v'/EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of the Inspector General Washington DC 20460 May 1992 Office of the Inspector General Report to the Congress October 1, 1991 Through March 31, 1992 Printed on Recycled Paper ------- During this semiannual reporting period, the Office of Inspector General focused attention on improvements needed in EPA's contract management activities. I testified before congressional committees on EPA's vulnerability to fraudulent, wasteful, abusive, and illegal practices by contractors and EPA's "culture" of managing contractors as if they were part of the EPA "family" instead of at arm's length. The Administrator and other top management officials promptly responded by initiating corrective actions which, if properly implemented, should help significantly improve the Agency's control over its operations and contracts. Our investigative work continued to find fraud and abuse in laboratories participating in the Superfund Contract Laboratory Program. For example, one laboratory pleaded guilty to making false statements to EPA and was fined $500,000. We will continue our coordinated audit and investigative efforts to ensure the soundness and credibility of the scientific data upon which the Agency bases its policies, regulations, and enforcement actions. We also found that improvements were needed in other areas, including large grantees' management of their wastewater treatment facilities, the reliability of data used to measure the impact of leaking underground storage tanks on the nation's groundwater, and the timeliness of the Agency's efforts to clean up hazardous waste sites. We continued our efforts concerning the implementation of the Chief Financial Officers (CFO) Act and worked with the Agency to ensure establishment of an effective CFO organization to correct its longstanding financial management problems. The Agency's positive response to our findings on its contract management activities and its cooperation in implementing the CFO Act are examples of our mutual commitment to protecting scarce resources and enhancing the quality of the environment. John C. Martin Inspector General OCTOBER 1,1991 THROUGH MARCH 31.1992 ------- ------- Executive Summary 1 Overview of EPA's Current Challenges 3 Overview of Significant Trends In EPA of Concern to the DIG 4 Profile of Activities and Results 6 Establishment of the OIG in EPA—Its Role and Authority 7 Organization and Resources 7 Purpose and Requirements of the Office of the Inspector General Semiannual Report 7 Section 1—Significant Problems, Abuses, and Recommendations Summary of Audit Activities and Results 10 Agency Management 11 Construction Grants 15 Other Grants and Contracts 18 Superfund Program 19 Special Reviews 22 Section 2—Report Resolution Status Report on Perpetual Inventory of Reports in Resolution Process for the Semiannual Period Ending March 31, 1992 25 Audit Followup 26 Status of Management Decisions on IG Audit Reports 27 Resolution of Significant Reports 29 Section 3—Prosecutive Actions Summary of Investigative Activity 30 Description of Selected Prosecutive Actions 31 Description of Selected Prosecutive and Administrative Actions Concerning EPA Employees 33 Section 4—Fraud Prevention and Resource Management Improvements Review of Legislation and Regulations 34 Suspension and Debarment Activities 35 Congressional Testimony by the Inspector General 36 Personnel Security Program 37 President's Council on Integrity and Efficiency 37 Committee on Integrity and Management Improvement 38 Hotline Activities 38 Professional and Organizational Development 39 Appendices Appendix 1—Reports Issued 40 Appendix 2—Reports Without Management Decisions 57 OCTOBER 1,1991 THROUGH MARCH 31.1992 ------- ------- Executive Summary Section 1— Significant Problems, Abuses, and Recommendations 1. Mismanagement Of Contractor Jeopardizes Agency's Control Of Operations And Procurement Practices. A general laissez-faire culture that affected EPA's management of its support contract with the Computer Sciences Corporation (CSC) resulted in (1) lessened EPA control over critical program activities; (2) the creation of a personal services relationship between CSC and EPA; (3) CSC's performance of inherently governmental functions; (4) potential conflict of interest situations; and (5) ineffective and inefficient use of Agency resources (page 11). 2. After $581 Million And 27 Years Of Mismanagement, Puerto Rico Still Fails To Meet Water Standards. Despite receiving an additional $142.4 million from EPA since our 1987 report, the Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority (PRASA) still was not properly operating and maintaining its wastewater treatment facilities, nor meeting Clean Water Act standards. The people of Puerto Rico continue to be deprived of the environmental and public health benefits which these facilities could provide (page 12). 3. EPA Lacks Control Over Automatic Data Processing (ADP) Contracts. EPA had not established an adequate contract administration process to ensure that contracted ADP services are effectively and efficiently accomplished. In addition, EPA had not prepared required analyses to ensure that ADP services are acquired at the lowest cost under existing and proposed contracts (page 13). 4. Underground Storage Tank Inventory Not Reliable. The national inventory of underground storage tanks is unreliable for allocating resources and measuring EPA's progress in minimizing the impact of leaking tanks on human health and the environment (page 14). 5. Los Angeles Claims $14.3 Million Of Ineligible and Unreasonable Costs. The City of Los Angeles, California, claimed $2,174,976 of ineligible construction, force account, and engineering costs and $12,198,906 of unreasonable costs (page 16). 6. Over $8.4 Million Questioned On D.C. Projects Plagued By Delays and Cost Overruns. The District of Columbia (District) experienced excessive cost overruns and significant construction contract delays at its Blue Plains Wastewater Treatment Plant. In addition, the District claimed $2,047,749 of ineligible construction and engineering costs and unsupported costs of $6,372,885 for these projects (page 16). 7. Nearly $8.8 Million Of Ineligible And Unsupported Costs Claimed For Western Lake Superior, Minnesota, Project. The Western Lake Superior Sanitary District, Duluth, Minnesota, claimed $8,595,588 of ineligible construction, engineering, and administrative costs. An additional $166,834 of unsupported costs were questioned (page 16). 8. Over $8.7 Million Of Ineligible And Unsupported Costs Claimed For Amherst, New York, Project. The Town of Amherst, New York, claimed $5,963,650 of ineligible construction, engineering, and administrative costs. An additional $2,739,253 of unsupported costs were questioned (page 17). 9. Over $6 Million Of Ineligible Costs Claimed By Wayne, New Jersey. The Township of Wayne, New Jersey, claimed $6,273,775 of ineligible construction, engineering, and administrative costs (page 17). 10. San Jose, California, Claimed Almost $2.9 Million of Ineligible Costs. The City of San Jose, California, claimed $2,864,225 of ineligible construction and engineering costs for improvements to its wastewater treatment facility (page 18). 11. North Carolina State University Research Center Claimed $2.1 Million in Misused Funds. North Carolina State University claimed $1,173,779 of ineligible costs and $898,206 of unsupported costs under a Superfund research grant that were not used for their intended purposes (page 18). 12. Alternative Contracting Strategy Fails to Accelerate Cleanups of Hazardous Waste Sites. Poor contractor performance and management delayed the cleanup of hazardous waste sites under the Alternative Remedial Contracting Strategy (ARCS) program in Regions 1, 3, and 5 (page 20). 13. Searches For Potentially Responsible Parties Need Improvement In Regions 2 and 7. Searches in Regions 2 and 7 for potentially responsible parties were not timely, complete, or well documented, resulting in unnecessary costs and delays in getting polluters to accept responsibility for cleaning up their hazardous waste sites (page 20). 14. Los Angeles Claimed $6.7 Million In Questioned Costs For Cleanup of Hazardous Waste Sites Still Threatening Public Health. The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) ineffectively managed its cooperative agreement with EPA for hazardous waste cleanup activities at the San Fernando Valley Ground Water Basin, resulting in health- threatening conditions at several adjacent residential communities. Also, LADWP claimed $2,321,195 of ineligible costs and $4,354,690 of unreasonable costs (page 21). 15. Delinquent Superfund Reports to Congress Have Limited Usefulness. For 3 of the last 4 years, EPA submitted Superfund annual reports to Congress more than 1 year after their statutonly mandated due date, significantly reducing their usefulness to the Congress (page 22). 16. Accreditation Program Needed To Ensure Integrity of Laboratory Data. EPA lacks assurance that laboratories performing studies to support applications for pesticide registration are operating in compliance with the Good Laboratory Practices (GLP) program established pursuant to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (page 22). OCTOBER 1,1991 THROUGH MARCH 31 1992 ------- 17. Alaskan Seafood Processor's Permit Should Be Modified. EPA Region 10 issued a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit to a seafood processor without adequately assessing the known negative impact on the water quality of Captains Bay, Alaska, or enforcing the permit's conditions (page 23). 18. EPA May Have Paid Too Much For Carpet Cleaning. Over a 33-month period EPA obtained carpet cleaning services without competition and without determining the reasonableness of prices (page 24). 19. Use Of EPA Fleet Vehicles and Fuel Credit Cards Questioned. EPA had not provided adequate oversight and control of its leased vehicles, resulting in their misuse and excessive operational costs (page 24). Section 2—Report Resolution At the beginning of the semiannual period, there were 296 reports for which no management decision had been made. During the first half of fiscal 1992, the Office of Inspector General issued 1,044 new reports and closed 250. At the end of the reporting period, 292 reports remained in the Agency followup system for which no management decision had been made. Of the 292 reports, 99 reports remained in the Agency followup system for which no management decision was made within 6 months of issuance (page 25). In two followup reviews, the Office of Inspector General found that some problems identified in previous reports continued to exist (page 26). However, we have nothing to report this period with respect to significant management decisions with which we disagree as required by the 1988 Inspector General Act Amendments. For the 250 reports closed, EPA management disallowed $22.9 million of questioned costs for recovery and agreed with our recommendations that $13.3 million be put to better use (page 25). In addition, cost recoveries in current and prior periods included $8.1 million in cash collections, and at least $17.2 million in offsets against billings (page 6). Section 3— Prosecutive Actions During this semiannual reporting period, our investigative efforts resulted in 39 convictions and 16 indictments. Also, this semiannual period our investigative work led to nearly $1.3 million in fines and recoveries (page 30). Results of continuing investigations of EPA's contract laboratory program included the president and a supervisor of a New York company being charged with 40 counts of fraud; a vice president of a Connecticut company being fined and placed on probation; a fine of $500,000 for an analytical services firm; and guilty pleas from a Louisiana company and 3 of its employees, with sentences to follow. In other cases, 18 defendants in a telemarketing scheme were found guilty and 17 of them were sentenced; an Illinois business pleaded guilty to bribing a local government official; two Pennsylvania corporations and their chief executive officer pleaded guilty to violations of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and the Clean Air Act; and two employees pleaded guilty, and one was sentenced, in a false claims case at a Pennsylvania Superfund site (page 31). Section 4—Fraud Prevention and Resources Management Review of Proposed Legislation and Regulations During this semiannual period, we reviewed 72 legislative and regulatory items. The most significant were a proposed executive order on integrity and efficiency in Federal programs; the proposed Freedom of Information Act of 1991; the proposed Electronic Freedom of Information Act of 1991; and an Office of Federal Procurement Policy proposed policy to prohibit contracting for inherently governmental functions (page 34). Suspension and Debarment Activities We completed 24 cases during this reporting period, resulting in 9 debarments, 7 suspensions, and 8 settlement agreements (page 35). Congressional Testimony by the Inspector General The Inspector General was invited to testify 3 times before congressional committees on EPA's vulnerability to fraudulent, wasteful, abusive, and illegal practices used by its contractors (page 36). Personnel Security Program During this reporting period, the Personnel Security Staff reviewed 234 investigations. Among the actions taken, based on these reviews, were the denial of a contractor employee's access to Confidential Business Information; resignation of three employees who had falsified their SF-171s, Application for Federal Employment, by not listing previous convictions for assault, claiming degrees not awarded, and previous terminations; and oral reprimands of three employees regarding their failure to report previous terminations, convictions for theft, for driving while intoxicated, for writing bad checks, and for claiming a college degree not earned (page 37). Hotline Activities The DIG toll-free Hotline opened 31 new cases and closed 37 cases during the reporting period. Eight of the closed cases resulted in environmental, prosecutive, or administrative corrective action (page 38). Professional and Organizational Development We approved 425 training enrollments for a total of 932 days of training and participation in professional development seminars and conferences. A cadre of 18 DIG Total Quality Management (TQM) facilitators was trained, and members of the DIG staff began receiving 1-day TQM awareness training (page 39). OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL ------- Overview of EPA's Current Challenges This section highlights some of EPA's most significant challenges for restoring and protecting the quality of the air we breathe, the land where we live, and the water we depend on. Land The principal sources of land waste are: • Underground Storage Tanks. EPA estimates there are 3 to 5 million underground storage tanks in the United States containing petroleum products or other hazardous substances. Thousands are thought to be leaking now and many more will begin to leak in the next 5 to 10 years. Because half of our population depends on ground water as a source of drinking water, leaking underground storage tanks have been recognized as a national problem. • Industrial Hazardous Wastes. The chemical, petroleum, metals, and transportation industries are major producers of hazardous industrial waste, such as dioxin and benzene which are known carcinogens. • Municipal Wastes. Municipal wastes include household and commercial wastes, demolition materials, and sewage sludge. Solvents and other harmful household and commercial wastes are generally so intermingled with other materials that specific control of each is virtually impossible. • Mining Wastes. A large volume of all waste generated in the United States is from mining coal, phosphates, copper, iron, uranium, and other minerals and from ore processing and milling. Runoff from these wastes increases the acidity of streams and pollutes them with toxic materials. Air The Clean Air Act Major Laws Administered by EPA Statute Toxic Substances Control Act Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act Resource Conservation and Recovery 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 Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act Provisions Requires EPA notification of any new chemical prior to its manufacture and authorizes EPA to regulate production, use, or disposal of a chemical Authorizes EPA to register all pesticides, specify the terms and conditions of their use, and remove unreasonably hazardous pesticides from the marketplace. Authorizes EPA in cooperation with FDA to establish tolerance levels for pesticide residues on food. Authorizes EPA to identify hazardous wastes and regulate their generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal. Requires EPA to designate hazardous substances that can present substantial danger and authorizes the cleanup of sites contaminated with such substances. Authorizes EPA to set emission standards to limit the release of criteria pollutants and hazardous air pollutants. Requires EPA to establish a list of toxic water pollutants and set standards. Requires EPA to set drinking water standards to protect public health from hazardous substances Regulates ocean dumping of toxic contaminants Authorizes EPA to provide loans and grants to schools with financial need for abatement of severe asbestos hazards. Requires 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 Amendments of 1990 address three major threats to our nation's environment and the health of Americans: urban air pollution, acid rain, and air toxics. The 1990 amendments also establish a national operating permits program and an improved enforcement program to foster better compliance with the requirements of the Act. • Urban Air Pollution. Under the 1970 Clean Air Act, EPA established National Ambient Air Quality Standards for pollutants posing the greatest overall threat to air quality. These "criteria pollutants" include ozone, carbon monoxide, airborne particulates, sulfur dioxide, lead, and nitrogen oxides. The 1990 amendments require a new classification of areas which are not in attainment with these standards and establish time frames for attainment based on the severity of current pollution levels. More stringent motor vehicle emission standards, use of alternative clean fuels, clean-fueled fleet vehicles, and additional controls on industrial facilities are required. • Acid Rain. Emissions of sulfur dioxide (primarily from coal-burning power plants) and nitrogen oxides (primarily from motor vehicles and coal- burning power plants) interact with sunlight and water vapor in the upper atmosphere to form acidic compounds which can fall as acid rain. This is recognized as a serious long- term problem for many industrial nations. The 1990 amendments establish new requirements, primarily on coal-burning power plants, aimed at reducing emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides emissions. Also, these amendments provide for banking and trading of emission allowances among emission sources to facilitate reductions of acid ram. • Air Toxics. Before the 1990 amendments, EPA was required to establish national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants which would protect public health with an ample margin of safety. Because this margin was difficult to define and was the subject of continued litigation, EPA promulgated regulations for only seven pollutants. The 1990 amendments shift from regulation of individual pollutants to categories of sources using technology- based standards. EPA must publish a list of industrial source categories for 189 chemicals specified in the 1990 amendments and regulate each category within 10 years to reduce air toxic emissions by over 75 percent. Water The job of cleaning and protecting the nation's drinking water; oceans, coastal waters, and wetlands; and surface waters is made complex by the variety of sources of pollution that affect them. OCTOBER 1,1991 THROUGH MARCH 31 1992 ------- Overview of Significant Trends in EPA of Concern to the OIG • Municipal Sources. Municipal wastewater (primarily from toilets, sinks, showers, and other uses) which runs through city sewers may be contaminated by organic materials, nutrients, sediment, bacteria, and viruses. Toxic substances used in the home also make their way into sewers. • Industrial Sources. The use of water in industrial processes, such as the manufacturing of steel or chemicals, produces billions of gallons of wastewater daily. • Nonpoint Sources. Nonpoint sources of water pollution are multiple, diffuse sources of pollution as opposed to a single "point" source, such as a discharge pipe from a factory. For example, rainwater washing over farmlands and carrying top soil and chemical residues into nearby streams is a major nonpoint source of water pollution. • Ocean Dumping. Dredged material, sewage sludge, and industrial wastes are a major source of ocean pollution. Sediments dredged from industrialized urban harbors are often highly contaminated with heavy metals and toxic synthetic organic chemicals, such as PCBs and petroleum hydrocarbons. Wetlands • More than half of the wetlands originally in the contiguous United States have been lost and others have been degraded by pollution and hydrological changes so that they no longer perform many of their natural functions. To achieve its "no net loss" goal, EPA is increasing enforcement of Federal restrictions on activities which destroy or degrade wetlands. This section of our report presents the Office of Inspector General's (OIG) perspective on significant vulnerabilities and crosscutting problems which the OIG believes the Agency must address to ensure its programs are conducted in a more effective, efficient, and economical manner. These items have been identified by OIG audits and investigations, Agency studies and evaluations, and others over time. The OIG's semiannual report for the period ended September 30, 1991, discussed five significant trends of concern: (1) Scientific Data Integrity, (2) Contract and Procurement Practices, (3) Financial Management: Chief Financial Officers Act, (4) Superfund, and (5) Audit Followup. Each of these trends continue to be of concern to the OIG and has captured the attention of Agency management. For this reporting period, the OIG's perspective on these trends is presented under two major categories—Contract Management and Financial and Management Integrity—to more closely correspond with EPA's current priorities and future initiatives. Contract Management Contractors have an enormous role in helping the Agency accomplish its mission. Each year EPA processes about 8,000 contract actions, obligating more than $1 billion. Past audits and investigations have identified instances of overcharging, including exorbitant markups on materials and services, and performance award fees being given to contractors for less than satisfactory work. • Backlog of contracts requiring audit. The Agency's needs for audits of contracts have never been met and have been growing tremendously. As of February 1992, the Agency had 678 active contracts with obligations of $3 billion. Further, there were 2,002 contracts with obligations totaling $4.1 billion whose performance periods had expired, but had not been closed out. The Agency had about 400 unfulfilled requests for audits to determine contractors' final indirect cost claims. Significant audit reports on contracts were issued during the period, including: —An Alternative Remedial Contracting Strategy (ARCS) contractor's indirect cost rate for 1987 was incorrectly calculated because some costs should not have been claimed for reimbursement and other costs should have been part of the base costs used for distributing indirect costs. The contractor's indirect costs included $6,097,022 which should have been included in the base costs; $1,411,432 of self-insurance costs not approved by the contracting officer, as the Federal Acquisition Regulation requires; $470,764 of expressly unallowable costs involving professional and legal costs associated with stock transactions, contingent fees for lobbying services, first class air fares, alcohol, and advertising; and $49,498 of lease payments exceeding normal costs of ownership. —A contractor bidding on an EPA contract to provide studies supporting EPA regulation development and rulemaking process proposed $7,760,982 of fringe benefit, overhead, general and administrative, and subcontractor costs which did not reflect current rates or rates not forecasted beyond the first year and $434,704 of automation costs calculated using an incorrect rate. Also, the contractor occasionally billed subcontractor costs before paying them and had not done an effective job of determining which business units were subject to Cost Accounting Standards. —$1.7 million of a subcontractor's $3.5 million proposal was questioned because the subcontractor proposed labor rates in excess of actual costs and equipment rates it could not support. • Laissez-faire culture. A general laissez-faire culture adversely affects EPA's management of its contracts. During this semiannual reporting period, we reported EPA's management of one contractor had resulted in lessened EPA control over critical program activities, the creation of a personal services relationship between the contractor and EPA, the contractor's performance of inherently governmental functions, potential conflict of interest situations, and ineffective and inefficient use of Agency resources. Specifically, EPA's heavy reliance on the contractor for development, enhancement, operation, and maintenance of most of its critical information and financial management systems has made the Agency extremely dependent on the contractor at the expense of its own control over critical program operations. Also, EPA administered the contract as a personal services contract as evidenced by an employer- employee relationship that developed between EPA and the contractor largely because EPA assumed responsibilities for supervising, hiring, firing, evaluating, promoting, and training the contractor's employees who performed Agency functions on site. With respect to the Alternative Remedial Contracting Strategy program, we found that poor contractor performance and management delayed the cleanup of hazardous waste sites in three EPA regions. Also, EPA had not established an adequate contract administration process to ensure that contracted ADP services are effectively and efficiently accomplished. OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL ------- • Scientific data. The accuracy and reliability of scientific data have always been crucial to EPA's mission as a regulatory agency. Such data forms the basis for decisions that affect all major American industries and national policies to prevent hazards and risks to health and safety. EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD) has 12 laboratories at nine locations across the country. In addition, ORD devotes two-thirds of its $400 million budget to funding contracts and grants. However, audit and investigative work shows that EPA is not always getting the research for which it pays, nor is such research always accurate or objective. For example, EPA has used independent laboratories under the Contract Laboratory Program to test samples from Superfund sites. During this semiannual reporting period, our investigations continued to show that contract laboratories have serious problems with the integrity of their data and methods, resulting in criminal prosecutions and fines. Fraudulent analyses, falsified data, uncalibrated equipment, backdated analyses, and other serious problems with the contract laboratories used to analyze samples from Superfund sites could call into question cleanup decisions and could hamper the recovery of EPA's cleanup costs from responsible parties. Financial and Management Integrity EPA's budget averages about $6 billion annually. Accurate accounting and reporting of these funds is crucial, especially with respect to the Superfund and construction grants programs. However, EPA's accounting systems have not provided complete, consistent, reliable and timely data for Agency decision- making and control of its assets. • Accounting systems and controls. In March 1991, we reported that EPA's $20 million integrated financial management system (IFMS), designed to combine accounting and budgeting systems with other financial and administrative systems to comply with OMB requirements, had not been provided sufficient attention or resources for its implementation. Significant data integrity and security problems had led to user dissatisfaction and the development of duplicate systems. Accounts receivable has been an issue that the Agency has been dealing with for at least 10 years. Our September 1991 review of the Superfund for fiscal 1990 revealed that, of the Superfund receivables, $4.6 million were not recorded timely; $562,288 were not recorded in the correct fiscal year; 13 receivables were delinquent without assessed interest of $181,468; and $2.3 million of collections were not recorded against the correct receivables. Since 1983, we have reported that amounts due as a result of Superfund cost recovery actions were not recorded or were not recorded timely. Also, a recent review of construction grant obligations found that nearly $43.3 million of a $49 million sample of unliquidated construction grant obligations reviewed in eight EPA regions were invalid and should have been deobligated. Our March 1992 followup report on the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) found there were still significant problems with the integrity of both financial and nonfinancial information. • Audit followup. Since 1989 we have been assessing the effectiveness of the Agency's audit followup responsibilities. Our reviews found that information in the Agency's Management Audit Tracking System (MATS) was not reliable and the Agency's Semiannual Reports to Congress on audit followup activity have been inaccurate. In our latest report, issued in September 1991, we found in just three regions, almost as much in unreported recoveries ($7.4 million) as the Agency reported for all ten regions ($8.3 million) in its Reports to Congress for 1990. As a result of our reviews, the Agency has reported audit followup as a material weakness in its 1989, 1990, and 1991 Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act (FMFIA) Reports to Congress and the President. • Chief Financial Officers Act. The Chief Financial Officers (CFO) Act was enacted to bring about much needed improvements in accounting systems, financial management, and internal controls. In response to the Act and as a result of our prior audit findings, we are continuing our emphasis on performing audits in the financial management area to ensure that necessary improvements are made in the Agency's financial systems and data integrity. In addition, we are working with the Agency to ensure that an effective CFO organization is established that provides the CFO with the responsibility and authority needed to correct EPA's longstanding financial management problems. OCTOBER 1,1991 THROUGH MARCH 31 1992 ------- Profiles of Activities and Results Environmental Protection Agency Office of Inspector General Audit Operations DIG MANAGED REVIEWS: Reviews Performed by EPA, Independent Public Accountants (IPA's) and State Auditors —Questioned Costs - Total Ineligible - Federal Share Ineligible* - Total Unsupported* - Federal Share Unsupported* - Total Unnecessary/Unreasonable* • Federal Share Unnecessary/Unreasonable* October 1, 1991, to March 31, 1992 $48.3 $35.4 $21.7 $17.4 $22.0 $146 Million Million Million Million Million Million —Recommended Efficiencies (Funds be Put to Better Use) - Total Efficiencies* $57.4 Million - Federal Share Efficiencies* $57.4 Million —Cost Disallowed to be Recovered - Federal Share Ineligible $11.0 Million - Federal Share Unsupported $10.4 Million - Federal Share Unnecessary/Unreasonable $.2 Million (costs which EPA management agrees are unallowable and is committed to recover or offset against future payments) —Cost Disallowed as Cost Efficiency - Federal Share Recommended Efficiencies $8 0 Million (funds made available by EPA management's commitment to implement recommendations in DIG performance or preaward audits) OTHER REVIEWS: —Reviews Performed by another Federal Agency or Single Audit Act Auditors —Questioned Costs - Total Ineligible $2.7 Million - Federal Share Ineligible* $2.7 Million - Total Unsupported* $1 0 Million - Federal Share Unsupported* $1.0 Million - Total Unnecessary/Unreasonable* $0 0 Million - Federal Share Unnecessary/Unreasonable* $0.0 Million —Recommended Efficiencies (Funds be Put to Better Use) • Total Efficiencies* • Federal Share Efficiencies* $15.1 Million $15.1 Million * Questioned Costs: Ineligible, Unsupported and Unnecessary/Unreasonable; and Recommended Efficiencies (Funds be Put to Better Use) are subject to change pending further review in the audit resolution process. " Information on recoveries from audit resolution is provided from the EPA Financial Management Division and is unaudited. October 1, 1991, to March 31, 1992 $0.7 Million $0 6 Million $0.0 Million —Cost Disallowed to be Recovered - Federal Share Ineligible - Federal Share Unsupported - Federal Share Unnecessary/Unreasonable (costs which EPA management agrees are unallowable and is committed to recover or offset against future payments) —Cost Disallowed as Cost Efficiency - Federal Share Recommended Efficiencies $5.3 Million (funds made available by EPA management's commitment to implement recommendations in OIG performance or preaward audits) Agency Recoveries: —Recoveries from Audit Resolutions of $25 3 Million Current and Prior Periods (cash collections or offsets to future payments)** REPORTS ISSUED. —OIG MANAGED REVIEWS: - EPA Reviews Performed by the OIG 48 - EPA Reviews Peformed by Independent Public Accountants 81 - EPA Reviews Performed by State Auditors 9 —OTHER REVIEWS: - EPA Reviews Performed by another Federal Agency 239 - Single Audit Act Reviews 667 TOTAL REPORTS ISSUED 1,044 - Reports Resolved (agreement by Agency officials to take satisfactory corrective action) 250 Investigative Operations • Fines and Recoveries (including civil) $1.3 Million • Investigations Opened 138 • Investigations Closed 11 7 • Indictments of Persons or Firms 16 • Convictions of Persons or Firms 39 • Administrative Actions Taken Against EPA Employees 13 Fraud Detection and Prevention Operations • Debarments, Suspensions, Voluntary Exclusions, and Settlement Agreements (actions to deny persons or firms from participating in EPA programs or operations because of misconduct or poor performance) 24 • Hotline Complaints Received 31 • Hotline Complaints Processed and Closed 37 • Proposed Legislative and Regulatory Items Reviewed 72 • Personnel Security Investigations Adjudicated 234 OFFICE OF THE 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 seven Divisional Inspectors General for Audit and five 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 1992, the Agency was appropriated $6,668,853,000 and authorized 17,569 full time equivalent (FTE) positions to conduct the environmental programs authorized by Congress to restore and protect the environment. As a separate appropriation account, the Office of Inspector General (OIG) received $41.2 million to carry the provisions of the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended. Nearly $15 million of the OIG's appropriation was derived from the Hazardous Substance Superfund trust fund and $623,000 was derived from the Leaking Underground Storage Tank trust fund. The OIG has an approved staffing level of 366 FTE positions. The funding and FTE available to the OIG represent 0.6 percent and 2.1 percent, respectively, of the Agency's totals. Comparisons of the OIG's resources to the Agency's and allocation of the OIG's resources to its audit, investigation, and management functions for fiscal 1992 are shown on the following page. Purpose and Requirements of the Office of the Inspector General Semiannual Report The Inspector General Act of 1978 (Public Law 95-452), as Source 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. Section/Page Inspector General Act, as amended. Section 4(a)(2), Review of Legislation and Regulations 4 Section 5(a)(1), Significant Problems, Abuses, and Deficiencies 1 Section 5(a)(2), Recommendations with Respect to Significant Problems, Abuses, and Deficiencies 1 Section 5(a)(3), Prior Significant Recommendations on Which Corrective Action Has Not Been Completed Appendix 2 Section 5{a)(4), Matters Referred to Prosecutive Authorities 3 Section 5(a)(5), Summary of Instances Where Information Was Refused * Section 5(a)(6), List of Audit Reports Appendix 1 Section 5(a)(7), Cummary of Significant Reports 1 Section 5(a)(8), Statistical Table 1-Reports With Questioned Costs 2 Section 5(a)(9), Statistical Table 2-Reports With Recommendations That Funds Be Put To Better Use 2 Section 5(a)(10), Summary of Previous Audit Reports Without Management Decisions. Appendix 2 34 10 10 57 30 40 10 28 28 57 57 Section 5(a)(11), Description and Explanation of Revised Management Decisions Appendix 2 Section 5(a)(12), Management Decisions with Which the Inspector General Is in Disagreement ** • There were no instances where information or assistance requested by the Inspector General was refused during this reporting period. Accordingly, we have nothing to report under section 5(a)(5) of the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended. " There were no instances of management decisions with which the Inspector General was in disagreement. OCTOBER 1,1991 THROUGH MARCH 31.1992 ------- OIG vs Agency Resources-FY 1992 Dollars in Mil/ions FTEs OIG '41.2 OIG, 366 Distribution Of OIG Resources Funding = $41.2 Million FTEs = 366 * Each year a portion of the OIG appropriation is provided to EPA for common support items, such as office space, utilities, communications, ADP services, transportation, mail and copy services, and security OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL ------- Office of Inspector General - Who's Who Headquarters Inspector General John C. Martin Deputy Inspector General Anna Hopkins Virblck Office of Audit Kenneth A. Konz Assistant Inspector General James O. Rauch Deputy Office of Investigations Daniel S. Sweeney Assistant Inspector General Vacant Deputy Office of Management John C. Jones Assistant Inspector General Operations Staff Ellssa R. Karpf Director Technical Assessment and Fraud Prevention Division Vacant Director I Technical Assistance Staff Gordon Milbourn Director Administration and Management Services Division Michael Binder Director Planning and Resources Management Staff Kenneth Hockman Director Divisional Inspectors General Region 5 Anthony C. Carrollo, Audit Region 5, 7, & 8 Alex Falcon, Investigations Region 9 & 10 Truman R. Beeler, Audit H. Brooks Griffin Investigations Region 7 & 8 Nikki Tmsley, Audit Region 4 & 6 Mary Boyer, Audit James r. Johnson, Investigations Region 1 & 2 Paul McKechnie, Audit Robert M. Byrnes, Investigations Region 3 Paul R. Gandolfo, Audit Martin Squitieri Investigations Headquarters Edward Gekosky, Internal Audit Francis C. Kiley Washington Field Office Investigations OCTOBER 1,1991 THROUGH MARCH 31.1992 ------- Section 1-Significant Problems, Abuses 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 and reviews conducted by the Office of Investigations. Because these represent some of our most significant findings, they should not be considered representative of the overall adequacy of EPA management. Audit findings are open to further review but are the final position of the Office of Inspector General. This section is divided into six areas: Summary of Audit Activities and Results, Agency Management, Construction Grants, Other Grants and Contracts, Superfund, and Special Reviews. Summary of Audit Activities and Results Questioned Cost And Recommended Efficiencies By Type Of Assignments (in Millions of Dollars) "100 Federal Questioned | 1 Federal Share Recommended Efticiencies Non-Federal Questioned r i Non-Federal Recommended Efficiencies Construction Others Superfund Areas Of Effort By Staff Days Financial & Compliance 8307-36% LUST - Performance 67-0% LUST - Financial & Compliance 196-1% Superfund Performance 2677-12% Total -22,810 Days 10 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL ------- Agency Management The Inspector General Act requires the DIG 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 management audits and reviews are conducted to accomplish these objectives largely by evaluating the economy, efficiency, and effectiveness of operations. The following are the most significant internal and management audit and review findings and recommendations. Mismanagement Of Contractor Jeopardizes Agency's Control Of Operations And Procurement Practices Problem A general laissez-faire culture that affected EPA's management of its support contract with the Computer Sciences Corporation (CSC) resulted in (1) lessened EPA control over critical program activities; (2) the creation of a personal services relationship between CSC and EPA; (3) CSC's performance of inherently governmental functions; (4) potential conflict of interest situations; and (5) ineffective and inefficient use of Agency resources. Background EPA has contracted with CSC since the early 1970's for technical and operational computer systems support. CSC has provided such support nationwide for almost 12 years and now provides services to almost every EPA office and major information system. Our audit generally covered the management of a contract awarded to CSC in September 1990 with a 5-year term and a maximum value of $347 million. We Found That EPA's mismanagement and lack of control over CSC's activities permitted numerous prohibited and improper actions by both Agency and contractor staffs as described below. • Lessened Agency Control Over Critical Program Activities. EPA's heavy reliance on CSC for development, enhancement, operation, and maintenance of most of its critical information and financial management systems has made the Agency extremely dependent on the contractor at the expense of its own control over critical program operations. CSC had substantial involvement with 17 information systems ranked as "high risk" or "very high risk" because they contain sensitive, mission critical data and 14 additional systems ranked as "moderate risk" because they potentially contain sensitive, mission critical data. The contractor failed to adequately document systems it developed, and EPA had not retained sufficient expertise in some systems' design and operation to properly monitor and control contractor activities or independently operate the systems. For example, all primary technical knowledge of the National Contract Payment System resided with CSC staff, and EPA managers and staff referred the DIG to CSC personnel for assistance in obtaining payment information. In addition, neither EPA nor CSC performed adequate background investigations of CSC staff. In one case, a CSC computer center employee, who had been arrested on numerous counts of fraud against various federal programs, had access to critical program support systems and data. • Provision of Personal Services. EPA administered the CSC contract as a personal services contract, in violation of Federal procurement regulations. An employer-employee relationship developed between EPA and CSC largely because EPA assumed responsibilities for supervising, hiring/firing, evaluating, promoting, and training CSC employees who performed critical Agency functions on site. Personal services contracts (1) circumvent civil service laws which require Federal agencies to obtain their employees by direct hire and within Office of Management and Budget (OMB) personnel ceilings and (2) inappropriately augment Agency staff without proper legislation. • Performance of Inherently Governmental Functions. CSC's potential technical control over certain EPA systems/activities and participation in preparing delivery orders under the reviewed contract created the appearance of the contractor performing inherently governmental functions. This practice did not comply with OMB Circular A-76 which requires that tasks so intimately related to the public interest be performed only by Federal employees. On 23 of 26 sampled delivery orders, CSC employees performed functions critical to the accomplishment of the Agency's mission. For example, CSC employees were instrumental in developing and maintaining many information systems critical to the Agency. CSC's extensive involvement in these systems resulted in CSC's staff possessing "institutional knowledge" necessary for the efficient and effective accomplishment of the Agency's program goals. Also, CSC employees performed tasks, such as preparing responses to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests and providing information to the public (often representing themselves as EPA employees). The Agency expended substantial time and money to train, equip, supervise, and develop CSC employees to provide them with the unique and necessary skills to perform these tasks. • Potential Conflicts of Interest. Potential conflicts of interest of both an organizational and personal nature existed in CSC contract operations. In effect, an organizational conflict of interest existed because CSC assigned itself work and managed its contract with EPA. Specifically, CSC helped prepare the statements of work OCTOBER 1,1991 THROUGH MARCH 31 1992 11 ------- for 20 of 26 delivery orders which we reviewed, including the number and type of labor categories needed to perform the desired tasks. EPA's delivery order project officers (DOPO) used CSC to assist in developing delivery orders because they were uncertain of the needs or lacked expertise relating to the tasks to be performed. EPA personnel appeared unconcerned that CSC managers in this role might be more interested in maximizing profits for CSC than ensuring that the services were provided at the lowest cost. Daily close interaction between CSC and EPA personnel for over a decade increased the risk of individual conflicts of interest because of the free movement of personnel between EPA and CSC. The close relationship resulted in less than arm's- length transactions between EPA and the contractor. For example, EPA DOPOs recommended labor upgrades for CSC staff who did not qualify as a way to give a valued CSC staff member a pay raise. EPA managers also requested cash and performance recognition awards for CSC personnel. In one instance, CSC staff received Gold and Bronze awards, two of the Agency's highest awards, which are normally reserved for Agency staff. CSC on-site managers had a profound influence on DOPOs who often followed their recommendations without analyzing the need or benefit to the Agency. • Ineffective and Inefficient Use of Resources. EPA DOPOs allowed CSC staff to perform activities that were outside the scope of the contract and individual delivery orders. The Agency incurred costs in excess of $192,000 for unallowable activities in situations where the associated cost could be calculated. Under 13 of 26 delivery orders reviewed, CSC employees performed tasks that were not included in the approved statement of work or which were not permitted under the contract, but should more appropriately be performed by Federal employees. In addition, EPA spent $154,000 for CSC's employees to attend unnecessary or professional development training for which the contractor should have paid. The general attitude at EPA was to consider CSC staff as "part of the EPA family" and to assume responsibility for maintaining their expertise and development. Further, EPA did not adequately monitor the time of CSC employees nor implement internal controls to ensure that idle or improper time was not charged to the contract. Although the total hours of idle time could not be determined, instances were noted in several locations where CSC employees either were not working or participated in activities not included in delivery orders' statements of work. Additionally, CSC employees' time was inappropriately charged for their attendance at EPA functions, such as regional picnics, retreats, sexual harassment training, luncheons, and holiday celebrations. • Accountability of Government Furnished Property. Hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of government property furnished to and acquired by CSC under contracts had not been properly accounted for or adequately protected. Despite problems with CSC's property control system and equipment furnished under prior contracts, EPA awarded the contract with no restrictions on CSC's acquisition of additional equipment. In addition, CSC's use of government furnished property was not properly supported in delivery order justifications. As a result, equipment costs under the contact were not properly justified and EPA incurred excessive costs on equipment leased by CSC for use under the contract. We Recommended That The Acting Assistant Administrator for Administration and Resources Management: • Increase the use of Agency employees and award multiple contracts for development, operation, and maintenance of major Agency information and financial systems to increase system security and reduce Agency reliance on any one contractor for support. • Require at least minimal background investigations for contractor personnel with access to sensitive Agency data or systems. • Eliminate CSC's activities that create potential conflict-of- interest situations and the appearance of less than arm's length transactions with Agency staff. • Ensure proper accountability for government furnished property in CSC's possession and adequate justification of equipment costs incurred under the contract. The Deputy Administrator require the Acting Assistant Administrator for Administration and Resources Management: • Issue comprehensive guidance for EPA contract management staff describing prohibitions against personal services relationships with contractor staff, with emphasis on limitations relating to supervising, hiring, and evaluating individuals. • Evaluate tasks performed by contractor staff to ensure that such work is appropriate and ensure that inherently governmental functions are performed by EPA employees. • Have the contracting officer and project officer monitor monthly contractor progress reports for indication of tasks being performed which are outside the scope of the contract or delivery orders' statement of work. What Action Was Taken The final audit report (2100295) was issued to the Administrator on March 31, 1992. A response to the report is due by June 29, 1992. EPA generally agreed with the findings and recommendations in the draft report and initiated actions to correct the conditions identified. As a first step, the Acting Assistant Administrator issued a memorandum to the Agency's top managers on February 28, 1992, outlining the initial actions to be taken to correct the abuses described in the draft report. After $581 Million And 27 Years Of Mismanagement, Puerto Rico Still Fails To Meet Water Standards Problem Despite receiving an additional $142.4 million from EPA since our 1987 report, the Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority (PRASA) still was not properly operating and maintaining its wastewater treatment facilities, nor meeting Clean Water Act standards. The people of Puerto Rico continue to be deprived of the environmental and public health benefits which these facilities could provide. Background In 1986, we reported that poor internal controls, procrastination, and lax enforcement prevented PRASA's wastewater management programs from achieving an acceptable level of pollution control after 21 years of Federal financial participation. A 1987 followup report noted some improvement in financial operations but little progress in 12 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL ------- Turbid final effluent In chlorine tank (photo by OIG staff) correcting numerous operation and maintenance deficiencies. We Found That After nearly 27 years of Federal financial participation totaling $581 million, together with numerous court ordered actions, PRASA continued to be a poorly run utility. As the current management team presented plans for a total reorganization, PRASA was still experiencing major difficulties in administering a wastewater management program capable of achieving a consistently acceptable level of water pollution control. PRASA's staff increased approximately 22 percent in the 5 years, while suffering from high turnover in key management positions, numerous terminations, and an inability to fill vital vacancies at wastewater treatment plants. PRASA has not been strong enough financially to effectively operate and maintain a successful wastewater treatment program. PRASA's financial position was overstated because provisions were not made for uncollectible receivables of $21.6 million, identifiable bad debts ranging from $2.9 to $14 million were not written off, large accounting adjustments were not sufficiently supported, and appropriate accounting procedures and practices were not always followed. Also, sufficient revenues were not being received because of ineffective and inefficient collection procedures. Our on-site tours of 23 wastewater facilities found improvement in the operation of some facilities. Notwithstanding these improvements, significant deficiencies still remained at many of PRASA's wastewater treatment facilities. Many of PRASA's facilities were noticeably understaffed, poorly operated and maintained, undersupplied and violating National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System and Clean Water Act requirements. PRASA's highly bureaucratic organizational structure caused inordinate delays in equipment repair or replacement, did not provide sufficient training, and did not hold managers accountable for safety violations until an accident occurred. We Recommended That The Regional Administrator, Region 2: • Work with senior EPA officials to obtain an unqualified commitment from PRASA's Board of Directors to continue the corrective actions they have proposed. • Closely monitor the progress of PRASA's reorganization plan relative to the issues presented in our audit report. • Make the award of any future Federal grants conditioned on PRASA achieving acceptable progress in implementing the reorganization plan and more significant improvement in PRASA's operations. What Action Was Taken The final audit report (2400014) was issued to the Regional Administrator, Region 2, on January 13, 1992. In his April 15, 1992, response to the final report, the Regional Administrator agreed with the report's major findings. He added that the Agency's sustained rigorous enforcement approach has produced an increasing level of compliance with the Clean Water Act requirements at PRASA treatment plants, particularly in the last 4 years. EPA Lacks Control Over Automatic Data Processing (ADP) Contracts Problem EPA had not established an adequate contract administration process to ensure that contracted ADP services are effectively and efficiently accomplished. In addition, EPA had not prepared required analyses to ensure that ADP services are acquired at the lowest cost under existing and proposed contracts. Background Effective information resources management is crucial to EPA's accomplishing its mission. Vast amounts of data are accumulated in Agency ADP systems and used for such things as management and scientific decision making and reporting to Congress and the public. As of February 1992, EPA had 10 existing or pending multi-year ADP support services contracts, each of which had an individual maximum ceiling value over $30 million; six existing ones totaling $930.2 million and four pending award totaling $629 million. We Found That EPA did not have an effective contract administration process for ADP support services contracts. Two major ADP support services contracts with an aggregate ceiling price of $487 million lacked minimum standards or meaningful criteria for Agency acceptance or rejection of contractor support services. In addition, these contracts generally did not contain adequate statements of work to enable the contractor to work independently and prepare reasonable cost estimates. As a result, EPA cannot be assured that its contracted ADP support services will be effectively and efficiently accomplished, possibly increasing (1) the development and maintenance costs associated with these services, (2) data integrity problems, (3) the risk of disruption in normal operations, and (4) its dependency on contractors. The weaknesses could also adversery affect the quality of ADP support services received under other existing and pending ADP support services contracts valued at over $1.1 billion. Further, contrary to Federal policies and procedures for the acquisition of ADP support services, EPA had not: • Prepared prescribed requirements analyses, including analyses of alternatives based on costs, for services to be provided under three existing contracts and two pending contracts valued at almost $1.2 billion. OCTOBER 1,1991 THROUGH MARCH 31.1992 13 ------- As a result, EPA had no assurance that these contracts represented the lowest cost alternative for acquiring these services. • Aggregated the costs to be incurred under the three existing contracts having values totaling $651 million for ADP equipment, proprietary software, maintenance services, and ADP services, giving the appearance of splitting its requirements among multiple contracts in violation of its Delegation of Procurement Authority (DPA) from GSA to make such purchases. Therefore, the Agency also has no assurance these contracts represent the lowest overall cost to the Federal Government. We Recommended That The Acting Assistant Administrator for Administration and Resources Management: • Add to the Agency's contract management program Agency- wide mandatory and formal information resources management standards, project management guidance, and system development methodology to efficiently manage ADP support services contracts and information resources. • Establish procedures to accumulate costs on ADP support services contracts for (1) ADP equipment, (2) proprietary software, (3) maintenance services, (4) ADP services, and (5) ADP support services to ensure that the Agency obtains prior approvals from GSA when purchases are expected to exceed established thresholds. • Complete prescribed alternative analyses on current and proposed ADP support services contracts to help ensure that the Agency chooses the most cost-effective acquisition alternatives and meets GSA's DPA requirements. What Action Was Taken The final audit report (2100300) was issued to the Acting Assistant Administrator for Administration and Resources Management on March 31, 1992. A response to the final report is due by June 29, 1992. In an interim response to our draft report, the Director, Office of Information Resources Management, Office of Administration and Resources Management, agreed with most of our recommendations and indicated their implementation would strengthen the information resources management program and contract administration. Underground Storage Tank Inventory Not Reliable Problem The national inventory of underground storage tanks (VST) Is unreliable for allocating resources and measuring EPA's progress in minimizing the impact of leaking tanks on human health and the environment. Background Because groundwater provides drinking water for half of the Nation's population, the potential environmental impact of underground tanks leaking petroleum products and other hazardous substances is significant. The Solid Waste Disposal Act Amendments of 1984 provided for the establishment of a program to prevent, detect, and clean up environmental impacts from these tanks. Through a mandatory notification process, States obtain information from tank owners for developing and maintaining inventories of regulated tanks from which EPA develops a national inventory. EPA's current inventory shows there are about 1.8 million tanks subject to Federal regulation. We Found That EPA cannot adequately determine the progress being made to abate the environmental risk to the Nation's groundwater from leaking underground storage tanks because it does not maintain a complete and accurate national inventory. EPA had not provided adequate guidance and oversight to ensure the accuracy, reliability, and completeness of the data provided by the States nor had EPA required the States to periodically update their inventories. EPA and the States rely primarily on tank owners' voluntary compliance with the requirement to register their tanks with designated State agencies. However, a large number of tank owners had not complied with the requirement. Based on discussions with EPA and State officials in Region 5 and the results of State surveys and other activities that discovered unregistered USTs, the national inventory may be understated by as much as 40 percent for individual States. As an example, one State in Region 5 determined that at least 43 of more than 100 tanks located along a recent highway project were not registered. State officials were also confused about what should and should not be reported, further reducing data reliability. Because of the unreliability of the data, the allocation of Federal funds to EPA regions for cleaning up leaking tanks may be inequitable. Of the $53.2 million available in fiscal 1991, EPA allocated $38 million to its 10 regions based on the number of confirmed releases in the region, the number of petroleum tanks reported in the region, and the region's population that depended on groundwater as a primary source of drinking water. Therefore, to the extent a region's inventory was understated or overstated, that region did not receive an equitable share of funding for cleanup of leaking tanks. We Recommended That The Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response: • Assist States in developing strategies for identifying unregistered tanks and require States to update inventory data on a recurring basis. Storage tank being inspected for leaks (photo by Wendell Wojnar, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources) 14 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL ------- • Clarity inventory reporting criteria and validate inventory data received from the States. • Revise the formula for allocation of Federal funds to the regions for cleanup of leaking tanks to exclude the number of tanks reported in a region until the reliability of the inventory is assured. • Expand reporting requirements to include information needed to assess all program objectives. What Action Was Taken In responding to our draft report, the Assistant Administrator agreed to implement several of our recommendations for improving data reliability. However, the Assistant Administrator did not agree that the funding formula should be revised or that the inventory should be expanded and updated periodically. The final audit report (2100278) was issued to the Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response on March 27, 1992, and a response is due by June 25, 1992. Construction Grants EPA's wastewater treatment works construction grants and State Revolving Fund (SRF) programs are the largest programs the Agency administers. Under the provisions of Public Law 92-500, as amended, the Agency was authorized to make construction grants covering 55 percent and, in some instances, up to 85 percent of the eligible costs of constructing wastewater treatment facilities. During this semiannual period, $14 million was obligated on three new construction grant awards and 90 increases to existing grants. As of March 31, 1992, there were 795 active construction grants, representing $5.4 billion in Federal obligations. Amendments to the construction grants program are covered in Title II of the Water Quality Act of 1987. Section 212 created a new Title VI in the Clean Water Act, which addresses the process of phasing out the construction grants program by providing incentives for development of alternative funding mechanisms by the States. The new Title VI charges EPA with developing and implementing a program to provide grants to capitalize State revolving funds for financing wastewater projects. During this semiannual period, $427 million was awarded for five continuation SRF grants. As of March 31, 1992, EPA had obligated $5.2 billion to 50 States and Puerto Rico under the State Revolving Fund program. OCTOBER 1,1991 THROUGH MARCH 31 1992 15 ------- Los Angeles Claims $14.3 Million Of Ineligible and Unreasonable Costs Los Angeles (Questioned 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 Millions of Dollars ••• Federal Non-Federal Problem The City of Los Angeles (City), California, claimed $2,174,976 of ineligible construction, force account, and engineering costs and $12,198,906 of unreasonable costs. We Found That EPA awarded a grant for $14,373,882 to the City for planning, designing, and constructing the Los Angeles/Glendale Water Reclamation Plant. The grantee claimed $2,174,976 of ineligible costs under that grant, including: • $1,400,564 of construction costs applicable to inoperable, abandoned, and oversized equipment; • $324,991 of engineering, force account, and indirect costs outside the scope of the project; incurred after the construction completion date; or claimed twice; • $311,710 of engineering costs applicable to ineligible construction or in excess of the amount supported by accounting records; and • $137,711 of force account and engineering costs related to design errors or redesign work. We also questioned $12,198,906 of claimed costs as unreasonable because the grantee did not (1) comply with special grant conditions concerning the elimination of sewage overflows and the reclamation of wastewater, (2) maintain force account records in sufficient detail to demonstrate benefit to the project, and (3) limit engineering fees to the maximum amount considered reasonable for this type of construction. We Recommended That The Regional Administrator, Region 9, not participate in the Federal share of ineligible costs ($1,196,237); determine the eligibility of the Federal share of unreasonable costs ($6,709,398); and recover the applicable amount from the grantee. What Action Was Taken The final report (2300044) was issued to the Regional Administrator, Region 9, on March 13, 1992. A response is due by June 13, 1992. Over $8.4 Million Questioned On D.C. Projects Plagued By Delays and Cost Overruns District of Columbia Millions of Dollars •• Federal Non-Federal I Problem The District of Columbia (District) experienced excessive cost overruns and significant construction contract delays at its Blue Plains Wastewater Treatment Plant. In addition, the District claimed $2,047,749 of ineligible construction and engineering costs and unsupported costs of $6,372,885 for these projects. We Found That EPA awarded seven grants to the District for construction projects at its Blue Plains Wastewater Treatment Plant. The District experienced significant cost overruns and delays in completing construction and engineering contracts awarded for these projects because of weaknesses in its procurement policies and practices. For example, costs incurred for 14 construction contracts were $14.7 million, or 18.4 percent, above initial estimates (the national average for State and local government projects is 4.3 percent). Similarly, costs for 11 engineering contracts exceeded initial estimates by $5.8 million, or 55.3 percent. Further, none of the construction contracts was completed on time, with delays averaging 18 months. Of the interim costs of $53,497,516 claimed by the District, we questioned $2,047,749 as ineligible including: • $1,387,253 for grit removal which constituted normal plant operation and maintenance; • $433,848 of engineering costs exceeding the amount allowed for design or the ceiling imposed by the contract; • $159,368 for rights-of-way needed to construct a football field and a playground; and • $67,280 of construction costs related to design errors, normal maintenance, and work unrelated to the treatment plant or applicable to another contract. We also questioned $6,372,885 of inadequately supported construction, engineering, equipment, and facilities costs. We Recommended That The Regional Administrator, Region 3, not participate in the Federal share of ineligible costs ($1,535,812); determine the eligibility of the Federal share of unsupported costs ($4,779,664); and require the District to improve the timeliness of construction contract completion and reduce cost overruns. What Action Was Taken The special review report (2300046) was issued to the Regional Administrator, Region 3, on March 31, 1992. A response is due by June 29, 1992. Nearly $8.8 Million Of Ineligible And Unsupported Costs Claimed For Western Lake Superior, Minnesota, Project Western Lake Superior SO Questioned 0 5 10 15 20 25 X Millions of Dollars IHH| Federal Non-Federal Problem The Western Lake Superior Sanitary District, Duluth, Minnesota, claimed $8,595,588 of ineligible construction, engineering, and administrative costs. An additional $166,834 of unsupported costs were questioned. We Found That EPA awarded an $18,325,125 grant to the Western Lake Superior Sanitary District to construct a combined sludge and solid waste processing facility. We questioned as ineligible $8,147,071 of the 16 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL ------- grantee's claim for designing and constructing equipment to prepare solid waste for fuel to operate a sludge disposal system. These costs were determined to be ineligible because the equipment was for a fuel preparation process rather than a sewage treatment process. We also questioned an additional $448,517 of the claim as ineligible, including: • $370,228 of engineering costs incurred after the approved facility's construction completion date; • $48,344 of legal and other administrative costs in excess of amounts incurred or related to other projects; and • $29,945 of construction costs for ineligible change orders resulting from design errors. We also questioned $166,834 of unsupported administrative costs, primarily for salaries. We Recommended That The Regional Administrator, Region 5, not participate in the Federal share of ineligible costs ($6,446,691); determine the eligibility of the Federal share of unsupported costs ($125,126); and recover the applicable amount from the grantee. What Action Was Taken The audit report (2400004) was issued to the Regional Administrator, Region 5, on December 12, 1991. A response due by March 11, 1992, had not been received as of April 21, 1992. Over $8.7 Million Of Ineligible And Unsupported Costs Claimed For Amherst, New York, Project Millions of Dollars §•• Federal Non-Federal Problem The Town of Amherst, New York, claimed $5,963,650 of ineligible construction, engineering, and administrative costs. An additional $2,739,253 of unsupported costs were questioned. We Found That EPA awarded grants totaling $78,171,842 to upgrade the Town's existing treatment facility; construct facilities for transporting and treating excess wet weather flows; and for an innovative/alternative technology process. We questioned $5,963,650 of the grantee's final claim for those grants as ineligible, including: • $4,157,474 of construction costs which were outside the scope of the project since they exceeded the amounts approved by the State of New York; • $1,634,191 of architectural engineering fees that were outside the scope of the approved project or exceeded allowable fees; and • $171,985 of administrative costs which were outside the project's scope or constituted ordinary expenses of local government. We also questioned $2,739,253 of unsupported costs, including construction costs for abandoned structures, pending final resolution of the grantee's appeal to EPA for eligibility; construction and engineering costs for facilities which the grantee had not yet demonstrated as being capable of operating effectively during high flow conditions; costs for installing electric power lines for emergency power, pending an EPA grant amendment providing for their reimbursement; and engineering and administrative costs for which there was inadequate documentation. We Recommended That The Regional Administrator, Region 2, not participate in the Federal share of questioned costs ($4,433,158); determine the eligibility of the Federal share of unsupported costs ($2,046,157); and recover the applicable amount from the grantee. What Action Was Taken The audit report (2100155) was issued to the Regional Administrator, Region 2, on January 3, 1992. A response due by April 2, 1992, had not been received as of April 21, 1992. Over $6 Million Of Ineligible Costs Claimed By Wayne, New Jersey Wayne Twp, NJ 30 Millions of Dollars •• Federal Problem Non-Federal $6,273,775 of ineligible construction, engineering, and administrative costs. We Found That EPA awarded a grant for $21,956,375 to Wayne, New Jersey, to upgrade an existing wastewater treatment plant and build a sewer line, additional sludge and grit handling equipment, and a sewage flow detention basin. We questioned $6,273,775 of the grantee's claimed costs as ineligible including: • $6,114,064 of construction costs which exceeded the grant award amount, were incurred after the project construction completion date, were for litigation costs lacking documentation, or were for ineligible change orders; • $156,273 of engineering costs which were undocumented, exceeded the maximum grant amount, or related to ineligible construction; and • $3,438 of administrative costs related to ineligible construction. We Recommended That The Regional Administrator, Region 1, not participate in the Federal share of ineligible costs ($4,705,332) and recover the applicable amount from the grantee. WhatActiqn Was Taken The audit report (2100165) was issued to the Regional Administrator, Region 2, on January 3, 1992. A response due by April 2, 1992, had not been received as of April 21, 1992. The Township of Wayne, New Jersey, claimed OCTOBER 1,1991 THROUGH MARCH 31 1992 17 ------- San Jose, California, Claimed Almost $2.9 Million of Ineligible Costs San Jose, CA 20 25 Millions of Dollars j^H Federal Non-Federal Problem The City of San Jose (City), California, claimed $2,864,225 of ineligible construction and engineering costs for improvements to its wastewater treatment facility. We Found That EPA awarded a grant to the City for improvements to the San Jose/Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant. Of the $18,535,792 which the grantee claimed for the project, we questioned as ineligible costs of $2,864,225 including: • $1,573,910 of construction costs which exceeded the grant award amount; and • $1,290,315 of engineering costs and other costs which were outside the approved scope of the project or were incurred prior to the grant award date or after established project completion dates. We identified $404,524 of eligible engineering costs not claimed by the grantee which were offset against the questioned costs. We Recommended That The Regional Administrator, Region 9, not participate in the Federal share of net ineligible costs ($1,844,775) and recover the applicable amount from the grantee. What Action Was Taken The audit report (2300031) was issued to the Regional Administrator, Region 9, on January 28, 1992. A response was due by April 27, 1992. Other Grants and Contracts These are independent audits of the records and performance of individual grantees and contractors made in accordance with the U.S. General Accounting Office standards for audit of governmental organizations, programs, activities, and functions. These audits are conducted to determine the degree of compliance with statutes, regulations, and terms of the agreements under which Federal funds were made available. This includes determining whether costs claimed by the grantee or contractor are eligible, supported by documentation, necessary, and reasonable. North Carolina State University Research Center Claimed $2.1 Million in Misused Funds North Carolina State Univ. Millions of Dollars l^H Federal Non-Federal Problem North Carolina State University (University) claimed $1,173,779 of ineligible costs and $898,206 of unsupported costs under a Superfund research grant that were not used for their intended purposes. We Found That The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 authorized EPA to establish five university-based Hazardous Substance Research Centers, each of which would serve two EPA regions. On February 27, 1989, EPA awarded North Carolina State University a grant which, as amended, provided Federal funding of $3,016,080 to establish a research center for EPA Regions 4 and 6. Following charges of impropriety, EPA's Office of Exploratory Research (OER) terminated funding for the University in 1991. The University claimed ineligible costs of $1,173,779, including: • $976,233 for 39 projects that (1) did not relate to the grant's objectives and (2) were conducted under contracts and grants provided by third parties that did not include any EPA or grantee costs. 18 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL ------- • $99,783 for indirect costs related to subcontracted research projects that exceeded the amount authorized by the grant; • $97,763 for time mischarged by the Center's Director (almost all of the Director's time was charged to the grant even though he taught three courses which in the semester prior to the grant award had required 61 percent of his time). In addition, we questioned $898,206 of unsupported costs for 12 additional projects determined by EPA's Office of Exploratory Research as not being technically eligible. We Recommended That The Director, Grants Administration Division, not participate in the Federal share of questioned costs ($1,509,027) and recover the applicable amount from the grantee. What Action Was Taken The audit report (2300045) was Issued to the Director, Grants Administration Division, on March 26, 1992. A response is due by June 26, 1992. Superfund Program 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. Taxing authority for the trust fund expired on September 30, 1985. For more than a year, the Superfund program operated at a reduced level from carryover funds and temporary funds provided by Congress. On October 17, 1986, the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) was enacted. It provided $8.5 billion to continue the program for 5 more years and made many programmatic changes. On November 5, 1990, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 was enacted, authorizing appropriations for 3 additional years and extension of the taxing authority for 4 years. 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. The enactment of SARA increased the audit requirements for the Inspector General. In addition to providing a much larger and more complex program for which the OIG needs to provide audit coverage, SARA gave the Inspector General a number of specific responsibilities. Mandatory annual audit areas include: • Audit of all payments, obligations, reimbursements, or other uses of the Fund; • Audit of Superfund claims; • Examination of a sample of agreements with States carrying out response actions; and • Examination of remedial investigations and feasibility studies. The Inspector General is required to submit an annual report to the Congress regarding the required Superfund audit work, containing such recommendations as the Inspector General deems appropriate. The fourth annual report, covering fiscal 1990, was issued on September 25, 1991. In addition, the EPA Administrator must submit a detailed report to Congress on January 1 of each year on the progress in implementing CERCLA during the preceding fiscal year. The Agency has taken considerably longer to prepare the report than the 3 months allowed by CERCLA. The OIG is required to review this report for reasonableness and accuracy, and the Agency must attach the result of the OIG review to the Agency's annual report. On February 11, 1992, we issued our report (2100237) on the Agency's fiscal 1990 report which was transmitted to Congress on February 25, 1992 (see page 22). Region 3 enforcement investigators sampling contents of 55 gallon drum (EPA photo) OCTOBER 1,1991 THROUGH MARCH 31 1992 19 ------- Alternative Contracting Strategy Fails to Accelerate Cleanups of Hazardous Waste Sites Problem Poor contractor performance and management delayed the cleanup of hazardous waste sites under the Alternative Remedial Contracting Strategy (ARCS) program in Regions 1, 3, and 5. Background Superfund was created to clean up sites contaminated with hazardous waste. The most hazardous sites pass through various phases during the remedial or cleanup process. In the past, different contractors performed the various phases of the remdial process which proved to be inefficient. In an effort to expedite cleanups, EPA decided to change its approach by adopting ARCS. Under this concept, the remediation of each site becomes the responsibility of a single contractor as long as performance is satisfactory. We Found That ARCS failed to meet the Agency's goal of expediting the remediation or cleanup of Superfund sites in Regions 1, 3, and 5. Of 68 work assignments issued during the first 2 years of the ARCS program, only seven had been completed as scheduled, 19 had been completed beyond their schedule, and most of the remaining assignments will have exceeded EPA's goal by over 1 year (11 by more than 2 years) if completed as planned. In Region 3, the cleanup of sites was delayed because of ARCS contractors' ineptitude. Delays in Regions 1 and 5 were attributed to misdirected site samples, inexperienced contractor and EPA personnel, and a lack of adequate contractor personnel. ARCS contracts were not being fully used for several reasons, including built-in excess capacity to allow for the termination of contracts in the event of poor performance, less cleanups being available because responsible parties were performing more cleanups than anticipated, and contractors were experiencing great difficulties reaching the remedial action stage of the cleanup. As a result, program management rates incurred by 18 of 19 contractors reviewed in the three regions were as much as quadruple the percentages of program management costs to total contract costs projected over the 10-year term of the contracts. In addition, two other goals of ARCS—increased efficiency and accountability-were not being achieved because the regions did not prepare independent Government cost estimates of work assignments and subsequent increases to effectively evaluate and negotiate reasonable prices proposed by contractors. The Agency lacked the experience, knowledge, and adequate cost data bases to prepare these estimates. We Recommended That The Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response and the Acting Assistant Administrator for Administration and Resources Management emphasize to Regional Administrators the need to: • Reassess the ARCS capacity required for the duration of the contracts; • Terminate for default the ARCS contractors with the worst performance records; • Withhold all award fees for a work assignment when lack of performance causes delay; and • Prepare independent Government estimates for all ARCS work assignments and for all subsequent requests for revision of work assignments. What Action Was Taken The final audit report (2100209) was issued to the Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response and the Acting Assistant Administrator for Administration and Resources Management on February 3, 1992. A response to the final report is due by May 3, 1992. In response to our draft report, the Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response stated that the Agency accepted our recommendations, except for terminating the ARCS contractors with the worst performance records. He stated that such termination would have to be based on overall unsatisfactory performance, which had not been encountered. According to the Assistant Administrator most of our concerns had been addressed in the Administrator's October 1991 Task Force Report entitled, "Implementation of the Superfund Alternative Remedial Contracting Strategy (ARCS).11 A November 1991 Agency plan further elaborated on the corrective actions to implement the report's recommendations. Searches For Potentially Responsible Parties Need Improvement In Regions 2 and 7 Problem Searches in Regions 2 and 7 for potentially responsible parties (PRP) were not timely, complete, or well documented, resulting in unnecessary costs and delays in getting polluters to accept responsibility for cleaning up their hazardous waste sites. We Found That In Region 2, searches conducted by EPA contractors were inadequately managed and consistently exceeded period of performance and estimated hours and costs. All seven reviewed searches conducted by contractors exceeded their original level of effort hours at an additional total cost of $95,029. In addition, reports were not prepared for the two reviewed searches that were conducted by in-house staff. As a result, there is no assurance that searches were performed timely and that required tasks, such as gathering site information and establishing PRP liability, were sufficiently completed. In all nine cases reviewed in Region 2, there was insufficient documentation that the Region had fully complied with EPA search requirements for obtaining and assessing necessary financial information used to determine PRPs' ability to pay for cleaning up a site and to decide on enforcement actions against PRPs. Also, Region 2 was not effectively using its tracking system to monitor the status of search activities and assure that all PRPs involved in polluting the site were identified. Region 7 averaged 347 days to initiate baseline searches to gather information about the site and its owners, operators, and any associated generators or transporters of hazardous waste. Searches (baseline and followup) for 3 of 5 National Priorities List (NPL) sites reviewed cumulatively exceeded the Superfund program standard by more than 4 years and searches for 3 of the 4 reviewed non-NPL sites exceeded the program standard by 8 times. The Region's failure to initiate timely baseline searches contributed substantially to the inordinate number of days expended for the site searches. Also, in Region 7, many of the work assignments, statements of work, work 20 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL ------- plans, documentation of completed tasks, and search reports could not be found. Contractors used scientists and engineers to locate PRPs instead of investigators as allowed by the contracts. As a result, the Region duplicated work, incurred additional costs in identifying responsible parties, and encountered lengthy delays in establishing liability. For 5 of the 9 reviewed sites, the Region increased the contractors' time by 9,358 hours at a cost of $428,146. In addition, the Region's excessive use of cost-reimbursement contracts, instead of firm-fixed-price contracts, impaired its ability to acquire adequate PRP searches at the most reasonable costs. Region 7 did not evaluate the adequacy of internal controls to ensure that its PRP searches were being properly conducted. Further, the Regional Administrator had not reported PRP search weaknesses or needed improvements in the internal controls for fiscal years 1989 and 1990. We Recommended That The Regional Administrator, Region 2: • Fully implement Headquarters' guidance and procedures for planning, coordinating, tracking, monitoring and completing search activities in a timely and effective manner and implement supplemental regional guidance to address search team responsibilities. • Evaluate current PRP search contract management practices to ensure that work assignments are adequately funded and periods of performance allow sufficient time to complete a remedial PRP search. • Required standardized PRP search reports to be prepared for in-house searches. • Assure that required search tasks regarding the determination and assessment of all identified PRPs' financial status is adequately completed and documented in search reports. • Effectively use the regional tracking system to monitor efforts to identify PRPs and develop procedures to assure all data regarding information request letters, responses and follow-up activities are timely and accurately entered into the system. The Regional Administrator, Region 7: • Improve procedures to ensure that PRP searches are completed timely and that available expertise is used to plan and coordinate searches. • Use firm-fixed-price contracts when possible for the performance of searches and require contractors to properly document and provide their search results. • Restrict increases of contract levels of effort, costs, and performance periods without adequate justifications. • Establish better internal controls over the PRP search process, perform required internal control reviews, and report control weaknesses. What Action Was Taken Final audit reports (2100268 and 2100301) were issued to the Regional Administrator, Region 2, and the Regional Administrator, Region 7, on March 17 and 31, 1992, respectively. Responses are due by June 17 and 29, 1992, respectively. In responding to the draft reports, the Regions stated that they generally agreed with the findings and recommendations and have initiated corrective actions. Los Angeles Claimed $6.7 Million In Questioned Costs For Cleanup of Hazardous Waste Sites Still Threatening Public Health Problem The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) ineffectively managed its cooperative agreement with EPA for hazardous waste cleanup activities at the San Fernando Valley Ground Water Basin, resulting in health-threatening conditions at several adjacent residential communities. Also, LADWP claimed $2,321,195 of ineligible costs and $4,354,690 of unreasonable costs. We Found That EPA awarded a $13.6 million cooperative agreement to LADWP for remedial investigation activities at the San Fernando Valley Ground Water Basin and for construction of the North Hollywood/Burbank treatment facility. LADWP had not adequately monitored implementation of the Basin's health and safety plan as required by the cooperative agreement, resulting in the following conditions: • Soil contaminated with volatile organic compounds was stored improperly in uncovered, unmarked, unsealed, and easily accessible containers at several sites. • Potentially contaminated groundwater was stored in unlocked and easily accessible tanks at sites which may have been entered by children. • Signs were not posted at several sites to caution the public of the potential health hazards and the potential danger which could result from unauthorized entry. We questioned $2,321,195 of the costs claimed by LADWP through September 30, 1990, as ineligible, including: • $1,185,421 of supervision and engineering costs based on an allocation method rather than documentation supporting direct charges, • $805,710 of force account costs not supported by adequate labor distribution records, • $287,450 in consulting and contracting fees that had not yet been incurred or paid, and • $42,614 of contract storage and training costs exceeding the EPA approved amount. We also questioned $4,354,690 of costs as unreasonable, pending EPA's determination of whether LADWP had appropriately included a clause required in all subcontracts awarded under the Superfund program which protects EPA from potential liabilities. We Recommended That The Regional Administrator, Region 9: • Assure that LADWP implements the Basin health and safety plan and corrects its financial management deficiencies. • Not participate in the ineligible costs ($2,321,165), determine whether EPA should participate in the unreasonable costs ($4,354,690), and recover the applicable amount from LADWP. What Action Was Taken The audit report (2300043) was issued to the Regional Administrator, Region 9, on March 13, 1992, A response to the audit report is due by July 1, 1992. OCTOBER 1,1991 THROUGH MARCH 31.1992 21 ------- Special Reviews This section in our semiannual report describes the results of significant OIG special reviews. Special reviews are narrowly focused studies of programs or activities providing management a timely, informative, independent picture of operations. Special reviews are not statistical research studies or detailed audits. Rather, they are information gathering studies that identify issue areas for management attention. Delinquent Superfund Reports to Congress Have Limited Usefulness Problem For 3 of the last 4 years, EPA submitted Superfund annual reports to Congress more than 1 year after their statutorily mandated due date, significantly reducing their usefulness to the Congress. We Found That EPA's Superfund Annual Report for fiscal 1990, its fourth report, was signed by the Administrator on February 12, 1992, and transmitted to the Congress on February 25, 1992. The report was more than a year late. The Agency has averaged being 412 days late in submitting these reports to Congress for fiscal years 1987 through 1990. Some congressional senior staff believed the Superfund Annual Reports were not useful because of their untimeliness. Senior staff members of the House and Senate Oversight Committees stated they had developed other sources within EPA to obtain information needed to make timely decisions and monitor the Agency. Further, they stated that the Agency's annual report could be useful if it was more timely. During hearings held the past few years on the implementation of Superfund, some members of Congress have expressed a need for timely annual reports. Days Reports Were Delinquent 500 498 400 459 407 412 1987 1988 1989 Fiscal Year 1990 Average The annual reports were late for several reasons. With respect to the fiscal 1990 report, for example, the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) failed to adequately plan and monitor the annual report's preparation. Rather than planning to meet the statutory January 1, 1991, due date, OSWER arbitrarily established a target date for submitting the report several months later. In addition, when requesting information from EPA officials for the report, OSWER officials did not convey a sense of urgency and importance or mention the mandatory due date. Also, some of the statutorily required information on feasibility studies, resources, and minority businesses must be obtained from other agencies. Because EPA did not receive this information timely, preparation of the report was delayed. In addition, OMB's mandatory review of the annual report accounts for a substantial part of the lengthy report preparation process. Because the Agency depends on statutorily required information from other agencies and because OMB must review the report, the Agency is unlikely to meet the January 1 deadline in submitting future annual reports to Congress. These factors, in our opinion, make the January 1 deadline unrealistic. However, the timeliness of the annual report's preparation and submission can be substantially improved through better planning and stronger oversight by EPA. We Recommended That The Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response: • Stress to officials responsible for providing the needed information, the report's due date and a sense of urgency for their submission of that information. • Consider alternate methods of preparing the mandatory estimate of resources and information on feasibility studies for the report. • Encourage, in writing, other responsible Federal agencies to more timely submit information needed on feasibility studies and minority businesses. • Brief OMB officials each year on the report and significant changes from prior years' reports to expedite OMB's review. • Work through the Office of Congressional and Legislative Affairs to request that during reauthorization hearings, Congress consider extending the report's due date and revising its required contents. What Action Was Taken In unofficial oral comments on the draft report, Agency officials agreed to take the report deadline more seriously. The final report (2400033) was issued on March 31, 1992. A response is due by June 29, 1992. Accreditation Program Needed To Ensure Integrity of Laboratory Data Problem EPA lacks assurance that laboratories performing studies to support applications for pesticide registration are operating in compliance with the Good Laboratory Practices (GLP) program established pursuant to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Background In a September 30, 1991, audit report, we recommended that EPA revise its selection process to target medium- and small-sized laboratories that were never inspected for 22 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL ------- compliance with the requirements of the GLP program. In responding to the report, EPA stated that the selection process was being revised to include more uninspected laboratories, but additional resources were not available to perform more inspections. Accordingly, we initiated this review to examine alternatives used by other organizations, both public and private, to ensure the accuracy and reliability of laboratory data. We Found That The accuracy and reliability of laboratory data was a major concern of public and private organizations we visited, resulting in many different methods of operations. Some organizations maintained their own laboratories to control all studies. Others used one or more contract laboratories. Organizations using contract laboratories generally had strict pre-selection criteria, including an on-site inspection and proficiency testing before awarding a contract or assigning a study. Officials managing larger programs similar to EPA's did not have direct control of the laboratory, but generally relied on periodic laboratory inspections and audits of in-progress or completed studies to ensure the accuracy and reliability of data. There was general agreement among officials from various associations and accrediting organizations that some controls are needed to limit entry into an accreditation program to those laboratories that can demonstrate proficiency in the required specialty or process. These officials believed that a laboratory accreditation program would fulfill EPA's need. However, while being a positive first step toward ensuring the accuracy and reliability of laboratory data, accreditation alone would not totally solve the Agency's problem. To be effective, an accreditation program should be combined with (1) proficiency testing in the specific technical areas and (2) audits of ongoing studies. In addition, there was almost unanimous agreement that, rather than EPA, an independent third party should conduct the accreditation program, supported by laboratory fees, with EPA providing guidance and monitoring. These officials believed that such a program would be more readily accepted by the industry and would be cheaper and easier to manage than a government- run program. We Recommended That The Assistant Administrator for Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances: • Initiate development of an accreditation program for the FIFRA GLP. The development plans should include, initially, provision for laboratory inspections and, as the program matures, the addition of proficiency testing in specific technical areas. • Begin discussions with appropriate organizations to determine the feasibility of delegating the program to an independent third party accrediting organization with the Agency acting as the program monitor. What Action Was Taken The Special Review Report (2400032) was issued to the Assistant Administrator for Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances on March 31, 1992. A response to the report is due by June 29, 1992. Alaskan Seafood Processor's Permit Should Be Modified Problem EPA Region 10 issued a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit to a seafood processor without adequately assessing the known negative impact on the water quality of Captains Bay, Alaska, or enforcing the permit's conditions. We Found That Region 10 issued an NPDES permit to an Alaskan seafood processing plant on March 22, 1991, without a conclusive environmental assessment (EA) of the impact of its waste discharges on the Bay's water quality. The EA concluded that there was not sufficient information to evaluate the plant's environmental impacts. Discharges of seafood waste can smother the food sources of fish and invertebrate animals and consume all of the dissolved oxygen in the water, thereby eliminating life in a location. Captains Bay is a critical source of protection and food for juvenile fish and invertebrates, including economically important species such as king crab, cod, and salmon. The Region had studies identifying known water quality problems in the Bay before issuing the permit. For example, an October 1990 survey concluded that seafood wastes should not be discharged at the proposed site because of the Bay's poor dispersive capacity in the general area. A 1977 Dissolved Oxygen Study reported that natural dissolved oxygen levels near the bottom of the Bay did not meet water quality standards and that dissolved oxygen declined with increasing depth, indicating limited mixing with aerated surface water. There was no documentation of how those studies were considered in the Region's finding of no significant impact. Also, the Region did not adequately respond to Federal and State agencies' and concerned citizens' requests for more data before issuing the permit. Although the Region acknowledged that more data was needed to understand the water quality impacts of a new discharge into the Bay, the Region made data collection part of the permit conditions instead of collecting and considering such data as part of the permit issuance. A study completed by the permittee in November 1991 (8 months after the permit was issued) validated earlier concerns of the Federal Captains Bay, Alaska (photo provided by EPA Region 10, Alaska Operations Office) OCTOBER 1,1991 THROUGH MARCH 31.1992 23 ------- and State agencies. Dissolved oxygen levels were found to be below state water quality standards at the surface at all 5 monitoring stations near the plant's discharge outfall, indicating that the problem was no longer limited to the lower depths of the Bay. Further, the Region failed to take timely and appropriate enforcement action on numerous violations of the State water quality standards and permit conditions even though the Region was aware of the violations for at least 10 months. Violations included discharging seafood waste before the permit became effective, failing to submit required discharge monitoring reports, discharging prohibited finish waste, and exceeding waste discharge limits on at least 17 different occasions. Although the Region could have assessed penalties in excess of $425,000 for these violations, it did not assess any until February 1992. By that time, the Region had identified over 170 violations. We Recommended That The Regional Administrator, Region 10: • Modify the NPDES permit issued to the seafood processing plant. • Conduct and document a new environmental assessment to properly support environmental decisions for the processing plant. • Improve procedures to appropriately address all public comments made in response to environmental assessments and permit issuance decisions. • Initiate timely and appropriate enforcement actions, including assessing penalties when permit conditions and requirements are violated. What Action Was Taken A final special review report (2400024) was issued to the Regional Administrator, Region 10, on March 12, 1992, and a response is due by June 10, 1992. In responding to the draft report, the Regional Administrator advised us that the Region had issued a $125,000 penalty against the plant on February 28, 1992, for certain permit violations and additional administrative or civil penalties would be imposed for other violations. EPA May Have Paid Too Much For Carpet Cleaning Problem Over a 33-month period EPA obtained carpet cleaning services without competition and without determining the reasonableness of prices. We Found That From February 1988 through September 1990, EPA obtained more than $137,000 worth of carpet cleaning and related services at three Headquarters locations without competition or determinations of price reasonableness. These prices were at least 40 percent more than competitive prices quoted to the Agency in 1991 for these services. Further, the Procurement and Contracts Management Division (PCMD) used an inappropriate procurement method- Blanket Purchase Agreements (BPA)-to obtain these services. EPA's Contract Management Manual prescribes a $100,000 limitation over a 3-year period for orders placed under a BPA. Over just a 13-month period from August 1989 to September 1990, the Agency paid $98,000 for carpet cleaning services under the July 1989 BPA, indicating that a competitive contract may have been a more appropriate method of procuring these services. In August 1990, when expenditures under the BPA neared the $100,000 limitation, the Facilities and Management Services Division (FMSD) started procuring carpet cleaning services from the Agency's Waterside Mall lessor. Because FMSD did not enforce scheduled cleaning under the lease, the Agency paid twice for some of these services—once to the lessor in rental payments and again to the lessor or BPA vendors. We Recommended That The Acting Assistant Administrator for Administration and Resources Management: • Direct PCMD to document its efforts to obtain competition and make price reasonableness determinations to meet the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) requirements for procurements made under BPAs. • Require PCMD to review all BPAs approaching the $100,000 purchase limit to determine whether procurement methods other than small purchase are more appropriate or necessary to meet FAR requirements. • Ensure that FMSD enforces scheduled cleaning as provided in the lease agreements and ceases procurements of carpet cleaning from the lessor except for emergency situations. What Action Was Taken The special review report (2400003) was issued to the Acting Assistant Administrator for Administration and Resources Management on December 13, 1991. A response to the final report due by March 13, 1992, had not been received as of April 21, 1992. Use Of EPA Fleet Vehicles and Fuel Credit Cards Questioned Problem EPA had not provided adequate oversight and control of its leased vehicles, resulting in their misuse and excessive operational costs. We Found That EPA leased a fleet of large sedans from a contractor for the exclusive use of senior executives. Based on our analysis of gasoline purchases and actual miles driven, the executive fleet vehicles averaged only 6.3 miles per gallon (mpg). The reason for the low average mpg could not be identified because some gas receipts and Daily Vehicle Utilization Reports (DVUR) were missing, DVUR recorded mileage and monthly odometer readings did not match, and DVURs were not filled out completely. Documents that were available raised serious questions about the propriety of some use of executive fleet vehicles and the Agency's credit cards. Also, EPA did not regularly analyze and control the use of the executive vehicles. Vehicles were used to take executives from Waterside Mall to other EPA buildings, even though the Agency provides regular shuttle service to these same locations. Further, current fleet mileage does not support the number of vehicles in the fleet. GSA-leased vehicles were also underused and poorly controlled. EPA currently leases 18 vehicles from GSA for the use of EPA Headquarters employees in the performance of official business. Fifteen of the 18 vehicles did not meet the Federal Property Management Regulations' average usage objective of 1,000 miles per month. Over the years, the DIG has consistently raised concern about underuse of 24 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL ------- Section 2-Audit Resolution GSA-leased vehicles. In 1983 usage figures also supported retention of less than half of the GSA vehicles. Using today's rates, the Agency could have saved more than $250,000 over this 9-year period had it turned in underused vehicles. We Recommended That The Director, Facilities Management and Services Division: • Reduce the number of vehicles in the Agency's fleets to meet GSA's minimum use standards. • Maintain complete and accurate records for all fleet vehicles to ensure that all gas purchases and trips are justified and to support the need for future changes in the fleets. • Terminate the commercial leases for 10 large sedans in the executive fleet and obtain vehicles through GSA that will enable the Agency to meet the mandated fleet average fuel economy rating. What Action Was Taken The special review report (2400022) was issued to the Acting Assistant Administrator for Administration and Resources Management on March 17, 1992. A response is due by June 17, 1992. 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 summaries OIG reviews of the Agency's followup 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. Appendix 2 summaries the status of each report issued before the commencement of the reporting period for which no management decision had been made by the end of the reporting period. EPA Office of Inspector General Status Report On Perpetual Inventory of'Reports in Resolution Process For The Semiannual Period Ending March 31, 1992 Dollar Values (in thousands) Report Issuance Report Resolution Costs Sustained Questioned Recommended To Be As Number Costs Efficiencies Recovered Efficiencies A. For which no management decision has been made by the commencement of the reporting period* 296 B. Which were issued during the reporting period 1,044 C. Which were issued during the reporting period that required no resolution 798 Subtotals (A + B - C) 542 D. For which a management decision was made during the reporting period 250 348,605 400,002 71 ,091 72,435 193 4,321 419,503 468,116 66,573 85,428 22,871 13,273 E. 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 292 352,930 382,688 99 283,317 344,730 * 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. OCTOBER 1,1991 THROUGH MARCH 31.1992 25 ------- Audit Followup The Inspector General Act Amendments of 1988 have focused increased attention on Agency responses to the findings of the Inspectors General (IG). Agency management is now required to report semiannually, in a separate report to Congress, the corrective actions taken in response to the IG's reviews. The Office of Inspector General reviews the Agency's followup actions on selected reviews. Below are summaries of two of these reviews. Superfund Management Information System Still Requires Significant Improvements Previous Problems and Findings Our March 1990 report on the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) showed that the reports generated from the system contained material errors and could not be relied upon for Superfund program decisions and action. Reports were developed and modified without effective controls over documentation, software changes, and testing. Our June 1990 report questioned the value of a contractor evaluation of the Agency's implementation of CERCLIS because of insufficient independent testing and verification of data management, change controls, data base integrity, and security. Followup Findings Our followup report (2400027) found that the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) had implemented several recommendations from our prior reports. However, there were still significant problems with the integrity of CERCLIS financial and nonfinancial information, including (1) omissions of vital data, (2) inaccurate computations, (3) inclusion of erroneous data, (4) data inconsistencies, and (5) large accumulations of rejected and/or unreconciled transactions over extended periods. For example, one report used by Superfund program managers in EPA regions and Headquarters to track cumulative funding for remedial and removal events by site (1) overstated commitments (authorized funding for an event) by $1.1 billion and (2) included nearly $203 million of invalid unliquidated obligations for Superfund site cleanups. Followup Recommendations We recommended that OSWER (1) coordinate with the Office of Administration and Resources Management to establish accuracy in financial and CERCLIS-related data; (2) include reasonableness, completeness, and edit checks in report programs; and (3) eliminate documentation inconsistencies between user guidance and technical manuals. What Action Was Taken In responding to our draft report, CERCLIS officials generally agreed with our recommendations and cited several steps already taken to correct the noted weaknesses. According to those officials, the report that overstated commitments and included invalid unliquidated obligations for Superfund site cleanups has been removed from the CERCLIS menus, and the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response and the Office of Administration and Resources Management are working to automatically copy financial Information from the Integrated Financial Management System to CERCLIS. The final report was issued to the Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response and the Acting Assistant Administrator for Administration and Resources Management on March 27, 1992. A response is due by June 25, 1992. EPA Continued to Negotiate Unreasonably High Equipment Rates on Emergency Response Cleanup Services (ERCS) Contracts Previous Problems and Findings Our September 1986 report showed that EPA was in a poor negotiating position during the award of the initial large Superfund ERCS contracts because of limited competition and lack of contractor cost data to support contractor-proposed fixed equipment rates. As a result, when negotiating the fixed equipment rates, the Agency relied on prevailing market rates which had excessively high markups. Followup Findings Our March 27, 1992, followup report (2100292) found that the Agency had taken many of the actions needed to improve its use of the ERCS contracts. However, after 10 years, EPA continued to rely on price analysis rather than cost data to determine the reasonableness of fixed equipment rates negotiated with ERCS contractors. EPA had been awarding contracts to these contractors during the period without insisting on cost data and improvements in their accounting systems. Also, competition on these procurements was still limited. Because of these problems, EPA negotiated equipment rates that were unreasonably high. Unaudited annual contractor cost and usage data furnished to EPA for two contracts showed an average equipment rate markup of 427 percent for 67 items. Our review also showed that EPA did not obtain required cost reports from contractors. This limited the Agency's ability to develop reliable cost and pricing techniques for future procurements and to ensure OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL ------- the validity and reasonableness of costs claimed by contractors for reimbursement under completed delivery orders. Followup Recommendations We recommended that the Acting Assistant Administrator for Administration and Resources Management require the Procurement and Contracts Management Division (PCMD) to: • Ensure that contractors have adequate accounting systems before award or as a condition of contract award. • Negotiate fixed rates for contractor-owned equipment based on actual cost and utilization data, or negotiate provisional rates if this data is not immediately available. • Update and maintain support for the Agency's independent estimates used for pricing techniques and establish controls to assure contractor compliance with contract data requirements. What Action Was Taken In responding to the draft fol/owup report, the Acting Assistant Administrator for Administration and Resources Management generally agreed with our recommendations regarding the need to obtain adequate cost data on fixed rate equipment for use in contract negotiations. EPA is updating its national data base of ERCS labor and equipment rates using contracts awarded since 1987. Headquarters and regional contracting officers will be encouraged to use the data for price analysis. Although the Acting Assistant Administrator believed that PCMD had made substantial improvements in contract management since the 1986 DIG report, he agreed that further improvements were necessary. The final followup report was issued to the Acting Assistant Administrator on March 27, 1992, and a response is due by June 25, 1992. 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 I and II 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 $11 million being sustained out of $15.6 million considered ineligible in reports under OIG control. This is a 71 percent sustained rate. OCTOBER 1,1991 THROUGH MARCH 31.1992 27 ------- Table 1—Inspector General Issued Reports With Questioned Cost Semiannual Period Ending: March 31, 1992 Dollar Values (thousands) A. For which no management decision has been made by the commencement of the reporting period B. New Reports issued during period Subtotals (A + B) C. For which a management decision was made during the reporting period (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 ot the reporting period Reports for which no management decision was made within six months of issuance Number 156 91 247 108 91 73" 139 57 Questioned* Unsupported Costs Costs 348,605 70,898 419,503 66,573 22,871 44,338 352,930 283,317 55,086 18,413 73,499 24,131 1 1 ,002 13,766 49,368 31 ,687 •Questioned costs include the unsupported costs. "On 17 audits management did not sustain any of the $7,218,657 questioned costs. Fifty-six audits are also included in C(ii) because they were only partially sustained. Only the costs questioned that were not sustained in C(i) are included in this category. Table 2—Inspector General Issued Reports With Recommendations That Funds Be Put To Better Use Semiannual Period Ending: March 31, 1992 Number Dollar Value (in thousands) A. B. C. D For which no management decision has been made by the commencement of the reporting period Which were issued during the reporting period Subtotals (A + B) For which a management decision was made during the reporting period (i) Dollar value of recommendations that were agreed to by management - based on proposed management action - based on proposed legislative action (ii) Dollar value of costs not disallowed (iii) Dollar value of non-awards or unsuccessful bidders . 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 71 37 108 55 21* n/a n/a 20* 24 53 25 400,002 68,114 468,116 85,428 1 3,262 n/a n/a 34,642 37,524" 382,688 344,730 * Ten of the audits were the same audits in items 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. 28 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL ------- Resolution of Significant Reports Report litutnca FS Ouettiontd/ Report Number/ Grant**/ Report Date Contractor S2CWL9-01-0112 MANSFIELD MA 1100360 REPORT DATE 8/21/91 P2CW7-02-0228 WESTCHESTER CO NY 0100139 REPORT DATE 2/1/90 P2CWLO-02-0032 CAMDEN COUNTY MUANY 1100424 REPORT DATE 9/27/91 P2CWLO-02-0098 NASSAU COUNTY NY 1100228 REPORT DATE 5/22/91 P2CWL9-02-0164 SAND LAKE NY 1100270 REPORT DATE 6/27/91 P2CWL9-02-0209 WESTCHESTER COUNTY NY 1100161 REPORT DATE 4/2/91 P2CWL9-02-0235 ROCKLAND COUNTY SD NO. 1 NY 1100304 PFPORT DATE 7/9/91 P2CWL9-02-0246 WESTCHESTER CO-PEEKSKILL, NY 1100136 REPORT DATE 3/4/91 P2CW7-03-0342 LEONARDTOWN TOWN OF un i wivii wr Fnu 1200030 REPORT DATE 8/22/91 P2CW8-03-0152 YORK COUNTY OF VA 1100147 REPORT DATE 3/25/91 P88MN1 -03-01 25 0 4 R MANAGEMENT CORP MD 1300100 REPORT DATE 8/23/91 P9AHN1-03-0232 ICF TECHNOLOGY INC. VA 2300003 REPORT DATE 10/17/91 nwtum INEL UNSP UNUR RCOM INEL UNSP UNUR RCOM INEL UNSP UNUR BCOM I'NEL UNSP UNUR RCOM INEL UNSP UNUR RCOM INEL UNSP UNUR RCOM INEL UNSP UNUR RCOM INEL UNSP UNUR RCOM INEL UNSP UNUR RCOM INEL UNSP UNUR RCOM INEL UNSP UNUR RCOM INEL UNSP UNUR RCOM mvnovu 36,626 0 0 0 459,180 1,398,695 0 0 75,155 551,531 0 0 1,339,316 2,864,704 1,636,565 0 580,617 0 0 0 1,083,074 4,508,544 0 0 777,066 134,044 0 0 39,010 3,083,611 0 0 427,655 177,964 163,504 0 831,776 852,527 0 0 300,164 228,506 0 0 0 0 0 14,327,833 Report Retolutlon Federal Share to be Recovered/' INEL UNSP UNUR SUST INEL UNSP UNUR •SUST INEL UNSP UNUR SUST INEL UNSP UNUR SUST INEL UNSP UNUR SUST INEL UNSP UNUR SUST INEL UNSP UNUR SUST INEL UNSP UNUR SUST INEL UNSP UNUR SUST INEL UNSP UNUR SUST INEL UNSP UNUR SUST INEL UNSP UNUR SUST Efficiency 36,626 636,606 0 0 442,..b4 619,"»9 0 0 75,155 491,004 0 0 773,644 891,043 0 0 580,617 0 0 0 1,062,316 3,023,762 0 0 777,066 134,044 0 0 39,009 3,011,858 0 0 411,241 0 163,504 0 553,452 81,478 0 0 300,164 228,506 0 0 0 0 0 3,336,368 Resolution of Significant Reports Report lMu«nc* FS Quetlioneu/ Report Number/ Grant**/ Report Date Contractor D8AML1-04-0402 RESEARCH £ EVALUATION ASSOC 1100257 REPORT DATE 6/18/91 D8AML1 -04-0511 RESEARCH £ EVALUATION ASSOC 1100351 REPORT DATE 8/14/91 D8AML1 04-0512 RESEARCH & EVALUATION ASSOC 1100353 REPORT DATE 8/14/91 S2CWNO-04-0040 MT JULIET TN 1300092 REPORT DATE 8/2/91 G3HVK1 -05-0081 CINCINNATI MSD FY890H 1500189 REPORT DATE 12/12/90 Report Ratolution Federal Share to b* Recovered/ Recommended Efficiency NC NC NC P2CWN7-05-0492 CHICAGO MWRDGC IL 1300049 REPORT DATE 3/29/91 E2AWP1 -09-01 84 WATSONVILLE, CITY OF CA 1400062 REPORT DATE 9/30/91 MOTC INEL UNSP UNUR RCOM INEL UNSP UNUR RCOM INEL UNSP UNUR RCOM INEL UNSP UNUR RCOM INEL UNSP UNUR RCOM INEL UNSP UNUR RCOM INEL UNSP UNUR RCOM 0 0 0 584,644 0 0 0 797,867 0 0 0 2,971,658 440,284 0 0 0 383,205 382,671 0 0 924,861 110,146 0 0 0 0 0 4,272,877 INEL UNSP UNUR SUST INEL UNSP UNUR SUST INEL UNSP UNUR SUST INEL UNSP UNUR SUST INEL UNSP UNU SUST INEL UNSP UNUR SUST INEL UNSP UNUR SUST NOT b INEL = INELIGIBLE COST UNSP = UNSUPPORTED COST UNUR = UNNECESSARY/UNREASONABLE RCOM = RECOMMENDED EFFICIENCIES COST SUST = RECOMMENDED EFFICIENCIES SUSTAINED Sustained Efficiency 0 0 0 584,644 0 0 0 598,433 0 0 0 2,971,658 440,284 0 0 0 383,205 382,671 0 0 798,224 110,146 0 0 0 0 0 4,272,877 OCTOBER 1,1991 THROUGH MARCH 31.1992 29 ------- 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 DIG personnel security investigations. Summary Of Investigative Activities Pending Investigations as of October 1, 1991 193 New Investigations Opened This Period 138 Investigations Closed This Period 117 Pending Investigations as of March 31, 1992 214 Prosecutive and Administrative Actions In this period, investigative efforts resulted in 39 convictions and 16 indictments. Fines and recoveries, including those associated with civil actions, amounted to $1.27 million. Thirteen administrative actions* were taken as a result of investigations: Reprimands 7 Resignations/Removals 5 Restitutions J. TOTAL 13 *Does not include suspensions and debarments resulting from Office of Investigations activities or actions resulting from reviews of personnel security investigations. Profiles Of Pending Investigations By Type (Total-214) General EPA Programs Superfund And Underground Storage Tank Program Other 1-1% Total Cases- 142 Total Cases - 72 30 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL ------- Description Of Selected Prosecutive Actions Below is a brief description of some of the prosecutive actions which occurred during the reporting period. Some of these actions resulted from investigations initiated before October 1, 1991. Superfund Contract Laboratory Program Investigation The Office of Investigations has a major investigative initiative underway within the Superfund program, directed at fraud in the Contract Laboratory Program (CLP). Laboratory analyses under the CLP are the empirical basis for the entire Superfund program. Based on testing for the presence of hazardous chemicals by these laboratories, the Superfund program decides which cleanups to initiate and how to carry them out. Fraudulent analyses could result in a danger to the public health and safety as well as the unnecessary expenditure of cleanup funds. In addition, fraudulent analyses could hinder the Department of Justice's efforts to collect the cost of cleanups from the responsible parties. Several actions resulting from the contract lab investigations are described below. New York Lab Charged with 40 Counts of Fraud The president of Nanco Environmental Services, Inc., of Dutchess County, New York, and a company employee were indicted in October 1991 on 40 counts of fraud, including conspiracy, false statements, mail fraud, witness tampering, and false declarations before a grand jury. The charges are related to analyses of soil and water samples for EPA. The indictment alleges that Arun Gaind, the president, and Sohail Jahani, a supervisor, engaged in a scheme of setting back the dates on the computer data systems to which Gas Chromatograph/Mass Spectrometer instruments were attached in order to make it appear that laboratory analyses of samples were performed within EPA- approved holding times when, in fact, they were not. Lab Company Vice President Pleads Guilty Robert Q. Bradley, vice president of a Connecticut company, YWC Inc., pleaded guilty in October 1991 to making a false statement to EPA. Bradley was sentenced to 2 years probation and fined $1,000. In December 1990, YWC Inc. pleaded guilty to 2 counts of making false statements to EPA and was fined $500,000. EPA's contract with YWC required the company to analyze water samples within 7 days of receipt and soil samples within 10 days. YWC's York Laboratories Division facility in Monroe, Connecticut, was an approved CLP site. YWC was charged with backdating over 60 analyses and using a then- unapproved laboratory at Whippany, New Jersey, to do the analyses. False Test Results Allegedly Provided Towns, Hospital, EPA As a result of a joint investigation with EPA's Criminal Investigations Division, Stevens Analytical Laboratories, Inc., Stoneham, Massachusetts, and its president, Alan Stevens, were charged in March 1992 with providing false water quality test results to several customers, including 2 towns, a hospital, EPA, and the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority. The government alleges that the defendants accepted from customers a large number of samples to be analyzed, failed to analyze them in a timely fashion, and provided false and fictitious results. Company Pleads Guilty, Fined $500,000 Analytical Services Corporation pleaded guilty to making a false claim to EPA for $31,676.48. The company contracted with EPA to analyze samples to determine the presence of specified volatile organic compounds. The company did not perform the analyses within the time period required by EPA. Analytical Services agreed to pay a criminal fine of $500,000. Testing Firm, 3 Employees Submitted False Claims Environmental Industrial Research Associates, Inc. (EIRA), a Louisiana corporation, and three of its employees, Annette Mailhos Savoy, Sylvia I. Leibe, and Elizabeth Y. Olavesen, pleaded guilty in November 1991 to making false claims to EPA for analyses of soil and water taken from Superfund sites. EPA requires the use of Gas Chromatograph/Mass Spectrometer (GC/MS) instruments, properly calibrated, in making the analyses. Calibration readings of the GC/MS instruments can be manually overridden by an operator, making it seem that the instrument is correctly calibrated. This avoids the time-consuming process of recalibration. The defendants overrode the readings and taught other EIRA employees how to do so, resulting in false information being submitted to EPA. Defendants Sentenced, Fined in Texas Telemarketing Scheme Seventeen of 18 individuals indicted in Dallas a year ago in a telemarketing fraud case have been sentenced. All were found guilty. Douglas OCTOBER 1,1991 THROUGH MARCH 31.1992 31 ------- Cox of Arlington, Texas, received the longest prison term, 10 years. He was also fined $5,577 and court costs, and will be on probation for 3 years after his release. The others sentenced had jail terms ranging from home confinement for 4 months to 6 1/2 years in prison. Another defendant, United Financial Group of Beverly Hills, California, which processed charge card orders in the scheme, was fined $350,000. The sentences to the defendants totalled over 34 years in prison, $352,750 in fines, and restitution to private individuals of $101,750. These cases resulted from a joint investigation by the EPA DIG and the U.S. Postal Inspection Service. Businessman Sentenced in Bribe Case An Illinois businessman, Ronald Randich, has pleaded guilty to bribing a Hammond, Indiana, Sanitary District (HSD) superintendent. Randich was placed on 2 years probation, fined $500, and ordered to pay a $50 special assessment to the court. During the year in which the bribe was made, HSD received over $350,000 in EPA grants. The EPA awarded HSD over $17 million in grants from 1984 through 1987. This case resulted from an investigation by the Indiana State Police in cooperation with the EPA DIG and the Indiana Department of Environmental Management. Defendants Plead Guilty to Charges of Environmental Violations Metro Container Corporation, Metro-Enterprise Container Corporation, and Louis Maslow, the chief executive officer and majority owner of the two former Trainer, Pennsylvania, firms, have pleaded guilty to criminal violations of two Federal environmental statutes, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and the Clean Water Act, and with conspiracy to violate these two Federal environmental statutes. A joint investigation by the EPA OIG, the EPA Criminal Investigations Division, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation was initiated after a criminal investigation by the EPA OIG of another allegation involving the Superfund program found evidence of serious environmental violations. As part of the joint investigation, a search was executed at the site by members of the EPA's National Enforcement Investigations Center (NEIC). NEIC personnel excavated portions of the site where Metro conducted a drum recycling business. Using heavy equipment, NEIC personnel excavated portions of the site where the hazardous waste was believed to have been buried. Buried drums were uncovered, and numerous samples taken from the site revealed the presence of hazardous waste in the yard and in the building. In addition, the presence of contaminants was detected in a pipe leading from the Metro facility to Stoney Creek, a tributary of the Delaware River. Duo Pleads Guilty in Superfund Fraud Case Charles Daniel Workman, an employee of Geo-Con, Inc., a Pennsylvania company, pleaded guilty in October 1991 to a charge of conspiracy to defraud the U.S. with respect to claims, in connection with the cleanup of a Superfund site at Bruin Lagoon, Butler County, Pennsylvania. Another Geo-Con employee, Terry Lee Tebben, pleaded guilty in January 1992 to a count of making false statements. Tebben was sentenced in March to 2 months home detention and 2 years probation. EPA funded a $4 million contract between the U.S. Army and Geo-Con to clean up the lagoon, which was contaminated with, among other things, sulfuric and hydrochloric acid. The adjacent Bruin Oil Company had used the lagoon for disposal of wastes since the 1930's. It was anticipated that the cleanup work would cause the emission of hazardous gases, including sulfur dioxide, creating a potential hazard not only to the Geo-Con employees but also to nearby residents. The indictment alleged that Tebben used the linger of a rubber glove and grease to cover up the air monitors required by the contract, causing them to give false readings on the amount of hazardous gases being released, and thereby endangering public health and safety. Another provision of the contract required Geo-Con to treat any water which became contaminated as a result of the cleanup. The company was to be reimbursed at a rate of $.30 per gallon of water treated. Workman pumped air through the water metering system, leading to $62,000 in false claims for reimbursement for water treated. Missouri Man Admits Impersonation Attempt Timothy Austin, an employee of a St. Louis, Missouri, corporation, pleaded guilty to one count of falsely claiming to be an EPA employee. Austin, identifying himself as an EPA employee, contacted the Gaithersburg, Maryland, office of a major engineering and construction company and demanded that the company provide him a listing of employees who had both nuclear engineering and wastewater treatment expertise. According to the indictment, Austin intended to sell the listing to personnel recruiting companies, foreign espionage agents, and others. City Clerk Pleads Guilty to Embezzling $19,000 Betty Nagy, a clerk in the city Water Department in Chester, West Virginia, pleaded guilty to embezzling $19,000 in cash bill payments received from Water Department customers. Nagy transferred money from a city account containing EPA grant funds to another account to conceal her embezzling activities. The case was jointly investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the West Virginia State Police, and the EPA OIG. 32 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL ------- Description Of Selected Prosecutive And Administrative Actions Concerning EPA Employees The DIG investigates and reports information, allegations, and indications of possible wrongdoing or misconduct by EPA employees and persons or firms acting in an official capacity directly with EPA or through its grantees. EPA Secretary Pleads Guilty to False Claims A secretary in an EPA office in Arlington, Virginia, pleaded guilty in October 1991 to a charge that she stole $1,616.48 through false claims for travel. According to the indictment, the secretary prepared 33 travel vouchers in the names of 7 employees in her office. She then forged the signatures of the travellers and the reviewing officials, added a statement authorizing her to pick up the claim, and then went to the Finance Office at EPA headquarters in Washington, D.C., where she received the money. OCTOBER 1,1991 THROUGH MARCH 31.1992 33 ------- Section 4-Fraud Prevention and Resource 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. This semiannual reporting period, we reviewed 5 legislative and 67 regulatory items. The most significant items reviewed are summarized below. Proposed Executive Order on Integrity and Efficiency in Federal Programs We strongly support the President's concern for promoting integrity and efficiency, and the prevention and detection of fraud, waste, and abuse by establishing two councils of Federal Inspectors General. However, we believe that the role and status of the Federal Inspectors General could be diluted by the proposed Executive Order. Since the Presidentially- appointed Inspectors General are the majority of the Council, we recommended that they be listed directly after the chairperson, and that the Vice Chair of the PCIE should explicitly be one of the Presidentially-appointed Inspectors General. We also suggested that the role of the Department of Justice in matters involving law enforcement be clarified to eliminate any ambiguities. We disagreed with the requirement for Council members to adhere to professional standards developed by the Councils. The Inspectors General, by statute, must adhere to the standards of the Comptroller General for audit work. Therefore, we recommended that the professional standards referred to specify that they relate only to non-audit work (investigations, inspections, administration). Proposed Freedom of Information Act of 1991,8.1939 We believe that this bill is flawed and should be revised. The bill proposes the release of records or information not originally compiled for law enforcement purposes. We seriously disagreed with this limitation and suggested that the word "originally" be deleted. The Office of Inspector General has numerous examples of records or information not originally compiled for law enforcement purposes, such as audit working papers, records of interviews, or analyses of information, which become part of investigative files used for law enforcement purposes. If this proposal was enacted, this information, which the OIG considers pre-decisional and not required to be released under the existing Freedom of Information Act, would have to be released. Proposed Electronic Freedom of Information Act of 1991, S.1940 We disagreed with the requirement of this bill that would make an agency responsible for making a reasonable effort to provide records in electronic form requested by any person, even where such records are not usually maintained in such form. We believe that this could create significant unnecessary additional expense to an agency not equipped for such purposes, and may cause an agency to create records in the process of converting records from paper form to electronic form merely to comply with the statutory requirement. We also disagreed with the requirement to meet expedited response schedules. The five day expedited schedule for responding to or denying access for a waiver creates the potential for unnecessary litigation. The requirement for strict adherence to schedules enforced by penalty payments does not consider the logistical problems of obtaining and reviewing geographically dispersed records. These potential costs and associated resources would significantly interfere with agencies performing their mission by requiring an unreasonable amount of attention and resources to respond to FOIA requests. 34 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL ------- Proposed Policy Letter on Inherently Governmental Functions We supported the Office of Federal Procurement Policy's proposal to prohibit the use of contracts for the performance of inherently governmental functions, such as conducting criminal investigations. We also agreed with the proposed enhanced degree of management control and oversight when contracting for functions that are not inherently governmental, but closely support the performance of functions such as budget preparation, reorganization, and planning. We suggested that, once the policy letter is issued, the Agency may wish to develop more detailed guidance to assist its officials in deciding whether there has been an unacceptable transfer of official accountability to government contractors. Suspension And Debarment Activities EPA's policy is to do business only with contractors and grantees who are honest and responsible. EPA enforces this policy by suspending or debarring contractors or grantees from further EPA contracts or assistance if there has been a conviction of, or civil judgment for: • commission of a fraud or a criminal offense in connection with obtaining, attempting to obtain, or performing a public contract or subcontract; • violation of Federal or State antitrust statutes relating to the submission of offers; • commission of embezzlement, theft, forgery, bribery, falsification or destruction of records, making a false statement, or receiving stolen property; or • commission of any other offense indicating a lack of business integrity or business honesty that seriously and directly affects the present responsibility of a Government contractor or subcontractor. A contractor may also be debarred for violating the terms of a Government contract or subcontract, such as willful failure to perform in accordance with the terms of one or more contracts, or a history of failure to perform, or of unsatisfactory performance on one or more contracts. A contractor may also be debarred for any other cause of so serious or compelling a nature that it affects the present responsibility of the contractor. Thus, a contractor need not have committed fraud or been convicted of an offense to warrant being debarred. Debarments are to be for a period commensurate with the seriousness of the cause, but are generally not to exceed 3 years. The effectiveness of the suspension and debarment (S&D) program has been enhanced by regulations that provide all Federal agencies a uniform system for debarring contractors from receiving work funded by Federal grants, loans, or cooperative agreements. The system, required by Executive Order 12549, provides that a nonprocurement debarment or suspension by one agency is effective in all agencies and requires the General Services Administration (GSA) to publish monthly a "List of Parties Excluded from Federal Procurement or Nonprocurement Programs." Formerly, a nonprocurement debarment was effective only in the programs administered by the debarring agency, and each agency maintained its own list. The EPA Grants Administration Division 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. The OIG's Suspension and Debarment Unit works with the Grants Administration Division to further educate and inform State and local governments and environmental interest groups about the effective use of suspensions and debarments. Summary of Suspension and Debarment Activities The following is a summary of S&D results achieved during this reporting period: October 1, 1991 to March 31, 1992 Cases completed: • Suspensions 7 • Debarments 9 • Settlement 8 Total 24 The following are examples of suspension and debarment actions resulting from direct OIG involvement: • Terry Lee Tebben and Charles Daniel Workman were suspended from working on Federal contracts and from participating in Federal assistance, loan, and benefit programs based on their indictment for fraudulent activity in connection with the cleanup of the Bruin Lagoon Superfund site in Butler County, Pennsylvania (see page 32). • Cavour Yen, a professor at the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA), was indicted in August 1991, for allegedly participating in a scheme to defraud EPA, the Department of Defense (DOD), and the National Science Foundation (NSF) by submitting fraudulent time sheets to UCLA on various federally-funded research projects, and causing UCLA to unknowingly submit false claims to EPA, DOD, and NSF. Based on the indictment, EPA suspended Cavour Yeh, EMtec Engineering, Inc., his affiliate, and Richard Yeh, Victoria Hsia, Alan Hsia and Wei Li, the research employees hired OCTOBER 1,1991 THROUGH MARCH 31.1992 35 ------- by Cavour Yeh, who were also indicted, from all Federal assistance, loan, and benefit programs. DOD had previously suspended all these parties from direct Federal procurement. • EPA suspended American Coastal Industries, Inc. (ACI), Anthony Welters, ACI's president and sole shareholder, and other affiliated entities, based on information concerning alleged defective pricing practices on an EPA contract for personal computers and related products. ACI allegedly submitted defective cost or pricing data to EPA contracting officials negotiating change order pricing, and allegedly made an unauthorized product substitution to avoid a downward price adjustment. • EPA proposed to debar American Management Systems, Inc. (AMS), and two of AMS's former employees, based on information concerning AMS's alleged participation in improper hiring practices and its alleged submission of false claims under two EPA contracts. • An DIG investigation disclosed fraudulent activity and misconduct by Edward A. Kiela (also known as Edison T. Kiela), a former EPA employee, resulting in a loss to the Government in excess of $9,000. Mr. Kiela engaged in on-site consultation work while being in a "sick leave" status at EPA, and used his EPA address, EPA fax, EPA telephone, and EPA computer in providing service as a consultant to the Southwestern Power Administration (SWPA), a Federal agency, in Tulsa, Oklahoma. The investigation also disclosed fraudulent overtime and compensatory time claims, personal long- distance calls charged on the FTS telephone system, and other personal use of a government computer. As a result of the OIG investigation, EPA debarred Kiela from all Federal procurement and non- procurement programs for three years. • Barker Steel Company, Waltham, Massachusetts, and its president, Robert B. Brack, were charged in U.S. District Court with conspiring to defraud the United States by allegedly using Rusco Steel Company as a "front company," so that certain expenditures would be credited to the Minority Business Enterprise program when they were not eligible, since they benefited Barker Steel Company. EPA suspended Barker Steel and Brack in July 1991. Barker Steel subsequently entered into a compliance agreement with EPA and agreed to be debarred from Federal assistance, loan and benefit programs and from all direct Federal procurement for 6 months. Brack resigned as president of Barker Steel Company. • All Star Industries, Inc., and its former Vice President, Ronald S. Palmawere, were charged with conspiring to defraud the United States. The conspiracy consisted of a continuing agreement, understanding and concert of action among the defendants and co-conspirators to submit collusive, noncompetitive and rigged bids for pipe to be supplied under the cost-plus portion of contracts. EPA has debarred All Star Industries, Inc., and Palmawere for 3 years from participating in Federal procurement and non- procurement programs. • Read Asbestos Removal, Inc., RAR Insulation Inc., and James Read were involved in altering National Asbestos Abatement Council (NAAC) accreditation cards. Read admitted to OIG investigators that he "whited out" the names and social security numbers of the actual recipients and had his secretary type in other names. The altered cards were submitted when attempting to obtain school asbestos abatement work. As a result, James Read and both companies were debarred from participating in Federal procurement and non- procurement programs for 3 years. • Dominic Nicassio, Inc. (DNI), Dominic Nicassio, Western Pennsylvania Minority Enterprises Inc. (WPME), and Eugene Minard all allegedly participated in a scheme to fraudulently obtain EPA-funded sewer construction contracts totalling millions of dollars by misrepresenting that WPME was a legitimate minority business enterprise. EPA debarred WPME and Minard for 3 years. In addition to their suspensions for 1 year, EPA debarred DNI and Dominic Nicassio for 2 additional years. • In December 1991, EPA entered into a compliance agreement with Gary K. Ward to terminate his suspension, which EPA had taken in June 1991 for alleged violations of the Federal post-employment conflict of interest statute. Ward, a former EPA employee, is employed as a senior scientist by Enseco, Inc., a laboratory in EPA's contract laboratory program (CLP) which performs sample analyses for EPA's Supertund program. Ward agreed not to communicate with EPA about any claims Enseco may have under its CLP contracts with EPA concerning matters on which he was involved as an EPA employee, and to cooperate fully with Enseco and its parent company, Corning Lab Services, Inc., in implementing their contract compliance plan to ensure the integrity of contracts with EPA. Congressional Testimony By The Inspector General During this semiannual reporting period, the Inspector General (IG) testified three times before congressional committees on EPA's vulnerability to fraudulent, wasteful, abusive, and illegal practices by its contractors. • In testifying before the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs on March 2, 1992, the IG pointed out that many EPA managers involved over the years in contract management had encouraged a "hands off" environment in managing the Agency's contractors. The IG added that this environment (1) sacrificed cost efficiency and effectiveness in contract operations, (2) encouraged the bending or circumvention of sound contract procurement and management practices and regulations, (3) inappropriately replaced EPA staff with contractors for vulnerable activities, and (4) emphasized task completion over risks and costs to Agency programs. These problems were demonstrated by the IG's presentation of the results of our recent audits of EPA's mismanagement of its contracts with Computer Sciences Corporation (CSC). • On March 4, 1992, the IG testified before the House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, Committee on Energy and Commerce, on EPA's mismanagement of its contracts with CSC (see page 11 for details). • Again testifying before the House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, Committee on Energy and Commerce, on March 19, 1992, the IG discussed the OIG's audit at CH2M Hill, a major EPA, contractor, as well as our February 1992 performance audit of EPA's 36 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL ------- management of the Superfund Alternative Remedial Contracting Strategy (ARCS) contracts, which identified EPA concerns with CH2M Hill's performance as a government contractor (see page 40 for details on auditing of ARCS contracts). Personnel Security Program 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 234 investigations. The following conditions were identified and administrative actions taken: • 3 employees resigned rather than face possible disciplinary action for failure to list previous convictions for assault, claiming degrees not awarded, and failure to list previous terminations. • 1 employee resigned pending administrative removal for falsifying his SF-171 by claiming a college degree not earned. The employee, based on the claimed degree, has served as an expert witness on many EPA cases. • 1 contractor employee's access to Confidential Business Information was terminated because of failure to list a previous termination on the SF-86, Questionnaire for Sensitive Positions. • 1 employee was found using multiple social security numbers to obtain credit. The information was referred to the Office of Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services, which accepted the matter for criminal investigation. • 3 employees received oral reprimands for falsifying the SF-171, Application for Federal Employment, used to gain employment with EPA. One claimed a college degree not earned; the second failed to list convictions for writing bad checks and driving while intoxicated; and the third failed to list a conviction for theft and termination from a previous job. • 10 employees were permitted to submit corrected SF-171s for failure to list minor offenses. President's Council On Integrity And Efficiency The Office of Inspector General participates in the activities of the President's Council on Integrity and Efficiency (PCIE), which was established by Executive Order in March 1981 to attack fraud and waste, and to improve management in the Federal Government. The PCIE coordinates interagency activities involving common issues, and develops approaches and techniques to strengthen the effectiveness of the entire Inspector General community. The PCIE is headed by the Deputy Director, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and includes the statutory Inspectors General and other key Federal officials. During this reporting period, Inspector General Martin was a member of the PCIE Chief Financial Officers Act Task Force. The Task Force was formed, at the request of OMB, to provide a vehicle for the exchange of views and experiences in implementing the Act. Staff members of the EPA OIG are participating in three of the seven projects undertaken by the Task Force. The three projects and their objectives are: (1) auditor assistance to management - to determine the amount and types of assistance to provide management in the preparation of financial statements and other related reports while still maintaining independence; (2) use of OIG staff versus independent public accountants to perform the financial statement audits required by the Act; (3) performance measures—to XTOBER 1,1991 THROUGH MARCH 31.1992 37 ------- develop standards for selecting performance measures to be included in annual reports. We have also assisted the financial statement audit policy project team by commenting on a polices and procedures handbook for use in performing financial statement audits. During June 1992 final reports on each of the projects will be submitted to OMB. Committee On Integrity And Management Inprovement The Committee on Integrity and Management Improvement (CIMI) was established in 1984 by EPA Order 1130.1. The purpose of CIMI is to coordinate the Agency's effort to minimize the opportunities for fraud, waste, and mismanagement in EPA programs and to advise the Administrator on policies to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of EPA programs and activities. The Committee is composed of senior EPA program and regional officials and is chaired by the Inspector General. Awareness Bulletin on Small Purchases It is essential that EPA employees be aware of the policies and procedures governing small purchase acquisitions. Adequate planning, accurate descriptions, and open communications are the key factors in obtaining the services, supplies, or equipment needed for job performance. For these reasons, the CIMI developed an awareness bulletin to promote implementation of proper small purchase acquisition policies and procedures. In addition to providing a better understanding of the acquisition process, the bulletin was designed to clarify EPA policy regarding authorized and unauthorized small purchases and to make EPA employees, contractors and managers aware of actions that may delay small purchase acquisitions. The bulletin also suggests methods for transacting small purchases quickly and efficiently. Travel Leaflet The General Accounting Office, the Office of Management and Budget, congressional committees, and Inspectors General throughout the Government have reported on travel abuses and remedies to curb them. One effective way of addressing travel abuse is through employee awareness of the regulations governing travel and of the schemes and errors that result in travel abuses and mismanagement. Consequently, the CIMI developed a leaflet on travel for all EPA employees, since each employee is responsible for using travel funds in accordance with prescribed policy, to avoid unnecessary expense to the Government. Designed to make employees aware of actual and potential abuses, the leaflet highlights aspects of travel needing careful control and scrutiny. Hotline Activities The OIG Hotline Center opened 31 new cases and completed and closed 36 cases during the reporting period. Of the cases closed 7 resulted in environmental, prosecutive, or administrative corrective action, while 29 did not require action. Cases that did not have immediate validity due to insufficient information may be used to identify trends or patterns of potentially vulnerable areas for future review. The Hotline also referred 2,294 telephone callers to the appropriate program office, State agency, or other Federal agency for assistance. The following is an example of corrective action taken as a result of information provided to the OIG Hotline Center: • A complainant alleged that an EPA employee had abused the Federal Telecommunications System by accepting long distance telephone calls on a daily basis. A review of the complaint disclosed that the employee had accepted over $400 in collect calls and used approximately 36 hours of Government time on those calls. Further investigation revealed that the employee had also submitted falsified travel authorizations for people in the office and had kept the money. As a result, the employee entered into a Pretrial Diversion Agreement which included forty hours of community service and restitution of $2,021.74 to EPA. In addition, the employee was terminated from EPA. 38 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL ------- Professional And Organizational Development For the semiannual period ending March 31, 1992, we approved 425 training enrollments for a total of 932 days of training and participation in professional development seminars and conferences. Contract and in- house courses conducted by the DIG are summarized below. OIG-Developed Courses • Detection and Prevention of Fraud. Although this course was developed to prepare independent public accountants doing work for the EPA DIG to detect and refer possible instances of fraud to the DIG for criminal investigation, it also increases the awareness of EPA managers and supervisors. During this reporting period the course was presented once, to one of the DIG CPA contractors. • Superfund and the Role of the OIG. This course was developed to provide OIG staffers with an understanding of the Superfund program and the role of the OIG in the program. The development of this course, coordinated by the OIG employee development specialist, was a combined effort of all three primary components of the OIG. The course consists of six units: (1) history of Superfund, (2) major concepts of the Superfund program, (3) Superfund program organizations and resources, (4) auditing cooperative agreements, (5) auditing Superfund contracts, and (6) internal (management) audits. OIG Contracted Courses • Introduction to Government Auditing. This course was designed to enhance the new auditor's ability to understand the requirements of Federal Government auditing and to provide the individual with the skills necessary to meet these requirements. • Behavioral Aspects of Government Auditing. This course was designed for auditors, audit field supervisors, and audit managers who have contacts with personnel in organizations being audited; have contacts with affected organizations or individuals; or manage audit organizations. The course contains the basics of communication methods that are intended to make the audit work more productive for both auditor and auditee. • Contract Auditing. This course was designed for auditors and audit supervisors who are responsible for the performance and review of contract audits. • Compliance Auditing/Questioned Costs. The course analyzes policies, standards, and practices to enhance the auditor's ability to identify, document, and report questioned costs in a governmental audit and to participate in their resolution. Total Quality Management The Office of Inspector General fully supports and participates in EPA's commitment to Total Quality Management (TQM). During this reporting period, a cadre of 18 TQM facilitators was trained. Training of the OIG staff has begun, with a goal of providing all OIG employees a 1 -day TQM awareness class by the end of the fiscal year. OCTOBER 1,1991 THROUGH MARCH 31.1992 39 ------- Appendix 1-Reports Issued THE INSPECTOR GENERAL ACT REQUIRES A LISTING, SUBDIVIDED ACCORDING TO SUBJECT MATTER, OF EACH AUDIT REPORT ISSUED BY THE OFFICE DURING THE REPORTING PERIOD AND FOR EACH AUDIT REPORT, WHERE APPLICABLE, THE DOLLAR VALUE OF QUESTIONED COSTS AND THE DOLLAR VALUE OF RECOMMENDATIONS THAT FUNDS BE PUT TO BETTER USE. Audit Control Number Title Questioned Costs „ . . Recommended Final Report Ineligible Unsupported Unnecessary/ Efficiencies Issued Costs Costs Unreasonable (Funds Be Put Costs To Better Use) 1. INTERNAL & MANAGEMENT ASSIGNMENTS Adni'nistrator E1SFG1-11-0015-2100237 SF FY90 ANNUAL REPORT - ACCURACY 2/11/92 AND REASONABLENESS OF AGENCY REPORT Assistant Adni'm'strator for Adnini strati on and Resources Management E1XMG1-03 E1PMGM3 E1NME1-04- E1SHD1-06- E1NMF1-15- -0338-2400016 •0038-2400022 -0169-2100295 5054-2100292 0032-2100300 E6AMG2-13-0039-2400003 RESTRICTIONS ON LOBBYING 1/31/92 SECURITY & PROPERTY MANAGEMENT 3/12/92 BRANCH REVIEW EPA MANAGEMENT OF CSC CONTRACT 3/27/92 AWARD & MANAGEMENT OF ERCS 3/27/92 PCIE: ADP SUPPORT SERVICES 3/31/92 CONTRACT MANAGEMENT REVIEW OF CARPET CLEANING AT 12/12/91 EPA HEADQUARTERS Assistant Actninistrator for Pesticides and Toxic Substances E1EPG1-11-0028-2400032 GOOD LAB PRACTICES 3/31/92 Assistant Actninistrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response E1SGE2-03-0145-2100209 ARCS CONTRACTS CONSOLIDATED 2/ 3/92 E1LLC1-05-0173-2100278 UST INVENTORY 3/19/92 E1SFG1-15-5001-2400027 CERCLIS FOLLOW-UP 3/27/92 E1SFG1-11-0015-2400033 SF FY90 ANNUAL REPORT - TIMELINESS 3/31/92 E6ESP1-08-0037-2400029 IMPROPER CHARGES FOR RCRIS PILOT 3/30/92 CONFERENCE EPA Office of the Comptroller E1RMG1-11-0031-2400013 FMFIA 1991 ACTIVITIES Procurement Contracts Management Division E1BMF1-11-0030-2100230 ADVISORY & ASSISTANCE SERVICE CONTRACTS E1SGA1-03-0054-2100200 ARCS CONTRACTS Region 1 1/10/92 2/11/92 2/ 3/92 E1SHCO-01-0261-2100164 EPA'S EFFORTS TO RECOVER PRP M 2/92 E1SHG1-01-0216-2400005 UNANNOUNCED SITE VISIT - QUONSET 12/16/91 POINT, RI E1SHF1-02-0132-2100063 UNANNOUNCED SITE V1SIT-SOBELNJ 11/18/91 2,390 E1SJCO-02-0303-2100268 RESPONSIBLE PARTY SEARCHES - REGION 2 3/17/92 P6DWNO-03-0261-2300046 REVIEW OF BLUE PLAINS TREATMENT FACILITY 3/31/92 1,535,812 4,779,664 E1SFG1-11-0015-2400030 SF FY90 ANNUAL REPORT - REGION 4 ACCOMPLISHMENTS 3/31/92 40 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL ------- Audit Control Number Title Final Report Issued Ineligible Costs Questioned Costs Unsupported Costs Unnecessary/ Unreasonable Costs Recommended Efficiencies (Funds Be Put To Better Use) E1SFG1-11-0015-2400031 SF FY90 ANNUAL REPORT - REGION 5 3/31/92 ACCOMPLISHMENTS P6FJP1-05-0222-2400018 REVIEW OF MOBILE COMPANIES 2/18/92 E1SJF1-07-0047-2100301 RESPONSIBLE PARTY SEARCHES - 3/31/92 REGION 7 TOTAL INTERNAL & MANAGEMENT REPORTS 25 1,538,202 4,779,664 2. CONSTRUCTION GRANT ASSIGNMENTS P2CWL9-01-0060-2100148 NEW LONDON S2CULO-01-0072-2100055 SOUTHBRIDGE S2CWL9-01-0148-2100159 AYRE S2CWLO-01-0109-2100293 LOWELL TOTAL OF REGION 01 = 4 E2CWM9-02-0255-2200003 WAVERLY VILLAGE E2CWM9-02-0245-2200005 WESTCHESTER CO - MAMARONECK E2CWM9-02-0365-2200006 CHESTER E2CWM9-02-0289-2200007 CH1TTENANGO E2CWMO-02-0123-2200011 ALLEGANY E2CWMO-02-0109-2200013 ELLENVILLE E2FWPO-02-0155-2400014 PRASA P2CWLO-02-0037-21 00147 ONONDAGA COUNTY P2CWL9-02-0252-2100150 WAYNE TOWNSHIP P2CWL9-02-0311-2100155 AMHERST P2CWLO-02-0126-2100163 WARWICK P2CWL9-02-0258-2100165 WAYNE TOWNSHIP P2CWL9-02-0257-2100205 SUFFERN P2CWLO-02-0039-2100206 LIBERTY P2CWL9-02-0031-2100241 MOODNA BASIN P2CWLO-02-0174-2100291 GLENS FALLS P2CWL9-02-0332-21 00294 BAT AVI A TOTAL OF REGION 02 = 17 E2CWM9- 03 -0090- 220001 4 LEOLA SEWER AUTHORITY E2ATT1 -03-0226-2400019 EARLY WARNING SRF P2CW*7-03-0355-2200000 HOWARD CO DEPT PUB WORK P2CW*7-03-0357-2200001 BALTIMORE COUNTY P2CWM9-03-0314-2200004 GREEN VALLEY PSD P2CWM9-03-0361-2200012 ST MARY'S METRO COMMISSION P2CWN9-03-0262-2300007 PRINCE WILLIAM CO SERV AUTH P2GWN9-03-0015-2300011 HARRISBURG SEWERAGE AUTH TOTAL OF REGION 03 = 8 E2CWM1 -04-0421 -2200008 TALLADEGA WATER WORKS SEWER P2CWN9-04-0305-2300002 LAKELAND TOTAL OF REGION 04 = 2 P2CUP6-05-0298-2400004 W LAKE SUPERIOR SD P2CWP8-05-0593-2400020 GROSSE ILLE P2CWP9- 05 -0072- 2400023 WASHTENAW CO DPW P2CWP8- 05 -0585 -2400028 KALAMAZOO TOTAL OF REGION 05 = 4 E2EUN1 -06-0055-2300000 GARLAND E2CUNO-06-0137-2300036 ROSUELL P2CUN8-06-0258-2300001 LITTLE ROCK P2CWN1 -06-0133-2300038 CORPUS CHRISTI CT MA MA MA NY ,NY NY NY NY NY PR NY NJ NY NY NJ NY NY NY NY NY PA PA MO MD WV MD VA PA AL FL MN MI MI MI TX NM AR TX 12/26/91 1V 8/91 12/31/91 3/27/92 11/15/91 12/20/91 V 2/92 1/15/92 3/ 9/92 3/26/92 1/13/92 12/26/91 12/27/91 12/31/91 M 2/92 V 2/92 1/30/92 1/30/92 2/20/92 3/26/92 3/27/92 3/31/92 3/ 5/92 10/ 9/91 10/ 9/91 12/16/91 3/10/92 10/28/91 10/30/91 1/16/92 10/ 9/91 12/12/91 3/ 9/92 3/12/92 3/27/92 10/ 9/91 2/20/92 107 9/91 2/21/92 203,756 106,829 159,015 1,053,505 1,523,105 176,620 32,831 227,931 69,386 99,892 504,305 174,660 4,433,158 190,527 4,705,332 290,069 437,053 1,537,669 270,562 13,149,995 170,247 86,674 140,700 188,200 92,526 601,963 955,407 2,235,717 113,424 183,016 296,440 6,446,691 96,498 449,642 63,797 7,056,628 24,938 16,593 57,026 117,556 0 565,202 102,701 785,459 28,194 578,669 0 913 3,501 346 550,951 2,046,157 0 0 3,309 170,528 13,952 707 3,397,227 182,259 56,202 12,664 41,672 6,773 73,402 698,616 1,071,588 0 0 0 125,126 293,018 0 69,984 488,128 63,432 36,655 23,191 TOTAL OF REGION 06 = 4 98,557 123,278 OCTOBER 1,1991 THROUGH MARCH 31.1992 41 ------- Questioned Costs Audit Control Tille Number P2CUN9-07-0092-2300029 OMAHA, TOTAL OF REGION 07 = 1 E2CUMO-08-0033-2200009 MISSOULA E2BUNO-08-0108-2300021 PUEBLO E2AUT1 -08-0087-2400015 IDAHO SPRINGS TOTAL OF REGION 08 = 3 E2CUN9-09-0090-2300022 RENO, CITY OF E2CW*8-09-0162-2300040 PHOENIX, CITY OF P2CW*8-09-0021 -21 00298 PRESCOTT, CITY OF P2CWNO-09-0031-2300017 PINETOP LAKESIDE SO S2CWM9-09-0172-2200002 SAN MARCOS CWD S2CWN9-09-0064-2300030 NOVATO SAN D1ST S2CWN9-09-0254-2300031 SAN JOSE, CITY OF S2CUN9-09-0040-2300034 SOUTH BAYSIDE SYSTEM AUTH S2CWN 1-09- 0228- 2300044 LOS ANGELES, CITY OF TOTAL OF REGION 09 = 9 E2AWP2- 10-0002-2400024 NPOES PERMIT P2CW*7- 10-0104-2100303 OLYMPIA, CITY OF P2CU*7-10-0086-2300018 POCATELLO, CITY OF TOTAL OF REGION 10 = 3 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION GRANT REPORTS NB MT CO CO NV AZ AZ AZ CA CA CA CA CA AK WA ID - Final Report Issued 1/15/92 2/11/92 12/13/91 1/16/92 12/23/91 3/ 5/92 3/30/92 12/ 4/91 10/24/91 1/28/92 1/28/92 2/11/92 3/13/92 3/12/92 3/31/92 12/ 4/91 55 Ineligible Costs 558,113 558,113 1,808 272,344 274,152 268,582 258,310 109,222 0 199,118 461,053 1,844,775 197,627 1,196,237 4,534,924 415,655 251,487 667,142 30,394,773 Unsupported Costs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 103,906 0 103,906 5,969,586 Unnecessary/ Unreasonable Costs 0 0 0 0 0 1,051,547 0 0 2,453,357 0 0 0 0 6,709,398 10,214,302 0 0 0 10,214,302 raP*rWI**(IIWII*4W Efficiencies (Funds Be Put To Better Use) 111,000 111,000 111,000 3. OTHER GRANT ASSIGNMENTS G3HVK1 -01 -0233-2500001 G3HVK2-01-0052-2500203 G3HVK2-01 -0055-2500225 G3HVK2-01 -0054-2500226 G3HVK2-01 -0068-2500254 G3HVK2-01 -0080-2500406 G3HVK2-01 -0073-2500407 G3HVK2-01 -0086-2500427 G3HVK2-01 -0087-2500428 G3HVK2-01 -0088-2500429 G3HVK2-01-0122-2500462 G3HVK2-01-0124-2500468 G3HVK2-01 -0123-2500505 G3HVK2-01-0125-2500588 G3HVK2-01 -0126-2500589 G3HVK2-01-0127-2500628 N3HVK1 -01 -0249-2500002 N3HVK1 -01 -0248- 2500003 N3HVK1 -01 -0267-2500196 N3HVK1 -01 -0164-2500204 N3HVK1 -01 -0266-2500227 N3HVK2-01 -0069-2500255 N3HVK1-01-0245-2500259 N3HVK1 -01 -0247- 2500346 N3HVK2-01-0081-2500408 N3HVK1-01-0129-2500425 N3HVK1 -01 -0224-2500426 N3HVK2-01 -0140-2500574 N3HVK2-01 -0071 -2500626 N3HVK2-01 -0139-2500627 TOTAL OF C3HVK2-02-0061 -2500456 G3HVK1 -02-0151 -2500041 G3HVK1-02-0152-2500042 G3HVK2-02-0034-2500200 G3HVK2-02-0035-2500232 G3HVK2-02-0038-2500246 G3HVK2-02-0040-2500348 G3HVK2-02-0045-2500360 PORTLAND WATER DIST. RI CLEAN WATER PROTECTION CT CLEAN WATER FUND-SRF ME MUNICIPAL BOND BANK-SRF PLYMOUTH ME RI CT ME MA CT HAZARDOUS WASTE MGMT. SVSCT LENOX ST. JOHNSBURY WESTBORCUGH MA VT MA MA WATER POLLUTION ABATEMENTMA DOVER PRESQUE ISLE SEWER DISTRICT WALLINGFORD NORTH HAVEN NH RESOURCE RECOVERY ASSOC. ROWLAND SOUTHEASTERN REG. PLANNING SOUTHEASTERN REG. PLANNING LEICESTER WATER SUPPLY DIST MONTAGUE MASSACHUSETTS, STATE OF GREATER PORTLAND COUNCIL CHATHAM PIONEER VALLEY PLANN. COM CT DEPT OF HEALTH SERVICES METRO AREA PLNG. COUN. WATERBURY CENTRAL MASS. REGIONAL PLAN MANCHESTER STRAFFORD REGIONAL PLANNING REGION 01 = 30 BINGHAMTON BUFFALO SA CASTLETON-ON- HUDSON MANASQUAN RIVER RSA THERESA MIDDLETOWN ALEXANDRIA SALEM NH ME CT CT NH ME MA MA .MA MA MA ME MA MA CT MA CT MA NH NH NY NY NY NJ NY NY NY NJ 10/ 2/91 12/ 2/91 12/ 5/91 12/ 5/91 12/18/91 1/15/92 1/15/92 1/23/92 1/23/92 1/23/92 2/20/92 2/24/92 2/28/92 3/16/92 3/16/92 3/20/92 10/ 2/91 10/ 2/91 11/26/91 12/ 2/91 12/ 6/91 12/18/91 12/20/91 V 2/92 1/15/92 1/21/92 1/21/92 3/11/92 3/20/92 3/20/92 2/13/92 10/23/91 10/23/91 12/ 2/91 12/ 9/91 12/16/91 V 3/92 V 3/92 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 42 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL ------- Audit Control Number G3H VK2- 02 - 0046- 2500363 G3HVK2-02-0047- 2500376 G3HVK2-02-0049-2500413 G3HVK2-02-0051 -2500419 G3HVK2-02-0054-2500420 G3HVK2-02-0055-2500423 G3HVK2-02-0056-2500424 N3HVK1 -02-0127- 2500037 N3HVK1-02-0112-2500038 N3HVK1 -02-01 11 -2500039 N3HVK2-02-0016-2500040 N3HVK2-02-0018-2500055 N3HVK2-02-0025-2500056 N3HVK2-02-0014-2500104 N3HVKO-02-0322-2500105 N3HVK1 -02-01 19-2500106 N3HVK1 -02-0121 -2500132 N3HVK2-02-0013-2500201 N3HVK2-02-0028-2500202 N3HVK1 -02-0145-2500347 N3HVK2-02-0026-2500411 N3HVK2-02-0050-2500422 N3HVK2- 02 -0037- 2500448 N3HVK2-02-0066-2500457 N3HVK2-02-0067-2500471 N3HVK2-02-0065-2500472 N3HVK2-02-0073-2500661 Title HUNTINGTON HUNTINGTON DELAWARE RIVER BASIN COMM UOODBURY BETHEL CUBA CUBA NEW YORK STATE SENECA NATION Of INDIANS ST REGIS MOHAWK TRIBE AMSTERDAM VIRGIN ISLANDS CHAUTAUQOA COUNTY MONROE COUNTY NEW YORK CITY NEW YORK CITY UN IV OF PUERTO RICO WESTCHESTER COUNTY NATIONAL URBAN LEAGUE OSWEGO ROCKLAND COUNTY ESSEX COUNTY SUFFOLK COUNTY NORWICH MIDDLESEX COUNTY SCHAGHTICOKE BURLINGTON COUNTY NY NY NJ NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY VI NY NY NY NY PR NY NY NY NY NJ NY NY NJ NY NJ Final Report Issued M 6/92 1/ 7/92 1/15/92 1/17/92 1/17/92 1/21/92 1/21/92 10/23/91 10/23/91 10/23/91 10/23/91 10/24/91 10/28/91 IV 6/91 1V 6/91 IV 6/91 11/15/91 12/ 2/91 12/ 2/91 V 3/92 1/15/92 1/21/92 2/10/92 2/14/92 2/25/92 2/25/92 3/26/92 Ineligible Costs 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 VKUD9UWiiro wvau D *u*«*M «% AH*f »A Unsupported Unnecessary/ Efficiencies Costs Unreasonable (Funds Be Put Costs To Better Use) 0 0 0 53,976 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL OF REGION 02 = 35 C3HVK1-03-0313-2500016 ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY C3HVK2-03-0183-2500391 VA STATE WATER CONTROL BOARDVA C3HVK2-03-0197-2500417 VA RESOURCES AUTHORITY C3HVK2-03-0227-2500469 SUSSEX COUNTY G3HVK1-03-0324-2500010 STROUD TOWNSHIP G3HVK2-03-0051-2500044 RIDGELY G3HVK2-03-0052-2500045 BRUNSWICK G3HVK2-03-0057-2500046 UPPER GWYNEDD-TOWAMENC1N MA PA G3HVK2-03-0058-2500047 TOWANDA MUNICIPAL AUTHORITY PA G3HVK2-03-0064-2500049 DUBLIN BOROUGH AUTHORITY G3HHK1-03-0017-2500107 MARIANNA-WEST BETHLEHEM G3HVK2-03-0087-2500110 HURLOCK G3HVK2-03-0089-2500111 SUSQUEHANNA RIVER BASIN G3HVK2-03-0090-2500128 GRANTSVILLE G3HVK2-03-0176-2500377 NATIONAL ASSOC ATTORNEYS GENDC G3HVK1-03-0321-2500378 WYSOX TOWNSHIP G3HVK2-03-0172-2500379 CANTON AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT PA G3HUK2-03-0173-2500380 CHESAPEAKE RESEARCH CONSORT.MD G3HVK2-03-0174-2500381 GREATER GREENSBURG SEWAGE G3HVK2-03-0201-2500437 PHILLIPSBURG-OSCEOLA SCHOOL PA G3HVK2-03-0199-2500438 GRANTSVILLE G3HVK1-03-0073-2500440 PHILLIPSBURG-OSCEOLA SCHOOL PA G3HVK2-03-0222-2500460 FAIRCHANCE-GEORGES MSA G3HVK2-03-0228-2500470 SNYDER CO.CONSERVATION DIST.PA G3HVK2-03-0238-2500552 DELMAR TOWN OF G3HVK2-03-0239-2500554 DELMAR TOWN OF G3HVK2-03-0267-2500577 HARRISBURG SCHOOL DISTRICT G3HVK2-03-0268-2500578 INTERSTATE COM POTOMAC RIVERMD G3HVK2-03-0269-2500579 WASHINGTON SUBURBAN SANITARYDC G3HVK2-03-0287-2500655 GARRETT CO BD OF EDUCATION G3HVK2-03-0286-2500656 TAZWELL COUNTY N3HVK1-03-0308-2500009 AMERICAN STATISTICAL ASSN N3HVK1-03-0307-2500011 AMERICAN STATISTICAL ASSN N3HVK1-03-0309-2500012 AMERICAN ASSN ADV OF SCI N3HVKO-03-0342-2500013 FREDERICK COUNTY 6/89 N3HVK1-03-0235-2500014 WILMINGTON CITY OF N3HVJ1-03-0310-2500015 PA COMMONWEALTH OF N3HVK2-03-0079-2500076 WEST VIRGINIA STATE N3HMK1-03-0094-2500108 MARYLAND STATE OF N3HVK1-03-0237-2500109 MARYLAND STATE OF N3HUKO-03-0209-2500439 NATIONAL COUNCIL SENIOR N3HVJ1-03-0392-2500660 VA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION N3HVK2-03-0221-2500662 ALLEGHENY COUNTY N3HVK1-03-0086-2500663 ALEXANDRIA CITY OF N3HVK2-03-0169-2500664 ALEXANDRIA CITY OF 53,976 MD !DVA VA DE PA MD MD i PA 1 PA PA PA MD PA MD NDC PA PA .MD PA PA MD PA PA .PA MD MD PA RMD YDC MD VA VA VA DC MD DE PA WV MD MD DC VA PA VA VA 10/ 9/91 1/14/92 1/16/92 2/24/92 10/ 9/91 10/23/91 10/23/91 10/23/91 10/23/91 10/23/91 1V 6/91 1V 6/91 1V 6/91 11/14/91 I/ 7/92 V 7/92 V 7/92 V 7/92 V 7/92 1/28/92 1/29/92 1/29/92 2/19/92 2/25/92 3/ 4/92 3/ 4/92 3/12/92 3/12/92 3/12/92 3/24/92 3/24/92 10/ 9/91 10/ 9/91 10/ 9/91 10/ 9/91 10/ 9/91 10/ 9/91 10/31/91 1V 6/91 1V 6/91 1/29/92 3/26/92 3/26/92 3/26/92 3/26/92 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35,169 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 56,177 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 58,657 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OCTOBER 1,1991 THROUGH MARCH 31.1992 43 ------- Questioned Costs Audit Control Number Title Fine! Report Issued Ineligible Costs Unsupported Costs Unnecessary/ Unreasonable Costs Recommended Efficiencies (Funds Be Put To Bettei Use) N3HVJ1-03-0278-2500665 N3HVJ1-03-0395-2500666 N3HVK1-03-0179-2500667 VA DEPT OF CONSERVATION VA VA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTUREVA EMMITSBURG TOWN OF MD TOTAL OF REGION 03 = 48 3/26/92 3/26/92 3/26/92 C3HVK1 -04-0401 -2500026 COLUMBIA C3HVK1 -04-0405-2500028 COBB COUNTY C3HVJ1 -04-0433-2500134 MONTGOMERY COUNTY C3HVK1 -04-0534-2500248 DEKALB COUNTY C3HVK2-04-0105-2500449 GREENSBORO C3HVK2-04-0081 -2500459 ATLANTA C3HVK2-04-0156-2500616 NASHVILLE & DAVIDSON COUNTY C3HVK2-04-0249-2500645 FT. LAUDERDALE C3HVK2-04-0272-2500670 TALLAHASSEE C3HVK2-04-0277- 2500671 LEXINGTON- FAYETTE COUNTY SC GA AL GA NC GA TN FL FL KY G3HVK1 -04-0398-2500017 SC STATE BUDGET & CONTROL BDSC G3HVK1 -04-0360-2500018 PELAHATCHIE G3HVK1 -04-0351 -2500019 CITRONELLE UTILITIES BOARD G3HVK1 -04-0383-2500024 METTER G3HVK1 -04-0393-2500025 LARGO G3HVK1 -04-0173-2500027 LEIGHTON G3HVK1 -04-0379-2500031 PUNTA GORDA G3HVK1 -04-0258-2500077 MONROE G3HVK1 -04-0458-2500078 MONROE G3HVK1 -04-0259-2500079 MILTON G3HVK1 -04-0365-2500085 COOPER CITY G3HVK1 -04-0404-2500092 PAHOKEE G3HVK1 -04-0357- 2500093 SARASOTA G3HVK1-04-0407-2500133 BRIGHTON G3HVK1 -04-0367- 2500135 OZARK UTILITIES BOARD G3HVK1 -04-0316- 2500139 CLIO G3HVK1 -04-0392-2500140 WARNER ROBB1NS G3HVK1 -04-0447-2500141 CULLMAN G3HVK1 -04-0452-2500142 BAXTER G3HVK1 -04-0450-2500143 BAXTER G3HVK1- 04- 0409- 2500197 BRUCETON G3HVK1 -04-0461 -2500205 CHICKAWUGA G3HVK1 -04-0475-2500206 EAST RIDGE G3HVK1 -04-0471 -2500207 DRESDEN G3HVK1- 04 -0449- 2500208 SOUTH PITTSBURG G3HVK1-04-0427-2500209 CORNERSVILLE G3HVK1 -04-0408-2500210 BRUCETON G3HVK1- 04- 0451 -2500211 BAXTER G3HVK1 -04-0463-2500212 CAMDEN G3HVK1 -04-0208-2500213 CLIO G3HVK1 -04-0462-2500214 CAMDEN G3HVK1 -04-0209-2500216 CLIO G3HVK1-04-0448-2500217 SOUTH PITTSBURG G3HVK1 -04-0472-2500218 ERIN G3HVK1-04-0210-2500219 CLIO G3HVK1 -04-0468-2500223 MIDDLETON G3HVK1 -04-0467-2500224 MIDDLETON G3HVK1 -04-0492-2500234 ANNISTON WWSB G3HVK2-04-0053-2500257 FAIRVIEW G3HVK2-04-0036-2500260 FAIRVIEW MS AL GA FL AL FL GA GA FL FL FL FL TN AL SC GA AL TN TN TN GA TN TN TN TN TN TN TN SC TN SC TN TN SC TN TN AL TN TN G3HVK1 -04-0529-2500261 MAXEY FLATS CONCERNED CIT1ZEKY G3HVK2-04-0084-2500262 WARTBURG G3HVK1 -04-0493-2500269 TALLADEGA G3HVK1-04-0470-2500270 FAYETTEVILLE G3HVK1-04-0469-2500271 FAYETTEVILLE TN AL TN TN G3HVK2-04-0070-2500272 WESTERN CAROLINA REGIONAL SASC G3HVK1 -04-0515-2500273 TENNESSEE RIDGE G3HVK1 -04-0518-2500274 TRIMBLE G3HVK1-04-0531-2500276 TROY G3HVK1-04-0535-2500288 BAILEYTON G3HVK1 -04-0536-2500290 BAILEYTON G3HUK2-04-0066-2500291 ENVIROSOUTH INC. G3HVK2-04-0037-2500318 FAIRVIEW G3HVK2-04-0025-2500319 MEDINA G3HVK2-04-0038-2500320 WARTBURG G3HVK2-04-0098-2500321 CELINA G3HVK2-04-0087-2500354 HOKES BLUFF SEWER BOARD G3HVK2-04-0068-2500355 SALEMBURG G3HVK2-04-0052-2500356 GRAND STRAND WATER & SEWER TN TN TN TN TN AL TN TN TN TN AL NC SC 10/17/91 10/18/91 11/15/91 12/17/91 2/10/92 2/19/92 3/19/92 3/23/92 3/31/92 3/31/92 10/15/91 10/15/91 10/15/91 10/17/91 10/17/91 10/18/91 10/18/91 10/31/91 10/31/91 10/31/91 11/ 1/91 11/ 4/91 IV 5/91 11/15/91 11/15/91 11/20/91 11/20/91 11/20/91 11/20/91 11/20/91 11/29/91 12/ 2/91 12/ 2/91 12/ 2/91 12/ 3/91 12/ 3/91 127 3/91 12/ 3/91 12/ 3/91 12/ 4/91 12/ 4/91 12/ 4/91 12/ 4/91 12/ 4/91 12/ 4/91 12/ 5/91 12/ 5/91 12/10/91 12/20/91 12/23/91 12/23/91 12/23/91 12/26/91 12/26/91 12/26/91 12/26/91 12/26/91 12/26/91 12/26/91 12/26/91 12/26/91 12/26/91 12/27/91 12/27/91 12/27/91 12/27/91 1/ 3/92 M 3/92 M 3/92 0 0 0 91,346 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 58,657 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL ------- Audit Control Title Number G3HVK2-04-0091 -2500357 MCMINNVILLE TN G3HVK2-04-0021 -2500358 NEW BERN TN G3HVK2-04-0020-2500359 NEW BERN TN G3HVK2-04-0050-2500361 LOUISVILLE MS G3HVK2-04-0032-2500362 DAWSON SPRINGS WATER & SEWERKY G3HVK2-04-0022-2500382 SOUTH FULTOM TN G3HVK2-04-0023-2500383 SOUTH FULTON TN G3HVK1 -04-0506-2500384 MARTIN TN G3HVK1 -04-0505-2500386 MARTIN TN G3HVK2-04-0093-2500387 MCMINNVILLE TN G3HVK2-04-0054-2500390 SMITHVILLE TN G3HVK2-04-0090-2500403 SOUTH FULTON TN G3HVK1 -04-0538-2500404 GREENBRIER TN G3HVK1 -04-0539-2500405 GREENBRIER TN G3HVK2-04-0092-2500414 MCMINNVILLE TN G3HVK2-04-0024-2500432 MEDINA TN G3HVK2-04-0064-2500433 CLEVELAND UTILITIES TN G3HVK2-04-0082-2500434 CARROLLTON GA G3HUK2-04-0083-2500435 ENVIROSOUTH, INC. AL G3HVK2-04-0132-2500436 GREENVILLE WATER WORKS & AL G3HVK2-04-0100-2500441 BUNCOMBE SEWERAGE DISTRICT NC G3HVK2-04-0108- 2500442 GEORGETOWN COUNTY W & SD SC G3HVK2-04-0089-2500443 LOUISVILLE- JEFFERSON CO. MSDKY G3HVK2-04-0103-2500463 ATHENS UTILITIES BOARD TN G3HVK2-04-0199-2500464 CITRONELLE UTILITIES BOARD AL G3HVK2-04-0086-2500465 CITRONELLE UTILITY BOARD AL G3HVK2-04-0101 -2500467 ROCKY MOUNT NC G3HVK2-04-0126-2500521 ROBERSONVILLE NC G3HVK2-04- 0131 -2500522 LEXINGTON NC G3HVK2-04-0122-2500523 ARDMORE WATER & SEWER SYSTEMAL G3HVK2-04-0166-2500524 HARRISON CO. WASTEWATER MS G3HVK2-04-0121 -2500527 SACRAMENTO KY G3HVK2-04-0125-2500533 TRYON NC G3HVK2-04-0197-2500534 NEW JOHNSONVILLE TN G3HVK2-04-0153-2500535 WEST MELBOURNE FL G3HVK2-04-0172-2500536 GASTONIA NC G3HVK2-04-0152-2500537 CORNERSVILLE TN G3HVK2-04-0196-2500538 MANCHESTER TN G3HVK2-04-0198-2500539 NEW JOHNSONVILLE TN G3HVK2-04-0185-2500540 GADSEN WATER WORKS & SEWER AL G3HVK2-04-0187-2500541 BEAVER DAM KY G3HVK2-04-0165-2500542 GADSDEN WATER WORKS & SEWER AL G3HVK2-04-0149-2500543 OXFORD NC G3HVK2-04-0220-2500546 GREENBRIAR TN G3HVK2-04-0171 -2500547 BLOWING ROCK NC G3HVK2-04-0158-2500548 AHOSKIE NC G3HVK2-04-0189-2500549 GEORGETOWN COUNTY W & SD SC G3HVK2-04-0224-2500553 CENTRAL CITY WATER & SEWER KY G3HVK2-04-0173-2500555 GASTONIA NC G3HVK2-04-0150-2500557 NEW BERN NC G3HVK2-04-0170-2500558 BRUNSWICK GA G3HVK2-04-0124-2500559 TRYON NC G3HVK2-04-0161 -2500567 KY INFRASTRUCTURE AUTHORITY KY G3HVK2-04-0186-2500568 BEAVER DAM KY G3HVJ2-04-0190-2500569 AL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL AL G3HVK2-04-0175-2500600 PRINCETON NC G3HVK2-04-0206-2500601 GREENVILLE WW & SB AL G3HVK2-04-0179-2500603 TARBORO NC G3HVK2-04-0207-2500605 IRVINGTON KY G3HVK2-04-0239-2500606 FLORENCE AL G3HVK2-04-0178-2500607 TARBORO NC G3HVK2-04-0191 -2500608 LAUREL MS G3HVK2-04-0204-2500611 FAYETTEVILLE NC G3HVK2-04-0176-2500615 SCOTLAND NECK NC G3HVK2-04-0169-2500617 PILOT MOUNTAIN NC G3HVK2-04-0208-2500618 IRVINGTON KY G3HVK2-04-0244-2500623 LARGO FL G3HVK2-04-0123-2500624 SPARTANBURG SANITARY SEWER SC G3HVK2-04-0217-2500625 PORT ORANGE FL G3HVK2-04-0184-2500630 VENICE FL G3HVK2-04-0215-2500633 POPE MS G3HVK2-04-0214-2500634 POPE MS G3HVK2-04-0216-2500635 OZARK UTILITIES BOARD AL G3HVK2-04-0221 -2500636 FULTON KY G3HVK2-04-0226-2500638 LINDEN TN Final Report Issued 1/ 3/92 M 3/92 M 3/92 1/ 3/92 M 3/92 M 8/92 M 8/92 1/10/92 1/10/92 1/10/92 1/10/92 1/15/92 1/15/92 1/15/92 1/16/92 1/28/92 1/28/92 1/28/92 1/28/92 1/28/92 2/ 4/92 21 4/92 2/ 4/92 2/20/92 2/20/92 2/20/92 2/21/92 3/ 3/92 3/ 3/92 3/ 3/92 3/ 3/92 3/ 3/92 3/ 4/92 3/ 4/92 3/ 4/92 3/ 4/92 3/ 4/92 3/ 4/92 3/ 4/92 3/ 4/92 3/ 4/92 3/ 4/92 3/ 4/92 3/ 4/92 3/ 4/92 3/ 4/92 3/ 4/92 3/ 4/92 3/ 4/92 3/ 5/92 3/ 5/92 3/ 5/92 3/ 6/92 3/ 6/92 3/ 6/92 3/17/92 3/17/92 3/17/92 3/17/92 3/17/92 3/17/92 3/17/92 3/18/92 3/19/92 3/19/92 3/19/92 3/20/92 3/20/92 3/20/92 3/20/92 3/20/92 3/20/92 3/20/92 3/20/92 3/20/92 — nOTfUiiiniuiiwu Ineligible Unsupported Unnecessary/ Efficiencies Costs Costs Unreasonable (Funds Be Put Costs To Better Use) 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 96,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 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 OCTOBER 1,1991 THROUGH MARCH 31. 1992 45 ------- Questioned Costs Audit Control Number G3HVK2-04-0209-2500640 G3HVK2-04-0251 -2500641 G3HVK2-04-0252-2500642 G3HVK2-04-0275-2500669 G3HVK2-04-0276-2500672 N3HVK1 -04-0128-2500029 N3HVK1-04-0117-2500030 N3HVK1 -04-0213-2500083 N3HVK1 - 04- 021 2- 2500084 N3HVK1 -04-0216-2500091 N3HVK1 -04-0205-2500129 N3HVK1 -04-0246-2500130 N3HVK1 -04-0253-2500131 N3HVK1 -04-01 15-2500136 N3HVK1 -04-0222-2500144 N3HVK1 -04-0377-2500145 N3HVK1 -04-0236-2500146 N3HVK1 -04-0345-2500147 N3HVK1 -04-0278-2500148 N3HVK1-04-0231-2500170 N3HVK1 -04-0347-25001 73 N3HVK1 -04-0410-2500174 N3HVK1 -04-0399-2500187 N3HVK1 -04-0349-2500188 N3HVK1 -04-0460-2500189 N3KVK1-04-0277-2500190 N3HVK1 -04-0299-2500191 N3HVK1 -04-0350-2500192 N3HVK1 -04-0272-2500193 N3HVK1 -04-0348-2500194 N3HVJ1 -04-0540-2500198 N3HVK1 -04-0474-2500199 N3HVK1 -04-0340-2500215 N3HUK1 -04-0397-2500220 N3HVJO-04-0351 -2500221 N3HVK1 -04-0361 -2500222 N3HVJ1 -04-0528- 2500230 N3HVJ1-04-0494-2500231 N3HVK1 -04-0503-2500233 N3HVK1 -04-0457-2500235 N3HUK1 -04-0362-2500236 N3HVK1 -04-0046-2500237 N3HVK1-04-0105-2500238 N3HUK1 -04-0532-2500239 N3HVK1 -04-0374-2500247 N3HVKO-04-0327-2500249 N3HVK1 -04-0341 -2500250 N3HVJ1-04-0432-2500251 N3HVK1 -04-0108-2500252 N3HVK1-04-0500-2500253 N3HVK1 -04-0495-2500256 N3HVK2-04-0030-2500258 N3HVK2-04-0062-2500263 N3HVK1 -04-0480-2500264 N3HVK2-04-0026-2500265 N3HVK1 -04-0429-2500266 N3HVK1 -04-0380-2500267 N3HVK1 -04-0130-2500268 N3HVK1 -04-0446-2500275 N3HVK 1-04 -0464 -2500295 N3HVK2-04-0031 -2500385 N3HVK2- 04-0049- 2500402 N3HVK2-04-0060-2500430 N3HVK2-04-0146-2500444 N3HVK2-04-0057-2500450 N3HVK2-04-01 19-2500466 N3HVK2-04-0079- 2500507 N3HVK2-04-0145-2500509 N3HVK2-04-0164-2500510 N3HVK2-04-0051-2500511 N3HVK2-04-0144-2500512 N3HVK2-04-0194-2500513 N3HUK2-04-0130-2500525 N3HVK2 -04 - 0078- 2500526 N3HVK2-04-0085-2500528 Title MCMINNVILLE CAMDEN CAMOEN COLLIER COUNTY JASPER WU & SEWER BOARD CAMDEN ANDALUSIA EDENTON EDENTON KENLEY BARNUELL FLEMINGSBURG LANCASTER WAKE COUNTY NORTH MYRTLE BEACH OKALOOSA COUNTY CLIO KEY WEST QUINCY SPENCER SUMTER BRUCETON HAINES CITY ATMORE THOMASVILLE QUINCY HAYWOOD COUNTY ATMORE PLANT CITY MIDDLESBOROUGH NORTH CAROLINA, STATE OF SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA ST. PETERSBURG SOUTH CAROLINA UNIVERSITY KENTUCKY, STATE OF SHELBY COUNTY MISSISSIPPI, STATE OF KENTUCKY STATE OF CORINTH BROWARD COUNTY MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF SC CHARLOTTE DURHAM KENTUCKY, UNIVERSITY OF LEE COUNTY AUGUSTA POMPANO BEACH TENNESSEE STATE OF MEMPHIS MANCHESTER BREVARD COUNTY GAINESVILLE SARASOTA COUNTY SAVANNAH CELINA FLORIDA INSTITUTE OF TECH PINELLAS COUNTY FULTON COUNTY KNOX COUNTY HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY TN AL AL FL AL AL AL NC NC NC SC KY SC NC SC FL SC FL FL NC SC TN FL AL GA FL NC AL FL KY NC FL FL SC KY TN MS KY MS FL SC NC NC KY FL GA FL TN TN TN FL FL FL GA TN FL FL GA TN FL COUNCIL OF STATE GOVERNMENTSKY ATLANTA REGIONAL COMMISSION AHOSKIE FLORIDA, STATE OF SC DEPT. OF HEALTH & ENVIRO DADE COUNTY MECKLENBURG COUNTY CELINA CENTRAL MIDLANDS PLANNING GA NC FL SC FL NC TN SC COUNCIL OF STATE GOVERNMENTSKY FORT MEYERS OAK GROVE MISSISSIPPI MEDICAL CENTER FORSYTH COUNTY SALISBURY FL KY MS NC NC Rnal Report Issued 3/23/92 3/23/92 3/23/92 3/31/92 3/31/92 10/18/91 10/18/91 1V V91 IV 1/91 1V 4/91 11/14/91 11/14/91 11/14/91 1V18/91 11/20/91 11/21/91 11/21/91 11/21/91 11/21/91 11/22/91 11/22/91 11/22/91 11/22/91 11/22/91 11/22/91 11/22/91 11/22/91 11/12/91 11/25/91 11/25/91 11/29/91 11/29/91 12/ 4/91 12/ 5/91 12/ 5/91 12/ 5/91 12/ 6/91 12/ 6/91 12/10/91 12/10/91 12/10/91 12/10/91 12/10/91 12/10/91 12/17/91 12/17/91 12/18/91 12/18/91 12/18/91 12/18/91 12/20/91 12/20/91 12/23/91 12/23/91 12/23/91 12/24/91 12/24/91 12/24/91 12/26/91 12/26/91 1/10/92 1/15/92 1/24/92 21 7/92 2/10/92 2/20/92 3/ 2/92 3/ 2/92 3/ 2/92 3/ 2/92 3/ 2/92 3/ 2/92 3/ 3/92 3/ 3/92 3/ 3/92 Ineligible Costs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,414 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 — — — '— rtv7«*wiiiiiivf ivv** Unsupported Unnecessary/ Efficiencies Costs Unreasonable (Funds Be Put Costs To Better Use) 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 22,950 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 46 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL ------- Questioned Audit Control Number N3HVK2-04-0120-2500550 N3HVK2-04-0167-2500551 N3HUK1 -04-01 14-2500556 N3HVK2-04-0174-2500563 N3HVK2-04-0154-2500564 N3HVK2-04-0127- 2500565 N3HVK2-04-0143-2500570 N3HUK2-04-0058-2500571 N3HVK2-04-0157- 2500572 N3HVK2-04-0188-2500602 N3HVK2-04-0193-2500604 N3HVK2-04-0213-2500609 N3HVK2-04-0241 -2500610 N3HVK2-04-0163-2500612 N3HVK2-04-0222-2500613 N3HVK2-04-0219-2500614 N3HUK2-04-0107-2500621 N3HVK2-04-0253-2500622 N3HVK2-04-0218-2500629 N3HVK2-04-0180-2500631 N3HVK2-04-0212-2500632 N3HVK2-04-0063-2500637 N3HVK2-04-0223-2500639 N3HVK2-04-0200-2500643 N3HVK2-04-0240-2500644 Title LANCASTER HENDERSON SUMTER AREA TECHNOCAL HOPE HILLS WAKE COUNTY UNION COUNTY MIDDLESBOROUGH SUMTER AREA TECHNICAL BELHAVEN VALDOSTA PASCO COUNTY WELDON KY NC COLLE SC NC NC NC KY COLLEGSC NC GA FL NC AL DEPT. OF AGRI INDUSTRIES AL WAUCHULA CLAYTON GREENVILLE CLEMSON UNIVERSITY HARTFORD GREENVILLE SOUTH BAY SCOTLAND NECK CHARLOTTE GARNER ASHLAND MANATEE COUNTY FL AL NC SC AL NC FL NC NC NC KY FL Final Report Issued 3/ 4/92 3/ 4/92 3/ 4/92 3/ 5/92 3/ 5/92 3/ 5/92 3/ 6/92 3/ 6/92 3/ 6/92 3/17/92 3/17/92 3/18/92 3/18/92 3/19/92 3/19/92 3/19/92 3/20/92 3/20/92 3/20/92 3/20/92 3/20/92 3/20/92 3/20/92 3/23/92 3/23/92 Ineligible Unsupported Unnecessary/ Efficiencies Costs Costs Unreasonable (Funds Be Put Costs To Better Use) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL OF REGION 04 = 244 99,414 42,950 C3HVJ2-05 C3HVK2-05 C3HVK2-05 G3HVK1-05 G3HVK1-05 G3HVK1-05 G3HVK1-05 G3HVK1-05 G3HVK1-05 G3HVK1-05 G3HVK1-05 G3HVJ2-05 G3HVJ2-05 G3HVJ2-05 G3HVJ2-05 G3HVJ2-05 G3HVJ2-05 G3HVK2-05 G3HVJ2-05 G3HVJ2-05 G3HVJ2-05 G3HVK2-05 G3HVK2-05 G3HVJ2-05 G3HVJ2-05 G3HVJ2-05 G3HVK2-05 G3HVJ2-05 G3HVJ2-05 G3HVJ2-05 G3HVK2-05 G3HVK2-05 G3HVJ2-05 G3HVJ2-05 G3HVJ2-05 G3HVJ2-05 G3HVK2-05 G3HVJ2-05 G3HVJ2-05 G3HVJ2-05 G3HVJ2-05- G3HVJ2-05 G3HVJ2-05- G3HVJ2-05- G3HVJ2-05 G3HVJ2-05- G3HVJ2-05- 0107-2500412 0135-2500486 0139-2500487 0447-2500005 0433-2500006 0452-2500057 0453-2500058 0481-2500059 0479-2500060 0478-2500061 0460-2500064 0023-2500088 0035-2500089 0049-2500151 0051-2500152 0077-2500153 0086-2500228 0081-2500229 0111-2500364 0109-2500365 -0115-2500366 0101-2500368 0102-2500369 0092-2500372 0091-2500373 0093-2500374 0090-2500375 0128-2500388 0129-2500389 •0131-2500392 0137-2500410 0138-2500475 0146-2500476 0163-2500477 0161-2500478 0148-2500479 0167-2500480 0166-2500481 0165-2500483 0164-2500484 0160-2500485 0191-2500508 0174-2500514 0173-2500515 0187-2500516 0185-2500517 0186-2500518 HAMMOND FY 90 KALAMAZOO FY 90 RACINE FY 90 DOWNERS GROVE SD FY 91 UORTHINGTON FY 90 AHMEEK FY 91 MN SRF FY 91 COLD SPRING FY 90 THORN CREEK SD FY 91 CLARISSA FY 90 NISSWA FY 90 ST JOSEPH CO FY 90 RENSSELAER FY 90 LAPORTE FY 90 VI GO CO FY 90 MITCHELL FY 90 PORTSMOUTH SO FY 90 LONSDALE FY 89/90 JEFFERSON LSD FY 90 BOONVILLE FY 90 CARDINGTON LSD FY 90 NEUAYGO FY 91 SE WI RPC FY 90 WASHINGTON FY 90 NEW CHICAGO FY 89/90 JASPER FY 90 DECATUR SD FY 91 FERDINAND FY 89/90 MICHIGAN CITY FY 90 DECATUR FY 90 N KOOCHICHING ASD FY 89/90 CINCINNATI MSD FY 90 WHITE OAK FY 89/90 SYRACUSE FY 89/90 BERNE FY 90 MICHIANA ACG FY 91 PORTAGE LAKE WSA FY 91 HAUBSTADT FY 89/90 WILKINSON FY 89/90 REMINGTON FY 89/90 FOUNTAIN CITY FY 89/90 WHITING FY 90 NEW CARLISLE FY 89/90 ROSSVILLE FY 89/90 GREENTOWN FY 89/90 SILVER LAKE FY 89/90 MENTONE FY 89/90 IN MI WI IL MN MI MN MN IL MN MN IN IN IN IN IN OH MN OH IN OH MI WI IN IN IN IL IN IN IN MN OH IN IN IN IN MI IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN 1/15/92 2/25/92 2/25/92 10/ 8/91 10/ 9/91 10/28/91 10/28/91 10/28/91 10/28/91 10/28/91 10/28/91 1V 1/91 11/ 1/91 11/21/91 11/21/91 11/21/91 12/ 6/91 12/ 6/91 1/ 6/92 \l 6/92 M 6/92 M 6/92 M 6/92 V 6/92 V 6/92 \t 6/92 M 6/92 1/10/92 1/10/92 1/14/92 1/15/92 2/25/92 2/25/92 2/25/92 2/25/92 2/25/92 2/25/92 2/25/92 2/25/92 2/25/92 2/25/92 3/ 2/92 3/ 2/92 3/ 2/92 3/ 2/92 3/ 2/92 3/ 2/92 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 161,915 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 64,916 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OCTOBER 1,1991 THROUGH MARCH 31.1992 47 ------- Questioned Costs Audit Control Number G3HVJ2-05-0140-2500580 G3HVJ2-05-0172-2500581 G3HVJ2-05-0194-2500582 G3HVJ2-05-0171 -2500583 G3HVK2-05-0175-2500592 G3HVJ2-05-0189-2500593 G3HVJ2-05-0197-2500594 G3HVJ2-05-0198-2500595 G3HVJ2- 05 -0204 -2500596 G3HVJ2-05-0203-2500597 G3HVJ2-05-0162-2500598 G3HVJ2-05-0190-2500599 N3HVK1 -05-0438-2500004 N3HMK1 -05-0276-2500062 N3HVJ1 -05-0456-2500063 N3HVJ2-05-0047-2500127 N3HVJ2-05-0039-2500149 N3HVK1 -05-0461 -2500150 N3HVK1 -05-0450-2500367 N3HVJ2-05-0048-2500370 N3HVJ2-05-0019- 2500371 N3HVJ2-05-01 18-2500482 Title IN DEPT OF FIRE/BLDG FY 91 ROCHESTER FY 90 AVILLA FY 89/90 VALPARAISO FY 90 NIPC FY 91 SCOTTSBURG FY 90 CROTHERSVILLE FY 89/90 TELL CITY FY 90 MERRILLVILLE CD FY 89 STEUBEN LAKES RWD FY 89/90 ANDERSON FY 90 LAGRANGE FY 89/90 MUSKEGON CO FY 90 COLUMBUS FY 90 MN STATE OF FY 90 S BEND FY 90 OHIO STATE OF FY 89 WAYNE CO FY 90 EAU CLAIRE FY 90 CHICAGO BOE FY 90 MUNCIE FY 90 RED LAKE/CHIPPEWA FY 90 IN IN IN IN IL IN IN IN IN IN IN IN MI OH MN IN OH MI WI IL IN UI Final Report Issued 3/12/92 3/12/92 3/12/92 3/12/92 3/17/92 3/17/92 3/17/92 3/17/92 3/17/92 3/17/92 3/17/92 3/17/92 10/ 8/91 10/28/91 10/28/91 11/13/91 11/21/91 11/21/91 M 6/92 M 6/92 V 6/92 2/25/92 Ineligible Costs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • — ' — — fnwWHtlllVIIMM Unsupported Unnecessary/ Efficiencies Costs Unreasonable (Funds Be Put Costs To Better Use) 15,235 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 696,130 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 C3HVK2- G3HVK2- G3HVK2- G3HVK2- G3HVK2- G3HVK2- G3HVK2- G3HVK2- G3HVK2- G3HVK2- G3HVK2- G3HVK2- G3HVK2- G3HVK2- G3HVK2- N3HVJ2- N3HVK2- N3HVK2- N3HVH2- N3HVJ2- N3HVJ2- N3HVJ2- N3HUK2 N3HUK2 N3HVK2 N3HVK2 N3HVK2- N3HVK2 N3HVK2 N3HVK2 N3HVK2 N3HVK2 N3HVK2 N3NVK2 N3HVK2 N3HVK2 N3HVK2 N3HVK2 N3HVK2 N3HVK2 N3HVK2 N3HVJ2 N3HVK2 N3HVK2 N3HVK2 TOTAL OF REGION 05 = 69 06-0058-2500431 NORTH LITTLE ROCK 06-0080-2500329 MALONE 06-0082-2500331 PRYOR CREEK 06-0083-2500332 SPLENDORA •06-0084-2500333 O'DONNELL •06-0086-2500335 IDALOU •06-0085-2500336 O'DONNELL -06-0102-2500445 VICI •06-0108-2500458 NEW DEAL •06-0118-2500560 CLEO SPRINGS PUA •06-0119-2500562 NASH PUA •06-0120-2500566 RUNGE •06-0122-2500619 NOUATA -06-0125-2500657 BEEBE MUNICIPAL WATER & SE -06-0130-2500668 VICTORIA COUNTY WCID NO.2 -06-0039-2500043 TEXAS STATE OF -06-0041-2500048 HIGHLANDS UNIVERSITY N.M. •06-0040-2500050 HIGHLANDS UNIVERSITY N.M. -06-0042-2500051 NEW MEXICO UNIVERSITY OF -06-0043-2500052 ARKANSAS UNIVER.OF LITTLE R -06-0044-2500053 ARKANSAS DEPT. OF HEALTH -06-0045-2500054 ARKANSAS UNIVERITY OF -06-0064-2500314 NEW MEXICO STATE UNIVERSITY NM -06-0065-2500315 NEW MEXICO STATE UNIVERSITY NM -06-0066-2500316 ALEXANDRIA -06-0067-2500317 NORTH TEXAS COG -06-0068-2500322 DALLAS -06-0069-2500323 SEYMOUR -06-0070-2500324 BATON ROUGE EAST -06-0071-2500325 BATON ROUGE EAST BATON ROUGELA -06-0072-2500326 BATON ROUGH PARISH OF EAST -06-0073-2500327 SLIDELL -06-0074-2500328 HOUSTON GALVESTON AREA CO. -06-0081-2500330 MIDWEST CITY -06-0078-2500334 JEFFERSON PARISH -06-0103-2500446 UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS -06-0104-2500447 FORT WORTH -06-0109-2500461 TERREBONNE PARISH CONSOLIDATLA -06-0113-2500488 EIGHT NORTHERN INDIAN PUEBLONM -06-0114-2500489 CHEYENNE ARAPAHO TRIBES OF OOK -06-0115-2500490 DALLAS -06-0116-2500506 OKLAHOMA STATE OF -06-0117-2500561 GALVESTON COUNTY HEALTH DISTTX -06-0127-2500658 ALBUQUERQUE -06-0128-2500659 ALBUQUERQUE 161,915 776,281 TOTAL OF REGION 06 = 45 G3HVK2-07-0016-2500065 G3HVK2-07-0017-2500066 MANSFIELD CLEARFIELD AR TX OK TX TX TX TX OK TX OK OK TX OK AR TX TX NM NM NM AR AR AR ' NM 1 NM LA TX TX TX LA ;ELA LA LA TX OK LA AR TX ITLA .ONM OOK TX OK ;TTX NM NM MO IA 1/24/92 12/30/91 12/30/91 12/30/91 12/30/91 12/30/91 12/30/91 2/ 7/92 2/18/92 3/ 5/92 3/ 5/92 3/ 6/92 3/19/92 3/25/92 3/27/92 10/23/91 10/23/91 10/23/91 10/23/91 10/23/91 10/23/91 10/23/91 12/27/91 12/27/91 12/27/91 12/27/91 12/30/91 12/30/91 12/30/91 12/30/91 12/30/91 12/30/91 12/30/91 12/30/91 12/30/91 2/ 7/92 21 7/92 2/19/92 2/25/92 2/25/92 2/25/92 2/28/92 3/ 5/92 3/26/92 3/26/92 10/28/91 10/28/91 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 c 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9,702 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9,702 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 48 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL ------- Questioned Costs Audit Control Number G3HVK2-07-0018-2500068 G3HVK2-07-0019-2500069 G3HVK2-07-0020-2500070 G3HVK2-07-0025-2500071 G3HVK2-07-0021 -2500072 G3HVK2-07-0024-2500073 G3HVK2-07-0023-2500074 G3HVK2-07-0022-2500075 G3HVK2-07-0031 -2500098 G3HVK2-07-0035-2500102 G3HVK2-07-0036-2500103 G3HVK2-07-0037- 25001 15 G3HVK2-07-0039-2500116 G3HVK2-07-0038-2500117 G3HVK2-07-0040-2500119 G3HVK2-07-0041 -2500120 G3HVK2-07-0043-2500122 G3HVK2-07-0046-2500124 G3HVK2-07-0045-2500125 G3HVK2-07-0078-2500162 G3HVK2-07-0077- 25 00163 G3HVK2-07-0076-2500164 G3HVK2-07-0075-2500165 G3HVK2-07-0074-2500166 G3HVK2-07-0073-2500167 G3HVK2-07-0072-2500168 G3HVK2-07-0071-2500169 G3HVK2-07-0070-2500171 G3HVK2 - 07- 0069- 25001 72 G3HVK2-07-0068-2500175 G3HVK2- 07- 0067- 25001 76 G3HVK2-07-0066-2500177 G3HVK2-07-0065-2500178 G3HVK2-07-0064-2500179 G3HVK2-07-0063-2500180 G3HVK2-07-0062-2500181 G3HVK2-07-0061 -2500182 G3HVK2-07-0060-2500183 G3HVK2-07-0059-2500184 G3HVK2-07-0058-2500185 G3HVK2-07-0057- 2500186 G3HVK2 - 07- 0089-2500277 G3HVK2-07-0092-2500280 G3HVK2-07-0094-2500282 G3HVK2-07-0096-2500284 G3H VK2- 07- 0097- 2500285 G3HVK2- 07- 0098- 2500286 G3HVK2- 07- 0099- 2500287 G3HVK2- 07- 01 00- 2500289 G3HVK2-07-0101 -2500292 G3HVK2-07-0102-2500293 G3HVK2-07-0103-2500294 G3HVK2-07-0104-2500296 G3HVK2-07-0105-2500297 G3HVK2-07-0106-2500298 G3H VK2- 07- 0 1 07- 2500299 G3HVK2-07-0108-2500300 G3HVK2-07-0109-2500301 G3HVK2-07-01 10-2500302 G3HVJ2-07-011 1-2500303 G3HVK2-07-0080-2500337 G3HVK2-07-0112-2500338 G3HVK2-07-01 16-2500342 G3HVK2-07-01 17- 2500343 G3HVK2-07-0124-2500394 G3HVK2-07-0123-2500397 G3HVK2-07-0135-2500493 G3HVK2-07-0136-2500494 G3HVK2-07-0138-2500495 G3HVK2-07-0137-2500496 G3HVK2-07-0139-2500497 G3HVK2- 07- 01 42 -2500499 G3HVK2-07-0143-2500500 G3HVK2-07-0144-2500501 G3HVK2-07-0141 -2500575 Title CLEARFIELD ROCKAUAY BEACH SARCOXIE WAYLAND BONNER SPRINGS SELIGMAN SELIGMAN HUTCHINSON MARSHAL LTOWN RANDALL RANDALL ARCHIE CHILLICOTHE MUSCOTAH LITTLE BLUE VALLEY CAMDENTON UELLSVILLE AIRPORT DRIVE GOLDEN CITY VERDIGRE PORTAGEVILLE ATALISSA ANKENY OSAGE BEACH DIAMOND CINCINNATI MCPHERSON MINER HOLLISTER ALGONA ALGONA EOLIA GOODMAN LOCKWOOD TRENTON TRENTON MARION COUNTY LAMAR WESTON EXCELSIOR SPRINGS BRAYMER, LILBOURN MONTGOMERY COUNTY LAKE OZARK BELLE IRONTON IRONTON VALENTINE AVA PERRY PANAMA MARBLE HILL MARBLE HILL NIXA BLAND MET ST LOUIS SEWER LANCASTER MANCHESTER FAIR GROVE PARMA PARSONS HEROJLANEUM JACKSON PANAMA GREEN CITY LOCKWOOD LAKE WABAUNSEE UTICA GLASGOW MINER BETHEL PANAMA WELTON GOLDEN CITY FARMINGTON IA MO MO MO KS MO MO KS IA IA IA MO MO KS SEWER DISMO MO KS MO MO NE MO MO IA MO MO IA KS MO MO IA IA MO MO MO MO MO KS MO MO MO MO MO KS MO MO MO MO NE MO MO NE MO MO MO MO DIST MO MO KS MO MO KS MO MO IA MO MO KS NE MO MO MO IA IA MO MO Final Report Issued 10/28/91 10/28/91 10/28/91 10/29/91 10/29/91 10/29/91 10/29/91 10/29/91 1V 5/91 1V 5/91 1V 5/91 1V 7/91 IV 7/91 IV 7/91 1V 7/91 1V 7/91 1V 7/91 1V 8/91 1V 8/91 11/21/91 11/21/91 11/21/91 11/21/91 11/21/91 11/21/91 11/22/91 11/22/91 11/22/91 11/22/91 11/22/91 11/22/91 11/22/91 11/22/91 11/22/91 11/22/91 11/22/91 11/22/91 11/22/91 11/22/91 11/22/91 11/22/91 12/26/91 12/26/91 12/26/91 12/26/91 12/26/91 12/26/91 12/26/91 12/26/91 12/26/91 12/26/91 12/26/91 12/26/91 12/26/91 12/26/91 12/26/91 12/26/91 12/26/91 12/26/91 12/26/91 V 2/92 V 2/92 V 2/92 V 2/92 1/14/92 1/14/92 2/26/92 2/26/92 2/26/92 2/26/92 2/26/92 2/26/92 2/26/92 2/26/92 3/11/92 Ineligible Unsupported Unnecessary/ Efficiencies Costs Costs Unreasonable (Funds Be Put Costs To Better Use) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OCTOBER 1,1991 THROUGH MARCH 31 1992 49 ------- Questioned Audit Control Number G3HVK2-07-0176-2500646 G3HVK2-07-0172-2500648 G3HVK2-07-0171 -2500649 G3HVK2-07-0170-2500650 G3HVK2-07-0169-2500651 G3HVK2-07-0168-2500652 N3HUK2-07-0178-2500095 N3HUK2-07-0030-2500097 N3H VK2 - 07- 0032 - 2500099 N3HVK2-07-0033-2500100 N3HVK2-07-0034-2500101 N3HVK2-07-0042-2500121 N3HVK2 - 07- 0047- 25001 23 N3HVK2-07-0044-2500126 N3HVK2-07-0055-2500155 N3HVK2-07-0054-2500156 N3HVK2-07-0052-2500158 N3HVK2-07-0051 -2500159 N3HVK2-07-0079-2500161 N3HVK2-07-0090-2500278 N3HVK2-07-0093-2500281 N3HVK2- 07- 0095 -2500283 N3HVK2-07-01 13-2500339 N3HVJ2-07-01 14-2500340 N3HVK2-07-01 15-2500341 N3HUK1 -07-0139-2500344 N3HWK1 -07-0138-2500345 N3HVK2-07-01 18-2500349 N3HVK2-07-0125-2500396 N3HVK2-07-0122-2500399 N3HVH2-07-0140-2500498 N3HVK2-07-0145-2500502 N3HVK2-07-0146- 2500503 N3HVK2-07-0147-2500504 N3HVK2-07-0174-2500647 Title CHELSEA AIRPORT DRIVE PLEASANT HOPE MARCEL I NE MENLO LAUREL CENTRAL COMMUNITY COLLEGE CROUDER COLLEGE IA MO MO MO IA IA NE MO JOINT BOARD/HEALTH-KC/WYANDOKS POLK COUNTY POLK COUNTY DES MOINES JEFFERSON CITY WICHITA GRANBY PITTSBURG RENO COUNTY WYANDOTTE COUNTY SALEM OMAHA IRONDALE LI NEVILLE GALENA NEBRASKA DEPT OF HEALTH KANSAS CITY CROWDER COLLEGE JOPLIN SPRINGFIELD AMES OTTAWA IOWA CITY POPLAR BLUFF LINN COUNTY ST LOUIS JOPLIN IA IA IA MO KS MO KS KS KS MO NE MO IA MO NE MO MO MO MO IA KS IA MO IA MO MO Final Report Issued 3/23/92 3/23/92 3/23/92 3/23/92 3/23/92 3/23/92 1V 5/91 1V 5/91 1V 5/91 1V 5/91 1V 5/91 IV 7/91 1V 8/91 1V 8/91 11/21/91 11/21/91 11/21/91 11/21/91 11/21/91 12/26/91 12/26/91 12/26/91 V 2/92 V 2/92 V 2/92 V 2/92 V 2/92 V 3/92 1/14/92 1/14/92 2/26/92 2/26/92 2/26/92 2/26/92 3/23/92 Ineligible Unsupported Unnecessary/ Efficiencies Costs Costs Unreasonable (Funds Be Put Costs To Better Use) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL OF REGION 07 = 112 C3HWK1 -08-0105-25001 18 G3HVJ2-08-0015-2500090 G3HVK2- 08- 00 18- 2500094 G3HVK2-08-0032- 2500304 G3HVJ2-08-0033-2500305 G3HVJ2-08-0038-2500312 G3HVK2-08-0037-2500313 G3H VK2 - 08- 0055 - 2500491 G3HVK2-08-0064-2500653 G3HVK2-08-0063-2500654 N3HVK2-08-0016-2500113 N3HUK2-08-0017-2500114 N3HVK2-08-0025-2500160 N3HVK2-08-0034-2500306 N3HUK2-08-0035-2500307 N3HVK2-08-0036-2500308 N3HUJ2-08-0041 -2500309 N3HVJ2-08-0040-2500310 N3HVK2-08-0039-2500311 N3HVJ2-08-0042-2500350 N3HVK2-08-0043-2500351 N3HVJ2-08-0044-2500352 N3HVK2-08-0056-2500492 N3HVK2-08-0065-2500673 SIOUX FALLS COOPERSTOWN GRAND FORKS GILLETTE BOX ELDER DEVILS LAKE MISSOULA GREEN RIVER CODY CHANCELLOR SALT LAKE COUNTY CASPER COLLEGE TURTLE MT BAND/CHIPPEWA CASPER BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY RIVERTON ND STATE UNIVERSITY ND PARKS & RECREATION FARGO SOUTH DAKOTA BOULDER UTAH LARAM1E GREAT FALLS SD ND ND WY SD ND MT WY WY SD UT WY INDIND WY UT WY ND ND ND SD CO UT WY MT 1V 7/91 1V 4/91 1V 5/91 12/26/91 12/26/91 12/26/91 12/26/91 2/25/92 3/23/92 3/23/92 1V 7/91 1V 7/91 11/21/91 12/26/91 12/26/91 12/26/91 12/26/91 12/26/91 12/26/91 V 3/92 V 3/92 V 3/92 2/25/92 3/31/92 TOTAL OF REGION 08 = 24 C3HVK2-09-0157-2500620 HONOLULU CITY AND COUNTY OF HI G3HVK2-09-0151-2500591 HENDERSON, CITY OF NV N3HUK1-09-0239-2500007 UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA SYSTEM NV N3HVK1-09-0223-2500008 1ND10, CITY OF CA N3HUK2-09-0025-2500020 CALIF., UNIV. OF, RIVERSIDE CA N3HVJ2-09-0026-2500021 ALAMEDA, CITY OF CA N3HVK2-09-0027-2500022 GOVERNMENT OF GUAM N3HVK2-09-0035-2500032 LOS ANGELES, CITY OF CA N3HVK2-09-0034-2500033 HUGHSON, CITY OF CA N3HVK2-09-0036-2500034 FORT MOJAVE INDIAN TRIBE CA 3/19/92 3/16/92 10/ 9/91 10/ 9/91 10/16/91 10/16/91 10/16/91 10/18/91 10/18/91 10/18/91 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 220,983 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL ------- Questioned Costs Audit Control Number N3HVK2- 09- 0037- 2500035 N3HVK2-09-0038-2500036 N3HVK2-09-0057-2500081 N3HVK2-09-0056-2500082 N3HVK2-09-0058-2500087 N3HVK2-09-0067- 2500137 N3HVK2-09-0083-2500240 N3HVK2- 09- 0084 - 2500243 N3HVJ2-09-0085-2500244 N3HVK2-09-0103-2500393 N3HVK2-09-0104-2500395 N3HVJ2-09-0105-2500398 N3HVK2-09-0106-2500401 N3HVK2-09-0107-2500415 N3HVK2-09-0108-2500416 N3HVK2-09-0109-2500418 N3HVK2-09-01 10-2500421 N3HUK2-09-01 17- 2500451 N3HVK2-09-01 18-2500452 N3HVK2-09-01 19-2500453 N3HVK2-09-0121 -2500455 N3HVK2-09-0051 -2500473 N3HVK2-09-0131-2500519 N3HVK2-09-0132-2500531 N3HVK2-09-0133-2500532 N3HVJ2-09-0138-2500545 N3HVK2-09-0143-2500576 N3HVK2-09-0145-2500584 N3HVK2-09-0146-2500585 N3HVK2-09-0147-2500586 N3HVK2-09-0148-2500587 N3HVK2-09-0150-2500590 N3HVK2-09-0164-2500674 N3HVK2-09-0162-2500675 N3HVK2-09-0163-2500676 TOTAL OF G3HVJ2-10-0019- 2500400 G3HVJ2-10-0039-2500529 G3HVK2-10-0038-2500530 G3HVJ2-10-0041-2500544 G3HVK2-10-0044-2500573 N3HVK2-10-0001-2500023 N3HVJ2- 10-0005-2500080 N3HMK1- 10-0004-2500086 N3HVJ2- 10-0009-2500195 N3HVK2- 10-0013-2500241 N3HVJ2- 10-0012-2500242 N3HUJ2-10-0014-2500245 N3HVJ2- 1 0- 0031 - 2500454 N3HVK2-10-0036-2500474 N3HVK2- 10-0037- 2500520 Title MODOC, COUNTY OF CA VENTURA, COUNTY OF CA HAWAII, DEPT., OF AGRIC. HI PHOENIX, CITY OF AZ SAN BERNARDINO, CO., OF CA PALMER CREEK COMM. SVCS. DI CA KOSRAE, STATE OF OAKLAND, CITY OF CA STEGE SANITARY DISTRICT CA LAKE OROVILLE AREA P.U.D. CA BERKELEY, CITY OF CA MARICOPA COUNTY AZ CHUCK, STATE OF FM WEOTT COMMUNITY SVCS. DIST CA PLYMOUTH, CITY OF CA BOLINAS COMMUNITY P.U.D. CA NO. SIERRA AIR QTY MGMT DIST CA SAN DIEGO STATE UN IV FOUND CA ASOC NAC PRO PERSONAS MAYORECA MODESTO, CITY OF CA HAWAII DEPT OF HEALTH HI COLORADO RIVER IND. TRIBES AZ BANNING, CITY OF CA FRESNO, CITY OF CA MANTECA, CITY OF CA NEVADA STATE OF NV ASSOC. OF BAY AREA GOV'T CA GRASS VALLEY, CITY OF CA ALBANY, CITY OF CA EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTIL DISTCA MONTEREY REG WTR POLL CTL AGCA ASSOC. OF BAY AREA GOV'T CA RIVERSIDE S BERN CTY IND CA SAN DIEGO, CITY OF CA LAKE OROVILLE AREA P.U.D. CA REGION 09 = 45 SAMMAMISH PLATEAU W & S DISTWA PUGET SOUND AIR POLL CTRL AGWA FAIRBANKS NORTH STAR BOROUGHAK RAYMOND, CITY OF WA BROOKINGS, CITY OF OR SUQUAMISH TRIBE WA THURSTON COUNTY WA OREGON STATE OF OR WASHINGTON, STATE OF WA PORTLAND, CITY OF OR ALASKA, STATE OF AK KIONA-BENTON SCHOOL DIST#52 WA IDAHO, DEPT. OF AGRIC. ID PUYALLUP TRIBE OF INDIANS WA ANCHORAGE, MUNICIPALITY OF AK Final Report Issued 10/18/91 10/18/91 10/31/91 10/31/91 1V 1/91 11/19/91 12/11/91 12/12/91 12/12/91 1/14/92 1/14/92 1/14/92 1/14/92 1/16/92 1/16/92 1/16/92 1/17/92 2/11/92 2/11/92 2/11/92 2/12/92 2/25/92 3/ 2/92 3/ 3/92 3/ 3/92 3/ 4/92 3/11/92 3/12/92 3/12/92 3/12/92 3/12/92 3/16/92 3/31/92 3/31/92 3/31/92 1/14/92 3/ 3/92 3/ 3/92 3/ 4/92 3/10/92 10/16/91 10/31/91 11/ 1/91 11/26/91 12/12/91 12/12/91 12/12/91 2/11/92 2/25/92 3/ 2/92 Ineligible Unsupported Unnecessary/ Efficiencies Costs Costs Unreasonable (Funds Be Put Costs To Better Use) 0 0 0 0 0 0 441 0 0 0 0 0 5,246 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 139 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 226,809 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL OF REGION 10 = 15 TOTAL OTHER GRANT REPORTS = 667 579,484 941,566 5. SUPERFUND GRANT ASSIGNMENTS P5BGLO-02-0280-2100103 EQB PR 12/ 5/91 P5BGLO-02-0280-2100132 EQB PR 12/19/91 P5BGLO-02-0278-2100134 EQB PR 12/19/91 P5BGLO-02-0335-2100145 CFTROTH AND E OF VEGA ALTA PR 12/20/91 P5BGLO-02-0246-2100212 NJDEP BURNT FLY BOG NJ 2/ 5/92 P5BGLO-02-0247-2100213 NJDEP PRICE'S LANDFILL NJ 2/ 5/92 P5BGLO-02-0248-2100214 NJDEP SYNCON RESINS NJ 2/ 5/92 P5BGLO-02-0249-2100215 NJDEP COMBE FILL NORTH NJ 21 5/92 P5BGLO-02-0250-2100216 NJDEP COMBE FILL SOUTH NJ 2/ 5/92 P5BGLO-02-0251-2100217 NJDEP FLORENCE LANDFILL NJ 2/ 5/92 P5BGLO-02-0252-2100218 NJDEP GEMS NJ 2/ 5/92 TOTAL OF REGION 02 = 11 38,192 248,063 741,429 584,021 231,089 92,566 237,748 14,135 2,187,243 OCTOBER 1,1991 THROUGH MARCH 31 1992 51 ------- Questioned Costs Audit Control Title Number E5BFN1 -04-0268-2300035 SF COOP AGREEMENT NC E5BKN1 -04-0290-2300045 NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIV. NC TOTAL OF REGION 04 = 2 S5BGNO-09-0303-2300043 L.A. DEPT WATER & POWER CA TOTAL OF REGION 09 = 1 P5CGLO- 10-0066-2100299 WASH DOE MULTI-SITE WA TOTAL OF REGION 10 = 1 M5BFL2-1 1-0021 -2100057 FY 90 DOE SF COST CLAIMED M5BFL1-11-0040-2100075 FY89 FEMA RELOCATION DC M5BFLO-11-0038-2100076 SF-IAG HHS ATSDR-FIN. AUDIT M5BFL1 -11 -0035-2100290 FY 87-89 001 BUR OF MINES DC TOTAL OF REGION 11 (EPA HEADQUARTERS) TOTAL SUPERFUND GRANT REPORTS Final Report Issued 2/19/92 3/26/92 3/13/92 3/30/92 11/13/91 11/26/91 11/26/91 3/26/92 4 19 Ineligible Costs 0 854,863 854,863 2,321,195 2,321,195 259,541 259,541 3,435,599 Unsupported Costs 19,724 654,164 673,888 0 0 3,006,140 3,006,140 5,867,271 Unnecessary/ Unreasonable Costs 0 0 0 4,354,690 4,354,690 0 0 4,354,690 Efficiencies (Funds Be Put To Better Use) 8. OTHER CONTRACT ASSIGNMENTS D8DML1-01-0242-2100000 FAY SPOFFARD AND THORNDIKE D8AML1-01-0239-2100001 ARTHUR D. LITTLE D8AML1-01-0241-2100044 EASTERN RESEARCH GROUP D8CML1-01-0240-2100045 MITRE CORPORATION D8AML2-01-0025-2100051 METCALF AND EDDY INC D8AML2-01-0048-2100060 ABB ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES D8DML2-01-0050-2100062 EASTERN RESEARCH GROUP INC D8AML2-01-0024-2100077 NORMANDEAU ASSOC. D8BML1-01-0259-2100082 ARTHUR D. LITTLE D8AML1-01-0260-2100083 GEOSERVE, INC D8CML2-01-0067-2100104 METCALF AND EDDY INC. D8DML2-01-0059-2100105 TRC ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTCT D8BML2-01-0061-2100106 ABB COMBUSTION ENGINEERING D8DML2-01-0062-2100107 ALLIANCE TECH. CORP D8DML2-01-0058-2100108 CAMP DRESSER AND MCKEE INC. D8AML2-01-0057-2100109 REDWING ENVIRONMENTAL TECH. MA D8CAL2-01-0060-2100110 TRC ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTCT D8DML2-01-0063-2100115 ALLIANCE TECH. CORP. D8AML2-01-0035-2100126 ENSR CONSULTING & ENGIN D8AML2-01-0042-2100128 CADMUS GROUP D8CML2-01-0076-2100136 ALLIANCE TECHNOLOGIES CORP D8CML2-01-0077-2100137 ALLIANCE TECHNOLOGIES CORP D8CML2-01-0079-2100138 ALLIANCE TECHNOLOGIES CORP D8BML2-01-0083-2100139 ARTHUR D LITTLE INC. D8CML2-01-0074-2100140 ALLIANCE TECHNOLOGIES CORP D8CML2-01-0075-2100141 ALLIANCE TECHNOLOGIES CORP D8CML2-01-0078-2100142 ALLIANCE TECHNOLOGIES, COPR.MA D8BML2-01-0082-2100144 ARTHUR D. LITTLE, INC. D8AML2-01-0049-2100160 A D LITTLE INC. D8AML2-01-0047-2100161 JET LINE SERVICES INC D8AML2-01-0036-2100162 AWS SCIENTIFIC D8CML2-01-0066-2100204 TRC ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTCT D8AML2-01-0036-2100239 AWS SCIENTIFIC D8AML2-01-0036-2100240 AWS SCIENTIFIC D8AML2-01-0102-2100263 SYNETICS CORPORATION D8AML2-01-0128-2100267 INDUSTRIAL ECONOMICS INC. P8AML2-01-0038-2100246 ALLIANCE TECHNOLOGIES CORP. P8AXL2-01-0111-2100289 ECOLOGY & ENVIRONMENT MA MA MA MA MA ME MA MA MA NH MA TCT CT MA MA MA TCT MA MA MA MA MA MA MA MA MA .MA MA MA MA NY TCT NY NY MA MA MA NY 10/ 1/91 10/ 4/91 10/30/91 10/31/91 11/ 7/91 11/14/91 11/18/91 11/26/91 12/ 2/91 12/ 2/91 12/ 5/91 12/ 5/91 12/ 5/91 12/ 5/91 12/ 5/91 12/ 6/91 12/ 6/91 12/12/91 12/13/91 12/16/91 12/20/91 12/20/91 12/20/91 12/20/91 12/20/91 12/20/91 12/20/91 12/20/91 M 2/92 1/ 2/92 I/ 2/92 1/30/92 2/19/92 2/19/92 3/10/92 3/17/92 2/24/92 3/26/92 TOTAL OF REGION 01 = 38 D8AWL2-02-0021-2100009 HYDROQUAL INC TOTAL OF REGION 02 = 1 D8DML2-03-0067-2100013 D8BML2-03-0068-2100014 D8DML2-03-0069-2100015 D8DML2-03-0070-2100016 EG&G WASHINGTON ANAL SERVIC MD DYNCORP/PRI MD PA STATE UNIVERSITY PA COM FEDERAL PROGRAMS VA *The dollar value of contract reports have not been shown. Public disclosure of the dollar value of financial recom- mendations could prematurely reveal the Government's negotiating positions or release of this information is not routinely available under the Freedom of Information Act. The number of these reports and dollar value of the findings have been included in the aggregate data displayed below. Such data individually excluded in this listing will be provided to the Congress under separate memorandum within 30 days of the transmittal of the semiannual report to the agency head. The transmitted data will contain appropriate cautions regarding disclosure. NJ 10/16/91 D8AML2-03-0040-2100017 PHILLIPS CARTNER & CO. INC VA 10/23/91 10/23/91 10/23/91 10/23/91 10/23/91 52 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL ------- Audit Control Number D8AWL2-03-0042-2100018 D8AML2-03-0041-2100019 D8AML2-03-0043-2100020 D8AML2-03-0044-2100021 D8AML2-03-0076-2100022 D8AML2-03-0045-2100023 D8AML2-03-0046-2100024 D8EML2-03-0047-2100025 D8EML2-03-0048-2100026 D8AML2-03-0032-2100027 08AAL2-03-0033-2100028 D8AAL2-03-0034-2100029 D8AAL2-03-0035-2100030 D8APL2-03-0036-2100031 D8AML2-03-0038-2100033 D8AML2-03-0039-2100034 D8AML2-03-0083-2100046 D8EML2-03-0084-2100047 D8CML2-03-0086-2100048 D8CUL2-03-0085-2100049 D8EML2-03-01 16-2100065 D8AML2-03-01 13-2100066 D8AML2-03-0112-2100067 D8EML2-03-011 1-2100068 D8EML2-03-01 10-2100069 D8EML2-03-0109-2100070 D8CML2-03-0134-2100093 D8AML2-03-0017-2100101 D8AML2-03-0088-2100102 D8AML2-03-0050-2100114 D8DML2-03-0122-2100116 D8BML2-03-0143-2100117 D8CLL2-03-0082-2100121 D8AWL2-03-0094-2100127 D8AML2-03-0096-2100129 D8AWL2-03-0093-2100151 D8BML2-03-0121 -2100153 D88ML2-03-0097-2100156 D8EML2-03-0170-2100157 D8AWL2-03-0095-2100158 D8CML2-03-0161 -2100167 D8ABL2-03-0077-2100172 D8DML2-03-0160-2100174 D80ML2-03-0178-2100175 D8AML2-03-0130-2100176 D8EML2-03-0163-2100178 D8AML2-03-0125-2100180 D8AML2-03-0124-2100185 D8AML2-03-0131 -2100186 D8ABL2-03-0078-2100188 D8BAL2-03-0182-2100189 D8DML2-03-0200-2100194 D8AML2-03-0187-2100207 D8AML2-03-0185-2100226 D8DML2-03-0216-2100228 D8AML2-03-0151 -2100231 D8CWL2 - 03 - 0225 - 2 1 00244 D8AAL2-03-0210-2100257 D8DML2-03-0278-2100274 D8DML2-03-0280-2100275 D80ML2-03-0282-2100277 D8AAL2-03-0212-2100281 D8AAL2-03-021 1-2100282 D8AAL2-03-0214-2100283 D8APL2-03-0218-2100288 P8AWL2-03-0018-2100006 P8AXL2-03-0074-2100058 P8AXL2-03-0075-2100059 P8AXL2-03-0030-2100071 P8AAL2-03-0072-2100087 P8AML2-03-0152-2100146 P8AML2-03-0153-2100199 P8AXL2-03-0175-2100235 P8AXL2-03-0219-2100256 P8AML2-03-0207-2100259 Title ROY F WESTON PA BRUCE COMPANY DC COM FEDERAL PROGRAMS VA JACA CORPORATION PA ASCI CORPORATION VA DIVERSIFIED TECHNOLOGY VA EA ENGINEERING SCIENCE TECH MD PHILLIPS GARTNER & CO., INC VA BRUCE COMPANY DC NAA SERVICES CORP VA ROY F. UESTON PA JACK FAUCETT ASSOCIATES MD JACA CORPORATION PA MITCHELL SYSTEMS CORP WV RAVEN SERVICES CORP VA PACIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL SER VA TECHNOLOGY & MANAGEMENT SYS MD CORPORATE INFORMATION SYSTEMVA BOOZ ALLAN HAMILTON MD BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON MO ROY F. UESTON PA VIAR VA VIAR VA VIAR VA VIAR VA VIAR VA TRACOR TECHNOLOGY MD DYNAMAC MD GKY & ASSOCIATES VA COASTAL ENVIRONMENTAL MD PA STATE PA NUS CORP MD SMC MARTIN, INC PA GREELEY-POLHEMUS GROUP PA VIAR VA WADE MILLER ASSOCIATES VA BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON MD INFORMATION SYSTEMS & SERV MD GKY & ASSOCIATES INC. VA APOGEE RESEARCH MD GANNETT FLEMING ENVIRONMENT PA DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES MD PA STATE UNIVERSITY PA PA STATE UNIVERSITY PA ITS SERVICES, INC. VA ITS SERVICES, INC. VA SCIENTIFIC & COMMERCIAL VA EG&G WASHINGTON ANALYTICAL MD R.O.U SCIENCES INC MD AMERICAN COUNCIL FOR ENERGY DC BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON MO PACIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL VA RAY COMMUNICATION PA NETWORK MANAGEMENT INC VA PA STATE UNIVERSITY PA SCIENTIFIC AND COMMERCIAL VA BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON MD S COHEN VA ARTHUR YOUNG DC ARTHUR YOUNG DC BIONETICS-MERCURY CONSOLIDA VA ENERGY APPLICATIONS INC VA GEOMET TECHNOLOGIES MD KROLOFF MARSHALL & ASSOC DC CONSAD RESEARCH CORPORATION PA ICF CORP - ICF INCORPORATED VA ICF CORP VA ICF CORP VA ICF CORP VA ICF CORP VA ICF CORP VA ICF CORP VA ICF CORP VA ICF CORP - ICF TECHNOLOGY VA ICF CORP VA Final Report Issued 10/23/91 10/23/91 10/23/91 10/23/91 10/23/91 10/24/91 10/24/91 10/24/91 10/24/91 10/24/91 10/25/91 10/25/91 10/25/91 10/25/91 10/25/91 10/25/91 IV 4/91 11/ 4/91 11/ 4/91 11/ 4/91 11/19/91 11/19/91 11/19/91 11/19/91 11/19/91 11/19/91 12/ 4/91 12/ 5/91 12/ 5/91 12/12/91 12/12/91 12/12/91 12/12/91 12/13/91 12/17/91 12/31/91 12/31/91 12/31/91 12/31/91 12/31/91 1/ 6/92 M 6/92 M 6/92 I/ 6/92 M 6/92 M 6/92 M 6/92 V 6/92 \l 6/92 M 7/92 I/ 9/92 1/15/92 1/31/92 2/10/92 2/11/92 2/11/92 2/21/92 3/ 4/92 3/19/92 3/19/92 3/19/92 3/20/92 3/23/92 3/23/92 3/26/92 10/ 9/91 11/13/91 11/13/91 11/19/91 12/ 4/91 12/20/91 1/24/92 2/12/92 3/ 2/92 3/ 5/92 uurauuiim wv<»» Recommended Ineligible Unsupported Unnecessary/ Efficiencies Costs Costs Unreasonable (Funds Be Put Costs To Better Use) OCTOBER 1,1991 THROUGH MARCH 31.1992 53 ------- Audit Control Number Title Final Report Issued Questioned Costs Ineligible Costs Unsupported Costs Unnecessary/ Unreasonable Costs Recommended Efficiencies (Funds Be Put To Better Use) P8AXL2-03-0256-2100296 P8BMN1-03-0146-2300014 P8DXN2-03-0162-2300025 ICF CORP - ICF RESOURCES INCVA O&R MANAGEMENT CORPORATION MO ICF CORP - KAISER ENGINEERS NM 3/27/92 IV 5/91 12/30/91 TOTAL OF REGION 03 = 83 D8DML2-04-0018-2100002 RESEARCH & EVALUATION ASSOC NC D8AML2-04-0096-2100195 MANTECH ENVIRONMENTAL TECH NC D8CMLO-04-0279-2100203 NSI TECHNOLOGY SVCS CORP NC D8CMLO-04-0281 -2100220 NSI TECHNOLOGY SVCS INC. NC D8CMLO-04-0280-2100221 NSI TECHNOLOGY SVCS INC. NC D8CMLO-04-0282-2100222 NSI TECHNOLOGY SVCS CORP. NC D8CMLO-04-0283-2100223 NSI TECHNOLOGY SVCS CORP NC D8CMLO-04-0285-2100224 NSI TECHNOLOGY SVCS CORP. NC D8CMLO-04-0284-2100225 NSI TECHNOLOGY SVCS CORP NC D8AML2-04-01 15-2100247 ADVANCED SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY GA D8AML2-04-0116-2100248 ADVANCED SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY GA D8AML2-04-01 17-2100250 ADVANCED SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY GA D8DML2-04-0231 -2100260 RESEARCH & EVALUATION ASSOC NC D8EML2-04-0230-2100261 ADVANCED SYSTEMS TECH INC. GA D8EML2-04-0262-2100270 ADVANCED SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY GA D8EHL2-04-0147-2100271 ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATIONSNC D8AML2-04-0148-2100280 RESEARCH INFO. ORGANIZERS NC D8DML2-04-0267-2100297 SOUTHERN RESEARCH INSTITUTE AL TOTAL OF REGION 04 = 18 D8DML2-05-0020-2100052 BATTELLE OH D8AML2-05-0043-2100088 BATTELLE OH D8BML2-05-0045-2100099 BATTELLE FY 88 OH D8CML2-05-0152-2100252 LIFE SYSTEMS INC OH D8CML2-05-0151 -2100253 LIFE SYSTEMS INC OH E8AXP2-05-0210-2400026 PRC EMI IL E8AXP2-05-0223-2400034 PRC EMI IL P8AXP2- 05 -0024 -2400006 DONOHUE COE NY OH P8AXP2-05-0040-2400012 DONOHUE WI TOTAL OF REGION 05 = 9 D8DML2-06-0014-2100154 SOUTHWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTETX D8AML2-06-0046-2100173 RADIAN TX D8CML2-06-0105-2100219 RADIAN CORPORATION TX D8CMN2-06-0056-2300041 RADIAN CORP. TX TOTAL OF REGION 06 = 4 D8CAL2-07-0130-2100211 MRI MO D8CLN2-07-0014-2300008 MIDWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE MO D8CAN2-07-0015-2300009 MIDWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE MO D8AMN2-07-0026-2300013 MIDWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE MO D8AAN2-07-01 19-2300028 MIDWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE MO D8DMN2-07-0128-2300032 DEV PLAN & RESEARCH ASSOCIA KS D8BMN2-07-0129-2300033 MRI MO TOTAL OF REGION 07 = 7 D8AML2-08-0012-2100149 RCG/HAGLER D8AMN2-08-0014-2300012 AIR RESOURCE SPECIALIST INC TOTAL OF REGION 08 = 2 D8CML1 -09-0232-2100005 ACUREX CORP CA D8AWL2-09-0095-2100035 ENGINEERING-SCIENCE CA D8CML2-09-0098-2100036 ACUREX CORP CA D8BML2-09-0099-2100037 AEROSPACE CORP EL SEGUNDO CA D8AML2-09-0019-2100050 ACUREX P. A. D100662L1 CA D8CML2-09-0063-2100053 ACUREX CORP. CA D8BML2-09-0064-2100054 EDAW INC. CA D8AML2-09-0022-2100073 TETRA TECH RFP NO W002170-A2CA D8AML2-09-0021 -2100078 JACOBS ENG P/A W002170-A2 CA D8AML2-09-0065-2100079 DAMES & MOORE P/A W002170-A2CA D8AML2-09-0050-2100084 DECISION FOCUS PRE-AWARD CA D8AML2-09-0043-2100085 E&S ENVIR. CHEMISTRY P. A. OR D8AML2-09-0061 -2100086 ECOS PRE-AWARD CA D8CAL2-09-0077-2100094 ENGINEERING SCIENCE CA 10/ 7/91 1/16/92 1/29/92 2/ 7/92 2/ 7/92 2/ 7/92 2/ 7/92 2/ 7/92 2/ 7/92 2/24/92 2/24/92 2/25/92 3/ 5/92 3/ 5/92 3/18/92 3/18/92 3/20/92 3/30/92 IV 7/91 12/ 4/91 12/ 4/91 2/25/92 2/25/92 3/26/92 3/31/92 12/16/91 12/31/91 12/31/91 V 3/92 2/ 6/92 3/ 5/92 2/ 4/92 10/28/91 10/28/91 1V 4/91 V 6/92 2/ 4/92 2/ 4/92 12/26/91 IV 4/91 10/ 9/91 10/25/91 10/25/91 10/25/91 IV 5/91 1V 7/91 1V 7/91 11/19/91 11/26/91 11/26/91 12/ 3/91 12/ 3/91 12/ 3/91 12/ 4/91 54 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL ------- Audit Control Number D8CAL2-09-0078-2100095 D8CWL2-09-0079-2100096 D8AML2-09-0080-2100097 D8CAL2-09- 0081 -2100098 D8EML2-09-0062-2100111 D8AAL2-09-0054-2100113 D8AAL2-09-0049-2100122 D8AAL2-09-0053-2100123 D8CPL2-09-0086-2100133 D8AAL2-09-0048-2100135 D8BML2-09-0024-2100143 D8AAL2-09-0087-2100193 D8CML2-09-0082-2100232 D8AAL2-09-0120-2100233 D8BML2-09-0122-2100236 D8DML2-09-0124-2100238 D8CML2-09-0074-2100251 D8BML2-09-0140-2100262 D8BML2-09-0149-2100284 D8CML2-09-0059-2100286 D8CML2-09-0073-2100302 D8BMN2-09-0096-2300005 D8BMN2- 09- 0097- 2300006 D8AMN2-09-0060-2300016 D8AMN2- 09- 0066- 2300026 D8AMN2-09-0042-2300027 D8FMP2-09-0123-2400017 D8FMP2-09-0161 -2400035 H8AAL2-09-0055-2100196 H8AAL2-09-0052-2100245 TOTAL OF D8AWL2-10-0015-2100124 D8AAL2-10-0004-2100201 E8DML1-10-0055-2100305 P8AXL2- 10-0018-2100242 P8AXL2- 10-0025-2100285 P8AXL2- 10-0021 -2100287 Title ENGINEERING SCIENCE CA ENGINEERING SCIENCE CA INTERNATIONAL TECHNOLOGY CA DAMES & MOORE FINAL CA DECISION FOCUS CA ERC ENV & ENERGY SVC P. A. CA AEROVIRONHENTAL PRE -AWARD CA C.L. STEGALL PRE-AWARD CA SAIC CLOSE-OUT CA GLOBAL GEOCHEMISTRY P. A. CA JONES&STOKES OH&INC COST 90 CA C.L. STEGALL P. A. CA ACUREX CORP., FINAL CA C.L. STEGALL CO. FIN CAPAB CA INTERNATIONAL TECH 87 OH&DC CA ACUREX CORPORATION 87-OH CA ENGINEERING-SCIENCE FINAL CA JACOBS ENGINEERING 87 OH&DC CA ERC ENVIRONMENTAL SVC FY'87 CA ENGINEERING-SCI CLOSE-OUT CA KVB FINAL CA ROCKWELL INTL CORP CA JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP CA SCIENCE APPLICATIONS P. A. CA SAIC RFP NO U100457-AZ CA ENGIN FUEL & EMISSION P. A. CA RAND CORPORATION CA ROCKWELL INTL CORP FOLLOWUP CA DESERT RESEARCH INST P. A. NV UC DAVIS PRE-AWARD CA REGION 09 = 44 ROBINSON CONSTRUCTION CO OR KEYSTONE/NEA PRE-AWARD OR TEAM SUPPORT SERVICES OR CH2M P. A. OR CH2M P. A. OR CH2M P. A. OR Final Report Issued 12/ 4/91 12/ 4/91 12/ 4/91 12/ 4/91 12/ 6/91 12/10/91 12/12/91 12/13/91 12/19/91 12/19/91 12/20/91 1/14/92 2/11/92 2/11/92 2/12/92 2/13/92 2/25/92 3/ 5/92 3/24/92 3/24/92 3/31/92 10/25/91 10/25/91 12/ 3/91 I/ 2/92 I/ 2/92 2/13/92 3/31/92 1/17/92 2/21/92 12/13/91 1/28/92 3/31/92 2/20/92 3/24/92 3/25/92 Ineligible Unsupported Unnecessary/ Efficiencies Costs Costs Unreasonable (Funds Be Put Costs To Better Use) TOTAL OF REGION 10 = 6 TOTAL OTHER CONTRACT REPORTS = 212 694,315 540,161 33,013,923 9. SUPERFUND CONTRACT ASSIGNMENTS D9AHL2-01-0051-2100061 D9AHL2-01 -0072-2100125 TOTAL OF D9EHL2-02-0031 -2100080 D9EHL2-02-0032-2100081 D9AHN2-02-0030-2300019 P9BGLO-02-0317-2100012 P9BGNO-02-0320-2300042 TOTAL OF D9EKL2-03-0062-2100038 D9AKL2-03-0061 -2100039 D9AKL2-03-0065-2100040 D9AKL2-03-0060-2100041 D9AKL2-03-0071 -2100042 D9EKL2-03-0066-2100043 D9AKL2-03-0016-2100056 D9AKL2-03-0031-2100074 D9AHL2-03-0108-2100089 D9AKL2-03-0081 -2100090 D9EFL2-03-0139-2100091 D9AKL2-03-0107-2100092 D9AKL2-03-0073-2100100 D9AKL2-03-0105-2100112 D9AKL2-03-0102-2100118 FRANKLIN ENV. SERVICES INC. MA ENPRO SERVICES INC. MA REGION 01 = 2 ENVIRONMENTAL PRODUCTS INC NY ENVIRONMENTAL PRODUCTS INC NY ENVIRONMENTAL PRODUCTS INC NY SUFFOLK COUNTY WATER AUTH NY ECOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT NY REGION 02 = 5 INFORMATION SYSTEMS AND SERVMD INFORMATION SYSTEMS AND SERVMD INFOPRO INCORPORATED MD MARASCO NEWTON GROUP LIMITEDVA TECHNOLOGY & MANAGEMENT SERVMD INFOPRO INCORPORATED MD DYNAMAC INC MD ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT MD GOODE ENVORONMENTAL SERVICESVA CORPORATE INFORMATION SYSTEMVA GOODE ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICESVA COMPUTER DATA SYSTEMS, INC MD SCIENTIFIC CONSULTING GROUP MD NATIONAL BIOSYSTEMS, INC. MD SYCOM INC VA 11/18/91 12/13/91 12/ 2/91 12/ 2/91 12/ 6/91 10/18/91 3/13/92 10/29/91 10/29/91 10/29/91 10/29/91 10/29/91 10/29/91 11/ 8/91 11/22/91 12/ 4/91 12/ 4/91 12/ 4/91 12/ 4/91 12/ 5/91 12/10/91 12/12/91 OCTOBER 1,1991 THROUGH MARCH 31 1992 55 ------- Audit Control Title Number D9AKL2-03-0106-2100119 CBIS FEDERAL INCORPORATED VA D9AFL2-03-0103-2100120 INFORMATION SYSTEMS SOLUTIONMD D9AKL2-03-0015-2100130 GANNETT FLEMING INC D9CKL2-03-0147-2100131 BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON D9DFL2-03-0123-2100152 ROY F UESTON D9AHL2-03-0117-2100168 NCI INFORMATION SYSTEMS INC D9AKL2-03-01 15-2100169 DYNAMAC D9AKL2-03-01 18-2100170 BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON D9AKL2-03-01 19-2100171 ROY F UESTON D9AKL2-03-0120-2100181 APEX ENVIRONMENTAL D9AFL2-03-0189-2100227 COMPUTER DATA SYSTEMS INC D9CFL1-03-0379-2100229 VERSAR INC D9DFL2-03-0226-2100243 ROY F UESTON D9AFL2-03-0188-2100249 CENTEL FEDERAL SYSTEMS D9AFL2-03-0277-2100273 ROY F UESTON D9BFL2-03-0281 -2100276 UNISYS D9AKN2-03-0063-2300010 ENVIRONMENTAL OPTIONS INC PA MD PA VA MD MD PA MD MD VA PA VA PA VA VA D9AKN2-03-0080-2300020 MARASCO NEWTON GROUP LIMITEDVA D9BFN2-03-0204-2300037 NUS CORP D9BJP2-03-0196-2400025 ROY F UESTON P9AHL2-03-0019-2100011 ICF CORP P9AHN1 -03-0232-2300003 ICF TECHNOLOGY INC. TOTAL OF REGION 03 = 37 P9BHLO-04-0384-2100007 UESTINGHOUSE-HAZTECH P9BHLO-04-0385-2100010 ENSITE INC P9DGLO-04-0383-2100166 UESTINGHOUSE-HAZTECH P9DHL1 -04-0436-2100197 ENSITE INC P9AXN2-04-0027-2300015 EHRT TOTAL OF REGION 04 = 5 D9AGL2-05-0055-2100177 E&K HAZARDOUS UASTE D9AGL2-05-0060-2100179 CMC INC D9AGL2-05-0059-2100182 E&K HAZARDOUS UASTE D9AGL2-05-0058-2100254 CITY ENVIRONMENTAL D9AGL2-05-0057-2100255 NORTHERN A-1 SERVICES E9DKL1 -05-0159-2100202 PRC EMI FY 89 E9AHP2-05-0036-2400001 EQM ERCS3 R5 P9AHN1-Q5-0144-2300023 OHM REM ERCS2 Z2 FY 89 P9AHN1-05-0143-2300024 OHM REM ERCS2 Z1 FY 89 P9CHP1-05-0355-2400002 OHM REM BRODERICK P9AHP2-05-0054-2400007 MARS E/S ERCS3 R5 P9AHP2- 05 -0052- 2400010 SAMSEL SERVICES ERCS3 R5 MD PA VA VA GA GA GA GA KY UI KY UI MI MI IL OH OH OH OH IL OH Final Report Issued 12/12/91 12/12/91 12/17/91 12/17/91 12/31/91 M 6/92 M 6/92 M 6/92 M 6/92 \l 6/92 2/10/92 2/11/92 2/21/92 2/25/92 3/18/92 3/19/92 10/29/91 12/10/91 2/21/92 3/19/92 10/18/91 10/17/91 10/ 9/91 10/18/91 M 3/92 1/21/92 11/15/91 \l 6/92 M 6/92 M 6/92 2/25/92 3/ 2/92 1/29/92 11/27/91 12/26/91 12/27/91 12/ 9/91 12/18/91 12/26/91 • — — IIWWIIIIIIVITWU Ineligible Unsupported Unnecessary/ Efficiencies Costs Costs Unreasonable (Funds Be Put Costs To Better Use) TOTAL OF REGION 05 = 12 D9CKL2-07-0127-2100210 MRI TOTAL OF REGION 07 1 P9AXL2-10-0006-2100072 P9EGL2-10-0008-2100192 P9DHLO-10-0096-2100304 P9FHP1-10-0075-2400036 CH2M P.A. RFP#088994-A-K1 CH2M REV CAS STAT ADEQUACY RES 87 OH RES-CONTINGENT FEES MO OR OR OR OR TOTAL OF REGION 10 = 4 TOTAL SUPERFUND CONTRACT REPORTS TOTAL REPORTS = 1,044 21 4/92 11/19/91 1/14/92 3/31/92 3/31/92 66 1,466,141 315,114 38,108,514 18,413,362 14,568,992 39,310,028 72,434,951 901 - REPORTS ISSUED BY ASSIGNMENT TYPE AND EPA REGION SEMI-ANNUAL PERIOD ENDING 3/31/92 56 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL ------- Appendix 2-Reports 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 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 3/31/92: 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. In Pre-ARB Referral Process Assignment Control Title Number Final Report Issued Assignment Control Number Title Final Report Issued ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES E1EPF1-05-0117-1100378 PESTICIDES INERTS 9/27/91 Summary: EPA DID NOT ENSURE (1) ADEQUATE ENFORCEMENT OF ITS INERTS STRATEGY (2) PROMPT REVIEW OF THE POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF INERT INGREDIENTS ON HUMANS AND THE ENVIRONMENT AND (3) THE ACCURACY OF INFORMATION ONINERTS. - EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE: THE OFFICE SUBMITTED ITS MANAGEMENT DECISION TO THE OIG ON MARCH 26, 1992. THE OIG REQUESTED FURTHER INFORMATION ON SEVERAL RECOMMENDATIONS. = DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: THE OFFICE PLANS TO RESPOND BY MAY 15, 1992. IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/92: [2] ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR WATER E1HWEO-04-0291-1100434 CWA SECTION 404 CONSOLIDATEDGA 9/30/91 Summary: WETLANDS MAY BE UNNECESSARILY LOST TO DREDGE AND FILL DISCHARGES BECAUSE OF EPA'S INCONSISTENT AND UNPREDICTABLE PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION IN THE AREAS OF ENFORCEMENT, PERMITTING, AND STRATEGIC INITIATIVES. - EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE: THE OFFICE OF WATER RESPONDED TO THE OIG ON FEBRUARY 11, 1992. THE OIG REQUESTED ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON MARCH 11, 1992. THE OFFICE OF WATER IS COLLECTING INFORMATION TO PRESENT TO IG TO RESOLVE AUDIT. = DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: THE MANAGEMENT DECISION SHOULD BE ISSUED BY JUNE 15, 1992. IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/92: [2] ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR ADMINISTRATION AND RESOURCES MANAGEMENT E1SFG1-05-0018-1400046 CONTRACTOR PROPERTY OVERSIGHT 9/27/91 Summary: EPA HAD COMPLETED THE REVIEW OF PROPERTY CONTROL SYSTEMS FOR LESS THAN ONE-THIRD OF ITS CONTRACTORS HOLDING GOVERNMENT PROPERTY. AS A RESULT, IT HAD NO ASSURANCE THAT GOVERNMENT PROPERTY IN THE HANDS OF THESE CONTRACTORS WAS ADEQUATELY SAFEGUARDED. - EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE: An explanation was not provided by EPA. = DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: THE OFFICE FORWARDED A PROPOSED MANAGEMENT DECISION TO THE OIG ON FEBRUARY 14, 1992. IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/92: [4] (Report is to be closed out in April 1992.) E1XMF1-08-0033-1100441 REGION 8 MGT. OF CSC CONTRACT 9/30/91 Summary: REGION 8 NEEDS TO STOP SUPERVISING CSC EMPLOYEES AND BEGIN MONITORING CSC CONTRACT ACTIVITIES REGION 8 TREATED THE CSC SERVICE CONTRACT AS A PERSONAL SERVICE CONTRACT, CONTRARY TO FAR AND CIVIL SERVICE LAWS. -EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE: An explanation was not provided by EPA. = DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: THE OFFICE FORWARDED A PROPOSED MANAGEMENT DECISION TO THE OIG ON JANUARY 21, 1992. IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/92: [2] E6EMPO-15-0039-1400060 ACI CONTRACT ALLEGATIONS 9/30/91 Summary: EPA COULD PAY UP TO $8.4 MILLION OVER DECREASING MARKET PRICES FOR MICROCOMPUTER WORKSTATIONS AND OTHER ADP EQUIPMENT BY NOT MODIFYING AND INTERIM CONTRACT AND DELAYING A COMPETITIVE AWARD. EPA COULD ALSO PAY THE CONTRACTOR $2.3 MILLION MORE THAN ACTUALLY INCURRED FOR OPERATING EXPENSES. - EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE: THIS AUDIT RESPONSE IS IN THE PROCESS OF BEING COMPLETED BY OARM FOR THE OIG. THE ISSUES IN THE IG'S REPORT HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED. * DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: THE AUDIT IS EXPECTED TO BE RESOLVED WITHIN THE NEXT REPORTING PERIOD. IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/92: [1] PROCUREMENT CONTRACTS MANAGEMENT DIVISION P9BHN1-04-0317-1300110 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH KY 9/23/91 Summary: LABOR COSTS TOTALING $334,856 WERE QUESTIONED BECAUSE THE CONTRACTOR DID NOT SUBMIT COST & PRICING DATA AS REQUIRED BY FAR SUBCONTRACT COSTS OF $94,236 WERE QUESTIONED BECAUSE THE SUBCONTRACTOR WAS SELECTED IN A MANNER INCONSISTENT WITH FAR REQUIREMENTS. - EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE: An explanation was not provided by EPA. - DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: THIS IS A PREAWARD AUDIT. NEGOTIATIONS TO BE COMPLETED BY JULY 22, 1992. IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/92: [1] (This was an interim audit - not a preaward audit as alleged by the above statement. No response has been received on this report) OCTOBER 1,1991 THROUGH MARCH 31 1992 57 ------- Assignment Control Number Title Final Report Issued Assignment Control Number Title Final Report Issued PROCUREMENT CONTRACTS MANAGEMENT DIVISION Cincinnati Cost Advisory Branch D8CML1-04-0442-1100311 'Summary: MANTECH ENVIRONMENTAL NC 7/10/91 - EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE: THE CONTRACTOR IS IN AN OVERRUN SITUATION. THE CONTRACT OFFICER HAS REQUESTED THE CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE DOCUMENTATION SUBSTANTIATING ITS CLAIM THAT IT SATISFIED THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF THE LIMITATION OF FUNDS CLAUSE IN THE CONTRACT. THE AGENCY IS AWAITING THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSE. - DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: ANTICIPATED RESOLUTION DATE IS MAY 25, 1992. IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/92: |1] PROCUREMENT CONTRACTS MANAGEMENT DIVISION Cost Policy and Rate Negotiation Section PHILADELPHIA CITY OF PA 9/12/91 P2DW8-03-0174-1300105 •Summary: - EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE: THE AGENCY IS HAVING PROBLEMS REACHING AN AGREEMENT WITH THE CONTRACTOR. COST POLICY QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN ADVANCED TO THE GENERAL COUNSEL AND DIG ON HOW TO ADDRESS QUESTIONED COSTS BETWEEN INDIRECT AND DIRECT COST AUDITS. = DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: A desired timetable was not provided by EPA. IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/92: [1] P90HL9-10-0110-1100108 RES FY86 INDIRECT COSTS OR 1/24/91 'Summary: - EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE: THE DIG ASKED THAT NEGOTIATIONS BE SUSPENDED PENDING THE RESOLUTION OF OTHER ISSUES THAT MAY IMPACT THE OUTCOME OF THIS AUDIT. - DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: A desired timetable was not provided by EPA. IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/92: [11 PROCUREMENT CONTRACTS MANAGEMENT DIVISION Durham Cost Advisory Branch D8ABN1-07-0162-1300083 PSI/HALL KIMBRELL MO 7/ 2/91 'Summary: - EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE: An explanation was not provided by EPA. - DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: THE DECISION DATE FOR THIS AUDIT WAS JANUARY 15, 1992. IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/92: [1] (This report was closed on 4/22/92.) PROCUREMENT CONTRACTS MANAGEMENT DIVISION Financial Analysis Section P9BHNO-03-0382-1300101 GUARDIAN ENVIRONMENTAL SVC DE 8/29/91 Summary: GUARDIAN ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES CLAIMED OVER $65 MILLION OF QUESTIONED COSTS CONSISTING PRIMARILY OF UNAUTHORIZED EQUIPMENT, MATERIALS AND PERSONNEL COSTS. - EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE: An explanation was not provided by EPA. - DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: NEGOTIATIONS TO BE COMPLETED BY 6/30/92 IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/92: [1] P9AHN9-05-0347-0300036 OH MATERIALS (PR EQ RATES) OH 3/27/90 Summary: WE HAVE RECOMMENDED REDUCTIONS OF $670,000 TO PROPOSED FIXED RATES FOR EQUIPMENT PRIMARILY BECAUSE OF ERRORS IN UTILIZATION METHODS, ADJUSTMENTS FOR FULLY DEPRECIATED EQUIPMENT AND UNSUPPORTED ESTIMATES AND ASSUMPTIONS BY THE CONTRACTOR. - EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE: NEGOTIATIONS ARE STILL PENDING. EPA REQUESTED FURTHER AUDITS ON THE CONTRACTOR'S EQUIPMENT UTILIZATION RATES FOR 1989 AND 1990 IN ORDER TO RESOLVE THESE COSTS. - DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: AUDITS FOR 1987 AND 1988 SHOULD BE RESOLVED WITHIN TWELVE MONTHS FROM RECEIPT OF THESE 1989 AND 1990 AUDITS. IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/92: [1] P9AHNO-OWJ260-0300047 OH MATERIALS (PR EO RATES) OH 4/27/90 Summary: WE RECOMMENDED $182,049 IN EFFICIENCIES DUE TO PROPOSED EQUIPMENT RATES 1) EXCEEDING CONTRACT CEILING RESTRICTIONS, 2) BEING DEVELOPED USING ESTIMATED COSTS, AND 3) BEING DEVELOPED USING INFORMATION OTHER THAN COST DATA. - EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE: CONTRACT HAS NOT BEEN AWARDED YET. NEGOTIATIONS ARE STILL PENDING. - DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: No desired timetable was provided by EPA. IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/92: [1] REGION 5 - GRANTS FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT P2CWN9-05-0336-0300076 WELLSVILLE OH 8/6/90 Summary: OVER $1.9 MILLION QUESTIONED BECAUSE OF THE GRANTEE'S FAILURE TO REHABILITATE ITS SEWERS. - EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE: FINAL DETERMINATION CANNOT BE MADE UNTIL SEWER SYSTEM EVALUATION SURVEY (SSES) IS COMPLETE. GRANTEE HAS SIGNED CONSENT DECREE WITH THE SSES TO BE SUBMITTED ON JULY 7, 1992. THE DIG WILL NOT REINSTATE COSTS UNTIL SSES HAS BEEN SUBMITTED AND APPROVED - DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: A desired timetable was not provided by EPA. IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/92: [1] (No formal response has been made to the Divisional IG Office.) P2CWNB-05-0273-1300090 LAKE CO DPW IL 7/30/91 Summary: WE QUESTIONED INELIGIBLE COSTS OF $419,805. THEY WERE UNALLOWABLE UNDER EPA REGULATIONS OR GUIDANCE. - EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE: COMMENTS WERE NEEDED FROM ILLINOIS EPA REGARDING CHANGE ORDER APPROVAL. A PROPOSED FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER WAS SENT TO DIG ON FEBRUARY 5, 1992. AWAITING RESPONSE TO PRELIMINARY LETTER. - DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: FINAL DETERMINATION SHOULD BE ISSUED BY APRIL 30, 1992. IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/92: [2] P2CWNW)5-0086-1300115 GALiON OH 9/26/91 Summary: THE GRANTEE CLAIMED $95,620 FEDERAL SHARE OF INELIGIBLE A/E COSTS. THESE COSTS WERE QUESTIONED BECAUSE THEY WERE INCURRED AFTER THE APPROVED CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT COMPLETION DATE. IN ADDITION, $49,948 FEDERAL SHARE OF A/E COSTS WERE NOT SUPPORTED. - EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE: INTENSE DETAILED TECHNICAL REVIEW OF CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA REQUIRED. - DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: THE REGION ANTICIPATES RESOLUTION OF THIS AUDIT BY MAY 15, 1992. IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/92: [1] 58 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL ------- Assignment Control Number Title Final Report Issued Assignment Control Number Title Final Report Issued P2CWP9-05-007S-1400037 GARY SD IN 9/ 9/91 Summary: ALMOST $2.8 MILLION WASTED WHEN THE GRANTEE FAILED TO OPERATE AND MAINTAIN A WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT. - EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE: THE LOCAL DIG WILL NOT CONCUR WITH THE REGION'S MANAGEMENT DECISION UNTIL ACTIONS REQUIRED UNDER A CONSENT DECREE ARE COMPLETE. - DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: THE GRANTEE HAS UNTIL 1994 TO COMPLY WITH THE CONSENT DECREE. IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/92: [3] P2CWP8-05-0026-1400038 GARY SD IN 9/9/91 Summary: ALMOST $25 MILLION WASTED WHEN THE GRANTEE FAILED TO OPERATE AND MAINTAIN A WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT. - EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE: THE LOCAL DIG WILL NOT CONCUR WITH THE REGION'S MANAGEMENT DECISION UNTIL ACTIONS REQUIRED UNDER A CONSENT DECREE ARE COMPLETE. - DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: THE GRANTEE HAS UNTIL 1994 TO COMPLY WITH THE CONSENT DECREE. IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/92: [3] P2CWP9-05-0070-1400047 INDIANAPOLIS IN 9/24/91 Summary: GRANTEE CLAIMS OVER $6.7 MILLION OF QUESTIONED COSTS. WE QUESTIONED $3,177,937 OF INELIGIBLE CONSTRUCTION COSTS, AND $2,072,454 OF UNSUPPORTED FORCE ACCOUNT & ENGINEERING COSTS. - EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE: THE GRANTEE HAS FORWARDED EIGHT VOLUMES OF DOCUMENTATION REGARDING UNSUPPORTED COSTS. THESE RECORDS WERE NOT MADE AVAILABLE FOR THE AUDITOR TO EXAMINE DURING THE ON-SITE VISIT DUE TO VOLUME AND COMPLEXITY OF THE DOCUMENTATION, REGION 5 HAS HAD TO REVIEW THESE RECORDS. - DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: THE FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER SHOULD BE ISSUED BY JUNE 30, 1992. IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/92: [1] P2CWN4-05-0183-5100159 EUCLID OH 7/12/85 Summary: WE QUESTIONED THE ENTIRE GRANT AWARD OF ALMOST $14.3 MILLION THE GRANTEE FAILED TO MEET GRANT CONDITION NO. 3 AND OPERATE THE PLANT SUFFICIENTLY TO MEET IT NPDES PERMIT. - EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE: RESOLUTION OF QUESTIONED COSTS DEPENDS UPON GRANTEE'S SATISFACTORY COMPLETION OF ACTIONS IMPOSED BY CONSENT DECREE. - DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: CONSENT DECREE ALLOWS GRANTEE UNTIL 1996 TO COMPLETE CORRECTIVE ACTIONS. IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/92: [3] P3DWL1-05-0360-51005S9 PRC ENG CT FY 80/81 IL 9/25/85 •Summary: WE RECOMMENDED OVERHEAD RATES OF 145.36 PERCENT AND 131 73 PERCENT FOR FISCAL YEARS 1981 AND 1980, RESPECTIVELY. - EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE: PRELIMINARY DETERMINATION HAS BEEN ISSUED. THE REGION IS AWAITING LEGAL ADVICE FROM REGIONAL COUNSEL. THE REGION IS ALSO AWAITING ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FROM PRC. - DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: TARGETED FINAL DETERMINATION DATE IS JUNE 29, 1992. IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/92: [2] P2CWN4-05-0357-6100389 DETROIT WSD Ml Summary: THE CITY OF DETROIT, Ml CLAIMED OVER $169,000 OF UNREASONABLE ENGINEERING COSTS. 8/25/86 - EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE: THE DIG NOTIFIED THE REGION ON JANUARY 15, 1992 THAT ITS MANAGEMENT DECISION IS INCOMPLETE. THE HEADQUARTERS DIG HAS INITIATED DISCUSSIONS WITH THE OFFICE OF WATER TO CLARIFY SOME OF THE ISSUES. - DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: NO ACCURATE RESOLUTION DATE CAN BE ESTIMATED AT THIS TIME. IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/92: [2] P2GWN4-05-0264-6100390 DETROIT WSD Ml 8/25/86 Summary: WE QUESTIONED INELIGIBLE FORCE ACCOUNT COSTS OF $20,872 INCURRED PRIOR TO THE GRANT AWARD. IN ADDITION, UNSUPPORTED FORCE ACCOUNT COSTS OF $36,370 INCURRED AFTER THE APPROVED CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION DATE WERE QUESTIONED. - EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE: THE OIG NOTIFIED THE REGION ON JANUARY 15, 1992 THAT ITS MANAGEMENT DECISION IS INCOMPLETE. THE HEADQUARTERS OIG HAS INITIATED DISCUSSIONS WITH THE OFFICE OF WATER TO CLARIFY SOME OF THE ISSUES. - DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: NO ACCURATE RESOLUTION DATE CAN BE ESTIMATED AT THIS TIME. IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/92: [2] P2CWN4-05-0263-6100391 DETROIT WSD Ml 8/25/86 Summary: THE GRANTEE CLAIMED UNREASONABLE FORCE ACCOUNT COSTS OF $286,000. THE GRANTEE ALSO CLAIMED INELIGIBLE COSTS OF $15,000. - EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE: THE OIG NOTIFIED THE REGION ON JANUARY 15, 1992 THAT ITS MANAGEMENT DECISION IS INCOMPLETE. THE HEADQUARTERS OIG HAS INITIATED DISCUSSIONS WITH THE OFFICE OF WATER TO CLARIFY SOME OF THE ISSUES. - DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION. NO ACCURATE RESOLUTION DATE CAN BE ESTIMATED AT THIS TIME. IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/92: [2] P2CWN4-05-0280-6100574 DETROIT WSD Ml 9/30/86 Summary: WE QUESTIONED INELIGIBLE COST OF $293,000 MOSTLY FOR CHANGE ORDERS. WE ALSO QUESTIONED UNNECESSARY COST OF $399,000 FOR FORCE ACCOUNT AND GRANTEE DELAYS. CHANGE ORDER COSTS OF $148,00 WERE UNSUPPORTED. - EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE: THE OIG NOTIFIED THE REGION ON JANUARY 15, 1992 THAT ITS MANAGEMENT DECISION IS INCOMPLETE. THE HEADQUARTERS OIG HAS INITIATED DISCUSSIONS WITH THE OFFICE OF WATER TO CLARIFY SOME OF THE ISSUES. - DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: NO ACCURATE RESOLUTION DATE CAN BE ESTIMATED AT THIS TIME IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/92: [2] P2CWN4-05-0265-6100575 DETROIT WSD Wl 9/30/86 Summary: THE GRANTEE CLAIMED INELIGIBLE AND UNSUPPORTED CONSTRUCTION COSTS OF $559,000. THE GRANTEE ALSO CLAIMED UNREASONABLE ENGINEERING COSTS OF $374,000. - EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE: THE OIG NOTIFIED THE REGION ON JANUARY 15, 1992 THAT ITS MANAGEMENT DECISION IS INCOMPLETE. THE HEADQUARTERS OIG HAS INITIATED DISCUSSIONS WITH THE OFFICE OF WATER TO CLARIFY SOME OF THE ISSUES. - DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: NO ACCURATE RESOLUTION DATE CAN BE ESTIMATED AT THIS TIME. IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/92: [2J OCTOBER 1,1991 THROUGH MARCH 31 1992 59 ------- Assignment Control Number Title Rnal Report Issued Assignment Control Number Title Final Report Issued P2CWN5-05-0242-7000034 DETROIT WSD Ml 10/6/86 Summary: WE QUESTIONED INELIGIBLE CONSTRUCTION AND ENGINEERING COSTS OF $20,006. IN ADDITION, WE QUESTIONED UNSUPPORTED ENGINEERING COSTS OF $40,495 INCURRED AFTER THE APPROVED CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION DATE. - EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE: THEOIG NOTIFIED THE REGION ON JANUARY 15, 1992 THAT ITS MANAGEMENT DECISION IS INCOMPLETE. THE HEADQUARTERS OIG HAS INITIATED DISCUSSIONS WITH THE OFFICE OF WATER TO CLARIFY SOME OF THE ISSUES. • DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: NO ACCURATE RESOLUTION DATE CAN BE ESTIMATED AT THIS TIME. IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/92: J2] P2CWN5-05-0246-7000044 DETROIT WSD Ml 10/7/86 Summary: THE GRANTEE CLAIMED UNREASONABLE FORCE ACCOUNT COSTS OF $336,000. - EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE: THE OIG NOTIFIED THE REGION ON JANUARY 15, 1992 THAT ITS MANAGEMENT DECISION IS INCOMPLETE. THE HEADQUARTERS OIG HAS INITIATED DISCUSSIONS WITH THE OFFICE OF WATER TO CLARIFY SOME OF THE ISSUES. - DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: NO ACCURATE RESOLUTION DATE CAN BE ESTIMATED AT THIS TIME. IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/92: [2] P2GWN5-05-0275-7000045 DETROIT WSD Ml 10/7/86 Summary: WE QUESTIONED $80,000 OF INELIGIBLE ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION COSTS. ENGINEERING COSTS OF $112,000 INCURRED AFTER THE APPROVED CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION DATE WERE NOT SUPPORTED. - EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE: THE OIG NOTIFIED THE REGION ON JANUARY 15, 1992 THAT ITS MANAGEMENT DECISION IS INCOMPLETE. THE HEADQUARTERS OIG HAS INITIATED DISCUSSIONS WITH THE OFFICE OF WATER TO CLARIFY SOME OF THE ISSUES. * DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: NO ACCURATE RESOLUTION DATE CAN BE ESTIMATED AT THIS TIME. IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/92: [2] P2CWN5-05-0247-7000049 DETROIT WSD Ml 10/8/86 Summary: WE QUESTIONED UNREASONABLE TECHNICAL SERVICES AND CONSTRUCTION COSTS OF $559,000. - EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE: THE OIG NOTIFIED THE REGION ON JANUARY 15, 1992 THAT ITS MANAGEMENT DECISION IS INCOMPLETE. THE HEADQUARTERS OIG HAS INITIATED DISCUSSIONS WITH THE OFFICE OF WATER TO CLARIFY SOME OF THE ISSUES. - DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: NO ACCURATE RESOLUTION DATE CAN BE ESTIMATED AT THIS TIME. IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/92: [2] P2CWN5-05-0276-7000050 DETROIT WSD Ml 10/8/86 Summary. WE QUESTIONED $59,000 OF INELIGIBLE ENGINEERING COSTS. ENGINEERING COSTS OF $433,600 INCURRED AFTER THE APPROVED CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION DATE WERE NOT SUPPORTED. - EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE: THE OIG NOTIFIED THE REGION ON JANUARY 15, 1992 THAT ITS MANAGEMENT DECISION IS INCOMPLETE. THE HEADQUARTERS OIG HAS INITIATED DISCUSSIONS WITH THE OFFICE OF WATER TO CLARIFY SOME OF THE ISSUES. - DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION. NO ACCURATE RESOLUTION DATE CAN BE ESTIMATED AT THIS TIME. IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/92: [2] E2BWL5-05-0136-7000980 SAUGET IL 3/31/87 Summary: SAUGET, IL WAS AWARDED FEDERAL FUNDS IN EXCESS OF $7 MILLION FOR INELIGIBLE AND UNNECESSARY PROJECT COSTS. - EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE: AUDIT REPORT HAS COMPLEX ISSUES WITH TOTAL QUESTIONED AND UNSUPPORTED COSTS OF $15,323,316. THE REGION IS SEEKING GUIDANCE FROM REGIONAL COUNSEL AND WATER DIVISION. A DEVIATION REQUEST IS PENDING IN EPA HEADQUARTERS. - DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: A desired timetable was not provided by EPA. IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/92: [2] P2GWN5-05-0132-8000464 DETROIT WSD Ml 1/20/88 Summary: DETROIT CLAIMED INELIGIBLE COSTS OF ALMOST $2.6 MILLION RESULTING FROM ITS FAILURE TO HONOR A CONTRACT. WE ALSO QUESTIONED UNSUPPORTED COSTS OF ALMOST $2.1 MILLION. - EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE: THE OIG NOTIFIED THE REGION ON JANUARY 15, 1992 THAT ITS MANAGEMENT DECISION IS INCOMPLETE. THE HEADQUARTERS OIG HAS INITIATED DISCUSSIONS WITH THE OFFICE OF WATER TO CLARIFY SOME OF THE ISSUES. - DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: NO ACCURATE RESOLUTION DATE CAN BE ESTIMATED AT THIS TIME IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/92: [2] P2CWN7-05-0237-8100724 DETROIT WSD Ml Summary: DETROIT, Ml CLAIMED OVER $274,000 OF INELIGIBLE CONSTRUCTION COSTS. WE ALSO QUESTIONED UNSUPPORTED ENGINEERING AND FORCE ACCOUNT COSTS OF $662,000. 8/29/88 - EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE: THE OIG NOTIFIED THE REGION ON JANUARY 15, 1992 THAT ITS MANAGEMENT DECISION IS INCOMPLETE. THE HEADQUARTERS OIG HAS INITIATED DISCUSSIONS WITH THE OFFICE OF WATER TO CLARIFY SOME OF THE ISSUES. - DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: NO ACCURATE RESOLUTION DATE CAN BE ESTIMATED AT THIS TIME. IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/92: [2] P2GWN5^>5-0169-8100774 DETROIT WSD Ml 9| 1/88 Summary: WE QUESTIONED INELIGIBLE CONSTRUCTION AND ENGINEERING COSTS OF $96,520. ENGINEERING COSTS OF $992,430 INCURRED AFTER THE APPROVED CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION DATE WERE NOT SUPPORTED. - EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE: THE OIG NOTIFIED THE REGION ON JANUARY 15, 1992 THAT ITS MANAGEMENT DECISION IS INCOMPLETE. THE HEADQUARTERS OIG HAS INITIATED DISCUSSIONS WITH THE OFFICE OF WATER TO CLARIFY SOME OF THE ISSUES. - DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: NO ACCURATE RESOLUTION DATE CAN BE ESTIMATED AT THIS TIME. IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/92: [2] REGION 3, REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR P2CWM9-03-0238-1200037 GARRETT COUNTY SANI DIST MD 9/30/91 Summary: GRANTEE CLAIMED $165,060 OF INELIGIBLE FEDERAL SHARE COSTS. - EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE: DISCUSSIONS WITH THE PROGRAM STAFF WERE NECESSARY TO CLARIFY RECOMMENDATIONS MADE IN RESPONSE TO THE AUDIT. - DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: THE FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER WAS SUBMITTED TO LOCAL OIG ON MARCH 27, 1992, AND APPROVED ON APRIL 9, 1992. IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/92: [3] (The proposed Final Determination Letter was received and found to be acceptable on 4f7/92. We expect the report will be closed during April 1992.) 60 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL ------- Assignment Control Number Title Final Report Issued Assignment Control Number Title Final Report Issued P2CWNO-03-0322-1300116 PHILADELPHIA CITY OF PA 9/26/91 Summary: THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA CLAIMED $9,552,760 OF INELIGIBLE FORCE ACCOUNT, ENGINEERING, CONSTRUCTION, INDIRECT AND FEDERAL FACILITY SHARE COSTS. - EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE: THIS WAS A MEGA-GRANT AUDIT INVOLVING 11 GRANTS. THE RECOMMENDATION FOR THE FINAL GRANT WILL NOT BE DEVELOPED UNTIL A COMPLEX ENGINEERING ISSUE IS REVIEWED BY THE OIG'S TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE UNIT. - DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: A desired timetable was not provided by EPA. IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/92: [1] REGION 4. REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR E2CWN7-04-0302-0300054 SYLACAUGA UTILITIES BD AL 5/10/90 Summary: THE GRANTEE TERMINATED THE ORIGINAL CONTRACTOR FOR CONVENIENCE AND DID NOT HOLD THE CONTRACTOR AND/OR THE BONDING COMPANY FOR CHANGED SITE CONDITIONS AND INCREASED COSTS OF $1.6 MILLION. - EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE: THIS AUDIT HAS BEEN REFERRED TO HEADQUARTERS FOR RESOLUTION. THE DIG ENGINEERS HAVE REVIEWED THE DOCUMENTATION AND STILL DISAGREE WITH THE MANAGEMENT DECISION. THE DIG WILL WORK WITH THE HEADQUARTERS OFFICE OF WATER AND THE GRANTS ADMINISTRATION DIVISION TO RESOLVE THIS AUDIT. - DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: A desired timetable was not provided by EPA. IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/92: [6] E2CWN1-04-0052-1300086 HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY FL 7/17/91 Summary: THE GRANTEE RECEIVED EPA FUNDS TO EXPAND THEIR WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT. WE DID NOT FIND JUSTIFICATION FOR THE EXPANSION. THEREFORE, WE QUESTIONED 84% OF THE EXPANSION COST THAT WAS UNNECESSARY, WHICH COMES TO $5,052,880 EPA SHARE. - EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE; SYSTEM FLOWS TO JUSTIFY EXPANDING THE TREATMENT PLANT ARE DEPENDENT UPON THE OUTCOME OF THE CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN FOR THE RUSKIN/WIMAUMA PROJECT (1400054/STOPPED DUE TO DEFECTIVE CONSTRUCTION) REGION IV i DIG CONCUR THAT A FINAL DETERMINATION IS PREMATURE. =• DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: A desired timetable was not provided by EPA. IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/92: [2] S2CWN8-04-0309-1300093 MEMPHIS TN 8/2/91 Summary: WE QUESTIONED $3,072,793 OF ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION COST BECAUSE IT REPRESENTED WORK OUTSIDE THE APPROVED GRANT SCOPE; COST OUTSIDE THE BUDGET PERIOD, EXTRA WORK DISAPPROVED BY THE STATE AND COST ABOVE THE LOW BID. AN ADDITIONAL $2,049,076 WAS UNSUPPORTED OR UNNECESSARY. - EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE: THIS AUDIT REQUIRED ADDITIONAL TIME DUE TO THE COMPLEXITY OF THE AUDIT AND STATE AUDITORS APPLYING NEW LAWS TO AN OLD GRANT. - DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: THIS FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER SHOULD BE ISSUED BY JUNE 30, 1992. IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/92: [1J E2AWP1-04-0110-1400054 HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY FL 9/26/91 Summary: WE QUESTIONED THE TOTAL COST CLAIMED OF $7,520,816 UNDER GRANT NO. 0120682-09 BECAUSE THE GRANTEE FAILED TO CONSTRUCT AN OPERABLE SYSTEM. WE RECOMMENDED ANNULMENT OF THE GRANT. - EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE: THE RUSKIN/WIMAUMA PROJECT CONSTRUCTION HAS STOPPED DUE TO DEFECTIVE CONSTRUCTION. EPA HAS ALLOWED ADDITIONAL PROJECT TIME FOR GRANTEE TO PRESENT AN ACCEPTABLE CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN WITH FIRM TIMETABLES FOR COMPLETION & ACCOMPLISH RETROACTIVE COMPLIANCE WITH UNIFORM RELOCATION ACT REQUIREMENTS. - DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: A desired timetable was not provided by EPA. IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/92: [2] REGION 5. REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR E2AWTO-05-0223-0400020 SELLERSBURG EWS IN 6/14/90 •Summary: REGION 5 AWARDED A $5.5 MILLION STEP 2+3 GRANT TO SELLERSBURQJN FOR A PROJECT WHICH DID NOT MEET THE ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR A STEP 2+3 GRANT. - EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE: THIS MATTER WAS REFERRED TO THE GENERAL COUNSEL FOR A LEGAL OPINION ON JANUARY 27, 1992. - DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: A desired timetable was not provided by EPA. IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/92: [6] E2AWTO-05-0224-0400045 W TERRE HAUTE EWS IN 9/28/90 •Summary: REGION 5 AWARDED A STEP 2+3 GRANT OF $5,275,325 TO WEST TERRE HAUTE, IN FOR A PROJECT WHICH DID NOT MEET THE ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR A STEP 2+3 GRANT. - EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE: THIS MATTER WAS REFERRED TO THE GENERAL COUNSEL FOR A LEGAL OPINION ON FEBRUARY 5, 1992. - DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: A desired timetable was not provided by EPA. IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/92: [6] E2AWT1-05-0134-1400007 S HENRY RSD EWS IN 2/25/91 Summary: REGION 5 AWARDED A STEP 2+3 GRANT OF $4,461,050 TO SOUTH HENRY REGIONAL WASTE DISTRICT, IN FOR A PROJECT WHICH DID NOT MEET THE ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR A STEP 2+3 GRANT. - EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE: THIS AUDIT IS BEING DELAYED FOR THE SAME REASON AS THE SELLERSBURG AND WEST TERRE HAUTE. THE REGION ON MARCH 25, 1992, THAT RESOLUTION OF THIS AUDIT WOULD BE DEPENDENT ON THE OUTCOME OF THOSE OTHER AUDITS. - DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: A desired timetable was not provided by EPA. IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/92: [6] E2AWT1-05-0116-1400048 ENGLISH EWS IN 9/25/91 Summary: THE GRANTEE HAS BEGUN A SIGNIFICANT REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT WHICH RAISES QUESTIONS ABOUT THE CONCLUSIONS OF THE FACILITIES PUNNING PROCESS. AS A RESULT THE GRANT AWARD WAS PREMATURE AND THE PRELIMINARY PLANNING NEEDS TO BE RE-EVALUATED - EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE: THIS MATTER WAS REFERRED TO THE GENERAL COUNSEL FOR A LEGAL OPINION ON FEBRUARY 5, 1992. - DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: A desired timetable was not provided by EPA. IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/92: [6] OCTOBER 1,1991 THROUGH MARCH 31.1992 61 ------- Assignment Control Number Title Final Report Issued Assignment Control Title Number Final Report Issued E2AWT1-05-0391-1400063 LOOGOTEE EWS IN 9/30/91 Summary: APPROPRIATE ADVANCED TREATMENT (AT) FUNDING REVIEW POLICIES & PROCEDURES WERE NOT FOLLOWED FOR THIS PROJECT. IN ADDITION, AT PROBABLY WAS NOT NECESSARY. ACCORDINGLY, WE QUESTIONED $650,000 INCREMENTAL AT COSTS AWARDED. • EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE: An explanation was not provided by EPA. - DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: THE MANAGEMENT DECISION WAS FORWARDED TO THE LOCAL DIG ON MARCH 20, 1992. THE DIG IS STILL REVIEWING THE RECOMMENDATIONS. IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/92: [4] (Proposed Management Decision received on April 10, 1992.) REGION 1, REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR S2CW*8-01-0365-1100280 LOWELL MA 7/1/91 Summary: THE GRANTEE CLAIMED UNALLOWABLE COSTS OF $617,441 COMPRISED OF $17,999 OF INELIGIBLE COSTS AND $599,442 OF UNSUPPORTED COSTS FOR THE DESIGN OF AN INTERCEPTOR SEWER. - EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE: An explanation was not provided by EPA. - DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: THE FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER WAS ISSUED ON MARCH 12, 1992. IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/92: [5] (This report was closed on 4/2/92) S2CWLO-01-0108-1100281 LOWELL MA 7/1/91 Summary: THE GRANTEE CLAIMED UNALLOWABLE COSTS OF $295,160 COMPRISED OF $94,991 OF INELIGIBLE COSTS AND $200,169 OF UNSUPPORTED COSTS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN INTERCEPTOR SEWER, DIVERSION CHAMBERS AND SIPHONS. - EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE: An explanation was not provided by EPA. - DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: THE FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER WAS ISSUED ON MARCH 12, 1992. IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/92: [5] (This report was closed on 4/2/92.) REGION 2. REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR P5BGLO-02-0196-1100423 NYS LOVE CANAL REMEDIAL PROJNY 9/27/91 Summary: THE RECIPIENT CLAIMED $953,392 OF UNALLOWABLE COSTS ($1,390 OF INELIGIBLE COSTS AND $952,002 OF UNSUPPORTED COSTS) FOR THE LOVE CANAL REMEDIAL PROJECT. - EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE: NEW YORK STATE RECENTLY ADVISED THAT IT HAS NOW ACQUIRED THE COMPUTER CAPABILITY NEEDED TO EXTRACT AND CONSOLIDATE THE SEVEN YEARS OF EXPENSE INFORMATION FOR THIS PROJECT. THE STATE ESTIMATES THAT DETAILED SCHEDULES WILL BE COMPLETE BY JULY 31, 1992. - DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: THE REGION EXPECTS RESOLUTION BY SEPTEMBER 30, 1992. IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/92: [1] P2CWL9-02-0036-1100425 CAMDEN COUNTY NJ 9/27/91 Summary: THE GRANTEE CLAIMED $14,178,770 OF WHICH WE QUESTIONED $365,685 AS INELIGIBLE, $164,420 AS UNSUPPORTED AND $73,949 AS UNREASONABLE. - EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE: TO RESOLVE THIS COMPLEX AUDIT REQUIRED FURTHER ADDITIONAL CLARIFICATION AND DOCUMENTATION FROM THE GRANTEE. - DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION THE FINAL RESOLUTION IS CURRENTLY IN DRAFT AND IS EXPECTED TO BE FINALIZED DURING THE THIRD QUARTER OF FY 1992. IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/92: [1] E1HWG1-02-6000-1400041 NPDES FOLLOWUP NY 9/12/91 Summary: REGION 2'S CORRECTIVE ACTIONS ON NY AND NJ'S NPDES ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM WERE NOT EFFECTIVE. THE REGION NEEDED TO IMPROVE ITS MONITORING SYSTEM FOR TRACKING AND RESOLVING CORRECTIVE ACTIONS. - EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE: An explanation was not provided by EPA. - DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: THE MANAGEMENT DECISION FOR THIS AUDIT WAS SUBMITTED TO THE LOCAL OIG ON MARCH 30, 1992. IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/92: [4] REGION 9. REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR S5BG*8-09-0202-0300037 CA DEPT OF HEALTH CA 3/30/90 Summary: COSTS OF $2,419,415 QUESTIONED AS INELIGIBLE AND $1,639,629 AS UNREASONABLE INELIGIBLES RELATED TO FORCE ACCOUNT AND CONTRACT COSTS UNREASONABLE RELATED TO CONTRACT COSTS. GRANTEE'S FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM DETERMINED INADEQUATE. MOST INELIGIBLE COST RESULT OF THIS. - EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE: A DRAFT MANAGEMENT DECISION WAS REVIEWED BY THE OIG. THE IG DEFERRED APPROVAL OF SEVERAL RECOMMENDATIONS PENDING THE COMPLETION OF ACTIONS THAT ARE UNDERWAY. THE REGION IS WORKING WITH THE LOCAL OIG TO RESOLVE THE REMAINING ISSUES. = DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: THE FINAL MANAGEMENT DECISION IS EXPECTED BY JUNE 1992. IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/92: [2] S2CW8-09-0117-0300077 SCOTTS VALLEY, CITY OF CA 8/ 7/90 Summary: INELIGIBLE COSTS OF $533,500 REPRESENT A/E FEES OF $123,960 INCURRED PRIOR TO APPROVAL $389,804 IN EXCESS OF APPROVAL $1,445 AFTER COMPLETION $28,561 OF INELIGIBLE COSTS, ($10,275) ADDITIONAL CONSTRUCTION AND $44,975 OF UNREASONABLE IN EXCESS OF GRANT AMOUNT. - EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE: An explanation was not provided by EPA. = DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: THE REGION ISSUED A SUPPLEMENTAL FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER ON JANUARY 30, 1992. THE LOCAL OIG HAD NO RECORD OF THIS LETTER. AN ADDITIONAL COPY WAS SENT TOO LATE TO BE INCORPORATED INTO THE IG'S TRACKING SYSTEM (tor semiannual reporting). IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/92: [2] (This report was closed on 4/13/92) E2CW8-09-0024-0300090 HONOLULU CITY & COUNTY OF HI 9/19/90 Summary: INELIGIBLE COST QUESTIONED OF $279,208 CONSISTED OF $247,009 OF UNALLOWABLE FORCE ACCOUNT/ADMIN. COSTS AND $31,649 FOR INELIGIBLE CONSTRUCTION COST. $3,786,208 OF UNREASONABLE COSTS RELATED TO INCOMPLETE STEP 1 GRANT AND UNDERUTILIZED FACILITY - EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE: THE REGION SENT A DRAFT FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER TO THE LOCAL OIG. THE OIG DID NOT AGREE, AND FURTHER MEETINGS ARE SCHEDULED TO DISCUSS ISSUES. =• DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: THE OUTSTANDING ISSUES ARE EXPECTED TO BE RESOLVED BY SEPTEMBER 30, 1992. IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/92: [2] 62 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL ------- Assignment Control Number Title Final Report Issued Assignment Control Number Tftte Final Report Issued E2CWN9-09-0033-0300091 HONOLULU, CITY & COUNTY OF HI 9/19/90 Summary: INELIGIBLE COST QUESTIONED OF $1,106,980 CONSISTS OF $446,176 OF UNDOCUMENTED ADMINISTRATION COST AND $660,744 FOR CONSTRUCTION COSTS RELATED TO PERMITS. UNREASONABLE COSTS OF $5,298,871 RELATED TO UNDERUTILIZED FACILITIES. - EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE: THE REGION SENT A DRAFT FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER TO THE LOCAL DIG. THE DIG DID NOT AGREE, AND FURTHER MEETINGS ARE SCHEDULED TO DISCUSS ISSUES. - DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: THE OUTSTANDING ISSUES ARE EXPECTED TO BE RESOLVED BY SEPTEMBER 30, 1992. 1G FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/92: [2] E2CW8-09-0037-0300092 HONOLULU, CITY & COUNTY OF HI 9/19/90 Summary: INELIGIBLE COSTS QUESTIONED OF $16,269,686 CONSISTED OF $552,471 OF UNALLOWABLE ADMIN/FORCE ACCOUNT COSTS, $734,663 FOR UNALLOWABLE A/E FEE $14,982,872 FOR INELIGIBLE CONSTRUCTION COSTS; ADDITIONALLY $2,493,500 FOR UNNECESSARY COSTS FOR EQUIPMENT NOT IN USE BY GRANTEE. - EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE: THE REGION SENT A DRAFT FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER TO THE LOCAL OIG THE OIG DID NOT AGREE, AND FURTHER MEETINGS ARE SCHEDULED TO DISCUSS ISSUES. - DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION. THE OUTSTANDING ISSUES ARE EXPECTED TO BE RESOLVED BY SEPTEMBER 30, 1992. IG FpLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/92: |1] (No formal response has been received on this audit.) S5BKN9-09-0267-0300098 SOUTH BAY MULTI-SITE CA 9/28/90 Summary: COSTS OF $2,903,899 WERE QUESTIONED AS UNSUPPORTED BY ADEQUATE SOURCE DOCUMENTATION. - EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE: A DRAFT MANAGEMENT DECISION WAS REVIEWED BY THE OIG. THE IG DEFERRED APPROVAL OF SEVERAL RECOMMENDATIONS PENDING THE COMPLETION OF ACTIONS THAT ARE UNDERWAY. THE REGION IS WORKING WITH THE LOCAL OIG TO RESOLVE THE REMAINING ISSUES. - DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: THE FINAL MANAGEMENT DECISION IS EXPECTED BY JUNE 1992. IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/92: [2] P2BWLO-09-0175-1100436 CLARK COUNTY SD NV 9/30/91 Summary. THE CLARK COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT, NEVADA (THE GRANTEE) CLAIMED INELIGIBLE COSTS OF $6,851,921, UNSUPPORTED COSTS OF $688,395 AND MORE SIGNIFICANTLY, CLAIMS FOR $25,390,310 WERE QUESTIONED AS UNNECESSARY/UNREASONABLE. - EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE: THE AUDIT RESOLUTION HAS BEEN DELAYED TO ALLOW THE REGION SUFFICIENT TIME TO ENSURE THE COMPLETENESS OF ITS MANAGEMENT DECISION. THE REGION'S WATER DIVISION IS WORKING TO RESOLVE SEVERAL OUTSTANDING ISSUES WITH A SINGLE MANAGEMENT DECISION. THESE ISSUES INCLUDE FINDINGS OF THIS AUDIT, AN EARLIER APPEAL ON THIS GRANT AND THE GRANT'S FINAL PAYMENT REQUEST. THE REGION IS TRYING TO BE COMPLETE SO THE OIG IS NOT OBLIGATED TO REVIEW THIS GRANT AGAIN. - DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: EXPECTS TO RESOLVE THIS AUDIT BY SEPTEMBER 30, 1992. IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/92: [1] IT E2CW7-09-0192-1300053 SUN VALLEY WATER & SAN DIST NV 3/28/91 Summary: INELIGIBLE COST QUESTIONED OF $6,221,120 CONSISTS OF 1152 FOR NOT MEETING 2/3 RULE; $995,653 FOR UNALLOWABLE A/E; $116,120 FOR UNALLOWABLE ADMINISTRATION AND $4,300 OF I/E CD'S ALSO $2,437,748 QUESTIONED FOR UNDERUTILIZATION OF FACILITIES. • EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE: A DRAFT MANAGEMENT DECISION WAS REVIEWED BY THE OIG. THE IG DEFERRED APPROVAL OF SEVERAL RECOMMENDATIONS PENDING THE COMPLETION OF ACTIONS THAT ARE UNDERWAY. THE REGION IS WORKING WITH THE LOCAL OIG TO RESOLVE THE REMAINING ISSUES. - DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: THE FINAL MANAGEMENT DECISION IS EXPECTED BY JUNE 1992. IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/92: [1] (No formal response has been received on this audit.) S2CW*8-09-0157-1300112 LOS ANGELES, CITY OF CA 9/25/91 Summary: INELIGIBLE COSTS OF $723,627 INCLUDED: $650,255 OF UNALLOWABLE FORCE ACCOUNT COSTS; AND $73,372 FOR UNALLOWABLE ENGINEERING COSTS. UNREASONABLE COSTS INCLUDE $879,630 OF UNDOCUMENTED F/A AND $1,099,261 A/E COSTS INCURRED UNDER PROHIBITED CONTRACT METHOD. - EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE: THIS AUDIT IS RELATED TO TWO OTHERS ON THIS GRANTEE. THE STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD (SWRCB) INSPECTED THE LA TREATMENT PLANTS AND ISSUED AN INTERNAL REPORT THAT WILL BE USED FOR THE FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER. THE LETTER WAS DELAYED BY THE STATE'S REVIEW PROCESS. - DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: THE REGION EXPECTS TO ISSUE THE FINAL DRAFT DETERMINATION LETTER TO THE LOCAL OIG BY APRIL 30, 1992. IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/92: [1] S2CWN9-09-0039-1300117 LOS ANGELES, CITY OF CA 9/30/91 Summary: INELIGIBLE COSTS INCLUDED $4,004,695 FOR COST INCURRED PRIOR TO APPROVAL $3,659,407 IN EXCESS OF APPROVAL ADDITIONAL AE QUESTIONED $3,999,353 RELATED TO REPLACEMENT OF BAS ENGINES WITH ELECTRIC MOTORS & $5,275,186 FOR INADEQUATELY DOCUMENTED FORCE ACCOUNT COSTS. - EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE: THIS AUDIT IS RELATED TO TWO OTHERS ON THIS GRANTEE THE STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD (SWRCB) INSPECTED THE LA TREATMENT PLANTS AND ISSUED AN INTERNAL REPORT THAT WILL BE USED FOR THE FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER. THE LETTER WAS DELAYED BY THE STATE'S REVIEW PROCESS. - DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: THE REGION EXPECTS TO ISSUE THE FINAL DRAFT DETERMINATION LETTER TO THE LOCAL OIG BY APRIL 30, 1992. IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/92: [1] S2CWN9-09-0032-1300118 MONTEREY REG WATER POLL CON CA 9/30/91 Summary: COSTS QUESTIONED INCLUDED $420,412 FOR UNALLOWABLE ADMIN AND F/A COSTS; $2,996,703 FOR UNALLOWABLE ENGINEERING $3,605,896 FOR INELIGIBLE CONSTRUCTION AND $467,996 OF INELIGIBLE OTHER ALSO QUESTIONED $51,118,958 PENDING AN ELIGIBILITY DETERMINATION. - EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE: THE SWRCB IS WORKING ON THE DRAFT FDL WMD IS ATTEMPTING TO RESOLVE ALL ISSUES NOT RELATED TO THE CAPACITY ISSUE IN AUDIT #1400006 OF MONTEREY. WMD EXPECTS THIS AUDIT TO BE OVERDUE UNTIL THE CAPACITY ISSUE ON THE OTHER MONTEREY AND MARINA AUDITS IS RESOLVED. - DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: A desired timetable was not provided by EPA. IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/92: [1] OCTOBER 1,1991 THROUGH MARCH 31 1992 63 ------- Assignment Control Number Tttte Final Report Issued Assignment Control Number Title Final Report Issued S2CW8-09-0156-1300119 LOS ANGELES, CITY OF CA 9/30/91 Summary: INELIGIBLE COSTS OF $2,483,872 INCLUDED $2,039,554 OF CONSTRUCTION AND FORCE ACCOUNT COST OUTSIDE SCOPE OF APPROVED PROJECT; $444,318 OF F/A ALLOCABLE TO I/E CONSTRUCTION; UNREASONABLE COSTS OF $68,150,598 RELATED TO EXCESSIVE LANDSCAPING, F/A AND UNUSED FACILITIES. - EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE: THIS AUDIT IS RELATED TO TWO OTHERS ON THIS GRANTEE. THE STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD (SWRCB) INSPECTED THE LA TREATMENT PLANTS AND ISSUED AN INTERNAL REPORT THAT WILL BE USED FOR THE FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER. THE LETTER WAS DELAYED BY THE STATE'S REVIEW PROCESS. * DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: THE REGION EXPECTS TO ISSUE THE FINAL DRAFT DETERMINATION LETTER TO THE LOCAL DIG BY APRIL 30, 1992. IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/92: [1) S2CWN9-09-017M300120 TRACY, CITY OF CA 9/30/91 Summary: I/E COSTS INCLUDED: $11,438 FOR A/E COSTS; $655,329 OF INTEREST EARNED; $2,916,214 FOR LITIGATION SETTLEMENT; UNREASONABLE COST OF $5,516,623 WERE RELATED TO FIX UP OF FAILED FACILITIES. - EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE: THE LOCAL DIG OBJECTED TO ALLOWING COSTS RELATED TO ADDITIONS AND A SETTLEMENT IN THE DRAFT FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER. • DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: THE REGION PLANS TO MEET WITH THE LOCAL DIG TO RESOLVE THESE ISSUES BY SEPTEMBER 30, 1992. IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/92: [1] (No formal response has been received on this audit.) E2AWP9-09-0189-1400006 EARLY WARNING - MONTEREY CA 2/11/91 Summary: REGION 9 AWARDED $8.1 MILLION GRANT AMENDMENT WHICH DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT OR THE EPA REGULATIONS. IN ADDITION THE U.S. ARMY OVERPAID $6.2 MILLION FOR ITS SHARE OF THE CONSTRUCTION PROJECT. - EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE: THIS AUDIT IS LINKED TO THE MARINA EARLY WARNING AUDIT (9400043). THE REGION HAS BEEN WORKING TO RESOLVE BOTH AUDITS WITH THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, THE DIG AND THE STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD. THE REGION IS TRYING TO SCHEDULE A MEETING WITH MONTEREY. - DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: THE REGION EXPECTS TO RESOLVE THESE AUDITS BY SEPTEMBER 30, 1992. IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/92: [1] E1KAG1-09-6094-1400049 FOLLOW UP REVIEW REG. IX CA 9/25/91 'Summary: - EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE: ON DECEMBER 24, 1991, THE REGION REQUESTED A REVIEW OF ITS DRAFT FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER. ON JANUARY 7, 1992, THE DIG ACCEPTED ABOUT HALF OF THE DECISIONS. GRANTEE LETTERS WERE REVIEWED AND FOUND INCOMPLETE ON MARCH 23, 1992. - DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: THE REGION SENT ITS FDL TO THE DIG ON APRIL 2, 1992. IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/92: [4] E2AWP9-09-0065-9400025 HOMELAND EARLY WARNING CA 3/31/89 Summary: SPECIAL REVIEW OF CONSTRUCTION GRANT OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT FOUND $3,737,139 IN FEDERAL SHARE COSTS QUESTIONED. AN EARLY WARNING LETTER ADVISED THAT COSTS FOR THE COLLECTION SYSTEM PORTION OF THE PROJECT DID NOT QUALIFY FOR FUNDING BECAUSE OF THE '2/3 RULE'. - EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE: RESOLUTION OF THIS AUDIT HAS BEEN REFERRED TO THE AUDIT RESOLUTION BOARD. WMD IS WORKING WITH ARB TO RESOLVE THE ISSUE WITHOUT AN ARB DECISION. - DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: WE EXPECT RESOLUTION BY SEPTEMBER 30, 1992. IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/92: [6] E2AWP9-090230-9400043 EARLY WARNING-MARINA CWD CA 9/26/89 Summary: SPECIAL REVIEW OF GRANT TO BUY CAPACITY RIGHTS FROM REGIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT RESULTED IN AN EARLY WARNING LETTER TO EPA MANAGEMENT THAT THE AWARD VIOLATED 40 CFR3S 2250 AND THAT TOTAL COSTS QUESTIONED OF $1,694,000 (F.S. $931,700) WOULD CAUSE 'WINDFALL'. - EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE: THIS AUDIT IS LINKED TO THE MONTEREY EARLY WARNING AUDIT (140006). THE REGION HAS BEEN WORKING WITH ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND THE DIG TO RESOLVE BOTH AUDITS. THE ISSUES AND LOGISTICS HAVE BEEN DIFFICULT. THE REGION'S WATER DIVISION IS CURRENTLY TRYING TO SCHEDULE A MEETING WITH MONTEREY OFFICIALS. - DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: THE REGION EXPECTS TO RESOLVE THESE AUDITS BY SEPTEMBER 30, 1992. IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/92: [5] REGION 6, REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR E2CWN8-06-0037-0300055 BARTLESVILLE OK 5/11/90 Summary: AUDIT OF CONSTRUCTION GRANTS C-400690-01,02,03,12,13 & 14 QUESTIONED COSTS OF $10,974,785 (FEDERAL SHARE $8,189,026). THE GRANTEE FAILED TO UPDATE FACILITY PLANS AND COST EFFECTIVE ANALYSIS EVEN THOUGH DESIGN INCREASED CONSTRUCTION COSTS FROM $3.1 M TO $9.8 M. - EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE: A DEVIATION REQUEST, WHICH WAS SUBMITTED ON MAY 31, 1991, WAS RECENTLY APPROVED. = DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: THE REGION IS PREPARING THE FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER AND EXPECTS TO ISSUE IT BY JUNE 1992. IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/92: [3] P5BFNO-06-0210-1300080 TX WATER COMMISSION TX 6/19/91 Summary: CHANGE ORDER COSTS TOTALING $3,298,679 WERE QUESTIONED BECAUSE THE RECIPIENT DID NOT CONDUCT A COST ANALYSIS OR ACQUIRE COSTS AND PRICING DATA AS REQUIRED BY EPA REGULATIONS. • EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE: THE TEXAS WATER COMMISSION (TWC) REQUESTED A TIME EXTENSION OF SEPTEMBER 23, 1991 TO RESPOND TO THIS AUDIT, WHICH EPA GRANTED. RESPONSE WAS RECEIVED ON SEPTEMBER 20, 1991 AND TWC DISAGREED WITH FINDINGS. THE REGION REQUESTED A DEVIATION FROM HEADQUARTERS ON FEBRUARY 25 1992. - DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: A desired timetable was not provided by EPA. IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/92: [1] 64 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL ------- Assignment Control Number THIe Rnal Report Issued Assignment Control Number Title Rnal Report Issued REGION 10. REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR P5CHN9-10-0151-0300095 OREGON DEO OR 9/27/90 'Summary: - EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE: THE PROJECT OFFICER WILL MEET WITH THE REGION'S GRANTS OFFICE DURING THE WEEK OF APRIL 20, 1992 FOR FINAL DECISIONS ON QUESTIONED COSTS. ALL COSTS SHOULD BE DISALLOWED PER FINAL AUDIT AND CONCURRENCE WITH THE STATE. - DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: THE FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER SHOULD BE SENT TO THE GRANTEE BY MAY 15, 1992. IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/92: [1] P5CG*8-10-0076-1100146 WASHINGTON DEPT OF ECOLOGY WA 3/20/91 Summary: COSTS QUESTIONED FOR IMPROPER PROCUREMENT, PERSONNEL SERVICES AND INDIRECT COSTS. - EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE: THE AUDIT REPORT HAS BEEN SENT TO THE GRANTEE AND THE PROJECT OFFICER FOR COMMENT. DUE TO LACK OF HUMAN RESOURCES, THIS PROCESS IS TAKING LONGER THAN PREVIOUSLY ANTICIPATED. - DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: THE FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER IS EXPECTED TO BE ISSUED BY THE END OF THE THIRD QUARTER FY 1992. IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/92: [1] PSCG*8-10-0084-1100156 ALASKA DEPT OF ENV CONSER AK 3/29/91 Summary: COSTS QUESTIONED AS INELIGIBLE FOR SUBCONTRACTOR SERVICES NOT PERFORMED, EXCESS PROFIT AND ENGINEERING SERVICES PERFORMED ON SITES OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT. - EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE: THE ACTION OFFICIAL IS WORKING ON THE FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER. - DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: IT SHOULD BE ISSUED BY APRIL 30, 1992. IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/92: [1] P2CW8-10-0057-1100419 RAYMOND, CITY OF WA 9/25/91 Summary: INELIGIBLE COSTS QUESTIONED FOR ADMIN AND ENGINEERING COSTS ALLOCABLE TO THE INELIGIBLE CONSTRUCTION, UNSUPPORTED COSTS QUESTIONED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE AND FORCE ACCOUNT SERVICES. UNNECESSARY/UNREASONABLE COSTS FOR COSTS TO CORRECT PROJECT DEFICIENCIES. - EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE: THE WATER DIVISION NEEDED ADDITIONAL TIME DUE TO THE COMPLEXITY OF THE ISSUES. - DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: THIS AUDIT RESOLUTION SHOULD BE COMPLETED BY MAY 15, 1992. IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/92: [1] P2CW8-10-0022-1100420 SITKA, CITY OF AK 9/25/91 Summary: COSTS QUESTIONED ARE FOR FEES IN EXCESS OF THE AMOUNT APPROVED BY THE STATE. - EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE: An explanation was not provided by EPA. - DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: THE REGION ISSUED A FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER WAS SENT TO THE LOCAL DIG ON FEBRUARY 25, 1992. IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/92: (4] (This report was closed on 4/21/92.) P2CW7-10-0046-1200039 BRISTOL BAY, BOROUGH AK 9/30/91 Summary: BRISTOL BAY BOROUGH, NAKNEK, ALASKA (THE GRANTEE) CLAIMED INELIGIBLE COSTS OF $1,145,973 AND UNSUPPORTED COSTS OF $6,699. ALSO, COSTS OF $148,200 WERE QUESTIONED AS UNNECESSARY/UNREASONABLE. - EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE: THE REGION DID NOT HAVE THE RESOURCES TO COMPLETE THIS AUDIT RESOLUTION DUE TO THE PRIORITY GIVEN THE RAYMOND AUDIT RESOLUTION. - DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: A desired timetable was not provided by EPA. IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/92: [1] P5CHN9-10-0155-1300047 WASHINGTON DEPT OF ECOLOGY WA 'Summary: 3/26/91 - EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE: THIS AUDIT HAS BEEN SENT TO THE PROJECT OFFICER AND THE GRANTEE. LACK OF HUMAN RESOURCES WILL NOT ALLOW FOR A TIMELY COMPLETION OF THIS AUDIT RESPONSE. - DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: THE FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER IS EXPECTED TO BE ISSUED BY MAY 31, 1992. IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/92: [1] P5CGNO-10-0011-1300066 WASHINGTON DEPT OF ECOLOGY WA 5/ 7/91 Summary: THE WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY DID NOT PROCURE ITS CONTRACTS IN A MANNER THAT ASSURED A REASONABLE PRICE OR THAT THE BEST OFFERORS ARE AWARDED CONTRACTS, WDOE NEEDS TO STRENGTHEN MGMT. CONTROLS. WDOE CLAIMED COSTS THAT WERE NOT ALLOCABLE TO THE COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT. • EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE: THIS AUDIT HAS BEEN SENT TO THE PROJECT OFFICER AND THE GRANTEE. LACK OF HUMAN RESOURCES WILL NOT ALLOW FOR A TIMELY COMPLETION OF THIS AUDIT RESOLUTION. - DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION' THE FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER IS EXPECTED TO BE ISSUED BY MAY 31, 1992. IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/92: [1J P2EWPO-10-0086-1400058 WASHINGTON ST REVOLVING FUND 'Summary: 9/27/91 - EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE: - DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: THE PROJECT OFFICER AND THE REGION'S GRANTS STAFF WILL DRAFT THE FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER THE WEEK OF APRIL 20, 1992. IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/92: [1] N3HVK1-10-0066-1500859 POCATELLO, CITY OF ID 7/ 9/91 •Summary: - EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE: An explanation was not provided by EPA. - DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: THE MANAGEMENT DECISION FOR THIS A-128 AUDIT WAS FEBRUARY 26, 1992. IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/92: [1] XTOBER1,1991 THROUGH MARCH 31.1992 65 ------- Assignment Control Number Title Final Report Issued Assignment Control Number Title Final Report Issued E3BG*6-10-0066-8100761 MOSES LAKE IRR & REHAB DIST WA 8/31/88 Summary: INTERIM AUDIT Of DEMONSTRATION GRANT TO RESTORE MOSES LAKEAND TO CONTROL NON-POINT POLLUTION SOURCES FOUND TOTAL COSTS QUESTIONED OF $2,439,103 (F.S. $1,205,039). GRANTEE USED STANDARD METHODOLOGY INSTEAD OF DEVELOPING NEW INNOVATIVE TECHNIQUES. - EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE: THE AUDIT REVIEW GROUP IS WORKING TO RESOLVE THE OUTSTANDING ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH THIS AUDIT. THE OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL HAS DEVELOPED A LEGAL STANDARD TO RESOLVE SEVERAL ISSUES. THE OFFICE OF WATER HAS BEEN ASKED TO PROVIDE DOCUMEENTATION TO SUPPORT A DECISION BASED ON THIS STANDARD. - DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: A desired timetable was not provided by EPA. IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/92: [6J PROCUREMENTS CONTRACT MANAGEMENT DIVISION Washington Cost Advisory Branch P9AHL1-02-0110-1100370 S&D ENGINEERING SERVICES NJ 9/6/91 'Summary: - EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE: An explanation was not provided by EPA. - DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: THIS IS A PREAWARD AUDIT. CONTRACT TO BE AWARDED BY 6/30/92. IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/92: [1] D8AML1-03-0264-1100296 COMPUTER DATA SYSTEMS INC MD 7/ 3/91 'Summary: DCAA RECOMMENDED EFFICIENCIES TOTALING $56,841. ALSO DCAA NOTED THE AUDITEE UNDERBID THE SUBCONTRACT BY $1,897,005. • EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE: An explanation was not provided by EPA. = DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: THIS IS A PREAWARD AUDIT. CONTRACT TO BE AWARDED BY MAY 31, 1992. IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/92: [1) D8AML1-03-0286-1100305 SYSTEMS RESEARCH & APPLICA VA 7/ 9/91 Summary: DCAA RECOMMENDED EFFICIENCIES TOTALING $640,907. THIS RELATES TO DIRECT LABOR COSTS AND APPLICABLE INDIRECT COSTS. - EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE: An explanation was not provided by EPA. - DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION' THIS IS A PREAWARD AUDIT. THE ANTICIPATED AWARD DATE IS JULY 1992. IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/92: [1] D8AML1-03-0274-1100308 ELECTRONIC DATA SYSTEMS CORPVA 7/10/91 Summary: DCAA RECOMMENDED EFFICIENCIES TOTALING $167,814,636 REPRESENTING PRIMARILY UNSUPPORTED DIRECT LABOR COSTS. ALSO, DCAA REVEALED THE CONTRACTOR HAD UNDERSTATED PROPOSED COSTS BY $35,559,981. - EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE: An explanation was not provided by EPA. - DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: THIS IS A PREAWARD AUDIT. THE ANTICIPATED AWARD DATE IS JULY 1992. IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/92: [1] D8AML1-03-0270-1100309 I-NET INC MD 7/10/91 Summary: DCAA RECOMMENDED EFFICIENCIES TOTALING $2,153,347 OF THIS AMOUNT $1,258,531 RELATES TO DIRECT LABOR - EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE: An explanation was not provided by EPA. - DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: THIS IS A PREAWARD AUDIT. THE ANTICIPATED AWARD DATE IS JULY 1992. IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/92: [1] D8AML1-03-0254-1100321 UNISYS GOVERNMENT SYSTEMS VA 7/22/91 Summary: DCAA RECOMMENDED EFFICIENCIES TOTALING $16,559,241 OF THIS AMOUNT $8,056,142 IS RELATED TO DIRECT LABOR COST. $1,605,931 IS UNSUPPORTED. - EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE: An explanation was not provided by EPA. - DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: THIS IS A PREAWARD AUDIT. THE ANTICIPATED AWARD DATE IS JULY 1992. IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/92: [1] D8AML1-03-0285-1100323 COMPUTER BASED SYSTEMS INC VA 7/22/91 Summary: DCAA RECOMMENDED EFFICIENCIES TOT AUNG $2,741,364. OF THIS AMOUNT, $2,531,239 IS LABOR COST AND RELATED OVERHEAD. - EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE: An explanation was not provided by EPA. - DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: THIS IS A PREAWARD AUDIT. THE ANTICIPATED AWARD DATE IS JULY 1992. IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/92: [1] D8AML1-03-0363-1100401 WESTAT INC MD 9/18/91 Summary: DCAA RECOMMENDED EFFICIENCIES TOTALING $1,666,349. OF THIS AMOUNT, $1,375,763 RELATES TO THE EMERGENCY PLANNING & COMMUNITY RIGHT TO KNOW CENTER; $66,963 RELATES TO FIELD OVERHEAD; THE REMAINDER RELATES TO G&A EXPENSES. - EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE' An explanation was not provided by EPA. = DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: THIS IS A PREAWARD AUDIT. THE CONTRACTOR WAS AN UNSUCCESSFUL OFFEROR IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/92: [1] (We received a FAX dated 4/21/92 notifying us of the above status of this report.) D8AML1-03-0364-1100402 INFORMATION SYS & NETWORK MD 9/18/91 Summary: DCAA RECOMMENDED EFFICIENCIES TOTALING $145,673. THIS AMOUNT RELATES TO G&A EXPENSES. DCAA QUESTIONS 1.12% OF FY91 PROJECTED G&A RATE BASED ON HISTORICAL QUESTIONED COSTS AS A RESULT OF EXCESSIVE COMPENSATION TO THE COMPANY'S TWO TOP EXECUTIVES. - EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE: An explanation was not provided by EPA. - DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: THIS IS A PREAWARD AUDIT. THIS CONTRACTOR WAS AN UNSUCCESSFUL OFFEROR IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/92: [1] (We received a FAX dated 4/21/92 notifying us of the above status of this report.) D8AML1-03-0366-1100404 KEYDATA SYSTEMS INC MD 9/18/91 Summary: DCAA RECOMMENDED EFFICIENCIES OF $403,453. THIS AMOUNT RELATES TO THE APPLICATION OF THE AUDIT DETERMINED FRINGE BENEFIT RATE AND THE OVERHEAD-OFFSITE RATE TO DIRECT LABOR. - EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE: An explanation was not provided by EPA. - DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: THIS IS A PREAWARD AUDIT. THE CONTRACTOR WAS AN UNSUCCESSFUL OFFEROR IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/92: [1] (We received a FAX dated 4/21/92 notifying us of the above status of this report.) D8AML1-03-0371-1100406 DYNAMAC CORPORATION MD 9/20/91 'Summary: - EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE: An explanation was not provided by EPA. - DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: THIS IS A PREAWARD AUDIT. THE CONTRACTOR WAS AN UNSUCCESSFUL OFFEROR. IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/92: [1] (We received a FAX dated 4/21/92 notifying us of the above status of this report.) 66 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL ------- Assignment Control Number Title Final Report Issued Assignment Control Title Number Final Report Issued D8AML1-03-0367-1100409 COMSIS CORPORATION MD 9/20/91 Summary: DCAA RECOMMENDED EFFICIENCIES TOTALING $3,120,380. DIRECT LABOR COULD BE POTENTIALLY UNDERPRICED BY $2,547,564. A MATH ERROR OF $5,372,080 WAS FOUND. DCAA QUESTIONED $295,864 RELATED TO G&A EXPENSES. - EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE: An explanation was not provided by EPA. - DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: THIS IS A PREAWARDAUDIT. THE CONTRACTOR IS AN UNSUCCESSFUL OFFEROR. IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/92: [1] (We received a FAX dated 4/21/92 notifying us of the above status of this report.) P9AHN1-05-0191-1300085 OHM REM ERCS3 R1 OH 7/ 9/91 Summary: WE RECOMMENDED EFFICIENCIES OF $9,569,567 RELATED TO: 1)PROPOSED EQUIPMENT NOT ACCEPTED DUE TO CONTRACTORS INADEQUATE EQUIPMENT UTILIZATION, UNSUPPORTED RENTAL COSTS, AND EXCESSIVE EQUIPMENT RATES, AND 2) DIRECT LABOR AND OTHER DIRECT COSTS ADJUSTED FOR AUDITED INDIRECT COST RATE. - EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE: An explanation was not provided by EPA - DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: THIS IS A PREAWARDAUDIT. CONTRACT TO BE AWARDED BY JUNE 30, 1992. IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/92: [1] P9AHP1-05-0281-1400034 OHM REM ERCS3 R5 OH 9/ 6/91 Summary: WE HAVE RECOMMENDED EFFICIENCIES OF $7,348,270 PERTAINING TO EQUIPMENT COSTS IN EXCESS OF ACTUAL COST AND/OR UNSUPPORTED, REDUCTION IN LABOR COSTS AND PROGRAM MGMT TO REFLECT ADJUSTMENTS TO THE RELATED INDIRECT COST RATE AND ESCALATION FACTORS. • EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE: An explanation was not provided by EPA. • DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: THIS IS A PREAWARD AUDIT. CONTRACT TO BE AWARDED BY JUNE 30, 1992. IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/92: [1] P9AHP1-05-0313-1400036 OHM REM ERCS3 R2 OH 9/ 6/91 Summary: WE HAVE RECOMMENDED EFFICIENCIES OF $1,095,181 PERTAINING TO EQUIPMENT COSTS AND ADJUSTMENT TO THE ESCALATION FACTOR. ALSO, INCREASES OF $869,393 PERTAINING TO 1990 INDIRECT COSTS, PROGRAM MGMT LABOR COSTS AND QUALITY ASSURANCE COORDINATOR COSTS. - EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE: An explanation was not provided by EPA. - DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: THIS IS A PREAWARD AUDIT. CONTRACT TO BE AWARDED BY JUNE 30, 1992 IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/92: [1] P9AHP1-05-0313-1400036 OHM REM ERCS3 R2 OH 9| 6/91 Summary: WE HAVE RECOMMENDED EFFICIENCIES OF $1,095,181 EXCESSIVE EQUIPMENT COST PROPOSED AND ESCALATION FACTOR ADJUSTMENT APPLIED TO DIRECT LABOR. ALSO, INCREASES OF $869,393, 1990 INDIRECT COST RATES, AND UNDERSTATEMENT OF PROGRAM MANAGEMENT, QUALITY ASSURANCE. - EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE: An explanation was not provided by EPA. - DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: THIS IS A PREAWARD AUDIT. CONTRACT TO BE AWARDED BY JUNE 30, 1992. IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/92: [1] P9AHP1-05-0297-1400044 MAECORP ERCS3 R5 IL 9/20/91 Summary: WE RECOMMENDED THAT EPA NOT AWARD THE PROPOSED CONTRACT TOMAECORP, INC., RESULTING IN $69,782,317 OF RECOMMENDED EFFICIENCIES. - EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE: =* DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: THIS IS A PREAWARD AUDIT. CONTRACT TO BE AWARDED BY JUNE 30, 1992. IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/92: [1] P9AHP1-05-0296-1400045 MAECORP ERCS3 R5 IL 9/23/91 Summary: WE RECOMMENDED THAT THE CONTRACTOR NOT BE AWARDED THIS CONTRACT. THEREFORE, WE HAVE RECOMMENDED EFFICIENCIES OF $72,838,576. - EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE: An explanation was not provided by EPA. - DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: THIS IS A PREAWARD AUDIT. CONTRACT TO BE AWARDED BY JUNE 30, 1992. IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/92: 11) TOTAL REPORTS ISSUED BEFORE REPORTING PERIOD FOR WHICH NO MANAGEMENT DECISION WAS MADE DURING THE REPORTING PERIOD: 99 * - Agency procedures do not require the IG's approval on Agency's Management Decision on a report (other than a preaward or an internal and management reviews) with the Federal share of questioned costs less than $100,000 Therefore, we have not provided a summary of the report. OCTOBER 1,1991 THROUGH MARCH 31.1992 67 ------- Mailing Address and Telephone Numbers • DIG HOTLINE (800) 424-4000 or (202) 260-4977 Headquarters Office of Inspector General 401 M Street, S.W. (A109) Washington, DC 20460 (FTS or 202) 260-3137 Atlanta Office of Inspector General 1375 Peachtree Street, NE Suite 276 Atlanta, GA 30309 Audit (404)347-3623 FTS 257-3623 Investigations: (404) 347-2398 FTS 257-2398 Boston Office of Inspector General JFK Federal Building DIG 521 Boston, MA 02203 Audit (617) 565-3160 FTS 835-3160 lnvestigations:(617) 565-3928 FTS 565-3928 Chicago Office of Inspector General 77 West Jackson Boulevard 13th Floor Chicago, IL 60604 Audit (FTS or 312) 353-2486 Investigations: (FTS or 312) 353-2507 Dallas Office of Inspector General 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200 Dallas, Texas 75202-2733 Audit (214) 655-6621 FTS 255-6621 Investigations: (214) 655-6610 FTS 255-6610 Denver Office of Inspector General 999 18th Street, Suite 500 Denver, CO 80205-2405 Audit (303) 294-7520 FTS 330-7520 Investigations: (303) 293-1650 FTS 330-1650 Kansas City Office of Inspector General 726 Minnesota Avenue Kansas City, KS 66101 Audit (913) 551-7824 FTS 276-7824 Philadelphia Office of Inspector General 841 Chestnut Street 13th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19107 Audit (FTS or 215) 597-0497 Investigations: (FTS or 215) 597-9421 Research Triangle Park, NC Office of Inspector General EPA Administration Building Alexander Drive, Room 113 Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 Auait(919)541-1028 FTS 629-1028 Investigations: (919) 541-1027 FTC 629-1027 Sacramento Ottice of Inspector General 801 I Street, Room 466 Sacramento, CA 95814 Audit (916) 551-1076 FTS 460-1076 San Francisco Office of Inspector General 75 Hawthorne St (I-4) 19th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 Audit (415) 744-2445 FTS 484-2445 Investigations: (415) 744-2465 FTS 484-2465 Seattle Office of Inspector General 1111 3rd Avenue, Suite 350 Seattle, WA 98101 Investigations: (206) 442-1273 FTS 399-1273 New York Office of Inspector General 90 Church Street, Room 802 New York, NY 10007 Audit (FTS or 212) 264-5730 Investigations: (FTS or 212) 264-0399 68 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL ------- |