9661
ssejBuoo eqi oj
joday [enuuejiuas
jojoedsui jo aojj^o
09WZ OQ uoiBuigseAA
ioo-96-a-oge--vd3
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 5. Ubraiy (PL-12J)
77 West Jackson Bouievafd. 12th Floor
Chicago, II 60604-3590
Recycled/Recyclable
Pnnted with Soy/Canola Ink on paper that
contains at least Ł0% recycled fiber
On the cover:
Half Dome in Yosemite
National Park, California,
(photo courtesy of the
National Park Service,
U.S. Department of the Interior).
-------
Foreword
This six-month period has been one of the most
challenging times in the history of the Agency and the Office of
Inspector General. The uncertainty of resource levels along with
significant interruptions in the work hampered the effectiveness of
the Agency in carrying out its mission. This situation made it
clear that the work of the Office of Inspector General, in
partnership with the Agency, represented more than findings of
questioned costs, recommended efficiencies, recoveries,
prosecutive and administrative actions. EPA management
recognized the necessity and opportunity to apply the results and
assistance of the OIG in making changes that solve difficult
management problems. This cooperative approach is further
strengthening the Agency's ability to protect vital natural
resources and human health.
While this report highlights examples of OIG audits,
reviews, and investigations completed in the past six months,
EPA management is already acting on many of our
recommendations to obtain savings, improvements, and more effective ways of addressing its
mission. The OIG itself is also continuing to improve its efficiency and value to the Agency through
organizational streamlining, strategic planning, and technology. Although much still needs to be
done, I believe that the Agency-wide commitment to continuous improvement and achieving the
greatest results from available resources, is the necessary formula to mutually meet our future
challenges.
John C. Martin
Inspector General
-------
.tar
-------
Contents
Executive Summary 1
Major Laws Administered by EPA 3
Profile of Activities and Results 4
Establishment of the OIG in EPA-lts Role and Authority 5
Purpose and Requirements of the Office of Inspector General
Semiannual Report 5
Who's Who in the Office of Inspector General 6
Section 1-Significant Findings and Recommendations
Costs and Benefits 7
Agency Management 8
Superfund 16
Extramural Resources Management 21
Construction Grants 25
Section 2-Report Resolution
Status Report on Perpetual Inventory of Reports in Resolution Process
for the Semiannual Period Ending March 31, 1996 29
Status of Management Decisions on IG Reports 29
Resolution of Significant Reports 32
Section 3-Prosecutive Actions
Summary of Investigative Activity 33
Description of Selected Prosecutive and Administrative Actions 34
Civil and Administrative Actions to Recover EPA Funds 36
Section 4-Fraud Prevention and Management Improvements
Review of Legislation and Regulations 37
Suspension and Debarment Activities 38
OIG Management Initiatives 39
Committee on Integrity and Management Improvement 40
Hotline Activities 41
Appendices
Appendix 1-Reports Issued 42
Appendix 2-Reports Issued Without Management Decisions 50
INTRODUCING
Nikta L Tinstey, Deputy Inspector General.
Ms. Tmsteywas formerly the EPA OIG Divisional InspectorGenemlof
the Central AucSt Division h Kansas City, KS.
-------
Pt
:«*•* '
-------
Executive Summary
Section 1-
Significant Findings
and
Recommendations
1. Major Delays in
Superfund Cleanups
Increased Costs and
Potential Health Risks
Despite identification between
12 and 15 years ago, the three
Superfund sites we reviewed
were still not cleaned up. The
prolonged time spent studying
sites and designing remedies
resulted in higher cleanup
costs and continued risks to
public health and the
environment (page 17).
2. Year 2000 Could Cause
Failure of Major
Information Systems
The Office of Information
Resources Management
(OIRM) has raised Agency
awareness of data processing
problems associated with the
year 2000. However, OIRM
has not acted sufficiently to
reduce the imminent threat of
major EPA systems failure
(pagelO).
3. Superfund Technical
Assistance Grant
Program Seldom Used
The Agency had not
adequately defined Technical
Assistance Grant (TAG)
program needs, goals, or
performance measures. In
addition, the program was
inconsistently implemented
and publicized, resulting in
only a small number of TAGs
being awarded since the
program's inception (page 20).
4. Unauthorized Use of
Gulf Ecology Division
Laboratory
Non-Federal personnel were
allowed to perform research at
the Gulf Ecology Division
(GED) laboratory without
proper authorization, and
some directly assisted on EPA
research activities in violation
of Federal law. In addition,
proper security over access to
GED facilities had not been
established (page 11).
5. Inadequate
Management Led to
Ineffective and Costly
Programs
EPA's ineffective, inefficient
planning and inadequate
oversight of a major
contractor's performance
resulted in some of the
products and services
procured being inadequate,
untimely, and/or of
questionable value (page 21).
6. FACA Committees'
Costs Nearly Doubled
Since 1993
While we support EPA's
strategy of using FACA
committees to create
partnerships with business
and communities, the Agency
needs to ensure that the
operations of these
committees is fiscally
responsible. Although EPA
has decreased the number of
its Federal Advisory
Committee Act (FACA)
committees by one-third since
1993, their operating costs
have increased 84 percent,
and the number of Agency
personnel involved has grown
almost 57 percent (page 9).
7. Inadequate Evacuation
Plan and Accessibility
Pose Safety Risks
EPA's Occupant Emergency
Plan for Waterside Mall (WSM)
was outdated and insufficiently
complete to protect employees
and contractors. Also, survey
respondents believed
additional actions are needed
to make WSM safer and more
accessible to the physically
challenged (page 14).
8. Hazardous Waste Risks
Reduced, But Inadequate
Oversight Resulted in
Cost Overruns and
Inefficient Cleanup
EPA Region 8 responded to
the Summitville, CO,
Superfund site emergency in a
widespread but remote area,
by reducing hazardous waste
risks. However, the Region
did not adequately oversee
Interagency Agreements
(lAGs) with the Department of
Interior's Bureau of
Reclamation resulting in seven
cost overruns totaling nearly
$7.3 million and inefficient
cleanup implementation (page
18).
9. Superfund Site
Laboratory Data Is
Questionable
Although EPA spent nearly $2
million overseeing the Aerojet
General Corporation
Superfund site, Region 9 had
not monitored the quality of
laboratory data used for
making public health risk
assessments, developing
cleanup alternatives, and
designing the remedy (page
19).
10. Reorganizations and
Streamlining Plans Will
Increase Personnel Costs
Although the four regions we
reviewed developed plans to
reduce the number of
supervisory positions, their
reorganizations will
cumulatively increase senior
level employees by 19 percent
and salary costs by an
estimated $370,000 (page 8).
11. Air Toxics From R&D
Facilities Not Regulated
Although EPA has initiated
improvements on facility air
toxics emission standards, it
has not designated research
and development (R&D)
facilities as a separate
category for regulation.
Consequently, without
independent state regulation,
toxic emissions from R&D
facilities are unrestricted (page
12).
12. Over $100 Million in
Government Property,
Including Vehicles,
Improperly Provided to
Contractors
EPA has acquired hundreds of
passenger vehicles without
statutory authority. In addition,
EPA recently reported $138.3
million in government property
(including passenger and
other vehicles) held by
contractors despite regulatory
requirements that contractors
furnish all necessary property
(page 23).
OCTOBER 1,1995 THROUGH MARCH 31,1996
-------
13. Grant Improperly
Awarded to Pay
Symposium Costs
EPA improperly awarded a
grant to the Gulf of Mexico
Foundation to pay ineligible
expenses previously incurred
by an EPA contractor for a
1995 symposium (page 22).
14. Canceled Payment
Activities Were Effectively
Managed
In general, EPA effectively
monitored and controlled
canceled payment activities
and properly resolved most
negotiated canceled checks,
limiting the risk of significant
loss to the Agency. However,
EPA could improve case file
maintenance and timely
recovery of duplicate
payments at certain
accounting offices (page 15).
15. Improvements Needed
in Ohio's Leaking
Underground Storage
Tank (LUST) Program
The Ohio Bureau of
Underground Storage Tanks
Regulation effectively directed
LUST resources to cleanup of
high priority sites, but
overstated accomplishments
and did not attempt to recover
most cleanup costs (page 13).
16. Los Angeles,
California, Claimed
Almost $13.4 Million of
Ineligible Costs
The City of Los Angeles,
California, claimed
$13,370,935 of ineligible
construction, force account,
and indirect costs for the
Hyperion Secondary
Conversion Project and
Energy Recovery System, and
the East Valley Interceptor
Sewer (page 26).
17. Nearly $10.1 Million of
Questioned Costs
Claimed for New York
City Projects
The City of New York claimed
$7,481,371 of ineligible
architectural engineering,
force account, and
construction costs for pump
stations, interceptor sewers,
and a force main. We
questioned an additional
$2,606,283 of unsupported
and unreasonable costs (page
26).
18. Almost $3 Million of
Ineligible Costs Claimed
by the County of
Westchester, New York
The County of Westchester,
New York, claimed ineligible
project costs of $2,995,923 for
the expansion and upgrading
of a wastewater treatment
plant (page 27).
19. San Francisco,
California, Claimed Over
$2.8 Million of Ineligible
Costs
The City and County of San
Francisco claimed $2,812,732
of ineligible project costs for
wastewater treatment facilities
(page 27).
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 327 reports
for which no management
decision had been made.
During the first half of fiscal
1996, the Office of Inspector
General issued 251 new
reports and closed 360. At the
end of the reporting period,
218 reports remained in the
Agency followup system for
which no management
decision had been made! Of
the 218 reports, 126 reports
remained in the Agency
followup system for which no
management decision was
made within 6 months of
issuance (page 28).
For the 223 reports closed that
required agency action, EPA
management disallowed $41.4
million of questioned costs and
agreed with our
recommendations that $7.7
million be put to better use
(page 28). In addition, cost
recoveries in current and prior
periods included $1.1 million in
cash collections, and at least
$31.6 million in offsets against
billings (page 4).
Section 3-
Prosecutive Actions
During this semiannual
reporting period, our
investigative efforts resulted in
5 convictions and 1 indictment.
Also, our investigative work
led to $3.4 million in fines and
recoveries (page 33).
Section 4-Fraud
Prevention and
Management
Improvements
During this semiannual period,
we reviewed 3 legislative and
35 regulatory items. Our most
significant comments
concerned the Local
Empowerment and Flexibility
Act of 1996, proposed
revisions to the Federal
Acquisition Regulation, the
Office of Personnel
Management's proposed rule
on suitability for national
security positions and
personnel investigations, and
the EPA Commercial
Purchase Card policy (page
37).
The Office of Grants and
Debarment completed action
on 6 OIG-generated
suspension and debarment
cases during this reporting
period, resulting in 4
suspensions and two
compliance agreements (page
38).
The EPA Committee on
Integrity and Management
Improvement (CIMI), chaired
by the Inspector General,
published a bulletin on
membership in professional
societies and associations
(page 40).
Ten new Hotline cases were
opened and 15 were closed
during the reporting period. Of
the closed cases, 4 resulted in
environmental, prosecutive, or
administrative corrective
action (page 41).
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
-------
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
Emergency Planning and Community Right-
to-Know Act
Oil Pollution Act of 1990
Environmental Research, Development, and
Demonstration Authorization Act
National Environmental Education Act
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
Provisions
Provides that pollution should be prevented or reduced at the source,
recycled safely when not preventable, treated safely when not
preventable or recyclable, or disposed of a safe manner.
Requires EPA notification of any new chemical prior to its manufacture
and authorizes EPA to regulate its production, use, or disposal-
Authorizes EPA to register all pesticides, specify the terms and
conditions of their use, and remove unreasonable 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 contaminated sites.
Authorizes EPA to set emission standards to limit the release of criteria
pollutants and hazardous air pollutants.
Requires EPA to establish a list of 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 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-
transportation-related onshore oil facilities.
Authorizes all EPA research and development programs.
Provides for a program of education on the environment through
activities in schools and related educational activities, and to encourage
students to pursue careers related to the environment.
Provides a national policy requiring environmental impact statements
describing potentially adverse effects of, and alternatives to, any major
Federal action. Established the Council on Environmental Quality.
OCTOBER 1,1995 THROUGH MARCH 31,1996
-------
Profile of Activities and Results
October 1, 1995 through March 31, 1996
Audit Operations
OIG Managed Reviews:
- Reviews Performed by EPA, Independent
Public Accountants and State Auditors
- Questioned Costs*
- Total $35.8 Million
- Federal Share $25.5 Million
- Recommended Efficiencies*
(Funds be Put to Better Use)
- Total $12.8 Million
- Federal Share $12.8 Million
- Costs Disallowed to be Recovered
- Federal Share (costs which EPA
management agrees are unallowable
and is committed to recover or
offset against future payments) $40.4 Million
- Costs Disallowed as Cost Efficiency
- Federal Share (funds made available
by EPA management's commitment to
implement recommendations in OIG
performance and preaward audits) $0.4 Million
Other Reviews:
- Reviews Performed by Another
Federal Agency or Single Audit Act Auditors
- Questioned Costs*
- Total $2.9 Million
- Federal Share $2.9 Million
- Recommended Efficiencies*
- Total $32.2 Million
- Federal Share $32.2 Million
- Costs Disallowed to be Recovered
- Federal Share $1.0 Million
- Costs Disallowed as Cost Efficiency
- Federal Share $7.3 Million
Agency Recoveries:
Recoveries from Audit Resolutions of
Current and Prior Periods (cash collections
or offsets to future payments.)** $32.7 Million
Reports Issued:
- OIG Managed Reviews:
- EPA Reviews Performed by the OIG 51
- EPA Reviews Performed by Independent Public
Accountants 4
- EPA Reviews Performed by State Auditors 3
- Other Reviews:
- EPA Reviews Performed by
another Federal Agency 134
- Single Audit Act Reviews 59
Total Reports Issued 251
Reports Resolved (agreement by
Agency officials to take satisfactory
corrective action)*** 223
Investigative Operations
- Fines and Recoveries (including civil) $3.4 million
- Investigations Opened 71
- Investigations Closed 71
- Indictments of Persons or Firms 1
- Convictions of Persons or Firms 5
- Admin. Actions Against EPA Employees 11
Fraud Detection and Prevention Operations
- Debarments, Suspensions, and
Compliance Agreements 6
- Hotline Cases Opened 10
- Hotline Cases Processed and Closed 15
- Personnel Security Investigations Adjudicated 384
'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.
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
-------
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 1996, the Agency
has operated under a series of
Continuing Resolutions and
has suspended operations
twice for a total of 18 work
days due to two separate
breaks in funding. During this
period, the OIG planned and
carried out its own shutdown
procedures, and prepared for
other shutdowns as each of
several short term Continuing
Resolutions expired.
Operating under these
contingencies, along with only
partial incremental funding, has
prevented the OIG from
pursuing normal operations,
including long-term
assignments and projects,
contracting, travel, purchases
of equipment and services, and
required training. Additionally,
the OIG has operated with an
Agency-imposed freeze on all
personnel actions. This freeze
has prevented the OIG from
maintaining a workforce above
390 Full-Time Equivalent (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 Section/Page
Inspector General Act, as amended.
Section 4(a)(2)
Section 5(a){l)
Section 5(a)(2)
Section 5(a)(3)
Section 5(a)(4)
Section 5(a)(5)
Section 5(a)(6)
Section 5(a){7)
Section 5(a){8)
Section 5(a)(9)
Section 5(a)(10)
Section 5(a)(11)
Section 5(a)(l 2)
Review of Legislation and Regulations 4 37
Significant Problems, Abuses, and 1 7
Deficiencies
Recommendations with Respect to 17
Significant Problems, Abuses, and
Deficiencies
Prior Significant Recommendations on
Which Corrective Action Has Not
Been Completed Appendix 2 60
Matters Referred to Prosecutive
Authorities
Summary of Instances
Where Information Was Refused
List of Audit Reports
Summary of Significant Reports
Statistical Table 1-Reports With
Questioned Costs
3 33
Appendix 1 42
1 7
2 30
Statistical Table 2-Reports With
Recommendations That Funds Be Put
To Better Use
2 31
Summary of Previous Audit
Reports Without Management
Decisions
Appendix 2 50
Description and Explanation of Revised
Management Decisions Appendix 2 50
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
OCTOBER 1,1995 THROUGH MARCH 31,1996
-------
Headquarters
Office of Inspector General-Who's Who
Inspector General
John C. MarUn
Deputy Inspector General
NMdLTnstey
Office of Audi
Kenneth A. Konz
Assistant Inspector General
James O. Rauch
FYincipal Deputy
BssaR. Karpf
Deputy for Acquisition &
Assistance Audits
Mchad D. Simmons
Deputy for Internal &
Performance Audits
Office of Management
John C.Jones
Assistant Inspector General
Office of hvestigations
AlenP. Fain
Assistant Inspector General
Burnett D. DasMel, Jr.
Deputy Assistant Inspector General
John T. Walsh
Program Management Division
Michael J. Binder
Resources Management Division
Kenneth D. Hockman
Policy & Resources Mgmt
Robert F. Eagen
Engineering & Scientific Assistance
Patricia H. Hill
ADP Audits and Assistance
Gordon C. Milbourn III
Special Projects & Review
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. Salem (Acting)
Regions 9 & 10
Truman R. Beeler
Headquarters:
HQ Audit Division
Edward Gekosky
Financial Audit Division
Melissa M. Heist
Regions 1,243
Thomas L. Papineau
Regions 4,5,6, 7, 8, 9, 410
Ailverdes Cornelious (Acting)
Washington Field Division
Adrienne R Rish (Acting)
OFFICE OF IMSPECTOR GENERAL
-------
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,
Superfund, Extramural Resources
Management, and Construction Grants.
This box appears throughout our report to
identify Hams that may be used as
indicators of sconomy, offitioncy, or
effectiveness hi the measurement of Agency
programs and operations.
OCTOBER 1, 1995 THROUGH MARCH 31, 1996
-------
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 reorganization issues in
several regions; cost growth in
EPA's Federal Advisory Committee
Act committees; EPA's computer
systems' preparations for the year
2000; and allegations about
improper use of facilities at one
laboratory. 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.
Reorganizations and
Plans Will
'
Findings in Brief
Although the four regions we
reviewed developed plans to
reduce the number of supervisory
positions, their reorganizations will
cumulatively increase senior level
employees by 19 percent and salary
costs by an estimated $370,000.
Background
The National Performance Review
(NPR) and a September 1993
Presidential memorandum launched
governmentwide streamlining efforts.
NPR set a goal of doubling the
managerial span of control within five
years, based on the premise that the
elimination of managerial levels would
reduce the size of the Federal
workforce and save money.
We Found That
The four regions reviewed had
developed plans to reduce the number
of senior supervisory positions
(grades 14 and above) to achieve the
Agency goal of a 1:11 ratio. However,
they also plan to promote personnel,
cumulatively increasing the number of
senior level employees from 342 to
408, or 19 percent, and estimated
annual salary costs by $370,000. One
region was planning a 33 percent
increase in senior level employees.
Performance
Indcators
-PC &B Costs
-Number of Grades 14 & Above
As part of their reorganization plans,
the four regions advertised, or planned
to advertise, existing and newly
created positions at higher grades.
Nonsupervisory personnel were
sometimes promoted to higher graded
nonsupervisory positions, and
displaced supervisory personnel were
reassigned to nonsupervisory
positions at the same grade or
promoted to a higher grade than they
held as supervisors. The regions did
not follow EPA guidance and limit
consideration for new supervisory
positions. In December 1994, EPA
issued guidance on options for
reinventing organizations which stated
that managers were to limit
consideration for advertised
supervisory position;; to the affected
group of supervisors. Furthermore,
promoting lower graded employees to
these positions was specifically
prohibited. If sufficient applicants did
not apply to fill the supervisory
positions, managers could expand the
scope of competition to other
employees at the same grade level as
the job advertised. While most
promotions have not yet occurred due
to an Agency-wide freeze, a
Headquarters waiver has already
allowed some to take place in one
region.
We Recommended That
The Deputy Administrator:
• Review the implementation of
reorganization plans for all EPA
offices and regions, and evaluate
actions taken to reduce the number of
senior supervisory positions.
• Take whatever action is necessary
to ensure that all offices comply with
the streamlining initiative and actually
reduce the number of higher graded
positions over time.
What Action Was Taken
The final audit report (6400015) was
issued to the Deputy Administrator on
November 22, 1995. In responding to
the report, the Deputy Administrator
stated that while some increases in
senior level positions may be
appropriate at this time to meet the
Agency's streamlining, reinvention,
and diversity goals, significant
increases should not become a
permanent part of the Agency's grade
structure. Further, he has asked the
Office of Administration and
Resources Management to work with
other Headquarters and regional
offices to develop a long-term strategy
for effectively managing these issues.
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
-------
FACA Committees' Costs
Nearly Doubled Since 1993
EPA Committees
Findings in Brief
While we support EPA's strategy of
using Federal Advisory Committee
Act (FACA) committees to create
partnerships with business and
communities, the Agency needs to
ensure that the operations of these
committees are fiscally
responsible. Although EPA has
decreased the number of its FACA
committees by one-third since
1993, their operating costs have
increased 84 percent, and the
number of Agency personnel
involved has grown almost 57
percent.
Background
A February 1993 Executive Order
directed executive departments and
agencies to terminate at least one-
third of FACA committees not required
by statute. New advisory committees
could be established only under
compelling circumstances with the
approval of the Office of Management
and Budget. Additionally, a June 1994
Vice-Presidential memorandum
directed each agency to reduce
advisory committee costs by at least
five percent.
We Found That
EPA's cost to operate FACA
committees has increased from $4.9
million for 31 committees in 1993 to
over $9 million for 22 committees in
1995. This is an 84 percent rise in the
cost of committee operations with two-
thirds of the costs supporting
committees not required by statute.
The number of Agency personnel
involved in FACA committee
operations has also grown from 38
full-time equivalent (FTE) personnel at
cost of $2.2 million in fiscal 1993 to 65
Number of committees
FTEs
Support Costs
FTE at a cost of $3.6 million in fiscal
1995.
Over 70 percent of the fiscal 1995
salary costs for operational support
was for high level employees. EPA's
decentralized operations appeared to
contribute to a duplication of similar
administrative functions resulting in
the involvement of more and higher
paid personnel than necessary in
committee operations.
Although a central Agency office
administers FACA and consolidates
cost data, it has no control over
individual FACA committee funds.
Each program office separately funds
the FACA committees it establishes.
This system does not allow EPA to
fully consider costs in establishing
committees or their priorities.
Consequently, the Agency is not able
to ensure that funds are used
efficiently to obtain public advice.
Efforts by EPA to decrease overall
FACA committee costs have not been
successful.
We Recommended That
The Deputy Administrator:
• Assign responsibility and authority
for monitoring and reducing overall
costs of FACA committees.
• Identify offsetting reductions in
existing committees prior to
establishing new committees.
• Review and consolidate, where
appropriate, administrative committee
functions to reduce the number and
grade level of personnel involved in
committee operations.
What Action Was Taken
The final report (6100147) was issued
to the Deputy Administrator on March
29,1996. In response to our draft
report, the Deputy Administrator did
not dispute the cost growth, but
stressed the importance of FACA
committees to Agency operations. He
disagreed with most
recommendations, but agreed to
conduct a review of FACA
administrative functions to find ways to
streamline them. A response to the
final report is due on June 27, 1996.
OCTOBER 1, 1995 THROUGH MARCH 31, 19%
-------
Year 2000 frwfcl Cause
Failure of Major
Findings in Brief
The Office of Information
Resources Management (OIRM) has
raised Agency awareness of data
processing problems associated
with the year 2000. However, OIRM
has not acted sufficiently to reduce
the imminent threat of major EPA
systems failure.
Background
The upcoming century change is
considered to be one of the most
critical problems facing data
processing, and industry has become
increasingly aware of the potential
impact of storing years in computers
as two digit numeric fields (e.g.,
"1996" can be stored as "96"). The
basic problems are inverse dates
(interpreting "00" as occurring prior to
"99") and resulting incorrect leap year
assumptions. Since most systems
perform date calculations, they could
produce unreliable information, or
even fail completely, on or before
January 1, 2000.
We Found That
OIRM has been conducting an
information campaign to alert system
managers to problems and solutions
associated with the year 2000. The
Agency also reviewed 36 of its over
300 application systems, and
developed a query program to help
locate date codes needing
modification within some systems.
However, OIRM has not established
specific guidance to educate
managers regarding the magnitude of
the problem.
For example, several managers were
unaware of potential problems with
system interfaces and incompatible
historical data, which will complicate
the modification process and directly
affect the time and cost of resolving
year 2000 problems. Yet every
system we surveyed exchanges data
with at least one other Agency system,
and 54 percent exchange data with
systems outside of EPA.
Also, each major application system is
vulnerable to the faults of its hardware
platform. OIRM did not develop
consistent test plans to ensure that
each operating system's
idiosyncrasies will be tested and that
programs will function as intended
beyond the year 2000.
OIRM plans to allow information
system managers to implement either
the industry-recommended, four digit
year expansion or to reprogram their
systems and specify subsequent cut-
off dates. Reprogramming solutions
could hide the problem and scatter
future "failure" dates randomly across
the Agency. Also, these inconsistent
methods for dealing with the year
2000 problem will affect how well
Agency systems interact.
EPA plans to contract out systems
reprogramming efforts, but the lack of
detailed plans, budget uncertainties,
and contracting time delays make it
questionable whether EPA systems
will be ready in time. To date, only
two systems are currently year 2000
compliant, and four major systems
have experienced problems accepting
dates beyond 1999. Industry
recommends that systems be fully
tested and ready for implementation
by the end of 1997, to allow for one
full year of normal processing, as well
as year-end and quarter-end
processing.
We Recommended That
The Acting Director, Office of
Information Resources Management:
• Expedite the development of
guidance documents to, at a
minimum, identify: (1) common
concerns that need to be addressed;
(2) reliable methods for testing date
fields for year 2000 compliance; and
(3) tests designed to ensure
compatibility between Agency
application systems.
• Employ an existing communication
mechanism to: (1) disseminate
guidance to system managers; (2)
serve as a central repository devoted
to year 2000 issues; and (3) provide
an avenue for the exchange of ideas
and experiences among system
managers.
• Endorse the use of the existing four
digit year standard, and require
system managers to obtain a waiver if
they choose a solution other than the
standard.
What Action Was Taken
We /ssued our final report (6400036J
to the Acting Director, Office of
Information Resources Management,
on March 14, 1996. in responding to
the draft report, the Agency agreed
that the year 2000 issue poses a
serious problem and partially agreed
with our three recommendations, while
being reluctant to impose a "one size
fits all" solution on existing Agency
systems. A response to the final
report is due on June 12, 1996.
10
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
-------
Unauthorized Use of Gulf
geology Division
Findings in Brief
Non-Federal personnel were
allowed to perform research at the
Gulf Ecology Division (GED)
laboratory without proper
authorization, and some directly
assisted on EPA research activities
in violation of Federal law. In
addition, proper security over
access to GED facilities had not
been established.
Background
In April 1995, we received allegations
that: (1) students from the University
of West Florida (UWF) were
performing unauthorized, private
research at GED's laboratory; (2) a
scientist employed by the University of
South Alabama used GED's
laboratory without an agreement or
relationship between EPA and the
University; and (3) two EPA scientists
had proposed using the GED facilities
for a privately funded research project
without proper approval.
We Found That
All of the allegations were true.
Students and/or faculty from at least
three universities had worked or were
currently working at GED's laboratory
without any authorized agreement,
contract with EPA, or assessment of
user fees. In addition, two GED
scientists solicited private funding for
research at GED without proper
approval. A May 1995 Office of
Research and Development (ORD)
management review identified the
MOU as a significant problem, and it is
currently being revised to reflect
GED's new mission.
Some of these non-Federal personnel
were directly assisting GED staff on
EPA research projects which violates
statutory prohibitions against Federal
agency acceptance of voluntary
services. In addition, non-Federal use
of EPA facilities without proper
authorization raises questions of
EPA's liability in case of accidents,
injuries, or compensation claims, as
well as ownership of patents and
proprietary information resulting from
the research.
The former laboratory director
implemented a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) with UWF
without proper approval, and many of
the unauthorized uses of GED
facilities were justified by GED staff
based on questionable or vague
provisions in this unapproved MOU.
ORD received the proposed MOU in
1992, but did not provide a timely
response or intervene when the MOU
was implemented without approval.
Further, GED officials did not establish
proper security over access to the
facility because they believed the risk
of unauthorized access was minimal.
Anyone could enter the facility during
normal business hours without
identification or proper authorization.
In addition, information required on the
entrance log was insufficient to
properly identify individuals entering
GED after normal business hours.
Due to the large fluctuation of non-
Federal personnel who work at the
laboratory, control over unauthorized
access is difficult without some type of
24-hour restriction.
We Recommended That
The Assistant Administrator for
Research and Development:
• Coordinate with the Office of the
Comptroller in order to fulfill the
reporting requirements for a violation
of Federal law regarding the
acceptance of voluntary services.
• Work with the Acting Assistant
Administrator for Administration and
Resources Management to prepare an
Agency-wide "umbrella" delegation for
implementation of reimbursement
authority for use of EPA facilities.
• Coordinate with the Office of
Administration and Resources
Management and the Office of
General Counsel to develop guidance
concerning non-Federal use of EPA
facilities and fees to be charged for
such use, and the solicitation and use
of private funds for EPA research.
• Identify and terminate all
unauthorized non-Federal use of GED
facilities and provide an expeditious
review of the proposed MOU between
GED and UWF.
What Action Was Taken
The final special review report
(6400045) was issued to {he Assistant
Administrator for Research and
Development on March 30, 1996. In
response to the draft report, the
Assistant Administrator included
corrective actions and milestone dates
for completion of planned actions that
were considered adequate for
resolution of all except two of our
recommendations. The Agency
disagreed with our conclusions
regarding GED's acceptance of
voluntary services, a violation of
Federal law; and the non-Federal use
of EPA laboratory facilities. A
response to the final report is due by
June 30, 1996.
OCTOBER 1,1995 THROUGH MARCH 31,1996
11
-------
Air Topics From R&D
Facilities Not Regulated
Findings in Brief
Although EPA has initiated
improvements on facility air toxics
emission standards, it has not
designated research and
development (R&D) facilities as a
separate category for regulation.
Consequently, without independent
state regulation, toxic emissions
from R&D facilities are unrestricted.
Background
The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments
(CAAA) required EPA to identify
categories for major sources of toxic
air pollutants, including a separate
category for R&D facilities, and to
establish emission standards for each
source category. EPA's Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards
(OAQPS) is responsible for
promulgating technology-based
Maximum Achievable Control
Technology (MACT) standards.
We Found That
EPA had neither developed an R&D
source category nor planned to do so.
As a result, these facilities operate
without restriction in states that have
no independent regulation, and
industry could take advantage of R&D
status to avoid complying with air
toxics regulations. Agency officials
knew little about the number of major
R&D facilities or the emissions they
produce. However, state officials
could name dozens of specific
unregulated R&D facilities that may
emit major quantities of air toxics.
Although the Agency is not meeting
the statutorily mandated schedule,
OAQPS was adopting initiatives to
expedite and improve the MACT
development process. Through their
most well-known initiative, the MACT
Partnership Program, EPA and states
work together with industry and
environmentalists to reduce the time
and resources needed for completing
the MACT standards. In addition,
under the Tiering program, EPA
regulations (both planned and under
development) are classified according
to anticipated cross-Agency concerns,
impact on the public, political interest,
and controversy with other Federal
agencies. This initiative would exempt
some regulations from high level
review to speed the process.
Also, we found that the CAAA's
method for computing the emission
limit, called the "MACT floor," is not
completely defined. For example, the
emission limit calculated from the top
12 percent of industry sources could
result in a standard which does not
require any emissions control.
Regardless of its shortcomings,
OAQPS officials believe that the
current law provides for set limits and
strengthens their position when
dealing with industry.
We Recommended That
The Director, OAQPS, establish a
separate category covering research
and development facilities.
What Action Was Taken
The final report (6100140) was issued
to the Director, OAQPS, on March 19,
1996. In responding to the draft
report, the Director concurred with our
observations and conclusions
concerning the development process
for MACT standards. Also, the
Director agreed that emissions from
major sources at R&D facilities lack
regulation and that a separate
category would be established. A
response to the final report is due by
June 17, 1996.
12
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
-------
improvements Needed in
Ohio's Leaking
Underground Storage Tank
(LUST| Program
Findings in Brief
The Ohio Bureau of Underground
Storage Tanks Regulation (BUSTR)
effectively directed LUST resources
to cleanup of high priority sites, but
overstated accomplishments and
did not attempt to recover most
cleanup costs.
Background
The Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act authorizes EPA to use
cooperative agreements to provide
LUST Trust Funds 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 effectively used two systems
to identify and clean up high priority
LUST sites posing the greatest threat
to human health and the environment.
The first system identified emergency
sites requiring immediate action, and
the second evaluated the long-term
effects of each release.
Performance
Indicators
•Confirmed Releases
-Cleanups Initiated
-Cleanups Completed
•Enforcement Actions
However, BUSTR did not report
program accomplishments in
accordance with EPA guidance.
OCTOBER 1, 1995 THROUGH MARCH 31, 1996
Ctoseup of typical corroded storage tankshows sources of leaks (EPA photo).
Actual accomplishments were less
than what was reported for confirmed
releases, cleanups initiated, cleanups
completed, and enforcement actions.
These overstatements provided the
Agency with an inaccurate basis for
comparing Ohio activities with other
states.
BUSTR had not recovered Federal
and state funds spent to clean up 121
LUST sites because it had not
completed the development of its cost
recovery program. Also, BUSTR did
not maintain complete cost
documentation on LUST cleanups
which prevented identification of sites
with the greatest cost recovery
potential.
We Recommended That
The Regional Administrator, Region 5,
work with BUSTR to ensure that it.
• Reviews its methodology for
computing the number of confirmed
releases, cleanups initiated, cleanups
completed, and enforcement actions
taken to ensure the methodology
meets EPA definitions.
• Develops and implements a
comprehensive cost recovery program
that attempts to recover LUST Trust
Fund money.
• Maintains complete cost
documentation records.
What Action Was Taken
The final report (6100095) was issued
to the Regional Administrator, Region
5, on February 5, 1996. In responding
to the draft report the Regional
Administrator agreed to take
corrective action to address all the
findings and recommendations in the
report. Accordingly, no further
response was required and we closed
the report upon issuance.
13
-------
inadequate Evacuation
Plan and Accessibility
Pose Safety Risks
Findings in Brief
EPA's Occupant Emergency Plan
(OEP) for Waterside Mall (WSM)
was outdated and insufficiently
complete to protect employees and
contractors. Also, survey
respondents believed additional
actions are needed to make WSM
safer and more accessible to the
physically challenged.
Background
EPA is required to develop and
maintain an evacuation plan for
safeguarding over 5,000 Agency
employees and contractors at WSM in
an emergency. Our review included a
survey of EPA Headquarters
employees having mobility- or
sensory-related physical challenges.
We Found That
Much of EPA's WSM OEP was
inadequate and could hinder the
Agency's ability to safely and quickly
evacuate personnel in an emergency.
Seventy-six percent of physically
challenged survey respondents did not
know what to do in an emergency.
Specifically, the list of key evacuation
personnel was outdated, and no
stairwell, elevator, or exit monitors
were designated. Data needed on
physically challenged staff was
incomplete, and detailed emergency
procedures to protect them, such as
use of the elevator for evacuation,
were not included in the OEP.
Further, building evacuation routes
had not been posted, and basic
provisions of the OEP had not been
disseminated to appropriate staff or
generally communicated to WSM
employees. The OEP did not provide
any emergency policy and procedures
for contractors.
The Agency had not established a
formal process to annually update,
test, and obtain approval of the WSM
These stairs from the EPA
garage must be climbed to
reach an elevator (EPA
photo).
OEP. In addition, annual training for
key personnel had not been
conducted, and several monitors told
us that they had not had any training
in more than five yeairs.
In recent years, EPA and the General
Services Administration (GSA) have
resolved major barriers to
accommodate the physically
challenged at WSM. However, our
survey respondents believed that
additional improvements could make
WSM safer and more accessible,
especially in stairs, hallways, and
parking facilities. Many of the survey
respondents believed that barriers,
some of which may violate
accessibility standards, pose a danger
to their health and safety, and have
impeded their job performance.
We Recommended That
The Acting Assistant Administrator for
Administration and Resources
Management:
• Establish a formal process to
periodically update, test, and
communicate the OEP.
• Identify and train evacuation
personnel annually.
• Make easy and inexpensive
changes to remove some barriers.
• Request that GSA determine if any
existing barriers put WSM in
noncompliance with accessibility
standards and take corrective actions,
if necessary.
What Action Was Taken
The final report (6100150) was issued
to the Acting Assistant Administrator
for Administration and Resources
Management on March 28, 1996. In
response to the draft report, the
Agency generally agreed with most of
our recommendations, but disagreed
with some aspects of the findings. A
response to the final report is due on
June 26, 1996.
14
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
-------
Canceled Payment
Activities Were Effectively
Managed
Findings In Brief
In general, EPA effectively
monitored and controlled canceled
payment activities and properly
resolved most negotiated canceled
checks, limiting the risk of
significant loss to the Agency.
However, EPA could improve case
file maintenance and timely
recovery of duplicate payments at
certain accounting offices.
Background
EPA authorizes the Department of
Treasury to disburse Agency funds to
employees, vendors, contractors, and
grantees. The Agency submits
certifications that Treasury relies on to
print and mail checks, and to transmit
funds electronically. If a check needs
to be cancelled after issuance,
Treasury credits the funds back to the
Agency's appropriation or fund
account. However, checks can still be
negotiated because Treasury does not
notify financial institutions that the
checks have been canceled. If a
canceled check is subsequently
negotiated, Treasury identifies this as
a payment over cancellation (POC),
and charges the Agency with the
amount of the check. Between
October 1990 and May 1995,
Treasury identified 88 canceled EPA
checks resulting in POCs totaling
more than $1.3 million. EPA has 15
accounting offices that are involved in
payment cancellation activities.
We Found That
In general, the Agency effectively
controlled check cancellation activities
and resolved canceled checks that
had been negotiated. Specifically, the
Research Triangle Park accounting
office properly managed canceled
payment activities, systematically
maintained files, and ensured that
canceled checks did not result in
duplicate or improper payments.
The Chicago accounting office
adequately resolved most of the POCs
we reviewed. However, the office did
not timely resolve one POC resulting
in a $999,999 duplicate payment when
a grantee negotiated both an original
and a replacement check. The
grantee had use of the $999,999
overpayment for nearly 2/4 years
before the Chicago office corrected
the situation.
Performance
Indicators
-Number and
Timeliness of
Unresolved POC Cases
The Washington Financial
Management Center (WFMC)
established a computer database and
case files as control records for check
cancellation cases Two WFMC
accounting sections did not keep their
record systems current or follow up on
cases timely. For example, files could
not be located for 44 of 115 check
cancellation cases. The database
maintained by WFMC to control
canceled check cases did not include
25 unresolved cases. In addition, 30
cases were open over a year, and 20
others more than six months.
We Recommended That
The Director, Financial Management
Division (FMD), direct WFMC staff to:
• Organize the filing system for
canceled check cases so files can be
easily found.
• Update the computer database to
include all cases and show whether
each case is open or closed.
• Review all open cases to determine
when they should be followed up.
What Action Was Taken
The final report (6100074) was issued
to the Director, FMD, on November
30, 1995. In response to the draft
report, the Director, FMD, stated that
WFMC has revamped and
strengthened the procedures on the
existing filing system. Also, WFMC
will update the database to show
whether cases are open or closed,
and ensure timely follow-up on an
ongoing basis. The corrective actions
were responsive to our
recommendations and we closed the
audit report in our tracking system.
OCTOBER 1, 1995 THROUGH MARCH 31, 1996
15
-------
Superfund
The 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 expired on
December 31, 1995. However,
the program is continuing while
Congress considers
reauthorization.
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
Inadequate oversight resulted in cost oveminsat the Summitville, CO, Superfund site (EPA
OIG photo). See page 18.
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 of1990);
• 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.
16
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
-------
Major Delays in Superfund
Cleanups increased Costs
and Potential Health Risks
Findings in Brief
Despite identification between 12
and 15 years ago, the three
Super-fund sites we reviewed were
still not cleaned up. The prolonged
time spent studying sites and
designing remedies resulted in
higher cleanup costs and
continued risks to public health
and the environment.
Background
We evaluated the history and
chronology of activities at three
Superfund sites to identify examples
of the barriers encountered during the
cleanup process. We selected sites
based primarily on recommendations
from EPA regional offices, stage of
cleanup, geographic location, and the
existence of significant delays in the
cleanup. The information will be used,
in conjunction with our other work, to
develop a long-term audit plan for
Superfund.
We Found That
In general, lengthy remedial
investigation/feasibility study and
enforcement negotiations delayed
actual cleanup of sites. Studying the
sites and designing cleanup remedies
accounted for about 75 percent of the
time since the sites were discovered.
Delays also occurred because of
community, state, congressional, and
potentially responsible party
objections to the remedy selected for
cleanup. In addition, the requirements
of the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act and its 1986 amendments
resulted in more focus on achieving
process steps rather than cleanup of
sites.
The Whitmoyer Laboratories site in
Myerstown, PA, entered the
Superfund cleanup pipeline in 1984.
Although some actions have been
taken to prevent further threats to
public health and the environment,
others have not. For example, in 1988
an on-site vault containing about 4
million pounds of hazardous waste
was targeted for a time-critical
Psffo/mance
Indicators
-Timeliness of
Action
•Cost of Action
removal action, due to sampling
activities which indicated extremely
high concentrations of arsenic in the
soil, ground water and surface water
surrounding the vault. The proposed
removal action called for excavating
the vault wastes and transporting
them to a secured landfill at a cost of
about $3 million. However, the
removal did not take place, and the
vault cleanup is being handled by the
remedial program at an estimated cost
of around $18 million. Agency officials
attributed this cost increase to the land
ban requirements, promulgated after
the proposed removal. As of June
1995, when we completed our site
review, the vault and its contents were
still on-site.
The Wasatch Chemical site in Salt
Lake City, UT, was discovered in 1980
and estimated to have construction
completed by 1995, but is not yet fully
cleaned up. From 1981 to 1985, state
sampling showed that the ground
water at the site was contaminated
with toxic chemicals; the suspected
source was an on-site evaporation
pond used for containing process
wastes. In 1985, EPA proposed
further investigation and possible
removal of the pond, but neither
occurred. For the next ten years, EPA
conducted enforcement negotiations
and two removal actions, completed
the site studies, and began the
remedial action. In 1994, EPA began
cleanup of the evaporation pond using
innovative technology. Because of
uncertainties involved with this
technology, cost estimates at the site
have nearly doubled, from $3.3 million
to $6.3 million.
The Southern Maryland Wood
Treating site in Hollywood, MD, was
discovered in 1981, and although $30
million has been spent on removal and
remedial actions, the site is still not
cleaned up. Partially due to
community and political pressure,
work on a 95 percent completed
remedial design was halted in 1992
and the Agency was forced to
reevaluate remedial alternatives and
adopt a less costly remedy. While the
estimated cost for the new remedial
action is less than the original one,
this change resulted in lengthening the
overall cleanup process. Although
community involvement is important
and necessary to ensure acceptance
of the remedy, it has the potential to
increase the time and cost of site
cleanups.
We Recommended That
No recommendations were made
since the case studies were designed
to support a long-range audit plan for
evaluating and targeting ways of
reducing future cleanup delays
What Action Was Taken
Since no written response was
required from Agency officials, we
closed our report (6400016) upon
issuance to the Assistant
Administrator for Solid Waste and
Emergency Response and the
Assistant Administrator for
Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance on November 29, 1995.
OCTOBER 1, 1995 THROUGH MARCH 31, 1996
17
-------
Hazardous Waste Risks
Reduced, But inadequate
Oversight Resulted in Cost
Overruns and inefficient
Cleanup
Findings in Brief
EPA Region 8 responded to the
Summitville, CO, Super-fund site
emergency in a wide-spread but
remote area, by reducing
hazardous waste risks. However,
the Region did not adequately
oversee Interagency Agreements
(lAGs) with the Department of
Interior's Bureau of Reclamation
(Reclamation) resulting in seven
cost overruns totaling nearly $7.3
million and inefficient cleanup
implementation.
Background
In December 1992, the Summitville
Consolidated Mining Company, Inc.,
filed for bankruptcy and abandoned an
open-pit mining operation used to
recover gold and silver from mined
rock. At the request of the Colorado
Department of Health, EPA Region 8
assumed responsibility for cleaning up
the Summitville mining site and
entered into an initial IAG with
Reclamation to clean up the site. By
July 1995, Region 8 had obligated
more than $96 million for five
Reclamation lAGs, and total site
cleanup costs were estimated at $120
million.
We Found That
Region 8 reduced hazardous waste
risks from the Summitville site.
However, the Region did not
adequately oversee and monitor
Reclamation to ensure efficient
cleanup:
• It did not enforce IAG terms and
conditions requiring Reclamation to
submit current monthly progress
and cost reports. The reports were
often late and did not accurately
identify costs by IAG budget
categories. As a result, IAG cost
ceilings were overrun seven times,
once by $5.2 million.
• It did not properly project future
Summitville funding needs or
elevate funding problems when
Headquarters staff delayed funding
requests.
• It approved IAG payments without
documentation supporting the
allowability and reasonability of
costs, and routinely approved
Reclamation payment requests
consisting of a single dollar figure
without reviewing required monthly
reports supporting reimbursement.
For example, Region 8
unknowingly reimbursed
Reclamation for an ineligible
financing fee included in a single
lump sum request.
• It did not make sure Reclamation
used contracting methods which
would keep cleanup costs down. It
did not encourage Reclamation to
use fixed-price contracts or delivery
orders whenever practicable, and
did not document the basis for
Reclamation using time-and-
materials delivery orders. Region 8
and Reclamation created an
unnecessary layer of general and
administrative expenses and
unnecessary profit by allowing
Reclamation's contractor to
procure subcontractors for some
cleanup on two delivery orders.
• It created a new contract
vulnerability by allowing
Reclamation to award both a fixed-
price construction contract and a
related site-support time-and-
materials delivery order to the
same contractor. This provided the
contractor with an opportunity to
avoid losses and/or maximize
profits by mischarging costs
incurred on the fixed-price contract
work to the time-and-materials
delivery order.
We Recommended That
The Regional Administrator, Region 8:
• Instruct Regional project managers
to closely monitor Reclamation's
compliance with the Summitville IAG
terms and conditions and take
appropriate action.
• Instruct staff to elevate IAG funding
delays to an appropriate management
level to ensure adequate funding
availability.
• Establish Regional controls over all
IAG payment requests; so that
Regional project managers do not
approve payments without adequate
supporting documentation.
• Encourage Reclamation to definitize
Summitville cleanup tasks, cease the
use of time-and-materials delivery
orders, and establish fixed-price
contracts to the extent practicable as
soon as possible.
• Evaluate the adequacy of
Reclamation's controls to prevent its
contractor from mischarging direct
costs of the fixed-price; construction
contract to an open tirne-and-materials
delivery order.
What Action Was Taken
During our review, the Region issued
new guidance to improve IAG
oversight. The final report (6400019)
was issued to the Regional
Administrator, Region 8, on January
22, 1996. In discussions with the OIG,
the Region has indicated
disagreement with some of the
findings, but is preparing a work-plan
to address the recommendations. A
response to the final report is due by
April 22, 1996.
18
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
-------
Superfund Site Laboratory
Data is Questionable
r
I
lealth risk assessments, developing
leanup alternatives, and designing the
•emedy.
Findings in Brief
Although EPA spent nearly $2
million overseeing the Aerojet
General Corporation (Aerojet)
Superfund site, Region 9 had not
evaluated the quality of laboratory
data used for making public health
risk assessments, developing
cleanup alternatives, and designing
the remedy.
Background
Aerojet is a major Department of
Defense contractor that develops and
manufactures solid and liquid propelled
rocket motors in Rancho Cordova,
California. In 1979, ground water
contamination was discovered in
several private wells surrounding
Aerojet's 8,500-acre facility, and EPA
listed the site on its National Priorities
List in 1982 as one of the 10 highest
risk sites. In a 1989 consent decree,
Aerojet agreed to complete a remedial
investigation and feasibility study,
identify potential remedies and costs,
and monitor contamination. Region 9
is responsible for approving the quality
assurance project plan (QAPP),
monitoring compliance with the QAPP,
and verifying that work complies with
the consent decree. The QAPP is the
primary vehicle for ensuring that
environmental data is of sufficient
quality and quantity for decision-
making.
We Found That
Aerojet spent about $100 million on
studies and cleanup without adequately
ensuring the quality of the underlying
data or complying with the data quality
requirements in its consent decree with
EPA and the State of California.
Region 9 spent nearly $2 million
overseeing this site, but had not
evaluated the quality of laboratory data
Aerojet collected for making public
OCTOBER 1, 1995 THROUGH MARCH 31, 1996
Perfonnance
Indicators
-Annual Laboratory Audits
•Double Blind Performance
Evaluation Samples
-Quality Assurance Reports
-Quality Assurance Audits
Adequate data quality objectives, which
are used as the basis for preparing the
QAPP, had not been developed.
Several quality assurance activities
including data validation requirements,
independent laboratory audits,
frequency of performance evaluation
samples, and maintenance of magnetic
media were omitted from the QAPP.
Further, the Region had not approved
the QAPP and did not ensure that data
validation requirements for historical
and recent data were met, even though
they are necessary for determining
data quality. As a result, much of the
historical data was inaccurately
reflected in the database, and recent
data was of questionable quality.
Aerojet generally did not comply with
the QAPP and related consent decree
requirements. Annual laboratory audits
were not done, performance evaluation
samples were not submitted, quarterly
quality assurance reports had not been
prepared since 1993, and annual
quality assurance audits were not
conducted. Also, the Region and state
regulatory agencies had not
established responsibilities for
monitoring the quality of laboratory
data, and neither state agency had
taken any specific steps to monitor data
quality since they believed EPA was
responsible for ensuring data quality.
We Recommended That
The Regional Administrator, Region 9,
monitor the quality of laboratory data
produced for the Aerojet cleanup by:
• Ensuring data quality objectives are
effective.
• Including key quality assurance
activities in the QAPP.
• Monitoring compliance with the
QAPP.
What Action Was Taken
The final review report (6400044) was
issued to the Regional Administrator,
Region 9, on March 28, 1996. A
response to the final report is due by
June 28, 1996.
Aenqjets ground water extraction treatment facility (EPA OKS photo).
19
-------
Superf und Technical
Assistance Grant Program
Seldom Used
Findings in Brief
The Agency had not adequately
defined Technical Assistance Grant
(TAG) program needs, goals, or
performance measures. In
addition, the program was
inconsistently implemented and
publicized, resulting in only a small
number of TAGs being awarded
since the program's inception.
Background
The TAG program was authorized in
1986 under the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act
(SARA) to encourage community
involvement in the Superfund
decision-making process. Grants of
$50,000 are available to local
community groups affected by
Superfund site activities to hire
technical advisors who monitor and
interpret site specific technical studies.
EPA is responsible for providing
information to residents who live near
Superfund sites and involving them in
site cleanup decisions.
We Found That
While the TAG program was
implemented in general compliance
with program and regulatory
requirements, program managers had
not developed sufficient goals and
performance measures or a long-term
strategy to effectively and efficiently
manage it. There was also no
indication that the Agency had
conducted a needs survey or
identified the number of communities
interested in obtaining a TAG grant.
Although EPA is required to notify an
impacted community about the TAG
program and the availability of TAG
grants, we determined that this
information was not consistently
communicated to interested groups.
Further, individual regions placed
different levels of emphasis on
implementing and promoting the TAG
program which directly correlated to
the number of TAGs awarded and
resulted in program inconsistency on a
national scale.
Consequently, the TAG program
objectives of affording local
community groups access to technical
advisors at Superfund sites were
generally unfulfilled during the seven
years of its existence. There have
been only 151 TAGs awarded since
1988 for the over 1,250 Superfund
National Priorities List sites. EPA
awarded only $8.2 million of the $33
million budgeted for TAG since
program inception, and grantees
reported less than one-half ($3.6
million) had been spent as of the end
of fiscal 1994.
We Recommended That
The Assistant Administrator for Solid
Waste and Emergency Response:
• Conduct a needs survey for the
TAG program to determine whether
sufficient need exists to continue the
program. If not, the program could
be proposed for elimination through
the upcoming reauthorization of the
Superfund statute.
• Promote consistent implementation
of the TAG program through the
establishment of national program
goals, performance measures, a long-
term strategy, and shared best
practices.
What Action Was Taken
The final report (6100160) was issued
to the Assistant Administrator for Solid
Waste and Emergency Response on
March 29,1996. In responding to the
draft report, Agency officials agreed in
principle with many of the audit
recommendations and provided
information on activities which was
responsive to the recommendations.
A response to the final report is due by
June 28, 1996.
20
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
-------
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 management of its
contracts with a major contractor; a
grant awarded by the Gulf of
Mexico Program Office; and EPA's
ownership of vehicles and
provision of property to
contractors. Independent audits of
the records and performance of
individual contractors and
recipients of assistance
agreements were also conducted in
accordance with the General
Accounting Office standards for
audits of governmental
organizations, programs, activities,
and functions. These audits
determine whether costs claimed
by contractors are eligible,
supported by documentation,
necessary, and reasonable.
Summaries follow of the most
significant findings and
recommendations reported during
this semiannual period.
inadequate Management
Led to ineffective and
Costly Programs
Findings in Brief
EPA's ineffective, inefficient
planning and inadequate oversight
of a major contractor's performance
resulted in some of the products
and services procured being
inadequate, untimely, and/or of
questionable value.
Background
We reviewed four contracts with the
Agency's third largest contractor which
supported four programs: (1) "Green
Lights," a voluntary, nonregulatory
program aimed at reducing air
pollution; (2) "Indoor Air Quality,"
projects to educate the public about
indoor air pollution; (3) "Local
Government Reimbursement," a
program that reimburses municipalities
for carrying out temporary emergency
measures; and (4) the Zone II
Environmental Services Assistance
Teams (ESAT), which perform
analytical services at EPA
laboratories. The contracts awarded
to support these programs ranged
from approximately $15 million to $68
million over a three to four year period.
We Found That
The "Green Lights" program was more
costly than necessary because EPA
authorized the contractor to perform
questionable work without analyzing
its cost-effectiveness or necessity.
For example, EPA officials allowed the
contractor to visit Hawaii at
government expense to assist
participants, stating that the trip was
cost-effective and led to improvements
in the progress of each participant
visited. However, our analysis
suggested that the participants would
have been successful even without the
visits. In addition, one of EPA's
measures of the "Green Lights"
program was misleading because the
Agency emphasized the number and
prominence of its participants without
revealing that many had made little or
no progress in the program.
EPA did not adequately plan individual
projects under the "Indoor Air Quality"
program, resulting in unnecessary
delays, modifications, and increased
costs. Reliance on the contractor to
complete projects on time and within
budget allowed some to linger for
years beyond their scheduled due
dates. Three of the projects continued
for as many as six years, over several
contract periods, exceeding the total of
all the original budgets by more than
$1 million.
The administrative costs to promote
EPA's "Local Government
Reimbursement" (LGR) program were
unreasonable in relation to the low
response. During fiscal 1995, EPA
reimbursed approximately $95,000 to
four local governments, yet paid over
$300,000 for contracts to administer
the program. More cost-effective
alternatives may exist, such as for
EPA to make the existing fact sheet
(which explains the program and how
to apply for reimbursement) more
available to local governments.
Despite deficiencies in the prime
contractor's management of the
Region 7tSAT team, the contractor
received positive award fee
evaluations. In addition, the Region 8
ESAT team charged a high
percentage of hours (33 percent in
one fee evaluation period) to program
management, which included several
"make work" assignments, due to
unclear objectives and ill-defined
tasks.
OCTOBER 1, 1995 THROUGH MARCH 31, 1996
21
-------
We Recommended That
The Acting Assistant Administrator for
Administration and Resources
Management and the Assistant
Administrators for Air and Radiation
and for Solid Waste and Emergency
Response:
• Only include entities who actively
participate in "Green Lights" when
measuring the success of the
program, and eliminate work
assignments that are not within the
scope of the contract.
• Terminate "Indoor Air Quality" work
assignments that are unnecessary,
and require justification for continuing
assignments with significant delays or
increased costs.
• Eliminate all contractor efforts to
promote or administer the "Local
Government Reimbursement"
program.
• Revise the ESAT contracts to
specifically define program
management and monitor program
management costs.
What Action Was Taken
The final report (6100161) was issued
to the Acting Assistant Administrator
for Administration and Resources
Management and the Assistant
Administrators for Air and Radiation
and for Solid Waste and Emergency
Response on March 30, 1996. In
responding to the draft report, the
Agency disagreed with specific issues
raised in the report but agreed with
most of the recommendations. The
Office of Air and Radiation, in
particular, has already taken many
actions to improve the "Green Lights"
program, such as conducting a pilot
test in which a senior contracting
officer is assigned to work directly with
the program to help ensure the
appropriateness of work assignments,
and reducing the reporting burden by
decreasing the frequency of submitting
several required reports from monthly
to quarterly. A response to the final
report is due by June 30, 1996.
Grant Improperly Awarded
to Pay Symposium Costs
Findings In Brief
EPA improperly awarded a grant to
the Gulf of Mexico Foundation
(GMF) to pay ineligible expenses
previously incurred by an EPA
contractor for a 1995 symposium.
Background
A prior OIG audit concluded that
EPA's Gulf of Mexico Program Office
(GMPO) improperly modified a
cooperative agreement with the Texas
General Land Office (TGLO) to pay for
food, entertainment, and guest travel
at GMPO's 1995 symposium. Since
state law prohibited TGLO from paying
for services for which it had not
contracted, EPA awarded a grant six
months after the symposium to GMF
to pay for these and other symposium
services.
We Found That
The GMF grant funded $66,839 in
symposium costs which were not
legally eligible for Federal funding.
GMPO's contractor incurred
obligations by arranging for the travel
of invited non-Federal attendees,
certain catering services, and
entertainment provided at the 1995
symposium. GMF did not arrange or
contract for any of these services, nor
did the grant stimulate or support any
GMF symposium-related activities.
Consequently, the grant was used
improperly to procure "bill paying
services" for costs that EPA could not
pay directly or through its contractor.
The grant agreement erroneously
listed vendors that were to be paid
$9,620 for symposium-related
entertainment costs which had already
been paid from private donations
solicited by GMF. The executive
director stated that these costs
represented EPA obligations and GMF
was being reimbursed, although the
grant documentation did not indicate
that GMF would be reimbursed for
symposium costs already paid. Also,
erroneous costs in the grant budget
were roughly equivalent to the unpaid
symposium catering costs which could
not legally be paid using Federal funds
or through an assistance agreement.
In addition, the grant agreement
contained tasks that were misleading
or erroneous, such as completing on-
site coordination of the symposium
event and collections of exhibitor and
registration fees. The 1995
symposium occurred almost six
months prior to award of the GMF
grant. We could not identify any on-
site coordination remaining to be
completed, and the GMPO contractor
and TGLO indicated that all
symposium fees had already been
collected. We believe the task of
completing fee collections was added
to the grant by GMPO to facilitate a
possible improper transfer of fees from
the contractor to GMPO to pay
symposium costs. Further,
administrative costs in the grant were
about $300 for each symposium debt
to be paid by GMF.
We Recommended That
The Acting Assistant Administrator for
Administration and Resources
Management:
• Annul the GMF grant and request
repayment of EPA funds.
• Require GMPO to account for all
symposium fees, including any fees
transferred to GMF, and determine
any use of these fees by GMPO's
22
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
-------
contractor or GMF. Fees identified as
miscellaneous receipts should be
recovered and deposited to the U.S.
Treasury.
What Action Was Taken
The final report (6400043) was issued
on March 28, 1996. In response to the
draft report, the Acting Assistant
Administrator for Administration and
Resources Management generally
disagreed with our findings,
conclusions, and recommendations.
The Agency maintains that the
symposium was appropriately funded
under an assistance agreement and
that any fees collected were program
income rather than miscellaneous
receipts to the government. Also, in
light of recent audits focusing on the
use of contracts and assistance
agreements to support conferences,
the Office of Water has agreed to co-
chair an Agency-wide task force to
develop guidance and training
materials to clarify the complexities of
using contracts or assistance
agreements to support conferences.
A response to the final report is due on
June 26, 1996.
Over $100 Million in
Government Property,
Including Vehicles,
improperly Provided to
Contractors
Findings in Brief
EPA has acquired hundreds of
passenger vehicles without
statutory authority. In addition, the
Agency recently reported $138.3
million in government property
(including passenger and other
vehicles) held by contractors,
despite regulatory requirements
that contractors furnish all
necessary property.
Background
Agencies are not permitted to acquire
passenger motor vehicles unless
specifically authorized by appropriation
act or other law. The Federal
Acquisition Regulation (FAR) prohibits,
with certain exceptions, federal
agencies from providing facilities (i.e.,
tools, equipment, furniture, vehicles) to
contractors.
We Found That
EPA has acquired 523 vehicles, of
which 287 were being used as
passenger vehicles in violation of
statutory restrictions. This occurred
because Agency officials understood
that commercial lease operators were
unwilling to expose their vehicles to
contamination and wear associated
with Superfund sites.
As of February 1996, EPA reported
229 active contracts providing $138.3
million in government property to
contractors, including 392 EPA-owned
vehicles and others leased from the
General Services Administration
(GSA). This property also includes the
Agency's shuttle bus service at
Headquarters; EPA's contractor
provides drivers for busses and vans
leased from GSA. It also includes
scientific equipment used at EPA
laboratories. The Office of Acquisition
Management (OAM) acknowledged
that it has become Agency-wide
routine practice to provide property
(including vehicles) to contractors
despite FAR prohibitions. In addition,
EPA incurred expenses for over ten
OCTOBER 1, 1995 THROUGH MARCH 31, 1996
EPA Headquarters shuttle buses are government-owned, contractor-operated
(EPA photo).
23
-------
years by maintaining property
inventories even though a 1984 FAR
provision specifies that the
contractor's property control records
constitute the government's official
property records.
We Recommended That
We recommended that the Acting
Assistant Administrator for
Administration and Resources
Management:
• Seek statutory authority to
purchase any new passenger
vehicles, and refrain from purchasing
any new passenger vehicles until and
unless EPA obtains such authority.
• Develop a plan to remove from
contractor custody all government
vehicles.
• Develop a formal plan for achieving
Agency compliance with the FAR, and
issue a formal policy specifying the
conditions under which government-
furnished and contractor-acquired
property will be approved.
• Propose an appropriate FAR
revision to allow for permanent
exemption of scientific and technical
services contracts at EPA laboratories
from the FAR, or bring the laboratories
into compliance.
• Develop a plan to bring the shuttle
services contract into FAR
compliance.
What Action Was Taken
Agency officials generally agreed with
our recommendations, and committed
to issuing a policy to clarify those
circumstances in which EPA may
furnish property to contractors. 0AM
is also planning to issue a class FAR
deviation, which will limit EPA to
providing existing equipment under
new and existing contracts until all
government-owned property is
consumed. FAR deviations will also
be provided for scientific and technical
services contracts at EPA laboratories,
in order not to impair the quality of
Agency research. The final report
(6100149) was issued to the Acting
Assistant Administrator for
Administration and Resources
Management on March 28, 1996. A
response to the final report is due on
June 26, 1996.
24
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
-------
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 March 31,
1996, there were 284 grants valued
at $5 billion which are expected to
receive OIG review during the next
two and a half years. Summaries of
some audits of construction grants
with significant issues follow.
Blue Plains Regional Sewage Treatment Plant, Washington, DC (EPA photo).
OCTOBER 1, 1995 THROUGH MARCH 31, 1996
25
-------
Los Angeles, California,
Claimed Almost $13.4
Million of Ineligible Costs
Findings in Brief
The City of Los Angeles, California,
claimed $13,370,935 of ineligible
construction, force account, and
indirect costs for the Hyperion
Secondary Conversion Project and
Energy Recovery System, and the
East Valley Interceptor Sewer.
We Found That
EPA awarded six grants totaling
$63,942,299 to the grantee for
construction of various items, including
(1) new and modernized primary tank
batteries for the Hyperion wastewater
treatment facilities; (2) the East Valley
Interceptor Sewer; (3) the Hyperion
Energy Recovery System (HERS) Co-
generation Project; and (4) the HERS
Utility System. The grantee claimed
$13,370,935 of ineligible costs under
the grants, including:
• $11,681,187 of construction
change order costs in excess of the
amount declared eligible by the
delegated state agency;
• $1,144,757 offeree account and
related indirect costs previously
disapproved by the
delegated state agency; and
• $544,991 of otherwise allowable
project costs in excess of the
approved grant amount.
Similar findings of questioned costs
totalling nearly $60 million were
reported in our fiscal 1995 reports to
Congress.
We Recommended That
The Regional Administrator, Region 9,
not participate in the Federal share of
City of Los Angeles
Total of 6 grants
Costs Ineligible
13.4
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
ineligible costs of $10,487,352.
What Action Was Taken
We issued the final report (6200002)
to the Regional Administrator, Region
9, on November 7, 1995. We
received a proposed final
determination, which sustained
$12,295,252 of the ineligible costs
($9,668,241 Federal share), from the
Regional Administrator on March 25,
1996, and concurred with that final
action.
Nearly $10,1 Million of
Questioned Costs Claimed
for New York City Projects
Findings in Brief
The City of New York claimed
$7,481,371 of ineligible architectural
engineering, force account, and
construction costs for pump
stations, interceptor sewers, and a
force main. We questioned an
additional $2,606,283 of
unsupported and unreasonable
costs.
We Found That
EPA awarded four construction grants
totaling $156,050,178 to the New York
City Department of Environmental
Protection for the design and
construction of wastewater
treatment facilities pertaining to the
Oakwood Beach Water Pollution
Control Project. The grantee claimed
$7,481,371 of ineligible costs under
the grant, including:
• $6,875,660 of construction costs
attributable to the purchase of
vehicles, costs which exceeded the
New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation
determination, and costs due to an
incorrect application of the
construction eligibility factor; and
• $605,711 of administrative and
force account costs which exceeded
allowable indirect costs or were
26
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
-------
allocable to the ineligible portion of the
construction project.
We also questioned $1,934,408 of
unsupported costs, including
construction costs for overruns
which exceeded approved amounts,
and costs based on inaccurate
accounting report data or incurred
after the project completion date.
Additionally, we questioned $671,875
of claimed costs as unnecessary or
unreasonable because they exceeded
the approved project amount
according to the American Society of
Civil Engineers' guidelines.
We Recommended That
The Regional Administrator, Region 2,
not participate in the Federal share of
ineligible costs ($5,347,231),
determine the eligibility of the Federal
share of unsupported costs
($1,263,715) and unnecessary or
unreasonable costs ($503,906), and
recover the applicable amount from
the grantee.
What Action Was Taken
We issued the final report (6100096)
to the Regional Administrator, Region
2, on February 5, 1996. A response to
the audit report is due by May 6, 1996.
Almost $3 Million of Ineligible
Costs Claimed by the County
of Westehester, New York
Findings in Brief
The County of Westchester, New
York, claimed ineligible project
costs of $2,995,923 for
the expansion and upgrading of a
wastewater treatment plant.
We Found That
EPA awarded a construction grant
totaling $66,958,888 to the County of
Westchester, New York, to expand
and upgrade the Mamaroneck
wastewater treatment plant. The
grantee claimed $2,995,923 of
ineligible costs under the grant,
including:
• $2,734,121 of architectural
engineering basic fees that exceeded
the limit established by the New York
State Department of Environmental
Conservation, and an incorrect
application of the construction
eligibility factor;
• $331,802 of unallowable base bid
construction costs included in the
engineering design allowance, an
incorrect application of the
construction eligibility factor to claimed
force account costs, and unrefunded
deposits received by the grantee for
plans and specifications not applied
against claimed costs; and
• a $70,000 credit adjustment to
eliminate a duplicate credit for
equipment already included in the
grantee's construction cost claim.
We Recommended That
The Regional Administrator, Region 2,
not participate in the funding of
ineligible costs of $2,995,923 (Federal
share $1,647,757).
What Action Was Taken
We issued the final report (6100076)
issued to the Regional Administrator,
Region 2 on December 6, 1995. A
response from Region 2 had not been
received as of March 31, 1996.
San Francisco, California,
Claimed Over $2.6 Million
of Ineligible Costs
Findings in Brief
The City and County of San
Francisco claimed $2,812,732 of
ineligible project costs for
wastewater treatment facilities.
We Found That
EPA awarded six grants totaling
$148,157,669 to the grantee for (1)
facility planning and studies; (2)
construction of the Channel Basin and
North Shore Outfall Consolidation
projects, and the North Shore Pump
Station; (3) Improvements to the
Richmond-Sunset Water Pollution
Control Plant; and (4) construction of a
marine combined overflow facility
including improvements to the
Southeast sewer system and Water
Pollution Control Plant. The grantee
claimed $2,812,732 of ineligible costs
under the grants, including:
• $1,506,019 of costs claimed in
excess of the State Water Resources
Control Board's approved amount, and
• $1,306,713 of costs allocable to
another Federal facility, the U.S. Army-
Presidio.
We Recommended That
The Regional Administrator, Region 9,
not participate in the Federal share of
ineligible costs of $2,109,549.
What Action Was Taken
We issed the final report (6200003) to
the Regional Administrator, Region 9,
on November 28,1995. We received
a proposed final determination, which
sustained $2,025,030 of the Federal
share, from the Regional Administrator
on March 14, 1996, and concurred
with that final action.
OCTOBER 1, 1995 THROUGH MARCH 31, 1996
27
-------
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 March 31,1996, EPA had 218
OIG reports requiring resolution which
was 33 percent less than the
beginning balance of 327 reports six
months ago. The number of past due
responses (over six months from
report issue date) also dropped 3
percent from 130 to 126 during this
six-month reporting period. At the end
of September 30, 1995, the number of
past due responses was 40 percent of
the total inventory of reports in the
follow-up system, compared to 58
percent as of the end of this reporting
period. The costs questioned in the
OIG reports for which management
decisions were past due as of March
31,1996, represented 83 percent of
total to be resolved.
At March 31, 1996, Agency
management has made no decision
on over 64 percent (62 of 97) non-
preaward reports between one and
nine years old. Three EPA offices-
Office of Acquisition Management,
Grants Administration Division, and
the Assistant Administrator for
Administration and Resources
Management accounted for 66
percent (64 of 97) of the audits on
which no management decision had
been made.
About 23 percent (29 of 126) of the
past due reports were preaward
audits. This is an 8 percent
improvement over the previous six-
month period. EPA is one of the few
agencies that reports on resolution of
audits conducted on preaward
contract proposals. There often may
be multiple preaward 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 when
there are a series of proposals
required from the contractor, it is
common for these audits to remain in
the "unresolved" preaward stage for
longer than 180 days.
Trends
Over the past three years the Agency
has not been timely in submitting
responses to Office of Inspector
General non-preaward reports. For
example, no responses were received
within the required six-month
resolution period on 29 percent (285
of 972) of the non-preaward reports
requiring management decisions from
October 1, 1992, through September
30, 1995.
However, EPA is making progress in
this area. The percentage of no
responses within the required six-
month resolution period has
decreased from 37 percent in fiscal
1993 to 22 percent in fiscal 1995.
We encourage EPA to continue its
work to be more timely. 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.
28
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
-------
Status Report On Perpetual Inventory of Reports in Resolution Process For The Semiannual Period Ending March
31,1996 (Dollar Values in Thousands)
Number
A. For which no management decision
has been made by the commencement
of the reporting period 327
B. Which were issued during the
reporting period 251
C. Which were issued during the
reporting period that required
no resolution 137
Subtotals (A + B - C) 441
D. For which a management decision
was made during the reporting
period 223
E. For which no management decision
decision has been made by the end
of the reporting period 218
Reports for which no management
decision was made within six months
of issuance 126
Report Issuance
Questioned Recommended
Costs Efficiencies
Report Resolution
Costs Sustained
To Be As
Recovered Efficiencies
206,435
28,389
0
234,824
75,113
159,711
133,591
208,743
44,987
0
253,730
66,891
186,839
143,224
41,364
7,703
* 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 does 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 $33.8
million being sustained out of $39.6
million considered ineligible in reports
under OIG control. This is an 85
percent sustained rate.
OCTOBER 1, 1995 THROUGH MARCH 31, 1996
29
-------
Table 1 - Inspector General Issued Reports With Questioned Costs
Semiannual Period Ending: March 31,1996
Dollar Value in thousands
Questioned Unsupported
Number Costs* Costs
A. For which no management decision has been made by
the commencement of the reporting period** 121 206,435 82,450
B. New Reports issued during period 29 28,389 2,130
Subtotals (A + B) 150 234,824 84,580
C. For which a management decision was made during
the reporting period 63 75,113 17,283
(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
48
38***
87
63
41,364
33,749
159,711
133,591
6,400
10,883
67,297
65,168
* 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.
*** 15 audit reports totaling $3,960 were not agreed to by management.
30 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
-------
Table 2 - Inspector General Issued Reports With Recommendations That Funds Be Put To Better Use
Semiannual Period Ending: March 31,1996
Dollar Value
Number (in thousands)
A. For which no management decision has been
made by the commencement of the reporting period* 63 208,743
B. Which were issued during the reporting period 17 44,987
Subtotals (A + B) 80 253,730
C. For which a management decision was made during
the reporting period 51 66,891
(i) Dollar value of recommendations that
were agreed to by management 18 7,703
- based on proposed management action n/a n/a
- based on proposed legislative action n/a n/a
(ii) Dollar value of recommendations that were not
agreed to by management 13** 17,229
(iii) Dollar value of non-awards or unsuccessful
bidders 26 41,959***
D. For which no management decision has been made by
the end of the reporting period 29 186,839
Reports for which no management decision was
made within six months of issuance 15 143.224
* 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.
** Seven 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.
OCTOBER 1, 1995 THROUGH MARCH 31, 1996 31
-------
Resolution of Significant Reports
Report Resolution
Report Number
Report Date
S2CWL5-
5100529
01-0017
Report Issuance Federal Share
fS Questioned/ to be Recovered/
Grantee/ Recommended Sustained
Contractor Efficiency Efficiency
WESTBOROUGH
MA
REPORT DATE
9/29/95
P2CWL2-
5100410
02-0126
MORRISTOWN
NJ
REPORT DATE
7/11/95
D9AGLS-
5100186
03-0082
CDM FEDERAL
PROGRAMS VA
REPORT DATE
2/17/95
D9AGL5-
5100188
REPORT
2/17/95
E2CWN2-
6200003
REPORT
07-0019
DATE
09-0339
DATE
SVERDRUP
ENVIROMENTAL
MO
INEL
UNSP
UNUR
RCOM
INEL
UNSP
UNUR
RCOM
INEL
UNSP
UNUR
RCOM
INEL
UNSP
UNUR
RCOM
SAN FRANCISCOINEL
CA
11/28/95
E2CWN1-
2300082
REPORT
9/25/92
E2CWN5-
5300036
REPORT
9/28/95
E9BGL3-
5100232
REPORT
3/28/95
P9BGL4-
4100309
REPORT
5/19/94
P8CMP2-
3400077
REPORT
9/1/93
09-0092
DATE
09-0126
DATE
10-0110
DATE
10-0083
DATE
23-0177
DATE
UNSP
UNUR
RCOM
RUSSIAN RIVERINEL
CSD CA
LOS ANGELES
CITY CA
CH2M CI
1985-86
CH2M REM IV
87-89 CI
PEI ASSOC
OH
UNSP
UNUR
RCOM
INEL
UNSP
UNUR
RCOM
INEL
UNSP
UNUR
RCOM
INEL
UNSP
UNUR
RCOM
INEL
UNSP
UNUR
RCOM
1,409
1,192
133
2,784
1,412
2,109
6,258
13,685
22,040
155
261
1,465
3
401
6,473
23
1,863
, 113
0
0
0
,220
,478
0
0
0
0
0
,289
0
0
0
,700
,549
•o
0
0
,050
0
,550
0
,839
0
,326
0
,751
, 141
,667
0
,582
, 083
0
0
,655
,579
0
0
INEL 1
UNSP
UNUR
SUST
INEL 1
UNSP
UNUR
SUST
INEL
UNSP
UNUR
SUST 2
INEL
UNSP
UNUR
SUST 1
INEL 2
UNSP
UNUR
SUST
INEL 4
UNSP
UNUR
SUST
INEL22
UNSP
UNUR
SUST
INEL
UNSP 1
UNUR
SUST
INEL
UNSP 1
UNUR
SUST
INEL
UNSP 1
UNUR
SUST
,409,
,192,
133,
,784,
,412,
,025,
,167,
, 040,
155,
261,
,465,
3,
401,
.168,
20,
,329,
113
0
0
0
220
478
0
0
0
0
0
289
0
0
0
700
030
0
0
0
156
0
0
0
839
0
325
0
751
141
667
0
582
493
0
0
359
694
0
0
INEL = INELIGIBLE COST
UNSP = UNSUPPORTED COST
UNUR = UNNECESSARY/UNREASONABLE COST
RCOM = RECOMMENDED EFFICIENCIES
SUST = RECOMMENDED EFFICIENCIES SUSTAINED
32
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 September 30, 1995 181
New Investigations
Opened This Period 71
Investigations Closed
This Period 71
Pending Investigations as
of March 31, 1996 181
Prosecutive and
Administrative Actions
In this period, investigative efforts
resulted in 5 convictions and 1*
indictment. Fines and recoveries,
including those associated with civil
actions, amounted to $ 3,448,953.
Eleven administrative actions** were
taken as a result of investigations.
* 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
General EPA Programs
Total Cases = 126
Superfund & LUST
Total Cases = 55
19
11
11
14
n Construction • Procurement Fraud mn Employee Integrity
^ Program Integrity ^ Other
OCTOBER 1, 1995 THROUGH MARCH 31, 1996
33
-------
Description of Selected
Prosecutive and
Administrative Actions
Below is a brief description of some of
of the prosecutive actions which
occurred during the reporting period.
Some of these actions resulted from
investigations initiated before
October 1, 1995.
IRS Criminal Investigation Division
and the USDA OIG.
Former Water Association
Official Sentenced
Brian Burns, a former program
manager of the Northeast Rural
Water Association (NERWA), was
sentenced on January 4, 1996, in
United States District Court,
Burlington, Vermont, to 6 months in
jail and 4 months of home detention
based on his conviction by a federal
jury in July 1995 on charges of felony
fraud, false statements, and wire
fraud. Burns was also ordered to pay
restitution to the Federal government
of $21,186 and $150 in court costs.
As reported in our previous
Semiannual Report, NERWA was
funded by EPA and the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA) to
provide training and technical
assistance in safe drinking water and
wastewater matters. Burns
concealed and/or manipulated
material information provided to the
National Rural Water Association,
NERWA's oversight organization, by
misrepresenting his work on daily
time logs. Burns used Federal funds
of approximately $5,000 to pay for an
apartment, $7,000 in travel expenses
for trips to attend Harvard, and a
$30,000 salary while attending
school.
The case was investigated by the
EPA OIG with the assistance of the
Former California Lab
Manager and Director
Sentenced
In May 1995 Eureka Laboratories,
Inc., of Sacramento, California,
pleaded guilty to conspiracy to
defraud the United States; making
and using false documents and
concealment of material fact by trick,
scheme and device; and filing false
claims. Later that month, a jury found
Kuen Lee, former Eureka GC/MS
Laboratory manager, and Chung Li,
former Eureka Director of Laboratory
Services, guilty on the same charges.
Eureka is an analytical services
laboratory that was hired by various
government agencies, including EPA,
the Army, and the Air Force, to test
numerous water, soil, and air samples
for environmental pollutants and
toxins in connection with the
remediation of hazardous waste sites.
Contractually required quality control
methods identified specific laboratory
procedures, such as tuning,
calibration, and performance testing
of laboratory equipment, that were
designed to ensure that the data
produced were accurate and reliable.
The primary methods employed by
Eureka were gas chromatography
(GC) and gas chromatography/mass
spectrometry (GC/MS).
The defendants conspired to falsify
analytical test results in order to make
it appear that Eureka had properly
calibrated and maintained its
laboratory equipment. Eureka
concealed its fraudulent
manipulations of the data by removing
various computer-generated "flags" or
identifiers from the documents it
delivered to its government clients.
As a result, the accuracy and
reliability of the test results vital to the
successful identification of hazardous
substances and the remediation of
Superfund hazardous waste sites
were compromised. In November
1995, Chung Li was sentenced to 24
months incarceration, followed by 36
months supervised probation, 250
hours of unpaid community service, a
payment of a $400 special
assessment, and $60 in fees. Also
as a special condition of probation, Li
is prohibited from employment
involving chemical analyses for
Government contracts unless a fully
operational Quality Assurance/Quality
Control procedure is implemented by
the employer and reviewed by the
probation officer.
In December 1995, Kuen Lee was
sentenced to 5 months incarceration,
followed by 36 months supervised
probation, 250 hours of unpaid
community service, and 5 months of
participation in a residential
community correction center. Lee
was also ordered to pay a $400
special assessment and $60 in fees.
Lee also is subject to the same
special condition of probation
regarding employment as Li.
In December 1995, Eureka was
sentenced to 60 months probation,
fined $1.5 million, ordered to pay
restitution of $322,442 and a $1,600
special assessment. The company
was also ordered for five years to
establish a committee to monitor its
compliance with industry standards
for GC/MS tuning, calibration, and
recalibration and compliance with the
terms of probation and to develop and
implement an effective prevention and
detection program during the period
of probation.
This investigation was investigated by
the EPA OIG, the U.S. Army Criminal
Investigation Command, the U.S. Air
Force Office of Special Investigations,
34
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
-------
and the California Environmental
Protection Agency.
Former Officers of a Midwest
Engineering Firm Sentenced
I
A major Midwest engineering firm,
Tenney Pavoni Associates, Inc., and
two of its principals, Mark W. Tenney
and Joseph L. Pavoni, were charged
in February 1995 with submitting false
and inflated claims to the EPA for
their company's engineering and
inspection services on the
construction of a nitrification project
through the Hammond Sanitary
District and to the U.S. Department of
Transportation on a Federally-funded
bridge project in Hammond, Indiana.
The company was also charged with
conspiracy to submit false claims.
Also, company vice-president Gary T.
Boblitt was charged with and pled
guilty to filing a false and inflated
statement to the Hammond Sanitary
District, which was submitted to EPA
for reimbursement.
Tenney Pavoni Associates, Inc.
(TPA), formerly known as TenEch
Engineering, was an engineering firm
with offices in South Bend and
Highland, Indiana; Louisville,
Kentucky; and Chicago and
Springfield, Illinois. Mark Tenney was
the chief executive officer and Joseph
Pavoni was the president of the
company. TPA was the primary
engineering firm on over $17 million
of EPA-funded grant work at the
Hammond Sanitary District,
Hammond, Indiana. According to the
criminal information, Tenney and
Pavoni established policies and
practices which resulted in the
falsification of time sheets to reflect
inflated hours worked by their
employees on cost-reimbursement
contracts that TPA received from EPA
and the U.S. Department of
Transportation. Further, the
information charged that persons
supervised by Tenney and Pavoni
reviewed time sheets of engineers
and others and also boosted the
amount of hours reflected for these
government contracts, resulting in the
company submitting invoices seeking
payment for work that had not been
performed.
On-July 24, 1995, Mark Tenney
pleaded guilty to one count of making
a false claim and one count of aiding
and abetting. On December 22,
1995, Tenney was sentenced to five
months incarceration, five months
home detention, 300 hours of
community service, restitution of
$372,771 and a fine of $250,000, and
a special fee of $50. On March 15,
1996, Joseph Pavoni pleaded guilty to
making a false claim and was
sentenced to three years probation,
500 hours of community service,
restitution of $372,771, a fine of
$250,000 and a special fee of $50.
The restitution of $372,771 and fine of
$250,000 were imposed jointly and
severally on co-defendants Mark
Tenney, Joseph Pavoni, and Tenney
Pavoni Associates, Inc.
This case was investigated jointly by
the EPA OIG, FBI, and the
Department of Transportation OIG.
False inspector Convicted
and Sentenced
Tim Gusler pleaded guilty in October
1995 to theft by deception in New
Jersey Superior Court after an OIG
investigation revealed that Gusler,
while posing as an EPA and/or state
environmental inspector, extorted
money from at least two automobile
body repair shops under threat of
reporting them for alleged violations
of environmental laws. Gusler was
sentenced in January 1996 to 5 days
imprisonment, 36 months probation,
and 50 hours of community service
and a fine of $140. This case was
investigated jointly by the EPA OIG
and the New Jersey Division of
Criminal Justice, Office of the
Attorney General.
Former Stay-in-School
Employee Sentenced
Delron Gant, a former stay-in-school
employee, was sentenced in January
1996 to 12 months probation, fined
$10, and ordered to pay restitution of
$431, the cost of an airline ticket, after
pleading guilty to a misdemeanor
charge of second degree theft. Gant
submitted an altered travel
authorization in order to receive a
round trip airline ticket which she
used for personal travel.
Employee Sentenced in Theft
Case
I
Carlton Nadolney, an EPA
toxicologist, was sentenced in
November 1995 to 60 months
probation including 4 months of
monitored home detention, fined $25
and ordered to pay restitution of
$15,014 after pleading guilty to theft
of government property. As reported
in our previous semiannual report,
Nadolney's plea was the result of an
OIG investigation which disclosed
approximately $15,000 in
unauthorized long distance telephone
calls that were charged to EPA.
Former Employee Sentenced
in AMEX Scam
I
On December 19, 1995, Jean
Stafford, a former EPA secretary, was
sentenced to 24 months in prison,
fined $120,000, and ordered to pay
restitution of $7,200. Upon release
from prison, she will be placed on
probation for three years.
OCTOBER 1, 1995 THROUGH MARCH 31, 1996
35
-------
As reported in our previous
semiannual report, Stafford 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 credit 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
the 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.
Construction Companies
Settle Claims Thai They
Falsely Topk Part in
Programs for Minorities and
Women
Several construction companies
involved in federally-funded public
works projects in the Seattle-Tacoma
area agreed to pay the Federal
government $715,000 to settle two
lawsuits alleging that they used sham
minority subcontracting companies in
order to qualify under state and local
programs for the socially and
economically disadvantaged. The
projects were the West Seattle Bridge
replacement project, the Seattle
Transit Access project, and the
upgrading of the City of Tacoma
Waste Water Treatment Plant, all of
which took place in the late 1980's.
The lawsuits resulted from the
investigative efforts of a multi-agency
task force consisting of the EPA OIG,
U.S. Attorney's Office, FBI, IRS, DOT
OIG, andDOLOIG.
In one lawsuit, the government
alleged that Peter Kiewit Sons, Inc.,
an Omaha, Nebraska, holding
company, through its operating
subsidiaries, Kiewit Construction
Group, Inc., of Omaha, and Kiewit
Construction Company, Inc., and
Kiewit Pacific Company of Seattle,
falsely represented that it was using a
minority female owned company in
Seattle, Global Consultants
Construction, Inc., to do nearly $8
million worth of work when, in fact,
Global did not actually perform the
work.
In the other lawsuit, l:he government
alleged that General Construction
Company, formerly a division of
Wright-Schuchart, Inc., and now
owned by Fletcher-General, Inc., a
Seattle-based firm, used 3A
Industries, Inc., as a sham minority
business enterprise in order to meet
participation goals on the EPA-funded
Tacoma Waste Water Treatment
Plant. 3A, which was supposed to do
$3 million worth of steel and concrete
construction, was found to have little
more than small tools, brooms, and
shovels at the site.
In answering the government's
allegations, all defendants denied any
wrongdoing, asserted that their
conduct was entirely lawful, and did
not admit liability. As a condition of
settlement, Fletcher General
Construction paid $140,000, and
Kiewit Construction Group, Inc., paid
$575,000 to resolve the matter, and
the district court dismissed the case
on January 2, 1996.
LNS Environmental Services, Inc.
(LNS) and Niranjan (3. Shah, LNS's
owner and president, entered into an
agreement with the U.S. Attorney's
Office for the Eastern District of
Texas, paying $9,000 to settle a civil
False Claims Act case. The
agreement and payment were the
culmination of an OIG investigation
relating to LNS's submission of a
fraudulent invoice for testing samples
from a Superfund site. EPA paid LNS
$4,687 on the fraudulent invoice.
36
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
-------
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
three legislative and 36 regulatory
items. The most significant items
reviewed are summarized below.
Proposed Revisions of the
Federal Acquisition
Regulation (FAR)
H.R. 2086 - Local
Empowerment and Flexibility
Act of 1996
We shared the Agency's concern with
the bill's provisions for waiver of
environmental protections contained in
law or regulation. We supported
inclusion of a provision to prohibit the
waiver of any provision enforcing
environmental protection.
We pointed out that the waiver
provisions were confusing, appeared
contradictory and, if retained, should
be strengthened by requiring the head
of the affected agency to approve
waivers for all matters under his/her
responsibility.
We also supported prohibiting waivers
for any requirement of the Budget and
Accounting Procedures Act of 1950,
the Cash Management Improvement
Act of 1990, the Chief Financial
Officers' Act of 1990, the Federal
Grant and Cooperative Agreement Act
of 1977, the Government
Management Reform Act of 1994, the
Office of Federal Procurement Policy
Act of 1983, the Single Audit Act of
1984, and any amendments to these
laws.
We disagreed with the proposal under
FAR Case 93-009 to eliminate the
provision requiring an offerer to
disclose contingent fee arrangements,
provide a contingent fee
representation and agreement, and
submit a statement of contingent and
other fees. Such arrangements are
inherently risky for the government
because the agent's fee is unknown at
the time of the award and increases
during the contract. We
recommended retaining existing FAR
provisions concerning disclosure of
contingent fees.
The proposed rule under FAR Case
93-10 would make most protest-
related costs unallowable. As written,
only those costs incurred by an
"interested party" to defend against a
protest would be allowable. We
responded that the term "interested
party" needed to be more clearly
defined and disagreed that the costs
incurred by a protestor should be
unallowable, regardless of the
outcome of the protest. We
recommended that the proposed rule
be revised to specify that protest costs
are (1) reimbursable to a protestor
who wins a protest because of
inappropriate actions on the part of the
contractor or the government during
the award of the protested contract,
and (2) unallowable when incurred by
a party to defend against a protest
when not requested by the contracting
officer.
OCTOBER 1, 1995 THROUGH MARCH 31, 1996
37
-------
OPM's Proposed Rule On
Suitability, National Security
Positions, and Personnel
1 nvestigations
developments which significantly
affect office operations.
I Government Bankcard
The provision to delete the
reinvestigation requirement for public
trust positions concerns us because
EPA has a number of high-risk public
trust positions, including criminal
investigators, auditors, and those
responsible for establishing Agency
policy. To provide for assurance of
the personal integrity of those
occupying high-risk public trust
positions, we recommended retaining
the reinvestigation requirement.
Management integrity
Advisor (MIA) Roles and
Responsibilities
At the request of the Comptroller, we
commented on a draft document
proposing to establish MIAs who
would assist EPA's Senior Resource
Officials (SRO) in implementing the
Federal Managers' Financial Integrity
Act. We recommended that the
document specify that the MIA should
report directly to the SRO, allowing the
MIA to function without the undue
influence of others and providing for
sufficient access to personnel and
information resources Further,
offices should understand that the MIA
function is a primary duty and will not
be as effective if burdened by
collateral duties of equal importance.
We also proposed enhancements to
the MIA's duties, including
recommending that the MIA should (1)
refer conditions of significant
weakness or possible impropriety to
the OIG for review or consultative
assistance as needed, (2) review
changes to policy and procedures to
ensure that controls are sufficiently
described, and (3) stay abreast of
In addition to encouraging greater use
of government backcards, we
recommended that the policy be
revised to require the Agency's
approving officials to attend the
complete training program so that
these officials would be
knowledgeable about the policies and
controls to prevent misuse.
The Office of Acquisition Management
revised the document accordingly to
require all bankcard approving officials
be trained by December 1997 and,
subsequently, set up a schedule of
classes.
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,
specific offenses, including the
commission of any offense indicating
a lack of business integrity or
business honesty that seriously and
directly affects the present
responsibility of an entity or individual.
An entity or individual may also be
debarred for any other cause of so
serious or compelling a nature that it
affects its present responsibility.
Thus, an entity or individual need not
have committed fraud or been
convicted of an offense to warrant
being debarred. Debarments are to
be fora period commensurate with the
seriousness of the cause, but
generally do not exceed 3 years.
The EPA Suspension and Debarment
(S&D) 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 one
debarment, 4 suspensions, and 2
compliance agreements, a total of 7
actions.
The seven actions are summarized
below:
• On November 6, 1995, EPA
suspended William D. Watkins and
Scott R. Ripey, Commissioned
Officers of the U.S. Public Health
Service, and William Burkhardt III, a
Food and Drug Administration
employee, for knowingly filing false
confidential statements of employment
and financial interest. All three willfully
failed to disclose their ownership and
employment interest in Biosearch
Limited, New England Scientific, and
Biological Analytical Laboratories
(BAL). EPA contracted with BAL for
work on the Narragarisett Bay project.
Our March 31, 1995, semiannual
report discussed the individuals' guilty
pleas for filing false statements.
• On November 9, 1995, EPA
debarred Keith L. Westbrook for three
years. Our semiannual report for the
period ending March 31, 1995,
discussed Mr. Westbrook's guilty plea
as a conspirator in a $1.2 million
embezzlement of funds used to
construct sewage treatment plants
and other water quality improvements
in Maryland.
38
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
-------
• On November 9, 1995, EPA
suspended Pauline M. Ewald,
President, Environmental Compliance
Organization (ECO). In its proposals
to obtain contracts from the recipients
of Superfund Technical Assistance
Grants, ECO submitted false resumes
by misrepresenting degrees and
professional certifications, including
those for people not employed by
ECO. Superfund Technical
Assistance Grants support community
involvement in the cleanup of
hazardous waste sites.
• On January 23, 1996, EPA entered
into an agreement with K.R. ("Simon")
Narasimhan to resolve allegations that
Narasimhan falsified time cards on
subcontract work under EPA
contracts. Under the terms of the
agreement, Mr. Narasimhan will
receive training in business ethics and
ethical requirements under
government contracts, including the
importance of accurate timekeeping.
EPA will withdraw its notice of
proposed debarment after receiving
certification that the training has been
completed.
• On February 13, 1996, EPA
entered into a compliance agreement
with T. Head and Company, Inc. (THI)
and Toney Head, Jr., its owner,
president, and chief executive officer.
Our March 31, 1995, semiannual
report discussed the subjects'
conviction for filing 41 false claims and
our September 30, 1995, report
discussed the settlement of the civil
case regarding the false claims. EPA
agreed to terminate THI and Head's
suspension and further debarment
proceeding provided that they (1) are
found to be in compliance with the
Agreement following an audit
conducted by EPA compliance
auditors, (2) conduct ethics training for
THI's officers and employees, (3)
appoint an independent Ethics
Compliance Officer, and (4) establish
a hotline for complaints. The
agreement also provides for EPA
compliance audits annually over a
three year period. The terms of the
agreement will apply to any successor
company to THI, and to any company
THI or Head acquires control or Head
becomes an officer in if that company
works on or may work on Federal-
funded projects.
• On March 8, 1996, EPA suspended
Khemsafe Environmental, Inc. and its
president, Inno Obiorah, after a multi-
count indictment involving larceny,
fraud, and falsifying business records.
Many of the alleged offenses occurred
in conjunction with asbestos removal
in schools.
• On March 19, 1996, EPA
suspended the National
Environmental Testing Laboratory,
Santa Rosa Division (NET SR),
pending the completion of an
investigation involving the propriety of
laboratory practices on which the
results of analyses were based. NET
SR performed laboratory analyses of
soil and water samples as a
subcontractor under the Superfund
program, and for the Departments of
the Army and Navy.
OIG Management Initiatives
Reinventing the Office of
Inspector General
To meet Government Performance
and Results Act requirements, a team
of Office of Audit (OA), Office of
Investigations (Ol), and Office of
Management (OM) staff is developing
an OIG Strategic Plan that will guide
our future audit and investigative
activities.
All three offices are preparing or
enhancing performance measures,
which will be used to assess success
in achieving our performance goals.
OA, Ol, and OM are also working on
customer service plans that will
identify who our customers are, how
often we will survey them, what we will
ask, and how we will use responses to
improve operations. Ol, as a separate
initiative, will meet with high-level
Agency managers to get feedback on
investigative reports.
These offices continue to streamline
OIG Manual Chapters, bulletins, and
guidance, to eliminate one-half of
internal regulations, as required by
Executive Order. Also, they are
participating in developing a new OIG
management information system that
will consolidate and enhance the
usefulness of information on the
several systems we've been using.
Our system plan is being developed
by a GSA contractor and will include
input from both Headquarters and field
office staff. The plan, which specifies
our system need; computer
equipment, software,
telecommunications requirement; and
cost estimates and schedules, should
be completed in August 1996.
OA and Ol are reviewing workload to
determine long-range staffing needs
(office locations, staff grade levels,
and numbers). As part of that project,
OA is reassessing its approach to
single audit activities, contract audits
and organization, and state revolving
funds audits. OA and Ol results will
form the basis for the OIG position
management plan that will allocate
resources among offices and
locations. OM is reorganizing to
further streamline its operations It will
have two divisions and two staffs
reporting to the AIG. Staff skills will be
enhanced as they acquire skills in
additional aspects of organizational
support activities.
OA and Ol are also working together
to implement a contract audits
strategy, developed by a joint
OCTOBER 1, 1995 THROUGH MARCH 31, 1996
39
-------
workgroup, to identify contractors with
common indicators for high risk and
vulnerability.
OA is completing the ongoing work of
several Quality Action Teams
addressing (1) revised report writing
guidance, (2) auditor career ladder
promotion criteria, and (3)
decentralized reporting, and is
continuing work on an automated
audit process and a writing proficiency
program.
Ol is developing and documenting
physical fitness standards and an
investigator training profile. The
standards and training, including
physical techniques and firearms
training, will serve in part to support
deputization for investigators.
Laura Olsen reviews interviewing concepts (photo by Dana Sharon).
The Brown Bag Institute of
Learning
j
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 Advanced Interviewing in
Carlton Fitzpatrick discusses computer-related aspects of audits and investigations (photo by
Dana Sharon).
40
November 1995, with Laura Olsen as
instructor. She reviewed basic
interviewing concepts for investigators
and auditors, and concluded with an
in-depth session on advanced
interviewing principles;.
Computer Fraud training was held in
December 1995, with instructor
Carlton Fitzpatrick. He focused on the
unique characteristics of computer-
related investigations and audits and
on the perspectives of planning and
demonstrating financial investigations
and audits.
Both instructors are from the Federal
Law Enforcement Training Center.
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
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
-------
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.
Professional Societies and
Associations
pay for the travel of employees
officially representing the Agency at
organization functions because a
professional society or association
may pay only if the matter falls within
the circumstances described in EPA
Ethics Advisory 92-26.
Hotline Activities
EPA encourages employee
participation in professional societies
and associations that relate to the
employee's organization and the
Agency's mission because it can
enhance individual and organizational
performance and morale. CIMI issued
an awareness bulletin to highlight EPA
policy and to alert employees that
conflict of interest questions can arise.
The bulletin emphasized that an
employee (1) may not participate
"personally and substantially" in any
matter which affects the financial
interests of an organization in which
he/she serves as an officer, director,
or employee; (2) should consult
his/her Deputy Ethics Official, even if
not an officer or director, before
participating in any EPA matter
involving the organization; and (3)
may not attempt to influence another
Federal Government organization on
behalf of an outside organization.
Similarly, an employee involved in
communications with an organization
in which he/she is a member should
have a formal designation indicating
that the employee is not representing
the organization or participating in any
EPA decisions concerning the
organization.
The bulletin also indicated that
employees should perform work
concerning organizations and
societies on their own time. However,
with supervisory approval, an
employee holding a leadership
position may be allowed reasonable
amounts of time to prepare for
meetings. Finally, EPA generally will
Th OIG Hotline opened 10 new cases
and completed and closed 15 cases
during the reporting period. Of the
cases closed, 4 resulted in
environmental, prosecutive, or
administrative corrective action, while
11 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 following are examples of
corrective action taken as a result of
information provided to the OIG
hotline:
• A complainant alleged time and
attendance abuse and falsification of
timekeeping documents by a regional
employee. The allegations were
substantiated and the timekeeper was
temporarily suspended from her duties
and given a written reprimand.
• A complainant alleged misuse of
government resources by a senior
Headquarters official. A review found
that the official had conducted
personal business on government
time using government equipment.
The official received an oral
reprimand.
Personnel Security
The Personnel Security Program is
one of the Agency's first-line defenses
against fraud. The program uses
background investigations and
National Agency Checks and Inquiries
to review the integrity of EPA
employees and contractors.
During this semiannual reporting
period, the Personnel Security Staff
reviewed and adjudicated 384
investigations. The following
administrative actions were taken as a
result of investigative findings:
• An employee was terminated
during the probationary period, for
failure to list prior convictions,
which included 2 felonies, on the
SF-171 used to gain employment
with EPA.
• Two contractor employees were
terminated for failure to list prior
convictions for concealed
weapons, controlled substances,
and grand larceny on the security
questionnaire used for initiation of
the investigation. A contractor
employee was denied access to
Confidential Business Information
(CBI) for failure to list a conviction
on the security questionnaire used
for initiation of the investigation.
• An employee's security clearance
was administratively withdrawn and
the subject was placed in a low-risk
position because of derogatory
information reflected in the
five-year periodic reinvestigation.
OCTOBER 1, 1995 THROUGH MARCH 31, 1996
41
-------
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
Assignment Control Number
Title
Recommended
Efficiencies
Final Report Ineligible Unsupported Unreasonable (Funds Be Put
Issued Costs Costs Costs To Better Use)
1. INTERNAL & MANAGEMENT ASSIGNMENTS
Deputy Administrator
E1MMG5-07-0024-6400015 PROPOSED STREAMLINING WILL RESULT
IN INCREASED COSTS 11/22/95
E1AIG6-11-0007-6400041 REGION 5 EMPLOYEE AMEX CARD
ABUSE 3/21/96
E1XMF5-13-0071-6100147 EPA FACA COMMITTEES' COSTS
INCREASE 3/22/96
E6AMG5-13-0073-6400001 REASSIGNMENTS OF SENIOR EPA
STAFF 10/13/95
Financial Management Division
E1AMF5-11-0017-6100074 CANCELED PAYMENT ACTIVITIES WERE
EFFECTIVELY MANAGED 11/30/95
Grants Administration Division
E1XMG6-11-0004-6400034 COMPLIANCE WITH RESTRICTIONS ON
LOBBYING
3/ 6/96
Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation
E1SKF5-03-0070-6100161 AGENCY'S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT
OF SELECTED CONTRACTS AWARDED TO
A MAJOR EPA CONTRACTOR 3/30/96
Director. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
E1KAF5-11-0001-6100140 DEVELOPMENT OF MAXIMUM ACHIEVABLE
CONTROL TECHNOLOGY STANDARDS 3/19/96
E1KAB5-01-0126-6400046 EPA'S OPEN MARKET TRADING RULE
3/28/96
Assistant Administrator for Administration and Resources Management
3/28/96
E1HWG4-04-0168-6400043 GRANT AWARDED TO THE GULF OF
MEXICO FOUNDATION
66,839
E1SFP6-11-0017-6400029 EPA'S SUPERFUND OVERSIGHT AND
RESPONSE COSTS 2/ 6/96
E1FMF5-13-0072-6100149 GOVERNMENT-OWNED VEHICLES AND
GOVERNMENT-FURNISHED PROPERTY 3/28/96
E1PMF6-13-0077-6100150 MINIMIZING RISK FOR THE PHYSICALLY
CHALLENGED AT WATERSIDE MALL 3/28/96
42
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
-------
Assignment Control Number
Title
Questioned Costs Efficiencies
Final Report Ineligible Unsupported Unreasonable (Funds Be Put
Issued Costs Costs Costs To Better Use)
Office of Information Resources Management
E1XMG5-06-0049-6400003 LEASED LINE REQUIREMENTS
E1NMB5-15-3038-6400036 YEAR 2000 VULNERABILITY
TX
10/23/95
3/14/96
Assistant Administrator for Research and Development
E6ABG5-04-0110-6400045 BETTER CONTROLS REQUIRED FOR
OUTSIDE ENTITIES USE OF GULF ECOLOGY
DIVISION LAB 3/30/96
Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response
3/27/96
11/30/95
E1SFF5-09-0021-6100160 SUPERFUND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
GRANTS
E1SFB5-11-0008-6400016 SUPERFUND SITE BARRIERS CASE
STUDIES
Regional Administrator - Region 3
E1KAG5-05-0165-6400032 REGION 3 AIR STATE
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS (SIPS) PA
2/13/96
Regional Administrator - Region 7
E1MMG5-07-0024-6400030 REGION 7'S POSITION MANAGEMENT
2/ 6/96
Regional Administrator - Region 8
E1SFG5-08-0032-6400019 EPA'S OVERSIGHT OF
SUMMITVILLE CLEANUP CO 1/22/96
E1AMB5-08-0031-6400042 REGION 8'S BUDGET EXECUTION
PROCESS 3/22/96
Regional Administrator - Region 9
E1SKG5-09-0110-6400044 AEROJET SF SITE-DATA QUALITY
3/28/96
TOTAL
23
66,839
2. CONSTRUCTION GRANT ASSIGNMENTS
S2CWL5-01-0015-6100047 WEBSTER
S2CWL2-01-0204-6100120 MWRA
TOTAL OF REGION 01 =
MA
MA
E2CWL4-02-0089-6100102 PRASA GRANT CLOSE OUT PR
E2CUL5-02-0150-6100127 WANAQUE VALLEY RSA NJ
P2CWL4-02-0198-6100076 WESTCHESTER CO - MAMARONECK NY
P2CWL4-02-0061-6100096 NEW YORK CITY-OAKWOOD BEACH NY
TOTAL OF REGION 02 = 4
1V 1/95
2/28/96
21 5/96
3/11/96
12/ 6/95
2/ 5/96
334,565
182,704
517,269
0
383,236
1,647,757
5,347,231
7,378,224
865,856
0
0
1,263,715
2,129,571
0
0
0
0
0
0
503,906
503,906
OCTOBER 1, 1995 THROUGH MARCH 31, 1996
-------
Questioned Costs
Efficiencies
Assignment Control Number Title
E2CWM4-04-01 18-6200007 MIAMI -DADE WATER & SEWER
E2CWM4-04-0151 -6200008 MIAMI DADE WATER & SEWER
P2CWN5- 04 -004 1-63000 12 TAMPA
TOTAL OF REGION 04 = 3
E2CWN3-07-0127-6300013 OSAGE BEACH
TOTAL OF REGION 07 = 1
E2CWM5-08-0018-6200001 GRAND JUNCTION
E2CWN3-08-0054-6300011 RAMSEY COUNTY
TOTAL OF REGION 08 = 2
E2CWM4-09-0092-6200002 LOS ANGELES, CITY OF
E2CWM2-09-0339-6200003 SAN FRANCISCO, C&C OF
S2CWN3-09-0098-6300015 SAN BERNARDINO, CITY OF
TOTAL OF REGION 09 = 3
E2CWN5-10-0018-6300010 MONTESANO, CITY OF
TOTAL OF REGION 10 = 1
Final Report Ineligible Unsupported
Issued Costs Costs
AU FL
AU FL
FL
MO
CO
ND
CA
CA
CA
WA
3/11/96
3/21/96
1/24/96
2/ 5/96
10/31/95
12/ 5/95
11/ 7/95
11/28/95
2/ 7/96
11/30/95
20,570
70,290
128,947
219,807
332,048
332,048
500,250
224,174
724,424
10,487,352
2,109,549
443,544
13,040,445
83,003
83,003
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Unreasonable (Funds Be Put
Costs To Better Use)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
73,422
73,422
0
0
449,748
449,748
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION GRANT ASSIGNMENTS
16
22,295,220
2,129,571
1,027,076
3. OTHER GRANT ASSIGNMENTS
G3HVK6-01-0010-6500032 YORK SEWER DISTRICT
G3HVK6-01-0044-6500048 CT HAZARDOUS WASTE MGMT
G3HUK6-01-0049-6500050 HEALTH EFFECTS INSTITUTE
G3HVK6-01-0050-6500051 MATTABASSETT DISTRICT
G3HUK6-01-0051-6500052 FOUR TOWN FOCUS INC.
G3HVK6-01-0048-6500054 MA WATER POLLUTION ABATEMENTMA
N3HUK5-01-0068-6500001 WOODS HOLE RESEARCH CENTER
N3HUK5-01-0161-6500002 UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT
N3HVK5-01-0169-6500003 CLARK UNIVERSITY
N3HUK5-01-0174-6500004 DARTMOUTH COLLEGE
N3HUK5-01-0177-6500005 YALE UNIVERSITY
N3HUJ5-01-0084-6500033 UNIVERSITY SYSTEM OF NH
N3HUK5-01-0119-6500034 BOSTON UNIVERSITY
N3HUK5-01-0131-6500053 WORCESTER POLYTECHNIC INST. MA
TOTAL OF REGION 01 = 14
C3HVK6-02-0020-6500025 BINGHAMTON
E3CPL4-02-0193-6100092 NJIT
E3CWL5-02-0145-6100112 RESEARCH FOUNDATION - SUNY
G3HVK6-02-0013-6500006 SALEM
G3HVK6-02-0016-6500012 INTERSTATE SANIT. COMM.
G3HUK6-02-0026-6500028 AMERICAN LUNG ASSN
G3HUK6-02-0041-6500043 HUDSON REGL HEALTH COMM.
G3HUK6-02-0040-6500044 OZONE TRANSPORT. COMM
G3HVK6-02-0039-6500045 DELAWARE RIVER BASIN COMM
N3HUK5-02-0164-6500009 STEVENS INST OF TECH
N3HVK5-02-0144-6500010 PUERTO RICO, U OF
N3HUK5-02-0166-6500011 SYRACUSE RESEARCH CORP.
N3HUK5-02-0139-6500013 NEW YORK STATE
N3HUK5-02-0126-6500016 NY BOTANICAL GARDEN
N3HVK5-02-0124-6500017 S TIER REG PLNG & DEV BD
N3HVK5-02-0138-6500019 ST REGIS MOHAWK TRIBE
N3HUK5-02-0125-6500020 MANHATTAN COLLEGE
ME
CT
MA
CT
MA
FMA
MA
VT
MA
NH
CT
NH
MA
MA
NY
MJ
NY
NJ
NJ
NY
NJ
DC
NJ
NJ
PR
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
12/11/95
2/13/96
2/21/96
2/21/96
2/21/96
2/21/96
10/ 3/95
10/ 3/95
10/ 3/95
10/ 3/95
10/ 3/95
12/11/95
12/11/95
2/21/96
11/21/95
1/24/96
2/21/96
10/11/95
11/ 1/95
12/ 1/95
2/ 5/96
2/ 5/96
2/ 5/96
10/25/95
10/26/95
10/26/95
11/ 1/95
1V 3/95
11/ 3/95
11/ 8/95
11/ 8/95
0
24,660
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
44
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
-------
Assignment Control Number
Title
Questioned Costs
Efficiencies
Final Report Ineligible Unsupported Unreasonable (Funds Be Put
Issued Costs Costs Costs To Better Use)
N3HVK5-02-0165-6500021
N3HUK5-02-0154-6500022
N3HVK6-02-0019-6500023
N3HUK6-02-0011-6500024
N3HVK6-02-0038-6500040
INC.
NEW YORK CITY
HEALTH RESEARCH
BROOME COUNTY
SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY
CLINTON COUNTY
TOTAL OF REGION 02 = 22
C3HVK6-03
G3HVK6-03
N3HVK6-03
N3HVK6-03
N3HVK6-03
N3HVJ6-03
•0112-6500042
•0105-6500036
0095-6500026
0096-6500027
0098-6500029
0100-6500030
FAIRFAX COUNTY
VA RESOURCES AUTHORITY
MARYLAND STATE OF
WEST VIRGINIA STATE
PA COMMONWEALTH OF
VA COMMONWEALTH OF
TOTAL OF REGION 03 =
C3HVK6-04-0020-6500018 JACKSONVILLE
TOTAL OF REGION 04 =
1
C3HVJ6-05
C3HVK6-05
C3HVK6-05
C3HVJ6-05
E3PLD5-05
N3HVK6-05
•0082-6500037
•0084-6500038
•0109-6500061
•0108-6500062
•0134-6100095
•0083-6500039
FT WAYNE FY 94
KALAMAZOO FY 94
RACINE FY 94
HAMMOND FY 94
CA'S OHIO LUST
MINNESOTA STATE OF
TOTAL OF REGION 05 =
N3HVJ6-06-0014-6500031 OKLAHOMA STATE OF
TOTAL OF REGION 06 = 1
N3HVJ6-08-0014-6500007
N3HVJ6-08-0020-6500049
N3HVJ5-08-0048-6500058
STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA
STATE OF COLORADO
STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA
TOTAL OF REGION 08 =
C3HVK6
G3HVK6
G3HVK6
G3HVJ6
G3HVJ6
G3HVK6
N3HVK6
N3HVH6
N3HVH6
•09-0047-6500055
09-0029-6500008
09-0032-6500014
09-0033-6500015
09-0039-6500035
09-0053-6500064
09-0042-6500041
09-0043-6500047
•09-0052-6500063
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
VA
VA
MD
WV
PA
VA
FL
IN
MI
WI
IN
R5
MN
SD
CO
ND
HONOLULU, CITY AND COUNTY HI
BAY AREA AIR QUAL. MGMT DI CA
GUALALA COMMUNITY SERVICES CA
NAPA COUNTY RESOURCE CONSERVCA
LOS ANGELES, CITY OF CA
UNION SANITARY DISTRICT CA
PALAU, REPUBLIC OF PW
SPECIAL REPORT GUAM MGNT PW
SPECIAL RPT AMERICAN SAMOA
IV 8/95
1V 8/95
11/13/95
11/21/95
1/22/96
2/ 5/96
1/22/96
11/29/95
12/ 1/95
12/ 4/95
12/ 5/95
IV 7/95
1/22/96
1/22/96
3/19/96
3/19/96
2/ 5/96
1/22/96
OK 12/ 5/95
10/12/95
2/20/96
3/15/96
3/ 5/96
10/24/95
1V 1/95
1V V95
12/11/95
3/26/96
1/23/96
2/ 6/96
3/19/96
0
0
0
0
0
24,660
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,945,213
1,945,213
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 09 =
TOTAL OTHER GRANT ASSIGNMENTS
62
1,969,873
5. SUPERFUND GRANT ASSIGNMENTS
E5CGL5-10-0053-6100060 PUYALLUP TRIBE SPECIAL REV WA
TOTAL OF REGION 10 = 1
H5BFL6-20-0015-6100072 SF ATSDR TRANSACTIONS
H5BFL6-20-0015-6100073 SF NIEHS TRANSACTIONS
11/21/95
11/30/95
11/30/95
26,313
26,313
0
0
OCTOBER 1, 1995 THROUGH MARCH 31, 1996
45
-------
Assignment Control Number
Title
Questioned Costs
Efficiencies
Final Report Ineligible Unsupported Unreasonable (Funds Be Put
Issued Costs Costs Costs To Better Use)
TOTAL OF REGION 20 =
TOTAL SUPERFUND GRANT ASSIGNMENTS
26,313
8. OTHER CONTRACT ASSIGNMENTS
D8BML6-01 -0005-6100036
D8AML5-01-0166-6100039
recom-
D8DML3-01 -0132-6100041
D8DML3-01 -0222-6100042
D8CML2-01 -0039-6100043
D8DML3-01 -0135-6100044
the
D8BML6-01 -0023-6100063
D8BML6-01 -0026-6100065
this
D8DML3-01 -0220-6100066
D8BML5-01 -0192-6100077
semi-
D8AML5-01-0113-6100080
D8AML5-01-0121-6100091
D8AML6-01-0011-6100118
D8CML4-01-0127-6100138
D8DML4-01-0020-6100141
D8CML5-01 -0043-6100144
D8BML5-01-0143-6100145
D8DML4-01-0125-6100146
D8DML5-01 -0024-6100148
D8AMP5-01 -0182-6400004
D8AMP6-01 -0016-6400023
D8AMP6-01 -0203-6400024
D8AMP6-01 -0017-6400026
D8AMP6-01 -0015-6400027
D8EMP6-01 -0025-6400038
E8CAP3 - 0 1 - 0060 - 6400009
E8EMP4-01 -0029-6400028
E8EMP5-01 -0621 -6400031
TOTAL OF
D8BML5-02-0080-6100040
D8BML5-02-0181 -6100079
D8EML4-02-0160-6100101
D8AML6-02-0032-6100139
D8EMP6-02-0025-6400012
D8CMP6-02-0033-6400025
E8CWP4-02-0195-6400021
TOTAL OF
D8CML4-03-0113-6100001
D8CML4-03-0255-6100002
D8CML5-03-0125-6100003
D8CML5-03-0184-6100004
D8CML5-03-0176-6100005
D8CML5-03-0216-6100006
D8AML5-03-0237-6100020
D8AML5-03-0099-6100031
D8BML3-03-0165-6100032
D8AML5- 03 -0385 -61 00049
D8AML5-03-0384-6100050
D8AML5-03-0386-6100052
FAY.SPOFFORDÞDIKE, INC
CADMUS GROUP INC
ABB ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH & ENG.
ARTHUR D. LITTLE
INDUSTRIAL ECONOMICS INC
ABT ASSOCIATES INC.
ABT ASSOC INC.
ARTHUR D. LITTLE INC.
MITRE CORP.
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH & ENG.
MAGUIRE GROUP
PEQUAD ASSOC
ENSR CORPORATION
SIGMA RESEARCH CORPORATION
EG & G DYNATREND INC.
INDUSTRIAL ECONOMICS INC
INDUSTRIAL ECONOMICS INC
ABB CONBUSTION ENG-FOSSIL
NORTHBRIDGE ENVIRONMENTAL
ENERGY INVESTMENT CORP.
CADMUS GROUP
HEC ENERGY/DESIGN SYSTEMS
XENERGY INC.
INDUSTRIAL ECONOMICS INC
ALLIANCE TECHNOLOGIES CORP
TRC UNCOMPENSATED 0/T
TRC FY95 FLOORCHECK #2
REGION 01 = 28
HYDRO-QUAL INC.
SYRACUSE RESEARCH CORP.
ENSERCH ENVIRONMENTAL CORP
KAPADIA CONSULTING
HYDROQUAL INC
CAMRODEN ASSOC. FY93&94
MALCOLM PIRNIE
REGION 02 = 7
DYNAMAC
DYNAMAC
COMPUTER SCIENCE CORP.
DYN NETWORK MANAGEMENT INC.
DYN NETWORK MANAGEMENT
ROY F. WESTON
S.S. PAPADOPULOS & ASSOCS.
VERSAR INC.
.MA
MA
ME
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
CT
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
CT
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
CT
CT
NJ
NY
NJ
NY
NJ
NY
MY
MD
MD
VA
VA
VA
PA
MD
VA
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT SUPMD
MANTECH ENVIRONMENTAL
BIONETICS
I SSI, INCORPORATED
VA
VA
VA
10/26/95
10/30/95
10/30/95
10/30/95
10/30/95
10/30/95
11/22/95
11/28/95
11/28/95
12/11/95
12/11/95
1/24/96
2/22/96
3/14/96
3/19/96
3/20/96
3/21/96
3/21/96
3/22/96
10/26/95
2/ 5/96
21 5/96
2/ 5/96
2/ 5/96
3/20/96
11/ 3/95
2/ 5/96
2/13/96
10/30/95
12/11/95
2/ 5/96
3/14/96
11/22/95
21 5/96
1/24/96
10/ 3/95
10/ 3/95
10/ 3/95
10/ 3/95
10/ 3/95
10/ 3/95
10/ 6/95
10/13/95
10/13/95
IV 3/95
11/ 3/95
IV 3/95
* The dollar value of contract audits have not been shown.
Public disclosure of the dollar value of financial
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
findings have been included in the aggregate data
displayed below. Such data individually excluded in
listing will be provided to the Congress under separate
memorandum within 30 days of the transmittal of the
annual report to the agency head. The transmitted data
will contain appropriate cautions regarding disclosure.
46
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
-------
Assignment Control Number
Title
Questioned Costs
Efficiencies
Final Report Ineligible Unsupported Unreasonable (Funds Be Put
Issued Costs Costs Costs To Better Use)
D8AML5-03
D8AML5-03
D8BML4-03
D8BML4-03
D8AML6-03
D8AML5-03
D8AML5-03
D8AML5-03
D8AHL6-03
D8AHL5-03
D8AML6-03
D8AHL6-03
D8AML6-03
D8AHL6-03
D8CBL4-03
D8EML6-03
D8AHL6-03
D8BML4-03
D8EML6-03
D8EML6-03
D8CHL5-03
D8CML5-03
D8AHL6-03
0379-6100053
0356-6100054
0091-6100055
0293-6100056
•0120-6100105
0383-6100106
0352-6100107
•0359-6100108
0094-6100113
•0354-6100114
0080-6100115
•0099-6100116
•0081-6100117
•0101-6100130
•0423-6100132
•0092-6100133
•0107-6100136
•0131-6100137
•0136-6100154
•0085-6100155
•0315-6100156
•0329-6100157
•0113-6100158
INDUS CORP. VA
JACA PA
PERRIN QUARLES ASSOCIATES VA
PERRIN QUARLES ASSOCIATES VA
BIONETICS CORP. VA
DYNAMAC MD
DYNAHAC MD
HAMPSHIRE RESEARCH ASSOC. VA
PRINCETON ECONOMIC RESEARCH MD
SCIENCE POLICY ASSOC. INC.
ASPEN SYSTEMS
DECISION ANALYSIS CORP.
ENVIRO MANAGEMENT
HYDROGEOLOGIC INC.
DYNAMAC
SMITH ENVIRONMENTAL TECH.
ANTARES GROUP INC.
VERSAR
DYNCORP-NMI
RESOLVE INC.
DYNCORP-TAI
DYNCORP-TAI
INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
DC
MD
VA
VA
VA
MD
PA
MD
VA
VA
DC
VA
VA
DC
TOTAL OF REGION 03 = 35
E8EMP5-22-0053-6400005 ICF-FY 95 LABOR FLOORCHECK
TOTAL OF REGION 22 = 1
D8AML5-04
D8BML3-04
D8DML2-04
D8BML6-04
D8EML6-04
D8BML3-04
D8BML3-04
D8BML5-04
D8AML6-04
D8AML5-05
D8EML5-05
D8BML6-05
D8CML3-05
D8DML4-05
D8CML4-05
D8AML6-05
•0149-6100016 ALPHA GAMMA TECHNOLOGIES
•0296-6100018 KBN ENG. & APPL. SCI. INC.
•0383-6100019 KBN ENGINEERING & APPLIED SCFL
•0029-6100070 MANTECH ENVIRONMENTAL
-0041-6100081 APPLIED TECHNICAL SERVICES
•0192-6100085 RESEARCH INFORMATION ORG.
-0191-6100086 RESEARCH INFORMATION ORG.
•0137-6100142 TECHNOLOGY PLANNING & MGMT.
-0046-6100143 INTEGRATED LABORATORY SYSTEMNC
TOTAL OF REGION 04 = 9
0150-6100010
0135-6100014
0033-6100027
0329-6100030
0263-6100046
•0052-6100094
0085-6100122
CHEMICAL ABSTRACT SV
CITY ENVIRONMENTAL
ENVIRON SCIENCE & ENG 91
BATTELLE
BATTELLE FY 93
INST GAS TECH FY 92/93/94
RESOURCE MGT ASSOC
TOTAL OF REGION 05 =
D8EML5-23-0008-6100045 OHM REM
TOTAL OF REGION 23 = 1
OH
D8CML4-06-0053-6100015 SIMON-EEI INC. OK
D8BML5-06-0029-6100017 SOUTHWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTETX
D8BML3-06-0068-6100082 RADIAN TX TX
D8BML3-06-0069-6100083 RADIAN TX
D8AML6-06-0013-6100084 TEXAS A & M UNIVERSITY TX
D8BML4-06-0060-6100110 TILLMAN & ASSOCIATES OK
D8BML3-06-0113-6100111 TILLMAN & ASSOCIATES OK
D8BML4-06-0048-6100121 LEE WILSON ASSOC. NM
11/ 3/95
11/ 3/95
11/ 3/95
IV 3/95
2/14/96
2/14/96
2/14/96
2/15/96
2/22/96
2/22/96
2/22/96
2/22/96
2/22/96
3/13/96
3/13/96
3/13/96
3/14/96
3/14/96
3/26/96
3/26/96
3/27/96
3/27/96
3/27/96
10/26/95
NC
FL
:FL
NC
GA
NC
NC
NC
INC
OH
MI
IL
OH
OH
IL
WI
10/ 6/95
10/ 6/95
10/ 6/95
11/29/95
12/11/95
1/22/96
1/22/96
3/19/96
3/19/96
10/ 4/95
10/ 5/95
10/10/95
10/12/95
10/31/95
1/24/96
3/ 5/96
10/31/95
10/ 6/95
10/ 6/95
1/22/96
1/22/96
1/22/96
2/16/96
2/16/96
2/28/96
OCTOBER 1, 1995 THROUGH MARCH 31, 1996
-------
Assignment Control Number
Title
Questioned Costs
Efficiencies
Final Report Ineligible Unsupported Unreasonable (Funds Be Put
Issued Costs Costs Costs To Better Use)
TOTAL OF REGION 06 = 8
D8BMR6-08-0022-6100135 PROCESS APPLICATIONS
TOTAL OF REGION 08 = 1
CO
D8CML5-09
D8CML6-09
D8CML4-09
D8AML6-09
D8AML6-09
D8CML5-09
D8CML5-09
D8AMN5-09
D8AMN5-09
D8AHN6-09
•0093-6100058
•0031-6100059
0130-6100062
0037-6100087
•0035-6100088
•0121-6100089
•0105-6100103
-0120-6300004
-0122-6300006
-0036-6300014
AQUA FC
GEO/R FC
SAIC FC
ADM ASSOC INC PA
ROBT. BEIN, WILLM.
SAIC FC
SAIC FC
SAIC PA
EERC PA
DANIEL MANN PA
CA
CA
CA
CA
FROST PA CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
TOTAL OF REGION 09 = 10
D8AMN5-10-0054-6300002
D8AMN5-10-0055-6300003
D8EHN6-10-0003-6300005
D8EHN6-10-0008-6300017
COLUMBIA ENVTL SCIENCES PA WA
DADE MOELLER & ASSOC PA UA
DADE MOELLER & ASSOC MS WA
ELGIN SYFERD - DDB NEEDHAM WA
3/13/96
11/13/95
11/13/95
11/21/95
1/22/96
1/22/96
1/22/96
21 8/96
1V 2/95
1V 7/95
2/ 5/96
10/19/95
10/19/95
IV 2/95
2/28/96
TOTAL OF REGION 10 =
TOTAL OTHER CONTRACT ASSIGNMENTS
= 111
259,279
8,357,564
9. SUPERFUND CONTRACT ASSIGNMENTS
D9AGL5-01-0185-6100064
D9AGL5-01-0180-6100067
D9AGL5-01-0186-6100068
D9AKL5-01-0181-6100069
D9AKL5-01-0184-6100097
D9DFL2-01-0333-6100098
E9AGP5- 01 -0627-6400006
ANEPTEK CORPORATION MA
NOBIS ENGINEERING NH
DIVERSIFIED TECH CORPORATIONCT
METCALF & EDDY INC MA
FOSTER WHEELER ENVIR CORP NJ
ARTHUR D. LITTLE, INC. MA
TRC CT
E9HFP4-01-0147-6400008 RE-SOLVE INC.
TOTAL OF REGION 01 =
MA
8
D9DFL2-02-0258-6100037
D9DFL3-02-0165-6100078
D9EFP5-02-0151-6400013
D9EGP5-02-0162-6400014
P9DGL2-02-0134-6100093
FOSTER WHEELER CORPORATION NJ
EBASCO SERVICES INC. NY
FOSTER WHEELER ENVIR CORP NJ
FOSTER WHEELER ENVIRONMENTALNJ
ECOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT NY
TOTAL OF REGION 02 =
D9AFL6-03-0103-6100109
D9CFL4-03-0397-6100131
D9CFL6-03-0131-6100134
D9AFL5-03-0333-6100153
D9BFL2-03-0473-6100159
TECHNOLOGY & MANAGEMENT
ROY F. WESTON
VERSAR INC.
ROY F. WESTON
TECHNICAL RESOURCES, INC.
MD
PA
VA
PA
MD
TOTAL OF REGION 03 =
E9DFL4-22-0275-6100126
E9EFP4-22-0176-6400002
E9EFP4-22-0437-6400018
ICF-FY 1986 INCURRED COST
ICF KAISER ENG INC D/S 12/93
ICF INTN'L-CAS 403 0/H INS.
TOTAL OF REGION 22 = 3
E9EKL5-05-0022-6100035 PRC EMI CAS 418-410
11/22/95
11/28/95
11/28/95
11/29/95
2/ 5/96
21 5/96
10/27/95
1V 2/95
10/30/95
12/11/95
11/22/95
11/22/95
1/24/96
2/16/96
3/13/96
3/13/96
3/26/96
3/27/96
3/11/96
10/18/95
12/ 6/95
IL 10/25/95
48
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
-------
Assignment Control Number
Title
Questioned Costs
Efficiencies
Final Report Ineligible Unsupported Unreasonable (Funds Be Put
Issued Costs Costs Costs To Better Use)
E9AGP6-05-0038-6400017 PRC EMI RAC
E9BKT6-05-0036-6400033 PRC EMI 87 FLASH
IL
IL
TOTAL OF REGION 05 = 3
E9EHP5-23-0011-6400010 EQHI A/S REVIEW OH
TOTAL OF REGION 23 = 1
D9AKL5-06-0054-6100071 BROUN & ROOT ENVIRONMENTAL TX
TOTAL OF REGION 06 = 1
D9CGL3-07-0147-6100007 B&V WASTE SCIENCE & TECH MO
D9DGL3-07-0013-6100008 BLACK & VEATCH MO
D9CGL4-07-0072-6100123 B&V WASTE SCI & TECH CORP MO
D9CGL5-07-0014-6100124 BLACK & VEATCH WASTE SCI MO
D9CGL4-07-0072-6100125 B&V WASTE SCI & TECH CORP MO
TOTAL OF REGION 07 = 5
D9AGL5-08-0055-6100075 CH2MHILL INC CO
D9AGL5-08-0055-6100119 CH2MHILL INC CO
TOTAL OF REGION 08 = 2
D9BKL4-10-0139-6100104 MK ID
D9BGN3-10-0089-6300001 URS AC 1990-1993 WA
D9BGN4-10-0026-6300007 CH2M HILL CI 1990-93 OR
12/ 5/95
2/14/96
IV 7/95
11/29/95
10/ 3/95
10/ 3/95
3/ 5/96
3/ 7/96
3/ 7/96
12/ 2/95
2/27/96
2/13/96
10/16/95
11/13/95
TOTAL SUPERFUND CONTRACT ASSIGNMENTS = 36
TOTAL REPORTS = 251
681,538
25,299,062
0
2,129,571
0
1,027,076
36,629,256
44,986,820
OCTOBER 1, 1995 THROUGH MARCH 31, 1996
49
-------
Appendix 2 -- Reports Issued Without Management Decision
THE INSPECTOR GENERAL ACT REQUIRES A SUMMARY OF EACH 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 why 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 3/31/96:
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
ASSIGNMENT CONTROL
NUMBER
TITLE
FINAL REPORT ASSIGNMENT CONTROL
ISSUED NUMBER
TITLE
FINAL REPORT
ISSUED
Assistant Administrator for Administration & Resources Management E1NMF3-15-0072-5100240 PCIE APPL MAINT-EPA MGT 3/31/95
E1FMF4-03-OU1-5100513 EPA'S OVRSGHT OF ASSIST AGRMNT 9/28/95
Summary: 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.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: THE PROGRAM OFFICE RESPONSE TO THE FINAL REPORT WAS
DATED 3/25/96. THE GRANTS OFFICE ISSUED CORRECTIVE ACTIONS TO
THE DIG AND IS AWAITING ITS RESPONSE. ADDITIONALLY, THE GRANTS
OFFICE IS AWAITING INFORMATION FROM OGC.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT THIS TIME.
IG FOLLOUUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/96 [4]
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 NON-FEDERAL TRAVEL UNDER COOPERATIVE
AGREEMENTS. OGD, OIG, AND OGC HAVE COORDINATED A REQUEST FOR GAO
TO PROVIDE ITS OPINION ON THIS AND OTHER OUTSTANDING ISSUES.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION EXPECTED WITHIN 45 DAYS OF RECEIPT OF GAO OPINION.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/96
E1FMG4-13-0061-5400051 IAGS
[1]
3/31/95
Summary: EPA OFTEN EXECUTED ECONOMY ACT IAGS WITHOUT OBTAINING
ADEQUATE COST REASONABLENESS INFORMATION. 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 IS WORKING WITH APPROPRIATE EPA OFFICES
TO RESOLVE AUDIT ISSUES. IT EXPECTS RESPONSE TO THE AUDIT REPORT
BY 5/15/96.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT THIS TIME.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/96 [1]
*Summary: ALTHOUGH EPA HAS TAKEN SIGNIFICANT STEPS TO STRENGTHS
ITS MANAGEMENT OF APPLICATION SOFTWARE MAINTENANCE, MORE NEEDS T
BE DONE TO IMPROVE SYSTEM AND SOFTWARE RELIABILITY, COST
EFFECTIVENESS, AND DECISIONS ABOUT OPERATIONAL CHANGES.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MA
THE OIG ISSUED FINAL REPORT 3/31/95. THE PROGRAM OFFICE
RESPONDED FORMALLY 7/20/95, AGREEING OR PARTIALLY AGREEING WITH
RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WERE NOT WITHDRAWN. THE OIG REQUESTED
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON 9/6/95 IN ORDER TO CLOSE THE AUDIT.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT THIS TIME.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/96 [3]
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 MA
THE OIG REQUESTED THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL'S OPINION REGARDING TH
USE OF NON-FEDERAL TRAVEL UNDER COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS. THE OFF
OF GRANTS AND DISBARMENT (OGD), OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL AND TH
OIG HAVE COORDINATED A REQUEST FOR GAO TO PROVIDE ITS OPINION ON
THIS AND OTHER OUTSTANDING ISSUES.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION EXPECTED WITHIN 45 DAYS OF RECEIPT OF GAO OPINION.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/96 [2]
E1AMF4-20-7002-5100209 EPA'S COLLECTION OF USER FEES 3/27/95
Summary: EPA HAS AGGRESSIVELY PURSUED USER FEE OPPORTUNITIES AN
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 MA
FOUR EPA MEDIA PROGRAM OFFICES RECENTLY CONDUCTED AN INVENTORY
OF EXISTING USER FEES, AND AREAS FOR POTENTIAL NEW FEES. BY JUN
28, A RESPONSE TO OIG'S MARCH 1995 AUDIT REPORT IS EXPECTED.
ADDITIONALLY, EPA IS DEVELOPING A PROCESS FOR BI-ANNUAL REVIEW 0
USER FEES THAT IMPLEMENTS OMB CIRCULAR A-25.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION IS EXPECTED BY AUGUST 1996.
50
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
-------
ASSIGNMENT CONTROL
NUMBER
TITLE
FINAL REPORT ASSIGNMENT CONTROL
ISSUED NUMBER
TITLE
FINAL REPORT
ISSUED
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/96 [1]
Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste & Emergency Response
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MA
THE PROGRAM OFFICE HAS REVIEWED AUDIT REPORT AND IS AWAITING
COMMENTS FROM THE RECIPIENT.
E1DSF4-11-0036-5100512
RCRA MANIFEST REQUIREMENTS 9/28/95
•Summary: WE FOUND MORE CONTROLS ARE NEEDED OVER HAZARDOUS WASTE
MANIFESTING. WE RECOMMENDED EPA IMPROVE USE OF INSPECTION
RESOURCES AND HAZARDOUS WASTE TRACKING AND NOTIFICATION.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION BY JUNE 30, 1996.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/96 [1]
EXPECT
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN E3CBP4-04-0252-4400116 REVIEW OF CA WITH NELHA- HI 9/29/94
MADE: THE DIG IS CURRENTLY REVIEWING THE PROGRAM OFFICE RESPONSE.
•Summary:
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT THIS TIME. - EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MA
THE PROGRAM OFFICE IS CURRENTLY REVIEWING COMMENTS RECEIVED
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/96 [2] FROM THE RECIPIENT.
Assistant Administrator for Water
E1HWF4-04-0168-5100530 GULF OF MEXICO PROGRAM GA
9/29/95
•Sumnary: 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.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: REVIEW OF AND RESPONSE TO ORIGINAL AUDIT DELAYED BY
FURLOUGH EVENTS. THE PROGRAM OFFICE RESPONDED TO THE DIG ON MARCH
1, 1996. ON MARCH 15, THE OIG RESPONDED, AGREEING WITH ALL
PROJECTED STEPS EXCEPT ONE. THE PROGRAM OFFICE IS REVIEWING THE
OIG RESPONSE AND DETERMINING NEXT STEPS. EXPECT RESPONSE TO OIG
IN EARLY APRIL.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT THIS TIME.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/96 [2]
E1HWE5-23-0001-5100516 DRINKING WATER DATA INTEGRITY 9/29/95
•Sunmary: 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 STATES'
ABILITY TO PREVENT WATER AND SUPPLY CONTAMINATION.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: THE OIG REQUESTED PROGRAM TO RESPOND TO THE AUDIT AFTER
RECEIVING ITS FY 1996 BUDGET. THIS HAS NOT OCCURRED. THE PROGRAM
OFFICE IS PREPARING A RESPONSE BASED ON RECENT DECISIONS
REGARDING PROGRAM REDIRECTION. EXPECT RESPONSE TO BE SUBMITTED TO
OIG LATE MARCH/EARLY APRIL.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT THIS TIME.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/96 [1]
Grants Administration Division
G3HUK5-03-0358-5500215 AMERICAN COUNCIL FOR ENERGY DC 9/ 5/95
•Summary:
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION IS EXPECTED SHORTLY AFTER APRIL 30, 1996.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/96 [1]
E5BKL4-04-0243-5100526 CLARK ATLANTA UNIVERSITY
GA
9/30
Sunmary: CLARK ATLANTA UNIVERSITY (CAU) MISMANAGED CONGRESSIONA
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 UNSUPPOR
COSTS.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MA
THE PROGRAM OFFICE HAS MET WITH CLARK ATLANTA UNIVERSITY AND
THE OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT (ORD) TO DISCUSS AUDIT
FINDINGS. THE ORD HOPES TO VISIT CLARK ATLANTA TO REVIEW PROJEC
COMPLETED. THIS AUDIT IS VERY COMPLEX.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: EXPECT
TO REACH RESOLUTION BY JULY 31, 1996.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/96 [1]
E6EML4-07-0023-4100581 FAIRBURY NE
9/30/94
Summary: THE GRANT/LOAN WAS AWARDED FOR ASBESTOS ABATEMENT IN T
FAIRBURY SCHOOLS. WE DETERMINED THAT THE GRANTEE CLAIMED AN
UNREASONABLE AMOUNT FOR ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS. THE GRANTEE CLAIM
INELIGIBLE ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION COSTS.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MA
AUDIT INVOLVES SEVERAL COMPLEX ISSUES AS A RESULT OF
CRIMINALASSIGNMENT CONTROL PROCEEDINGS TAKEN AGAINST A CONTRACTO
UNDER THE PROJECT. GAD IS STILL WAITING FOR SOME INFORMATION FR
THE OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL BEFORE ISSUING FINAL DETERMINATION
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: EXPECT
RESOLUTION 45 DAYS AFTER RECEIVING INFORMATION FROM OGC.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/96 [1]
E1FUF5-08-0019-5100528
SCERP PERFORMANCE
9/29/95
•Summary: SCERP AND EPA NEEDED TO IMPROVE THEIR WORKING
RELATIONSHIP AND TO BETTER FOCUS LIMITED RESEARCH FUNDING ON
DEVELOPING SOLUTIONS TO THE MOST ACUTE ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS AL
THE U.S.- MEXICAN BORDER.
OCTOBER 1, 1995 THROUGH MARCH 31, 1996
51
-------
ASSIGNMENT CONTROL
NUMBER
TITLE
FINAL REPORT ASSIGNMENT CONTROL
ISSUED NUMBER
TITLE
FINAL REPORT
ISSUED
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: THE PROGRAM OFFICE HAS BEEN UNABLE TO ADDRESS AUDIT ISSUES
DUE TO NUMBER OF AUDITS PENDING RESOLUTION. THE OFFICE IS
CURRENTLY REVIEWING AUDIT FINDINGS.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: EXPECTS
TO REACH RESOLUTION IN THE 3RD QUARTER (APRIL - JUNE 1996).
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/96 [1]
E3CBL3-08-0088-4100497 MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY
ENGINEERING COSTS INCURRED AFTER CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION DATE.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MA
DUE TO CONGRESSIONAL INVOLVEMENT AND SINCE OVER $13 MILLION OF
COSTS WERE QUESTIONED, THE REGION PROVIDED THE CITY WITH ADDITIO
TIME TO PROVIDE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION. ALSO, DUE TO
RELATED LEGAL ISSUES, ASSISTANCE WAS NECESSARY FROM THE OFFICE 0
REGIONAL COUNSEL. THE DECISION IS EXPECTED PRIOR TO THE END OF
THIS CALENDAR YEAR.
MT
8/23/94 = DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
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 DIG CAN NOT RESOLVE AUDIT FINDINGS UNTIL THE DIG
FINISHES ITS INVESTIGATION.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT THIS TIME.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/96 [1]
E5CKN5-24-0013-5300035 NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIV NC
9/28/95
*Summary: NCSU CLAIMED $48197 IN INELIGIBLE COSTS RELATED TO
ESTABLISHMENT OF A HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE RESEARCH CENTER. WE
RECOMMENDED THAT EPA MANAGEMENT ADJUST GRANT COSTS PER OUR
DETERMINATION. NET DUE GRANTEE $34,699.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: THE PROGRAM OFFICE RECEIVED COPY OF AUDIT REPORT ON MARCH
5, 1996 AND IS CURRENTLY REVIEWING AUDIT FINDINGS.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: EXPECTS
RESOLUTION BY SEPTEMBER 30, 1996.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/96 [1]
Grants Financial Management - Region 5
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 OIG
ON 3/22/94. ON 4/6/94, THE OIG AGREED WITH THE PROPOSED ACTIONS ON
ALL MATTERS EXCEPT DECISION TO ACCEPT THE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH
THE TRANSFER SEWERAGE. THE OIG HAS ELEVATED DISAGREEMENT TO
HEADQUARTERS FOR REVIEW.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT THIS TIME.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/96 [6]
E2CWL9-05-0262-3100397 FLINT MI
9/30/93
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
RESOLUTION CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT THIS TIME.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/96 [3]
G3HVK5-05-0168-5500191 ILLINOIS OSFM FY 93/94 IL
*Summary:
7/31/
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MA
GROSS REDUCTION OF RESOURCES COMBINED WITH THE LENGTHY
FURLOUGHS HAVE INHIBITED THE REGION'S ABILITY TO REACH RESOLUTIO
IN A TIMELY MANNER. BECAUSE OF BUDGET UNCERTAINTIES, THE REGION
CANNOT DETERMINE WHEN THIS REPORT WILL BE RESOLVED. THE REGION
WILL CONTINUE TO REVIEW THE REPORT AND ACHIEVE A RESOLUTION AS
QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT THIS TIME.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/96 [1]
N3HVJ5-05-0166-5500193 MICHIGAN DNR FY 9'2/93
•Summary:
MI
7/31/9
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MA
GROSS REDUCTION OF RESOURCES COMBINED WITH THE LENGTHY
FURLOUGHS HAVE INHIBITED THE REGION'S ABILITY TO REACH RESOLUTIO
IN A TIMELY MANNER. BECAUSE OF BUDGET UNCERTAINTIES, THE REGION
CANNOT DETERMINE WHEN THIS REPORT WILL BE RESOLVED. THE REGION
WILL CONTINUE TO REVIEW THE REPORT AND ACHIEVE A RESOLUTION AS
QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT THIS TIME.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/96 [1]
G3HVJ5-05-0171-5500204 WHITLEY CO CS FY 93/94 IN
*Summary:
8/21/
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MA
GROSS REDUCTION OF RESOURCES COMBINED WITH THE LENGTHY FURLOUGHS
HAVE INHIBITED THE REGION'S ABILITY TO REACH RESOLUTION IN A TIM
MANNER. BECAUSE OF BUDGET UNCERTAINTIES, THE REGION CANNOT
DETERMINE WHEN THIS REPORT WILL BE RESOLVED. THE REGION WILL
CONTINUE TO REVIEW THE REPORT AND ACHIEVE A RESOLUTION AS
QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT THIS TIME.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/96 [1]
Office of Emergency & Remedial Response
52
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
-------
ASSIGNMENT CONTROL
NUMBER TITLE
E1SKF4-07-0053-5100483 CONTRACT FOR ANAL. SUPPORT 9/18/95
*Sunmary: ESAT REPLACEMENT CONTRACT NOT ADEQUATELY PLANNED.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: PROGRAM OFFICES RESPONDED TO DIG IN FEBRUARY AND MARCH
1996. THE DIG REJECTED THE RESPONSES. EPA IS AWAITING DETAILED
INFORMATION
ON THE REJECTIONS.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT THIS TIME.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/96 [4]
Regional Administrator - Region 1
E1FAG5-01-0071-5400108 NESCUM 9/29/95
*Summary:
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: THE REGION RESPONDED TO THE DIG ON MARCH 28, 1996 REPORTING
ON THE STATUS OF THE CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN. BASED ON
ACCOMPLISHMENTS OUTLINED IN THIS MEMO, INCLUDING THE GRANTEE'S
RESPONSE, THE DIG CLOSED THE AUDIT ON 4/2/96.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION OCCURRED ON APRIL 2, 1996.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/96 [1] (Report closed 4/2/96.)
FINAL REPORT ASSIGNMENT CONTROL
ISSUED NUMBER
TITLE
FINAL REPORT
ISSUED
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/96 [1]
Regional Administrator - Region 2
S2CWL1-01-0024-4100179
SPRINGFIELD MA
1/31/94
Sumnary: THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, MA CLAIMED UNALLOWABLE PROJECT
COSTS OF $4,059,671 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SECONDARY SEWAGE
TREATMENT PLANT, INCLUDING NEW INTERCEPTER SEWERS, PUMPING
STATIONS, FORCE MAIN SIPHON, AND OUTFALL SEWER.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: ON MARCH 27, 1996, EPA MANAGEMENT AND THE OIG MET REGARDING
THIS AUDIT. EPA MANAGEMENT, WITHIN THE NEXT 30 DAYS, WILL EITHER
ACCEPT THE OIG POSITION, REFER THIS AUDIT TO HQ FOR RESOLUTION OR
ASK THE CITY TO PROVIDE MORE INFORMATION THAT MAY OR MAY NOT
EXIST. THIS IS A COMPLEX AUDIT REVIEW, WITH OVER $2.5 MILLION IN
QUESTIONED COSTS.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT THIS TIME.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/96 [2]
E2CWL2-01-0170-5100233 MWRA MA 3/29/95
Sumnary: MWRA CLAIMED A TOTAL OF $982,705 IN INELIGIBLE COSTS FOR
A FENDERING SYSTEM NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SPECS, 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 WASTEWATER
TREATMENT PLANT REQUIRED THE GRANTEE TO SUPPLY MORE INFORMATION.
THE REGION EXPECTED THIS INFORMATION BY 10-15-95. IF THIS
INFORMATION IS NOT SUPPLIED BY THE END OF MAY 1996, THE REGION
WILL RULE THE ASSOCIATED COSTS INELIGIBLE AND PROCESS THE FINAL
DETERMINATION LETTER.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT THIS TIME.
P2CWN1-02-0028-4300034
OCEAN COUNTY UA
NJ
5/ 4/
Sumnary: 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 MA
THIS AUDIT ENCOMPASSED 5 EPA GRANTS WITH GRANTEE CLAIMED COSTS 0
$247 MILLION AND AUDITOR QUESTIONED COSTS OF $4.5 MILLION. THE
ONGOING REGIONAL REVIEW IS ENSURING THAT ALL ISSUES ARE FULLY
EVALUATED AND ANALYZED, AND THAT THE GRANTEE'S ADDITIONAL SUBMIT
DOCUMENTATION WILL BE THOROUGHLY EVALUATED.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: EXPECT
RESOLUTION BY JUNE 1996.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/96 [3]
P2CWL3-02-0128-5100231 HUDSON COUNTY UA
NJ
3/28/95
Sumnary: THE HUDSON COUNTY UTILITIES AUTHORITY CLAIMED ON UPWAR
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 MA
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. THE OIG HAS
CONCURRED TO DRAFT RESOLUTION.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION BY MAY 1996.
EXPECT
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/96 [3]
P2CWL4-02-0141-5100407 NEPTUNE SA NJ
7/10/95
Sumnary: THE GRANTEE CLAIMED $856,871 (FEDERAL SHARE $642,653)
INELIGIBLE COSTS. THE MAJORITY OF THESE COSTS RELATED TO
COSTS CLAIMED OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE APPROVED PROJECT.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MA
FACTORS THAT HAVE DELAYED THE RESOLUTION OF THIS AUDIT INCLUDE
THE INVOLVEMENT OF AN AGENCY OTHER THAN THE DELEGATED STATE AGEN
THIS RESULTED IN A MORE LENGTHY REVIEW PROCESS TO INSURE THAT
ALL PARTICIPANT POSITIONS WERE ANALYZED AND FOUND CORRECT. THE
HAS CONCURRED ON DRAFT RESOLUTION.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: EXPECT
RESOLUTION BY JUNE 30, 1996.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/96 [3]
E2CWN4-02-0142-5300032 MONROE TWSP MUA
NJ
9/18/95
Summary: MONROE TOWNSHIP MUA, NJ CLAIMED INELIGIBLE COST OF
$794,147 (FEDERAL SHARE $595,610) AND UNSUPPORTED COSTS OF $365,
(FEDERAL SHARE $274,002) FOR CONSTRUCTION OF COLLECTION SYSTEM,
PUMPING STATIONS, FORCE MAINS AND INTERCEPTOR.
OCTOBER 1, 1995 THROUGH MARCH 31, 1996
53
-------
ASSIGNMENT CONTROL
NUMBER
TITLE
FINAL REPORT ASSIGNMENT CONTROL
ISSUED NUMBER
TITLE
FINAL REPORT
ISSUED
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: THIS COMPLEX AUDIT ENCOMPASSED 2 EPA GRANTS WITH GRANTEE
CLAIMED COSTS OF $12 MILLION AND OVER $1 MILLION IN AUDITOR
QUESTIONED COSTS. ITS RESOLUTION HAS BEEN DELAYED DUE TO THE
REGION'S IN-DEPTH EVALUATION OF ISSUES RAISED BY THE AUDITOR AND
THE RELATED GRANTEE SUBMITTED DOCUMENTATION. THE OIG HAS
CONCURRED WITH THE DRAFT RESOLUTION.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: EXPECT
RESOLUTION BY JUNE 1996.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/96 [3]
E2CWM5-04-0042-5200006
STARKE
FL
1/20/95
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. THE
ESTIMATED DATE FOR ISSUANCE OF A MANAGEMENT DECISION IS 9/30/96.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT THIS TIME.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/96 [1]
E2CWM4-03-0291-5200024 WSSC MD 9/27/95
Sunmary: COSTS OF $1.7 MILLION WERE INELIGIBLE BECAUSE THE
GRANTEE CLAIMED CONSTRUCTION COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH EXCESS RESERVE
CAPACITY.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: AUDIT INVOLVES COMPLEX TECHNICAL ISSUES. GRANTEE'S
ATTORNEY HAS REQUESTED A MEETING TO FURTHER DISCUSS THESE ISSUES.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION IS EXPECTED BY JUNE 30, 1996.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/96 [1]
Regional Administrator - Region 4
E2CWP3-04-0225-4400096 BRUNSWICK GA 8/10/94
Sunroary: CONSTRUCTION COSTS 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: THE OIG RESPONDED ON 9/5/95 STATING IT DOES NOT AGREE WITH
THE REGION'S PROPOSED FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER. THIS AUDIT HAS
BEEN FORWARDED TO THE OIG HEADQUARTERS OFFICE.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT THIS TIME.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/96 [6]
Sumnary: WE QUESTIONED AS INELIGIBLE THE GRANTEE'S CLAIM OF
$1,372,564 FOR ACQUISITION OF A SPRAY IRRIGATION SITE. THE COST
WERE QUESTIONED BECAUSE THE SITE WAS NEVER UTILIZED FOR THE
INTENDED PURPOSE.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MA
A PROPOSED FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER HAS NOT BEEN PREPARED
PENDING LEGAL DISCUSSION REGARDING ELIGIBILITY OF A PORTION OF T
LAND WHICH HAS BEEN DECLARED WETLANDS. DIFFICULT TO PREDICT
WHEN THIS FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER WOULD BE WRITTEN AT THIS TI
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT THIS TIME.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/96 [1]
E5CGL4-04-0036-5100490 FLORIDA DER SF COOP AGR FL 9/19/9
Summary: FDEP DID NOT PROVIDE SUPPORT FOR COST TOTALING
$2,149,111. THE UNSUPPORTED COSTS WERE NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH 4
CFR 30.501. DUE TO A BOOKKEEPING ERROR, FDEP ALSO CLAIMED AN
ADDITIONAL $28,911 OF INELIGIBLE COSTS THAT RELATED TO ANOTHER
PROJECT.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MA
AUDITOR AND GRANTEE ARE CONTINUING TO NEGOTIATE OVER THE
SUPPORT DOCUMENTS FOR THE UNSUPPORTED COSTS QUESTIONED IN THE
AUDIT. SUBSTITUTIONS ARE BEING OFFERED BY THE GRANTEE ON THE
"SAMPLES" REQUESTED IN THE AUDIT.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: SHOULD
RESOLVED IN 3RD QUARTER, FY 1996.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/96 [1]
Regional Administrator - Region 5
E3PLD5-05-0134-5400095 CA'S OHIO LUST R5 8/29/95
•Summary: FLASH REPORT ISSUED ON AUDITEE INADEQUATE FINANCIAL
MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AND INABILITY TO SUPPORT COSTS.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MA
GROSS REDUCTION OF RESOURCES COMBINED WITH THE LENGTHY
FURLOUGHS HAVE INHIBITED THE REGION'S ABILITY TO REACH RESOLUTIO
IN A TIMELY MANNER. BECAUSE OF BUDGET UNCERTAINTIES, THE REGION
CANNOT DETERMINE WHEN THIS REPORT WILL BE RESOLVED. THE REGION
WILL CONTINUE TO REVIEW THE REPORT AND ACHIEVE A RESOLUTION AS
QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT THIS TIME.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/96 [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 AND $1,063,235 OF UNNECESSARY AND UNREASONABLE
COSTS WERE QUESTIONED.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MA
54
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
-------
ASSIGNMENT CONTROL
NUMBER
TITLE
FINAL REPORT ASSIGNMENT CONTROL
ISSUED NUMBER
TITLE
FINAL REPORT
ISSUED
THE AUDIT TRANSMITTAL LETTER WAS SENT BY THE TEXAS WATER
DEVELOPMENT BOARD TO CITY OF HOUSTON ON 02/03/95, ALONG WITH
ANALYSIS OF AUDIT. A 90-DAY AND 120-DAY EXTENSION WAS REQUESTED
AND GRANTED. AUDIT HAS OVER 90 COMPLEX FINDINGS WITH CLAIMED COSTS
OF $208,720,680, QUESTIONED COSTS OF $13,417,479. RECEIVED
RESPONSE -- 3 BOXES, 7 VOLUMES OF DOCUMENTS. OTHERS COMING.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: ESTIMATE
AUDIT RESOLUTION BY JUNE 1, 1996.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/96 [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.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY (LDEQ) HAS
REQUESTED A FINAL DISPUTE DETERMINATION FROM THE REGION.
DOCUMENTATION HAS BEEN REVIEWED. SUMMARY REVIEW OF LDEQ'S
RESPONSE REVIEWED BY PROGRAM. DEVIATION ON $710,192, AND $272,968
REQUESTED FROM EPA HEADQUARTERS ON 01/19/96.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: ESTIMATE
RESOLUTION BY MAY 1, 1996, ONCE DEVIATION IS GRANTED OR DENIED.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/96 [1]
Regional Administrator - Region 7
N3HVJ4-07-0075-5500094 STATE OF IOWA IA 2/23/95
•Summary:
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: ADDITIONAL INFORMATION HAS BEEN REQUESTED FROM THE GRANT
RECIPIENT. ANTICIPATE RESPONSE BY MID-MAY 1996.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT THIS TIME.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/96 [1]
N3HVJ5-07-0036-5500225 STATE OF MISSOURI MO
*Summary:
9/19/95
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: ADDITIONAL INFORMATION HAS BEEN REQUESTED FROM THE
RECIPIENT. ANTICIPATE A MANAGEMENT DECISION BY THE END OF MAY
1996.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT THIS TIME.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/96 [1]
Regional Administrator - Region 8
P2CWL3-08-0039-5100107 ASHLEY VALLEY
UT
12/ 1/94
Summary: THE GRANTEE HAD ABANDONED THE ALTERNATIVE EFFLUENT LAN
APPLICATION FACILITIES THAT RESULTED IN ABOUT $1.2 MILLION OF
FEDERAL COSTS SHARE QUESTIONED.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MA
REGIONAL MUNICIPAL FACILITIES BRANCH IS WORKING WITH THE STATE T
EVALUATE RECOVERY OF COSTS. DECISION WILL BE BASED ON THESE
FINDINGS DUE TO ISSUES THAT INVOLVE OTHER STATE AND FEDERAL
AGENCIES WHICH COULD RESULT IN LEGAL ACTIONS AGAINST EPA. SEVER
MEETINGS ARE SCHEDULED FOR RESOLUTION. FIRST MEETING SET FOR AP
18, 1996.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT THIS TIME.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/96 [1]
Regional Administrator - Region 9
E1SKF5-09-0031-5100505 OVERSIGHT OF DATA QA-FFAS CA 9/26/95
•Summary: REGION 9 HAD NOT SIGNIFICANTLY STRENGTHENED ITS
OVERSIGHT PROGRAM OVER DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE (DOO) LABORATORIES
REQUIRED DOD TO IMPROVE ITS QUALITY ASSURANCE PROJECT PLANS.
PARTLY AS A RESULT OF THIS, HAZARDOUS WASTE CLEANUPS AT FIVE DOO
SUPERFUND SITES IN REGION 9 WERE DELAYED UP TO 2 1/2 YEARS, AND
$5.5 MILLION IN DATA WERE REJECTED DUE TO POOR QUALITY OF
LABORATORY ANALYSES.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MA
THE REGION HAS BEEN ANALYZING HOW TO ADDRESS THE AUDIT
RECOMMENDATION'S RESOURCE AND INTERNAL RESPONSIBILITY IMPLICATIO
DUE TO THE EXTENSIVE RECOMMENDATIONS, THE IMPLICATION OF THE
FOLLOWUP ACTIONS, AND CURRENT RESOURCE LIMITATIONS, THE REGION
PLANS TO HAVE A MANAGEMENT DECISION MEMO ISSUED BY JUNE 30, 1996
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: EXPECT
RESOLUTION BY JUNE 30, 1996.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/96 [1]
E2AWT3-09-0082-3400037
SAN DIEGO, CITY OF CA
3/29/93
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 FUTU
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MA
THE OUTFALL PROJECT IS A JOINT EFFORT WITH THE INTERNATIONAL
BOUNDARY AND WATER COMMISSION. THE AUDIT CANNOT BE RESOLVED UNT
A REQUIREMENT FOR SECONDARY TREATMENT IS DETERMINED. EPA IS
CONSIDERING GRANT TERMINATION SINCE GRANTEE RECEIVED A WAIVER FO
THE SECONDARY TREATMENT REQUIREMENT.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: DUE TO
CONGRESSIONAL INVOLVEMENT, RESOLUTION IS NOT EXPECTED BEFORE
SEPTEMBER 30, 1996.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/96 [2]
OCTOBER 1, 1995 THROUGH MARCH 31, 1996
55
-------
ASSIGNMENT CONTROL
NUMBER
TITLE
FINAL REPORT ASSIGNMENT CONTROL
ISSUED NUMBER
TITLE
FINAL REPORT
ISSUED
S2CWNO-09-0076-3300080
LAS VIRGENES HUD CA
9/30/93
Sumary: INELIGIBLE COSTS OF $5,091,815 INCLUDE: $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
OF 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 (SWRCB) IS WORKING
WITH THE OIG TO RESOLVE AREAS OF DISAGREEMENT. THE SWRCB STAFF
MAY REFER ONE ISSUE TO ITS EXECUTIVE BOARD. THE SWRCB MET WITH
THE GRANTEE AT THE END OF JANUARY 1996. THE GRANTEE WILL SUBMIT
MORE DOCUMENTATION. THE SWRCB IS DRAFTING A DECISION.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: A FINAL
DETERMINATION LETTER IS TARGETED FOR SEPTEMBER 30, 1996.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/96 [1]
S2CWN2-09-0091-4300051 VALLEJO SAN & FLOOD CONTROL CA 9/29/94
Summary: INELIGIBLE COSTS OF $5,525,458 INCLUDE $712,246 OF
UNALLOWABLE ARCHITECTXENGINEERING 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: IN DRAFTING THE FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER (FDD, THE SWRCB
DISCOVERED NUMEROUS CALCULATION ERRORS IN THE ELIGIBLE COSTS OF
CHANGE ORDERS AND CONSTRUCTION. THE ERRORS MUST BE CORRECTED
BEFORE THE FDL IS DRAFTED. TARGET FOR DRAFT FDL IS 6/30/96.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT THIS TIME.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/96 [1]
S5BGN3-09-0140-5300027 CA DOH-MCCOLL NPL SITE CA
8/ 1/95
Simnary: INELIGIBLE COST OF $895,268 INCLUDES $29,892 COSTS NOT
SUPPORTED BY DOCUMENTATION; $687,123 OF UNALLOWABLE COSTS; AND
$178,253 OF FUNDS DRAWN IN EXCESS OF THE APPROPRIATE AMOUNTS.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: DELAYS IN DEVELOPING THE FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER (FDL)
WERE CAUSED BY THE TIMING OF THE AUDIT REPORT AND FURLOUGHS.
CURRENTLY, AN FDL IS PLANNED FOR 6/30/96.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION EXPECTED BY JUNE 30, 1996.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/96 [1]
Reaional Achiinistrator - Region 10
P2CWN1-10-0049-3300076
SEASIDE, CITY OF OR
9/30/93
Sumary: INELIGIBLE COSTS OF $97,155 INCLUDES $7,889 OF
UNALLOWABLE FORCE ACCOUNT AND $89,266 OF CONSTRUCTION COSTS
RELATED TO SERVICE LATERALS, COSTS OF $188,202 WERE NOT SUPPORTED
BY SOURCE DOCUMENTATION.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: REGION HAS BEEN OBTAINING INFORMATION, COMMENTS, AND
DOCUMENTATION FROM THE STATE AND OPERATIONS OFFICE. REGION WILL
SUBMIT REVISED DRAFT FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER TO OIG BY JUNE 3
1996.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT THIS TIME.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/96 [2]
P2CWN1-10-0041-3300077 METROPOLITAN WASTEWTR. MGT. OR
9/30/
Summary: INELIGIBLE COSTS OF $2,511,772 INCLUDE: $26,970 OF
MISCELLANEOUS COSTS, $107,481 OF INSURANCE PREMIUMS, $181,830
ALLOCABLE TO INELIGIBLE PERCENT; $2,195,491 OUTSIDE SCOPE OF
PROJECT $6,657,189 NOT SUPPORTED BY ADEQUATE SOURCE DOCUMENTS.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MA
RECEIVED DEVIATION FROM HEADQUARTERS. PENDING EVALUATION AND
REVISION OF DRAFT FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER, EXPECT IT TO BE
DELIVERED TO OIG BY 7/1/96.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT THIS TIME.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/96 [1]
P2CWN2-10-0068-4300013 WASILLA, CITY OF AK 12/15/93
Sunmary: INELIGIBLE COSTS OF $306,738 INCLUDED $182,188 OF COST
ALLOCABLE TO INELIGIBLE PORTION OF CONSTRUCTION; $122,647 OF
UNALLOWABLE ARCHITECTXENGINEERING 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 MA
THE REGION, STATE, AND CITY ARE GATHERING ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION AND DOCUMENTATION. A DRAFT FINAL DETERMINATION LETT
WAS PROVIDED TO OIG ON 2/3/95. THE OIG RESPONDED 2/22/95. THE
REGION EXPECTS TO RESPOND TO OIG COMMENTS BY 6/01/96.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT THIS TIME.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/96 [2]
P2CWN3-10-0034-4300039 NORTH BEND, CITY OF OR
6/27/94
Sunmary: INELIGIBLE COSTS OF $56,470 INCLUDE: $3,197 OF UNREFUN
P&S DEPOSITS $9,000 OF UNALLOWABLE CONSTRUCTION; $15,440 OF
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE RELATED COSTS; $28,833 COST ALLOCABLE
INELIGIBLE PERCENTAGE. $88,853 OF UNSUPPORTED ENGINEERING AND
ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS WERE ALSO QUESTIONED.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MA
ADDITIONAL PARTIAL DOCUMENTATION RECEIVED FROM CITY. DOCUMENTS
MUST BE ANALYZED AND EVALUATED BEFORE THE REGION REVISES THE DRA
FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER. EXPECT TO PROVIDE DRAFT FINAL
DETERMINATION LETTER TO OIG BY 11/15/96.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT THIS TIME.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/96 [1]
P2CWN4-10-0015-5300006 JUNEAU, CITY & BOROUGH OF AK
1/10/
Sunmary: INELIGIBLE COST $164,988 INCLUDE!!: $2,461 OF LEGAL COS
ALLOCABLE TO INELIGIBLE CONSTRUCTION; AND $162,527 OF
ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS CONSIDERED OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE APPROVE
56
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
-------
ASSIGNMENT CONTROL
NUMBER
TITLE
FINAL REPORT
ISSUED
ASSIGNMENT CONTROL
NUMBER
TITLE
FINAL REPORT
ISSUED
PROJECT.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: EXPECT ADDITIONAL ENGINEERING DETAIL FROM CITY BY EARLY
SPRING 1996. REVISED DRAFT FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER PROVIDED TO
DIG ON 3/8/96.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT THIS TIME.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/96 [3]
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: EXPECT
RESOLUTION BY MAY 31, 1996.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/96 [2]
Contracts Management Division - RTP
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: THE CONTRACT SPECIALIST MUST NEGOTIATE QUESTIONED COST WITH
THE CONTRACTOR.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: EXPECT
CLOSEOUT OF THE CONTRACT BY SEPTEMBER 30, 1996.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/96 [1]
D8BML3-04-0282-3100207 SYSTEMS RESEARCH & DEV. NC 6/ 4/93
•Summary:
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: EPA WAS PRECLUDED FROM COLLECTING MONIES DUE AS A RESULT OF
CHAPTER 11 BANKRUPTCY FILED BY THE CONTRACTOR. ANY RECOVERY MUST
BE ESTABLISHED THROUGH THE COURT. WE HAVE REQUESTED THE EPA
OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL TO ASSIST US IN THIS ACTION.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT THIS TIME.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/96 [1]
D8BML5-04-0143-5100467 RESEARCH & EVALUATION ASSOC.NC 8/22/95
•Summary:
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: THE PROGRAM OFFICE AND THE OIG HAVE REACHED RESOLUTION.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: THIS
AUDIT IS CLOSED AS OF APRIL 3, 1996.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/96 [1] (Report closed 4/3/96.)
D8BML5-04-0144-5100468 RESEARCH & EVALUATION ASSOC.NC S/22/
•Summary:
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MA
THE PROGRAM OFFICE AND THE OIG HAVE REACHED RESOLUTION.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: THIS
AUDIT IS CLOSED AS OF APRIL 3, 1996.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/96 [1] (Report closed 4/3/96.)
D8BML5-07-0030-5100381 MIDWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE MO 6/26/
•Summary:
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MA
EPA IS CURRENTLY AWAITING SUPPLEMENTAL AUDIT INFORMATION FROM TH
KANSAS CITY DEFENSE CONTRACT AUDIT AGENCY.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: THE
PROGRAM OFFICE ANTICIPATES CLOSEOUT OF THE CONTRACT BY
SEPTEMBER 30, 1996.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/96 [1]
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 INDIREC
RATES.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MA
RESOLUTION OF MULTIPLE QUESTIONED COSTS MUST BE NEGOTIATED.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: CLOSED
OF AUDIT IS EXPECTED BY DECEMBER 31, 1996.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/96 [1]
0AM Cost Advisory and Financial Analysis Division
Cost Review and Rate Negotiation Branch
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 MA
AUDIT INVOLVES A NUMBER OF COMPLEX ISSUES WHICH WILL REQUIRE
ADDITIONAL TIME TO RESOLVE. ANTICIPATE NEGOTIATIONS TO BE
CONCLUDED SHORTLY AFTER APRIL 30, 1996.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: SHORTL
AFTER APRIL 30, 1996.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/96 [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.
OCTOBER 1, 1995 THROUGH MARCH 31, 1996
57
-------
ASSIGNMENT CONTROL
NUMBER. UILE_
FINAL REPORT
ISSUED
ASSIGNMENT CONTROL
NUMBER
TITLE
FINAL REPORT
ISSUED
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: AUDIT INVOLVES A NUMBER OF COMPLEX ISSUES WHICH WILL
REQUIRE ADDITIONAL TIME TO RESOLVE. NEGOTIATIONS ANTICIPATED TO
BE COMPLETED SHORTLY AFTER APRIL 30, 1996.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: SHORTLY
AFTER APRIL 30, 1996.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/96 [1]
E9EFP4-02-0158-5400064 ECOLOGY & ENVIR NY 4/10/95
•Summary: THE KTR HAS SUBMITTED ADEQUATE DATA TO NEGOTIATE THE
COST IMPACT DUE TO TWO VOLUNTARY ACCOUNTING CHARGES.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: NEGOTIATIONS ANTICIPATED TO BE COMPLETED SHORTLY AFTER
APRIL 30, 1996.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: SHORTLY
AFTER APRIL 30, 1996.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/96 [1]
E9EGP5-02-0505-5400075 ECOLOGY & ENVIR NY 6/19/95
*Scmnary: OUR REVIEW DISCLOSED NO INSTANCES OF NONCOMPLIANCE WITH
CAS.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: NEGOTIATIONS ANTICIPATED TO BE COMPLETED SHORTLY AFTER
APRIL 30, 1996.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: SHORTLY
AFTER APRIL 30, 1996.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/96 [1]
D9BFL4-03-0172-5100380 TECHLAW, INC. VA 6/26/95
Summary: THE QUESTIONED DIRECT COSTS OF $110,558 PRIMARILY
REPRESENTED LEASE COSTS IN EXCESS OF OWNERSHIP FOR COMPUTERS.
INDIRECT COSTS OF $163,445 WERE QUESTIONED DUE TO AUDIT DETERMINED
RATES AND UNALLOWABLE COSTS ACCORDING TO FAR.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: NEGOTIATIONS ANTICIPATED TO BE COMPLETED BY MAY 31, 1996.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: MAY 31,
1996.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/96 [1]
E8DML3-04-0260-4100357 EHRT KY 6/ 2/94
•Summary:
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: THERE ARE MANY COMPLEX ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED AND THE
CONTRACTOR HAS FILED BANKRUPTCY AND IS OUT-OF-BUSINESS. THOUGH
ALL CONTACT AND CORRESPONDENCE IS GOING THROUGH THE CONTRACTOR'S
ATTORNEY, A NEGOTIATED SETTLEMENT CAN BE REACHED BETWEEN THE
CONTRACTOR AND EPA.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION ANTICIPATED BY SEPTEMBER 30, 1996.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/96 [1]
D9BKL3-04-0034-3100010 EHRT NY 10/ 9/92
*Summary:
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MA
THERE ARE MANY COMPLEX ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED AND THE
CONTRACTOR HAS FILED BANKRUPTCY AND IS NOW OUT-OF-BUSINESS. THO
ALL CONTACT AND CORRESPONDENCE IS THROUGH THE CONTRACTOR'S
ATTORNEY, A NEGOTIATED SETTLEMENT CAN BE REACHED BETWEEN THE
CONTRACTOR AND EPA.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION ANTICIPATED BY SEPTEMBER 30, 1596.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/96 [1]
D9BKL5-04-0077-5100193 MANTECH TECHNOLOGY NC 2/24/95
•Summary:
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MA
AUDIT RESULTS CONTAIN COMPLEX ISSUES WHICH REQUIRE EXTENSIVE
DISCUSSIONS. HOWEVER, A NEGOTIATED SETTLEMENT IS POSSIBLE.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: EXPECT
RESOLUTION SHORTLY AFTER APRIL 30, 1996.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/96 [1]
D9BKL5-04-0078-5100194 MANTECH TECHNOLOGY NC 2/24/95
•Summary:
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MA
AUDIT RESULTS CONTAIN COMPLEX ISSUES WHICH REQUIRES EXTENSIVE
DISCUSSION. HOWEVER, A NEGOTIATED SETTLEMENT IS POSSIBLE.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: EXPECT
RESOLUTION SHORTLY AFTER APRIL 30, 1996.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/96 [1]
D9BJL3-07-0100-5100531 DPRA, INC KS 9/29/95
•Summary:
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MA
NEGOTIATIONS ANTICIPATED TO BE COMPLETED BY MAY 31, 1996.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: MAY 31
1996.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/96 [1]
D9CJL3-07-0162-5100532 DPRA, INC KS 9/29/95
•Summary:
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MA
NEGOTIATIONS ANTICIPATED TO BE COMPLETED BY MAY 31, 1996.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
MAY 31, 1996.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/96 [1]
S5DGN2-09-0047-4300033 CA DEPT OF HLTH ICRP CA 3/31/
58
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
-------
ASSIGNMENT CONTROL
NUMBER
TITLE
•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 SHORTLY AFTER APRIL 30, 1996.
FINAL REPORT ASSIGNMENT CONTROL
1SSU.EP NUMBER
TITLE
FINAL REPORT
ISSUED.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/96 [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: THE DEFENSE CONTRACT AUDIT AGENCY WILL ISSUE A FOLLOW-UP
REPORT TO SEE IF CONTRACTOR CORRECTED THE PROBLEMS THAT IT
ACKNOWLEDGED AND AGREED TO CORRECT. THE DIG WILL CLOSE THIS
REPORT UPON ISSUANCE OF THE DEFENSE CONTRACT AUDIT AGENCY'S FY
1996 FOLLOW-UP FLOORCHECK AUDIT REPORT.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT THIS TIME.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/96 [1]
D9FGP5-09-0019-5400003 GET 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: NEGOTIATIONS ANTICIPATED TO BE COMPLETED BY MAY 31, 1996.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:MAY 31,
1996.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/96 [1]
D9FGP5-09-0020-5400004 CET FL CA
10/ 4/94
•Summary: 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: NEGOTIATIONS ANTICIPATED TO BE COMPLETED BY MAY 31, 1996.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: MAY 31,
1996.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/96 [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
APPROPRIATECONTRACTING OFFICERS. THE QUESTIONED DIRECT COSTS WILL
BE RESOLVED ON A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS AS THE INDIVIDUAL CONTRACTS
ARE CLOSED OUT. THE DIG WILL PERFORM CLOSE-OUT AUDITS. THE
CONTRACT CLOSE-OUTS ARE IN PROGRESS. FY 1990 INDIRECT RATES HAV
BEEN NEGOTIATED.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT THIS TIME.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/96 [1]
P8BMP1-23-0335-2400073 PEI ASSOC FY 85
OH
9/ 9/92
Summary: THE REVIEW FOUND $224,781 OF INELIGIBLE AND $195,886 0
UNSUPPORTED COSTS.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MA
QUESTIONED DIRECT COSTS HAVE BEEN REFERRED TO THE APPROPRIATE
CONTRACTING OFFICERS. THE QUESTIONED DIRECT COSTS WILL BE RESOL
ON A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS AS THE INDIVIDUAL CONTRACTS ARE CLOSED
OUT. THE 01G WILL PERFORM CLOSE-OUT AUDITS. THE CONTRACT
CLOSE-OUTS ARE IN PROGRESS.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT THIS TIME.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/96 [1]
P8BMP1-23-0339-3400050 PEI ASSOC FY 89
OH
5/13/93
Summary: 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 D
TO INTER-COMPANY TRANSFERS.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MA
QUESTIONED DIRECT COSTS HAVE BEEN REFERRED TO THE APPROPRIATE
CONTRACTING OFFICERS. THE QUESTIONED DIRECT COSTS WILL BE RESOL
ON A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS AS THE INDIVIDUAL CONTRACTS ARE CLOSED 0
THE OIG WILL PERFORM CLOSE-OUT AUDITS. THE CONTRACT CLOSE-OUTS
IN PROGRESS.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT THIS TIME.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/96 [1]
P8BMPO-23-0175-3400053 PEI ASSOC FY 86 OH
5/14/93
Summary: WE HAVE QUESTIONED INELIGIBLE $940,755, 53 PERCENT WAS
DUE TO COST BILLED IN EXCESS OF WHAT WAS INCURRED. THE REMAININ
47 PERCENT WAS THE ADJUSTMENT OF INDIRECT RATES TO ACTUAL.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MA
QUESTIONED DIRECT COSTS HAVE BEEN REFERRED TO THE APPROPRIATE
CONTRACTING OFFICERS. THE QUESTIONED DIRECT COSTS WILL BE RESOL
ON A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS AS THE INDIVIDUAL CONTRACTS ARE CLOSED 0
THE OIG WILL PERFORM CLOSE-OUT AUDITS. THE CONTRACT CLOSE-OUTS
IN PROGRESS.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT THIS TIME.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/96 [1]
OCTOBER 1, 1995 THROUGH MARCH 31, 1996
59
-------
ASSIGNMENT CONTROL FINAL REPORT ASSIGNMENT CONTROL
NUMBER TITLE ISSUED NUMBER TITLE
P8BMPO- 23- 01 77-3400062 PEI ASSOC FY 87/88 OH 6/14/93 IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/96
Suimary: UE QUESTIONED AS INELIGIBLE $759,941 OF COST BILLED BUT D9EFL5-03-0108-5100162 NUS MD
[1]
2/ 9/95
FINAL REPORT
ISSUED
NOT INCURRED. UE 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 BE RESOLVED ON A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS AS THE INDIVIDUAL
CONTRACTS ARE CLOSED
OUT. THE DIG WILL PERFORM CLOSE-OUT AUDITS. THE CONTRACT
CLOSE-OUTS ARE IN PROGRESS. UNSUPPORTED COST IN THE AMOUNT OF
$626,555 HAVE BEEN RESOLVED UNDER CONTRACT NO. 68-01-7084.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT THIS TIME.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/96 [2]
0AM Cost Advisory Financial Analysis Division
Financial Analysis Branch
P9DGL2-01-0237-5100135 TRC ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULT. CT
\l 9/95
•Summary:
$72,048).
WE QUESTIONED COSTS OF $635,019 (FEDERAL SHARE =
- 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 SHORTLY AFTER APRIL 30, 1996.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/96 [1]
P8BMN1-03-0146-2300014 O&R MANAGEMENT CORPORATION MD
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/96 [1]
D9BKL2-03-0599-4100295 KEYDATA SYSTEMS INC VA
5/18/94
•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 MA
DUE TO THE COMPLEX CONTRACT COMPLIANCE ISSUES, THE
CONTRACT INGOFFICER IS CONSULTING WITH REGIONAL LEGAL COUNSEL AND
THE AUDITOR IN ORDER TO DEVELOP A POSITIOM PAPER FOR NEGOTIATION
EXTENDEDDISCUSSIONS ONGOING WITH THE CONTRACTOR INCLUDING 4 LETT
IN THE PAST 3 MONTHS.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: EXPECT
RESOLUTION DATE IS JUNE 30, 1996.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/96 [1]
Summary: DCAA QUESTIONED 233,278 OF COSTS INCURRED. DCAA ALSO
CONSIDERS $431,395 TO BE EXCESS COSTS BILLED TO EPA.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: THE CONTRACTING OFFICER AND EPA ATTORNEY ARE IN DISCUSSIONS
WITH THE CONTRACTOR REGARDING RESOLUTION OF THE ISSUES. EXPECTED
COMPLETION DATE IS SHORTLY AFTER APRIL 30, 1996.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: SHORTLY
AFTER APRIL 30, 1996.
E9CHN4-04-0227-5300020 EHRT KY
11/ 5/91
7/
Summary: THE CONTRACTOR CLAIMED INELIGIBLE COSTS TOTALING $175,
RELATED TO A 24 HOUR CALL CENTER AND QUALITY ASSURANCE AND QUALI
CONTROL PROGRAM. THE CONTRACTOR ALSO CLAIMED UNSUPPORTED COSTS
TOTALING $75,000.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MA
DISCUSSIONS ARE UNDERWAY WITH CONTRACTOR'S! ATTORNEY.
CONTRACTING OFFICER PREPARED TO ISSUE FINAL DECISION. DIG
ASSISTING CONTRACTING OFFICER TO RESPOND 10 ATTORNEY'S QUESTIONS
EXPECT MANAGEMENT DECISION BY APRIL 30, 1996.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION EXPECTED SOON AFTER APRIL 30, 1996.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/96 [1]
P9BGL4-10-0107-4100398 CH2M REM/FIT 87-JI9 C.I. OR
6/10/94
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: THE CONTRACTING OFFICER IS WRITING A NEW FINAL DECISION
WHICH SHOULD BE COMPLETE BY MAY 1996 BASED ON AN AUGUST 1995 OIG
REPORT. THE COMPANY IS OUT OF BUSINESS. RECOVERY OF ANY COSTS IS
DOUBTFUL.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT THIS TIME.
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 MA
CONTRACTING OFFICER IN PROCESS OF DEVELOPING A PRE-NEGOTIATION
POSITION WHICH IS TO BE COMPLETED BY MAY 211, 1996. NEGOTIATIONS
EXPECTED TO BE COMPLETE BY SEPTEMBER 30, 1996.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: SEPTEM
30, 1996.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/96 [1]
P9BGL4-10-0117-4100417 CH2M TECH 1 C.I. 1987-88 OR
6/22/9
Summary: NET COSTS QUESTIONED OF $212,587 CONSIST OF INELIGIBLE
OVERTIME LABOR OF $7,754 AND INELIGIBLE OVERHEAD CREDIT OF
$19,177. UNSUPPORTED COST CONSIST OF TRAVEL COSTS OF $108,035 A
COMPUTER COST OF $115,975.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MA
CONTRACTING OFFICER IN PROCESS OF DEVELOPING A PRE-NEGOTIATION
POSITION WHICH IS TO BE COMPLETED BY MAY 31. 1996. NEGOTIATIONS
ANTICIPATED TO BE COMPLETE BY SEPTEMBER 30, 1996.
60
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
-------
ASSIGNMENT CONTROL
NUMBER
TITLE
FINAL REPORT ASSIGNMENT CONTROL
ISSUED NUMBER
TITLE
FINAL REPORT
ISSUED
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
SEPTEMBER 30, 1996.
E9BHP4-23-0002-5400015
OHM REM FY 87
OH 11/18/94
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/96 [1]
D9BGL3-10-0088-4100471 URS FY 1989 AC UA
8/ 2/94
•Sunmary: DCAA QUESTIONED $15,725 OF DIRECT COSTS ON TWO EPA
CONTRACTS. 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 CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT THIS TIME.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/96 [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 INCLUDE TRAVEL COSTS OF $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
PRE-NEGOTIATION POSITION WHICH IS TO BE COMPLETED BY MAY 31, 1996.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
NEGOTIATIONS ANTICIPATED TO BE COMPLETE BY SEPTEMBER 30, 1996.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/96 [1]
P9BGL4-10-0132-4100512 CH2M ARCS WEST 1989 COSTS OR
*Sunnmary:
8/30/94
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: CONTRACTING OFFICER IN PROCESS OF DEVELOPING A
PRE-NEGOTIATION POSITION WHICH IS TO BE COMPLETED BY MAY 31, 1996.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
NEGOTIATIONS ANTICIPATED TO BE COMPLETE BY SEPTEMBER 30, 1996.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/96 [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
PRE-NEGOTIATION POSITION WHICH IS TO BE COMPLETED BY MAY 31, 1996.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
NEGOTIATIONS ANTICIPATED TO BE COMPLETE BY SEPTEMBER 30, 1996.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/96 [1]
•Summary: WE QUESTIONED $61,773 RELATED TO: (1) EXCESSIVE PROFI
OF AFFILIATES' COSTS; (2) INELIGIBLE AND UNSUPPORTED TRAVEL; AND
(3) UNSUPPORTED SUBCONTRACTOR CHARGES. CONTRACTOR ALSO HAD MAJO
CONTRACT NONCOMPLIANCE PROBLEMS, AND WAS CITED FOR A CAS 401
VIOLATION.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MA
BOTH CONTRACTING OFFICERS HAVE PREPARED THEIR POSITIONS AND
ARE IN PROCESS OF NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE CONTRACTOR WHICH ARE
EXPECTED TO BE CONCLUDED BY JUNE 30, 1996. FINANCIAL
ADMINISTRATIVE CONTRACTING OFFICER HAS FORWARDED HIS REPORT OF
ACTION DATED AUGUST 24, 1995 TO THE OIG ON COST ACCOUNTING
STANDARDS NONCOMPLIANCE.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT THIS TIME.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/96 [1]
E9BHP4-23-0003-5400020 OHM REM FY 88
OH
12/ 6/94
Summary: WE QUESTIONED $2,209,975 RELATED TO: (1) EXCESSIVE PRO
OF AFFILIATES COSTS, (2) UNSUPPORTED SUBCONTRACTOR CHARGES, AND
(3) INELIGIBLE OVERHEAD RATES. CONTRACTOR ALSO HAD MAJOR CONTRA
NONCOMPLIANCE PROBLEMS AND CAS 401 VIOLATION.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MA
BOTH CONTRACTING OFFICERS HAVE PREPARED THEIR POSITIONS AND
ARE IN PROCESS OF NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE CONTRACTOR AND ARE EXPEC
TO BE CONCLUDED BY JUNE 30, 1996. FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATIVE
CONTRACTING OFFICER HAS FORWARDED HIS REPORT OF ACTION DATED AUG
24, 1995 TO THE OIG ON THE COST ACCOUNTING STANDARDS NONCOMPLIAN
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT THIS TIME.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/96 [1]
E9BHP4-23-0004-5400025 OHM REM FY 89 OH 12/14/94
Summary: WE QUESTIONED $646,574 RELATED TO: (1) EXCESSIVE PROFI
OF AFFILIATES COSTS, (2) UNSUPPORTED SUBCONTRACTOR CHANGES, AND
(3) INELIGIBLE OVERHEAD RATES. CONTRACTOR ALSO HAD MAJOR CONTRA
NONCOMPLIANCE PROBLEMS AND CAS 401 VIOLATION.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MA
BOTH CONTRACTING OFFICERS HAVE PREPARED THEIR POSITIONS AND
ARE IN THE PROCESS OF NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE CONTRACTOR AND ARE
EXPECTED TO BE CONCLUDED BY JUNE 30, 1996. THE FINANCIAL
ADMINISTRATIVE CONTRACTING OFFICER FORWARDED HIS REPORT OF ACT 10
DATED AUGUST 24, 1995 TO THE OIG ON THE COST ACCOUNTING STANDARD
NONCOMPLIANCE.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT THIS TIME.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/96 [1]
E9BHP4-23-0005-5400027 OHM REM FY 90
OH 12/22/94
Summary: WE QUESTIONED $259,289 RELATED TO (1) EXCESSIVE PROFIT
AFFILIATES' COSTS; (2) UNALLOWABLE GENERAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE
COSTS, AND (3) UNSUPPORTED SUBCONTRACTOR CHARGES. CONTRACTOR AL
HAD MAJOR CONTRACT NONCOMPLIANCE AND CAS 401 VIOLATION.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MA
OCTOBER 1, 1995 THROUGH MARCH 31, 1996
61
-------
ASSIGNMENT CONTROL
NUMBER
TITLE
BOTH CONTRACTING OFFICERS HAVE PREPARED THEIR POSITIONS AND
ARE IN THE PROCESS OF NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE CONTRACTOR AND EXPECT
TO BE CONCLUDED BY JUNE 30, 1996. THE FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATIVE
CONTRACTING OFFICER FORWARDED HIS REPORT OF ACTION DATED AUGUST
24, 1996 TO THE DIG ON THE COST ACCOUNTING STANDARDS
NONCOMPLIANCE.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT THIS TIME.
FINAL REPORT ASSIGNMENT CONTROL
ISSUED NUMBER
TITLE
FINAL REPORT
ISSUED
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/96 [1]
E9BHP4-23-0006-5400031 OHM REM FY 91
OH
1/13/95
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/96 [1]
D9EGL5-04-0094-5100218 COMMUNITY RELATIONS PLUS
•Summary:
GA
3/21/95
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: THIS REPORT WILL BE RESOLVED WHEN THE PREWARD REPORT IS
RESOLVED. THIS REPORT WAS THE RESULT OF A FINDING IN THE PREAWARD
REPORT.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
NEGOTIATIONS TO BE CONCLUDED BY JUNE 30, 1996.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/96 [1]
D9BGL5-06-0020-5100287
VERTAC-VSC
TX
4/17/95
Summary: THE REPORT QUESTIONED $9,453,222 OF DEPRECIATION AND
LOSS ASSOCIATED WITH THE ON-SITE INCINERATOR. THE CONTRACTOR
BASED LOSS COMPUTATIONS ON NOT RECEIVING 18,000 TONS OF MATERIAL
TO BURN. CONTRACTUAL REQUIREMENTS WITH EPA ONLY INCLUDED 5,023
TONS OF MATERIAL.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MA
THERE HAS BEEN A REVISION TO THE ORIGINAL CLAIM AND ADDITIONAL
RESEARCH AND REVIEW WILL HAVE TO BE PERFORMED. NEGOTIATIONS SHO
BE CONCLUDED BY THE TURN OF THE CENTURY.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
NEGOTIATIONS TO BE CONCLUDED BY SEPTEMBER 30, 1996.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/96 [1]
D9EKN5-10-0033-5300016 MIC FIN CAP
ID
5/24/95
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 NONCOMPLIANCE AND CAS 401 VIOLATIONS.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: BOTH CONTRACTING OFFICERS HAVE PREPARED THEIR POSITIONS AND
ARE IN THE PROCESS OF NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE CONTRACTOR AND EXPECT
TO BE CONCLUDED BY JUNE 30, 1996. THE FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATIVE
CONTRACTING OFFICER HAS FORWARDED HIS REPORT OF ACTION DATED
AUGUST 24, 1995 TO THE OIG ON THE COST ACCOUNTING STANDARDS
NONCOMPLIANCE.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT THIS TIME.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/96 [1]
0AM Cost Advisory and Financial Analysis Division
Washington Cost Advisory Board
D8BML4-03-0345-4100343 PRC, INC. VA 6/ 1/94
•Summary:
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: PREAWARD UNDER NEGOTIATION.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
AGREEMENT COULD NOT BE REACHED BETWEEN THE CONTRACTING OFFICER AND
PRC. THE CONTRACTING OFFICER HAS REQUESTED A REVISED SUBMISSION.
•Summary: THE CONTRACTOR'S FINANCIAL CONDITION IS HIGHLY
UNFAVORABLE. THE CONTRACTOR IS HAVING DIFFICULTY MEETING ITS
FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS AND MAY NOT HAVE THE FINANCIAL RESOURCES T
CONTINUE PERFORMING ON GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS UNLESS IT TAKES DRAS
MANAGEMENT ACTIONS.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MA
THIS REPORT WILL BE RESOLVED WHEN THE PRIEWARD REPORT IS
RESOLVED. THIS REPORT WAS THE RESULT OF A FINDING IN THE PREAWA
REPORT.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
NEGOTIATIONS TO BE CONCLUDED BY SEPTEMBER 30, 1996.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/96 [1]
TOTAL AUDITS EXCLUDING PREAWARDS ISSUED BEFORE REPORTING PERIOD
WHICH NO MANAGEMENT DECISION WAS MADE DURING THE REPORTING PERIO
97
Contracts Management Division - RTP
D8AML5-03-0345-5100525 UNIVERSAL SYSTEMS & TECH. VA 9/29/95
•Summary: IN CONTRACT NEGOTIATION PROCESS
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MA
PREAWARD UNDER NEGOTIATION.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
NEGOTIATIONS TO BE CONCLUDED BY MAY 31, 1996.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/96 [1]
0AM Cost Advisory and Financial Analysis Division
Financial Analysis Branch
P9AHN9-23-0347-0300036
OH MATERIALS (PR EQ RATES) OH 3/27/
•Summary: IN CONTRACT NEGOTIATION PROCESS
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MA
NEGOTIATIONS AND DEFINITIZATION OF THE CONTRACT PROVISIONAL
EQUIPMENT RATES TO FIXED RATES HAVE BEEN CONCLUDED. A CONTRACT
MODIFICATION IS OUT FOR SIGNATURE.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: EXPECT
RESOLUTION DATE FOR BILLING REPAYMENTS IS ANTICIPATED SHORTLY
AFTER APRIL 30, 1996.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/96 [1]
62
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
-------
ASSIGNMENT CONTROL FINAL REPORT ASSIGNMENT CONTROL FINAL REPORT
NUMBER TITLE ISSUED NUMBER TITLE ISSUED
P9AHN1-23-0143-2300024 OHM REM ERCS2 Z1 FY 89 OH 12/27/91 D9AGL5-01-0058-5100245 ARTHUR 0. LITTLE MA 3/30/95
•Summary: IN CONTRACT NEGOTIATION PROCESS *Summary: IN CONTRACT NEGOTIATION PROCESS
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN - EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MA
MADE: NEGOTIATIONS AND DEFINITIZATION OF THE CONTRACT PROVISIONAL PREAUARD UNDER NEGOTIATION.
EQUIPMENT RATES TO FIXED RATES HAVE BEEN CONCLUDED. A CONTRACT
MODIFICATION IS OUT FOR SIGNATURE. = DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
NEGOTIATIONS TO BE CONCLUDED BY JUNE 30, 1996.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: EXPECTED
RESOLUTION DATE FOR BILLING REPAYMENTS IS ANTICIPATED SHORTLY IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/96 [1]
AFTER APRIL 30, 1996.
D9AGL5-02-0092-5100236 LOUIS BERGER & ASSOCIATES NJ 3/30
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/96 [1]
•Summary: IN CONTRACT NEGOTIATION PROCESS
P9AHP2-23-0021-4400002 OHM REM ERCS2 Z1 FY 90 EQ OH 10/ 7/93
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MA
•Summary: IN CONTRACT NEGOTIATION PROCESS PREAWARD UNDER NEGOTIATION.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN = DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
MADE: NEGOTIATIONS HAVE CONCLUDED. CONTRACT MODIFICATION IS OUT NEGOTIATIONS TO BE CONCLUDED BY JUNE 30, 1996.
FOR SIGNATURE. EXPECTED DATE FOR BILLING REPAYMENTS IS
ANTICIPATED BY APRIL 30, 1996. IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/96 [1]
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: D9AGL5-02-0091-5100242 URS CONSULTANT CORP. NJ 3/30/95
ANTICIPATED BY APRIL 30, 1996.
•Summary: IN CONTRACT NEGOTIATION PROCESS
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/96 [1]
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MA
0AM Cost Advisory and Financial Analysis Division PREAWARD UNDER NEGOTIATION.
Washington Cost Advisory Board
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
D8AAL5-01-0080-5100406 NATIONAL ECONOMIC RESEARCH MA 7/10/95 NEGOTIATIONS TO BE CONCLUDED BY JUNE 30, 1996.
•Summary: IN CONTRACT NEGOTIATION PROCESS IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/96 [1]
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN D8AML5-03-0308-5100495 EASTERN LABORATORY SERVICE PA 9/22/
MADE: PREAWARD UNDER NEGOTIATION.
•Summary: IN CONTRACT NEGOTIATION PROCESS
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
NEGOTIATIONS TO BE CONCLUDED BY JUNE 30, 1996. - EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MA
CONTRACT AWARD PUT ON HOLD DUE TO BUDGET CONSTRAINTS.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/96 [1]
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
D8AML5-01-0170-5100507 DALE W JORGENSON ASSOCIATES MA 9/27/95 RESOLUTION CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT THIS TIME.
•Summary: IN CONTRACT NEGOTIATION PROCESS IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/96 [1]
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN D8AML5-03-0351-5100523 BOOZ ALLEN 9/29/95
MADE: PREAWARD UNDER NEGOTIATION.
•Summary: IN CONTRACT NEGOTIATION PROCESS
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
NEGOTIATIONS TO BE CONCLUDED BY SEPTEMBER 30, 1996. - EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MA
PREAWARD UNDER NEGOTIATION.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/96 [1]
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
D8AML5-01-0167-5100508 INDUSTRIAL ECONOMICS INC. MA 9/27/95 NEGOTIATIONS TO BE CONCLUDED BY MAY 31, 1996.
•Summary: IN CONTRACT NEGOTIATION PROCESS IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/96 [1]
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN D8AML5-03-0338-5100524 INTERNATIONAL RESOURCES GRP.DC 9/29/9
MADE: PREAWARD UNDER NEGOTIATION.
•Summary: IN CONTRACT NEGOTIATION PROCESS
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
NEGOTIATIONS TO BE CONCLUDED BY SEPTEMBER 30, 1996. - EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MA
PREAWARD UNDER NEGOTIATION.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/96 [1]
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
OCTOBER 1, 1995 THROUGH MARCH 31, 1996 63
-------
ASSIGNMENT CONTROL
NUMBER
TITLE
FINAL REPORT
ISSUED
NEGOTIATIONS TO BE CONCLUDED BY JUNE 30, 1996.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/96 [1]
D9AFL5-03-0093-5100205 S. COHEN & ASSOCIATES VA 3/10/95
•Summary: IN CONTRACT NEGOTIATION PROCESS
- 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 JUNE 30, 1996.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/96 [1]
D9AFL5-03-0089-5100290 DELON HAMPTON & ASSOCIATES DC 4/19/95
•Summary: IN CONTRACT NEGOTIATION PROCESS
- 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 JUNE 30, 1996.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/96 [1]
D9AGL5-04-0065-5100259 VIROGROUP INC. FL 4/ 5/95
•Summary: IN CONTRACT NEGOTIATION PROCESS
- 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 JUNE 30, 1996.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/96 [1]
D9AGL5-04-0068-5100286 HAZCLEAN CORPORATION MS 4/17/95
•Summary: IN CONTRACT NEGOTIATION PROCESS
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
HADE: PREAWARD UNDER NEGOTIATION.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
NEGOTIATIONS TO BE CONCLUDED BY JUNE 30, 1996.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/96 [1]
08AWP5-05-0081-5400058 GRACE ANALYTICAL LAB IL 3/29/95
•Summary: IN CONTRACT NEGOTIATION PROCESS
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE:
NEGOTIATIONS HAVE BEEN PUT ON HOLD DUE TO BUDGET CONSTRAINTS.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT THIS TIME.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/96 [1]
D8AWP5-05-0126-5400071 GRACE ANALYTICAL LAB IL 5/22/95
•Summary: IN CONTRACT NEGOTIATION PROCESS
ASSIGNMENT CONTROL
MUHBER TITLE
FINAL REPORT
ISSUED
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MA
NEGOTIATIONS HAVE BEEN PUT ON HOLD DUE TO BUDGET CONSTRAINTS.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT THIS TIME.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/96 [1].
D9AGL4-05-0295-5100049 OHM REM OH 11/ 2/94
•Summary: IN CONTRACT NEGOTIATION PROCESS
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MA
PREAWARD UNDER NEGOTIATION.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
NEGOTIATIONS TO BE CONCLUDED BY MAY 31, 1996.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/96 [1] (Report closed 4/3/96.
D9AGL5-08-0030-5100282 WESTERN TECHNOLOGY & ENGINEEMT 4/17/
•Summary: IN CONTRACT NEGOTIATION PROCESS
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MA
PREAWARD UNDER NEGOTIATION.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
NEGOTIATIONS TO BE CONCLUDED BY SEPTEMBER 30, 1996.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/96 [1]
D9AGL5-08-0029-5100283 MSE, INC MT 4/17/95
•Summary: IN CONTRACT NEGOTIATION PROCESS
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MA
PREAWARD UNDER NEGOTIATION.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
NEGOTIATIONS TO BE CONCLUDED BY SEPTEMBER 30, 1996.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/96 [1]
D9AGL5-08-0028-5100355 MORRISON KNUDSEN CORP. ENVIRCO 6/ 9/9
•Summary: IN CONTRACT NEGOTIATION PROCESS
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MA
PREAWARD UNDER NEGOTIATION.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
NEGOTIATIONS TO BE CONCLUDED BY SEPTEMBER 30, 1996.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/96 [1]
D9AGL5-08-0028-5100387 MORRISON KNUDSEN CORP. ENVIRCO 6/27/95
•Summary: IN CONTRACT NEGOTIATION PROCESS
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MA
PREAWARD UNDER NEGOTIATION.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
NEGOTIATIONS TO BE CONCLUDED BY SEPTEMBER 30, 1996.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/96 [1]
64
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
-------
ASSIGNMENT CONTROL
NUMBER
TITLE
FINAL REPORT ASSIGNMENT CONTROL
ISSUED NUMBER
TITLE
FINAL REPORT
ISSUED
D9AGL5-08-0028-5100427 MORRISON KNUDSEN CORP. ENVIRCO 7/21/95 D9AKL5-09-0070-5100374
SAIC PA
CA
6/20/95
•Summary: IN CONTRACT NEGOTIATION PROCESS
- 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 SEPTEMBER 30, 1996.
•Summary: IN CONTRACT NEGOTIATION PROCESS
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MA
PREAWARD UNDER NEGOTIATION.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
NEGOTIATIONS TO BE CONCLUDED BY MAY 31, 1996.
IG FOLLOUUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/96 [1]
D8AAL5-09-0055-5100285 RESOURCE DECISION PA
•Summary: IN CONTRACT NEGOTIATION PROCESS
CA
4/17/95
IG FOLLOUUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/96 [1]
D8AAN5-10-0040-5300014 PTI ENVT'L PA UA
•Summary: IN CONTRACT NEGOTIATION PROCESS
4/17/95
- 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 JUNE 30, 1996.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MA
PREAUARD UNDER NEGOTIATION.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/96 [1]
P9AGL2-10-0089-4100225 CH2M ARCS IV TERM STLMT
•Summary: IN CONTRACT NEGOTIATION PROCESS
OR
3/28/94
- 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 MAY 31, 1996.
IG FOLLOUUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/96 [1]
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
NEGOTIATIONS TO BE CONCLUDED BY SEPTEMBER 30, 1996.
IG FOLLOUUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/96 [1]
TOTAL PREAUARD AUDITS ISSUED BEFORE REPORTING PERIOD FOR UHICH NO MANAGEMENT DECISION UAS MADE DURING THE
PERIOD: 29
REPORTING
TOTAL AUDITS ISSUED BEFORE REPORTING PERIOD FOR UHICH NO MANAGEMENT DECISION UAS MADE DURING THE REPORTING PERIOD: 126
* = Agency procedures do not require the IG's approval on Agency's Management Decision on an audit (other than apreaward 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.
OCTOBER 1, 1995 THROUGH MARCH 31, 1996
65
-------
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
101 Marietta, Suite 300
Atlanta, GA 30323
Audit: (404) 331-6099
Investigations: (404) 331-6016
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, KS 66101
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, CA 94105
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
66
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
------- OCR error (C:\Conversion\JobRoot\000004UD\tiff\2000GCT7.tif): Saving image to "C:\Conversion\JobRoot\000004UD\tiff\2000GCT7.T$F.T$F" failed.
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 5, Library (PL42J)
77 West Jackson Boulevard, 12th HOOT
Chicago, IL 60604-3590
-------
MAKE A WORLD
OF DIFFERENCE!
-------
-------
MAKE A WORLD
OF DIFFERENCE!
-------
------- |