0 INEL 0
0 UNSP 0
0 UNUR 0
15,400,000 SUST15,400,000
6,446,691 INEL
125,126 UNSP
0 UNUR
0 SUST
447,487
0
0
0
2,444,389 INEL 1,952,056
0 UNSP 0
0 UNUR 0
0 SUST 0
Report Number
Report Date
E2CWN2-09-0093
5200008
REPORT DATE
2/ 9/95
E2CWM2-09-0244
5200012
REPORT DATE
3/27/95
Grantee/
Contractor
SOUTH TAHOE
PUD CA
LOS ANGELES
CA
Report Resolutio
Report Issuance Federal Share
FS Questioned/ to be Recovered/
Recommended Sustained
Efficiency Efficiency
INEL 731,772
UNSP 0
UNUR 0
RCOM 0
INEL 25,580,260
UNSP 0
UNUR 0
RCOM 0
INEL 731,772
UNSP 0
UNUR 0
SUST 0
INEL25,562,278
UNSP 0
UNUR 0
SUST 0
E2CWM3-09-0116 SANTA INEL
5200007 BARBARA CA UNSP
REPORT DATE UNUR
1/24/95 RCOM-
457,325 INEL 457,325
0 UNSP 0
0 UNUR 0
0 SUST 0
E2CWN2-09-0266 MAUI
5300002 HI
REPORT DATE
ll/ 9/94
INEL 1,094,241 INEL 737,254
UNSP 0 UNSP 0
UNUR 0 UNUR 0
RCOM 0 SUST 0
S2CW*8-09-0156 LOS INEL 1,862,904 INEL 1,862,904
1300119 ANGELES CA UNSP 0 UNSP 0
REPORT DATE • UNUR 51,135,450 UNUR 1,087,116
9/30/91 RCOM 0 SUST 0
P2CWL9-10-0002 PIERCE CO INEL
2100669 UTIL DEP WA UNSP
REPORT DATE UNUR
9/30/92 RCOM
E1BMF5-11-0004 BANKCARD INEL
5100486 AUDIT UNSP
REPORT DATE UNUR
9/14/95 RCOM
2,179,647
2,31t,534
0
0
INEL 1,473,000
UNSP 375,759
UNUR 0
SUST 0
0 INEL 0
0 UNSP 0
0 UNUR 0
700,000 SUST 700,OCO
NOTE:
INEL
UNSP
UNUR
RCOM
SUST
INELIGIBLE COST
UNSUPPORTED COST
UNNECESSARY/UNREASONABI^E COST
RECOMMENDED EFFICIENCIES
RECOMMENDED EFFICIENCIES SUSTAINED
34
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
-------
Section 3 -- Prosecutive Actions
The following is a summary of
investigative activities during this
reporting period. These include
investigations of alleged criminal
violations which may result in
prosecution and conviction,
investigations of alleged violations
of Agency regulations and policies,
and OIG personnel security
investigations. The Office of
Investigations tracks investigations
in the following categories:
preliminary inquiries and
investigations, joint investigations
with other agencies, and OIG
background investigations.
Summary Of Investigative
Activities
Pending Investigations as
of March 31, 1995 171
New Investigations
Opened This Period 88
Investigations Closed
This Period 78
Pending Investigations as
of September 30, 1995 181
Prosecutive and
Administrative Actions
In this period, investigative efforts
resulted in 4 convictions and 4*
indictments. Fines and recoveries,
including those associated with civil
actions, amounted to $69,396. Four
administrative actions** were taken as
a result of investigations:
Resignations/Removals
Suspensions
Restitutions
TOTAL
2
1
1
* Does not include indictments obtained in cases
in which we provided investigative assistance.
" Does not include suspensions and
debarments resulting from Office of
Investigations activities or actions resulting from
reviews of personnel security investigations.
Profiles of Pending Investigations by Type
(Total-181)
General EPA Programs
Superfund and Lust
Procurement Fraud
47
Employee Integrity
25
Procurement Fraud
38
Construction
12
Program Integrity
23
Employee Integrity
2
Other
3
Program Integrity
16
Total Cases: 122
Total Cases: 59
APRIL 1, 1995 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 1995
35
-------
Description of Selected
Prosecutive and
Administrative Actions
Below is a brief description of some of
the prosecutive actions which
occurred during the reporting period.
Some of these actions resulted from
investigations initiated before April 1,
1995.
Project Manager Sentenced;
Convicted of Theft of Funds
James Speer, project manager with
Olympic View Environmental Review
Council (OVER-C), Kitsap County,
Washington, was sentenced to 66
months in jail with credit for time
served (almost one year), and ordered
to pay $57,221 in restitution as a result
of his earlier conviction of felony theft,
as reported in our semiannual report
for the period ending March 31,1995.
Speer was given a sentence above
the standard range of 42 to 57
months, based on each of four distinct
criteria. Speer abused a position of
trust, there were multiple victims of his
offense, there was a substantial
monetary loss, and the scheme of his
theft involved a high degree of
sophistication and planning.
OVER-C, a non-profit organization
formed in 1991 to monitor activities at
Superfund sites, was awarded an EPA
technical assistance grant involving
three sites in Kitsap County. Speer
gained control of the organization's
finances, including records,
checkbooks, incoming bills, and
outgoing payments, and
subsequently, he wrote checks in
excess of $86,000 to himself. Speer
would write the OVER-C checks and
take them to two board members for
authorization signatures. He then
replaced the names of the legitimate
payees on the check with his own
name in order to remove cash from
the OVER-C bank account. The cash
was traced to his girlfriend's account
and her mother's account. Speer paid
portions of legitimate expenses while
holding back funds for himself,
allowing him to continue obtaining and
using additional Federal, state, and
private grant funds to "lap" expenses,
staying ahead of the creditors.
"Lapping" involves holding checks for
months before cashing them, allowing
enough time to take the money
without notice.
Speer's scheme collapsed when
some of the technical advisors on the
projects complained that they had not
been paid completely for their work.
This investigation was conducted by
the EPA OIG and the Kitsap County
Prosecuting Attorney's Office.
Former Water Association
Official Found Guilty
Brian Burns, a former program
manager of the Northeast Rural
Water Association, was convicted in
July 1995 of felony fraud, including
false statements and wire fraud.
Northeast, a not-for-profit
organization, received the bulk of its
funding from EPA and the Farmers
Home Administration of the U.S.
Department of Agriculture to provide
training and technical assistance to
rural communities in Vermont, New
Hampshire, and Massachusetts in
water treatment, safe drinking water,
and wastewater matters. The grants
included the funding of salary and
expenses for the program manager, a
position which required the incumbent
to work full time for the state affiliate.
Burns was convicted of manipulating
and/or concealing material information
provided to the Northeast Board of
Directors and the National Rural
Water Association, the organization
which oversaw Northeast's use of
Federal funds, by misrepresenting his
work on behalf of Northeast on daily
time logs. Burns' scheme included
the use of: (1) approximately $7,000 in
federal funds to pay for an apartment
in Cambridge, MA, which he
fraudulently called an office; (2)
approximately $10,000 in federal
funds for per diem and travel
expenses for his trips; between
Vermont and Cambridge to attend
Harvard on a full time basis; and (3)
approximately $30,000 in salary paid
by federal funds while Burns attended
school.
This case was investigated by the EPA
OIG with the assistance of the Internal
Revenue Service Criminal
Investigation Division and the U.S.
Department of Agriculture OIG.
Superfund Site
Subcontractor Sentenced
After pleading guilty to theft of
government property in January 1995,
Robert Lestuk, president and owner of
Unicon, Inc., was sentenced in April
1995 to 2 years probation and 100
hours of community service, and fined
$2,000. Unicon agreed to make
restitution in the amount of $141,000.
The actions stemmed from an
allegation that Unicon, a
subcontractor responsible for the
installation of metal tank covers and a
vapor emission system at the Helen
Kramer Landfill Superfund Site in
Mantua Township, New Jersey,
submitted false certifications with
respect to hazardous materials
training required by the contract.
This case was investigated jointly by
the EPA OIG and the Department of
Defense Criminal Investigative
Service.
Employee Pleads Guilty to
Theft
Carlton Nadolney, an EPA toxicologist,
pleaded guilty to an information
charging theft of Government
property. The August 1995 plea was
the result of an OIG investigation
which disclosed approximately
$15,000 in unauthorized long distance
telephone calls thai: were charged to
EPA.
36
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
-------
Guilty Plea in Scheme to
Impersonate
Michael Latas and Associates (MLA),
an executive search corporation
located in St. Louis, Missouri, pleaded
guilty in June 1995, to false
personation of a U.S. Government
official, and to conspiracy. The firm
paid a $6,000 fine.
The case originated in 1991 when an
MLA employee, Timothy Austin,
pleaded guilty to falsely claiming to be
an EPA employee. Austin,
representing himself as being from
EPA, had contacted the Gaithersburg,
Maryland, office of a major
engineering and construction
company and demanded the
company provide him a listing of all
employees who had both nuclear
engineering and wastewater treatment
experience. According to the
indictment, Austin intended to sell the
listing to personnel recruiting
companies, foreign espionage agents,
and others. Austin was subsequently
sentenced to three years probation
and ordered to pay a $1,000 fine.
Former Employee Pleads
Guilty in AmEx Scam
Jean Stafford, a former EPA
secretary, pleaded guilty to access
device fraud in August 1995 after an
investigation disclosed a scheme to
defraud, traffic in, use, and cause to
be used at least eight fraudulently
obtained American Express
Government Travel Cards. The case
was initiated based on information that
an unknown EPA employee had
obtained an EPA American Express
Government credit card by using false
identification and charged over
$10,000 in goods and services over a
three week period. As a result of this
matter, the Agency's Financial
Management Division instituted a retail
block on all Headquarters American
Express accounts to prohibit
purchases in retail type facilities.
This case was investigated jointly by
the EPA OIG, Secret Service, and
Postal Inspection Service.
Civil and Administrative
Actions to Recover EPA
Funds
Investigations and audits conducted
by the Office of Inspector General
provide the basis for civil and
administrative actions to recover
funds fraudulently obtained from EPA.
Through the Inspector General
Division (IGD) of the Office of General
Counsel (OGC), the OIG uses a
variety of tools to obtain restitution.
These include cooperative efforts with
the Department of Justice in filing civil
suits under the False Claims Act, the
Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act,
and other authorities; working with
grantees using their own civil litigation
authorities; invoking the restitution
provisions of the Victim and Witness
Protection Act during criminal
sentencing; using the Agency's
authority to administratively offset
future payments and to collect debts;
and negotiating voluntary settlements
providing for restitution in the context
of suspension and debarment actions.
Civil and administrative actions to
recover funds usually extend over
several semiannual reporting periods.
Company Agrees to Pay for
Making False Labor Claim
The U.S. Attorney for the Eastern
District of Virginia, working with OGC's
IGD, reached an agreement with
Toney Head and T. Head and
Company, Inc. (THI) to settle a civil
False Claims Act case. Under the
settlement, Toney Head and THI
agreed to pay $109,750 for falsely
billing approximately $70,000 of labor
costs to an EPA contract. Previously,
Toney Head and THI had been
investigated by the OIG and convicted
in U.S. District Court for filing criminal
false claims under the EPA contract.
Former Employee's False
Claim Settled
OGC's IGD negotiated an agreement
with a former EPA employee who
submitted a false claim for worker's
compensation for an alleged injury on
the job. The former employee
admitted to falsifying a doctor's letter,
which allowed the former employee to
remain on traumatic injury leave for a
month, and to falsifying a witness
statement. Under the agreement, the
former employee will pay $2,500 to
settle the false claim that caused
approximately $1,700 in damages to
EPA.
APRIL 1, 1995 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 1995
37
-------
Section 4 -- Fraud Prevention And Management Improvements
This section describes several
activities of the Office of Inspector
General to promote economy and
efficiency and to prevent and detect
fraud, waste, and abuse in the
administration of EPA programs and
operations. This section includes
information required by statute,
recommended by Senate report, or
deemed appropriate by the
Inspector General.
Review of Legislation and
Regulations
Section 4(a)(2) of the Inspector
General Act of 1978, as amended,
directs the Office of Inspector General
to review existing and proposed
legislation and regulations relating to
Agency programs and operations to
determine their effect on economy and
efficiency and the prevention and
detection of fraud and abuse. During
this semiannual period, we reviewed
four legislative and 74 regulatory
items. The most significant items
reviewed are summarized below.
Proposed Clean Water Act
Section 520 of the proposed Clean
Water Act, H.R. 961, provides for the
creation of a Board of Audit Appeals.
This board would review and decide
contested audit determinations related
to grant and contract awards.
We reviewed the proposed bill and
expressed strong opposition to this
provision. If implemented, we believe
this Board of Audit Appeals would be
costly and bureaucratic. We
commented that the board is
unnecessary and duplicates other
time-tested procedures for settling
disputes arising out of audits. For
example, EPA has a streamlined
appeals process for the soon to be
closed out construction grants
program, and the Federal Acquisition
Regulation contains disputes
provisions for contracts.
Superfund Reporting and
Audit Requirements
As the Congress considers
reauthorization, we recommended
revision of certain sections of the
Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act (CERCLA), as amended by the
Superfund Amendment and
Reauthorization Act. First, we
recommended reconsideration of the
annual audit and reporting requirement
of section 301 (h), which requires EPA
to annually report its progress in
implementing CERCLA and for the
OIG to audit the report for
reasonableness and accuracy. We
pointed out that many sections of the
current report could be eliminated
because the information is available
elsewhere, and recomimended
removing the audit requirement for the
report because of the extensive
auditing of the financial and
performance aspects of Superfund.
We also recommended eliminating the
audit requirements of section 111 (k)
and allowing the OIG to use discretion
in auditing Superfund. We
commented that the annual audit of:
• the Trust Fund has been
superseded by the annual
requirements of the Chief Financial
Officers Act;
• response claims is excessive
because there have been few claims;
• a sample of cooperative agreements
should be made discretionary; and
• remedial investigation/feasibility
studies is too narrow because the
program has moved more into the
construction phase while streamlining
the study phase.
Finally, we commented that the OIG's
annual reporting requirement
duplicates the semiannual reporting
requirement of the IG Act.
Federal Acquisition
Regulation (FAR) Revision on
Continuing Payments
to Suspect Contractors
While we generally agreed with the
intent of this proposed revision to the
FAR, which involved fraud remedies
for civilian agencies pursuant to the
Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of
1994, we strongly disagreed that an
Agency head should consider factors,
38
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
-------
such as the financial condition of the
contractor, when determining whether
to reduce or suspend payments for
suspected fraudulent activities. In our
view, if there is substantial evidence
that a contractor's request for payment
was based on fraud, an Agency head
should take immediate action to
suspend or reduce further payments.
Our comment was not adopted in the
final rule published on September 26,
1995.
Draft Policy on Project
Officer Roles and
Responsibilities in the
Administration of Grants and
Cooperative Agreements
We reviewed the Agency's draft policy
and expressed concern that the pre-
application phase appeared to
promote extensive interaction between
the Project Officer (PO) and
prospective recipient before
determination that the award will be
subject to competition. Although such
interaction may be necessary when
sole source awards are justified, we
expressed concern that extensive
interaction would be inappropriate if
the award is competed. Since we
believe that competitive awards should
be made to the extent possible, we
recommended that the document
require POs to encourage competition
and to document why a sole source
award is justified.
We also recommended that POs be
required to obtain or submit
independent reviews of internal and
external proposals over $500,000;
ensure that the grantee takes action to
correct deficiencies; and document
decisions made about equipment
disposition at closeout. Regarding
recipient performance, we suggested
that a statement be added that
"egregious situations should be
considered for suspension and
debarment action."
The Agency revised the policy to our
satisfaction.
Draft Implementation Order
to Streamline Small Grants
We did not concur because the order
did not clearly specify what is expected
of grant recipients and how they will be
held accountable. We recommended
that the policy be revised to clarify
payment policy, terms, and conditions;
indicate the regulations and other
documents applicable to each type of
recipient; and require grantees to
identify specific work objectives and
expected outcomes and to provide a
final report addressing the extent to
which the objectives were achieved.
EPA Delegation 1-16:
Agency Chief Financial
Officer/Accounting,
Budgeting And Other
Financial Activities
We did not concur with the proposed
delegation of authority to provide
general accounting and fiscal services,
and to establish, review and enforce
internal control policies, standards and
compliance guidelines because it did
not redelegate authority to the
Agency's Senior Resource Officials
(SROs). The SROs have primary
responsibility for sound financial
management practices.
The Financial Management Division
revised the delegation to address our
primary concerns. In withdrawing our
non-concurrence, we expressed
concern that the Agency still has not
clearly defined the knowledge, skills
and abilities for selecting SROs.
Draft Flexiplace Program
Guidance
We agreed that the Flexiplace
program can be useful to the Agency
and its employees, but only if there is a
clear benefit to the Agency and
adequate controls are in place to
protect the integrity of the Agency's
resources. Specifically, we
recommended that the program be
restricted only to those situations which
would not impede a supervisor's ability
to assure accomplishment of Agency
work, respond to customer needs, and
protect Agency resources and records.
We also expressed serious concern
over the increased opportunity for
abuse in several areas. Accordingly,
we recommended that the employee
certify that his/her time reporting is
accurate and that the supervisor certify
that reasonable action has been taken
to verify the information. We also
recommended that the policy include a
periodic Agency review of the
Flexiplace program to assure that
abuses are not occurring and that the
work effort is not adversely impacted.
Suspension and
Debarment Activities
EPA's policy is to do business only
with contractors and assistance
recipients who are honest and
responsible, EPA enforces this policy
by suspending or debarring
contractors, assistance recipients, or
individuals within those organizations,
from further EPA contracts or
assistance if there has been a
conviction of, or civil judgment for:
• commission of a fraud or a criminal
offense in connection with obtaining,
attempting to obtain, or performing a
public contract or subcontract;
• violation of Federal or State antitrust
statutes relating to the submission of
offers;
• commission of embezzlement, theft,
forgery, bribery, falsification or
destruction of records, making a false
statement, or receiving stolen property;
or
• commission of any other offense
indicating a lack of business integrity
or business honesty that seriously and
directly affects the present
APRIL 1, 1995 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 1995
39
-------
responsibility of a Government
contractor or subcontractor.
A contractor may also be debarred for
violating the terms of a Government
contract or subcontract, such as willful
failure to perform in accordance with
the terms of one or more contracts, or
a history of failure to perform, or of
unsatisfactory performance on one or
more contracts. A contractor may also
be debarred for any other cause of so
serious or compelling a nature that it
affects the present responsibility of the
contractor. Thus, a contractor need
not have committed fraud or been
convicted of an offense to warrant
being debarred. Debarments are to be
for a period commensurate with the
seriousness of the cause, but
generally do not exceed 3 years.
The effectiveness of the suspension
and debarment (S&D) program has
been enhanced by regulations that
provide all Federal agencies a uniform
system for debarring contractors from
receiving work funded by Federal
grants, loans, or cooperative
agreements. The system, required by
Executive Order 12549, provides that
a non-procurement debarment or
suspension by one agency is effective
in all agencies and requires the
General Services Administration to
publish monthly "Lists of Parties
Excluded from Federal Procurement or
Non-procurement Programs."
Formerly, a non-procurement
debarment was effective only in the
programs administered by the
debarring agency, and each agency
maintained its own list. The EPA
Suspension and Debarment Division in
the Office of Grants and Debarment
operates the S&D program at EPA.
The OIG assists the EPA S&D
program by providing information from
audits, investigations, and engineering
studies; and obtaining documents and
evidence used in determining whether
there is a cause for suspension or
debarment. During this period, cases
with direct OIG involvement led to 9
debarments, 7 suspensions, and two
compliance agreements, a total of 18
actions.
The most significant are
summarized below:
• On July 3,1995, EPA suspended
James B. Speer, project manager of
Olympic View Environmental Review
Council (OVER-C), a non-profit
organization and recipient of EPA
Technical Assistant (Brant funds. Also
suspended for apparent involvement
was Cassandra Wohlgethan, Speer's
live-in girlfriend. Mr. Speer's
sentencing is reported on page(36).
• On JulyS, 1995, EPA suspended
William R. Maxon, Site Manager and
Craig V. Wright, Site Foreman of
Riedel Environmental Services, Inc.
(RES) at the Sharon Steel Superfund
Site. EPA's investigation substantiated
that Maxon and other RES employees
stole approximately $2,000 worth of
copper from the site and that Maxon
used RES equipment and employees
to do personal work at his residence,
charging the costs to the EPA contract.
• On May 18,1995, EPA debarred
Brad's Asbestos Removal, Inc. (BAR)
for a period of two years. Officers of
BAR defrauded EPA by participating in
a scheme whereby they and another
individual caused to be submitted,
under BAR's name, false claims to
Fairbury, Nebraska, Public Schools,
which received financial assistance
from EPA under the Asbestos School
Hazard Abatement Program.
• On May 9,1995, EPA entered into a
four-year compliance agreement with
previously debarred Steven Miller, Vice
President of Ekotek, who ordered an
employee to falsify a hazardous waste
manifest and admitted to conspiring to
violate the Clean Air Act, the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act and
the Clean Water Act. As part of the
agreement, Miller: Signed a
"Declaration of Environmental
Commitment" and a "Statement of
Ethics" which committed him to a
minimum of three ethics training
courses; agreed not to engage in
retaliatory behavior against any
employee who cooperates with the
Government; agreed to allow EPA
S&D auditors access 1o any business
in which he has waste disposal or
handling responsibilities; committed to
take at least three environmental
training courses; agreed to cooperate
with EPA S&D Division's performance
of discretionary audits, at his owm
expense, to confirm compliance with
the Agreement; and committed to
pollution prevention policies.
• On April 24,1995, EPA entered into
a compliance agreement with Harry J.
Kring, who was convicted of
negligently violating the Clean Water
Act and making a false statement to
EPA. Mr. Kring agreed to several
conditions, including voluntarily
excluding himself from all Federal
procurement or non-procurement
programs for 18 months and to report
to EPA anytime he changes
employers, including changing
positions with his employer, AT&T
Reading. Mr. Kring's conviction was
discussed in our September 30,1994,
semiannual report.
OIG Management initiatives
Reinventing Offices of
Inspector General
The EPA OIG has continued the
process of reinvention by carefully
examining the administrative functions
and processes of our organization.
We are particularly identifying
administrative activities that are
performed at more than one location
with an emphasis on eliminating any
unnecessary duplication. We have
also examined all of our operational
costs and expenses, looking for
opportunities and alternatives for
savings. As a result we are
restructuring our Headquarters
organization and functional
responsibilities to accrue improved
efficiency by reducing Headquarters
staff and reassigning personnel to our
core audit and investigative functions.
Also in response to other actions we
previously identified as needed to bring
40
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
-------
our streamlining initiatives to fruition,
OIG staff have begun conducting
Team Effectiveness/Team Leadership
seminars. These seminars are
designed to help the OIG develop
self-guided teams with a strong
emphasis on customer service.
OIG Prepares To Expand In-House
Training Capabilities
As part of our streamlining efforts, and
capitalize on talents of our staff the
OIG has established an academy of
instructors to conduct in-house
developed training. This training will
be designed to meet the specific
mission related needs of the OIG.
Forty candidates from headquarters
and field offices of audit, investigation,
and management were identified.
Fourteen of the candidates received
on-site instructor training September
19-21,1995. Also as part of the
reinvention of our training program, we
are providing cooperative training to
EPA.
TRAINING
OIG Developed Courses
• Statistical Sampling Training
This course was designed to provide
guidelines for the use of statistical
sampling in EPA audits. The
emphasis is on instructions for auditors
who need to carry out elementary
sampling procedures in connection
with their auditing activities, with some
additional direction for those who
encounter more difficult sampling
problems and need references to
more complete sources. This course
was presented during this semiannual
period in Washington, DC.
• Ethics and Conflict of Interest
This program is designed to provide
each participant with a better
understanding of conflict-of-interest
laws and EPA standards of conduct.
Instructor Mary Fllmore Irains OIG employees in facilitation techniques (photo by
Dana Sharon).
• OIG Orientation for New
Employees
An orientation session for new OIG
employees was held at Headquarters
in Washington D.C. June 13-15, 1995.
The Inspector General provided
opening remarks and, on the last day,
the Deputy Inspector General spoke to
the group. Each AIG and his
managers presented an overview of
their office. The objective of the
orientation was to help new employees
become familiar with the functions and
organization of the OIG and quickly
become part of the OIG team.
Investigative Techniques Training
During this semiannual period, 42 OIG
special agents began an 80 hour
course in investigative techniques at
the Federal Law Enforcement Training
Center (FLETC), Glynco, Georgia. The
course included arrest techniques,
firearms instruction, defensive tactics,
a legal refresher, and CPR training.
The Brown Bag Institute of Learning
As part of our effort to do more in-
house training, we continued a
lunchtime training program called the
Brown Bag Institute of Learning. This
program, hosted by various OIG
managers, features videotapes, case
studies, discussions, and presentations
by experts on subjects pertinent to OIG
work.
During this reporting period, we
presented "Changes to the
Government Auditing Standards" for
auditors, investigators, and managers.
Patrick McNamee, Assistant Director,
GAO's Accounting and Information
Management Division, was the
instructor/facilitator. Mr. McNamee
focused his presentation on general,
financial, and performance audit
standards.
Basic Lotus Notes Concepts
This course was designed to provide
the student with an understanding on
how to navigate within the Lotus Notes
workspace, compose and view
documents in a database, and use
Notes mail. The OIG is adopting Lotus
Notes for management of
correspondence.
APRIL 1, 1995 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 1995
41
-------
President's Council on
Integrity and Efficiency
Study of Federal Credit
Management and Debt Collection
We participated in this effort which was
led by the Department of Veterans
Affairs OIG (VA-OIG). The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB)
requested this review to update and
expand on a similar 1989 study of
Federal credit management and debt
collection issues. We assisted the VA-
OIG in its review by providing statistical
information on EPA's accounts
receivable and summaries of the
results of our audit work in the area.
We also provided our ideas, as well as
those of the staff of the EPA Chief
Financial Officer, on ways to re-
engineer and better carry out credit
management activities. The final
report on this review was issued to
OMB July 31,1995.
Information in the report is intended to
foster further discussion at the policy-
making levels of government on how
to best collect amounts owed to the
Federal government and on a special
PCIE working group to develop draft
standard performance measures for
Federal Offices of Inspector General.
The purpose of this ongoing project is
to define output and outcome
measures of OIG efficiency and
effectiveness in relation to the recently
published OIG Vision Statement and
Strategies to Apply Reinvention
Principles. OIGs also must develop
and report on performance in relation
to budgetary requests and strategic
plans in compliance with the
requirements of the Chief Financial
Officers Act of 1990 and the
Government Performance and Results
Act of 1993.
Committee on Integrity and
Management Improvement
The Committee on Integrity and
Management Improvement (CIMI) was
established in 1984 by EPA Order
1130.1 to coordinate the Agency's
effort to minimize the opportunities for
fraud, waste, and mismanagement in
EPA programs and activities. CIMI
strives to continually increase
employee awareness and
understanding of various Agency
policies and procedures. The
Committee is composed of senior EPA
program and regional officials and is
chaired by the Inspector General.
Employee Suitability Determinations
and Security Clearances
Every position in the Federal
Government is subject to suitability
considerations. Personnel security
investigations conducted by the Office
of Personnel Management are the
primary means for determining
suitability for Federal employment. All
employees must be investigated. A
National Agency Check and Inquiries,
which includes law enforcement
checks, verification of claimed college
degrees, and employment and
reference checks, is the minimum
investigation required. A more
extensive investigation must be done
for sensitive positions, which require
access to national security information.
Employees in sensitive positions must
obtain a security clearance, which is an
authorization for access based on a
background investigation and a
determination of trustworthiness. CIMI
developed this bulletin to inform
Agency employees of what factors
affect suitability for Federal
employment and to heighten
awareness of the types of
investigations required for EPA
employment, particularly those for
sensitive positions.
Public Service Recognition Week
To show appreciation for and
recognize EPA employees, CIMI
sponsored a series of events during
the ninth annual Public Service
Recognition Week. A special
ceremony was held to honor the
recipients of the EPA Employee
Recognition Award for outstanding
community service. Inspector General
John Martin was master of
ceremonies; Roger Johnson,
Administrator of the General Services
Administration was the keynote
speaker; and various EPA employees
provided musical entertainment.
Following the ceremony, Administrator
Carol Browner hosted a reception for
the award winners.
Customer Satisfaction
Questionnaire
During this period, CIMI issued its first
customer opinion survey to determine
whether the Committee is meeting its
objective of increasing employee
awareness and understanding of
various Agency policies and
procedures. Approximately 300
responses were analyzed. The
information obtained helped to identify
areas of interest to OIG employees
and provided a measure of CIMI's
effectiveness. Similar surveys will be
issued periodically to obtain customer
input.
Hotline Activities
The OIG Hotline opened 24 new cases
and completed and closed 19 cases
during the reporting period. Of the
cases closed, 4 resulted in
environmental, prosecutive, or
administrative corrective action, while
15 did not require action. Cases that
did not have immediate validity due to
insufficient information may be used to
identify trends or patterns of potentially
vulnerable areas for future review.
The Hotline office also referred 2,745
telephone callers to the appropriate
program office, state agency, or other
Federal agency for assistance.
The following are examples of
corrective action taken as a result of
information provided by the OIG
Hotline.
• A complainant alleged that an EPA
employee failed to charge leave and
used the Government travel card for
personal expenses. An inquiry
substantiated the allegations. The
travel card was cancelled, the
employee received a formal letter of
42
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
-------
reprimand, and was required to repay.
124 hours of annual leave.
• A complainant alleged that regional
employees, who had been assigned
government vehicles for official
business, were using them primarily for
commuting. A special review revealed
that the allegation had merit. As a
result, the Region was to (1) develop
criteria for determining which
employees need vehicles, and (2)
conduct a determination of need on a
semiannual basis.
• A complainant alleged various
environmental concerns, including
spills from oil drums, erosion, and
possible degradation of a wetland.
The North Carolina Division of Land
Resources required the company to
clean up the environmental damage
found.
APRIL 1, 1995 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 1995 43
-------
Appendix 1 -- Reports Issued
APPENDIX 1 - REPORTS ISSUED
THE INSPECTOR GENERAL ACT REQUIRES A LISTING, SUBDIVIDED ACCORDING TO SUBJECT MATTER, OF EACH REPORT
ISSUED BY THE OFFICE DURING THE REPORTING PERIOD AND FOR EACH REPORT, WHERE APPLICABLE, THE DOLLAR VALUE
OF QUESTIONED COSTS AND THE DOLLAR VALUE OF RECOMMENDATIONS THAT FUNDS BE PUT TO BETTER USE.
Questioned Costs
Recommended
Efficiencies
Assignment Control Number
Title
Final Report
Issued
Ineligible Unsupported Unreasonable (Funds Be Put
Costs Costs Costs To Better Use)
1. INTERNAL & MANAGEMENT ASSIGNMENTS
Office of the Administrator
E1FMB5-05-0035-5400068 MBE PROGRAM 5/ 3/95
Deputy Administrator
E1DMG5-13-0065-5100484 ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY AND HEALTH
AT EPA LABS 9/28/95
FMD Cincinnati Accounting Operations Office
E1SFL4-23-8000-5100262 CFO ACT FY 94 FMD-CINCINNATI
4/ 5/95
Grants Administration Division
E1FUF5-08-0019-5100528 SOUTHWEST CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL
RESEARCH AND POLICY SHOULD FOCUS
ON BORDER PROBLEM SOLUTIONS 9/29/95
Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation
E1KAE5-24-0015-5100510 REGIONAL MANAGEMENT OF CLEAN AIR
ACT, SECTION 105 GRANT PROGRAM 9/29/95
Assistant Administrator for Administration and Resources Management
E1SKF5-02-0010-5100515 MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF THE
ZONE 1 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
ASSISTANCE TEAM CONTRACTOR 9/28/95
E1FMF4-03-0141-5100513 EPA'S OVERSIGHT OF ASSISTANCE
AGREEMENTS 9/28/95
E1AMF5-11-0016-5100474 EPA'S COMPLIANCE WITH FILING FORM
1099 8/24/95
51,880
E1BMF5-11-0004-5100486 EPA'S BANKCARD PROGRAM
9/19/95
721,000
700,000
Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response
E1DSF4-11-0036-5100512 RCRA MANIFEST REQUIREMENTS 9/28/95
E1SFB5-11-0014-5400087 COORDINATION WITH NIEHS ON
SUPERFUND BASIC RESEARCH 8/ 1/95
E1SFB5-11-0008-5400100 SUPERFUND CLEANUP COST FACTORS 9/ 6/95
Assistant Administrator for Water
E1HWG4-01-0091-5400070 CROSS CONNECTIONS CONTROL PROGRAM 5/16/95
E1HWF4-04-0168-5100530 GULF OF MEXICO SYMPOSIUM 9/29/95
44
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
-------
E1HUE5-23-0001-5100516 DRINKING WATER DATA INTEGRITY
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
9/29/95
E1SKF4-07-0053-5100483 ACQUISITION OF ANALYTICAL SUPPORT
SERVICES CONTRACTS 9/18/95
Director. National Risk Management Research Lab
E1MMF5-23-0006-5100475 STANDARDS OF CONDUCT 8/25/95
E1JBB5-23-0002-5400099 RREL QUALITY ASSURANCE ACTIVITIES 9/ 8/95
Director. National Exposure Research Lab
E1HMF5-23-0006-5100476 STANDARDS OF CONDUCT
8/25/95
Regional Achiim'strator - Region 1
E1FAG5-01-0071-5400108 EPA REGION 1'S PARTNERSHIP WITH
THE'NORTHEAST STATES FOR
COORDINATED AIR USE MANAGEMENT 9/29/95
Region 4--Director Gulf of Mexico Program
E1HWF4-04-0168-5100519 GULF OF MEXICO—ADMINISTRATIVE
ISSUES 9/29/95
Regional Administrator - Region 5
E1AMB5-05-0053-5100372 REGION 5'S BUDGET EXECUTION
PROCESS 6/26/95
E6AMG5-13-0070-5400063 REGION 5'S HANDLING OF A
POTENTIAL WORKPLACE VIOLENCE
CASE 4/ 4/95
Region 5--Pirector Water Management Division
E1SGG5-14-0007-5400090 BETTER BRITE RI/FS REVIEW
Regional Administrator - Region 9
E1SKF5-09-0031-5100505 OVERSIGHT OF DATA QUALITY
8/ 3/95
TOTAL
ASSURANCE --DOD
=
9/26/95
25
0
0
0
1,472,880
2. CONSTRUCTION GRANT ASSIGNMENTS
S2CWL2-01 -0190-5100258
S2CWL2-01-0205-5100269
S2CWL3-01-0141-5100302
S2CWL4-01 -01 10-5100368
S2CWL3-01-0201-5100414
S2CWL2-01-0169-5100415
S2CWL3-01-0027-5100518
S2CWL5-01-0017-5100529
TOTAL OF
E2CWM3-02-0134-5200020
E2CWN4-02-0142-5300032
P2CWL3-02-0154-5100270
P2CWL3-02-0133-5100404
P2CWL4-02-0141-5100407
P2CUL2-02-0126-5100410
BOSTON
BARNSTABLE
WALPOLE
NEWBURYPORT
BEVERLY
WEBSTER
SPENCER
WESTBOROUGH
REGION 01 = 8
JOHNSTOWN/GLOVERSVI LLE
MONROE TWSP MUA
LIVERPOOL PUMP STATION
GIBBSBORO
NEPTUNE SA
MORRISTOWN
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
NY
NJ
NY
NJ
NJ
NJ
4/ 5/95
4/10/95
5/ 1/95
6/15/95
7/17/95
7/17/95
9/29/95
9/29/95
6/15/95
9/18/95
4/10/95
7/10/95
7/10/95
7/11/95
0
628,254
77,683
206,531
15,824
92,799
20,053
1,409,113
2,450,257
68,108
595,610
97,284
0
642,653
1,192,220
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
274,002
0
168,790
0
133,478
0
o
o
0
o
o
0
0
0
o
o
o
o
o
0
o
o
o
0
o
o
o
0
0
o
o
n
u
o
n
u
0
TOTAL OF REGION 02 =
2,595,875
576,270
APRIL 1,1995 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 1995
45
-------
E2CWM1 -03-0325-5200015 FREDERICK CITY OF
E2CWM2-03-0457-5200016 WEST CONSHOHOCKEN MUNI AUTH
E2CWM4-03-0291 -5200024 WSSC
TOTAL OF REGION 03 = 3
E2CWN2-04-0423-5300034 ATLANTA
TOTAL OF REGION 04 = 1
E2CWM4-08-0040-5200022 EVANSTON
TOTAL OF REGION 08 = 1
E2CUM3-09-0126-5200019 WEOTT COHM. SAN. DIST.
E2CUM4-09-0049-5200021 NEVADA CITY, CITY OF
E2CWN3-09-0262-5300015 HONOLULU, CITY & COUNTY OF
E2CWN5-09-0126-5300036 LOS ANGELES, CITY OF
TOTAL OF REGION 09 = 4
E2CWH5- 10-0022-5200023 YAKIMA, CITY OF
TOTAL OF REGION 10 = 1
MD
PA
MD
GA
WY
CA
CA
HI
CA
WA
4/14/95
4/20/95
9/27/95
9/27/95
7/19/95
6/14/95
6/20/95
5/ 1/95
9/28/95
9/ 7/95
257,158
376,587
1,733,741
2,367,486
0
0
116,163
116,163
245,000
340,848
330,298
22,040,839
22,956,985
106,774
106,774
41,250
165,173
0
206,423
539,735
539,735
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
155', 326
155', 326
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION GRANT ASSIGNMENTS
24
30,593,540
1,322,428
155,326
3. OTHER GRANT ASSIGNMENTS
C3HVK5-01 -0135-5500176
G3HVK5-01 -0085-5500124
G3HVK5-01-0118-5500142
G3HVK5-01 -0128-5500164
G3HVK5-01-0146-5500177
G3HUK5-01 -0144-5500179
G3HUK5-01 -0158-5500207
G3HVK5-01 -0176-5500208
G3HV<5-01-0175-5500209
N3HVJ5-01 -0073-5500125
N3HVK4-01 -0206-5500141
N3HVK5-01 -0109-5500143
N3HVK5-01 -01 11 -5500144
N3HVK5-01-0110-5500145
N3HVK5-01-0051-5500146
N3HVK5-01 -0074-5500147
N3HUK4-01 -0180-5500148
N3HUK5-01-0026-5500153
N3HVK5-01-0112-5500154
N3HUK4-01 -0196-5500155
N3HVK5-01 -0090-5500165
N3HVK4-01 -0191 -5500178
N3HVK5-01 -0143-5500180
N3HVJ5-01 -0081 -5500206
TOTAL OF
G3HVK5-02-0127-5500149
G3HVK5-02-0132-5500150
G3HUK5-02-0133-5500151
G3HVK5-02-0136-5500157
G3HUK5-02-0142-5500159
G3HVK5-02-0141 -5500160
G3HVK5-02-0140-5500163
G3HUK5-02-0160-5500185
G3HUK5-02-0161 -5500186
N3HVK5-02-0017-5500128
N3HVK5-02-0016-5500130
N3HUK4-02-0144-5500131
N3HUK5-02-0128-5500139
N3HUK5-02-0131-5500156
N3HUK5-02-0137-5500158
N3HVK5-02-0159-5500181
N3HVK5-02-0096-5500196
N3HUK5-02-0109-5500197
CHICOPEE
WESTBOROUGH
CT HAZARDOUS WASTE MGT SER
MANCHESTER
MA WATER RESOURCE AUTHORITY
ASSOCIATED INDUSTRIES OF VT
VERMONT LAW SCHOOL
BURLINGTON
RUTLAND
STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
INDIAN TOWNSHIP TRIBAL GOVT
PENOBSCOT INDIAN NATION
LOWELL
PORTLAND
FALL RIVER
HOULTON MALISEET INDIANS
CLARK UNIVERSITY
MAINE UNIVERSITY SYSTEM
VERMONT STATE OF
HARVARD UNIVERSITY
COMMONWEALTH OF MASS.
LOWELL CITY OF
INDIAN TOWNSHIP TRIBAL GOVT
STATE OF MAINE
REGION 01 = 24
WASHINGTON TOWNSHIP MUA
CAPE MAY MUA
NJIT/NJIT FDN
LAND IS SA
AMERICAN LUNG ASSN
MANASQUAN RIVER REG SA
LONG BRANCH SA
NJIT FOUNDATION
NJIT FOUNDATION
OSSINING
NEW JERSEY
COLUMBIA UN IV
NAT'L URBAN LEAGUE
SYRACUSE RESEARCH CORP
CLARKSON UN IV
RENSSELAER COUNTY
SUFFOLK COUNTY
NYC IND TECH ASST CORP
MA
MA
CT
NH
MA
VT
VT
VT
VT
NH
.ME
ME
MA
ME
MA
ME
MA
ME
VT
MA
MA
MA
ME
ME
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NY
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NY
NJ
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
7/12/95
4/ 5/95
5/11/95
6/21/95
7/12/95
7/12/95
8/23/95
8/23/95
8/23/95
4/ 5/95
5/11/95
5/11/95
5/11/95
5/11/95
5/11/95
5/11/95
5/11/95
6/ 1/95
6/ 1/95
6/ 1/95
6/21/95
7/12/95
7/12/95
8/23/95
5/11/95
5/18/95
5/18/95
6/ 2/95
6/ 6/95
6/ 6/95
6/12/95
7/19/95
7/19/95
4/24/95
5/ 1/95
5/ 1/95
5/10/95
6/ 2/95
6/ 2/95
7/13/95
8/10/95
8/10/95
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
46
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
-------
N3HUK5-02-0104-5500199 COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY NY
N3HVK5-02-0169-5500205 PUERTO RICO PR
N3HVK5-02-0170-5500217 PUERTO RICO D. OF HEALTH PR
N3HVK5-02-0171-5500218 PUERTO RICO D. OF HEALTH PR
N3HVK5-02-0172-5500219 PUERTO RICO D. OF HEALTH PR
N3HVK5-02-0173-5500220 PUERTO RICO D. OF HEALTH PR
N3HVK5-02-0174-5500221 PUERTO RICO D. OF HEALTH PR
N3HVK5-02-0175-5500222 PUERTO RICO D. OF HEALTH PR
N3HUK5-02-0178-5500226 SUNY RESEARCH FOUNDATION NY
N3HUK5-02-0167-5500227 RPI NY
TOTAL OF REGION 02 = 28
C3HVK5-03-0342-5500200 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY VA
C3HVK5-03-0341 -5500201 BALTIMORE COUNTY MD
E3BEL4-03-0476-5100485 WEST VIRGINIA UNIV. RES. CORP. WV
G3HUK5-03-0357-5500214 AMERICAN COUNCIL FOR ENERGY DC
G3HUK5-03-0358-5500215 AMERICAN COUNCIL FOR ENERGY DC
N3HVH5-03-0336-5500187 BALTIMORE, CITY OF MD
N3HVH5-03-0337-5500188 BALTIMORE, CITY OF MD
TOTAL OF REGION 03 = 7
C3HVK5-04-0096-5500126 JEFFERSON COUNTY KY
C3HVK5-04-0106-5500138 TAMPA FL
C3HVK5-04-0107-5500152 COLUMBIA SC
C3HVK5-04-0123-5500169 LEXINGTON-FAYETTE COUNTY KY
C3HVK5-04-0124-5500170 COBB COUNTY GA
C3HVK5-04-0129-5500175 NASHVILLE DAVIDSON COUNTY TN
C3HVK5-04-0136-5500194 COBB COUNTY GA
C3HVK5-04-0135-5500195 GREENSBORO NC
C3HVK5-04-0145-5500211 PENSACOLA FL
TOTAL OF REGION 04 = 9
C3HVK5-05-01 16-5500132 RACINE FY 93 WI
C3HVK5-05-01 17-5500133 HAMMOND FY 93 IN
C3HVK5-05-0115-5500134 SPRINGFIELD FY 94 IL
C3HVK5-05-0159-5500183 LANSING FY 94 MI
C3HVK5-05-0158-5500184 GRAND RAPIDS FY 94 MI
C3HVK5-05-0167-5500192 ILLINOIS EPA FY 93/94 IL
E3CML5-05-0101-5100514 MENOMINEE TRIBE FY 94 WI
E3PLD5-05-0134-5400095 CA'S OHIO LUST R5
G3HVJ5-05-0119-5500137 INDIANA DEM FY 93 IN
G3HVK5-05-0168-5500191 ILLINOIS OSFM FY 93/94 IL
G3HVJ5-05-0171 -5500204 WHITLEY CO CS FY 93/94 IN
N3HVJ5-05-01 18-5500136 OHIO ST OF FY 93 OH
N3HVK4-05-0126-5500140 TOLEDO FY 92 OH
N3HVJ5-05-0166-5500193 MICHIGAN DNR FY 92/93 MI
TOTAL OF REGION 05 = 14
C3HVK5- 06- 0045 -5500 166 SAN ANTONIO TX
C3HVJ5-06-0042-5500167 ARKANSAS, DEPT OF POLLUTION AR
C3HVK5-06-0044-5500168 SHREVEPORT LA
N3HVK5-06-0053-5500213 TERRREBONNE PARISH LA
TOTAL OF REGION 06 = 4
C3HVK5-07-0032-5500212 CITY OF KANSAS CITY KS
G3HVK5-07-0033-5500224 CITY OF HUTCHINSON KS
N3HVJ4-07-0079-5500129 STATE OF NEBRASKA NE
N3HVJ5-07-0036-5500225 STATE OF MISSOURI MO
TOTAL OF REGION 07 = 4
C3HVK5-08-0042-5500190 CITY OF SIOUX FALLS SD
C3HVK5-08-0044-5500198 CITY OF SIOUX FALLS SD
C3HVJ5-08-0052-5500210 DEPT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUAL WY
G3HVJ5-08-0041 -5500189 STATE OF WY REVOLVING FUND WY
G3HVJ5-08-0043-5500203 STATE OF WY REVOLVING FUND WY
N3HVJ5-08-0033-5500135 STATE OF UTAH UT
TOTAL OF REGION 08 = 6
G3HVK5-09-0067-5500127 MONTEREY BAY UNIFIED AIR POLCA
8/11/95
8/21/95
9/ 7/95
9/ 7/95
9/ 7/95
9/ 7/95
9/ 7/95
9/ 7/95
9/28/95
9/28/95
8/17/95
8/17/95
9/18/95
9/ 5/95
9/ 5/95
7/26/95
7/26/95
4/ 5/95
5/ 9/95
5/18/95
6/29/95
6/29/95
7/11/95
8/ 2/95
8/ 7/95
8/25/95
5/ 3/95
5/ 3/95
5/ 3/95
7/19/95
7/19/95
7/31/95
9/28/95
8/29/95
5/ 8/95
7/31/95
8/21/95
5/ 5/95
5/10/95
7/31/95
6/26/95
6/26/95
6/26/95
9/ 5/95
8/29/95
9/15/95
4/27/95
9/19/95
7/26/95
8/10/95
8/23/95
7/26/95
8/18/95
5/ 4/95
4/20/95
0
138,800
0
14,272
124,348
8,694
8,694
0
0
0
294,808
0
0
96,043
0
0
93,013
2,288,577
2,477,633
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2,075
0
0
281,679
24,747
10,000
0
0
86,607
405,108
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6,782
0
2,770
0
0
9,552
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
78,265
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
78,265
0
0
0
0
0
o
o
0
0
0
o
o
o
o
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
o
o
0
0
o
o
o
0
0
n
u
n
u
n
u
n
u
n
u
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
o
o
o
o
o
0
0
o
0
o
0
0
n
u
g
0
0
0
0
0
APRIL 1, 1995 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 1995
47
-------
G3HVK5-09-0086-5500161
G3HUK5-09-0098-5500173
G3HVK5-09-0099-5500174
G3HVK5-09-0102-5500182
G3HVK5-09-01 18-5500223
N3HVK5-09-0062-5500123
N3HVK5-09-0097-5500172
TOTAL OF
G3HVJ5-10-0051-5500171
N3HVK5-10-0045-5500162
N3HVK5-10-0059-5500216
FRESNO METROPOLITAN FLOOD
UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII
DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE-HAWAII
CU OF NO MARIANA ISLANDS
DEPT OF WATER, CITY OF LA
ASSOCIATION OF MONTEREY BAY
REPUBLIC OF PALAU KORROR
REGION 09 = 8
STATE OF WASHINGTON
PACIFIC STATES MARINE FISH
CA
HI
HI
CA
CA
PW
WA
OR
TULALIP TRIBES OF WASHINGTONWA
6/ 8/95
7/ 7/95
7/ 7/95
7/13/95
9/ 8/95
4/ 4/95
7/ 6/95
7/ 6/95
6/ 8/95
9/ 5/95
0
1,581
0
493
0
2,579
23,244
27,897
115
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
TOTAL OF REGION 10 =
115
TOTAL OTHER GRANT ASSIGNMENTS
= 107
3,205,561
87,817
5. SUPERFUND GRANT ASSIGNMENTS
E5FFL5-03-0177-5100489 DE COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
TOTAL OF REGION 03 = 1
E5CGL4-04-0036-5100490 FLORIDA DER SF COOP AGR
E5BKL4-04-0243-5100526 CLARK ATLANTA UNIVERSITY
TOTAL OF REGION 04 = 2
E5FGF5-05-0047-5100429 CA'S INDIANA
TOTAL OF REGION 05 = 1
E5BJL4-06-0164-5100491 LAMAR UNIVERSITY
TOTAL OF REGION 06 = 1
E5CKN5-24-0013-5300035 NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIV
TOTAL OF REGION 24 = 1
E5BGP4-09-0196-5400084 TAG ALVISO
S5BGN3-09-0140-5300027 CA DOH-MCCOLL NPL SITE
TOTAL OF REGION 09 = 2
H5BFL5-11-0027-5100487 SF IAG NIEHS FY93
H5BFL5-11-0028-5100488 SF IAG ATSDR FY 93
M5BFL5-11-0025-5100431 SF IAG FY 93 FEMA
M5BFL5-11-0023-5100432 SF IAG FY 93 USGS
M5BFL5-11-0024-5100433 F IAG FY 92&93 BUR OF MINES
TOTAL OF HDQ - HAD REPORTS = 5
DE
FL
GA
R5
TX
NC
CA
CA
9/19/95
9/19/95
9/30/95
7/26/95
9/20/95
9/28/95
7/31/95
8/ 1/95
9/19/95
9/19/95
7/26/95
7/26/95
7/26/95
0
0
30,803
3,002,521
896,548
0
0
0
0
0
220,897
220,897
2,149,111
266,486
3,033,324
0
0
21,536
21,536
35,102
35,102
1,280
895,268
2,415,597
0
0
425,264
425,264
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
11,414
11,414
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
TOTAL SUPERFUND GRANT ASSIGNMENTS
13
3,986,510
3,061,758
11,414
8. OTHER CONTRACT ASSIGNMENTS
D8CML4-01-0053-5100273 NORMANDEAU ASSOCIATES NH 4/11/95
D8DML3-01-0219-5100274 EASTERN RESEARCH GROUP INC. MA 4/11/95
D8BML5-01-0103-5100277 ENSR CONSULTING & ENG. 4/13/95
D8BML5-01-0145-5100382 GRADIENT CORPORATION MA 6/27/95
D8DML3-01-0040-5100384 SIGMA RESEARCH CORP. MA 6/27/95
D8AML5-01-0083-5100388 ASCENSION TECHNOLOGY, INC. MA 6/28/95
D8AML5-01-0115-5100398 SASAKI ASSOCIATES, INC. MA 7/ 5/95
D8AAL5-01-0080-5100406 NATIONAL ECONOMIC RESEARCH MA 7/10/95
D8AML5-01-0130-5100408 H.L. TURNER GROUP INC. NH 7/10/95
D8AML5-01-0127-5100411 CADMUS GROUP INC. MA 7/11/95
D8AML5-01-0122-5100442 METCALF & EDDY MA 8/ 1/95
D8AML5-01-0123-5100443 STONE & WEBSTER ENVIR TECH MA 8/ 1/95
D8AML5-01-0114-5100444 H.L. TURNER GROUP, INC. MA 8/ 2/95
D8AML5-01-0152-5100506 I FIELD TECHNOLOGY 9/27/95
* The dollar value of contract audits has not been shown.
Public disclosure of the dollar value of financial recom-
mendations could prematurely reveal the Government's
negotiating positions or release of this information is
not routinely available under the Freedom of Information
Act. The number of these reports and dollar value of the
findings have been included in the ciggregate data
displayed below. Such data individually excluded in this
listing will be provided to the Congress under separate
memorandum within 30 days of the treinsmittal of the semi-
annual report to the agency head. Ihe transmitted data
will contain appropriate cautions regarding disclosure.
48
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
-------
D8AML5-01-0170-5100507
D8AHL5-01-0167-5100508
D8CML2-01-0037-5100509
D8BMN5-01-0062-5300017
D8EMN5-01-0134-5300018
E8AMP5-01-0624-5400105
DALE W JORGENSON ASSOCIATES MA
INDUSTRIAL ECONOMICS INC. MA
E C JORDAN ME
COST IMPACT-MARTIN MARIETTA
LOCKHEED ENVIR SYSTEM & TECHMA
TRC - RFP#D500047M1
TOTAL OF REGION 01 = 20
9/27/95
9/27/95
9/27/95
6/27/95
6/27/95
9/22/95
D8BML5-02-0122-5100272
D8BML5-02-0119-5100275
D8BML5-02'-0156-5100383
D8CML5-02-0121-5100385
D8BML5-02-0155-5100386
D8AML5-02-0111-5100405
D8DML4-02-0057-5100409
D8AML5-02-0146-5100441
D8EML5-02-0163-5100445
D8AMN5-02-0110-5300022
E8AMP5-02-0524-5400102
TOTAL OF
D8AML5-03-0142-5100278
D8AML5-03-0151 -5100279
D8AML5-03-0129-5100280
D8AML5-03-0132-5100289
D8AML5-03-0143-5100291
D8AML5-03-0147-5100292
D8AML5-03-0144-5100293
D8AML5-03-0149-5100294
D8AML5-03-0160-5100295
D8AML5-03-0131-5100317
D8AML5-03-0168-5100318
D8AML5-03-0174-5100323
D8AML5-03-0140-5100324
D8AML5-03-0152-5100325
D8AML5-03-0159-5100326
D8BML4-03-0425-5100329
D8AML5-03-0175-5100330
D8AML5-03-0162-5100331
D8AML5-03-0170-5100332
D8CBL4-03-0182-5100335
D8AML5-03-0133-5100336
D8AML5-03-0158-5100337
D8AML5-03-0161-5100338
D8AML5-03-0141-5100357
D8AML5-03-0145-5100358
D8AML5-03-0197-5100359
D8AML5-03-0189-5100360
D8AML5-03-0209-5100361
D8AML5-03-0191 -5100362
D8AML5-03-0190-5100363
D8AML5-03-0195-5100364
D8EML5-03-0210-5100365
D8EML5-03-0309-5100376
D8EML5-03-0310-5100377
D8BML4-03-0143-5100378
D8BML5-03-0102-5100390
D8AML5-03-0231-5100391
D8AML5-03-0107-5100393
D8AML5-03-0229-5100394
D8AML5-03-0208-5100396
D8AML5-03-0204-5100397
D8AML5-03-0150-5100421
D8AML5-03-0246-5100422
D8AML5-03-0230-5100423
D8BML4-03-0072-5100424
D8BML3-03-0219-5100425
D8AML5-03-0232-5100436
D8AML5-03-0249-5100437
FOSTER WHEELER CORP. MA
FOSTER WHEELER CORP. NJ
CAMRODEN ASSOCIATES MA
SYRACUSE RESEARCH CORP MA
SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY NY
MECHANICAL TECHNOLOGY INC. NY
SYRACUSE RESEARCH CORP. NY
CROXTON COLLABORATIVE NY
CAMRODEN ASSOCIATES INC. NY
RMS TECHNOLIGIES NJ
ECOLOGY & ENVIR NY
REGION 02 = 11
INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT SERV. VA
ARMSTRONG DATA SERVICES VA
COMPUTER BASED SYSTEMS VA
INFORM. SYSTEMS & NETWORK MD
AVANTI CORPORATION VA
VIGYAN INC. VA
NCI INFORMATION SYSTEMS INC.VA
I-NET INC. MD
AVANTI CORPORATION VA
IMS SERVICES INC. MD
DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY INC. VA
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CORP.VA
OAO CORPORATION MD
ADVANCED RESOURCE TECHNOL. VA
COMPUTER DATA SYSTEMS INC. MD
PACIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL SERV. VA
PARTICLE TECHNOLOGY INC. MD
LABAT ANDERSON INC. VA
SCIENTIFIC CONSULTING GROUP MD
DYN NETWORK MANAGEMENT, INC.VA
CONCEPT AUTOMATION INC. VA
MANAGEMENT TECHNOLOGY INC. MD
MITCHELL SYSTEMS VA
OGDEN GOVERNMENT SERVICES VA
BOEING INFORMATION SERVICES VA
DYN CORP
SCIENTIFIC CONSULTING GROUP MD
SANFORD COHEN & ASSOC., INC.VA
FREEMAN & MATHAL INC. MD
LISBOA ASSOCIATES INC. DC
BERNS & KAY LTD. MD
GANNETT FLEMING, INC. PA
HUGHES STX CORPORATION MD
CONCEPT AUTOMATION INC. VA
UNIVERSITY RESEARCH CORP. MD
MITCHELL SYSTEMS CORPORATIONWV
ENERGETICS INCORPORATED DC
MANTECH ENVIRONMENTAL TECH. VA
ENVIROMANAGEMENT RESEARCH VA
DYNCORP TECHNOLOGY INC. VA
SIGAL ENVIRONMENTAL INC. DC
ANSTEC INC. VA
CONSAD RESEARCH CORPORATION PA
PRINCETON ECONOMICS RESEARCHMD
SCIENTEX CORPORATION VA
UNISYS VA
SOZA AND COMPANY VA
JACA CORPORATION PA
4/11/95
4/11/95
6/27/95
6/27/95
6/27/95
7/10/95
7/10/95
7/31/95
8/ 2/95
7/10/95
9/18/95
4/13/95
4/13/95
4/14/95
4/18/95
4/21/95
4/21/95
4/21/95
4/21/95
4/24/95
5/22/95
5/22/95
5/25/95
5/25/95
5/25/95
5/25/95
5/31/95
5/31/95
5/31/95
5/31/95
6/ 2/95
6/ 2/95
6/ 2/95
6/ 2/95
6/13/95
6/13/95
6/13/95
6/13/95
6/13/95
6/13/95
6/13/95
6/13/95
6/13/95
6/26/95
6/26/95
6/26/95
6/30/95
6/30/95
6/30/95
6/30/95
6/30/95
6/30/95
7/21/95
7/21/95
7/21/95
7/21/95
7/21/95
7/27/95
7/27/95
APRIL 1, 1995 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 1995
49
-------
D8AML5-
D8AML5-
D8BML5-
D8BML5-
D8AML5-
D8AML5-
D8AML5-
D8AML5-
D8AHL5-
D8AML5-
D8AML5-
D8AML5-
D8AML5-
D8AML5-
D8AML5-
03-0239-5100438 SANFORD COHEN & ASSOCIATES VA
03-0245-5100439 SCI COHM INC. MD
03-0304-5100463 UNISYS VA
03-0305-5100464 UNISYS VA
03-0301-5100494 PORTER/NOVELLI DC
03-0308-5100495 EASTERN LABORATORY SERVICE PA
03-0247-5100496 SOCIO RESEARCH APPLICATIONS VA
03-0347-5100497 GEOLOGICS CORPORATION VA
03-0238-5100501 TRAINING RESOURCES INC. VA
03-0302-5100520 R. A. D. C. DC
03-0303-5100521 WASH. OCCUP. HEALTH INC. DC
03-0339-5100522 APOGEE RESEARCH INC. MD
03-0351-5100523 BOOZ ALLEN
03-0338-5100524 INTERNATIONAL RESOURCES GRP.DC
03-0345-5100525 UNIVERSAL SYSTEMS & TECH. VA
TOTAL OF REGION 03 = 63
E8EMP5-22-0075-5400065
E8EMP5-22-0088-5400076
E8AAP5-22-0251-5400079
ICF FIN CAPABILITY
CONTRACT NOVATION AUDIT
ICF-EPA PROPOSAL
ICF
TOTAL OF REGION 22 =
7/27/95
7/27/95
8/17/95
8/18/95
9/22/95
9/22/95
9/22/95
9/22/95
9/22/95
9/29/95
9/29/95
9/29/95
9/29/95
9/29/95
9/29/95
4/24/95
6/19/95
6/29/95
D8AML5- 04 -0076- 5 100263
D8AML5-04-0079-5100264
D8BML5 - 04 - 0099-5 1 00304
D8DML2-04-0288-5100305
D8BML3-04-0188-5100306
D8BML3-04-0023-5100307
D8BML4-04-0170-5100341
D8BML3 - 04 - 0096 - 5 1 00344
D8BML5-04-01 16-5100350
D8BML5-04-0117-5100351
D8CML5-04-0075- 5 100367
D8AML5- 04 -0098- 5 100371
D8DML5-04-01 13-5100373
D8AML5-04-0109-5100401
D8EML5-04-0128-5100403
D8AML5-04-0120-5100416
D8AML5-04-0121-5100417
D8EML5-04-0133-5100418
D8AML5-04-0108-5100450
D8AML5-04-0125-5100451
D8EML5-04-0138-5100456
D8AML5-04-0132-5100457
D8SML5-04-0143-5100467
D8BML5-04-0144-5100468
D8BML5-04-0140-5100469
D8AML5-04-0131 -5100470
D8EML5-04-0146-5100471
D8BML5-04-0141-5100472
D8AML5-04-0090-5100477
D8EML5-04-0147-5100479
D8AML5-04-0142-5100511
H8AML5-04-0070-5100312
H8CML5-04-0040-5100339
H8AML5-04-0071 -51 00342
TOTAL OF
D8AHL5-05-0054-5100254
D8CML3-05-0231 -5100257
D8CML4-05-0088-5100298
D8CML5 - 05 - 0048-5 1 00299
D8AML5-05-0088-5100300
D8AML5-05-0098-5100315
D8CML3-05-0244-5100316
D8AML5-05-01 12-5100366
D8AML5- 05 -01 27-5 100389
D8AML5-05-0142-5100434
D8AML5-05-0139-5100435
D8AWP5-05-0126-5400071
D8EMP5-05-0164-5400082
D8EMP5-05-0136-5400083
D8EMP5 - 05 - 01 38- 5400085
EXPLORATION RESOURCES
TECHNOLOGY PLANNING & MGMT.
ZEDEK CORPORATION
RESEARCH INFO ORGANIZERS
ZEDEK
ZEDEK
SEAWARD SERVICES
ENTROPY ENVIRONMENTALISTS
SEAWARD SERVICES
ENTROPY, INC
MANTECH TECHNOLOGY
PYRAMID RESOURCE GROUP INC
GEOPHEX LTD
AIR QUALITY SCIENCES
AIR QUALITY SCIENCES
APOGEE INTERACTIVE
A&C ENERCOM CONSULTANTS
APOGEE INTERACTIVE
GOBBEL HAYS PARTNERS
EC/R
A&C ENERCOM CONSULTANTS
APPLIED TECHNICAL SERVICES
RESEARCH & EVALUATION ASSOC
RESEARCH & EVALUATION ASSOC
RESEARCH & EVALUATION ASSOC
AMBAC INTERNATIONAL
GOBBELL HAYES PARTNERS
RESEARCH & EVALUATION ASSOC
ELB & ASSOCIATES
APPLIED TECHNICAL SERVICES
ANALYTICAL SCIENCES
RESEARCH TRIANGLE INSTITUTE
RESEARCH TRIANGLE INSTITUTE
GA
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
FL
NC
FL
NC
NC
NC
NC
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
TN
NC
GA
GA
.NC
.NC
.NC
SC
TN
.NC
NC
GA
NC
NC
NC
NORTH CAROLINA UNITERSITY OFNC
REGION 04 = 34
BATTELLE
BABCOCK & WILCOCK
CTC TECH INC FY 92/93
CTC TECH (FY 93 INCURRED)
SUN POWER INC
BATTELLE
BATTELLE
ESE
AUTO TESTING LAB
ARTHUR ANDERSEN
AT KEARNEY
GRACE ANALYTICAL LAB
AT KEARNEY
NORTHERN A-1 SERVICES
SCS ENGINEERS
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
IL
OH
IL
IL
IL
IL
MI
OH
4/ 7/95
4/ 7/95
5/ 9/95
5/ 9/95
5/ 9/95
5/ 9/95
6/ 5/95
6/ 5/95
6/ 5/95
6/ 5/95
6/14/95
6/16/95
6/20/95
7/ 7/95
71 7/95
7/18/95
7/18/95
7/18/95
8/ 9/95
8/ 9/95
8/14/95
8/14/95
8/22/95
8/22/95
8/22/95
8/22/95
8/22/95
8/22/95
8/25/95
8/25/95
9/27/95
5/16/95
6/ 5/95
6/ 5/95
4/ 5/95
4/ 5/95
4/26/95
4/26/95
4/26/95
5/19/95
5/19/95
6/14/95
6/28/95
7/27/95
7/27/95
5/22/95
7/27/95
7/27/95
8/ 1/95
50
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
-------
D8EHP5-05-0137-5400086 PSARA TECHNOLOGIES
D8EMP5-05-0174-5400096 AT KEARNEY
D8EMP5-05-0174-5400097 AT KEARNEY
E8AXP5-05-0133-5400072 PRC EMI
E8AXP5-05-0153-5400088 PRC EMI (INDIAN HEAD)
E8AXP5-05-0163-5400098 PRC EMI
OH
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
8/ 1/95
8/25/95
8/30/95
6/ 6/95
8/ 2/95
9/ 1/95
TOTAL OF REGION 05 = 21
E8ABP5-23-0008-5400069 EQM1
OH
5/ 9/95
TOTAL OF REGION 23 =
D8BML4-06-0094-5100261 LEE WILSON & ASSOCIATES INC NM
D8AML5-06-0030-5100265 FISERVE INC TX
D8BML4-06-0122-5100266 LEE WILSON & ASSOCIATES, INCNM
D8BML3-06-01 16-5100267 LEE WILSON & ASSOC NM
D8CML4-06-0157-5100343 EG&G AUTOMOTIVE RESEARCH TX
D8CML3-06-01 19-5100345 RADIAN CORP. TX
D8CML2-06-0101-5100346 EG&G AUTOMOTIVE RESEARCH TX
D8BML3-06-0077-5100347 SOUTHWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTETX
D8DML2-06-0015-5100349 SOUTHWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE
D8AML5-06-0048-5100478 SOUTHWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTETX
TOTAL OF REGION 06 = 10
D8DML5-07-0015-5100253 MRI MO
D8AML4-07-0077-51 00308 DPRA INCORPORATED KS
D8BPL5-07-0034-5100321 MRI MO
D8BML5-07-0030-5100381 MIDWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE MO
D8CML3-07-0020-5100502 MIDWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE MO
TOTAL OF REGION 07 = 5
D8AML5-08-0038-5100426 INTERA INFO TECH INC CO
D8AML5-08-0036-5100428 ROGERS & ASSOC ENGINEERING CO
D8AML5- 08- 0037- 5 100448 E SOURCE INC CO
D8AML5-08-0038-5100449 INTERA INFO TECH INC CO
D8AML5-08-0037-5100453 E SOURCE INC CO
TOTAL OF REGION 08 = 5
D8AML5-09-0056-5100271 IT PA CA
D8AAL5-09- 0055-51 00285 RESOURCE DECISION PA CA
D8AML5-09-0059-5100296 PHOTOCOMM INC - PA AZ
D8AAL5-09-0061 -5100311 AEROVIRONMENT PA CA
D8AML5-09-0063-5100314 SCS ENGINEERS PA CA
D8AAL5-09-0069-5100327 ACUREX PA CA
D8AAL5- 09- 0066- 5 100356 INDOOR ENVT'L PA CA
D8ABL5-09-0089-5100370 ARIAS RESEARCH PA CA
D8EML5-09-0095-5100399 CH2M CAS CO
D8BML4-09-0151 -5100400 ACUREX CI 1993 CA
D8AML5-09-0085-5100413 RESEARCH MGMT CONSULTANTS PACA
D8AAL5-09-0088-5100430 INDOOR ENVT'L PA CA
D8BML5-09-0079-5100458 AQUA CI 1992-1994 CA
D8BML4-09-0150-5100482 URIBE & ASSOC CI 1992&1993CA
D8AMN5-09-0083-5300019 PIPELINE SYSTEMS PA CA
D8AMN5- 09- 0084 -5300024 IT PA CA
D8AMN5-09-0082-5300025 CLEAN AIR VEHICLE TECH PA CA
D8EMN5-09-0080-5300029 ACUREX FL CA
D8AWN5-09-01 12-5300031 PES PA CA
D8EMN5-09-0125-5300033 IT FU CA
D8AWN5-09-011 1-5300037 TETRA PA CA
D8CMN4-09-0141 -5300038 SAIC FC CA
TOTAL OF REGION 09 = 22
D8AAL5- 10-0035-5100284 PTI ENVT'L PA WA
D8EML5-10-0041-5100303 CH2M CAS OR
D8EML5- 10-0043-5100328 CH2M CAS WA
D8EHL5- 10-0047-5100375 CH2M CAS OR
D8AAN5-10-0034-5300013 STIRLING TECH (PA) WA
D8AAN5-10-0040-5300014 PTI ENVT'L PA WA
D8AMN5-10-0042-5300021 DDB NEEDHAM-ELGIN PA WA
D8AMN5-10-0044-5300023 TRIANGLE ASSOC PA WA
4/ 5/95
4/ 7/95
4/ 7/95
4/ 7/95
6/ 5/95
6/ 5/95
6/ 5/95
6/ 5/95
6/ 5/95
8/25/95
4/ 3/95
5/10/95
5/22/95
6/26/95
9/22/95
7/21/95
7/21/95
8/ 9/95
8/ 9/95
B/ 9/95
4/11/95
4/17/95
4/25/95
5/15/95
5/18/95
5/26/95
6/12/95
6/15/95
7/ 5/95
7/ 7/95
7/13/95
7/26/95
8/15/95
9/13/95
6/30/95
7/11/95
7/12/95
8/29/95
8/30/95
9/26/95
9/28/95
9/29/95
4/17/95
5/ 3/95
5/30/95
6/22/95
4/ 5/95
4/17/95
7/ 6/95
7/10/95
APRIL 1, 1995 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 1995
51
-------
TOTAL OF REGION 10 =
TOTAL OTHER CONTRACT ASSIGNMENTS
= 203
670,885
47,300
876
136,384,403
9. SUPERFUND CONTRACT ASSIGNMENTS
D9AFL5-01-0124-5100412 REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES MA
E9EGP5-01 -0610-5400074 TRC DISCLOSURE STATEMENT CT
TOTAL OF REGION 01 = 2
E9EFP4-02-0158-5400064 ECOLOGY & ENVIR NY
E9AHP5-'02-0414-5400067 MALCOLM PIRNIE INC. NY
E9EGP5-02-0505-5400075 ECOLOGY & ENVIR NY
E9AFP5-02-0415-5400077 MALCOLM PIRNIE INC. NY
E9AFP5-02-0416-5400081 MALCOLM PIRNIE INC. NY
TOTAL OF REGION 02 = 5
D9AFL5-03-0120-5100281 RHOADS ENGINEERING INC. PA
D9AFL5-03-0089-5100290 DELON HAMPTON & ASSOCIATES DC
D9CFL5-03-0050-5100319 ROY F. WESTON PA
D9BFL2-03-0579-5100379 BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON MD
D9BFL4-03-0172-5100380 TECHLAW, INC. VA
D9AFL5-03-0206-5100392 LABAT-ANDERSON, INC. VA
D9CFL3-03-0373-5100395 ROY F. WESTON PA
D9CFL5-03-0331 -5100420 EVALUATION TECHNOLOGIES, INCVA
D9BFL2-03-0415-5100440 COM FEDERAL PROGRAMS VA
D9BFL5-03-0312-5100462 UNISYS VA
D9BFL5-03-0306-5100465 UNISYS VA
D9BFL5-03-0307-5100466 UNISYS VA
D9AFL5-03-0330-5100498 MANTECH ENVIRONMENTAL TECH. VA
D9AFL5-03-0332-5100499 RESOURCE APPLICATIONS, INC. VA
D9AFL5-03-0328-5100500 ROY F. WESTON PA
TOTAL OF REGION 03 = 15
E9EFP3-22-0413-5400066 ICF EDP GEN APPL CNTL SURVEY
E9EFP4-22-0176-5400091 ICF KAISER ENG INC D/S 12/93
E9EFP4-22-0160-5400093 ICF KAISER INTL-CAS 403 RES
E9EFP4-22-0160-5400094 ICF KAISER INTL-CAS 403 RES
E9AFP5-22-0254-5400103 ICF VA
TOTAL OF REGION 22 = 5
D9AGL5-04-0065-5100259 VIROGROUP INC. FL
D9EGL5-04-0097-5100260 VIROGROUP INC. FL
D9AGL5- 04 -0068- 5 100286 HAZCLEAN CORPORATION MS
D9DKL2-04-0318-5100340 FOUR SEASONS INDUSTRIAL SER NC
D9EKL5-04-01 15-5100402 CMC INC. KY
D9AKL5-04-0130-5100461 INTEGRATED LABORATORIES NC
D9BHL3-04-0317-5100480 FOUR SEASONS INDUSTRIAL NC
E9CHN4-04-0227-5300020 EHRT KY
TOTAL OF REGION 04 = 8
D9AKL5-05-0057-5100255 TN ASSOC WI
D9AKL5-05-0058-5100256 ENVIROSCIENCE MN
D9CFL4-05-0021 -5100301 BURLINGTON ENV FY 88/92 IL
E9DKL4-05-0130-5100313 PRC EMI FY 87 IL
E9AKP5-05-0132-5400078 PRC EMI (START) IL
E9AKP5-05-0157-5400092 PRC EMI (AMMSS) IL
E9EKP5-05-0152-5400104 PRC EMI D/S A4 IL
TOTAL OF REGION 05 = 7
D9BGL5-06-0020-5100287 VERTAC-VSC TX
D9AKL5-06-0032-5100288 LOCKHEED ENVIRONMENTAL TX
D9BKL5-06-0040-5100333 H & GCL, INC. NM
D9BGL4-06-01 10-5100334 FLUOR DANIEL, INC. TX
D9BKL4-06-0074-5100348 SOUTHWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTETX
D9AKL5-06-0047-5100452 LOCKHEED ENVIRONMENTAL TX
D9AKL5-06-0046-5100460 LOCKHEED ENVIRONMENTAL TX
7/11/95
6/14/95
4/10/95
4/28/95
6/19/95
6/26/95
7/24/95
4/14/95
4/19/95
5/22/95
6/26/95
6/26/95
6/30/95
6/30/95
7/21/95
7/28/95
8/17/95
8/18/95
8/18/95
9/22/95
9/22/95
9/22/95
4/19/95
8/ 9/95
8/16/95
8/16/95
9/19/95
4/ 5/95
4/ 5/95
4/17/95
6/ 5/95
11 7/95
8/16/95
9/11/95
11 5/95
4/ 5/95
4/ 5/95
4/26/95
5/17/95
6/28/95
8/10/95
9/22/95
4/17/95
4/17/95
5/31/95
5/31/95
6/ 5/95
8/ 9/95
8/15/95
52
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
-------
TOTAL OF REGION 06 = 7
D9AKL5-07-0027-5100352 BLACK AND VEATCH MO
D9CGL4-07-0076-5100354 SVERDRUP CORPORATION MO
D9AGL5- 07-0031 -5 100454 MIDWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE MO
D9DGL3-07-0063-5100492 SVERDRUP CORP-CENTRAL GROUP
D9CGL4-07-0040-5100493 SVERDRUP CORPORATION MO
D9CGL4-07-0076-5100503 SVERDRUP CORPORATION MO
D9CGL4-07-0076-5100504 SVERDRUP CORPORATION MO
D9BJL3-07-0100-5100531 DPRA INC
D9CJL3-07-0162-5100532 DPRA, INC. KS
TOTAL OF REGION 07 = 9
D9AGL5-08-0030-5100282 WESTERN TECHNOLOGY & ENGINEEMT
D9AGL5-08-0029-5100283 MSE, INC MT
D9AKL5-08-0015-5100322 HARRIS GROUP, INC.
D9AGL5-08-0028-5100355 MORRISON KNUDSEN CORP. ENVIRCO
D9AGL5-08-0028-5100387 MORRISON KNUDSEN CORP. ENVIRCO
D9AGL5- 08- 0028- 5 100427 MORRISON KNUDSEN CORP. ENVIRCO
D9AGL5-08-0040-5100473 QUANTERRA ENVIRO. SERVICES CO
D9DGL5-08-0039-5100481 MORRISON KNUDSEN CORP CO
TOTAL OF REGION 08 = 8
D9BGL4-09-0094-5100369 S-CUBED CI 1992-1993 CA
D9AKL5-09-0070-5100374 SAIC PA CA
D9BGL5-09-01 13-5100459 URS CI 1991 CA
D9EGN5-09-01 16-5300030 IT MS CA
TOTAL OF REGION 09 = 4
D9AKL5-10-0031-5100268 OLYMPUS ENVIRO INC PA WA
D9BGL5-10-0013-5100353 SHANNON & WILSON FY 91-93 WA
D9EKN5-10-0033-5300016 MK FIN CAP ID
D9EKN5- 10-0056-5300028 MK MS ID
E9BGL5-10-0024-5100527 CH2M REM IV COSTS INC 85-86 OR
E9BGL5-10-0025-5100533 CH2M TECH I COSTS INC 85-86 OR
E9FHP5- 10-0005-5400106 RES-CAS D/S COMPLIANCE OR
6/ 6/95
6/ 7/95
8/10/95
9/21/95
9/21/95
9/22/95
9/25/95
9/29/95
9/29/95
4/17/95
4/17/95
5/22/95
6/ 9/95
6/27/95
7/21/95
8/23/95
9/12/95
6/15/95
6/20/95
8/15/95
8/29/95
4/ 7/95
6/ 6/95
5/24/95
8/22/95
9/29/95
9/29/95
9/29/95
TOTAL OF REGION 10 =
TOTAL SUPERFUND CONTRACT ASSIGNMENTS
77
10,410,799 1,416,590
17,242,119
TOTAL REPORTS = 449
48,867,295 5,935,893
167,616 155,099,402
APRIL 1,1995 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 1995
53
-------
Appendix 2 -- Reports Issued Without Management Decision
THE INSPECTOR GENERAL ACT REQUIRES A SUMMARY OF EACH AUDIT REPORT ISSUED
BEFORE THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE REPORTING PERIOD FOR WHICH NO MANAGEMENT
DECISION HAS BEEN MADE BY THE END OF THE REPORTING PERIOD (INCLUDING THE DATE
AND TITLE OF EACH SUCH REPORT), AN EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS SUCH MANAGEMENT
DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE, AND A STATEMENT CONCERNING THE DESIRED TIMETABLE
FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION ON EACH SUCH REPORT. (The IG provides the
summary, the date and title of each such report The Agency provides the
explanation of the reasons such management decision has not been made, and a
statement concerning the desired timetable for achieving a management decision
on each such report)
IG Followup Status Codes of Agency's Response at 9/30/95
1 No Response
2. Incomplete Response Received
3 Proposed Response Received Awaiting Final Determination
4 Proposed Response Received in Review Process
5. Final Response Received in Review Process
6. Resolution Under Negotiation in Headquarters
7. Resolution Under Negotiation with Program Office
ASSIGNMENT CONTROL
NUMBER
TITLE
FINAL REPORT
ISSUED
Assistant Administrator for Administration & Resources Management
E3CML3-03-0201-4100523 TEMPLE UNIVERSITY PA 9/15/94
Summary: EPA ERRONEOUSLY AWARDED A COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT TO
TEMPLE UNIVERSITY AND MISMANAGED THE AGREEMENT BY NOT
CONTROLLING EXPENDITURES AND ALLOWING UNAUTHORIZED TRAVEL.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: THE OIG REQUESTED THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL'S OPINION
REGARDING THE USE OF WON-FEDERAL.TRAVEL UNDER COOPERATIVE
AGREEMENTS. THE OFFICE OF GRANTS AND DEBARMENT, OIG, AND OFFICE
OF GENERAL COUNSEL HAVE COORDINATED A REQUEST FOR THE GENERAL
ACCOUNTING OFFICE (GAO) TO PROVIDE ITS OPINION ON THIS AND OTHER
OUTSTANDING ISSUES. THE PROGRAM OFFICE IS WORKING ON RESOLVING
THE REMAINING AUDIT ISSUES WHILE WAITING FOR THE GAO OPINION.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION DATE CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT THIS TIME.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/95 [1]
E1FMG4-13-0061-5400051 1AGS: OFF-LOADING AT EPA HQ 3/31/95
•Summary: EPA OFTEN EXECUTED ECONOMY ACT INTERAGENCY AGREEMENTS
WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE REASONABLENESS OF THEIR COSTS. IN
ADDITION, EPA DID NOT RECOVER ITS FULL COSTS OF PERFORMING WORK
FOR OTHER AGENCIES.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: THE PROGRAM OFFICE CONTINUES TO REVIEW THE AUDIT ISSUES
IDENTIFIED BY THE OIG.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: EXPECT
RESOLUTION BEFORE 3/96.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/95 [1]
E1NMF3-15-0072-5100240 EPA'S MGT OF APPL SOFTWARE MAINT 3/31/95
•Summary: ALTHOUGH EPA HAS TAKEN SIGNIFICANT STEPS TO STRENGTHEN
ITS MANAGEMENT OF APPLICATION SOFTWARE MAINTENANCE, MORE NEEDS TO
BE DONE TO IMPROVE SYSTEM AND SOFTWARE RELIABILITY, COST
EFFECTIVENESS, AND DECISIONS ABOUT OPERATIONAL CHANGES.
ASSIGNMENT CONTROL
NUMBER
TITLE
FINAL REPORT
ISSUED
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
THE PROGRAM OFFICE RESPONDED FORMALLY TO THE AUDIT ON 7/20/95
AGREEING OR PARTIALLY AGREEING WITH ALL RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WERE
NOT WITHDRAWN. OIG REQUESTED ADDITIONAL INFORMATION VIA A MEMO
DATED 9/6/95 IN ORDER TO CLOSE THE AUDIT.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION DATE CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT THIS TIME.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/95 [2]
E1FMF4-19-0618-4100407 UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS KS
6/17/94
•Summary: EPA CIRCUMVENTED ASSISTANCE REGULATIONS AND MISUSED
FEDERAL FUNDS BY AWARDING A COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT TO THE UNIVERSITY
OF KANSAS WHICH INCLUDED INELIGIBLE AND UNNECESSARY COSTS SUCH AS
TRAVEL, ALCOHOL, AND ENTERTAINMENT.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
THE OIG REQUESTED THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL'S OPINION REGARDING THE
USE OF NON-FEDERAL TRAVEL UNDER COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS. THE OFFICE
OF GRANTS AND DEBARMENT, OIG, AND OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL HAVE
COORDINATED A REQUEST FOR THE GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE
(GAO) TO PROVIDE ITS OPINION ON THIS AND OTHER OUTSTANDING ISSUES.
THE PROGRAM OFFICE IS WORKING ON RESOLVING 1HE REMAINING AUDIT
ISSUES WHILE WAITING FOR THE GAO OPINION.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION DATE CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT THIS TIME.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/95 [4]
E1AMF4-20-7002-5100209 EPA'S COLLECTION OF USER FEES 3/27/95
•Summary: EPA HAS NOT AGGRESSIVELY PURSUED USER FEE OPPORTUNITIES
AND HAS COLLECTED ONLY $22 MILLION OF THE CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED
$148 MILLION IN NEW USER FEES THROUGH FISCAL 1994.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
SEVERAL PROGRAM OFFICES RECENTLY CONDUCTED AN INVENTORY OF EXISTING
USER FEES, AND AREAS FOR POTENTIAL NEW FEES. THE OFFICE OF
COMPLIANCE, IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE PROGRAM OFFICES, IS WORKING TO
ANALYZE AND EVALUATE THIS INFORMATION. A PLAN FOR CORRECTIVE ACTION
TO ADDRESS ALL THE USER FEE ISSUES IDENTIFIED IN THE OIG AUDIT WAS
CIRCULATED TO THE PROGRAM OFFICES FOR THEIR REVIEW BY
54
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
-------
ASSIGNMENT CONTROL
NUMBER
TITLE
9/30/95.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION DATE CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT THIS TIME.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/95 [1]
Contracts Management Division - RTP
D8AML4-01-0129-4100429 ARTHUR D. LITTLE
FINAL REPORT ASSIGNMENT CONTROL
ISSUED NUMBER
TITLE
FINAL REPORT
ISSUED
MA
6/27/94
*Sunmary: PREAWARD UNDER NEGOTIATION
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: A.D. LITTLE IS A SUBCONTRACTOR TO VERSAR. VERSAR SUBMITTED
A BID WHICH WAS UNSUCCESSFUL. AN AWARD WAS MADE ON THIS REQUEST
FOR PROPOSAL ON 9/30/94 TO RADIAN CORP, CONTRACT 68D40092. THE
CONTRACT SPECIALIST DID NOT PROVIDE A COPY OF THE RECORD OF
PROCUREMENT ACTION TRANSMITTAL LETTER TO THE COST ADVISORY STAFF.
THE CONTRACT FILE HAS BEEN TRANSFERRED TO HEADQUARTERS OFFICE OF
ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION DATE CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT THIS TIME.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/95 [1]
D8DML5-01-0023-5100246 ABB POWER LABORATORIES CT 3/30/95
*Summary: BASED ON THE CONTRACTOR'S DECEMBER 1993 ESTIMATE TO
COMPLETE AND ACTUAL COST INCURRED THROUGH OCTOBER 1994 THERE IS A
BALANCE OF $67,444.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: THE CONTRACT SPECIALIST HAS THE DEFENSE CONTRACT AUDIT
AGENCY'S AUDIT REPORT AND THE EPA CONTRACT.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
ANTICIPATES RESOLUTION OF THE AUDIT REPORT BY 12/31/95.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/95 [1]
D8CML5-02-0018-5100237 MATHTECH INC. NJ
3/30/95
•Summary: ALL COSTS CLAIMED ARE ALLOWABLE HOWEVER THERE IS AN
ADJUSTMENT TO THE FEE BECAUSE THE LEVEL OF EFFORT WAS NOT
OBTAINED.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: CLOSEOUT AUDIT REQUESTED 10/3/94; AUDIT RECEIVED 1/10/95.
BECAUSE OF STAFFING REDUCTIONS, THE AUDIT IS AWAITING TRANSMISSION
FROM CONTRACTOR SUPPORT AND POLICY BRANCH TO CONTRACT CLOSEOUT
STAFF.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
CLOSEOUT OF CONTRACT BY 9/30/96.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/95 [1]
D8CPL2-03-0432-2100620
MIRANDA ASSOCIATES INC DC
EXPECT
9/16/92
Summary: DCAA QUESTIONED $278,979 DUE TO (1) THE LIMITATIONS OF
FUNDS CLAUSE, (2) OVERSTATED OVERHEAD COSTS, AND (3) A
COMPUTATIONAL ERROR.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: CONTRACTING OFFICER'S DECISION HAS BEEN COMPLETED.
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WAS REACHED AND SIGNED BY BOTH PARTIES:
MIRANDA ASSOCIATES, INC. 8/23/95 AND U.S. EPA ON 8/25/95. ON
10/5/95 THE CONTRACTING OFFICER RECONCILED THE FINAL
SETTLEMENT IN A MEMORANDUM.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
ANTICIPATE RESOLUTION BY 11/30/95.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/95 [1]
D8EML4-03-0498-4100557 QUANTECH, INC.
VA
9/23/94
*Summary: SOME OF THE CONTRACTOR'S ESTIMATING PRACTICES REQUIRE
CORRECTIVE ACTION TO IMPROVE THE RELIABILITY OF THEIR FUTURE COST
ESTIMATES.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
THE MANAGEMENT DECISION WAS MADE ON THIS AUDIT ON 2/3/95. CONTRACT
68D50008 WAS AWARDED TO BATTELLE. QUANTECH, INC. IS A
SUBCONTRACTOR ON THIS CONTRACT. THIS IS AN OFFICE OF PREVENTION,
PESTICIDES, AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTRACT WHICH WAS AWARDED AT THE
PROGRAM OFFICE THEN TRANSFERRED TO EPA HEADQUARTERS.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION DATE CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT THIS TIME.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/95 [1]
D8AML5-03-0041-5100178 TASCON INC. MD
•Summary: PREAWARD UNDER NEGOTIATION
2/10/95
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
THE CONTRACT ON THIS REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL WAS AWARDED 9/95. THE
NOTIFICATION LETTERS HAVE NOT YET BEEN SENT TO DEFENSE CONTRACT
AUDIT AGENCY OR THE DIG. THIS OFFEROR WAS SUCCESSFUL.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION DATE CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT THIS TIME.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/95 [1]
D8BML3-04-0282-3100207 SYSTEMS RESEARCH & DEV. NC
•Summary:
6/ 4/93
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
THE REPORT COVERS DIRECT AND INDIRECT COSTS FOR CALENDAR YEAR 1988.
COST QUESTIONED ON TWO CONTRACTS. CONTRACTOR HAS AN APPROVED
BANKRUPTCY PLAN. ANY RECOVERY MUST BE ESTABLISHED THROUGH THE
COURT.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: FINAL
RESOLUTION EXPECTED BY 7/1/96.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/95 [1]
D8AML5-04-0025-5100074 INTEGRATED LABORATORY SYSTEM NC 11/14/94
•Summary: PREAWARD UNDER NEGOTIATION
. - EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
THE CONTRACT WAS AWARDED ON THIS REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL ON 9/95. THE
NOTIFICATION HAS NOT BEEN SENT TO DEFENSE CONTRACT AUDIT AGENCY OR
THE DIG YET. THIS OFFEROR WAS UNSUCCESSFUL.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION DATE CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT THIS TIME.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/95 [5]
D8AMN4-09-0230-4300048 SAIC PA CA
•Summary: PREAWARD UNDER NEGOTIATION
9/19/94
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
AN AWARD HAS BEEN MADE ON THIS REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL TO ANOTHER
OFFEROR-SYRACUSE RESEARCH ON 1/30/95. CONTRACT SPECIALIST
ERRONEOUSLY DID NOT PROVIDE DEFENSE CONTRACT AUDIT AGENCY, DIG,
AND COST ADVISORY STAFF WITH A COPY OF THE TRANSMITTAL LETTER. THE
APRIL 1, 1995 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 1995
55
-------
ASSIGNMENT CONTROL
NUMBER
TITLE
FINAL REPORT
ISSUED
ASSIGNMENT CONTROL
NUMBER
CONTRACT IS AN OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES, AND TOXIC
SUBSTANCES AWARD AND HAS BEEN TRANSFERRED TO EPA HEADQUARTERS.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION DATE CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT THIS TIME.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/95 [1]
P8CMP2-23-0180-3400071
PEI ASSOC OH 8/25/93
Summary: UNSUPPORTED LABOR AND TRAVEL COSTS OF $332,746 WERE
QUESTIONED DUE TO INADEQUATE DOCUMENTATION. WE ALSO QUESTIONED AS
INELIGIBLE $513 BECAUSE OF LACK OF SUPPORT FOR INTER-COMPANY
TRANSACTIONS.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: EPA LETTER DATED 3/1/94 ADVISED CONTRACTOR OF COST
QUESTIONED AND REQUESTED REFUND OR SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION. THE
CONTRACTOR LETTER DATED 3/29/94 ADVISED THAT SUPPORTING DATA WAS
AVAILABLE. EPA LETTER DATED 4/12/94 REQUESTED DIG TO
REVIEW NEW DATA AND PROVIDE REVISED AUDIT REPORT. CURRENTLY
AWAITING OIG RESPONSE.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION DATE CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT THIS TIME.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/95 [3]
P8CMP2-23-0176-3400072
PEI ASSOC
OH
8/26/93
Summary: QUESTIONED $839,416 OF UNSUPPORTED LABOR AND TRAVEL
COSTS THAT COULD NOT BE SUPPORTED BY ADEQUATE DOCUMENTATION.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: EPA LETTER DATED 3/1/94 ADVISED CONTRACTOR OF COST
QUESTIONED AND REQUESTED REFUND OR SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION. THE
CONTRACTOR LETTER DATED 3/29/94 ADVISED THAT SUPPORTING DATA WAS
AVAILABLE. EPA LETTER 4/12/94 REQUESTED OIG TO REVIEW NEW DATA
AND PROVIDE REVISED AUDIT REPORT. CURRENTLY AWAITING OIG
RESPONSE.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION DATE CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT THIS TIME.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/95 [3]
P8CMP2-23-0181-3400074 PEI ASSOC OH
8/27/93
•Summary: QUESTIONED UNSUPPORTED LABOR AND TRAVEL OF $40,498 DUE
TO MISSING DOCUMENTATION. WE ALSO QUESTIONED AS INELIGIBLE $254
DUE TO LACK OF SUPPORT FOR INTERCOMPANY TRANSACTIONS.
-EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
EPA LETTER DATED 3/1/94 ADVISED CONTRACTOR OF COST QUESTIONED AND
REQUESTED REFUND OR SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION. THE CONTRACTOR
LETTER DATED 3/29/94 ADVISED THAT SUPPORTING DATA WAS AVAILABLE.
EPA LETTER DATED 4/12/94 REQUESTED OIG TO REVIEW NEW DATA AND
PROVIDE REVISED AUDIT REPORT. CURRENTLY AWAITING OIG RESPONSE.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION DATE CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT THIS TIME.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/95 [3]
P8CMP2-23-0177-3400077 PEI ASSOC OH
9/ 1/93
Summary: INADEQUATE ACCOUNTING SYSTEM RESULTED IN COST QUESTIONED
INELIGIBLE OF $20,359. MISSING DOCUMENTATION RESULTED IN
$1 863,579 OF QUESTIONED UNSUPPORTED COSTS. WE ALSO QUESTIONED
$l'992*AS INELIGIBLE DUE TO LACK OF SUPPORT FOR INTERCOMPANY
TRANSACTIONS.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: EPA LETTER DATED 3/1/94 ADVISED CONTRACTOR OF COST
TITLE
FINAL REPORT
ISSUED
QUESTIONED AND REQUESTED REFUND OR SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION. THE
CONTRACTOR LETTER DATED 3/29/94 ADVISED THAT SUPPORTING DATA WAS
AVAILABLE. EPA LETTER DATED 4/12/94 REQUESTED OIG TO REVIEW NEW
DATA AND PROVIDE REVISED AUDIT REPORT. CURRENTLY AWAITING OIG
RESPONSE.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION DATE CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT THIS, TIME.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/95 [3]
P8CMP2-23-0179-3400082 PEI ASSOC OH
9/ 3/93
Summary: INADEQUATE ACCOUNTING SYSTEM RESULTED IN COST QUESTIONED
INELIGIBLE OF $35,443. MISSING DOCUMENTATION RESULTED IN
UNSUPPORTED COSTS OF $512,794.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
EPA LETTER DATED 3/1/94 ADVISED CONTRACTOR OF COST QUESTIONED AND
REQUESTED REFUND OR SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION!. THE CONTRACTOR
LETTER DATED 3/29/94 ADVISED THAT SUPPORTING DATA WAS AVAILABLE.
EPA LETTER DATED 4/12/94 REQUESTED OIG TO REVIEW NEW DATA AND
PROVIDE REVISED AUDIT REPORT. CURRENTLY AWAITING OIG
RESPONSE.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION DATE CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT THIS; TIME.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/95 [3]
E8CMP2-23-0178-5400001
PEI ASSOC
OH
10/ 3/94
Summary: WE QUESTIONED $175,940 OF UNSUPPORTED LABOR AND
ASSOCIATED OVERHEAD COSTS. WE ALSO QUESTIONED $52,181 OF
INELIGIBLE OVERHEAD COSTS BILLED IN EXCESS OF NEGOTIATED INDIRECT
RATES.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
CLOSEOUT AUDIT REQUESTED JUNE 3, 1994; AUDIT RECEIVED 10/11/94.
BECAUSE OF STAFFING REDUCTIONS, THE AUDIT IS AWAITING TRANSMISSION
FROM CONTRACTOR SUPPORT AND POLICY BRANCH TO CONTRACT CLOSEOUT
STAFF.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: CLOSEOUT
OF AUDIT EXPECTED BY 9/30/96.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/95 [1]
E8CMP3-23-0014-5400009 PEI ASSOC
•Summary:
OH
10/18/94
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
CLOSEOUT AUDIT REQUESTED 7/20/93; AUDIT RECEIVED 10/24/94. BECAUSE
OF STAFFING REDUCTIONS, THE AUDIT IS AWAITING TRANSMISSION FROM
CONTRACTOR SUPPORT AND POLICY BRANCH TO THE CONTRACT CLOSEOUT
STAFF.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION DATE CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT THIS TIME.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/95 [1]
Grants Administration Division
E3CBP4-04-0252-4400116 REVIEW OF CA WITH NELHA- HI 9/29/94
•Summary:
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
THE PROGRAM OFFICE IS REVIEWING AUDIT FINDINGS.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
ANTICIPATE FINAL RESOLUTION BY 1/31/96.
56
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
-------
ASSIGNMENT CONTROL
NUMBER
TITLE
FINAL REPORT
ISSUED
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/95 [1]
E6EML4-07-0023-4100581
FAIRBURY NE
9/30/94
Summary: THE GRANT/LOAN WAS AWARDED FOR ASBESTOS ABATEMENT IN TWO
FAIRBURY SCHOOLS. WE DETERMINED THAT THE GRANTEE CLAIMED AN
UNREASONABLE AMOUNT FOR ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS. THE GRANTEE CLAIMED
INELIGIBLE ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION COSTS.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: AUDIT INVOLVES SEVERAL COMPLEX ISSUES AS A RESULT OF
CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS TAKEN AGAINST A CONTRACTOR UNDER THE PROJECT.
THE PROGRAM OFFICE IS CURRENTLY AWAITING SOME INFORMATION FROM THE
OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL BEFORE ISSUING FINAL DETERMINATION.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION EXPECTED BY 1/31/96.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/95 [1]
E6EML4-07-0022-4100582 OGALALLA NE
*Summary:
9/30/94
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: AUDIT INVOLVES SEVERAL COMPLEX ISSUES AS A RESULT OF
CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS TAKEN AGAINST A CONTRACTOR UNDER THE PROJECT.
THE PROGRAM OFFICE IS CURRENTLY AWAITING INFORMATION FROM THE
OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL BEFORE ISSUING FINAL DETERMINATION.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION EXPECTED BY 1/31/96.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/95 [1]
E3CBL3-08-0088-4100497 MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY MT 8/23/94
Summary: THE COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS WERE USED TO FUND AN EPA
EMPLOYEE'S ADVANCED EDUCATION CONTRARY TO THE PURPOSE OF THE
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL PERSONNEL ACT
AGREEMENT.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: THE PROGRAM OFFICE CANNOT RESOLVE AUDIT FINDINGS UNTIL THE
DIG FINISHES ITS ONGOING INVESTIGATION.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION DATE CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT THIS TIME.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/95 [1]
ASSIGNMENT CONTROL
NUMBER
TITLE
FINAL REPORT
ISSUED
INCURRED AFTER CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION DATE.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
SINCE OVER $13 MILLION OF COSTS WERE QUESTIONED, THE PROGRAM OFFICE
PROVIDED THE CITY WITH ADDITIONAL TIME TO SUBMIT SUPPORTING
DOCUMENTATION. ALSO, DUE TO RELATED LEGAL ISSUES, ASSISTANCE WAS
NECESSARY FROM OFFICE OF REGIONAL COUNSEL.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: DECISION
DATE IS EXPECTED PRIOR TO THE END OF THIS CALENDAR YEAR.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/95 [3]
E2BWL5-05-0136-7000980 SAUGET IL
3/31/87
Summary: WE QUESTIONED OVER $7 MILLION FOR INELIGIBLE AND
UNNECESSARY PROJECT COSTS.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
THE REGION ISSUED A PROPOSED FINAL DETERMINATION TO THE DIG ON
3/22/94. ON 4/6/94, OIG AGREED WITH THE PROPOSED ACTIONS ON ALL
MATTERS EXCEPT DECISION TO ACCEPT THE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE
TRANSFER SEWERAGE. THE LOCAL OIG HAS ELEVATED DISAGREEMENT TO
HEADQUARTERS OIG.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION DATE CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT THIS TIME.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/95 [6]
E2CWL2-23-0299-4100539
ALLOUEZ TWP
WI
9/22/94
Summary: THE GRANTEE CLAIMED $413,271 OF INELIGIBLE CONSTRUCTION
AND LAND ACQUISITION COSTS, $127,798 INELIGIBLE
ARCHITECT/ENGINEERING (A/E) COSTS. THE GRANTEE DID NOT ADJUST ITS
CLAIMS FOR $34,655 PRIOR AUDITED INELIGIBLE COST, AND UNSUPPORTED
A/E COSTS OF $272,489.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
THE MANAGEMENT DECISION IS DELAYED PENDING PROGRAM RESPONSE BASED
ON PROJECT FILE INFORMATION. PRELIMINARY DETERMINATION WAS ISSUED
ON 9/20/95.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
MANAGEMENT DECISION DATE IS EXPECTED BY 11/30/95.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/95 [2]
QAM Cost Advisory and Financial Analysis Division
Cost Review and Rate Negotiation Branch
E1FBF3-10-0069-4100214 AUDIT OF CO-OPS/IAGS ERL-C OR 3/21/94 D8DML3-01-0038-5100055 ABB ENVIRONMENT SERVICES ME 11/ 3/94
•Summary: ERL-C DIDN'T ALWAYS COMPLY WITH FGCA ACT & EPA
GUIDANCE. SEVEN OF 18 GRANTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONTRACTS AND 2
GRANTS WERE INAPPROPRIATELY USED. THREE OF 6 IAGS WERE FOR
MULTIPLE INSTEAD OF DISTINCT PROJECTS. SOME IAG COSTS WERE
OVERPAID OR UNRECOVERED.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: THE PROGRAM OFFICE IS CURRENTLY REVIEWING THE COMMENTS
RECEIVED FROM THE OIG IN RESPONSE TO THE PROPOSED FINAL DECISION.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION BY 1/31/96.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/95 [2]
Grants Financial Management - Region 5
EXPECT
•Summary: DCAA QUESTIONED $24,496 OF THE PROPOSED ENGINEERING
OVERHEAD EXPENSES AND $232,141 OF THE PROPOSED GENERAL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES. DCAA ALSO QUESTIONED $32,299 OF DIRECT
TRAVEL EXPENSES CLAIMED UNDER GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS RELATING TO
EXCESS PER DIEM.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
THE DEFENSE CONTRACT AUDIT AGENCY AUDIT OF THE CORPORATE GENERAL
AND ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS NEEDS TO BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO COMPLETING
NEGOTIATIONS.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION DATE CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT THIS TIME.
E2CWL9-05-0262-3100397
FLINT MI
9/30/93
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/95 [7]
E8EMN3-01-0282-5300008 TRC FY 94 FLOORCHECK CT
2/24/95
Summary: FLINT CLAIMED $2.8 MILLION UNNECESSARY/UNREASONABLE
COSTS INCURRED TO RENEGOTIATE A CONTRACT. FLINT CLAIMED
$10,416,828 UNSUPPORTED COSTS FOR ADMINISTRATION, ENGINEERING AND
CONSTRUCTION. WE QUESTIONED $415,339 INELIGIBLE ENGINEERING COSTS
•Summary: CONTRACTOR'S TIMEKEEPING POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
GENERALLY ASSURE RELIABILITY AND INTEGRITY OF DAILY LABOR
TRANSACTIONS AND PROCEDURES.
APRIL 1, 1995 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 1995
57
-------
ASSIGNMENT CONTROL
NUMBER
TITLE
FINAL REPORT
ISSUED
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: ISSUES HAVE BEEN RESOLVED. DIG CLOSED IN TRACKING SYSTEM
10/5/95.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: THIS
AUDIT IS CLOSED.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/95 [5]
P9BGL1-02-0155-5100122 ECOLOGY & ENVIR NY 12/23/94
•Summary: WITH THE EXCEPTION OF SELLING, GENERAL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE RATES, NO EXCEPTION TO THE CONTRACTOR'S PROPOSED
INDIRECT COST RATES WERE NOTED.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: AUDIT INVOLVES A NUMBER OF COMPLEX ISSUES WHICH WILL
REQUIRE ADDITIONAL TIME TO RESOLVE.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
ANTICIPATE NEGOTIATIONS TO BE CONCLUDED BY 1/31/96.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/95 [1]
P9DGL1-02-0154-5100125 ECOLOGY & ENVIR NY 12/28/94
•Summary: WITH THE EXCEPTION OF SELLING, GENERAL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE RATES, NO EXCEPTION TO THE CONTRACTOR'S PROPOSED
INDIRECT COST RATES WERE NOTED.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: AUDIT INVOLVES A NUMBER OF COMPLEX ISSUES WHICH WILL
REQUIRE ADDITIONAL TIME TO RESOLVE.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
NEGOTIATIONS ANTICIPATED TO BE COMPLETED BY 1/31/96.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/95 [1]
D9BKL3-04-0034-3100010 EHRT ICY 10/ 9/92
•Summary:
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: NEGOTIATIONS WERE SUSPENDED DUE TO OTHER MATTERS CONCERNING
THE CONTRACTOR. NEGOTIATIONS HAVE RESUMED. THERE ARE MANY
COMPLEX ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED BUT A NEGOTIATED SETTLEMENT CAN BE
REACHED. DIFFICULT TO CONTACT AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION ANTICIPATED BY 11/30/95.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS Of 9/30/95 [1]
E8DML3-04-0260-4100357 EHRT KY 6/ 2/94
•Summary:
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: NEGOTIATIONS WERE SUSPENDED DUE TO OTHER MATTERS CONCERNING
THE CONTRACTOR. NEGOTIATIONS HAVE RESUMED. THERE ARE MANY
COMPLEX ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED BUT A NEGOTIATED SETTLEMENT CAN BE
REACHED. DIFFICULT TO CONTACT AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION ANTICIPATED BY 11/30/95.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/95 [1]
D9BKL5-04-0077-5100193 MANTECH TECHNOLOGY NC 2/24/95
•Summary:
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: AUDIT RESULTS CONTAIN COMPLEX ISSUES WHICH REQUIRE
EXTENSIVE DISCUSSIONS. HOWEVER, A NEGOTIATED SETTLEMENT IS
POSSIBLE.
ASSIGNMENT CONTROL
NUMBER '_
TITLE
FINAL REPORT
ISSUED
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: EXPECT
RESOLUTION BY 1/31/96.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/95 [1]
D9BKL5-04-0078-5100194 MANTECH TECHNOLOGY NC 2/24/95
•Summary:
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
AUDIT RESULTS CONTAIN COMPLEX ISSUES WHICH REQUIRE EXTENSIVE
DISCUSSION. HOWEVER, A NEGOTIATED SETTLEMENT IS POSSIBLE.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: EXPECT
RESOLUTION BY 1/31/96.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/95 [1]
E9DKL4-05-0064-5100079 PRC EMI FY 92 IL 11/17/94
Summary: WE RECOMMENDED A FRINGE RATE OF 40.07 PERCENT AND AN
OVERHEAD RATE OF 33.59 PERCENT. WE DID NOT RECOMMEND A M&A RATE
BECAUSE OF UNAUDITED COSTS.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
THE DEFENSE CONTRACT AUDIT AGENCY AUDIT OF THE CORPORATE GENERAL
AND ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS AND THE OIG AUDIT OF INCURRED DIRECT COSTS
NEED TO BE COMPLETED BEFORE NEGOTIATIONS CAN BE COMPLETED.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION DATE CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT THIS: TIME.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/95 [1]
S5DGN2-09-0047-4300033 CA DEPT OF HLTH 1CRP CA 3/31/94
•Summary:
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
THERE ARE COMPLEX ISSUES WHICH WILL TAKE MUCH DISCUSSION; HOWEVER,
A NEGOTIATED SETTLEMENT IS POSSIBLE.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: EXPECT
RESOLUTION BY 1/31/96.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/95 [1]
D8FMN5-09-0028-5300007 EERC FL CA 1/18/95
•Summary: DCAA FOUND EERC'S TIMEKEEPING PRACTICES, INTERNAL
CONTROLS AND WRITTEN POLICIES AND PROCEDURES INADEQUATE IN SOME
RESPECTS.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
CORRECT ACTION OFFICIAL NOT IDENTIFIED UNTIL 9/25/95. OIG
CURRENTLY REVIEWING TO DETERMINE IF REMOVAL FROM THE TRACKING
SYSTEM IS APPROPRIATE SINCE THE RESULTS OF THE AUDIT ARE TO BE
APPLIED TO A FUTURE AUDIT.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION DATE CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT THIS TIME.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/95 [1]
D9FGP5-09-0019-5400003 CET MS CA 10/ 4/94
•Summary: CET'S POLICIES, PROCEDURES, AND PRACTICES WERE NOT IN
COMPLIANCE WITH GAAP: NO INVENTORY CONTROL SYSTEM OVER PURCHASES,
NO SEPARATION OF DUTIES FOR PURCHASING AND RECEIVING FUNCTIONS.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
CORRECT ACTION OFFICIAL NOT IDENTIFIED UNTIL 9/25/95. APPROPRIATE
ACTION TO BE TAKEN IMMEDIATELY.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION EXPECTED BY 12/31/95.
58
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
-------
ASSIGNMENT CONTROL
NUMBER
TITLE
FINAL REPORT
ISSUED
ASSIGNMENT CONTROL
NUMBER
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/95 [1]
D9FGP5-09-0020-5400004 GET FL CA 10/ 4/94
*Surmary: CET'S LABOR CHARGING AND TIMEKEEPING PRACTICES ARE
DEFICIENT. SOME EMPLOYEES WERE NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH GAAP AND
CET ESTABLISHED POLICIES AND PROCEDURES.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: CORRECT ACTION OFFICIAL NOT IDENTIFIED UNTIL 9/25/95.
APPROPRIATE ACTION TO BE TAKEN IMMEDIATELY.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION EXPECTED BY 12/31/95.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/95 [1]
P8BMPO-23-0422-2400046 PEI ASSOC FY 90
OH
6/ 2/92
•Summary: WE QUESTIONED AS INELIGIBLE $91,483 OF COSTS BILLED IN
EXCESS OF COSTS INCURRED UNDER VARIOUS EPA CONTRACTS.
ADDITIONALLY, THE 1990 INDIRECT RATES HAVE NOT BEEN NEGOTIATED AND
FINALIZED.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: QUESTIONED DIRECT COSTS HAVE BEEN REFERRED TO THE
APPROPRIATE CONTRACTING OFFICERS. THE QUESTIONED DIRECT COSTS
WILL BE RESOLVED ON A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS AS THE INDIVIDUAL
CONTRACTS ARE CLOSED OUT.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: THE
CONTRACT CLOSE-OUTS ARE IN PROGRESS.
IG FOLLOW UP STATUS AS OF 9/30/95 [1]
P8BMP1-23-0335-2400073 PEI ASSOC FY 85
OH
9/ 9/92
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
CONTRACT CLOSE-OUTS ARE IN PROGRESS.
THE
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/95 [1]
P8BMPO-23-0175-3400053 PEI ASSOC FY 86
OH
5/14/93
Summary: WE QUESTIONED AS INELIGIBLE.$940,755: 53 PERCENT WAS DUE
TO COST BILLED IN EXCESS OF WHAT WAS INCURRED. THE REMAINING 47
PERCENT WAS THE ADJUSTMENT OF INDIRECT RATES TO ACTUAL.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: QUESTIONED DIRECT COSTS HAVE BEEN REFERRED TO THE
TITLE
FINAL REPORT
ISSUED
APPROPRIATE CONTRACTING OFFICERS. THE QUESTIONED DIRECT COSTS WILL
BE RESOLVED ON A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS AS THE INDIVIDUAL CONTRACTS ARE
CLOSED OUT.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
CONTRACT CLOSE-OUTS ARE IN PROGRESS.
THE
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/95 [1]
P8BMPO-23-0177-3400062 PEI ASSOC FY 87/88 OH
6/14/93
Summary: THE REVIEW FOUND $224,781 OF INELIGIBLE AND $195,886 OF
UNSUPPORTED COSTS.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: QUESTIONED DIRECT COSTS HAVE BEEN REFERRED TO THE
APPROPRIATE CONTRACTING OFFICERS. THE QUESTIONED DIRECT COSTS
WILL BE RESOLVED ON A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS AS THE INDIVIDUAL
CONTRACTS ARE CLOSED OUT.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: THE
CONTRACT CLOSE-OUTS ARE IN PROGRESS.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/95 [1]
P8BMP1-23-0339-3400050 PEI ASSOC FY 89 OH 5/13/93
Sunroary: THE QUESTIONED COSTS DO NOT REFLECT AN ADJUSTMENT FOR
INDIRECT COSTS. INELIGIBLE COSTS OF $284,000 ARE DUE TO AN
INADEQUATE BILLING SYSTEM. UNSUPPORTED COSTS OF $530,000 WERE DUE
TO INTER-COMPANY TRANSFERS.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: QUESTIONED DIRECT COSTS HAVE BEEN REFERRED TO THE
APPROPRIATE CONTRACTING OFFICERS. THE QUESTIONED DIRECT COSTS
WILL BE RESOLVED ON A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS AS THE INDIVIDUAL
CONTRACTS ARE CLOSED OUT.
Suirmary: WE QUESTIONED AS INELIGIBLE $759,941 OF COST BILLED BUT
NOT INCURRED. WE ALSO QUESTIONED AS UNSUPPORTED $1,224,486, 48
PERCENT OF WHICH WAS DUE TO USING CATALOG PRICES. COSTS WERE NOT
ADJUSTED FOR AUDITED INDIRECT RATES.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
QUESTIONED DIRECT COSTS HAVE BEEN REFERRED TO THE APPROPRIATE
CONTRACTING OFFICERS. THE QUESTIONED DIRECT COSTS WILL RESOLVED ON
A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS AS THE INDIVIDUAL CONTRACTS ARE CLOSED OUT.
THE CONTRACT CLOSE-OUTS ARE IN PROGRESS. UNSUPPORTED COSTS IN THE
AMOUNT OF $626,555 HAVE BEEN RESOLVED UNDER CONTRACT NO.
68-01-7084.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION DATE CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT THIS TIME.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/95 [2]
QAM Cost Advisory and Financial Analysis Division
Financial Analysis Branch
P9DGL2-01-0237-5100135 TRC ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULT. CT 1/ 9/95
*Summary: WE QUESTIONED COSTS OF $635,019 (FEDERAL SHARE =
$72,048).
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
RATE AGREEMENT HAS BEEN ISSUED FOR INDIRECT COSTS. DIRECT COST
ISSUES ARE BEING PROCESSED.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION EXPECTED BY 12/31/95.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/95 [1]
P8BMN1-03-0146-2300014 O&R MANAGEMENT CORPORATION MD 11/ 5/91
Sumnary: WE QUESTIONED $557,442 OF OTHER DIRECT COSTS. ONE HUNDRED
PERCENT OF THE CONTRACT WAS QUESTIONED BECAUSE O&R DID NOT MAINTAIN
RECORDS.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
RESOLUTION HAS BEEN DELAYED DUE TO THE COMPANY NO LONGER BEING IN
BUSINESS. THE CONTRACTING OFFICER WROTE A DECISION ON DISALLOWANCE
OF COST CLAIMED BY CONTRACTOR IN AUDIT REPORT. CONTRACTING OFFICER
IS RESEARCHING WITH ATTORNEYS TO DETERMINE IF RECOVERY OF ANY
AMOUNT IS POSSIBLE.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION DATE CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT THIS TIME.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/95 [1]
D9BKL2-03-0599-4100295 KEYDATA SYSTEMS INC
VA
Sumnary: DCAA QUESTIONED $233,278 OF COSTS INCURRED.
CONSIDERS $431,395 TO BE EXCESS COSTS BILLED TO EPA.
5/18/94
DCAA ALSO
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
THE CONTRACTING OFFICER IS IN DISCUSSIONS WITH THE CONTRACTOR
REGARDING RESOLUTION OF THE ISSUES.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: EXPECTED
COMPLETION DATE IS 12/31/95.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/95 [1]
APRIL 1, 1995 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 1995
59
-------
ASSIGNMENT CONTROL
NUMBER
TITLE
FINAL REPORT
ISSUED
ASSIGNMENT CONTROL
NUMBER
TITLE
FINAL REPORT
ISSUED
D9EFL5-03-0108-5100162 NUS
MD
2/ 9/95
•Summary: IN DCAA'S OPINION, THE CONTRACTOR IS NOT ALTOGETHER
COMPLIANT WITH THE SPECIAL PROVISIONS OF THE CONTRACT.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: DUE TO THE COMPLEX CONTRACT COMPLIANCE ISSUES, THE
CONTRACTING OFFICER IS CONSULTING WITH REGIONAL LEGAL COUNSEL AND
THE AUDITOR IN ORDER TO DEVELOP A POSITION PAPER FOR NEGOTIATIONS.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: EXPECTED
RESOLUTION DATE IS 12/31/95.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/95 [1]
P9BGL4-10-0083-4100309 CH2M REM IV 87-89 C.I. OR 5/19/94
Summary: INELIGIBLE/UNSUPPORTED COSTS CONSIST OF: $408,618 IN
DIRECT LABOR; $3,254,566 IN TRAVEL; $3,458,995 IN OTHER DIRECT
COSTS; $2,292,817 IN OVERHEAD; AND $3,333 IN LABORATORY SERVICES.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: CONTRACTING OFFICER IN PROCESS OF DEVELOPING A POSITION
PAPER FOR NEGOTIATIONS BEGINNING 10/95.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: EXPECTED
COMPLETION DATE IS 11/30/95.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/95 [1]
P9BGL4-10-0107-4100398 CH2M REM/FIT 87-89 C.I. OR 6/10/94
Summary: NET COSTS QUESTIONED OF $173,335 CONSIST OF INELIGIBLE
OVERTIME COSTS OF $20,178, INELIGIBLE MOVING COSTS OF $8,323,
INELIGIBLE PUBLICATIONS COST OF $128 AND INELIGIBLE OVERHEAD
CREDIT OF $3,045. UNSUPPORTED COSTS INCLUDED TRAVEL COSTS OF
$16,027 AND COMPUTER COSTS OF $131,724.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: CONTRACTING OFFICER IN PROCESS OF DEVELOPING A POSITION
PAPER FOR NEGOTIATIONS BEGINNING 10/95.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: EXPECTED
COMPLETION DATE IS 11/30/95.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/95 [1]
P9BGL4-10-0117-4100417 CH2M TECH 1 C.I. 1987-88 OR 6/22/94
Summary: NET COSTS QUESTIONED OF $212,587 CONSIST OF INELIGIBLE
OVERTIME LABOR OF $7,754 AND INELIGIBLE OVERHEAD CREDIT OF
$19,177. UNSUPPORTED COSTS CONSIST OF TRAVEL COSTS OF $108,035
AND COMPUTER COST OF $115,975.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: CONTRACTING OFFICER IN PROCESS OF DEVELOPING A POSITION
PAPER FOR NEGOTIATIONS BEGINNING 10/95.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: EXPECTED
COMPLETION DATE IS 11/30/95.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/95 [1]
P9BGL4-10-0124-4100436 CH2M ARCS V C.I. 1988 & 1989 OR 6/29/94
Summary: NET COSTS QUESTIONED OF $322,262 CONSIST OF INELIGIBLE
OVERTIME LABOR OF $5,417 AND INELIGIBLE OVERHEAD CREDIT OF
$32,857. UNSUPPORTED COSTS INCLUDED TRAVEL COSTS OF $144,373 AND
COMPUTER COSTS OF $205,329.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: CONTRACTING OFFICER IN PROCESS OF DEVELOPING A POSITION
PAPER FOR NEGOTIATIONS BEGINNING 10/95.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: EXPECTED
COMPLETION DATE IS 11/30/95.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/95 [1]
D9BGL3-10-0088-4100471 URS FY 1989 AC WA 8/ 2/94
•Summary: DCAA QUESTIONED $15,725 OF DIRECT COSTS ON EPA CONTRACT
NOS. 68-W9-0053 AND 68-W9-0054. THE QUESTIONED COSTS ARE DUE TO
AUDIT EXCEPTIONS TO THE ALLOCATION OF INTERNAL SERVICES COSTS.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
SETTLEMENT OF INDIRECT COST ISSUES WILL BE HANDLED BY THE
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ADMINISTRATIVE CONTRACTING OFFICER. THE EPA
CONTRACTING OFFICERS WILL RESOLVE THE DIRECT COST ISSUES BY
OBTAINING CREDITS ON THE CONTRACTS. THE CREDIT ON ONE OF THE TWO
CONTRACTS HAS BEEN NEGOTIATED.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION DATE CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT THIS TIME.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/95 [2]
P9BGL4-10-0129-4100489 CH2M TECH II C.I. 1988-89 OR 8/16/94
Summary: NET COSTS QUESTIONED OF $92,160 CONSIST OF INELIGIBLE
OVERTIME LABOR OF $2,507 AND INELIGIBLE OVERHEAD CREDIT OF $20,817.
UNSUPPORTED COSTS INCLUDED TRAVEL COSTS OF J>40,650 AND COMPUTER
COSTS OF $69,820.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
CONTRACTING OFFICER IN PROCESS OF DEVELOPING A POSITION PAPER FOR
NEGOTIATIONS BEGINNING IN 10/95.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: EXPECTED
COMPLETION DATE IS 11/30/95.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/95 [1]
P9BGL4-10-0132-4100512 CH2M ARCS WEST 1989 COSTS OR 8/30/94
•Summary:
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
CONTRACTING OFFICER IN PROCESS OF DEVELOPING A POSITION PAPER WITH
NEGOTIATIONS BEGINNING DURING 10/95.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: EXPECTED
COMPLETION DATE IS 11/30/95.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/95 [1]
P9BGL4-10-0149-4100560 CH2M ARCS VI 88 8 89 COSTS OR 9/26/94
Summary: UNSUPPORTED COSTS OF $157,000 CONSIST OF TRAVEL COSTS OF
$76,000 AND COMPUTER COSTS OF $81,000.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
CONTRACTING OFFICER IN PROCESS OF DEVELOPING A POSITION PAPER WITH
NEGOTIATIONS BEGINNING 10/95.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: EXPECTED
COMPLETION DATE IS 11/30/95.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/95 [1]
P9BGL4-10-0147-4100566 CH2M ARCS III 1988-89 COSTS OR 9/28/94
Summary: UNSUPPORTED COSTS OF $115,000 CONSIST OF TRAVEL COSTS OF
$42,000 AND COMPUTER COSTS OF $73,000. INELIGIBLE COSTS OF $4,000
CONSIST OF OVERHEAD COSTS.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
CONTRACTING OFFICER IN THE PROCESS OF DEVELOPING A POSITION PAPER
WITH NEGOTIATIONS BEGINNING 10/95.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: EXPECTED
COMPLETION DATE IS 11/30/95.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/95 [1]
60
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
-------
ASSIGNMENT CONTROL
NUMBER
TITLE
FINAL REPORT
ISSUED
ASSIGNMENT CONTROL
NUMBER
TITLE
FINAL REPORT
ISSUED
E9BGL3-10-0110-5100232 CH2M CI 1985-86 OR 3/28/95 E9BHP4-23-0003-5400020 OHM REM FY 88 OH 12/ 6/94
Summary: COSTS CLAIMED OF $1,730,559 UNDER CONTRACT NO..
68-01-6692 WERE NOT PRESENTED IN CONFORMITY WITH FEDERAL
REGULATIONS AND CONTRACT TERMS. THERE WERE ALSO $41,963,623 OF
UNAUDITED COSTS, CONSISTING OF SUBCONTRACT COSTS.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: DIG HAS REQUESTED ASSIST AUDITS OF CLAIMED SUBCONTRACT
COSTS IN THE AMOUNT OF $41,963,623. CONTRACTING OFFICER IS IN THE
PROCESS OF DEVELOPING A POSITION PAPER FOR NEGOTIATION OF THE
PRIME CONTRACTOR'S COSTS. NEGOTIATIONS TO BEGIN 10/95.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: EXPECTED
COMPLETION DATE OF 11/30/95.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/95 [1]
P9AHN9-23-0347-0300036 OH MATERIALS (PR EQ RATES) OH 3/27/90
•Summary: PREAWARD UNDER NEGOTIATION
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: NEGOTIATING TO DEFINE THE CONTRACT PROVISIONAL EQUIPMENT
RATES TO FIXED RATES ARE EXPECTED TO BE CONCLUDED BY 11/30/95.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: 11/30/95
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/95 [1]
P9AHN1-23-0143-2300024 OHM REM ERCS2 Z1 FY 89 OH 12/27/91
*Summary: PREAWARD UNDER NEGOTIATION
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: NEGOTIATIONS AND DEFINING THE CONTRACT PROVISIONAL EQUIPMENT
RATES TO FIXED RATES ARE EXPECTED TO BE CONCLUDED BY 11/30/95.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
11/30/95.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/95 [1]
P9AHP2-23-0021-4400002 OHM REM ERCS2 Z1 FY 90 EQ OH 10/ 7/93
•Summary: PREAWARD UNDER NEGOTIATION
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: NEGOTIATIONS ARE CONTINUING ON CONTRACT NO. 68-01-7445 AND
ARE EXPECTED TO BE CONCLUDED BY 12/31/95.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: 12/31/95
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/95 [1]
E9BHP4-23-0002-5400015 OHM REM FY 87 OH 11/18/94
•Summary: WE QUESTIONED $61,773 RELATED TO: (1) EXCESSIVE PROFIT
OF AFFILIATES' COSTS; (2) INELIGIBLE AND UNSUPPORTED TRAVEL; AND
(3) UN- SUPPORTED SUBCONTRACTOR CHARGES. CONTRACTOR ALSO HAD
MAJOR CONTRACT NONCOMPLIANCE PROBLEMS, AND WAS CITED FOR A CAS 401
VIOLATION.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: NEGOTIATIONS IN PROCESS.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION IS EXPECTED BY 11/30/95.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/95 [1]
Summary: WE QUESTIONED $2,209,975 RELATED TO: (DEXCESSIVE PROFIT
OF AFFILIATES COSTS, (2) UNSUPPORTED SUBCONTRACTOR CHARGES, (3)
INELIGIBLE OVERHEAD RATES. CONTRACTOR ALSO HAD MAJOR CONTRACT
NONCOMPLIANCE PROBLEMS AND CAS 401 VIOLATIONS.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
NEGOTIATIONS IN PROCESS.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION IS EXPECTED BY 11/31/95.
IG FOLLOUUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/95 [1]
E9BHP4-23-0004-5400025 OHM REM FY 89 OH 12/14/94
Summary: WE QUESTIONED $646,574 RELATED TO: (DEXCESSIVE PROFIT OF
AFFILIATES COSTS, (2) UNSUPPORTED SUBCONTRACTOR CHANGES, AND (3)
INELIGIBLE OVERHEAD RATES. CONTRACTOR ALSO HAD MAJOR CONTRACT
NONCOMPLIANCE PROBLEMS AND CAS 401 VIOLATIONS.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
NEGOTIATIONS IN PROCESS.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: PROJECTED
RESOLUTION DATE IS 11/31/95.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/95 [1]
E9BHP4-23-0005-5400027 OHM REM FY 90 OH 12/22/94
Summary: WE QUESTIONED $259,289 RELATED TO (1) EXCESSIVE PROFIT
OF AFFILIATES' COSTS, (2) UNALLOWABLE GENERAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE
COSTS, AND (3) UNSUPPORTED SUBCONTRACTOR CHARGES. CONTRACTOR ALSO
HAD MAJOR CONTRACT NONCOMPLIANCES AND CAS 401 VIOLATION.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
NEGOTIATIONS IN PROCESS.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: PROJECTED
RESOLUTION DATE IS 11/30/95.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/95 [1]
E9BHP4-23-0006-5400031 OHM REM FY 91 OH 1/13/95
Summary: WE QUESTIONED $482,217 RELATED TO: (1) EXCESSIVE PROFIT
OF AFFILIATES' COSTS, (2) UNALLOWABLE GENERAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE
COSTS, AND (3) UNSUPPORTED SUBCONTRACTOR CHARGES. CONTRACTOR ALSO
HAD MAJOR CONTRACT NONCOMPLIANCES AND CAS 401 VIOLATIONS.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
NEGOTIATIONS IN PROCESS.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: PROJECTED
RESOLUTION DATE IS 11/31/95.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/95 [1]
0AM Cost Advisory & Financial Analysis Division
Washington Cost Advisory Board
D8AML5-01-0048-5100235 NEW ENGLAND ELECTRIC RESOUR MA 3/30/95
•Summary: PREAWARD UNDER NEGOTIATION
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE-
PREAWARD UNDER NEGOTIATION.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
NEGOTIATIONS TO BE CONCLUDED BY 11/30/95.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/95 [1]
APRIL 1, 1995 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 1995
61
-------
ASSIGNMENT CONTROL
NUMBER
TITLE
FINAL REPORT
ISSUED
D9AGL5-01-0058-5100245 ARTHUR D. LITTLE MA 3/30/95
*Sunmary: PREAWARD UNDER NEGOTIATION
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: PREAUARD UNDER NEGOTIATION.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
NEGOTIATIONS TO BE CONCLUDED BY 11/30/95.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/95 [1]
D9AFL5-01-0063-5100248 LEGGETTE, BRASHEARS & GRAHAMCT 3/30/95
*Sumnary: PREAWARD UNDER NEGOTIATION
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: PREAWARD UNDER NEGOTIATION.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
NEGOTIATIONS TO BE CONCLUDED BY 11/30/95.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/95 [1]
D9AGL5-02-0092-5100236 LOUIS BERGER & ASSOCIATES NJ 3/30/95
*Sunmary: PREAWARD UNDER NEGOTIATION
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: PREAWARD UNDER NEGOTIATION.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
NEGOTIATIONS TO BE CONCLUDED BY 11/30/95.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/95 [1]
D9AFL5-02-0093-5100238 EDER ASSOCIATES NY 3/30/95
•Summary: PREAWARD UNDER NEGOTIATION
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: PREAWARD UNDER NEGOTIATION.
ASSIGNMENT CONTROL
NUMBER
TITLE
FINAL REPORT
ISSUED
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
THE DIG REOPENED ON 9/26/95.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
NEGOTIATIONS TO BE CONCLUDED BY 11/30/95.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/95 [1]
E9AFP5-02-0518-5400056 ECOLOGY & ENVIR NY 3/27/95
*Sunmary: PREAWARD UNDER NEGOTIATION
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
PREAWARD UNDER NEGOTIATION.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
NEGOTIATIONS TO BE CONCLUDED BY 11/30/95.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/95 [1]
E9AFP5-02-0517-5400061 ECOLOGY & ENVIR NY 3/30/95
•Summary: PREAWARD UNDER NEGOTIATION
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
PREAWARD UNDER NEGOTIATION.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
NEGOTIATIONS TO BE CONCLUDED BY 11/30/95.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/95 [1]
D8BML4-03-0345-4100343 PRC, INC. VA 6/ 1/94
•Summary: DCAA QUESTIONED ($45.71) FOR 1991 AND ($3,322.96) FOR
1992.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
THE SUBJECT AUDIT IS STILL BEING NEGOTIATED WITH RESOLUTION
EXPECTED TO BE COMPLETED BY 11/95. A SUMMARY OF NEGOTIATIONS WILL
BE FORWARDED TO THE 01G WHEN COMPLETED.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
NEGOTIATIONS TO BE CONCLUDED BY 11/30/95.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/95 [1]
D9AGL5-02-0091-5100242 URS CONSULTANT CORP.
•Summary: PREAWARD UNDER NEGOTIATION
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: 11/30/95.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/95 [1]
D8AML4-03-0527-5100114 DYNCORP INC. VA 12/19/94
NJ 3/30/95 *Summary: PREAWARD UNDER NEGOTIATION
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: PREAWARD UNDER NEGOTIATION.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
NEGOTIATIONS TO BE CONCLUDED BY 11/30/95.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/95 [1]
E9AFP5-02-0511-5400039 ECOLOGY & ENVIR NY 2/ 6/95
•Summary: PREAWARD UNDER NEGOTIATION
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: PREAWARD UNDER NEGOTIATION.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
NEGOTIATIONS TO BE CONCLUDED BY 11/30/95.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/95 [1]
E9AFP5-02-0512-5400043 ECOLOGY & ENVIR NY 2/22/95
•Summary: PREAWARD UNDER NEGOTIATION
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
PREAWARD UNDER NEGOTIATION.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
NEGOTIATIONS TO BE CONCLUDED BY 11/30/95.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/95 [1]
D8AML5-03-0025-5100116 I-NET INCORPORATED MD 12/19/94
•Summary: PREAWARD UNDER NEGOTIATION
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
PREAWARD UNDER NEGOTIATION.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
NEGOTIATIONS TO BE CONCLUDED BY 11/30/95.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/95 [11
D8AML5-03-0024-5100121 OGDEN GOVERNMENT SERVICES VA 12/23/94
•Summary: PREAWARD UNDER NEGOTIATION
62
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
-------
ASSIGNMENT CONTROL
NUMBER
TITLE
FINAL REPORT
ISSUED
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: PREAWARD UNDER NEGOTIATION.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
NEGOTIATIONS TO BE CONCLUDED BY 11/30/95.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/95 [1]
D8AAL5-03-0079-5100164 ALTERNATIVE ENERGY DEVELOP MD 2/10/95
*Summary: PREAWARD UNDER NEGOTIATION
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: PREAWARD UNDER NEGOTIATION.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
NEGOTIATIONS TO BE CONCLUDED BY 11/31/95.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/95 [1]
D9AGL5-03-0085-5100185 C.C. JOHNSON & MALHOTRA CO 2/17/95
•Summary: PREAWARD UNDER NEGOTIATION
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: PREAWARD UNDER NEGOTIATION.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
NEGOTIATIONS TO BE CONCLUDED BY 11/31/95.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/95 [1]
D9AGL5-03-0082-5100186 COM FEDERAL PROGRAMS VA 2/17/95
•Summary: PREAWARD UNDER NEGOTIATION
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: PREAWARD UNDER NEGOTIATION.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
NEGOTIATIONS TO BE CONCLUDED BY 11/30/95.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/95 [1]
D9AFL5-03-0093-5100205 S. COHEN & ASSOCIATES VA 3/10/95
•Summary: PREAWARD UNDER NEGOTIATION
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: PREAWARD UNDER NEGOTIATION.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
NEGOTIATIONS TO BE CONCLUDED BY 11/30/95.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/95 [1]
D9EGL5-04-0094-5100218 COMMUNITY RELATIONS PLUS GA 3/21/95
•Summary:
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: UNDER NEGOTIATIONS.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
NEGOTIATIONS TO BE CONCLUDED BY 11/30/95.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/95 [1]
D9AGL4-05-0295-5100049 OHM REM 68-W9-0053 OH 11/ 2/94
•Summary: PREAWARD UNDER NEGOTIATION
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: PREAWARD UNDER NEGOTIATION.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
NEGOTIATIONS TO BE CONCLUDED BY 11/30/95.
ASSIGNMENT CONTROL
NUMBER
TITLE
FINAL REPORT
ISSUED
IG FOLLOUUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/95 [1]
E8ABP4-05-0314-5400010 PRC EMI (EPA-AIRMS) IL 10/31/94
•Summary: PREAWARD UNDER NEGOTIATION
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
PREAWARD UNDER NEGOTIATION.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
NEGOTIATIONS TO BE CONCLUDED BY 11/30/95.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/95 [1]
D8AWP5-05-0081-5400058 GRACE ANALYTICAL LAB IL 3/29/95
•Summary: PREAWARD UNDER NEGOTIATION
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
PREAWARD UNDER NEGOTIATION.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
NEGOTIATIONS TO BE CONCLUDED BY 11/30/95.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/95 [1]
D9AGL5-07-0019-5100188 SVERDRUP ENVIRONMENTAL MO 2/17/95
•Summary: PREAWARD UNDER NEGOTIATION
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
PREAWARD UNDER NEGOTIATION.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
NEGOTIATIONS TO BE CONCLUDED BY 11/30/95.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/95 [1]
D9AKL5-07-0025-5100227 BRAL ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES MO 3/24/95
•Summary: PREAWARD UNDER NEGOTIATION
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
PREAWARD UNDER NEGOTIATION.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
NEGOTIATIONS TO BE CONCLUDED BY 11/30/95.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/95 [1]
D9AKL5-08-0016-5100081 WATKINS JOHNSON ENVIRONMENT CO 11/17/94
•Summary: PREAWARD UNDER NEGOTIATION
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
PREAWARD UNDER NEGOTIATION.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
NEGOTIATIONS TO BE CONCLUDED BY 11/30/95.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/95 [1]
D8AAL5-08-0023-5100153 RESOURCE ENTERPRISES, INC. UT 2/ 3/95
•Summary: PREAWARD UNDER NEGOTIATION
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
PREAWARD UNDER NEGOTIATION.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
NEGOTIATIONS TO BE CONCLUDED BY 11/30/95.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/95 [1]
D8AAL5-08-0023-5100154 RESOURCE ENTERPRISES, INC. UT 2/ 3/95
•Summary: PREAWARD UNDER NEGOTIATION
APRIL 1, 1995 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 1995
63
-------
ASSIGNMENT CONTROL
NUMBER
TITLE
FINAL REPORT
ISSUED
ASSIGNMENT CONTROL
NUMBER
TITLE
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: PREAUARD UNDER NEGOTIATION.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
NEGOTIATIONS TO BE CONCLUDED BY 11/30/95.
IG FOLLOUUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/95 [1]
D9AGL5-08-0027-5100181 PACIFIC WESTERN TECHNOLOGIESCO 3/13/95
•Summary: PREAWARD UNDER NEGOTIATION
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: PREAUARD UNDER NEGOTIATION.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
NEGOTIATIONS TO BE CONCLUDED BY 11/30/95.
IG FOLLOUUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/95 [1]
D8AAL5-08-0022-5100199 RAVEN RIDGE RESOURCES CO 3/ 7/95
•Summary: PREAWARD UNDER NEGOTIATION
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: PREAUARD UNDER NEGOTIATION.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
NEGOTIATIONS TO BE CONCLUDED BY 11/30/95.
IG FOLLOUUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/95 [1]
D9AGL5-08-0025-5100201 AQUIRRE ENGINEERING INC. CO 3/ 7/95
•Summary: PREAUARD UNDER NEGOTIATION
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: PREAUARD UNDER NEGOTIATION.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
NEGOTIATIONS TO BE CONCLUDED BY 11/30/95.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/95 [1]
D9AGL5-08-0029-5100252 MSE, INC MT 3/31/95
•Summary: PREAUARD UNDER NEGOTIATION
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: PREAUARD UNDER NEGOTIATION.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
NEGOTIATIONS TO BE CONCLUDED BY 11/30/95.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/95 [1]
D9AGL5-09-0041-5100195 RESEARCH MGMT PA CA 2/28/95
•Summary: PREAWARD UNDER NEGOTIATION
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: PREAWARD UNDER NEGOTIATION.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
NEGOTIATIONS TO BE CONCLUDED BY 11/30/95.
IG FOLLOUUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/95 [1]
P9AGL2-10-0089-4100225 CH2M ARCS IV TERM STLMT OR 3/28/94
•Summary: PREAWARD UNDER NEGOTIATION
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: RESPONSE FAXED AND MAILED TO DIG ON 9/15/94.
FINAL REPORT
ISSUED
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: THE AUDIT
WILL NOT BE NEGOTIATED UNTIL AFTER 9/30/95.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/95 [1]
P9CGL2-10-0127-4100226 CH2M REGION IV ARCS OR 3/29/94
Summary: CH2M CLAIMED $73,895 OF UNSUPPORTED COMPUTER COSTS.
$69,559 OF UNSUPPORTED COSTS RELATED TO THE RED-PENN WOR<
ASSIGNMENT, AND $6,199 OF INELIGIBLE INDIRECT COSTS.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
THE PROGRAM OFFICE RESPONDED TO THE OIG ON 9/15/94 VIA FAX AND A
COPY WAS SENT TO THE OIG.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
NEGOTIATIONS WILL NOT BE COMPLETE UNTIL AFTER 9/30/95.
IG FOLLOUUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/95 [1]
D9AKL5-10-0030-5100234 CHUGACH DEVELOPMENT PA AK 3/29/95
•Summary: PREAUARD UNDER NEGOTIATION
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
PREAUARD UNDER NEGOTIATION.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
NEGOTIATIONS TO BE CONCLUDED BY 11/30/95.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/95 [1]
D9AKN5-10-0032-5300010 HERRERA ENVIRO CONiJULT-PA UA 3/29/95
•Summary: PREAUARD UNDER NEGOTIATION
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
PREAUARD UNDER NEGOTIATION.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
NEGOTIATIONS TO BE CONCLUDED BY 11/30/95.
IG FOLLOUUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/95 [1]
Regional Administrator - Region 1
S2CUL1-01-0024-4100179 SPRINGFIELD MA 1/31/94
Summary: THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, MA CLAIME.D UNALLOWABLE PROJECT
COSTS OF $4,059,671 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SECONDARY SEUAGE
TREATMENT PLANT, INCLUDING NEU INTERCEPTER SEUERS, PUMPING
STATIONS, FORCE MAIN SIPHON, AND OUTFALL SEWER.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
THE REGION IS MEETING WITH THE CITY'S CONSULTANT ON A BIWEEKLY
BASES TO REVIEW $4,060,000 IN QUESTIONED COSTS. THE PROPOSED FINAL
DETERMINATION LETTER WAS SENT TO THE OIG 3/15/95. THE OIG RESPONDED
ON 5/17/95 UITH COMMENTS TO THE PROPOSED FINAL DETERMINATION LATER.
THE REGION EXPECTS TO SEND ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO THE OIG BY
11/30/95.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION DATE CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT THIS TIME.
IG FOLLOUUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/95 [2]
E2CWL2-01-0170-5100233 MURA MA 3/29/95
Summary: MURA CLAIMED A TOTAL OF $982,705 IN INELIGIBLE COSTS FOR
A FENDERING SYSTEM NOT IN ACCORDANCE UITH SJPECS, ABANDONED
EQUIPMENT, POLICE, VIDEO, AND COMPUTER SERVICES.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
PROBLEMS WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OF A PIER AT THE SEWAGE TREATMENT
PLANT REQUIRED THE GRANTEE TO SUPPLY MORE INFORMATION. THE REGION
EXPECTS NEW INFORMATION BY 10/15/95 FROM THE GRANTEE.
64
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
-------
ASSIGNMENT CONTROL
NUMBER
TITLE
FINAL REPORT
ISSUED
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: EXPECT
RESOLUTION BY 11/30/95.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/95 [1]
Regional Administrator-- Region 2
P2CWN1-02-0028-4300034 OCEAN COUNTY UA NJ 5/ 4/94
Summary: THE GRANTEE CLAIMED UNALLOWABLE COSTS OF $4,513,658
CONSISTING OF INELIGIBLE COSTS OF $3,057,931 (FEDERAL SHARE
$2,144,016) AND UNSUPPORTED COSTS OF $1,455,727 (FEDERAL SHARE
$883,541) FOR CONSTRUCTION OF SECONDARY WASTEWATER TREATMENT
FACILITIES AND APPEARANCES.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: THIS AUDIT ENCOMPASSED 5 EPA GRANTS WITH GRANTEE CLAIMED
COSTS OF $247 MILLION AND AUDITOR QUESTIONED COSTS OF $4.5
MILLION. THE ONGOING REGION II REVIEW IS ENSURING THAT ALL ISSUES
ARE FULLY EVALUATED AND ANALYZED, AND THAT THE GRANTEE'S
ADDITIONAL SUBMITTED DOCUMENTATION WILL BE THOROUGHLY EVALUATED.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: TARGETED
FINAL RESOLUTION BY 11/95.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/95 [3]
P2CWL3-02-0128-5100231
HUDSON COUNTY UA NJ 3/28/95
Summary: THE HUDSON COUNTY UTILITIES AUTHORITY CLAIMED ON UPWARD
ADJUSTMENT TO INELIGIBLE COSTS OF $1,580,440 AND UNSUPPORTED COSTS
OF $23,578,045 TO CONSTRUCT AN UPGRADE TO A WASTEWATER TREATMENT
PLANT AND RELATED FACILITIES.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: THE AUDIT ENCOMPASSED 4 EPA GRANTS WITH GRANTEE CLAIMED
COSTS OF $82 MILLION, INCLUDING A HIGHLY CONTROVERSIAL $17 MILLION
FINDING INVOLVING ACUTE TOXICITY RELEASE LIMIT. DRAFT RESOLUTION
WAS SUBMITTED TO DIG FOR REVIEW AND CONCURRENCE.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: EXPECTED
FINAL RESOLUTION IN 11/95.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/95 [3]
Regional Administrator - Region 3
P2BUN3-03-0077-4300032 PHILADELPHIA CITY OF PA
3/30/94
Summary: THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA CLAIMED $10,959,010 OF
INELIGIBLE FORCE ACCOUNT, ENGINEERING, CONSTRUCTION AND INDIRECT
COSTS. AN ADDITIONAL $32,663,495 OF UNSUPPORTED AND $794,684 OF
UNNECESSARY COSTS WERE ALSO QUESTIONED.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: THE SIZE AND COMPLEXITY OF THIS MEGA-AUDIT (COVERING
SEVERAL GRANTS UNDER THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA SOUTHWEST TREATMENT
PLANT PROJECT) REQUIRES SIGNIFICANT TIME FOR RESOLUTION.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: THE
ESTIMATED DATE FOR ISSUANCE OF A MANAGEMENT DECISION IS 9/30/96.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/95 [1]
Regional Administrator - Region 4
E2CWM3-04-0062-4200019 KEY WEST FL 9/15/94
Summary: WE QUESTIONED THE $1,017,608 DESIGN ALLOWANCE CLAIMED'BY
THE GRANTEE BECAUSE IT DUPLICATED THE STEP 2 DESIGN GRANT WHICH
WAS AWARDED FOR THE SAME PURPOSE.
ASSIGNMENT CONTROL
NUMBER
TITLE
FINAL REPORT
ISSUED
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
3/8/95 - LETTER FROM THE OIG STATING NON-AGREEMENT WITH THE
REGION'S PROPOSED FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER. 6/15/95 - LETTER TO
HEADQUARTERS REFERRING THIS AUDIT TO THE HEADQUARTER OIG FOR
REVIEW.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION DATE CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT THIS TIME.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/95 [6]
E2CWP3-04-0225-4400096 BRUNSWICK GA
8/10/94
Summary: CONSTRUCTION COST WITH FEDERAL SHARE OF $311,250 WAS
QUESTIONED BECAUSE SOME SEWERS WERE NOT BUILT AS PLANNED.
ENGINEERING COST CLAIMED WITH FEDERAL SHARE OF $65,000 WAS
QUESTIONED BECAUSE THE GRANTEE DID NOT PROCURE THESE SERVICES IN
CONFORMITY WITH EPA REGULATIONS.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
9/5/95 - LETTER FROM THE OIG STATING NON-AGREEMENT WITH THE
REGION'S PROPOSED FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER. THE LOCAL OIG PLANS
TO FORWARD TO THE HEADQUARTERS OIG 9/95 FOR ITS REVIEW.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION DATE CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT THIS TIME.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/95 [6]
E2CWM5-04-0042-5200006
STARKE FL
1/20/95
Summary: WE QUESTIONED AS INELIGIBLE THE GRANTEE'S CLAIM OF
$1,372,564 FOR ACQUISITION OF A SPRAY IRRIGATION SITE. THE COSTS
WERE QUESTIONED BECAUSE THE SITE WAS NEVER UTILIZED FOR THE
INTENDED PURPOSE.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
A PROPOSED FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER HAS NOT BEEN PREPARED PENDING
CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION ON THIS PROJECT. THE GRANT WAS PREMATURELY
SENT FOR FINAL AUDIT. THE PLANT SHOULD BE OPERATIONAL BY END OF
SEPTEMBER OR EARLY OCTOBER, 1995.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: EXPECT
FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER TO BE PREPARED IN EARLY FY 1996.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/95 [1]
Regional Administrator - Region 6
E2CWN3-06-0089-4300052
HOUSTON TX
9/29/94
Summary: HOUSTON, TEXAS CLAIMED $6,159,937 OF INELIGIBLE
ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A
WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY. AN ADDITIONAL $991,174 OF
UNSUPPORTED COSTS OF $1,063,235 OF UNNECESSARY AND UNREASONABLE
COSTS WERE QUESTIONED.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
AN AUDIT TRANSMITTAL LETTER WAS SENT BY THE TEXAS WATER DEVELOPMENT
BOARD TO THE CITY ON 02/03/95, ALONG WITH ANALYSIS OF THE FINAL
AUDIT. A 90-DAY AND 120-DAY EXTENSION WAS REQUESTED BY CITY AND
GRANTED. AUDIT HAS OVER 90 COMPLEX FINDINGS WITH CLAIMED COSTS OF
$208,720,680, QUESTIONED COSTS OF $13,417,479. EXPECT 5 TO 10 BOXES
OF DOCUMENTS IN CITY'S RESPONSE.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: ESTIMATE
AUDIT RESOLUTION BY 4/1/96.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/95 [1]
E5BGN4-06-0075-5300012 LA. SF CO-OP AGREEMENTS LA 3/30/95
Summary: LDEQ'S PROCUREMENT PRACTICES RESULTED IN QUESTIONED COSTS
OF OVER $2 MILLION. WE ALSO FOUND THAT WORK WAS PERFORMED THAT WAS
OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE CONTRACTS, EQUIPMENT PURCHASED WITHOUT
EPA'S PRIOR APPROVAL, AND CLAIMED AMOUNTS THAT WERE NOT SUPPORTED
BY ACCOUNTING RECORDS.
APRIL 1, 1995 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 1995
65
-------
ASSIGNMENT CONTROL
NUMBER
TITLE
FINAL REPORT
ISSUED
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY (LDEQ)
REQUESTED A FINAL DISPUTE DETERMINATION FROM THE REGION.
DOCUMENTATION HAS BEEN REVIEWED. SUMMARY REVIEW OF LDEQ'S
RESPONSE SENT TO PROGRAM FOR REVIEW AND COMMENT. ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION IS ALSO BEING REQUESTED FROM LDEQ. DEVIATION ON
$710,192 BEING REQUESTED FROM EPA HEADQUARTERS.
ASSIGNMENT CONTROL
NUMBER
TITLE
FINAL REPORT
ISSUED
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
AUDIT RESOLUTION BY 01/01/96, ONCE THE DEVIATION IS
GRANTED/DENIED.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/95 [1]
Regional Administrator - Region 7
ESTIMATE
THE PROJECT'S SCOPE. $2,289,573 RELATED TO EXCESS CAPACITY AND
$757,976 UNREASONABLE A/E COSTS.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
THE STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD (SWRC8) IS WORKING WITH THE
DIG TO RESOLVE AREAS OF DISAGREEMENT. THE SWRCB STAFF MAY REFER
ONE ISSUE TO ITS EXECUTIVE BOARD.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: THE SWRCB
INTENDS TO SEND THE PROPOSED FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER TO EPA BY
12/31/95.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/95 [1]
E2AWT3-09-0082-3400037
SAN DIEGO, CITY OF CA
3/29/93
N3HVJ4-07-0075-5500094
•Summary:
STATE OF IOWA IA 2/23/95
Summary: THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO HAS CONSTRUCTED AN $11.8 MILLION
LAND OUTFALL WHICH WILL NOT BE USED BY THE CITY FOR THE INTENDED
PURPOSE OF THE GRANT NOR WILL IT BE USED IN THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN - EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
MADE- THE REGION HAS PREPARED A LETTER TO THE RECIPIENT ASKING IT THE OUTFALL PROJECT IS A JOINT EFFORT WITH THE INTERNATIONAL
TO RESPOND TO THE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE AUDIT WITHIN BOUNDARY AND WATER COMMISSION. THE AUDIT CANNOT BE RESOLVED UNTIL
15 DAYS A REQUIREMENT FOR SECONDARY TREATMENT IS DETERMINED.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
REGION ANTICIPATES RESOLUTION OF THIS AUDIT BY 11/30/95.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/95 [1]
Regional Administrator - Region 8
THE
P2CWL3-08-0039-5100107
ASHLEY VALLEY UT 12/ 1/94
Summary: THE GRANTEE HAD ABANDONED THE ALTERNATIVE EFFLUENT LAND
APPLICATION FACILITIES THAT RESULTED IN ABOUT $1.2 OF FEDERAL
COSTS SHARE QUESTIONED.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: REGIONAL MUNICIPAL FACILITIES BRANCH IS WORKING WITH THE
STATE TO EVALUATE RECOVERY OF COSTS. DECISION WILL BE BASED ON
THESE FINDINGS.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: THE
REGION EXPECTS TO ISSUE A DECISION ON THIS AUDIT BY 1/1/96.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/95 [1]
Regional Administrator - Region 9
E2CWN1-09-0092-2300082 RUSSIAN RIVER CSD CA
9/25/92
Summary: COSTS OF $8,344,066 HAVE BEEN QUESTIONED AS INELIGIBLE,
INCLUDING INELIGIBLE CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND FORCE ACCOUNT
COSTS. AN ADDITIONAL $18,297,400 HAVE BEEN QUESTIONED AS
UNNECESSARY BECAUSE THE PLANT WAS NOT FULLY UTILIZED.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD (SWRCB) AND THE DIG
REACHED AGREEMENT ON ALL BUT TWO ISSUES. SWRCB SENT EPA A LETTER
OF DISAGREEMENT FOR THESE TWO ISSUES ON 3/1/95. ON 8/7/95, EPA
SENT A MEMO TO THE 01G SUPPORTING THE SWRCB'S PROPOSED FINAL
DETERMINATION LETTER.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
ISSUE FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER BY 12/31/95.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/95 [1]
S2CWNO-09-0076-3300080 LAS VIRGENES MWD CA
9/30/93
Summary: INELIGIBLE COSTS OF $5,091,815 INCLUDES: $42,564 FOR
CONSTRUCTION COSTS NOT INCURRED; $192,643 OF INTEREST EARNED;
$647,791 FOR UNALLOWABLE ARCHITECT\ENGINEERING (A/E) AND
ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS; $1,919,244 FOR A/E AND CONSTRUCTION OUTSIDE
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: DUE TO
CONGRESSIONAL INVOLVEMENT, RESOLUTION IS NOT EXPECTED BEFORE
9/30/96.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/95 [23
S2CWN2-09-0091-4300051 VALLEJO SAN & FLOOD CONTROL CA
9/29/94
Summary: INELIGIBLE COSTS OF $5,525,458 INCLUDE $712,246 OF
UNALLOWABLE ARCHITECT\ENGINEERING FEES; $3,162,957 OF EARNED
INTEREST NOT CREDITED TO THE GRANT; AND $1,650,255 OF UNALLOWABLE
CONSTRUCTION. UNREASONABLE COSTS OF $3,874,497 REPRESENTED UNUSED
FACILITIES.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
THE STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD IS RESEARCHING THE ISSUES
AND PLANS TO SEND THE PROPOSED FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER TO EPA BY
12/31/95.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: 12/31/95
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/95 [1]
E2AWP9-09-0065-9400025 HOMELAND EARLY WARNING CA
3/31/89
Summary: SPECIAL REVIEW OF CONSTRUCTION GRANT OF WASTEWATER
TREATMENT PLANT FOUND $3,737,139 IN FED. SHARE COSTS QUESTIONED.
AN EARLY WARNING LETTER ADVISED THAT COSTS FOR THE COLLECTION
SYSTEM PORTION OF THE PROJECT DID NOT QUALIFY FOR FUNDING BECAUSE
OF THE "2/3 RULE".
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
ON 10/5/95, THE LOCAL DIG INFORMED THE REGION THAT THE PROPOSED
FINAL DECISION WAS ACCEPTABLE. THE REGION WILL SUBMIT THE FINAL
DETERMINATION LETTER TO THE DIG SO THAT THE AUDIT CAN BE CLOSED.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: EXPECT
RESOLUTION BY 12/95.
EPA TO IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/95 [3]
Regional Administrator - Region 10
P2CWN9-10-0107-2300091 FED WAY WATER AND SEW WA
9/30/92
Summary: INELIGIBLE COSTS OF $1,304,725 CONSISTED OF $67,287 FOR
UNALLOWABLE CONSTRUCTION COST; $61,048 RELATED TO INELIGIBLE
CONSTRUCTION PERCENTAGE; $21,243 OF UNAPPROVED
ARCHITECT/ENGINEERING COSTS; AND $1,155,147 RELATED TO EXCESS
CAPACITY. WE ALSO QUESTIONED WERE $2,242,049 AS UNSUPPORTED.
66
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
-------
ASSIGNMENT CONTROL
NUMBER
TITLE
FINAL REPORT
ISSUED
ASSIGNMENT CONTROL
NUMBER
TITLE
FINAL REPORT
ISSUED
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: THE REGION RECEIVED ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FROM AUDITEE AND
STATE TO RESOLVE ISSUE OF GRANT ELIGIBLE COSTS FOR A 30 YEAR PLAN
VERSUS A 20 YEAR PLAN. ISSUED REVISED FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER
TO THE DIG ON 8/25/95.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER TO THE DIG 11/30/95.
EXPECT
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/95 [4]
P2CWN1-10-0049-3300076
SEASIDE, CITY OF OR
9/30/93
Sumnary: INELIGIBLE COSTS OF $97,155 INCLUDE: $7,889 OF
UNALLOWABLE FORCE ACCOUNT AND $89,266 OF CONSTRUCTION COSTS
RELATED TO SERVICE LATERALS. COSTS OF $188,202 NOT SUPPORTED BY
SOURCE DOCUMENTATION.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: THE REGION HAS BEEN OBTAINING INFORMATION, COMMENTS, AND
DOCUMENTATION FROM THE STATE AND PROGRAM OFFICE. THE REGION
SUBMITTED A DRAFT FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER TO THE DIG 12/16/94.
RECEIVED THE OIG'S COMMENTS 01/23/95.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: EXPECT
REVISED DRAFT FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER TO THE OIG BY 11/30/95.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/95 [2]
P2CWN1-10-0041-3300077 METROPOLITAN WASTEWTR. MGT. CA 9/30/93
Sumnary: INELIGIBLE COSTS OF $2,511,772 INCLUDES: $26,970 OF MISC
COSTS, $107,481 OF INSURANCE PREMIUMS, $181,830 ALLOCABLE TO
INELIGIBLE PERCENT; $2,195,491 OUTSIDE SCOPE OF PROJECT. WE
QUESTIONED $6,657,189 WHICH WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY ADEQUATE SOURCE
DOCUMENTS.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: THE PROGRAM OFFICE RECEIVED DEVIATION FROM HEADQUARTERS
PENDING EVALUATION AND REVISION OF DRAFT FINAL DETERMINATION
LETTER.
Sumnary: INELIGIBLE COSTS OF $56,470 INCLUDES: $3,197 OF
UNREFUNDED P&S DEPOSITS $9,000 OF UNALLOWABLE CONSTRUCTION; $15,440
OF OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE RELATED COSTS; $28,833 COST ALLOCABLE
TO INELIGIBLE PERCENTAGE. $88,853 OF UNSUPPORTED ENGINEERING AND
ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS WERE ALSO QUESTIONED.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
ADDITIONAL PARTIAL DOCUMENTATION RECEIVED FROM CITY. DOCUMENTS
MUST BE ANALYZED AND EVALUATED BEFORE THE REGION REVISESTHE DRAFT
FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: EXPECT
DRAFT FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER TO THE OIG BY 11/15/96.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/95 [1]
P2CWN3-10-0141-4300053 MUNICIPALITY OF ANCHORAGE AK 9/29/94
Summary: INELIGIBLE COSTS OF $2,649,916 INCLUDES $41,555 ALLOCABLE
TO THE INELIGIBLE PERCENTAGE; $126,115 OF UNALLOWABLE CONSTRUCTION
COSTS; AND $2,482,246 OF COSTS ALLOCABLE TO FEDERAL FACILITIES.
COSTS OF $15,602 WERE NOT SUPPORTED BY ADEQUATE SOURCE
DOCUMENTATION.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
DRAFT FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER SENT 2/24/95 TO THE OIG. THE OIG
RESPONDED 3/9/95. WAITING FOR ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS FROM ANCHORAGE.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: EXPECT
REVISED DRAFT FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER TO THE OIG BY 3/15/96.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: EXPECT
DRAFT FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER TO THE OIG BY 7/1/96.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/95 [1]
P2CWN2-10-0068-4300013 WASILLA, CITY OF AK 12/15/93
Sumnary: INELIGIBLE COSTS OF $306,738 INCLUDED $182,188 OF COSTS
ALLOCABLE TO INELIGIBLE PORTION OF CONSTRUCTION; $122,647 OF
UNALLOWABLE ARCHITECT/ENGINEERING COSTS; AND $1,730 OF COSTS
CLAIMED TWICE. COSTS OF $97,346 WERE NOT SUPPORTED BY SOURCE
DOCUMENTATION.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: THE REGION, STATE, AND CITY ARE GATHERING ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION AND DOCUMENTATION TO BE USED. DRAFT FINAL
DETERMINATION LETTER SENT TO THE OIG 2/3/95. THE OIG RESPONDED
2/22/95. REGION TO RESPOND TO THE OIG COMMENTS BY 6/01/96.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION DATE CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT THIS TIME.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/95 [2]
P2CWN3-10-0034-4300039 NORTH BEND, CITY OF OR
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/95 [2]
P3LLL3-10-0097-5100120 OREGON DEQ-LUST OR
12/22/94
•Summary: INELIGIBLE COSTS QUESTIONED OF $12,747 INCLUDE $11,994
OF UNALLOCABLE MOTORPOOL COSTS AND $753 OF UNALLOCABLE TRAVEL
COSTS.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
THE OIG CONCURS WITH ALL ISSUES IN PROPOSED DRAFT FINAL
DETERMINATION LETTER EXCEPT ONE. THE ISSUE IN QUESTION WILL
REQUIRE AN ON-SITE VISIT TO RESOLVE.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: THE
REGION EXPECTS THE WATER DIVISION TO ACCOMPLISH THIS RESOLUTION BY
3/31/96.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/95 [2]
P2CWN4-10-0015-5300006 JUNEAU, CITY & BOROUGH OF AK 1/10/95
Sumnary: INELIGIBLE COSTS $164,988 INCLUDE $2,461 OF LEGAL COSTS
ALLOCABLE TO INELIGIBLE CONSTRUCTION AND $162,527 OF ADMINISTRATIVE
COSTS CONSIDERED OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE APPROVED PROJECT.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS N01 BEEN MADE:
EXPECT ADDITIONAL ENGINEERING INFORMATION FROM CITY BY 3/96.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: EXPECT
DRAFT FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER TO THE OIG BY 4/30/96.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/95 [1]
6/27/94
TOTAL AUDITS ISSUED BEFORE REPORTING PERIOD FOR WHICH NO MANAGEMENT
DECISION WAS MADE DURING THE REPORTING PERIOD: 130
* = Agency procedures do not require the IG's approval on Agency's Management
Decision on an audit (other than a preaward or an internal and management
(audit) with the Federal share of questioned costs of less than $100,000.
Therefore, we have not provided a summary of the audit.
APRIL 1, 1995 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 1995
67
-------
OIG MAILING ADDRESSES and TELEPHONE NUMBERS
OIG HOTLINE (202) 260-4977
Headquarters
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
401 M Street, S.W. (2441)
Washington, DC 20460
(202)260-3137
Atlanta
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
1475 Peachtree Street, NE
Suite 1100
Atlanta, GA 30309-3003
Audit (404) 347-3623
Investigations: (404) 347-2398
Boston
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
JFK Federal Building (OIG)
(office at 1 Congress St)
Boston, MA 02203
Audit. (617)565-3160
lnvestigations:(617) 565-3928
Chicago
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
77 West Jackson Boulevard
13th Floor (IA-13J)
Chicago, IL 60604
Audit: (312) 353-2486
Investigations: (312) 353-2507
Cincinnati
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
4411 Montgomery (MS Norwood)
Cincinnati, OH 45268-7001
Audit: (513) 366-4360
Investigations (312) 353-2507 (Chicago)
Dallas
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General (6OIG)
1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
Audit: (214) 655-6621
Investigations: (404) 347-2398 (Atlanta)
Denver
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
999 18th Street, Suite 500
Denver, CO 80202-2405
Audit: (303) 294-7520
Investigations: (312) 353-2507 (Chicago)
Kansas City
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
726 Minnesota Avenue
(office at 630 Minnesota Ave)
Kansas City, KS66101
Audit. (913)551-7878
Investigations. (312) 353-2507 (Chicago)
New York
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
290 Broadway, Room 1520
New York, NY 10007-1866
Audit. (212)637-3071
Investigations: (212) 637-3041
Philadelphia
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
841 Chestnut Street, 13th Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Audit: (215) 597-0497
Investigations (215)597-9421
Research Triangle Park, NC
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
Catawba Building
Highway 54, Mail Drop 53
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Audit: (919) 541-2204
Investigations: (919) 541-1027
Sacramento
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
650 Capitol Mall, Suite 6309
Sacramento, CA 95814
Audit: (916) 551-1076
Investigations. (415) 744-2465 (SF)
San Francisco
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
75 Hawthorne St (1-1)
19th Floor
San Francisco, CA94105
Audit. (415)744-2445
Investigations: (415) 744-2465
Seattle
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
1111 3rd Avenue, Suite 1460
Seattle, WA 98101
Audit: (206) 553-4403
Investigations: (206) 553-1273
68
US, Environmental Protection Agency
Region 5, library (PL-12J)
77 West Jackson Boulevarjd, 12th Floor
Chicago, IL 60604-3590
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
-------
MAKE A WORLD
OF DIFFERENCE!
Ill
REPORT FRAUD, WASTE, OR ABUSE TO THE
INSPECTOR GENERAL
HOTLINE
• INFORMATION IS CONFIDENTIAL
202-260-4977
t.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY • OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL • 401 M STREET S.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
INTERNET: walsh.johnt@cpamail.cpa.gov
-------
Environmental Protection
n T I iK*-«•%».* >»t. _ _ ..
------- |