TD171
.U56c
93/10
350R93003
Office of Inspector General
Semiannual Report
to the Congress
April 1, 1993 through
September 30, 1993
Recycled/Recyclable
Printed with Soy/Canola Ink on paper th;
contains at least 50% recycled fiber
-------
On the cover: El Capitan,
Yosemite National Park, California.
An OIG Special Review found that
contamination from leaking
underground tanks in the park had
not been cleaned up (page 21)
(photo by Kathy Thompson, OIG
staff).
-------
EPA Office of Inspector General
Semiannual Report/September 30, 1993
Customer Survey
We want to continuously improve our report. Please circle your ratings, remove this
page from the report, and mail to the address below. Thanks for your help.
Outstanding Average Poor
A. Layout & Organization: 54321
B. Clarity 54321
C. What did you like least?
D. What did you like most?
Suggestions:
Mail to: U.S. EPA
Office of Inspector General (2441)
Office of Management
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
-------
Foreword
During this semiannual reporting period, the Office of Inspector
General continued working to help EPA improve its performance in
carrying out its environmental mission, achieving savings and
protecting its resources from the risk of loss. This work is compatible
with the President's vision of streamlining government as articulated
by the National Performance Review. The OIG has worked
collaboratively with managers for many years through an extensive
performance audit program, making hundreds of constructive
recommendations to improve economy, efficiency and effectiveness of
EPA's operations. While EPA managers have been responsive to our
work, much more still needs to be done.
This report, which summarizes the work we have done this six-
month period, covers pesticide registration, production of ozone-
depleting chemicals, management of extramural resources, controls
on financial reporting, cash management, Superfund accounting and
data collection, along with many other areas. We are enthusiastic
about the President's goal to reinvent government and the
Administrator's personal attention to implementing program
improvements in EPA. With this foundation, we will seek more
opportunities for greater collaboration with Agency managers to meet
the challenges ahead.
hn C. Martin
Inspector General
-------
Contents
Executive Summary 1 x
EPA High Risk Areas of Significant Concern to the OIG 4 / /./ /
Profile of Activities and Results 6
Establishment of the OIG in EPA-lts Role and Authority 7 t (,( '-}
Organization and Resources 7 .j f. .
Purpose and Requirements of the Office of Inspector General "'/ '
Semiannual Report 7
Section 1-Significant Problems, Abuses, and Recommendations
Summary of Audit Activities and Results 9
Agency Management 10
Construction Grants 16
Superfund Program 19
Special Reviews 21
Section 2-Report Resolution
Status Report on Perpetual Inventory of Reports in Resolution Process
for the Semiannual Period Ending September 30, 1993 23
Audit Followup 24
Status of Management Decisions on IG Reports 25
Resolution of Significant Reports 26
Section 3--Prosecutive Actions
Summary of Investigative Activity 27
Description of Selected Prosecutive and Administrative Actions 28
Civil and Administrative Actions to Recover EPA Funds 29
Section 4--Fraud Prevention and Resource Management Improvements
Review of Legislation and Regulations 31
Suspension and Debarment Activities 33
Congressional Testimony by the Inspector General 34
OIG Management Initiatives 35
President's Council on Integrity and Efficiency 36
Committee on Integrity and Management Improvement 36
Hotline Activities 36
Appendices
Appendix 1--Reports Issued 37
Appendix 2--Reports Without Management Decisions 50
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
77 West Jackson Boulevard, 12th Floor
Chicago, IL 60604-3590
-------
-------
Executive Summary
Section 1-
Significant Problems,
Abuses, and
Recommendations
1. EPA's Decisions to
Reduce Risks of Registered
Pesticides Need More Public
Involvement.
Special reviews of registered
pesticides which might cause
unreasonable adverse health
and environmental effects took
too long. As a result, EPA
frequently began to negotiate
with the registrants to reduce
the risks of such pesticides
quickly, but without assurance
of public involvement (page
10).
2. Better Controls Needed
Over EPA Narragansett
Laboratory's Contracts and
Assistance Agreements.
EPA's Environmental
Research Laboratory,
Narragansett, Rhode Island,
did not have effective
management controls to
ensure that pertinent laws,
regulations, and Agency
policies were satisfied in
awarding and administering
contracts, cooperative
agreements, and interagency
agreements. As a result, the
Laboratory's management
could not be assured that
extramural funds were used in
the best interest of the Agency
(page 10).
3. EPA Needs Reliable
Information on the
Production of Ozone-
Depleting Chemicals.
EPA did not have adequate
information to monitor properly
the production of carbon
tetrachloride and did not
document its reviews of
international trades of
chlorofluorocarbons (CFC)
production allowances. In
addition, the Agency did not
have a system to monitor
exports of ozone-depleting
chemicals (page 11).
4. Stronger Enforcement
Actions Needed Against
Small Water Supply
Systems.
EPA Region 1 and the States
of Vermont and New
Hampshire did not take timely
and effective enforcement
actions against small public
water supply systems which
violated Safe Drinking Water
Act (SDWA) requirements.
Without compliance with the
SDWA, the quality and safety
of the drinking water was
questionable (page 12).
5. Audits of EPA's Financial
Statements Show Need for
Improvements in Agency
Accounting Systems and
Controls.
Key weaknesses in EPA's
accounting systems and
controls affected the reliability
of the Agency's fiscal 1992
financial statements. Without
adequate systems and
controls, EPA cannot fully rely
on the financial information
used to manage the Agency's
funds and programs or be
assured that its assets are
properly safeguarded (page
13).
6. Regions 1 and 8 Need to
Improve Their
Implementation of the
Federal Managers' Financial
Integrity Act.
Regions 1 and 8 had not
properly identified,
documented, and evaluated
their management and
financial controls. As a result,
the Regions could not ensure
that they were protecting and
managing their resources
effectively and efficiently to
accomplish their missions
(page 14).
7. EPA's Cash Reconciliation
Procedures Need
Improvement.
EPA did not routinely reconcile
its general ledger balances
with its financial reports and
balances maintained by the
Department of the Treasury.
As a result, there have been
differences of millions of
dollars between EPA and
Treasury records that have
been unreconciled since 1989
(page 15).
8. Nearly $104 Million of
Questioned Costs Claimed
for New York City Projects.
The City of New York claimed
$41,632,671 of ineligible
architectural engineering,
construction, force account,
and innovative and alternative
technology costs. An
additional $62,365,878 of
unsupported and unreasonable
costs were questioned (page
16).
9. Springfield, Oregon,
Claimed $9.2 Million of
Ineligible and Unsupported
Costs.
The Metropolitan Wastewater
Management Commission,
Springfield, Oregon, claimed
$2,511,772 of ineligible
administrative, engineering,
insurance, and construction
costs. An additional
$6,657,189 of unsupported
project costs were questioned
(page 16).
10. More Than $9.2 Million of
San Diego, California,
Project Costs Questioned.
The City of San Diego,
California, claimed $9,084,891
of ineligible construction,
engineering, and administrative
costs. An additional $122,810
of unsupported project costs
were questioned (page 17).
11. Baltimore, Maryland,
Claimed $9.2 Million of
Questioned Costs.
The City of Baltimore claimed
$6,590,945 of ineligible
architectural engineering,
construction, administrative,
and equipment costs. An
additional $2,581,473 of
unsupported costs were
questioned (page 17).
12. Over $5.8 Million of
Questioned Costs Claimed
for Las Virgenes, California,
Project.
The Las Virgenes Municipal
Water District claimed
ineligible construction,
engineering, and administrative
costs of $5,091,815 for
construction of a wastewater
treatment plant. An additional
$757,976 of unreasonable
project costs were questioned
(page 18).
13. Salisbury,
Massachusetts, Claimed
Nearly $3.6 Million of
Ineligible Costs.
The Town of Salisbury,
Massachusetts, claimed
$3,581,518 of ineligible
engineering, construction,
administrative, and other costs
for the design and construction
of a secondary wastewater
treatment plant and interceptor
sewers (page 18).
14. Reported Superfund
Accomplishments
Questioned.
Data in the Comprehensive
Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability
Information System, EPA's
Superfund management
information system, was not
always reasonable and
accurate. Some
accomplishments claimed for
APRIL 1, 1993 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 1993
1
-------
fiscal 1992 in Regions 5, 8, 9,
and 10 were invalid (page 19).
15. Improperly Classified
Superfund Costs May Affect
Recovery From Responsible
Parties (RP).
Some Superfund cleanup
costs were improperly charged
to accounts for accumulating
costs of assessing whether
Federal action was needed
rather than to specific site
accounts or general program
accounts. As a result, costs
charged to RPs for Agency
cleanup and enforcement
activities may be inaccurate
(page 20).
16. Parts of Yosemite
National Park Remain
Seriously Polluted from
Leaking Underground
Storage Tanks.
Neither the National Park
Service nor its concessioner
had cleaned up any of 44
leaking underground storage
tank sites in Yosemite National
Park, California, many of which
had been discovered more
than 7 years ago. Thirteen of
these sites affected
groundwater (page 21).
17. Improper Use of
Intergovernmental Personnel
Act Agreements and
Extramural Resources.
During the last 5 years, the
Office of Cooperative
Environmental Management
had not properly managed its
use of Intergovernmental
Personnel Act assignments,
cooperative agreements,
interagency agreements,
contracts, and consultants
(page 21).
Section 2-Report
Resolution
At the beginning of the
semiannual period, there were
326 reports for which no
management decision had
been made. During the
second half of fiscal 1993, the
Office of Inspector General
issued 851 new reports and
closed 845 reports. At the end
of the reporting period, 331
reports remained in the
Agency followup system for
which no management
decision had been made. Of
the 331 reports, 100 reports
remained in the Agency
followup system for which no
management decision was
made within 6 months of
issuance (page 23).
In one followup review, the
Office of Inspector General
found that some problems
identified in a previous report
continued (page 24).
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 265 reports closed that
required Agency action, EPA
management disallowed $48.8
million of questioned costs for
recovery and agreed with our
recommendations that $7.6
million be put to better use
(page 23). In addition, cost
recoveries in current and prior
periods included $5.0 million in
cash collections, and $18.7
million in offsets against
billings (page 6).
Section 3-Prosecutive
Actions
During this semiannual
reporting period, our
investigative efforts resulted in
16 convictions and 23
indictments. Also, during this
semiannual period, our
investigative work led to $7.3
million in fines and recoveries
(page 27).
A major EPA contractor
pleaded guilty to false claims;
a Kentucky company and its
owner pleaded guilty to a bribe
attempt; a testing lab pleaded
guilty to a a false claim; an
EPA Headquarters office
director was convicted and
sentenced on 13 felony
counts; the president of a New
York testing lab was
sentenced for submitting false
reports; two individuals
pleaded guilty to submitting a
false claim under the asbestos
school hazard abatement
program; a steel firm pleaded
guilty to a conspiracy to
defraud the government in
connection with a minority
business enterprise program;
and an EPA on-scene
coordinator and a landowner
were indicted for conspiring to
defraud the government (page
28).
Section 4-Fraud
Prevention and
Resources
Management
Review of Proposed
Legislation and Regulations
During this semiannual period,
we reviewed 7 legislative and
82 regulatory items. The most
significant were comments on
OMB's request to agencies to
eliminate certain mandated
reports, the proposed Federal
Credit and Cash Management
Act of 1993, the Agency's
proposed drinking water
revolving fund, and a revision
to the EPA Contracts
Management Manual (page
31).
Suspension and Debarment
Activities
We completed 69 cases during
this reporting period, resulting
in 35 suspensions, 27
debarments, and 7 compliance
agreements (page 33).
Congressional Testimony by
the Office of Inspector
General
The Inspector General testified
before Congressional
committees on elevating EPA
to Cabinet status, on audit
work in Superfund, on contract
management, and on reviews
conducted of EPA's research
and development laboratories.
The Deputy Inspector General
testified on the Superfund
Innovative Technology
Evaluation (SITE) program
(page 34).
Committee on Integrity and
Management Improvement
The EPA Committee on
Integrity and Management
Improvement (CIMI), chaired
by the Inspector General,
developed and distributed a
leaflet to heighten employee
awareness of the seriousness
of copyright infringement and
violation of software licenses.
CIMI also developed and
coordinated a series of events
during Public Service
Recognition Week in May
(page 36).
Hotline Activities
The OIG toll-free Hotline
became part of President
Clinton's efforts to improve the
Government, serving as a
collection point for the public's
ideas. The Hotline referred
3,191 telephone callers to the
appropriate EPA program
office, State agency, or other
Federal agency for assistance
Forty-six cases were opened
and 43 were closed during the
reporting period. Of the close
cases, 6 resulted in
environmental, prosecutive, oi
administrative corrective actio
(page 36).
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
-------
Major Laws Administered by EPA
Statute
Toxic Substances Control Act
l-ederal Insecticide, Fungicide, :
and Hodenticldr Act''- :
Federal Food* drujg arid Cosmetic Ac* ...
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Environmental Response,
Compensation; and Liability Act .:
Clean Air Act
Clean WatefActt
Sate DrinWng Water: Act
Marine Protection, Research and ? '
Sanctuaries Act '.''".-.
A$besto$ School Hazard Abatement Act
Response Act
Pfenning and Community
to4o$a} & a
chemical. ' j ; .' : '.. '.' .
Authorizes EPA to register all pesticides, specify the terms and
conditions ol their us«, and remove unreasonably hazardous pesticides
from the markiad^|be, II
; Au*hortK0$ EP'J^ oooperatioft with 0A to
for pesticide residues on food.
Authorizes EPA to identify hazardous *astes and regulate their
; generation, tranapHCjrtation, treatment, storage, and disposal
Requires EPA to des^nate hazardous substances thai 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
poSutants and hazardous air pollutants,
EPAio estabish a ii$t of loxk? wat^r
Standards. :'.-";.. ? -;: ' ' -- '
awl set
drlr>*tog:wMer etandaro's to j»otect jjybtic heaSh
from
Regulates ocean dumping of toxfc contaminants^
EPAlto prov^ loans and grants to schools with financial
need for abatement of severe asbestos hazards,
EPA Jo; esiab^h a oorttpreh^nstve regulatorif framewo* for
controlling asbestos hazards in schools.
' Requires States to devefop programs for responding
chemical releases and r»
-------
EPA High Risk Areas of Significant Concern To The DIG
This section of our report
presents the Office of
Inspector General's (DIG)
perspective on significant
problems which the Agency
must address to ensure its
programs are conducted in an
effective, efficient, and
economical manner. The
OIG's semiannual report for
the period ended March 31,
1993, presented the OIG's
perspective on six major
areas: Management of
Extramural Resources,
Financial Management,
Scientific Data Integrity,
Information Resources
Management, Enforcement,
and Audit Followup and
Implementation of Corrective
Actions to closely correspond
with EPA's current priorities
and future initiatives. These
areas continue to be of
concern to the OIG and
Agency management. The
Agency included these six
areas in its 1992 Federal
Managers' Financial Integrity
Act assurance letter to the
President and Congress as
material weaknesses.
Management of Extramural
Resources
EPA relies extensively on
contractors and other outside
entities to assist in carrying out
its mission to clean up past
pollution problems, develop
national policy, and set the
environmental agenda for the
future. These outside groups
may be commercial firms that
EPA has contracts with to
provide goods and services;
public organizations, such as
universities or State and local
organizations, that EPA funds
to pursue areas of mutual
environmental concern through
cooperative agreements; or
other agencies of the Federal
government that provide
assistance through interagency
agreements.
In response to criticisms of
EPA's contract management
practices, the Agency
established a Standing
Committee on Contract
Management (now called the
Resource Management
Committee). In June 1992, the
committee made 40
recommendations to address
EPA's contracting problems.
EPA reports that it has
completed action on 15 of
those recommendations, and
is in the process of completing
action on the remaining ones.
In addition, the Agency has
expanded its corrective actions
to include assistance
agreements and relevant
aspects of financial
management.
However, our recent work at
the Office of Research and
Development, the Office of
Administration and Resources
Management, the Office of
Cooperative Environmental
Management (OCEM), and
Region 3 has continued to
show the pervasive nature of
resource management
problems at EPA. These
problems not only affect how
Federal tax dollars are spent,
but they also detract from the
effectiveness of EPA's
programs. Significant issues
identified during these audits
are discussed below.
Work Outside the Scope of
the Contract. Some EPA
offices continue to have
contractors perform work
outside the scope of their
contracts. A review in OCEM
found that a contractor was
paid for a number of services
outside the contract's scope,
including establishing two
independent, nonprofit
organizations, to which EPA
then awarded assistance
agreements (see page 21).
Personal Services. We are
continuing to find contractor
employees performing
personal services at EPA. For
example, audit work at OCEM
determined that contractor
employees were often used as
personal staff, such as
assistants to Federal
managers, although that is
prohibited by Federal
regulations.
Inherently Governmental
Functions. Contractors were
performing inherently
governmental functions at the
laboratory we reviewed (see
page 10).
Government regulations
specify that Federal employees
shall perform the duties of
Designated Federal Officials
on advisory committees.
However, OCEM used a non-
Federal employee in this
capacity, and a second served
as a Deputy Designated
Federal Official, on EPA
advisory committees.
Potential Conflicts of
Interest. EPA regulations
prohibit an Agency employee
from taking any action which
results in, or creates the
reasonable appearance of: (1)
giving preferential treatment to
an organization or person; (2)
losing independence; or (3)
undermining the confidence of
the public in the integrity of the
Government. At one
laboratory we reviewed, we
found that contractor
employees were used to
perform quality assurance
activities, which could include
reviewing the performance of
the contractor itself.
OCEM paid a consultant to
help establish an independent,
nonprofit organization, of which
he then became president.
OCEM has continued to do
business with this nonprofit
organization on an increasing
scale (see page 21).
Procurement Process.
EPA officials did not ensure
that contracts were fairly
awarded in the best interest of
the government. For example,
one laboratory we reviewed
tailored request for proposals
requirements, changed the
contract method from an 8(a)
set-aside to a competitive
award, and underestimated the
contract amount, which helped
to ensure that the incumbent
contractor would be retained.
Cooperative and
Interagency Agreements,
and Intergovernmental
Personnel Act Assignments.
Recent work has shown that
mismanagement of extramural
resources is not limited to
contracts, but also extends to
other types of extramural
resources. For example, the
laboratory we reviewed
improperly used an
interagency agreement to fund
the travel of foreign scientists
to the United States to
participate in a two-month
study. The laboratory also
improperly used research
funds to help finance the
operations of a day care
center, including using a
cooperative agreement to pay
a teacher's salary; other
extramural funds to pay for
janitorial services; and contract
funds to pay for renovations.
OCEM improperly used
interagency agreements and
Intergovernmental Personnel
Act assignments to acquire
non-competitively the services
of consultants and contractors,
and to pay for hundreds of
thousands of dollars of travel
for non-Federal individuals to
attend advisory council and
committee meetings.
Contract Audit Backlog.
The OIG has taken action to
improve audit coverage and
reduce the number of open
audit requests relating to the
Agency's contractors. As of
September 30, 1993, there
were 463 outstanding incurrec
cost audit requests of which
57, or 12 percent, were
requested prior to 1991. We
are working closely with the
Defense Contract Audit
Agency (DCAA) to complete <
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR CENERAl
-------
of these audits. However, in
fiscal 1993, we did not receive
the required resources to meet
DCAA's funding request of
approximately $2.9 million.
We were able to provide $2.3
million, resulting in a shortfall
of $600,000. For fiscal 1994,
DCAA requested $3.5 million,
and we anticipate being able
to fund $2.8 million, a shortfall
of $700,000. This has
adversely affected our ability to
reduce the audit backlog for
contracts.
Financial Management
The OIG has repeatedly
reported that EPA's accounting
systems do not provide
complete, consistent, reliable,
and timely data for Agency
decision-making. In response,
EPA has devoted considerable
time to improving the Agency's
overall performance in the
area. Significant issues
identified during recent audits
of the financial statements for
the Pesticides, Superfund,
Leaking Underground Storage
Tanks, and Asbestos Trust
Funds; EPA's Federal
Managers' Financial Integrity
Act process; EPA's cash
reconciliation process; and
Superfund accounts are
discussed on pages 13, 14,
and 15.
In response to a
Congressional request, we
began a broad, top-level
review of EPA's financial
management. We are working
in collaboration with Agency
personnel to identify all
significant causes of EPA's
problems in this area and to
make joint recommendations
to the Administrator for
effective solutions.
We will continue emphasizing
audits in the financial
management area as
necessary and in response to
the Chief Financial Officers
Act. In addition, we will
continue to work with the
Agency to ensure that an
effective organization is
established that provides the
Chief Financial Officer with the
authority to correct EPA's
longstanding financial
management problems.
Data Integrity
The accuracy and reliability of
scientific, programmatic, and
management data have always
been crucial to EPA's mission,
because they form the basis
for decisions that affect all
major American industries and
national policies to prevent
hazards and risks to health
and safety. Accurate, reliable,
timely data play a key role in
the effectiveness of EPA's
programs. However, our
audits have shown that various
kinds of EPA data systems
frequently contain incomplete,
inaccurate data, and that EPA
does not always receive
complete information from the
regulated community. For
example, audits in several
regions questioned the
accuracy of significant portions
of the 1992 "accomplishments"
recorded in the Superfund
program's primary automated
information system (see page
19). An audit of EPA's
implementation of portions of
the Clean Air Act Amendments
embodying the Montreal
Protocol showed that EPA
used data known to be flawed
against which to measure
production reductions for an
important ozone-depleting
chemical (see page 11).
Information Resources
Management (IRM)
IRM is critical to the success
of all program activities.
EPA's IRM program has been
hampered by numerous
problems, including significant
cost overruns and delays in
developing information
systems; data quality
deficiencies; development of
duplicate information systems;
uneconomical management of
mainframe storage devices;
exposure of the Agency's most
sensitive information systems
to access by unauthorized
users; and lack of Agency
assurance that automatic data
processing support services
contracts are being
implemented effectively,
efficiently, and at the lowest
cost to the Government.
These problems materially
affect the effectiveness of
EPA's programs.
We currently have several
major efforts underway to
further assess EPA's
performance in crucial IRM
areas. First, we are leading a
government-wide President's
Council on Integrity and
Efficiency review of
applications software
maintenance. Second, we are
auditing the development of
EPA's Integrated Financial
Management System. Finally,
as with financial management,
we are responding to a
Congressional request by
conducting a broad, top-level
review of EPA's IRM program.
We are working in
collaboration with Agency
personnel to catalog all
significant causes of EPA's
problems in this area and to
make joint recommendations
to the Administrator for
effective solutions.
Enforcement
During the past 2 years, OIG
audits of EPA's water,
pesticide, hazardous materials,
and Superfund programs have
reported continuing instances
of ineffective Federal and
State enforcement. EPA
management has worked to
improve EPA's enforcement
program in response to, or
concurrent with, our audit
efforts. However, during this
reporting period we found that
cleanup actions were usually
delayed at the 44 leaking
underground storage tank sites
in Yosemite National Park,
without any enforcement
actions being taken (see page
21). An audit of the
enforcement of the Safe
Drinking Water Act (SDWA)
reported that EPA Region 1
and the States of Vermont and
New Hampshire did not take
timely and effective
enforcement actions against
small public water systems
which violated SDWA
requirements (see page 12).
Audit Followup and
Implementation of Corrective
Actions
Since 1988 we have been
assessing the effectiveness of
EPA's audit followup
responsibilities. EPA has
elevated the issue of audit
followup to the highest
management levels and
appears committed to making
improvements, and some
improvements are being
realized. For example, in a
recent followup audit on the
Superfund Innovative
Technology Evaluation
Program, we reported that the
Office of Research and
Development had taken some
corrective actions in response
to our 1989 report. However,
others had not been
implemented adequately or at
all (see page 24).
EPA is working with the OIG
to strengthen audit followup
throughout the Agency. A
Quality Action Team made up
of OIG and Agency
representatives is updating the
EPA Order on "Management of
EPA Audit Reports and
Followup Actions" to identify
procedural changes that will
result in a timely, fair audit
resolution process. The Team
has submitted their revised
EPA Order for Agency review.
To date, the Agency has made
enough improvements in the
audit followup process that we
recommended it be lowered
from a Presidential-level
Federal Managers' Financial
Integrity Act weakness to an
Agency-level one.
APRIL 1, 1993 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 1993
-------
Profile of Activities and Results
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
April 1,1993, to
September 30,1993 Fiscal 1993
(dollars in millions)
April 1,1993, to
September 30,1993 Fiscal 1993
(dollars in millions)
Audit Operations
OIG Managed Reviews:
- Reviews Performed by EPA, Independent
Public Accountants and State Auditors
- Questioned Cos\s(Ineligible, Unsupported,
and UnnecessaryAJnreasonable)'
- Total $211.1
- Federal Share $143.6
- Recommended Efficiencies
(Funds be Put to Better Use)'
- Total $33.1
- Federal Share $33.1
- Cost Disallowed to be Recovered
- Federal Share (costs which EPA
management agrees are unallowable
and is committed to recover or
offset against future payments) $45.5
- Cost Disallowed as Cost Efficiency
- Federal Share (funds made available
by EPA management's commitment to
implement recommendations in OIG
performance and preaward audits) $0.0
Other Reviews:
- Reviews Performed by another Federal Agency
or Single Audit Act Auditors
- Questioned Costs
- Total $1.6
- Federal Share $1.6
- Recommended Efficiencies
- Total $14.0
- Federal Share $13.7
- Cost Disallowed to be Recovered
- Federal Share $3.3
- Cost Disallowed as Cost Efficiency
- Federal Share $7.6
Agency Recoveries:
$380.6
$270.6
$56.4
$46.0
$73.4
$3.3
$6.7
$6.0
$17.5
$17.2
$4.8
$9.7
Reports Issued:
- OIG Managed Reviews:
- EPA Reviews Performed by the OIG 71
- EPA Reviews Performed by Independent Public
Accountants and State Auditors 74
- Other Reviews:
- Single Audit Act Reviews 500
- EPA Reviews Performed
by another Federal Agency 206
Total Reports Issued 851
Reports Resolved (agreement by Agency officials
to take satisfactory corrective action)'" 265
Investigative Operations
- Fines and Recoveries (including civil) $ 7.3
- Investigations Opened 161
- Investigations Closed 160
- Indictments of Persons or Firms 23
- Convictions of Persons or Firms 16
- Administrative Actions Against EPA
Employees 17
Fraud Detection and Prevention Operations
- Determents. Suspensions, and
Compliance Agreements 69
- Hotline Cases Opened 46
- Hotline Cases Processed and Closed 43
- Personnel Security Investigations Adjudicated 385
141
118
975
338
1.572
487
$20.5
286
297
29
22
35
106
82
74
840
- Recoveries from Audit Resolutions of
Current and Prior Periods (cash collections
or offsets to future payments)"
$23.7
$43.1
'Questioned Costs and Recommended Efficiencies are subject to change pending further review in the audit resolution process.
"Information on recoveries from audit resolution is provided from the EPA Financial Management Division and is unaudited.
'"Reports resolved are subject to change pending further review.
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
-------
Establishment of the OIG in EPA-lts Role And Authority
The Inspector General Act of
1978 (Public Law 95-452), as
amended, created Offices of
Inspector General to
consolidate existing
investigative and audit
resources in independent
organizations headed by
Inspectors General.
EPA established its Office of
Inspector General (OIG) in
January 1980. As an agency
with a massive public works
budget, EPA is vulnerable to
various kinds of financial
abuses. The OIG's role is to
review EPA's financial
transactions, program
operations, contracts, and
administrative activities;
investigate allegations or
evidence of possible criminal
and civil violations; and
promote economic, efficient,
and effective Agency
operations. The OIG is also
responsible for reviewing EPA
regulations and legislation.
The EPA Inspector General
reports directly to the
Administrator and the
Congress and has the
authority to:
Initiate and carry out
independent and objective
audits and investigations,
Issue subpoenas for
evidence and information,
Obtain access to any
materials in the Agency,
Report serious or flagrant
problems to Congress,
Select and appoint OIG
employees,
Fill Senior Executive Service
positions,
Administer oaths, and
Enter into contracts.
The Inspector General is
appointed by, and can be
removed only by, the
President. This independence
protects the OIG from
interference by Agency
management and allows it to
function as the Agency's fiscal
and operational watchdog.
Organization and
Resources
The Office of Inspector
General functions through
three major offices, each
headed by an Assistant
Inspector General: Office of
Audit, Office of Investigations,
and Office of Management.
Nationally, there are eight
Divisional Inspectors General
for Audit and seven 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 1993, the Agency
was appropriated
$6,892,400,000 and authorized
17,917 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 $42.8 million to
carry out 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
$610,000 was derived from the
Leaking Underground Storage
Tank trust fund. The OIG has
a funded staffing level of 414
FTE positions. The funding
and FTE available to the OIG
represent 0.6 percent and 2.3
percent, respectively, of the
Agency's totals.
Purpose and
Requirements of the
Office of Inspector
General Semiannual
Report
The Inspector General Act of
1978 (Public Law 95-452), as
amended, requires the
Inspector General to keep the
Administrator and Congress
fully and currently informed of
problems and deficiencies in
the Agency's operations and to
recommend corrective action.
The IG Act further specifies
that semiannual reports will be
provided to the Administrator
by each April 30 and October
31, and to Congress 30 days
later. The Administrator may
transmit comments to
Congress along with the
report, but may not change
any part of it.
The specific reporting
requirements prescribed in the
Inspector General Act of 1978,
as amended, are listed below.
Source Section/Page
Inspector General Act, as amended.
Section 4(a)(2)
Section 5(a)(1)
Section 5(a)(2)
Section 5(a)(3)
Section 5(a)(4)
Section 5(a)(5)
Section 5(a)(6)
Section 5(a){7)
Section 5(a)(8)
Section 5(a)(9)
Section 5(a)(10)
Section 5(a)(11)
Section 5(a)(12)
Review of Legislation and Regulations 4 31
Significant Problems, Abuses, and
Deficiencies 1 9
Recommendations with Respect to
Significant Problems, Abuses, and
Deficiencies 1 9
Prior Significant Recommendations on
Which Corrective Action Has Not
Been Completed Appendix 2 50
Matters Referred to Prosecutive
Authorities 3 27
Summary of Instances
Where Information Was Refused * *
List of Audit Reports Appendix 1 37
Summary of Significant Reports 1 1
Statistical Table 1-Reports With
Questioned Costs 2 25
Statistical Table 2-Reports With
Recommendations That Funds Be Put
To Better Use 2 25
Summary of Previous Audit
Reports Without Management
Decisions
Appendix 2 50
Description and Explanation of Revised
Management Decisions Appendix 2
Management Decisions with Which the
Inspector General Is in Disagreement "
50
* There wore no instances whore Information or assistance requested
by the Inspector General was refused during this reporting period.
" There wen no Instances of management decisions with which the
Inspector General was in disagreement.
APRIL 1, 1993 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 1993
-------
Office of Inspector General-Who's Who
Headquarters
Inspector General
John c. tturtin
Deputy Inspector General
Anna Hopkins Vixbick
Office of Audit
Kenneth A. Konz
Assistant Inspector General
Jam* O. Raucn
Deputy
Office of
John C. Jbnee
Assistant Inspector General
Acquisition & Assistance
Audits
KLissa R. Karpf
Internal and Perf ormance
Audits
Michael 0. Simons
Planning and Resources
Management
Kenneth D.
1
Offloe of Investigations
Daniel 8. nuesney
Assistant Inspector General
Deputy
I Program Management Division
John T. mi»h
Resources Management Division
Michael J. Binder
Qrgineeering & Science
water 6. Gilbert
ADP Audits & Support
Craig Silwrthon*
Divisional Inspectors General
n
Regions 9 & 10
Truman R. Beeler,
Audit
H. Brooks Griffin
Investigations
Region 5
Anthony C. Carrollo, Audit
Region 5, 7, & 8
Allen P. Fallin, Investigations
Regions 7 & 8
Nikki Tinsley, Audit
Regions 4 & 6
Mary Boyer, Audit
Lorraine Gentile, Acting,
Investigations
Region 1 & 2
Paul McKechnie Audit
Robert M Bynes
Investigations
Region 3
Paul R Gardolfo Auc!'.
Martin Squitien
Investigations
Headquarters
Edward G«»
-------
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 iden-
tifies 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 five areas:
Summary of Audit Activities
and Results, Agency
Management, Construction
Grants, Superfund, and
Special Reviews.
Summary of Audit
Activities and
Results
Questioned Costs And Recommended
Efficiencies By Type of Assignment
Construction
Superfund
Other
lF«d«ral QuMttorwd
INOO F«d«ral QuMtioned Pectoral Share Rao. EH BNon Ftd ftac. EH.
Source Of Reviews
Areas Of Effort By Staff Days
Other Federal
Agencies - 206
State
Auditors
15
I PA
Firms - 59
EPA - 71
LUST-
Performance
161
"MGT- I M<3T-
Financial \ Performance^
5484 15,270
SF-
Performance-^
3,132
LUST
Financial
71
\
SF - Financial
6,681
Total - 851 Reviews
Total - 20,799 Days
APRIL 1,1993 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 1993
-------
Agency
Management
The Inspector General Act
requires the OIG to initiate
reviews and other activities
to promote economy and
efficiency and to detect and
prevent fraud, waste, and
mismanagement in EPA
programs and operations.
Internal and performance
audits and reviews are
conducted to accomplish
these objectives largely by
evaluating the economy,
efficiency, and effectiveness
of operations.
The following are the most
significant internal and
performance audit and
review findings and
recommendations reported
by the OIG during this
semiannual period.
EPA's Decisions to
Reduce Risks of
Registered Pesticides
Need More Public
Involvement
Problem
Special reviews of registered
pesticides which might
cause unreasonable adverse
health and environmental
effects took too long. As a
result, EPA frequently began
to negotiate with the
registrants to reduce the
risks of such pesticides
quickly, but without
assurance of public
involvement.
Background
Pesticides must be registered
with EPA before manufacturers
may market them. If EPA
finds that a registered
pesticide may cause
unreasonable adverse health
and environmental effects, the
Office of Pesticide Programs
(OPP) may conduct a special
review to help the Agency
determine whether to initiate
procedures to cancel or
reclassify its registration.
We Found That
After many years of criticism
by Congress and the public
over the length of the special
review process, OPP
recognized a need to reduce
the time it takes to review
potentially hazardous
pesticides. As a result, OPP
began to use alternatives to
the special review process
more frequently, especially
negotiation of risk reductions
with registrants. However, the
opportunity for public
involvement was lessened
since OPP had not developed
guidelines to ensure public
involvement emphasized in the
special review process.
OPP averaged 5 years to
complete most special reviews.
Delays occurred for various
reasons, some of which were
outside OPP's control, such as
the extensive time registrants
needed to complete studies
requested by OPP and the
complexity of scientific and
policy issues. Lengthy special
reviews may prolong exposure
to unnecessary risks.
Establishing specific time
frames for completing special
reviews of individual pesticides
would help OPP manage the
process and determine
whether the pesticide poses an
unreasonable risk.
Since 1988, OPP had not
formally started a special
review because OPP (1) had
few controls over when it
places pesticides in the special
review process and (2)
frequently takes action on a
problem pesticide in other
ways, including negotiations
with the registrants as
discussed above, issuing a
notice to cancel its registration,
and conducting public
hearings. However, when
OPP does not place pesticides
in special review, pesticides
which may cause adverse
effects can remain on the
market without OPP taking
action to reduce those effects.
What Action Was Taken
In responding to the draft
report, the Acting Assistant
Administrator for Prevention,
Pesticides and Toxic
Substances agreed to take
actions which, if properly
implemented, will substantially
resolve our findings. The
Acting Assistant Administrator
agreed that OPP will develop
guidelines for negotiating risk
reduction actions with the
registrants, including options
for public participation.
Although the Acting Assistant
Administrator also agreed that
guidelines were needed for
initiating special reviews of
potentially harmful pesticides,
OPP could not commit
resources to the project at this
time. The final report
(3100256) was issued to the
Acting Assistant Administrator
on July 22, 1993.
Better Controls Needed
Over EPA Narragansett
Laboratory's Contracts
and Assistance
Agreements
Problem
EPA's Environmental
Research Laboratory,
Narragansett, Rhode Island,
(ERL-N) did not have
effective management
controls to ensure that
pertinent laws, regulations,
and Agency policies were
satisfied in awarding and
administering contracts,
cooperative agreements, and
interagency agreements. As
a result, the Laboratory's
management could not be
assured that extramural
funds were used in the best
interest of the Agency.
We Found That
ERL-N's lack of management
controls over its contracts and
assistance agreements
resulted in the following
prohibited and improper
procurement and contract
management actions.
Gave the Appearance of
Favoritism to Incumbents in
Awarding Follow-on Contracts.
ERL-N tailored requests for
proposal requirements,
changed the contracting
method, and underestimated
the maximum contract value to
avoid competition and ensure
awards to the incumbent firms
10
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
-------
Misused EPA Research
Contracts, Cooperative
Agreements, and Interagency
Agreements. ERL-N misused:
(1) operating funds from the
research and development
appropriation for materials and
supplies used by a contractor
to prevent the contractor from
exceeding its authorized
budget, (2) an interagency
agreement to fund foreign
nationals' travel without
appropriate approval, and (3)
funds to support a day care
center which exceeded the
scope of a cooperative
agreement.
Improperly Managed the
Work and Activities of Its
Contractors. ERL-N allowed
contract employees to perform
inherently governmental
functions and did not monitor
contractor work in process.
Questionable Procurements
from Imprest Fund. The
laboratory's imprest fund was
improperly used to make
purchases from family
members of laboratory
employees and an on-site
contractor-employee owned
firm and repetitive purchases
for services that could have
more appropriately been
procured other ways, such as
under a blanket purchase
agreement.
Lack of Enforcement of
Agency Time and Attendance
Regulations and Policies.
Laboratory managers did not
ensure that all Agency time
and attendance regulations
and policies were enforced.
As a result, there were
instances found of several
employees receiving
"unofficial" compensatory time
and subsequently charging
that time as opposed to official
leave.
We Recommended That
The Acting Assistant
Administrator for Research and
Development direct the
Narragansett Laboratory
Director to:
Instruct all staff on the
importance of the integrity of
the Agency's procurement
system and establish clear
lines of accountability over the
procurement process within
the Laboratory.
Appoint qualified project
officers to ensure that all work
performed by contractors is
authorized in accordance with
applicable laws, regulations,
and EPA policies and
directives, and within the
contract's statement of work.
Satisfy the requirements of
all laws and regulations that
relate to the proper use of
research and development
funds, adherence to the
Agency's time and attendance
requirements, and imprest fund
utilization.
What Action Was Taken
In responding to our draft
report, the Acting Assistant
Administrator for Research and
Development agreed with our
recommendations and
provided substantive planned
or already initiated actions
which, when implemented, will
resolve our findings. The final
report (3100236) was issued to
the Acting Assistant
Administrator on June 16,
1993.
EPA Needs Reliable
Information on the
Production of Ozone-
Depleting Chemicals
Problem
EPA did not have adequate
information to monitor
properly the production of
carbon tetrachloride and did
not document its reviews of
international trades of
chlorofluorocarbons (CFC)
production allowances. In
addition, the Agency did not
have a system to monitor
exports of ozone-depleting
chemicals.
Background
To comply with the Clean Air
Act and the Montreal Protocol,
an international agreement to
protect the ozone layer, EPA
was required to reduce the
amount of carbon tetrachloride
produced in the United States.
Depletion of the ozone layer
by this chemical has adverse
health effects, such as the
increased incidence of skin
cancers. To reduce
production, EPA established
baseline allowances for
producers that permitted them
to make carbon tetrachloride in
succeeding years, but in
quantities less than the
amount produced in 1989.
The Montreal Protocol also
restricted the trading of
chlorofluorocarbons (CFC)
production allowances and the
exporting of ozone-depleting
chemicals.
We Found That
Based on inadequate
information concerning
producers' 1989 production,
EPA knowingly established
flawed baseline allowances
that were used in 1991 and
1992 to measure reductions in
the production of carbon
tetrachloride. EPA was under
stringent time constraints to
establish the baselines (the
Clean Air Act Amendments of
1990 required EPA to issue
regulations for carbon
tetrachloride by January 1991).
However, the Agency should
have developed interim
baselines for the first year until
it could gather adequate 1989
data to establish a more
reliable basis for phasing out
the production of the chemical.
EPA did not adequately
document reviews of
international trades of CFCs
and their impacts on the
United States. For example,
EPA approved four
international trades for one
producer involving the export
of allowances for
approximately 21 million
kilograms of CFCs without
adequately documenting its
reviews for economic hardship,
as well as trade and
environmental impacts.
Moreover, EPA had not
adequately documented the
rationale used to approve the
trades.
The Agency did not have a
system to monitor exports of
ozone-depleting chemicals.
Without a monitoring system,
EPA cannot be sure that the
United States exported only to
authorized countries in
accordance with the Montreal
Protocol.
We Recommended That
The Acting Assistant
Administrator for Air and
Radiation:
Establish accurate, verifiable
baselines for other ozone-
depleting chemicals to be
phased out.
Strengthen controls to
ensure more thorough and
effective documentation for
reviews of international trades
of CFC allowances.
Implement a monitoring
APRIL 1, 1993 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 1993
11
-------
system to make sure that
United States companies
export ozone-depleting
chemicals only to authorized
countries.
What Action Was Taken
In discussions subsequent to
issuance of the draft report,
the Agency orally agreed to
implement our
recommendations. The final
report (3100384) was issued to
the Acting Assistant
Administrator for Air and
Radiation on September 24,
1993. A response is due by
December 23, 1993.
Stronger Enforcement
Actions Needed
Against Small Water
Supply Systems
Problem
EPA Region 1 and the States
of Vermont and New
Hampshire did not take
timely and effective
enforcement actions against
small public water supply
systems which violated Safe
Drinking Water Act (SDWA)
requirements. Without
compliance with the SOWA,
the quality and safety of the
drinking water was
questionable.
Background
Health and environmental
officials have become
increasingly concerned over
potential long-term health
effects associated with
manmade chemicals found in
drinking water. Many of these
contaminants have been linked
to birth defects, waterborne
diseases, cancer, and other
serious health problems. The
1974 SDWA, as amended,
requires EPA to set national
limits on contaminant levels in
drinking water and provides
the Agency enforcement
authority.
/- *
S
«*»
Citizens depend on government to ensure that drinking water is
not hazardous (photo by Steve Delaney).
We Found That
Although the majority of the
nation's population is served
by large public water supply
systems, most systems are
small and have the largest
number of violations. From a
sample of 29 public water
supply systems with the most
serious and chronic violations,
the Region or the States had
not issued final enforcement
actions for 10 systems that
had been in significant
noncompliance and needing
priority enforcement action for
at least 6 months. The Region
and States took from 9 months
to over 2 years to execute final
enforcement orders to correct
violations by 8 other systems
in our sample. Some violators
had not been in compliance for
10 or more years before the
Region or States initiated
appropriate enforcement
action. The remaining 11
systems in the sample had
either returned to compliance
with the standards or an
enforcement action had been
taken within 6 months of the
discovery of the violation.
Generally, the Region took 2
to 5 months from the discovery
date to issue Notices of
Violation. Vermont and New
Hampshire were in the process
of defining their enforcement
programs. The Region is
responsible for ensuring that
States have strong
enforcement programs. Both
the Region and the States
stated that staffing shortages
prevented them from taking
more actions.
Region 1 did not maintain
complete data in its
administrative order milestone
tracking system or document
whether a water system
satisfied its milestones.
Without an adequate tracking
system or documentation, the
Region does not know which
systems to pursue corrective
actions against or have
support for judicial or
administrative action.
We Recommended That
The Acting Regional
Administrator, Region 1:
Issue Notices of Violation
within 30 days of discovery of
the violation.
Establish procedures which
will assure escalation and
completion of enforcement
action in accordance with
EPA's May 22, 1990, guidance
memorandum.
Incorporate EPA's escalation
policy into State workplans
and evaluate State
performance against these
workplans.
Include all data required by
EPA's guidance on tracking
milestones into the Region's
tracking system.
Maintain adequate
documentation supporting
water system compliance with
administrative order
milestones.
What Action Was Taken
In responding to the draft
report, the Region generally
disagreed with our
conclusions, stating among
other things that it believed
enforcement actions are timely
and questioning whether
appropriate criteria were
applied in determining
noncompliance. However, the
Region reported that it is
revising its administrative orde
tracking system and is
obtaining supporting
documentation of
administrative order
milestones. The final audit
12
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
-------
report (3100291) was issued to
the Acting Regional
Administrator, Region 1, on
July 30, 1993. A response to
the final report is due by
October 29, 1993.
Audits of EPA's
Financial Statements
Show Need for
Improvements in
Agency Accounting
Systems and Controls
Problem
Key weaknesses in EPA's
accounting systems and
controls affected the
reliability of the Agency's
fiscal 1992 financial
statements. Without
adequate systems and
controls, EPA cannot fully
rely on the financial
information used to manage
the Agency's funds and
programs or be assured that
its assets are properly
safeguarded.
Background
The Chief Financial Officers
(CFO) Act requires EPA to
prepare financial statements
for its revolving funds, trust
funds, and commercial
activities. The fiscal 1992
financial statements for the
Superfund and LUST Trust
Funds, the Asbestos Loan
Program, and the Pesticides
Revolving Funds were the first
prepared by EPA to meet the
CFO Act requirements.
We Found That
With respect to the fiscal 1992
financial statements for the
Superfund and LUST Trust
Funds and the Asbestos Loan
Program:
The Superfund Trust Fund
financial records had to be
adjusted to decrease assets by
$57.5 million, decrease
liabilities by $499.3 million, and
increase equity by $441.8
million due to weaknesses in
EPA's accounting system and
a lack of effective controls to
identify and correct errors. For
the LUST Trust Fund,
adjustments of $4.7 million
were necessary to decrease
liabilities and increase equity.
Nine Superfund accounts
receivable totaling $5.8 million
out of a sample of 38
receivables totaling $13.8
million were not recorded
timely in EPA's accounting
system. For the nine
receivables, an average of 77
days elapsed from the time the
amount owed EPA was
finalized until it was recorded
in EPA's accounting system.
Untimely recording of
receivables impedes EPA's
ability to ensure that all monies
due EPA are collected.
EPA does not have an
integrated property system
with complete historical cost
data and other information
needed to support all
capitalized property reported in
the Agency's financial
statements.
EPA did not have an
adequate method for
determining the costs incurred
under signed agreements with
states to share in the cost of a
Superfund site cleanup so that
recorded receivables and
corresponding deferred
revenue could be properly
liquidated.
Accrued liabilities for
Superfund interagency
agreements were improperly
recorded using a methodology
that did not reflect actual
services performed by the
supplying agency. As a result,
an adjustment of $486 million
was needed to correct an
overstatement of the accrued
liabilities related to these
agreements. In addition, EPA
was not always properly
recording unpaid grant
drawdowns as accounts
payable or accrued liabilities.
Superfund costs of $17.5
million were charged to the
Salaries and Expense
appropriation even though
Superfund monies were
available. In addition,
$391,000 and $13,000 of
building repairs and alterations
were charged to the Superfund
and LUST Trust Funds,
respectively, although funds
were available to the Agency
under a separate appropriation
to cover such costs.
With respect to the fiscal 1992
financial statements for the
Pesticides Revolving Funds:
EPA made 25 unsupported
adjustments totaling $181.3
million and $21.2 million,
respectively, to the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and
Tolerance Fund general
ledgers during fiscal 1992. As
a result, we could not
determine whether or not the
Statements of Financial
Position for the two funds were
fairly presented.
Property purchased with
FIFRA funds was not properly
capitalized because the
Agency's capitalization
procedures did not identify all
such property and program
office personnel assigned
incorrect object class codes to
procurement documents.
Neither the property
accountability system nor the
Agency's accounting system
contained sufficient information
to account for property. As a
result, we were unable to audit
the FIFRA property, plant, and
equipment balance of
$574,000.
The Office of Pesticide
Programs (OPP) did not
complete timely annual
inventories of property as
required, document property
transfers, and always record
property in the EPA's property
accountability system. Without
these key internal controls,
OPP lacked reasonable
assurance that property was
adequately safeguarded
against loss.
During fiscal 1992, OPP did
not completely review its
unliquidated obligations of
$345,588 for which there was
no activity during the year,
missing an opportunity to
identify no-year FIFRA funds
that could have been
deobligated and made
available to fund other critical
pesticides reregistration
activities.
Fees collected for
processing raw agricultural
commodity tolerance petitions
under Section 408 of the
Federal Food, Drug and
Cosmetic Act did not cover
EPA's costs. During fiscal
1992, EPA collected $1.2
million for processing these
petitions while the Agency's
cost was about $3.5 million.
Further, the reviews required
by the CFO Act that would
have identified this shortfall
were not performed.
Due in part to these problems,
we disclaimed opinions on the
financial statements for the
Superfund Trust Fund and the
Pesticides Revolving Funds
and qualified or disclaimed our
opinions on financial
statements of the LUST Trust
Fund and the Asbestos Loan
Program.
We Recommended That
The Acting Chief Financial
Officer:
With respect to the financial
statements for the Superfund
and LUST Trust Funds and the
Asbestos Loan Program:
APRIL 1, 1993 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 1993
13
-------
Develop a report to provide
trial balances at the level
required for external reporting
purposes.
Develop procedures for
calculating state cost shares to
properly recognize earned
revenue as cleanup services
are performed.
Ensure that regional offices
are consistently following the
year-end closing procedures
for recording accounts payable
and accrued liabilities.
Obtain an opinion from the
Office of General Counsel on
whether EPA had authority
during fiscal 1992 to use
Superfund and LUST funds for
building repairs and
alterations.
With respect to the financial
statements for the Pesticides
Revolving Funds:
Emphasize current guidance
on preparing adequate
documentation to support
financial transactions.
Ensure that quarterly
reconciliations are performed
of the FIFRA and Tolerance
Fund general ledger balances
and program office records.
Revise the Agency's property
capitalization policy.
Conduct the required reviews
of EPA's fees and make
appropriate changes in the
fees.
The Acting Assistant
Administrator for Prevention,
Pesticides and Toxic
Substances:
Perform the required reviews
of unliquidated obligations.
Ensure that internal controls
are in place and followed to
safeguard and account for
property.
What Action Was Taken
In responding to the draft
reports, the Acting Chief
Financial Officer generally
agreed with the reports'
findings and many of the
recommendations. She
provided action plans with
target dates for completing
corrective actions. The final
reports (3100264, 3100265)
were issued on June 30, 1993,
to the Acting Chief Financial
Officer. The final report on the
Pesticides Revolving Funds
was also issued to the Acting
Assistant Administrator for
Prevention, Pesticides and
Toxic Substances. In its
October 25, 1993, responses
to the final reports, the Agency
stated that it agreed in
principle with our
recommendations, is taking
appropriate actions, and, in
some cases, has already
completed several milestones
in its corrective action plan.
Regions 1 and 8 Need
to Improve Their
Implementation of the
Federal Managers'
Financial Integrity Act
(FMFIA)
Problem
Regions 1 and 8 had not
properly identified,
documented, and evaluated
their management and
financial controls. As a
result, the Regions could
not ensure that they were
protecting and managing
their resources effectively
and efficiently to accomplish
their missions.
We Found That
Regions 1 and 8 had not
properly or completely
assessed their vulnerability to
waste, fraud, and abuse;
developed management
control plans that fully
identified the major activities;
prepared meaningful event
cycle documentation; or
performed adequate control
reviews. Insufficient training
and inadequate headquarters
guidance appear to be the
underlying causes of these
weaknesses. Regional
managers did not show a full
understanding of the
importance of maintaining
current, documented controls
and of integrating FMFIA
activities into day-to-day
operations. Competing
priorities hindered execution of
their FMFIA duties. Managers
often viewed the FMFIA
process as a paperwork
exercise rather than as a
systematic means of ensuring
that they accomplished the
work more effectively and
efficiently and operated their
programs to achieve Agency
goals.
Regions 1 and 8 managers did
not properly identify high risk
areas. In some cases,
managers rated the overall risk
of assessable units instead of
the vulnerability of programs
and functions within the units.
Managers did not assess risks
associated with organizational
and legislative changes. For
example, Region 1
reorganized three divisions to
implement the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990 and the
Oil Pollution Act of 1990, but
did not perform vulnerability
assessments of the new
organization.
Although Regions 1 and 8 had
reported weaknesses in past
assurance letters, the
weaknesses were not
identified through the FMFIA
process. In 1992, for example,
Region 8 reported six such
new weaknesses, one of which
involved accounts receivable
with which it had experienced
problems since 1989.
Similarly, Region 1 managers
reported 49 weaknesses in
1991 and 1992, but only one
was identified through the
FMFIA process. As a result,
the Region could not be sure
that it had identified all
weaknesses. For example,
Region 1 managers were
aware of problems in
establishing Superfund
accounts receivable since
1990, but did not report them
to the Administrator or properly
assess the extent of the
weakness. Accordingly, the
Region could not be sure that
its Superfund accounts
receivable were accurate and
established timely.
We Recommended That
The Acting Regional
Administrators, Region 1 and
Region 8, improve
administration of FMFIA and
tie it more closely to daily
program management by:
Requiring managers to use
vulnerability assessments of
programs and functions to
strengthen control objectives
and techniques.
Requiring managers to
ensure that control
documentation is current and
to schedule control evaluations
based on results of
vulnerability assessments.
Requiring managers to plan
and conduct their own reviews
to evaluate and test
documented controls.
Incorporating management
control responsibilities into all
appropriate performance
agreements, providing
comprehensive training, and
appraising managers'
performance in implementing
performance and financial
controls.
What Action Was Taken
In responding to the draft
report, Region 1 generally
concurred with our findings
14
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
-------
and recommendations and
agreed to implement full
corrective actions by 1996.
The Region 8 response to the
final report is due by
November 24, 1993. The
Acting Assistant Regional
Administrator for Policy and
Management, Region 8,
disagreed with our findings but
later agreed to implement
some of the recommendations.
The final audit reports
(3100322 and 3100326) were
issued to the Acting Regional
Administrators, Region 1 and
Region 8, on August 23, 1993,
and August 24, 1993,
respectively.
EPA's Cash
Reconciliation
Procedures Need
Improvement
Problem
EPA did not routinely
reconcile its general ledger
balances with its financial
reports and balances
maintained by the
Department of the Treasury.
As a result, there have been
differences of millions of
dollars between EPA and
Treasury records that have
been unreconciled since
1989.
Background
The purpose of the
reconciliation process is to
ensure the accuracy of cash
records maintained by the
Agency and Treasury. The
process also provides a check
and balance between Treasury
and EPA to help support the
accuracy of disbursements and
collections processed during
any given month.
We Found That
EPA has experienced
problems in reconciling cash
for several years. The U.S.
General Accounting Office
cited weaknesses in the
Agency's reconciliation
process during fiscal years
1986 and 1987 when several
million dollars of unreconciled
differences led to material
misstatements in the Agency's
fiscal year 1987 financial
statements. In 1989, the
Agency converted its Financial
Management System to the
Integrated Financial
Management System. Errors
during downloading to the new
system caused cash
differences in fiscal years 1989
and 1990. The Agency has
reported these errors as a
material nonconformance in
annual Federal Managers'
Financial Integrity Act reports
since 1989.
Also, the Agency's procedures
for preparing monthly SF-224
reports on collection and
disbursement activities to
Treasury provide for the
accounting offices to modify
the reports to balance with
Treasury figures. Because the
Agency is reporting from
Treasury records, Treasury is
unable to determine if any
differences exist. This
procedure prevents Treasury
from monitoring any cash
differences and contacting the
Inspector General if
differences remain for a
prolonged period of time.
Monthly differences that
remained uncorrected
eventually led to year-end
cash differences. At the end
of fiscal years 1991 and 1992
unresolved differences totaled
about $16.8 million and $3
million, respectively. Further,
lack of training and detailed
procedures applicable to the
new accounting system
contributed to the current cash
reconciliation problems.
We Recommended That
The Acting Chief Financial
Officer:
Dedicate sufficient resources
to resolve unreconciled
differences from fiscal years
1989 through 1992.
Require the Financial
Management Division to
perform quality reviews of the
reconciliation process.
Revise applicable
procedures and provide
training for personnel
responsible for reconciling
cash.
What Action Was Taken
In responding to the draft
report, the Acting Chief
Financial Officer agreed with
our recommendations and
provided corrective action
plans. The final audit report
(3100391) was issued to the
Acting Chief Financial Officer
on September 29, 1993. A
response to the final report is
due by December 29, 1993.
APRIL 1, 1993 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 1993
15
-------
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, $204
million was obligated on 13
new construction grant awards
and 159 increases to existing
grants. As of September 30,
1993, there were 2,139 grants
involving $16.3 billion which
were potentially subject to
audit. Of this total, there were
412 active construction grants,
representing $3.7 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,
$1.7 billion was awarded for
46 continuation SRF grants.
As of September 30, 1993,
EPA had obligated $8.5 billion
to 50 States and Puerto Rico
under the State Revolving
Fund program.
Nearly $104 Million of
Questioned Costs
Claimed for New York
City Projects
Problem
The City of New York
claimed $41,632,671 of
ineligible architectural
engineering, construction,
force account, and
innovative and alternative
technology costs. An
additional $62,365,878 of
unsupported and
unreasonable costs were
questioned.
We Found That
EPA awarded 17 grants
totaling nearly $1.3 billion to
the New York City Department
of Environmental Protection for
the design and construction of
the North River and Red Hook
wastewater treatment facilities.
The grantee claimed
$41,632,671 of ineligible costs
under the grants including:
$24,348,903 of architectural
engineering fees which
exceeded the New York State
Department of Environmental
Conservation (NYSDEC),
approved contract amounts,
were allocable to other grants,
were related to ineligible
construction, or were incurred
after the approved construction
contract completion dates;
$8,610,354 of construction
costs related to a sludge
treatment plant with innovative
and alternative technology;
$3,903,278 of construction
costs related to understated
deductions for change orders,
costs previously declared
ineligible by NYSDEC,
unapproved change orders,
unpaid retainage, and a credit
change order not deducted
from the amount claimed;
$2,932,302 of construction
force account costs which
exceeded the indirect costs
claimed or were allocable to
the ineligible portion of the
construction project;
$877,445 of relocation costs
attributable to sewer rights-of-
way, sanitary landfill sites, and
sludge disposal areas which
are not allowable under EPA
regulations;
$780,101 of construction
costs attributable to
unapproved portions of the
construction project; and
$180,288 of design costs
which exceeded the approved
grant amount;
We also questioned
$40,256,461 of unsupported
costs, including construction
costs for cost overruns which
exceeded approved amounts
and unreviewed change
orders. Additionally, we
questioned $22,109,417 of
claimed costs as unnecessary
or unreasonable for among
other things, one project's
laboratory had not been used
and its computerized control
room was not operating as
planned and the other project's
computerized process control
distribution system was not
operational.
We Recommended That
The Acting Regional
Administrator, Region 2, not
participate in the Federal share
of ineligible costs
($28,796,610), determine the
eligibility of the Federal share
of unsupported costs and
unnecessary and
unreasonable costs
($45,251,094), and recover the
applicable amount from the
grantee.
What Action Was Taken
The final audit reports
(3100169 and 3100374)) were
issued to the Acting Regional
Administrator, Region 2, on
April 29, 1993, and September
14, 1993, respectively. A
response to the first report
(3100169) was due July 28,
1993. However, Region 2
expects to issue the final
determination letter by March
1994. A response to the
second report (3100374) is
due by December 14, 1993.
Springfield, Oregon,
Claimed $9.2 Million of
Ineligible and
Unsupported Costs
Problem
The Metropolitan Wastewater
Management Commission
(MWMC), Springfield,
Oregon, claimed $2,511,772
of ineligible administrative,
engineering, insurance, and
construction costs. An
additional $6,657,189 of
unsupported project costs
were questioned.
We Found That
EPA awarded 19 grants
totaling $104.8 million to
MWMC for the design and
construction of a regional
wastewater treatment system
to serve the Eugene and
Springfield metropolitan areas.
We questioned $2,511,772 of
the costs included in the
grantee's final claim as
ineligible, including:
$2,195,491 of administrative,
construction, and engineering
costs which were outside the
scope of the approved project;
$181,830 of costs allocable
to the ineligible portion of the
construction project;
$107,481 of insurance
premium refund which was not
credited to the grant;
$14,596 of costs related to
16
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
-------
premium refund which was not
credited to the grant;
- $14,596 of costs related to
unallowable easements and
permits; and
$12,374 of repairs and
replacement considered to be
normal grantee operation and
maintenance functions.
Additionally, we questioned
$6,657,189 of costs as
unsupported because the
claimed costs were not
substantiated by adequate
source documentation.
We Recommended That
The Acting Regional
Administrator, Region 10, not
participate in the Federal share
of ineligible costs ($1,914,853),
determine the eligibility of the
Federal share of unsupported
costs ($5,085,843), and
recover the applicable amount
from the grantee.
What Action Was Taken
The final audit report
(3300077) was issued to the
Acting Regional Administrator,
Region 10, on September 30,
1993. A response to the audit
report is due by December 29,
1993.
San Diego claimed over $9 million in ineligible costs to repair this
outfall pipe (photo by OIG staff).
More Than $9.2 Million
of San Diego,
California, Project
Costs Questioned
Problem
The City of San Diego,
California, claimed
$9,084,891 of ineligible
construction, engineering,
and administrative costs.
An additional $122,810 of
unsupported project costs
were questioned.
We Found That
On February 3, 1992, the City
of San Diego learned that an
ocean outfall, a 2-mile long
pipeline for disposing of
treated sewage at the Point
Loma wastewater treatment
plant, had broken about 3,000
feet from shore. The break
was allowing over 170 million
gallons of partially treated
sewage to be discharged daily
in about 35 feet of water. The
City claimed $9,084,891 of
ineligible costs under a grant
which EPA awarded, 4 days
after the break was
discovered, to repair the ocean
outfall, including:
$8,500,000 of construction,
engineering, and other costs
incurred because the grantee
did not credit the grant with
insurance proceeds which it
received to make the required
repairs to the outfall; and
$584,891 of construction
costs due to a conflict of
interest as a result of common
ownership of the prime
contractor and subcontractor
responsible for the outfall
repair, a relationship which
violated procurement
regulations.
We also questioned $122,810
of construction costs as
unsupported, pending the
grantee reconciliation of these
costs to invoices.
We Recommended That
The Acting Regional
Administrator, Region 9, not
participate in the Federal share
of ineligible costs ($4,996,690),
determine the eligibility of the
Federal share of unsupported
costs ($67,546), and recover
the applicable amount from the
grantee.
What Action Was Taken
The interim audit report
(3300072) was issued to the
Acting Regional Administrator,
Region 9, on September 29,
1993. A response to the
report is due by December 28,
1993.
Baltimore, Maryland,
Claimed $9.2 Million of
Questioned Costs
Problem
The City of Baltimore
claimed $6,590,945 of
ineligible architectural
engineering, construction,
administrative, and
equipment costs. An
additional $2,581,473 of
unsupported costs were
questioned.
We Found That
EPA awarded two grants to
the City of Baltimore to
construct a large diversion
sewer system and sludge
handling and disposal facilities
for the Patapsco Wastewater
Treatment Plant. The grantee
claimed $6,590,945 of
ineligible costs under the
grants, including:
$4,002,140 of construction
costs that exceeded eligible
as-bid amounts and change
orders;
$1,552,817 of administrative
and engineering costs which
were incurred after the grant
cutoff date and therefore
considered outside the
project's scope;
$652,704 of architectural
engineering fees claimed in
excess of the contract ceiling;
and
$383,284 of miscellaneous
costs which were applicable to
ineligible portions of the
project; associated with a
possible litigation
determination concerning
compliance with contract
provisions; and for redesign
and extra work requested by
the grantee.
We also questioned
$2,581,473 of costs that were
not supported by either
APRIL 1, 1993 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 1993
17
-------
invoices or by the expenditure
report.
Wa Recommended That
The Acting Regional
Administrator, Region 3, not
participate in the Federal share
of ineligible costs ($4,943,209),
determine the eligibility of the
Federal share of unsupported
costs ($1,936,105), and
recover the applicable amount
from the grantee.
What Action Was Taken
The final reports (3300049 and
3300050) were issued to the
Acting Regional Administrator,
Region 3, on May 27, 1993
and May 28, 1993,
respectively. Responses to
the reports due by August 25
and August 26, respectively,
had not been received as of
October 28, 1993.
Over $5.8 Million of
Questioned Costs
Claimed for Las
Virgenes, California,
Project
Problem
The Las Virgenes Municipal
Water District (LVMWD)
claimed ineligible
construction, engineering,
and administrative costs of
$5,091,815 for construction
of a wastewater treatment
plant. An additional
$757,976 of unreasonable
project costs were
questioned.
We Found That
EPA awarded seven grants to
LVMWD totaling $22,276,578
for construction of a
wastewater treatment system.
The grantee claimed
$5,091,815 of ineligible costs
under the grant, including:
$2,289,573 of construction
costs for excess capacity in
sludge handling facilities;
$1,078,979 of engineering
and construction costs for
activities which were outside
the scope of the approved
project;
$840,265 of engineering
costs not substantiated by the
accounting system;
$647,791 of administrative
and engineering costs which
exceeded approved amounts;
and
$42,564 of construction
costs which were not incurred
by the grantee.
In addition, we identified
interest of $192,643 earned on
an overpayment which was not
credited to the grant. We also
questioned $757,976 of costs
as unreasonable, including
$412,445 of excess
construction management
costs and $345,531 for design
fees associated with a filtration
system which was not a part of
the approved project.
We Recommended That
The Acting Regional
Administrator, Region 9, not
participate in the Federal share
of ineligible costs ($3,818,863),
determine the eligibility of the
Federal share of unreasonable
costs ($568,480), and recover
the applicable amount from the
grantee.
What Action Was Taken
The final audit report
(3300080) was issued to the
Acting Regional Administrator,
Region 9, on September 30,
1993. A response to the audit
report is due by December 29,
1993.
Salisbury,
Massachusetts,
Claimed Nearly $3.6
Million of Ineligible
Costs
Problem
The Town of Salisbury,
Massachusetts, claimed
$3,581,518 of ineligible
engineering, construction,
administrative, and other
costs for the design and
construction of a secondary
wastewater treatment plant
and interceptor sewers.
We Found That
EPA awarded a grant to the
Town of Salisbury for design
and construction of a
secondary wastewater
treatment plant, four pump
stations, a force main, and
interceptor sewers. The
grantee claimed $3,581,518 of
ineligible costs under the
grant, including:
$1,521,226 of construction
costs claimed which exceeded
eligible bid items and
miscellaneous costs not
allowed by the Massachusetts
Bureau of Municipal Facilities
(MBMF);
$829,336 of project
management and
administration services costs
of the consulting engineer
which exceeded the amounts
established in the grant award;
$571,008 of design costs,
basic engineering fees, and
project inspection fees which
exceeded grant allowances,
were for activities beyond the
approved project's scope, or
were incurred before the start
of construction or after the
approved project completion
date;
$373,491 of survey,
administrative, and other
engineering costs which
pertained to activities outside
the scope of the project;
$146,642 of basic fees and
projection inspection fees
resulting from application of a
different eligibility factor by the
MBMF and the grantee; and
$139,815 in legal fees
disallowed by MBMF and
claimed costs of acquiring land
for the treatment plant that
exceeded the amount
established by MBMF on the
basis of several independent
appraisals.
We Recommended That
The Acting Regional
Administrator, Region 1, not
participate in the Federal share
of ineligible costs ($1,969,835)
and recover the applicable
amount from the grantee.
What Action Was Taken
The final audit report
(3100255) was issued to the
Acting Regional Administrator,
Region 1, on June 21, 1993.
Region 1 advised the grantee
on October 1, 1993, that it
agreed with our findings.
18
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
-------
Superfund Program
The Superfund program was
created by the Comprehensive
Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability
Actof1980(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
Novembers, 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 sixih annual
report, covering fiscal 1992,
was issued on September 7,
1993.
Reported Superfund
Accomplishments
Questioned
Problem
Data in the Comprehensive
Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability
Information System
(CERCLIS), EPA's Superfund
management information
system, was not always
reasonable and accurate.
Some accomplishments
claimed for fiscal 1992 in
Regions 5, 8, 9, and 10 were
invalid.
We Found That
Of the 650 accomplishments
reviewed by us from the
universe of 1,901
accomplishments claimed in
Regions 5, 8, 9, and 10, 192
accomplishments, or nearly 30
percent of our sample, were
not valid. The claimed
accomplishments were
questioned because (1) the
accomplishment definitions
were not met, (2) support
documents could not be
located, (3) they were claimed
twice, (4) they were claimed in
the wrong fiscal year, or (5)
they were data entry errors.
The errors in reporting accom-
plishments were generally
caused by weak internal
controls, including failures to
(1) adequately train personnel,
(2) provide written policies and
procedures, (3) adequately
document events, (4) correctly
record and properly classify
events, and (5) authorize and
approve transactions at the
appropriate level of authority.
Definitions of accomplishments
were unclear and thus open to
interpretation. Finally,
CERCLIS was not included by
any of the regions reviewed as
part of the Federal Managers'
Financial Integrity Act (FMFIA)
process. Although the causes
of the weaknesses varied from
region to region, the overall
cause may have been
inadequate management
attention to the creation and
enforcement of internal
controls.
Finally, some of the
accomplishments we reviewed
were also performance
measures listed in the
Agency's fiscal 1992 financial
statements. With respect to
the performance measure for
construction completions, the
Agency did not disclose a
change in the definition in the
financial statements. The
inadequate disclosure resulted
in an inaccurate comparison of
construction completions
achieved in fiscal 1992 to
those reported prior to fiscal
1992. Using the new
definition, the Agency claimed
at least 27 more construction
completions in fiscal 1992 than
it would have using the
previous definition.
We Recommended That
The Acting Assistant
Administrator for Solid Waste
and Emergency Response
review and appropriately
expand Superfund
Comprehensive
Accomplishments Plan training
to include additional
information about
accomplishment definitions
and reporting procedures and
encourage the Regions to:
Participate more fully in the
process for developing future
definitions of accomplishments.
Issue regional policies and
procedures for entering data
into CERCLIS where presently
undocumented, and send them
to Headquarters for review for
consistency with national
policy;
Develop a review process to
ensure that all
accomplishments are
adequately supported by
source documentation;
Establish delegation of
authorities for approval of data
for input into CERCLIS;
Ensure that reported
accomplishments meet the
accomplishment definition; and
Include CERCLIS data entry,
accuracy, and integrity as an
event cycle in all regions'
FMFIA processes.
What Action Was Taken
In responding to the draft
report, the Agency generally
agreed with our
recommendations and is taking
some corrective actions. The
final report (3100392) was
issued to the Acting Assistant
Administrator for Solid Waste
and Emergency Response on
APRIL 1, 1993 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 1993
19
-------
September 29, 1993. A
response to the final report is
due by December 29, 1993.
Improperly Classified
Superfund Costs May
Affect Recovery From
Responsible Parties
(RP)
Problem
Some Superfund cleanup
costs were improperly
charged to accounts for
accumulating costs of
assessing whether Federal
action was needed rather
than to specific site
accounts or general program
accounts. As a result, costs
charged to RPs for Agency
cleanup and enforcement
activities may be inaccurate.
We Found That
In Regions 3, 6, and 7,
$1,601,200, or 39 percent of
reviewed costs charged to
accounts for assessing the
need for Federal action at
sites, should have been
charged to specific site
accounts or general program
accounts. Of that amount,
$540,800 of site specific costs
were incorrectly recorded in
the site assessment accounts
and may not be recovered
from RPs. On the other hand,
including these site specific
costs in the site assessment
accounts could inflate the
indirect cost rate, resulting in
other RPs paying EPA more
than their fair share of incurred
cleanup costs.
Further, because Agency
policy was unclear,
$1,060,400, or 26 percent of
the reviewed costs, were
improperly included in the site
assessment accounts rather
than the general program
accounts. As a result, RPs
could be asked to repay EPA
incorrect amounts for the
Agency's cleanup efforts,
depending on whether the
Agency's current or proposed
method is used to calculate
the indirect cost rate. Finally,
$552,300, or 13 percent of the
reviewed costs, were mixed
with non-site specific accounts
and questioned costs so that a
determination could not easily
be made of how much should
have been charged to the site
assessment accounts.
Under EPA's proposed method
of calculating the indirect cost
rate, costs in the site
assessment accounts will be
included in the indirect cost
pool. The Agency assesses a
number of sites without taking
cleanup or enforcement action.
These costs, which exceeded
$66 million in 1992, are
material enough that they
should be recovered from RPs.
We Recommended That
The Acting Assistant
Administrator for Solid Waste
and Emergency Response
emphasize to Superfund
program officials that costs be
properly accumulated in site
assessment accounts.
The Acting Assistant
Administrator for
Administration and Resources
Management clarify the
guidance on which costs
should be charged to each of
the three types of Superfund
accounts.
What Action Was Taken
The final audit report
(3100266) was issued to the
Acting Assistant Administrator
for Solid Waste and
Emergency Response and the
Acting Assistant Administrator
for Administration and
Resources Management on
July 2, 1993. In its October 5,
1993, response to the report,
the Agency agreed with our
recommendations and
provided a plan to implement
corrective actions that had not
been completed.
20
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
-------
Special Reviews
This section of our
semiannual report describes
the results of significant and
potential findings,
deficiencies, and
recommendations which
have been identified through
evaluations, analyses,
projects, and audits. These
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 designed
to quickly identify issue
areas for management
attention.
Parts of Yosemite
National Park Remain
Seriously Polluted from
Leaking Underground
Storage Tanks
Problem
Neither the National Park
Service (NPS) nor its
concessioner had cleaned
up any of 44 leaking
underground storage tank
(LUST) sites in Yosemite
National Park, California,
many of which had been
discovered more than 7
years ago. Thirteen of these
sites affected groundwater.
We Found That
The NPS's concessioner had
not been required to promptly
clean up 26 sites which it had
contaminated in Yosemite
National Park, including 12
sites which affected
groundwater. Although many
of the contaminated sites were
discovered more than 7 years
ago, the concessioner had not
met time frames established
by the State of California for
investigating and cleaning up
the high-priority sites. Further,
neither Region 9, the State
Water Resources Control
Board, the State's Central
Valley Regional Water Quality
Control Board (the Regional
Board), or the counties
responsible for oversight had
put the concessioner under an
enforcement order to clean up
its sites, even though it had
not complied with California's
requirements.
Because of the concessioner's
significant delays in cleaning
up the sites and the pending
expiration of its concession
contract, the OIG issued a
Flash Report on December 2,
1992, recommending that the
concessioner be placed under
an enforcement order. In
response to our report, the
Regional Board issued
Cleanup-and-Abatement Order
92-715 to the concessioner on
December 16, 1992. This
order identified the
concessioner as the primary
responsible party for site
cleanup and established
cleanup requirements. Our
subsequent review showed
that the concessioner had not
adequately complied with the
terms of the cleanup-and-
abatement order. As a result,
the concessioner had not
initiated remedial action at all
of its groundwater
contaminated sites by
September 30, 1993, when its
concessioner ownership
contract expired.
We also found that the NPS
had missed deadlines
established by the Regional
Board for cleaning up 18 LUST
sites for which NPS was
responsible, sometimes by
over 1 year. Further, one
contaminated site had not
been investigated because
both NPS and the
concessioner disavowed any
responsibility.
We Recommended That
The Acting Regional
Administrator, Region 9:
Assure that the State fully
enforces the terms of the
Cleanup-and-Abatement Order
with the concessioner and
initiate EPA enforcement
action, if the State order is not
fully enforced.
Require that the NPS be
placed under an enforceable
cleanup order and monitor its
compliance with provisions of
the order.
What Action Was Taken
In responding to a position
paper on the results of our
review, the Director,
Hazardous Waste
Management Division, Region
9, advised us that EPA and
the State of California planned
to actively monitor and enforce
activities to assure that the
enforcement order is followed.
The final special review report
(3400086) was issued to the
Acting Regional Administrator,
Region 9, on September 14,
1993. Subsequent to the
issuance of the final report,
Region 9 stated that it has
taken extensive actions. For
example, the Region stated
that it has completed work on
11 sites, is actively
remediating another five sites,
and has removed three sites
from the affected groundwater
list. Also, the Region stated
that although work has not
been completed in a timely
manner in the past, it is now
progressing according to
negotiated timetables and that
progress towards cleanup of
sites has improved
significantly. A response to
the final report is due by
December 13, 1993.
Improper Use of
Intergovernmental
Personnel Act
Agreements and
Extramural Resources
Problem
During the last 5 years, the
Office of Cooperative
Environmental Management
(OCEM) had not properly
managed its use of
Intergovernmental Personnel
Act (IPA) assignments,
cooperative agreements,
interagency agreements
(IAG), contracts, and
consultants.
We Found That
Four IPA assignments funded
by OCEM did not fully comply
with Agency requirements for
such assignments. None of
the assignments is for the
mutual benefit of the
participating organizations (two
APRIL 1, 1993 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 1993
21
-------
provide staff to OCEM and two
place OCEM staff elsewhere),
as envisioned by the I PA.
Further, the two employees
from other organizations do
not meet the qualifications for
an IPA assignment.
In addition, for 5 years, OCEM
has used lAGs to obtain
logistical and consultant
services from Delta Research
Corporation (Delta). This
allowed OCEM to avoid
competing its requirements.
From 1989 to 1992, OCEM
paid $1.4 million to the United
States Air Force under an IAG
to obtain the services of Delta,
and, for fiscal 1993, OCEM
and other EPA program offices
paid $959,750, including a
service charge of almost
$96,000, to the Tennessee
Valley Authority (TVA) under
another IAG to continue its use
of Delta.
Despite having been told by
EPA's Office of General
Counsel (OGC) and the Grants
Administration Division in May
1992 that cooperative
agreements are not the proper
mechanisms for obtaining
support for Federal functions
and offices, OCEM
subsequently used such an
agreement with the Center for
International Environmental
Law-U.S. (CIEL) to obtain
support. Although CIEL's
proposal for the cooperative
agreement did not address
direct support for the National
Advisory Council for
Environmental Policy and
Technology's (NACEPT) Trade
and Environment Committee,
documentation showed the
agreement has been used for
that purpose. CIEL provided
direct support to the
Committee and to OCEM by
paying for an administrative
assistant and by providing
design, production, oversight,
and articles for the
Committee's report. Further,
in the fall of 1992, OCEM
improperly began using TVA's
cooperative agreement with
Delta to support NACEPT.
OCEM staff improperly
selected consultants or
subcontractors to work for
Delta. In addition, OCEM staff
had Delta perform prohibited
functions. Some
subcontractors and consultants
provided personal services by
working under the direct
supervision of OCEM
managers, performing
predominantly Federal
functions. OCEM staff used
the Delta contract to
improperly pay travel costs for
NACEPT members and to
exceed the contract's scope by
creating two nonprofit
organizations. While being
funded by OCEM through the
Delta contract, a consultant
developed the concepts for
these organizations, including
in one case, providing office
space and preparing the grant
proposal. These nonprofit
organizations were then
awarded assistance
agreements funded by OCEM.
OCEM improperly used
experts and consultants when
it hired an individual who we
believe did not meet the
criteria for employment as a
consultant. This individual,
who is now president of the
Management Institute for
Environment and Business
(MIEB), was closely involved
with establishing MIEB while
employed by OCEM as a
consultant. When he worked
for OCEM, he also worked for
Delta performing like
consultant services. The
former OCEM Director knew
about his employment with
Delta, as well as his interest in
future employment with MIEB.
In allowing this consultant to
not only work for Delta while
under an EPA consultant
agreement, but to work on
projects so similar that it is
impossible to determine who
paid for what, OCEM
abdicated its supervisory and
financial responsibilities and
encouraged a potential conflict
of interest.
We Recommended That
The Acting Assistant
Administrator for
Administration and Resources
Management:
Terminate OCEM's four IPA
assignments and review IPA
approval procedures to
determine whether additional
steps should be taken to
ensure that IPA assignments
meet the intent of the Act.
Provide training to OCEM
managers on the appropriate
uses of assistance
agreements, procurements,
and interagency agreements
and perform periodic reviews
of OCEM's management of
contracts and assistance
agreements.
Seek a written legal opinion
from OGC on whether EPA
can create nonprofit
organizations and, if allowed,
establish the proper funding
mechanisms and procedures
for creating them.
Phase out the use of TVA
for support of NACEPT and
seek the return of unused
funds.
What Action Was Taken
In response to our draft report,
Agency officials: terminated
the two IPAs under which staff
was provided to OCEM;
provided contract and
assistance agreement training;
requested a legal opinion from
OGC on the creation of
nonprofit entities; and have not
awarded any new lAGs to TVA
or added any funds to the
existing lAGs after concluding
that five lAGs with TVA under
the Technology Brokering
Program may be improper.
The final report (3400094) was
issued to the Deputy
Administrator on September
30, 1993. A response to the
final report is due by
December 29, 1993.
22
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
-------
Section 2 -- Report Resolution
As required by the Inspector
General Act, as amended,
this section contains
information on reports in the
resolution process for the
semiannual period. This
section also summarizes
OIG reviews of the Agency's
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.
In 1982, the Off ice of
Management and Budget
(OMB) revised Circular A-
50, Audit Followup, noting
that swift corrective action
by Federal managers after
Inspectors General detect
waste and mismanagement
is a basic method to save
taxpayers' money. The
circular defines timely action
as total resolution of reports
within 180 days of issuance.
However, that has not been
the case at EPA.
Our analysis of unresolved
audits at EPA from
September 30, 1990, through
September 30,1993, shows
a disturbing trend. While
the number of audit reports
requiring resolution
averaged 310 at the end of
each 6-month period, the
number with past due
management decisions as of
those dates increased from
19 percent to 30 percent.
Some months the overdue
unresolved reports
increased to 50 percent
before dropping at the end
of a semiannual period due
to EPA management's
extraordinary efforts to
reduce the number for
reporting purposes.
In addition, during the 3-year
period, almost half of the
final management decisions
were not made within 180
days. At different times
throughout this period,
Agency managers had not
provided the Office of
Inspector General
any response to between 32
percent and 38 percent of
the outstanding reports until
more than 180 days had
etapsed since their issuance.
Further, nearly 40 percent of
the reports for which
responses were past due as
of September 30,1993,
contained questioned costs,
representing 75 percent of
all questioned costs to be
resolved as of that date. Of
these questioned costs,
$270 million were ineligible
costs that are likely to be
sustained for recovery.
These reports need to be
resolved and the misspent
dollars recovered more
expeditiously.
Agency officials provide
individual explanations why
resolution has been delayed
as well as projected
resolution dates (see
appendix 2). These
explanations raise issues of
the complexity of audit
resolution, state delegation
for resolution, and the
changing mix of types of
audits.
EPA has participated with
the OIG in the Total Quality
Management approach to
revising the EPA Directive
2750, Management of EPA
Audit Reports and Followup
Actions, to comply with
proposed changes to OMB
Circular A-50. A revised
directive will be issued for
Agency review during fiscal
1994. The changes
incorporate the Inspector
General Act Amendments of
1988 definitions and clearly
define responsibilities for
audit resolution. Also, EPA
has recently improved its
report resolution process.
The number of overdue
unresolved reports
decreased 31 percent from
146 at the end of the last
semiannual reporting period
to 100 as of September 30,
1993. However, more action
is needed. Agency officials
at all levels must make audit
resolution a top priority.
Status Report On Perpetual Inventory of Reports in Resolution Process For The Semiannual Period Ending September 30,
1993 (Dollar Values in Thousands)
A, For which no management decision has been
made by the commencement of the
reporting period*
B. Which were issued during the reporting period
C. Which were issued during the reporting period
that required no resolution
Subtotals (A + B - C)
0. For which a management decision was made during
the reporting period
Number
326
851
581
596
265
Report Issuance
Questionad Recommended
Costs Efficiencies
Report Resolution
Costs Sustained
To Be As
Recovered Efficiencies
B. For which no management decision has been made by
the end of the reporting period 331
Reports for which no management decision was
made within six months of issuance
100
485,524
145,355
119
630,760
156,644
474,115
334,776
131,585
46,845
26,295
150,135
108,133
42,001
31,085
48,785
7,606
* 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.
APRIL 1, 1993 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 1993
23
-------
Audit Followup
The Inspector General Act
Amendments of 1988 requires
Agency management 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 is a summary
of one of these reviews.
Considerable
Improvements Made In
SITE Demonstration
Program, But
Additional Actions Still
Needed
Previous Problems and
Findings
Our March 1990 report
concluded that the
Superfund Innovative
Technology Evaluation
(SITE) Demonstration
Program was seriously
hindered by problems
locating sites and issuing
reports on completed
projects. We reported that:
(1) the difficulties in locating
sites to demonstrate
technology were due to the
reluctance of Superfund
regional officials to
participate in the program
and rejection of sites by
technology developers, (2)
serious delays in issuing
final reports meant EPA
regional officials were not
notified timely about
demonstration results, (3)
contractor cost controls
were inadequate, and (4)
technology developers were
discouraged from
participating in the program
by high demonstration costs
and a lack of Federal
funding assistance.
Followup Findings
While EPA has made a variety
of improvements to the SITE
program, some corrective
actions agreed to in the
Agency's action plan have
either not been implemented
or have not corrected the
deficiencies noted in our 1990
report.
First, a systematic approach to
matching technologies to sites
has not been developed.
Rather than addressing high
priority Superfund sites and
soliciting technologies to
confront the waste at these
sites, EPA continues to accept
technologies into the SITE
program and then search for
appropriate sites to conduct
the demonstrations. As a
result, the program is
experiencing lengthy delays in
conducting demonstrations
once the developers are
accepted.
Second, the evaluation reports,
which are the most important
means of disseminating
information regarding SITE'S
innovative technologies, are
not consistently meeting
reporting time frames set by
SITE management.
Third, concerns over ensuring
adequate contractor
performance and cost control
need to be re-addressed. In
1990, two major SITE
evaluation contracts were
reawarded. Under these new
contracts the amount of the
award fee pool was increased.
However, while the award fee
amount increased, the method
used to evaluate contractor
performance did not change.
As a result, the award fee
dollars paid by EPA tripled
without EPA receiving
equivalent improvements in the
work performed by the
contractors.
Finally, while CERCLA allows
for Federal assistance to
technology developers, EPA
has not relayed information to
developers on how to receive
such assistance. As a result,
some otherwise promising
technologies may not be
demonstrated.
Followup Recommendations
We recommended that the
Acting Assistant Administrator
for Research and
Development:
Explore the possibility of
entering Federal Facility
Agreements under which
testing and evaluation facilities
could be established for the
SITE program.
Disallow an equitable portion
of the contractors' award fees
for those work assignments
where services (such as report
preparation) do not meet the
specifications set by SITE
management.
Clearly define the criteria
and weight assigned to each
of the award fee criteria, in
order to evaluate performance
definitively.
Change the award fee
structure so that the available
award fee will not be directly
related to the level of effort
expended for each award
period because that
encourages the contractors to
use as many hours as possible
to increase the available fee.
Require SITE management
to establish and implement
policies and procedures for
conducting SITE
demonstrations.
We also recommended that
the Acting Assistant
Administrator for Solid Waste
and Emergency Response
work with the SITE
management to develop a
systematic approach for
identifying sites which could be
used for SITE demonstrations.
What Action Was Taken
In responding to the draft
report, the Agency generally
agreed with our findings and
recommendations and agreed
to implement corrective
actions. The final audit report
(3400096) was issued to the
Acting Assistant Administrator
for Research and Development
and the Acting Assistant
Administrator for Solid Waste
and Emergency Response on
September 29, 1993. A
response to the final report is
due by December 29, 1993.
24
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
-------
Status of
Management
Decisions on IG
Reports
This section presents statistical
information as required by the
Inspector General Act
Amendments of 1988 on the
status of EPA management
decisions on reports issued by
the OIG involving monetary
recommendations. In order to
provide uniformity in reporting
between the various agencies,
the President's Council on
Integrity and Efficiency issued
guidance on reporting the
costs under required statistical
tables of sections 5(a)(8) and
(9) of the Act, as amended.
As presented, information
contained in Tables 1 and 2
cannot be used to assess
results of reviews performed or
controlled by this office. Many
of the reports counted were
performed by other Federal
auditors or independent public
accountants under the Single
Audit Act. EPA OIG staff does
not manage or control such
assignments. In addition,
amounts shown as costs
questioned or recommended to
be put to better use contain
amounts which were at the
time of the review unsupported
by adequate documentation or
records. Since auditees
frequently provide additional
documentation to support the
allowability of such costs
subsequent to report issuance,
we expect that a high
proportion of unsupported
costs will not be sustained.
EPA OIG controlled reports
resolved during this period
resulted in $51.4 million being
sustained out of $69.9 million
considered ineligible in reports
under OIG control. This is a
73 percent sustained rate.
Questioned Unsupported
Costs* Costs
485,524
145,236
630,760
156,644
48,785
107,859
474,115
334,776
90,531
58,070
148,601
25,874
8,987
16,887
122,727
64,681
Table 1 - Issued Reports With Questioned Costs for 6-month Period Ending 9/30/93
(see NOTE below)
Dollar Values(thousands)
Number
A. No management decision made by 4/1/93 140
B. New Reports issued during period 96
Subtotals (A + B) 236
C. Management decision made during the reporting period 90
(i) Dollar value of disallowed costs 74
(ii) Dollar value of costs not disallowed" 62
D. No management decision made by 9K30/93 146
No management decision made within six months of issuance 57
Questioned costs include the unsupported costs.
"On 17 reports management did not sustain any of the $8,798,874 questioned costs. Forty-one reports 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 -- Issued Reports With Recommendations That Funds Be Put To Better Use for
6-Month Period Ending 9/30/93 (see NOTE below)
Dollar Value
A. No management decision made by 4/1/93
B. Reports issued during the period
Subtotals (A + B)
C. Management decision made during the period
(i) Dollar value of recommendations that
were agreed to by management
- based on proposed management action
- based on proposed legislative action
(ii) Dollar value of recommendations that were not
agreed to by management
(iii) Dollar value of non-awards or unsuccessful
bidders
D. No management decision made by 9/30/93
No management decision made within six months of issuance
16'
13
48
13
57,077
43,450"
42,001
31,085
'Three of the reports were the same reports 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.
NOTE: 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.
APRIL 1, 1993 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 1993
25
-------
Resolution of Significant Reports
Report Issuance
Report Number
Report Date
E2CWMO-02-0275
3200003
REPORT DATE
11/17/92
E2CWMO-02-0300
3200010
REPORT DATE
2/22/92
E2CWM1-02-0010
3200013
REPORT DATE
1/28/93
E2CWM1-02-0018
3200002
REPORT DATE
ll/ 2/92
E2CWM1-02-0087
3200043
REPORT DATE
3/29/93
D8APL3-03-0223
3100240
REPORT DATE
6/16/93
D9BFL2-03-0184
3100086
REPORT DATE
1/26/93
N3HVK2-03-0528
3500477
REPORT DATE
3/30/93
P2CWM9-03-0363
3200041
REPORT DATE
3/25/93
P2CWNO-03-0104
3300013
REPORT DATE
2/10/93
P2CWNO-03-0412
3300005
REPORT DATE
11/10/92
E2CWN1-04-0417
3300006
REPORT DATE
11/23/92
E5BKN1-04-0290
2300045
REPORT DATE
3/26/92
P2CWNO-04-0392
3300011
REPORT DATE
2/ 4/93
Or»ntee/
Contractor
FALLSBURG
NY
TRI-
MUNICIPAL
SEWER DIST.
THOMPSON NY
PAWLING JT
SEWER NY
SAUGERTIES
NY
NCI
INFORMATION
SYSTEM
COMPUTER
SCIENCES
CORP VA
BALTIMORE
MD
BALTIMORE
MD
PARKERSBURG
WV
ALLEGANY CY
SANI DIST
MD
GARNER NC
N. CAROLINA
STATE UNIV.
ORLANDO FL
PS Questioned/
Recommended
Report
Resolution
Federal snare
to be
Efficiency
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
INEL
UNSP
UNUR
RCOM
INEL
UNSP
UNUR
RCOM
INEL
UNSP
UNUR
RCOM
INEL
UNSP
UNUR
RCOM
INEL
UNSP
UNUR
RCOM
INEL
UNSP
UNUR
RCOM
2, 495
1,649
958
4
1,534
688
170
5,462
891
2,372
779
30
1,856
378
1,678
479
2,375
854
654
2,914,
, 355
0
0
0
,932
0
0
0
,042
,642
0
0
,439
0
0
0
,654
,607
0
0
0
0
0
,832
,556
0
0
0
,761
0
0
0
,784
,949
0
0
,114
0
0
0
,702
,345
0
0
,707
,049
0
0
,863
,164
0
0
127
0
0
0
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
INEL
UNSP
UNUR
SUST
INEL
UNSP
UNUR
SUST
Recovered/
Sustained
Efficiency
2, 493
1,640
958
4
1,534
688
170
5,462
891
2,372
779
23
1,856
378
1,675
479
783
38
2,914,
,845
0
0
0
,018
0
0
0
,042
,642
0
0
,439
0
0
0
,654
,607
0
0
0
0
0
,832
,556
0
0
0
,761
0
0
0
,784
,782
0
0
,114
0
0
0
,702
,669
0
0
,707
0
0
0
,663
,883
0
0
127
0
0
0
Report Number
Report Date
P2BWPl-Ob-03b7
2400064
REPORT DATE
8/18/92
P2CWNO-05-0032
2300074
REPORT DATE
9/ 4/92
P2CWP8-05-0026
1400038
REPORT DATE
9/ 9/91
H8ABL3-09-0112
3100176
REPORT DATE
5/ 5/93
P2BWLO-09-017S
1100436
REPORT DATE
9/30/91
S2CWN1-09-0217
3300051
REPORT DATE
6/ 1/93
S2CWN9-09-0171
1300120
REPORT DATE
9/30/91
S5BG*8-09-0202
0300037
REPORT DATE
3/30/90
S5BGNO-09-0303
2300043
REPORT DATE
3/13/92
P2CW*7-10-0046
1200039
REPORT DATE
9/30/91
P9AHP1-23-0313
1400035
REPORT DATE
9/ 6/91
P9AHP2-23-0306
2400058
REPORT DATE
7/23/92
NOTE : INEL
UNSP
UNUR
RCOM
SUST
Report Issuance
PS Questioned/
Grantee/ Recommended
Contractor Efficiency
MILWAUKEE INEL 2,385,191
MSD WI UNSP 2,128,006
UNUR 0
RCOM 0
WASHTENAW INEL 707,156
CO DPW MI UNSP 2,807,133
UNUR 0
RCOM 0
GARY SD IN INEL 1,861,652
UNSP 1,024,829
UNUR 21,920,730
RCOM 0
DESERT INEL 0
RESEARCH UNSP 0
INST NV UNUR 0
RCOM 2,119,118
CLARK CTY INEL 5,138,940
SD NV UNSP 516,296
UNUR 19,042,733
RCOM 0
CORNING CA INEL 0
UNSP 0
UNUR 5,612,227
RCOM 0
TRACY CA INEL 2,687,236
UNSP 0
UNUR 4,137,467
RCOM 0
CA DEPT OF INEL 2,149,415
HEALTH CA UNSP 0
UNUR 1,639,269
RCOM 0
L.A. DEPT INEL 2,321,195
WATER & UNSP 0
POWER CA UNUR 4,354,690
RCOM 0
BRISTOL INEL 885,157
BAY UNSP 17,895
BOROUGH AK UNUR 125,250
RCOM 0
OHM REM INEL 0
ERCS3 R2 UNSP 0
OH UNUR 0
RCOM 1,095,181
OHM REM INEL 0
ERCS3 R2 UNSP 0
OH UNUR 0
RCOM 2,303,258
= INELIGIBLE COST
= UNSUPPORTED COST
= UNNECESSARY/UNREASONABLE
= RECOMMENDED EFFICIENCIES
= RECOMMENDED EFFICIENCIES
Report Resolution
Federal Snare
to be Recovered/
Sustained
Efficiency
INEL 2 ,
UNSP 1,
UNUR
SUST
INEL
UNSP 2,
UNUR
SUST
INEL 1 ,
UNSP
UNUR
SUST
INEL
UNSP
UNUR
SUST 1,
INEL 1 ,
UNSP
UNUR
SUST
INEL
UNSP
UNUR 5,
SUST
INEL
UNSP
UNUR 2,
SUST
INEL 1 ,
UNSP
UNUR
SUST
INEL 2 ,
UNSP
UNUR
SUST
INEL
UNSP
UNUR
SUST
INEL
UNSP
UNUR
SUST 1 ,
INEL
UNSP
UNUR
SUST 2 ,
COST
SUSTAINED
340,003
291,312
0
0
129,063
807,133
0
0
844, 623
965,449
0
0
0
0
0
689,118
090,544
84,896
0
0
0
0
612,227
0
150,363
0
012,798
0
652,482
0
544, 502
0
279, 176
0
0
0
837,566
5,024
0
0
0
0
0
095, 181
0
0
0
303,258
26
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENEFIAL
-------
Section 3 - Prosecutive Actions
The following is a summary of
investigative activities during
this reporting period. These
include investigations of
alleged criminal violations
which may result in
prosecution and conviction,
investigations of alleged
violations of Agency
regulations and policies, and
OIG personnel security
investigations. The Office of
Investigations tracks
investigations in the following
categories: preliminary
inquiries and investigations,
joint investigations with other
agencies, and OIG background
investigations.
Summary Of
Investigative
Activities
Pending Investigations as of
March 31, 1993 193
New Investigations Opened
This Period 161
Investigations Closed This
Period 160
Pending Investigations as of
September 30, 1993 194
Prosecutive and
Administrative Actions
In this period, investigative
efforts resulted in 16
convictions and 23*
indictments. Fines and
recoveries, including those
associated with civil actions,
amounted to $7.3 million.
Seventeen administrative
actions** were taken as a
result of investigations:
Reprimands 11
Resignations/Removals 3
Suspensions 2
Other 1
TOTAL 17
* Does not include indictments obtained
in cases in which we provided
investigative assistance.
" Does not include suspensions and
determents resulting from Office of
Investigations activities or actions
resulting from reviews of personnel
security investigations.
Profiles of Pending Investigations by Type
(Total--194)
General EPA Programs
Total Cases - 57
Superfund and LUST
Total Cases - 137
Procurement Fraud
42
Construction
19
Employee Integ
31
Procurement Fraud
28
Empl. Integrity
5
Program Integrity
33
Program Integrity
24
APRIL 1, 1993 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 1993
27
-------
Description of
Selected
Prosecutive and
Administrative
Actions
Below is a brief description of
some of the prosecutive
actions which occurred during
the reporting period. Some of
these actions resulted from
investigations initiated before
April 1, 1993.
Major EPA Contractor
Pleads Guilty
As a result of an OIG
investigation, Booz-Allen &
Hamilton, Inc. (BAH), a major
Agency contractor, pleaded
guilty to two counts of
submitting false claims to EPA
and was fined $1 million. The
OIG investigation revealed
that, during the summer of
1988 and from July 1989
through March 1990, some
BAH employees charged time
against Agency contracts,
although they did not perform
work on these contracts (also
see page 29).
Company and Its President
Plead Guilty in Alleged
Bribery Attempt
Environmental Health,
Research, and Testing, Inc., of
Lexington, Kentucky, and its
owner, Dr. Pritam S.
Sabharwal, pleaded guilty in
August 1993 to charges of
offering a bribe to an EPA
official in connection with
obtaining privileged information
on the amount bid by
competitors on a building to be
constructed for EPA at
Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina. The EPA employee
who received the $18,000
bribe was cooperating with the
Office of Inspector General.
The company agreed to pay a
criminal fine of $1 million.
Lab Pleads Guilty to False
Claim
As a result of an ongoing OIG
investigation of fraud in the
Agency's Contract Laboratory
Program, NET Gulf Coast, Inc.
(NETGC), pleaded guilty to
one count of submitting false
claims to EPA. NETGC paid a
$50,000 fine and agreed to
provide $200,000 to the
Federal Law Enforcement
Training Center in Glynco,
Georgia, to assist in training
Federal, State, and local law
enforcement officers in the
detection of environmental
crimes (also see page 29).
NETGC was a laboratory that
performed analyses of
samples from EPA Superfund
sites as part of EPA's Contract
Laboratory Program. EPA
used the results of the
analyses to support Superfund
cleanup decisions. NETGC
admitted that, in performing
these analyses, its Dallas
laboratory falsified test data
and submitted false claims for
payment over a 3-year period.
Office Director at
Headquarters Convicted,
Sentenced
Jerry Moore, an EPA
Headquarters office director,
was found guilty in June 1993,
on 13 felony counts of
conspiracy, bank fraud, filing
false income tax returns,
money laundering, and making
false statements to Federal
agents. The convictions arose
out of Moore's role in a series
of real estate transactions
during the 1980s. Moore
resigned his government
position in August 1993, and
was sentenced to 5 years in
prison.
The EPA OIG investigation
grew out of an OIG Hotline
complaint on an unrelated
matter. Information developed
during the investigation of this
complaint led to evidence of
possible criminal violations.
This case was investigated
jointly by agents of the EPA
OIG, Internal Revenue
Service, the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, the Defense
Criminal Investigative Service,
and the United States Postal
Inspection Service.
New York Lab President
Sentenced
Arun Gaind, president of
Nanco Environmental
Services, Inc., of Dutchess
County, New York, was
sentenced in June 1993 for
submitting false test reports to
EPA on analyses of soil and
water samples. Gaind was
sentenced to 33 months in
prison followed by 3 years of
supervised release. He was
also ordered to pay restitution
to EPA of approximately
$511,000. The scheme
involved setting back the dates
on the computer data systems
attached to Gas
Chromatograph/Mass
Spectrometer instruments to
make it appear that laboratory
analyses were performed
within EPA-approved holding
times when, in fact, they were
not. Two supervisors at
Nanco were previously
sentenced for their roles in the
scheme.
False Claims Made in
Asbestos Removal Program
Russell Curtis and Dean Curtis
pleaded guilty in July 1993 to
causing the Fairbury,
Nebraska, public schools to
submit a false claim to EPA for
expenses related to asbestos
removal. In 1989 the school
system had been awarded a
grant of $281,176 and a 20
year no interest loan for
asbestos removal under the
Asbestos School Hazard
Abatement Act. The
government charged Russell
Curtis, Dean Curtis, and
another individual with causing
the school system to submit
false invoices for change
orders for additional asbestos
work not covered in the
original asbestos removal
contract. The money, in fact,
was to be used to pay for
renovation of the Fairbury
Central Elementary School,
which was outside the scope
of the EPA grant and loan, and
related fees of the firms
operated by the Curtises and
others.
28
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
-------
Steel Firm Guilty in Bogus
Minority Business Claim
Barker Steel Co., Inc., a
Waltham, Massachusetts, steel
rebar manufacturing firm,
pleaded guilty in August 1993
to participation in a conspiracy
to defraud the government in
connection with the minority
business enterprise (MBE)
program. Barker allegedly
used a Rhode Island MBE
firm, Rusco Steel Company,
from 1982 to 1986 as a "front
company" so that expenditures
on some Federal and
federally-assisted construction
projects would be credited
towards MBE goals, when they
were, in fact, for the benefit of
Barker Steel. Barker was
sentenced to pay a $100,000
fine. Rebars, or reinforcing
bars, are used to reinforce
concrete for the construction of
buildings, roads, bridges, and
sewage treatment plants.
In February 1993, the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the First
Circuit remanded the case for
trial, reversing a September
1991 dismissal by the U.S.
District Court, District of
Massachusetts, of the criminal
charges filed against the firm
and its president.
On-Scene Coordinator,
Landowner Indicted
An EPA Region 7 employee,
working as a Superfund on-
scene coordinator, and a
landowner have been indicted
by a Federal grand jury on
charges of conspiring to
defraud the government. The
employee directed the day-to-
day activities at a dioxin
cleanup site near St. James,
Missouri, which was completed
in December 1990 at a cost of
$4.4 million. As part of the
job, the employee had the
authority to negotiate with
landowners for the use of their
land in the cleanup process, to
contract for the construction of
facilities on the site, and the
actual cleanup. According to
the indictment, the EPA
employee allegedly gave the
landowner proprietary
information which allowed him
to use a third party to underbid
competitors and to secure the
bid for fill dirt at the cleanup
site. The landowner was also
allegedly given access to
dioxin storage facilities at the
site, where he stored
miscellaneous personal
belongings. In addition, the
EPA employee directed a
contractor to construct a dam
and lake on the property. In
exchange, the employee was
allegedly provided meals and
given hunting and fishing
privileges.
Man Charged With
Misrepresenting Assets
The former operator of C&R
Battery, Inc., Richmond,
Virginia, has been charged
with making false statements
to the Government. The
indictment alleges that he
concealed personal assets
from EPA in connection with
his potential liability for the
costs, related to the Superfund
cleanup program, of
contamination at the battery
company location.
Civil and
Administrative
Actions to Recover
EPA Funds
Investigations and audits
conducted by the Office of
Inspector General provide the
basis for civil and
administrative actions to
recover funds fraudulently
obtained from EPA. Through
the Inspector General Division
(IGD) of the Office of General
Counsel (OGC), the OIG uses
a variety of tools to obtain
restitution. These include
cooperative efforts with the
Department of Justice in filing
civil suits under the False
Claims Act, the Program Fraud
Civil Remedies Act, and other
authorities; working with
grantees using their own civil
litigation authorities; invoking
the restitution provisions of the
Victim and Witness Protection
Act during criminal sentencing;
using the Agency's authority to
administratively offset future
payments and to collect debts;
and negotiating voluntary
settlements providing for
restitution in the context of
suspension and debarment
actions. Civil and
administrative actions to
recover funds usually extend
over several semiannual
reporting periods.
Booz-Allen & Hamilton
The IGD, working with the
United States Attorney's Office
for the Middle District of North
Carolina, negotiated a civil
settlement agreement with
Booz-Allen & Hamilton, Inc.
(BAH). Under the civil
settlement agreement, BAH
paid the Government $638,000
to resolve claims of fraudulent
labor (Discharging under four
EPA Technical Enforcement
Services (TES) contracts on
which BAH was a
subcontractor. BAH also
signed a compliance
agreement with EPA, under
which it bolstered its ethics
programs, modified its time
charging and cost accounting
practices, and agreed to
remain subject to compliance
audits for 3 years to ensure
that it meets its obligations.
The Government estimated its
loss from this fraudulent
practice to be approximately
$200,000. The civil settlement
with BAH, which was for more
than three times the
Government's estimated
damages, included the
recovery of $150,000 in OIG
investigative and prosecutive
costs.
NET Gulf Coast
Working with the United States
Attorney's Office for the Middle
District of North Carolina, the
IGD negotiated a civil
settlement agreement with
NET Gulf Coast, Inc.
(NETGC), and its parent
corporation, National
Environmental Testing, Inc.
(NET), under which NET paid
the Government $250,000.
The $250,000 civil settlement
includes repayment of the full
contract price of approximately
$128,000, plus OIG
investigative and prosecutive
costs, plus accrued interest.
In addition, NETGC (with the
exception of its Baton Rouge
laboratory) agreed to be
debarred from participating in
all federally-funded contracts
and assistance for 25 years.
metaTRACE
The IGD, working with the
Department of Justice (DOJ),
the Department of the Army,
and the Department of the Air
Force, negotiated a civil
settlement agreement under
which TRC Companies, and its
former subsidiary,
metaTRACE, Inc., agreed to
pay the Government
APRIL 1, 1993 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 1993
29
-------
$2,425,000 to settle a potential
False Claims Act case. EPA's
share of the settlement was
$225,000, which covered
EPA's payments for analyses
that could not be relied on and
EPA's payments for additional
resampling. In addition to the
civil settlement, TRC agreed to
institute a corporate
responsibility program,
including a code of business
ethics, employee training, and
a quality assurance program.
The case arose out of a joint
investigation by the EPA OIG,
the Defense Criminal
Investigative Service, and the
Federal Bureau of
Investigation into allegations
that metaTRACE had falsified
analytical data in connection
with its performance of
laboratory services contracts
with EPA, the Department of
the Army, the Department of
the Air Force, and other
federal agencies. The
investigation revealed that
employees of metaTRACE
manipulated laboratory test
results to show that samples
were being tested in
accordance with contract
requirements when, in fact,
they were not. As a result of
the investigation, metaTRACE
and two of its officers, Carol
Byington and Kenneth
Baughman, were previously
convicted of submitting false
statements to EPA.
metaTRACE was sentenced to
5 years probation and fined
$400,00; Byington was
sentenced to 5 years in jail
and fined $20,000; and
Baughman was sentenced to 5
years probation and fined
$10,000.
Computer Sciences Corp.
EPA's Suspension and
Debarment Division, working
with the IGD, negotiated a
compliance agreement to
resolve the suspension of the
Applied Technology Division of
Computer Sciences
Corporation (ATD-CSC).
Under the compliance
agreement CSC agreed to (1)
pay the Government
$1,147,856 to resolve a
potential False Claims Act
case; (2) pay EPA $1,002,291
to resolve EPA contract
disputes; (3) the debarment of
the ATD-CSC vice president
for 2 years; (4) the exclusion
of other ATD-CSC employees
from all government contract
work for 2 years; and (5) the
implementation of the CSC
Proposal Integrity Program to
ensure that all proposals worth
more than $25 million are
reviewed by a senior CSC
official for accuracy and lack of
ambiguity.
EPA had previously
suspended ATD-CSC and
three of its executives based
on information developed by
the OIG Office of
Investigations and Office of
Audit. EPA found adequate
evidence to suspect that ATD-
CSC used false and
misleading statements in its
proposal for the EPA Technical
and Operational Support
Services (TOSS) contract,
which had a potential 5-year
value of $347 million. The
false and misleading
statements concerned the
claim by CSC (the incumbent
computer support services
contractor) that conversion
from the old contract to the
new TOSS contract would be
"100% transparent" because
CSC would transfer its
incumbent employee who were
already working on EPA
projects to the TOSS contract
and that all the employees
proposed for the TOSS
contract met the requirements
of the contract. In fact, many
of the incumbent CSC contract
employees did not meet the
educational requirements of
the TOSS contract.
Caribe General Constructors
The IGD negotiated a
compliance agreement with
Caribe General Constructors,
Inc. (Caribe), Osvaldo J. Ortiz,
its president, and Jose M.
Bonnin, its vice president for
operations, under which Caribe
agreed to pay EPA $75,000
and to institute certain
remedial measures. Caribe's
$75,000 payment, representing
almost twice the estimated
$38,000 loss to the
Government, also resolved the
Government's potential
Program Fraud Civil Remedies
Act case against Caribe.
The OIG investigation
developed information which
showed that Caribe had
submitted falsely inflated
claims during the construction
of an EPA-funded sanitary
sewer system in Ponce, Puerto
Rico. Based on that
information, EPA had
previously suspended Caribe,
Mr. Ortiz, and Mr. Bonnin in
March 1993.
North Charleston, South
Carolina
In 1977, EPA provided a grant
to North Charleston, South
Carolina, to help fund
construction of wastewater
treatment facilities in the Deer
Park area of Charleston
County. During the
construction of the project,
several contractors conspired
to rig bids on contracts. The
bid rigging on this project (as
well as on other EPA-funded
projects) was discovered by
the work of OIG investigators
and auditors, working with
other law enforcement
agencies and the Department
of Justice. Subsequently,
North Charleston aggressively
pursued civil recovery action
against the contractors
responsible for the bid rigging.
In July 1991 North Charleston
successfully negotiated an
agreement to settle the bid
rigging on this project for
$340,000.
The IGD worked with North
Charleston and EPA Region 4
to ensure that EPA receives
$31,627 of this settlement,
which represents the Federal
share of the net recovery
obtained by North Charleston
after its payment of reasonable
attorneys' fees. EPA will be
able to reuse this money to
fund additional water pollution
improvement projects in the
future.
30
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
-------
Section 4 -- Fraud Prevention And Management Improvements
This section describes several
activities of the Office of
Inspector General to promote
economy and efficiency and to
prevent and detect fraud,
waste, and abuse in the
administration of EPA
programs and operations.
This section includes
information required by statute,
recommended by Senate
report, or deemed appropriate
by the Inspector General.
Review of
Legislation and
Regulations
Section 4(a)(2) of the Inspector
General Act of 1978, as
amended, directs the Office of
Inspector General to review
existing and proposed
legislation and regulations
relating to Agency programs
and operations to determine
their effect on economy and
efficiency and the prevention
and detection of fraud and
abuse. This semiannual
reporting period, we reviewed
7 legislative and 82 regulatory
items. The most significant
items reviewed are
summarized below.
Elimination of
Unnecessary or
Outdated Statutorily
Mandated Reports
Efforts are again underway in
Congress to enact an omnibus
bill to eliminate unnecessary or
outdated Statutorily mandated
reports to Congress. The
Administrator was asked to
update the Agency's 1985
recommendations. The
Legislative Analysis Division
(LAD) requested our
comments on the Agency's
recommendations and our
suggestions concerning other
Statutorily mandated reports to
the Congress which should be
eliminated. As discussed
below, we recommended a
number of these requirements
be eliminated.
The audits of cooperative
agreements and claims, and
the remedial
investigations/feasibility studies
(RI/FS) required by section
111 (k) of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability
Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as
amended, limit OIG flexibility to
focus on the most significant
problems. The changing
nature of the Super-fund
program demands that we
periodically reassess our
approach to focus on the
priority areas of concern, and
this requirement limits our
ability to do that. We believe it
is more advisable to set
priorities for our work based on
relative risk and potential
impact. Also, the Chief
Financial Officers (CFO) Act of
1990 requires an annual audit
of EPA's financial statements,
which makes the annual Trust
Fund audit requirement under
Section 111(k) of CERCLA
superfluous. Finally, much of
the material required in
Section 111 (k) duplicates
information already provided
by the Office of Inspector
General in its Semiannual
Report to Congress.
Under 31 USC 1114, the
Inspector General is required
to submit to the Congress an
annual evaluation of (1) the
Agency's progress in
establishing effective
management controls over the
procurement and use of
advisory and assistance
services; and (2) the accuracy
of the data provided to the
Federal Procurement Data
Center's automated
information system. Although
proper handling and reporting
of EPA's advisory and
assistance contracts is
important, the OIG's findings
for these mandated audits
have not been material. We
felt greater benefits could be
realized by devoting audit
resources to other areas.
Accordingly, we recommended
that the reporting requirement
in Section 1114 be repealed.
Public Law 101-121 prohibits
the use of appropriated funds
by any recipient of a Federal
contract, grant, cooperative
agreement, or loan over
certain amounts to pay any
person for influencing or
attempting to influence an
employee of any agency, a
Member of Congress, or an
employee of the Congress in
connection with any of these
transactions. This law requires
an annual audit of the
Agency's implementation of
the "lobbying provision."
Without a complete audit of
the books and records of a
business, it would be
impossible to determine
whether funds have been
inappropriately used for
lobbying activities. Because it
is impractical to conduct such
audits, we recommended that
section 319 of Public Law 101-
121 be eliminated.
Proposed Federal
Credit and Cash
Management Act of
1993
Although we believe that the
Federal Government should
become more aggressive in
debt collection, and credit and
cash management, we believe
that this bill would create a
significant administrative
burden on each agency that
would divert vast resources
from the immediate mission of
that agency to the business of
monitoring and collecting debts
from loans, grants, and other
benefits. We also believe that
it would be inefficient to set up
these very resource-intensive
operations, including data
bases, in each separate
agency.
We suggested that the Federal
Government sell its accounts
receivable and outstanding
debts to private interests
instead of absorbing scarce
Federal resources, similar to
the way private industry sells
its accounts receivable at a
variable percentage of the
original value. This would
reduce or eliminate the
APRIL 1, 1993 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 1993
31
-------
Government's cost for
resources to manage that
debt, provide an immediate
return to the Government, and
create jobs in the private
sector with firms that
specialize in that business.
We also believe that
contracting with debt collection
agencies would eliminate the
bill's inherent bias against
Federal employees. However,
if the Congress believes that it
is best for the Federal
government to retain this
function, we suggest that it be
managed centrally through an
organization with that exclusive
mission, and one central data
base that easily coordinates
inter- and intra-agency offsets
against future disbursements.
We also recommended that
the definition of outstanding
debts for collection be
broadened to include
sustained, disallowed costs
from audits, civil judgments or
settlements, and fines and
penalties. We also believe
that Federal employees should
not be subject to an automatic
offset of their Federal salaries
for tax liabilities based on
information from the IRS
without the same due process
expressly provided for through
the uniform Federal tax codes
to non-Federal employees.
Drinking Water State
Revolving Fund
Program
We reviewed and commented
on the Agency's proposed
Drinking Water State
Revolving Fund (DWSRF)
model, issue papers, and
proposed legislative package.
We believed that the
development of a proposed
program to establish a
DWSRF to provide assistance
for improving drinking water
facilities is a good first step in
addressing serious problems in
providing safe drinking water
to all citizens. However, we
were concerned that the draft
legislative proposal did not
better reflect the unique
circumstances of the Federal,
State, and local drinking water
programs. In our opinion, this
program must be better
tailored to meet these
circumstances.
The draft proposed legislation
for a DWSRF is based
primarily on the existing
legislation for the Water
Pollution Control State
Revolving Fund. Although this
is a good model, the proposed
DWSRF did not reflect
changes that could be
suggested from the Agency's
experience in implementing the
Water Pollution Control State
Revolving Fund. We believe
there is also a need to give
attention to the differences
between the drinking water
program needs and those of
the water pollution control
program, and to fill gaps in the
proposed legislation to
respond to those needs. For
example, the wastewater
construction program has a
long legislative history and a
well established institutional
framework at both the Federal
and State levels. This
legislation includes a clear
definition of eligible
construction projects, and has
led to the development of an
extensive body of
administrative regulations and
program and technical
guidance. Much of the
success of the Water Pollution
Control State Revolving Fund
can be attributed to these
factors, many of which are
lacking in the drinking water
program. We believe that the
DWSRF should reflect the
need to fill these gaps.
The early administration of the
Water Pollution Control State
Revolving Fund also revealed
the need to improve the flow of
funds from the Federal
Government to the States.
The relevant sections of the
proposed legislation should
reflect the experience gained
from the Water Pollution
Control State Revolving Fund
in providing Federal payments
based on actual needs in the
State funds. Effective and
timely management of funds is
essential.
Contracts Management
Manual, Chapter 7,
Certification Program
for Technical
Representatives under
EPA Contracts
We reviewed a revision to
Chapter 7 of EPA's Contracts
Management Manual. The
revision would require Senior
Resource Officials (SROs) in
each Regional and
Headquarters Assistant
Administrator's office to review
and confirm a list of contract
managers in their
organizations on an annual
basis. By December 31 of
each year, the SROs would
have to certify to the Director,
Office of Acquisition
Management, that all their
contract managers meet the
training requirements and
workload limitations set forth in
Chapter 7, perform their
contract management
functions satisfactorily, have
contract management
responsibilities listed in their
position descriptions and
performance standards, and
receive an annual ethics
briefing. If any individual fails
to meet these requirements,
the SRO shall list his/her
name, the deficiency,
proposed corrective action,
and estimated date the
requirement will be met.
While we believed that the
proposed revision is generally
adequate, we expressed
certain concerns. The chapter
stated that SROs must certify
that individuals within their
organizations who perform
acquisition management
functions do so satisfactorily.
Because of differing
organizational structures and
placement of the SRO
function, we felt the SRO may
not be able to evaluate the
performance of every
individual contract manager in
his/her organization. Thus,
any certification not based on
specific knowledge of the SRO
would be meaningless. We,
therefore, suggested deletion
of this requirement.
Secondly, while the proposed
revision discussed corrective
actions for weaknesses noted
in certifications, it did not
require the SRO to report,
either in the annual report or in
an interim memorandum, the
corrective action taken. To
maintain program integrity, we
believe such information
should be reported.
32
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
-------
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, or individuals within
those organizations, from
further EPA contracts or
assistance if there has been a
conviction of, or civil judgment
for:
commission of a fraud or
a criminal offense in
connection with
obtaining, attempting to
obtain, or performing a
public contract or
subcontract;
violation of Federal or
State antitrust statutes
relating to the
submission of offers;
commission of
embezzlement, theft,
forgery, bribery,
falsification or
destruction of records,
making a false
statement, or receiving
stolen property; or
commission of any other
offense indicating a lack
of business integrity or
business honesty that
seriously and directly
affects the present
responsibility of a
Government contractor
or subcontractor.
A contractor may also be
debarred for violating the
terms of a Government
contract or subcontract, such
as willful failure to perform in
accordance with the terms of
one or more contracts, or a
history of failure to perform, or
of unsatisfactory performance
on one or more contracts. A
contractor may also be
debarred for any other cause
of so serious or compelling a
nature that it affects the
present responsibility of the
contractor. Thus, a contractor
need not have committed fraud
or been convicted of an
offense to warrant being
debarred. Debarments are to
be for a period commensurate
with the seriousness of the
cause, but generally do not
exceed 3 years.
The effectiveness of the
suspension and debarment
(S&D) program has been
enhanced by regulations that
provide all Federal agencies a
uniform system for debarring
contractors from receiving
work funded by Federal grants,
loans, or cooperative
agreements. The system,
required by Executive Order
12549, provides that a
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 Suspension
and Debarment Division (SDD)
in the Office of Grants and
Debarment operates the S&D
program at EPA. The OIG
assists the EPA S&D program
by providing information from
audits, investigations, and
engineering studies; and
obtaining documents and
evidence used in determining
whether there is a cause for
suspension or debarment.
The OIG's Suspension and
Debarment Unit works with
SDD to further educate and
inform State and local
governments and
environmental interest groups
about the effective use of
suspensions and debarments.
During this period cases with
direct OIG involvement led to
35 suspensions, 27
debarments, and 7 compliance
agreements, a total of 69
actions.
The following are examples:
EPA debarred Cavour
Yeh and EMtec Engineering,
Inc. (EMtec), his affiliate, from
participating in any Federal
assistance, loan, and benefit
programs for 2 years, based
on Cavour Yeh's conviction for
mail fraud and making false
statements. Cavour Yeh had
submitted fraudulent
timesheets under several
federally-funded research
projects conducted at the
University of California at Los
Angeles (UCLA), which caused
UCLA unknowingly to submit
false claims to EPA, the
Department of Defense (DOD),
and the National Science
Foundation. Previously,
Cavour Yeh was sentenced to
2 years in prison, fined $6,000,
and ordered to pay restitution
of $1,594,000 to the United
States and $150,000 to UCLA.
EPA's share of the restitution
is $88,485. Since EPA had
previously suspended Cavour
Yeh and EMtec in January
1992, they will be excluded
from participating in any
Federal assistance, loan, and
benefit programs for a total of
almost 4 years.
In addition, EPA debarred
Richard Yeh, Victoria Hsia,
and Wei Li (who are related to
Cavour Yeh and were hired by
him as research employees)
from participating in any
Federal assistance, loan, and
benefit programs for 3 years,
based on their conviction for
conspiracy to make false
statements. Richard Yeh,
Victoria Hsia, and Wei Li were
sentenced to 3 years
probation. Since EPA had
previously suspended Richard
Yeh. Victoria Hsia, and Wei Li
in January 1992, they will be
excluded from participating in
any Federal assistance, loan,
and benefit programs for a
total of almost 4 years.
DOD debarred all these parties
from direct Federal
procurement for 3 years.
Since DOD had previously
suspended all these parties in
August 1991, they will be
excluded from direct Federal
procurement for a total of 4
years.
EPA suspended Warren
Berkle, owner and operator of
the National Sureco Ltd. and
Berkle Insurance Inc. Mr.
Berkle devised a scheme to
defraud and to obtain money
and property by means of false
and fraudulent pretense by
issuing to construction
companies surety bonds which
he knew to be false and
fraudulent. These bonds
pertained to EPA-funded
construction projects in New
York and New Jersey.
EPA debarred Annette
Mailhos Savoy and Elizabeth
Y. Olavesen, employees of
Environmental Research
Industrial Associates Inc.
(EIRA) for a period of
approximately 10 months. Ms.
Savoy and Ms. Olavesen were
both part of a scheme to
defraud EPA and were
convicted for submitting
fraudulent data to EPA as a
basis for making a claim for
payment under an EPA
contract. Both knowingly
manipulated data which was
submitted to EPA so that it
appeared that the data was
analyzed using properly
calibrated instruments when, in
fact, these instruments were
not properly calibrated.
APRIL 1, 1993 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 1993
33
-------
EPA suspended the
Applied Technology Division of
Computer Sciences
Corporation (CSC) along with
several key officials. CSC used
false and misleading
statements regarding
employee qualifications in its
proposal for the Technical and
Operational Support Services
(TOSS) contract, thereby
undermining the competitive
procurement process. EPA
later agreed to terminate the
suspension and enter into a
compliance agreement with
CSC. One of the conditions of
that agreement was that CSC
would debar Felice (Lyn)
Burchfield for a 24 month
period from the date of the
suspension notice, and that
Ms. Burchfield along with
William Hutton and Marshall
Henderson would not work on
any government contracts or
subcontracts or participate in
proposals in preparation for
any government contracts (see
page 30).
Based on a joint
investigation of the EPA Office
of Inspector General and the
General Services
Administration Office of
Inspector General, EPA
suspended Teck Ming Chen, a
contract employee with
Computer Sciences
Corporation (CSC). Mr. Chen
admitted to making
unauthorized telephone calls
amounting to $4,367.10. Mr.
Chen's access capabilities and
position as a Local Area
Network (LAN) supervisor
raised concerns over the
security of confidential
business information on file at
the Office of Regional
Counsel, Region 5. The
investigation uncovered that
Mr. Chen had a criminal record
consisting of several theft
convictions in Illinois,
Oklahoma, and Texas. Mr.
Chen's employment at CSC
was suspended immediately
and he was later terminated.
In addition, he was later
convicted of theft in Cook
County Circuit Court.
The National Award
Center (NAC), also known as
Sante Enterprises Inc. (SEI),
was debarred for 3 years. EPA
concluded that NAC/SEI
lacked business integrity
based on the criminal
convictions of Douglas
Raymond Cox and Saul
Galindo, two of the Directors of
the Corporation along with
numerous other employees.
The U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas
convicted Mr. Cox of
conspiracy, wire fraud, bank
fraud, and money laundering.
Mr Galindo was also convicted
of conspiracy. The EPA Office
of Inspector General and the
U.S. Postal Inspection Service
investigated NAC/SEI, which
was involved in a
telemarketing scheme to sell
water purifiers. To increase
the marketability of the
product, NAC/SEI falsely
represented that EPA
approved the purifiers and that
EPA was sponsoring a bill in
the House of Representatives
to require all households to
have a water filtration system
by 1990.
Congressional
Testimony by the
Office of Inspector
General
During this semiannual
reporting period, the Inspector
General or Deputy Inspector
General testified six times
before congressional
committees on various aspects
of the Superfund program,
elevating EPA to cabinet level
status, contract management,
and research and development
laboratories, as described
below in more detail.
On April 28, 1993, the
Deputy Inspector General
testified before the House
Subcommittee on
Investigations and Oversight,
Committee on Science, Space,
and Technology on EPA's
Superfund Innovative
Technology Evaluation (SITE)
program. In 1990, OIG
reported that the program was
not providing decision-makers
timely, credible information on
innovative technologies for
selecting remedies for
Superfund sites. The
testimony provided the
subcommittee a historical
perspective on the program
and discussed our prior audit
work and the preliminary
results of an ongoing follow-up
review of the Agency's
implementation of our prior
recommendations on four
problems identified by the
audit: matching proposed
technologies with suitable
Superfund sites; reporting on
demonstrations; contractor
performance and cost control;
and Federal funding for
technology developers.
On May 6, 1993, the
Inspector General testified
before the House
Subcommittee on Legislation
and National Security, and the
Subcommittee on
Environment, Energy and
Natural Resources, Committee
on Government Operations on
elevating EPA to cabinet level
status. He focused his
testimony on two areas of the
proposed "Department of
Environmental Protection Act,"
procurement reform and
information resources
management, since they
related directly to recently
completed and ongoing work.
On June 10, 1993, the
Inspector General testified
before the Senate
Subcommittee on Superfund,
Recycling, and Solid Waste
Management, Committee on
Environment and Public Works
on completed and ongoing
audit work in Superfund
contract management, financial
management, and information.
Although the Inspector General
used examples relating to the
Superfund program, he stated
that these areas of concern
were also problems in other
EPA programs and activities.
On June 22, 1993, the
Inspector General testified
before the Senate Committee
on Governmental Affairs to
provide an update on the
Agency's progress in
addressing the problems in
contract management
discussed in committee
hearings in March 1992. The
Inspector General also
discussed the results of
subsequent audits relating to
management, not only of
contracts, but the broader
range of extramural
assistance, including
cooperative agreements and
interagency agreements.
On June 25, 1993, the
Inspector General testified
before the House
Subcommittee on
Environment, Energy, and
Natural Resources, Committee
34
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
-------
on Government Operations, on
a series of reviews in the last
year on EPA's research and
development laboratories.
Specifically, the testimony
focused on how the
laboratories had managed
contracts and assistance
agreements with organizations
outside EPA which conduct or
supplement much of EPA's
research and EPA
management responsiveness
in taking corrective action.
Five broad areas of concern
were covered-work outside
the scope of the contract or
agreement, personal services,
inadequate invoice review,
limited competition, and
conflicts of interest.
On July 26, 1993, the
Inspector General testified
before the House
Subcommittee on Oversight,
Committee on Ways and
Means, on audits of financial
management in the Superfund
program. The Inspector
General gave an overview of
audits conducted of EPA's
Superfund accounting system
over the last 10 years,
including a discussion of
accounts receivable,
preliminary site costs, the
indirect cost rate, and property
and equipment. With respect
to the recently issued audit of
the Superfund financial
statements, he testified that
the CPA auditors who
performed the audit for the
OIG disclaimed an opinion
because EPA could not
provide support for the data
included in the statements.
Also, ineffective controls in
EPA's accounting system led
to errors totaling nearly $500
million, which EPA corrected
during the audit. The audit
also reported problems in
accounts receivable and
property.
OIG Management
Initiatives
This section discusses OIG
initiatives to promote
management and financial
improvements and integrity in
EPA's operations. For this
semiannual period, we are
highlighting the OIG's
continuing efforts to implement
its long-term program to audit
EPA contractors.
Expansion of Audit
Program of Contractors
The OIG continued to
implement its long-term
program for conducting
financial audits of EPA
contracts during this
semiannual period. To deal
with major contractors on a
comprehensive basis, we have
assigned responsibility for
overseeing and coordinating
audits for the Agency's top 25
contractors to a single OIG
field division. We have
formally assumed audit
cognizance for 12 contractors
and are analyzing data to
potentially assume cognizance
of additional firms. In order to
ensure our staff is prepared for
contract audit work, we have
expanded our staff's training
opportunities. We have
obtained contract audit self-
study courses developed by
the Defense Contract Audit
Agency (DCAA) for its use and
are sending our contract
auditors to DCAA's Contract
Audit Institute for training.
With respect to the audit
backlog, we have reduced the
number of open audit
requests. As of September
1993, there were 463
outstanding incurred cost audit
requests. Only 57 of the 463,
or 12 percent, were requested
prior to 1991. We are
continuing to work with DCAA
to complete these audits.
The OIG also worked with the
Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) and EPA's
Office of Acquisition
Management to implement the
recommendations of the EPA
SWAT Team and improve the
Federal Acquisition Regulation
(FAR) which governs
Government contracting. To
this end, we forwarded to OMB
for consideration
recommended changes to
seven FAR cost principles. In
view of the Administration's
position on reducing costs, we
feel the recommended
changes will significantly
improve the affected FAR cost
principles and aid EPA in
reviewing contract costs for
allowability, allocability, and
reasonableness.
Training
OIG Developed Courses
Detection and Prevention of
Fraud
This course was developed to
help prepare independent
public accountants doing work
for the EPA OIG, OIG auditors
and EPA program and contract
managers to detect and refer
instances of possible fraud to
the OIG Office of
Investigations. The purpose of
this course is to raise the
consciousness of the
participants to the elements
and indicators of fraud. During
this reporting period the course
was revised and presented to
our Central Audit Division, to
EPA program officers through
the EPA Institute, and as a
special seminar at the Federal
Executive Institute. We also
assisted several other Offices
of Inspector General develop
similar courses.
Effectively Selling Audit and
Investigative Findings
This course, previously called
Effective Briefing Techniques,
was revised to stress the
elements of a participatory,
collaborative audit and
investigative approach to
develop and present
persuasive recommendations
and cases. During this
reporting period, we presented
this course twice to our staff.
We also presented a workshop
version of this course, by
request, at the Association of
Government Accountants
National Professional
Development Conference and
for the Institute of Internal
Auditors.
The Brown Bag Institute of
Learning
As part of our effort to do more
in-house training we initiated
a lunchtime training program
call the Brown Bag Institute of
Learning. This program,
hosted each month by various
OIG managers features video
tapes, case studies,
discussions and presentations
by experts on subjects
pertinent to OIG work.
During this reporting period,
the OIG staff began
development of additional in-
house training courses, in
order to provide instruction
more tailored to the actual
work of our auditors and
investigators and reduce our
reliance on training vendors
and contractors.
Total Quality
Management
Quality Action Teams (OAT)
have been established within
OIG to improve training,
recruiting, data gathering and
sharing, and administrative
processes. In addition to the
teams within OIG, OIG
employees are members of
Headquarters and Regional
Quality Action Teams seeking
to improve processes such as
APRIL 1, 1993 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 1993
35
-------
performance management,
employees recognition and
awards, audit followup,
procurement, and
implementation of the Chief
Financial Officers Act and the
Federal Managers' Financial
Integrity Act.
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
12301 in March 1981 to attack
fraud and waste, and to
improve management in the
Federal Government. The
PCIE was re-established by
Executive Order 12805 on May
11, 1992. 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
for Management, Office of
Management and Budget, and
includes all civilian
Presidentially appointed
Inspectors General and other
key Federal officials.
Inspector General John C.
Martin chairs the Internal
Operations Committee of the
PCIE. The EPA Office of
Inspector General is leading a
PCIE government-wide review
of applications software
maintenance involving nine
Federal agencies.
Committee on
Integrity and
Management
Improvement
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.
Computer Software
Duplication
Making unauthorized copies of
computer software is relatively
easy and is often done
innocently. When it comes to
unauthorized duplication of
software, many people do not
realize the costly impact on the
software developer and the
customer community, or that it
is punishable by law.
Although the cost of "softlifting"
(individuals making copies for
their own use or use by a
friend) is borne initially by the
software developer, it is
ultimately paid for by legitimate
users. CIMI believed that it
would be beneficial to heighten
employee awareness that
unauthorized software
duplication exposes the
individual to legal action and
the Agency to embarrassment
and serious financial
consequences. Therefore,
CIMI developed a leaflet to
make EPA employees and
managers aware of the
seriousness of copyright
infringement and violation of
software licenses.
Public Service Recognition
Week
To communicate support and
appreciation to EPA
employees at all levels, CIMI
sought an opportunity for the
Agency to show its
commitment to human
resources. To demonstrate
Agency appreciation to
employees, CIMI developed
and coordinated a series of
events during Public Service
Recognition Week in May.
Inspector General John Martin
was master of ceremonies at a
special ceremony highlighted
by speeches from former
Acting Deputy Administrator
Jon Cannon and Prince
George's County, Maryland,
Executive Parris Glendening.
Following the ceremony,
Administrator Carol Browner
hosted an hour-long reception
for winners of the EPA
Employee Recognition Award.
Hotline Activities
During this period, the Hotline
was part of President Clinton's
efforts to "reinvent" the
Government by serving as a
collection point for the ideas of
American citizens. This
initiative requests the public to
directly participate by calling
OIG Hotlines to make
suggestions for improving
Government operations and
saving money. Attended
operating hours were
expanded to serve the needs
of the public.
During this period, the Hotline
referred 3,191 telephone
callers to the appropriate EPA
program office, State agency,
or other Federal agency for
assistance. The OIG Hotline
opened 46 new cases and
completed and closed 43
cases. Of the cases closed, 6
resulted in environmental,
prosecutive, or administrative
corrective action, while 37 did
not require action. Cases that
did not have immediate validity
due to insufficient information
may be used to identify trends
or patterns of potentially
vulnerable areas for future
review. The following are
examples of corrective action
taken as a result of information
provided to the OIG Hotline.
A complainant alleged
that an EPA employee
circumvented procurement
procedures in awarding a
contract to a personal friend.
A review of the complaint
disclosed evidence of the
appearance of giving
preferential treatment to a
personal friend in issuing a
specific contract delivery order.
The employee was given a
written reprimand.
A complainant alleged
that an EPA employee
improperly influenced the
public on an environmental
issue. A review of the
complaint disclosed that the
employee allowed his official
title to appear on a newspaper
editorial without the requisite
disclaimer that the views
expressed were his own and
not those of the Agency. The
employee was reprimanded
and office guidance was
issued regarding the use of job
titles on non-EPA work.
A complainant alleged a
conflict of interest and abuse
of travel funds by an EPA
employee. A review of the
complaint disclosed that a
supervisor began an intimate
relationship with an employee
which created a reasonable
appearance of favoritism and
non-impartial judgment
constituting a violation of
ethical requirements. The
supervisor received a written
reprimand.
36
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
-------
Appendix 1 - Reports Issued
APPENDIX 1 - REPORTS ISSUED
THE INSPECTOR GENERAL ACT REQUIRES A LISTING, SUBDIVIDED ACCORDING TO SUBJECT MATTER, OF EACH REPORT
ISSUED BY THE OFFICE DURING THE REPORTING PERIOD AND FOR EACH REPORT. WHERE APPLICABLE, THE DOLLAR VALUE
OF QUESTIONED COSTS AND THE DOLLAR VALUE OF RECOMMENDATIONS THAT FUNDS BE PUT TO BETTER USE.
Assignment: Control Number
Title
Final Report
Issued
Questioned Costs
Recommended
Efficiencies
Ineligible
Costs
Unsupported
Costs
Unreasonable (Funds Be Put
Costs To Better Use)
1. INTERNAL & MANAGEMENT ASSIGNMENTS
Office of the Administrator
E1SFF2-11-0019-3100404 SUPERFUND REPORT TO CONGRESS -
FISCAL 1991 9/30/93
Deputy Administrator
E6EMG3-13-2055-3400094 USE OF RESOURCES IN OFFICE OF
COOPERATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT 9/29/93
Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation
E1KAF1-03-0329-3100384 THE STRATOSPHERIC OZONE
PROTECTION PROGRAM 9/24/93
Assistant Administrator for Administration and Resources Management
E1AMF2 -08 -0046-3100175
P1SFL2-20-8001
E1EPL2
E1SFF2
E1BMF2
E1AMF2
E6AWG3
Office
-20
-11
-06
-11
-04
of
-7001
-0051
-0047
-0040
-0281
-3100264
AUTOMATED CLEARING HOUSE
PAYMENT SYSTEM
FINANCIAL STATEMENT AUDITS
-3100265 PESTICIDE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
-3100266
-3100284
-3100391
-3400068
Acquisition
SUPERFUND "
ZZ" ACCOUNTS
EPA'S ADMINISTRATION OF NON-
SUPERFUND SUPPORT CONTRACTS
RECONCILING
CONFERENCES
Management
CASH
- REGION 4
5/ 5/93
6/30/93
6/30/93
11 2/93
7/22/93
9/29/93
8/17/93
D6EMN3-03-0052-3300059 REVIEW OF ATLIS FEDERAL
SERVICES, INC. BILLING AND
HIRING PRACTICES 8/26/93
Assistant Administrator for Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
E1EPF2-05-0063-3100256 PESTICIDES SPECIAL REVIEW PROGRAM 7/22/93
Assistant Administrator for Research and Development
E1JBF2-01-0275-3100236 ORD'S NARRAGANSETT ENVIRONMENTAL
LAB MANAGEMENT OF EXTRAMURAL
RESOURCES
E1SKG3-11-5015-3400096 SUPERFUND INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY
EVALUATION PROGRAM - FOLLOWUP
6/16/93
9/29/93
Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response
E1SGG2-06-0181-3400097
E1SFF3-11-0016-3100392
Regional Administrator, Region 1
SURVEY OF SUPERFUND ARCS
MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES
FISCAL 1992 SUPERFUND
ACCOMPLISHMENTS
E1HWC3-01-0023-3100291
E1RML3-07-0011-3100322
Regional Administrator,
REGION 1'S ENFORCEMENT OF THE
SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT
FMFIA IMPLEMENTATION - REGION 1
Region 4
E1SGG2-14-0026-3400067
Regional Administrator, Region 5
SUPERFUND RI/FS REVIEW OF
NORTH HOLLYWOOD SITE
El SGG2-14-0024-3 40004 5
SUPERFUND RI/FS REVIEW OF
BOFORS SITE
9/30/93
9/29/93
7/30/93
8/23/93
8/ 4/93
4/ 6/93
APRIL 1, 1993 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 1993
37
-------
Assignment
Control Number
Title
Final Report
Issued
Questioned Costs
Ineligible
Costs
Unsupported
Costs
Unnecessary/
Unreasonable
Costs
Recommended
Efficiencies
(Funds be Put
To Better Use)
E1SFD3-05-0154-3100287 FISCAL 1992 SUPERFUND
ACCOMPLISHMENTS - REGION 5
Regional Administrator, Region 6
E1SGG2-06-0181-3400098 SUPERFUND ARCS MANAGEMENT
ACTIVITIES IN REGION 6
Regional Administrator, Region 7
E6EWG3-07-0106-3400088 FURNITURE ACQUISITION - REGION 7
E1SGG2-06-0181-3400099 SUPERFUND ARCS MANAGEMENT
ACTIVITIES IN REGION 7
Regional Administrator, Region 8
E1RML2-08-0091-3100326 FMFIA IMPLEMENTATION - REGION 8
E1SFL3-08-0041-3100319 FISCAL 1992 SUPERFUND
ACCOMPLISHMENTS - REGION 8
Regional Administrator, Region 9
E1SFL3-09-0101-3100359 FISCAL 1992 SUPERFUND
ACCOMPLISHMENTS - REGION 9
E1LLS3-09-006S-3400086 LUST-YOSEMITE NATIONAL PARK
E6FFG3-19-0001-3400080 SCAP ACCOMPLISHMENTS - REGION 9
Regional Administrator, Region 10
E1SFL3-10-0042-3100358 FISCAL 1992 SUPERFUND
ACCOMPLISHMENTS - REGION 10
TOTAL INTERNAL & MANAGEMENT ASSIGNMENTS
2 . CONSTRUCTION GRANT ASSIGNMENTS
P2CWL2-01-0144-3100179 MILFORD
S2CWLO-01-0073-3100161 SOUTH ESSEX SEWERAGE DIST
S2CWLO-01-0312-3100163 NEW BEDFORD
S2CWL1-01-0264-3100237 NORTH ATTLEBOROUGH
S2CWL2-01-0028-3100255 SALISBURY
S2CWL2-01-0185-3100318 ATTLEBORO
S2CWL1-01-0134-3100321 SO. ESSEX SEWER DISTRICT
TOTAL OF REGION 01 = 7
E2CWL2-02-0078-3100204 GREAT NECK WPCD
E2CWMO-02-0302-3200048 SUFFOLK COUNTY
E2CWM1-02-0045-3200050 ERIE COUNTY SD #4
E2CWM1-02-0096-3200051 LIBERTY
E2CWM2-02-0137-3200052 ONEIDA COUNTY SD
E2CWM1-02-0124-3200055 CANASTOTA
P2CWL1-02-0104-3100169 NYCDEP
P2CWL9-02-0175-3100196 ROCKAWAY VALLEY REG SA
P2CWL1-02-0104-3100374 NYCDEP
P2CWL1-02-0017-3100388 CHEMUNG COUNTY
P2CWN9-02-0133-3300035 GLOUCESTER COUNTY
TOTAL OF REGION 02 = 11
E2CWMO-03-0183-3200049 TALBOT COUNTY
P2CWM9-03-0261-3200045 BALTIMORE MAYOR & CTY COUN
P2CWN8-03-0220-3300041 ELK PINCH PSD
P2CWNO-03-0387-3300046 BALTIMORE MAYOR & CTY COUN
P2CWNO-03-0339-3300047 BALTIMORE MAYOR & CITY COUN MD
P2CWNO-03-0032-3300049 BALTIMORE MAYOR & CTY COUN MD
P2CWN9-03-0384-3300050 BALTIMORE MAYOR & CTY COUN
TOTAL OF REGION 03 =
7
E2CWL9-05-0262-3100397 FLINT
E2AWT3-05-0354-3400093 CLEVELAND NEORSD (EWS C/O)
TOTAL OF REGION 05 = 2
E2CWN2-06-0163-3300038 CONROE
P2CWN2-06-0190-3300048 NEW IBERIA
P2CWN2-06-0189-3300055 PORT NECHES
TOTAL OF REGION 06 = 3
P2CWN3-07-0071-3300058 TOPEKA
TOTAL OF REGION 07 = 1
E2CWM9-08-0036-3200047 MINOT
E2CWNO-08-0002-3300039 GREELEY
E2BWN2-08-0052-3300054 HUGHES COUNTY
7/30/93
9/30/93
9/20/93
9/30/93
8/24/93
8/16/93
)N 9
?S
CT
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NJ
NY
NY
NJ
MD
HV
MD
MD
MD
MD
MI
OH
TX
LA
TX
8/12/93
9/14/93
9/ 2/93
7/22/93
30
5/ 7/93
4/13/93
4/14/93
6/16/93
6/21/93
8/16/93
8/20/93
6/ 3/93
6/ 2/93
6/14/93
6/14/93
7/27/93
9/14/93
4/29/93
6/ 1/93
9/14/93
9/28/93
4/ 9/93
6/ 9/93
4/13/93
5/ 6/93
5/24/93
5/24/93
5/27/93
5/28/93
9/30/93
9/27/93
4/29/93
5/27/93
11 1/93
KS
ND
CO
SD
7/14/93
4/30/93
4/30/93
6/30/93
149,075
101,428
86,011
8,938
1,969.835
401,242
191,220
2,907,749
1,343,546
139,054
167,119
1,326,705
306,095
263,724
12,895,788
7,883
12,731,984
1,014,508
0
30,196,406
22,509
0
0
0
0
0
0
22,509
44,743
4,718,571
22,056
0
0
0
10,014,698
658,878
15,416,534
0
570,006
31,445,486
147,176
298,988
684,189
118,644
340,265
1,137,312
3,805,897
6,532,471
438,497
100, 352
0
1,871,305
17,120
131,428
534,358
1,401,747
4,056,310
7,812,621
438,497
303,768
20,753
18,776
343,297
122,907
122,907
0
10,677
281,365
7,812,621
30,812
3,248
112,958
147,018
1,200
1,200
0
0
0
0
1,834,794
0
0
0
0
0
1,834,794
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
11,018,23«
0
0
11,018,236
116,219
0
0
0
0
0
0
116,219
2,100,000
2,100,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
41,548
0
0
38
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
-------
Questioned Costs
Assignment Title
Control Number
Final Report
Issued
Ineligible
Costs
Unsupported
Costs
Unnecessary/
Unreasonable
Costs
Recommended
Efficiencies
(Funds be Put
To Better Use)
E2CWM1-09-
E2CWNO-09-
E2BWL3-09-
S2CWM9-09-
S2CWNO-09-
S2CWN1-09-
S2CWNO-09-
S2CWN2-09-
S2CWNO-09-
S2CWNO-09-
TOTAL OF REGION 08 = 3
0115-3200046 GUSTINE, CITY OF
0247-3300063 SEWER AUTH. MIDCOASTSIDE
0190-3300072 SAN DIEGO, CITY OF OUTFALL
0192-3200056 SAN FRANCISCO, CITY & CO
0073-3300036 SAN FRANCISCO, CITY & CO
0217-3300051 CORNING, CITY OF
0263-3300057 LOS ANGELES CSD
0041-3300066 GOLETA SAN DIST
0050-3300078 SAN FRANCISCO, CITY AND CO
0076-3300080 LAS VIRGENES MWD
TOTAL OF REGION 09 = 10
P2CWN2-
P2CWNO-
P2CWN1-
P2CWN1-
P2CWN1-
P2CWN1-
P2CWN1-
P2CWN9-
10-0016-3300067
10-0052-3300069
10-0048-3300071
10-0047-3300074
10-0044-3300075
10-0049-3300076
10-0041-3300077
10-0173-3300079
PETERSBURG, CITY OF
SEATTLE
EUGENE, CITY OF
LANE COUNTY
PORTLAND, CITY OF
SEASIDE, CITY OF
METROPOLITAN WASTEWTR.
ST MARIES, CITY OF
8
MGT,
TOTAL OF REGION 10 =
P2CWP9-23-0052-3400076 ORTONVILLE
TOTAL OF REGION 23 = 1
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
AK
WA
OR
OR
OR
OR
CA
ID
MN
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION GRANT ASSIGNMENTS
3. OTHER GRANT ASSIGNMENTS
C3HVK3-01-0205-3500948 CHICOPEE, CITY OF
C3HVK3-01-0224-3500988 NE WASTE MANAGEMENT OFFICIALMA
G3HVK3-01-0115-3500509 MATTABASSETT DISTRICT
G3HVK3-01-0148-3500607 SOUTH ESSEX SEWER DISTRICT
G3HVK3-01-0147-3500608 SOUTH ESSEX SEWER DISTRICT
G3HVK3-01-0152-3500609 HEALTH EFFECTS INSTITUTE
G3HVK3-01-0128-3500670 RYE, TOWN OF
G3HVK3-01-0134-3500701 HARTFORD, TOWN OF
G3HVK3-01-0164-3500781 MASS WATER RESOURCES AUTHO.
G3HVK3-01-0204-3500796 BURLINGTON, CITY OF
G3HVK3-01-0187-3500827 LUBEC TOWN OF
G3HVK3-01-0162-3500835 RUTLAND, CITY OF
G3HUK3-01-0211-3500949 HEALTH EFFECTS INST.
G3HVK3-01-0225-3500986 PORTLAND WATER DISTRICT
G3HVK3-01-0226-3500987 PORTLAND WATER DISTRICT
N3HVK3-01-0127-3500671 PIONEER VALLEY PLANN COMM
N3HVK2-01-0183-3500737 PENOBSCOT INDIAN NATION
N3HVJ3-01-0113-35007S6 NEW HAMPSHIRE, STATE OF
N3HVK3-01-0188-3500795 BIGELOW LAB FOR OCEAN SCI.
N3HVK3-01-0168-3500797 MASSACHUSETTS, STATE OF
N3HVK3-01-0161-3500940 PENOBSCOT INDIAN NATION
P3DMN1-01-0192-3300061 NEW HAMPSHIRE DES
TOTAL OF REGION 01 = 22
G3HVK3-02-0118-3500520 CAMDEN COUNTY MUA
G3HVK3-02-0147-3500655 LONG BRANCH SA
G3HVK3-02-0148-3500684 CAPE MAY COUNTY MUA
G3HVK3-02-0150-3500726 LANDIS SA
G3HVK3-02-0157-3500743 GREAT NECK WPCD
G3HVK3-02-0170-3500836 MANASQUAN RIVER RSA
G3HUK3-02-0172-3500838 OZONE TRANSPORT COMM
G3HUK3-02-0184-3500899 AMERICAN LUNG ASSN
G3HVK3-02-0187-3500905 LOVE CANAL AREA REVITALIZ
G3HVK3-02-0188-3500908 LOVE CANAL AREA REVITALIZ
G3HVK3-02-0196-3500919 INTERSTATE SANITATION COMM
G3HVK3-02-0197-3500926 HIGHLAND FALLS
G3HVK3-02-0203-3500952 PORT WASHINGTON WPCD
N3HVK2-02-0068-3500514 ITHACA
N3HVK3-02-0071-3500516 GLENS FALLS
N3HVK3-02-0013-3500517 HORNELL
N3HVK2-02-0033-3500518 HAMBURG
N3HVK2-02-0036-3500519 KINGSTON
N3HVK3-02-0100-3500521 BETHEL
N3HVK2-02-0015-3500522 HORNELL
N3HVK1-02-0117-3500523 CHESTER
N3HVK2-02-0029-3500524 ROCKLAND
N3HVK3-02-0087-3500577 SUFFOLK COUNTY
N3HVK1-02-0075-3500578 GLENS FALLS
N3HVK1-02-0079-3500579 ITHACA
N3HVK1-02-0052-3500580 WAWARSING
N3HVK1-02-0122-3500581 NEW ROCHELLE
N3HVK2-02-0048-3500582 WARWICK
N3HVK2-02-0043-3500583 HUNTINGTON
N3HVK1-02-0053-3500658 ONEIDA COUNTY
N3HVK3-02-0108-3500837 NASSAU COUNTY
N3HVK3-02-0171-3500849 SOUTHERN TIER CENT REG PLAN NY
N3HVK3-02-0135-3500894 SENECA NATION OF INDIANS
4/22/93
9/14/93
9/29/93
9/30/93
4/26/93
6/ 1/93
7/14/93
9/16/93
9/30/93
9/30/93
9/21/93
9/29/93
9/29/93
9/29/93
9/29/93
9/30/93
9/30/93
9/30/93
9/ 1/93
53
MA
LMA
CT
MA
MA
MA
NH
VT
MA
VT
ME
VT
MA
ME
ME
MA
ME
NH
ME
MA
ME
NH
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NY
NJ
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
9/ 7/93
9/29/93
4/ 7/93
5/11/93
5/11/93
5/11/93
5/27/93
6/ 4/93
7/12/93
7/19/93
7/23/93
8/ 2/93
9/ 7/93
9/29/93
9/29/93
5/27/93
6/21/93
6/30/93
7/19/93
7/19/93
9/ 3/93
8/27/93
4/13/93
5/20/93
6/ 1/93
6/14/93
6/24/93
8/ 2/93
8/ 2/93
8/24/93
8/25/93
8/25/93
8/26/93
8/31/93
9/10/93
4/13/93
4/13/93
4/13/93
4/13/93
4/13/93
4/13/93
4/13/93
4/13/93
4/13/93
4/28/93
4/28/93
4/28/93
4/28/93
4/28/93
4/28/93
4/28/93
5/24/93
8/ 2/93
8/ 5/93
8/17/93
292,042
0
436,117
4,996,690
103,238
369,987
0
388,560
273,220
211,395
3,818,863
10,598,070
161,920
115,738
106,828
56,528
51,057
72,886
1,914,853
62,860
2,542,670
107,991
107,991
54,082,100
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
11,296
2,247
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
497,500
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
67,546
192,921
0
0
0
0
32,698
0
293,165
16,408
217,557
0
0
445,008
141,152
5,085,843
5,206
5,911,174
0
0
49,689,483
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
35,478
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
41,548
1,800,075
0
0
0
2,154,332
5,612,227
0
0
0
568,480
10,135,114
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
25,245,911
APRIL 1, 1993 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 1993
39
-------
Questioned Costs
Assignment
Control Number
N3HVK3-02-0163-3500939
TOTAL OF
C3HVK3 -03 -0082 -3500788
C3HVK3 -03 -0267-3500866
C3HVK3-03-0344-3500877
C3HVK3 -03 -0119-3 500969
C3HVK3 -03-0377-3500970
C3HVK3-03 -0378-3500971
D3BML3 -03 -04 50 -3100393
D3BML3 -03 -0451 -3100394
D3BML3 -03 -0452 -3100395
D3BML3-03-0453-3100396
G3HVK3 -03 -0257 -3500599
G3HVK3 -03 -0258-3500600
G3HVK3 -03 -0259 -3 500601
G3HVK3-03 -0260-3500602
G3HVK3-03-0261-3500604
G3HVK3-03-0158-3500664
G3HVK3-03-0297-3500668
G3HVK3 -03 -0298- 3500669
G3HVK3 -03 -0323 -3500748
G3HVK3 -03 -0325- 3 500751
G3HVK3 -03 -0326- 3 500753
G3HVK3 -03 -0327- 3 500754
G3HVK3 -03 -03 38 -3500757
G3HVK3 -03 -0343 -3500789
G3HVK3 -03 -0379 -3500878
G3HVK3 -03 -0398 -3500880
G3HVK3 -03 -0408-3500881
G3HVK3-03-0409 -3500883
G3HVK3-03-0410-3500884
G3HVK3-03-0426-3500972
G3HVK3 -03 -0427 -3 500973
N3HVK3 -03 -0279 -3 500642
N3HVK3 -03 -0280- 3500643
N3HVK3-03-0281-3500644
N3HUK3-03-0282-3500645
N3HUK3 -03 -0120-3 500665
N3HUK2 -03 -0574 -3500666
N3HVK2 -03 -053 1-3500667
N3HVK3 -03 -0324-3500749
N3HVK3 -03-0062-3500758
N3HVK3-03-0401-3500994
N3HVK3 -03 -0122 -350099 5
N3HVK3-03-0266-3500996
N3HVK3 -03 -0124 -3500997
N3HUK3 -03 -0263-3500999
N3HUK3-03-0339-3501000
TOTAL OF
C3HVK3 -04 -0220 -3500503
C3HVK3-04-0180-3500546
C3HVK3-04-0210-3500605
C3HVK3 -04 -0168-3 5006 12
C3HVK3 -04 -0102 -3 500622
C3HVK3 -04 -024 1-3 500661
C3HVK3 -04 -013 7 -3500844
C3HVK3 -04 -03 13 -3500868
G3HVK3 -04 -01 65-3500497
G3HVK3 -04 -01 40-3500498
G3HVK3 -04 -0146-3500499
G3HVK3 -04 -0178 -3500507
G3HVK3 -04 -0177 -3500508
G3HVK3 -04 -0172 -3 500525
G3HVK3-04-0182 -3500544
G3HVK3-04-0184 -3500545
G3HVK3-04-0175-3500553
G3HVK3 -04 -0176-3500554
G3HVK3 -04-0186-3500568
G3HVK3 -04 -0187- 3 500571
G3HVK3 -04 -0202 -3 500576
G3HVK3-04-0213 -3500586
G3HVK3-04-0214-3500587
G3HVK3-04-0208-3500588
G3HVK3-04 -0205-3500589
G3HVK3-04-0212 -3500611
G3HVK3 -04 -02 15-3500621
G3HVK3 -04 -0228-3500646
G3HVK3 -04 -0229 -3 500647
G3HVK3 -04 -0148 -3 500648
G3HVK3-04-0226-3500649
G3HVK3 -04 -0262-3500693
G3HVK3 -04-0269 -3500694
G3HVK3 -04 -0276- 3500709
G3HVK3 -04 -0294 -3 500761
G3HVK3-04-0287 -3500783
G3HVK3 -04 -0277 -3500874
G3HVK3-04-0308-3500912
N3HVK2-04-0455-3500502
Title Final Report
Issued
NEW YORK CITY NY
REGION 02 = 34
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY VA
SUSSEX COUNTY DE
WASHINGTON COUNTY MD
PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY VA
BALTIMORE COUNTY MD
ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY MD
PA STATE UNIVERSITY PA
CARNEGIE UNIVERSITY PA
CARNEGIE UNIVERSITY PA
CARNEGIE UNIVERSITY PA
DELAWARE RIVER BASIN DE
LEE COUNTY VA
PETERS TOWNSHIP PA
NEW HOLLAND BOROUGH AUTH PA
FRANKLIN TOWNSHIP PA
INTERSTATE COM POTOMAC RIVERMD
CALVERT COUNTY MD
PATTERSON TOWNSHIP MU. A. PA
ALTOONA CITY AUTHORITY PA
BLAIR COUNTY CON. DISTRICT PA
CENTRE COUNTY CONSERVE DIST.PA
LOWER TEN MILE JOINT AUTH. PA
DUBLIN BOROUGH PA
PENN VEST PA
ST. MARY'S CTY. METRO COMM. MD
ROCKWOOD BOROUGH MUNICIPAL PA
TALBOT COUNTY MD
STROUD TOWNSHIP PA
SAINT THOMAS TOWNSHIP PA
BUTLER AREA SEWER AUTH. PA
MERCERSBURG BOROUGH PA
DC DEPT CONSUMER REG AFFAIRSDC
DC DEPT. CONSUMER REG . AFFAIRSDC
NEW CASTLE COUNTY DE
PA STATE UNIVERSITY PA
GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITYDC
URBAN INSTITUTE, THE DC
HOWARD COUNTY MD
RICHMOND CITY OF VA
ERIE COUNTY PA
PA COMMONWEALTH OF PA
ALEXANDRIA VA
HOWARD COUNTY MD
CECIL COUNTY MD
JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY MD
TEMPLE UNIVERSITY PA
REGION 03 = 46
JACKSONVILLE FL
TALLAHASSEE FL
TAMPA FL
LEXINGTON-FAYETTE COUNTY KY
ATLANTA GA
FORT LAUDERDALE FL
JEFFERSON COUNTY KY
COBB COUNTY GA
ELIZABETHTOWN KY
G ASTON I A NC
BUNCOMBE COUNTY METRO SEWAGENC
LACENTER KY
RADCLIFF KY
COLLIER COUNTY FL
SALTILLO MS
LOUISVILLE & JEFFERSON CO SEKY
CORNERSVILLE TN
ST ANDREWS PUBLIC SERVICE DISC
SALUDA SC
SALUDA SC
MANCHESTER KY
ANDALUSIA AL
PINE HILL AL
WARNER ROBINS GA
BRUNSON SC
WHITESBURG KY
UNIONTOWN AL
C1TRONELLE UTILITIES BOARD AL
SANFORD FL
DALTON WATER LIGHT & SINKINGGA
GADSDEN WATER WORKS £ SEWER AL
LARGO FL
WAVELAND REGIONAL WASTEWATERMS
NORTH AUGUSTA SC
MONROE GA
LARGO FL
ESTILL CO. WATER DISTRICT NOKY
CHICKAMAUGA GA
PASCO COUNTY FL
9/ 2/93
7/15/93
8/12/93
8/12/93
9/17/93
9/17/93
9/17/93
9/30/93
9/30/93
9/30/93
9/30/93
S/ 7/93
S/ 7/93
S/ 7/93
S/ 7/93
5/ 7/93
5/27/93
5/27/93
S/27/93
6/25/93
6/25/93
6/25/93
6/25/93
6/30/93
7/15/93
8/12/93
8/12/93
8/12/93
8/12/93
8/12/93
9/17/93
9/17/93
5/18/93
5/18/93
5/18/93
5/18/93
5/27/93
5/27/93
5/27/93
6/25/93
6/30/93
9/30/93
9/30/93
9/30/93
9/30/93
9/30/93
9/30/93
4/ 2/93
4/21/93
5/11/93
5/12/93
5/13/93
5/25/93
8/ 3/93
8/12/93
4/ 1/93
4/ 2/93
4/ 2/93
4/ 6/93
4/ 6/93
4/13/93
4/20/93
4/20/93
4/22/93
4/22/93
4/26/93
4/26/93
4/28/93
4/30/93
4/30/93
4/30/93
4/30/93
5/11/93
5/13/93
5/19/93
5/19/93
5/19/93
5/19/93
6/ 4/93
6/ 4/93
6/ 8/93
7/ 2/93
7/14/93
8/12/93
8/26/93
4/ 2/93
Recommended
Ineligible Unsupported Unnecessary/ Efficiencies
Costs Costs Unreasonable (Funds be Put
Costs To Better Use)
0
511,043
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
35,478
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
40
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
-------
Questioned Costs
Assignment
Control Number
N3HVK3 -04 -0162 -3500504
N3HUK3 -04 -0242 -3500569
N3HUK3 -04 -0243 -3500570
N3HVK3-04-0204-3500606
N3HVK3-04-0240-3500650
N3HVK2 -04 -0388- 3 500660
N3HVK3-04-0216-3500662
N3HVK3 -04-0222 -3500663
N3HVK3-04-0271-3500672
N3HVK3-04-0224-3500682
N3HVK2-04-0339-3500683
N3HVK3 -04 -0266 -3500692
N3HUK3 -04 -0029 -35007 10
N3HUJ3 -04 -0143 -3500711
N3HUK2 -04 -0338 -3500714
N3HVK2 -04-0254-35007 15
N3HUK3 -04-0231-3500730
N3HVJ2-04-0460-3500731
N3HVK3 -04 -0223-3500732
N3HVK2 -04 -0470-3500744
N3HVJ2 -04 -0464 -3500745
N3HVK2 -04-0293 -3 500750
N3HVJ2 -04 -0458 -3500752
N3HVK2 -04-0471-3500762
N3HVK3-04-0142-3500763
N3HVK3 -04-017 1-35007 64
N3HVK2 -04 -0444 -3500831
N3HUK3 -04-0166-3500832
N3HVK3 -04 -0181 -3500833
N3HVK3 -04 -01 74 -3500834
N3HVK3 -04 -0206-3500845
N3HVK3 -04 -0297 -3500846
N3HVK3 -04-03 11-3500847
N3HVK3 -04-03 10-3500848
N3HVK3-04-0264 -3500867
N3HVK3 -04 -0275 -35009 13
N3HVK2 -04-0447-3500925
N3HVK3-04-0283-3500958
N3HVK3 -04 -0350-3500984
N3HVJ3 -04 -0340-3 500985
Title
DURHAM
KENTUCKY UNIVERSITY OF
KENTUCKY UNIVERSITY OF
LAKELAND
SARASOTA
SARASOTA COUNTY
WAUCHULA
ORLANDO
SARASOTA COUNTY
DOTHAN
FLORENCE
ARCADIA
CENTRAL CAROLINA TECHNICAL
MISSISSIPPI UNIVERSITY OF
MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF SC
HICKORY
MOREHEAD STATE UNIVERSITY
GEORGIA, STATE OF
RED BAY
MEMPHIS
TENNESSEE, STATE OF
KEY WEST
MISSISSIPPI STATE OF
PINELLAS COUNTY
AUGUSTA
DURHAM
CELINA
MIAMI UNIVERSITY
FREEPORT
OAK GROVE
BRUNSON
WARNER ROBINS
FAYETTEVILLE
CAMP HILL
SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA
OKALOOSA COUNTY
BREVARD COUNTY
NC
KY
KY
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
AL
AL
FL
SC
MS
SC
NC
KY
GA
AL
TN
TN
FL
MS
FL
GA
NC
TN
FL
FL
KY
SC
GA
TN
AL
FL
FL
FL
EASTERN BAND OF CHEROKEE INDNC
CHATTANOOGA
KENTUCKY STATE OF
TN
KY
Final Report
Issued
4/ 2/93
4/26/93
4/26/93
5/11/93
5/19/93
5/24/93
5/25/93
5/25/93
5/27/93
6/ 1/93
6/ 1/93
6/ 2/93
6/ 8/93
6/ 8/93
6/ 9/93
6/10/93
6/16/93
6/16/93
6/17/93
6/24/93
6/24/93
6/25/93
6/25/93
11 2/93
7/ 2/93
11 2/93
7/30/93
7/30/93
7/30/93
7/30/93
8/ 3/93
8/ 4/93
8/ 4/93
8/ 4/93
8/12/93
8/26/93
8/31/93
9/14/93
9/29/93
9/29/93
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
TOTAL OF REGION 04 = 79
C3HVK3-05-0195-3500593 AKRON FY 91
C3HVK3-05-0294-3500800 KALAMAZOO FY 91
C3HVK3-05-0313-3500872 LANSING FY 92
C3HVK3-05-0347-3500965 GRAND RAPIDS FY 92
G3HVJ3-05-0169-3500526 ADAMS LAKE RSD FY 90/91
G3HVJ3-05-0173-3500527 KENTLAND FY 89/90
G3HVJ3-05-0177-3500S29 LANESVILLE FY 90/91
G3HVJ3-05-0176-3500530 AMO-COATESVILLE CD FY 90/91
G3HVK2-05-0376-3500531 ISLE FY 91
G3HVJ3-05-0178-3500532 CAMPBELLSBURG FY 90/91
G3HVJ3-05-0219-3500559 LAKE CO FY 91
G3HVJ3-05-0197-3500560 HOPE FY 90/91
G3HVJ3-05-0194-3500561 ARCADIA FY 90/91
G3HVK3-05-0221-3500562 HUBBARD SD FY 92
G3HVJ3-05-0205-3500563 SHARPSVILLE FY 90/91
G3HVK3-05-0215-3500590 FLUSHING FY 92
G3HVJ3-05-0216-3500591 S HENRY RWD FY 90/91
G3HVK3-05-0213-3500592 STACY FY 92
G3HVJ3-05-0223-3500594 SHIRLEY FY 90/91
G3HVJ3-05-0214-3500596 MARKLEVILLE FY 90/91
G3HVK3-05-0218-3500632 RANDALL FY 92
G3HVJ3-05-0249-3500633 MCDONALD FY 91
G3HVJ3-05-0250-3500634 ELYRIA FY 91
G3HVK3-05-0266-3500652 BROWNSDALE FY 92
G3HVK3-05-0265-3500653 ALLOUEZ FY 92
G3HVK3-05-0263-3500654 OGILVIE FY 92
G3HMK3-05-0276-3500676 ST IGNATIUS SCHOOL FY 93
G3HVK3-05-0264-3500765 FOLEY FY 92
G3HVK3-05-0280-3500782 LAKE MICHIGAN FED FY 92
G3HVK3-05-0303-3500799 ADAMS FY 92
G3HVK3-05-0302-3500840 CALUMET FY 92
G3HVJ3-05-0301-3500841 LOOGOOTEE FY 92
G3HVK3-05-0282-3500843 DODGE CENTER FY 92
G3HVK3-05-0311-3500873 STAPLES FY 92
G3HVK3-05-0320-3500890 CLEVELAND NEORSD FY 92
G3HVJ3-05-0359-3500963 INDIANA RECYCLE INST FY 92
G3HVK3-05-0357-3500964 DOWNERS GROVE SD FY 93
N3HVK3-05-0118-3500528 WAYNE CO FY 91
N3HVK2-05-0430-3500533 RED LAKE/CHIPPEWA FY 91
N3HVJ3-05-0170-3500564 ANDERSON FY 91
N3HVJ3-05-0157-3500651 MICHIGAN DNR FY 90/91
N3HVJ2-05-0341-3500755 MICHIGAN DOA FY 89/90
N3HVK3-05-0252-3500839 ILLINOIS DOM & M FY 91/92
N3HVK3-05-0185-3500842 INDIANAPOLIS FY 91
N3HVK3-05-0261-3500891 STOCKBRIDGE-MUNSEE FY 92
N3HVK3-05-0297-3500892 COLUMBUS FY 92
N3HVK3-05-0312-3500898 WORTHINGTON FY 92
N3HVJ3-05-0322-3500998 NW IN RPC FY 92
OH
MI
MI
MI
IN
IN
IN
IN
MN
IN
OH
IN
IN
WI
IN
MI
IN
MN
IN
IN
MN
OH
OH
MN
MI
MN
OH
MN
IL
MN
MI
IN
MN
MN
OH
IN
IL
MI
MN
IN
MI
MI
IL
IN
WI
OH
MN
IN
5/ 3/93
7/20/93
8/12/93
9/16/93
4/ 9/93
4/ 9/93
4/14/93
4/14/93
4/14/93
4/14/93
4/23/93
4/23/93
4/23/93
4/23/93
4/23/93
S/ 3/93
5/ 3/93
5/ 3/93
5/ 3/93
5/ 5/93
5/17/93
5/17/93
5/17/93
5/20/93
5/20/93
5/20/93
5/28/93
7/ 6/93
7/13/93
7/20/93
8/ 3/93
8/ 3/93
8/ 3/93
8/12/93
8/16/93
9/16/93
9/16/93
4/ 9/93
4/14/93
4/23/93
5/20/93
6/28/93
8/ 3/93
8/ 3/93
8/16/93
8/16/93
8/23/93
9/30/93
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,018
0
0
0
0
0
0
APRIL 1, 1993 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 1993
41
-------
Assignment
Control Number
Title
Final Report
Issued
Questioned Costs
Ineligible
Costs
Unsupported
Costs
Recommended
Unnecessary/ Efficiencies
Unreasonable (Funds be Put
Costs To Better Use)
TOTAL OF REGION 05 = 48
C3HVK3-06-0150-3500773
C3HVK3-06-0178-3500828
C3HVJ3-06-0190-3500907
E3LLN3-06-0060-3300068
G3HVK3-06-0107-3500540
G3HVK3-06-0108-3500541
G3HVK3-06-0109-3500542
G3HVK3-06-0110-3500543
G3HVK3-06-0114-3500555
G3HVK3 -06-0124 -3500597
G3HVK3-06-0123-3500598
G3HVK3 -06-0126-3500610
G3HVK3-06-0132-3500685
G3HVK3 -06-0137-3500703
G3HVK3-06-0138-3500704
G3HVK3-06-0139-3500705
G3HVK3-06-0140-3500706
G3HVK3-06 -0141 -3500707
G3HVK3 -06-0143 -3500712
G3HVK3 -06-0144-3500713
G3HVK3-06-0171 -3500817
G3HVK3-06-0172-3500818
G3HVK3-06-0173-3500819
G3HVK3-06-0175-3500820
G3HWK3-06-0176-3500821
G3HVJ3 -06-0177-3500822
G3HVJ3 -06 -0174 -350082 3
G3HVK3 -06-0179-3500829
G3HVK3-06-0189-3500906
G3HVK3-06-0192 -3500917
G3HVK3-06-0193-3500918
G3HVK3 -06-0195- 3 500930
N3HVJ3 -06-0099-3500500
N3HVK3 -06-0098 -3500501
N3HVK3 -06-0101 -3500505
N3HVK3-06-0102-3500506
N3HVK3 -06-0125-3500603
N3HVK3-06-0130-3500659
N3HVK3-06-0133-3500686
N3HVK3-06-0135-3500687
N3HVK3-06-0134-3500688
N3HVJ3-06-0136-3500702
N3HVK3 -06-0142 -3500708
N3HUK3-06-0145-3500722
N3HUK3 -06-0146-3500723
N3HVK3 -06 -0147 -3500724
N3HVK3 -06-0148 -3500725
N3HVJ3 -06-0156- 3 500801
N3HUK3 -06-0 157 -3500802
N3HVK3 -06-0158-3500803
N3HVK3 -06-0159 -3500804
N3HVK3-06-0160-3500805
N3HVK3-06-0161-3500807
N3HVK3 -06-01 62 -3500808
N3HVK3 -06-0163 -3500809
N3HUK3 -06-0164 -3500810
N3HVK3 -06-0165- 3 500811
N3HVK3 -06-0 166 -3 500812
N3HVK3 -06 -0167 -35008 13
N3HVJ3 -06 -0168-35008 14
N3HVK3 -06-0169 -3500815
N3HWK3 -06-0170-3500816
N3HVK3 -06-01 80- 3500830
N3HVK3 -06-0184 -3500853
N3HVK3 -06-0186-3500859
N3HVK3 -06-019 1-3500909
N3HVK3 -06-0 19 6 -3500931
N3HVK3-06-0197-3500954
N3HVK3 -06-0198-3500955
N3HVK3-06-0199 -3500956
TOTAL OF
G3HVK3 -07-0 123 -3 500515
G3HVK3-07-0129-3500768
G3HVK3 -07 -0130-3500771
G3HVK3 -07 -0132 -3500790
G3HVK3 -07 -0134 -3500798
G3HVK3-07-0153-3500941
G3HVK3 -07-0157 -3500950
N3HVK3 -07-0113 -3500573
N3HVK3-07-0126-3500675
N3HVJ3-07-0095-3500721
N3HVK3 -07 -0110- 3500851
N3HVK3 -07 -0122 -3500852
N3HVK3-07-0111-3500882
N3HVK3 -07-0112-3500886
N3HVK3 -07 -0121 -3500888
N3HVJ3 -07-014 3 -3500893
N3HVK3 -07-0139-3500900
SAN ANTONIO TX
SHREVEPORT LA
ARKANSAS DEPT. OF POLLUTION AR
LUST/UST NM
BROWNSVILLE PUB TX
BROWNSVILLE PUB TX
BROWNSVILLE PUB TX
BROWNSVILLE PUB TX
DERIDDER LA
EL PASO WCID WESTWAY TX
DEVINE TX
SAN JUAN TX
RUNGE TX
SHAWNEE OK
SOUTH HOUSTON TX
SOUTH HOUSTON TX
SOUTH HOUSTON TX
LEVELLAND TX
TERREBONNE PARISH CONSOLID LA
DERIDDER LA
SPLENDORA TX
LEONARD TX
LEONARD TX
SUNSET VALLEY TX
EL PASO PSB TX
ARK SOIL AND W AR
ARKANSAS STATE PLANT BOARD AR
NEW CORDELL OK
OAK MANOR MUD TX
PECOS NM
CONROE TX
DERIDDER LA
OKLAHOMA, STATE OF OK
EL PASO TX
DEVINE TX
TROY TX
DALLAS TX
EIGHT NORTHERN INDIAN PUEBLONM
NORTH CENTRAL COG TX
TEXARKANA TX
SANTA CLARA INDIAN PUEBLO NM
SOIL & WATER CONS.COMMISS. AR
SAN JUAN PUEBLO NM
OKLAHOMA UNIVERSITY OF OK
ABILENE CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITYTX
OSAGE NATION OK
DALLAS, CITY OF TX
LOUISIANA, STATE OF LA
ABILENE CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITYTX
CLEBURN TX
DALLAS, CITY OF TX
PLANO TX
KICKAPOO TRADITIONAL TRIBE TX
KICKAPOO TRADITIONAL TRIBE TX
FORT WORTH TX
UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA OK
OSAGE NATION OK
ST. BERNARD PARISH POL. JURY LA
ALBUQUERQUE NM
TEXAS, STATE OF TX
JEFFERSON PARISH LA
SANTA CLARA INDIAN PUEBLO NM
EDMOND OK
NM ENERGY MINERALS & NAT. RE NM
PUEBLO OF IOSLETA NM
KICKAPOO TRIBE TX
LOWER COLORADO RIVER TX
ARK -TEX COG AR
LOVELACE MEDICAL FOUNDATION NM
LOVELACE MEDICAL FOUNDATION NM
REGION 06 = 70
PUB WTR DIST #3 CHILLICOTHE MO
DESOTO MO
ROCK CREEK PUBLIC SEWER DISTMO
COLUMBIA MO
SALINA KS
DODGE CITY KS
ARCADIA MO
LINCOLN NE
JOPLIN MO
MARSHALLTOWN IA
LINN COUNTY I A
TRENTON MO
POLK COUNTY IA
WEBB CITY MO
ST LOUIS MO
SIOUX CITY COMM SCHOOL DIST IA
JOHNSON COUNTY KS
11 8/93
7/26/93
8/25/93
9/27/93
4/20/93
4/20/93
4/20/93
4/20/93
4/22/93
5/ 6/93
S/ 6/93
5/11/93
6/ 1/93
6/ 7/93
6/ 7/93
6/ 7/93
6/ 7/93
6/ 7/93
6/ 8/93
6/ 9/93
7/22/93
7/22/93
7/22/93
7/22/93
7/22/93
7/22/93
7/22/93
7/27/93
8/25/93
8/26/93
8/26/93
9/ 1/93
4/ 2/93
4/ 2/93
4/ 6/93
4/ 6/93
5/ 7/93
5/24/93
6/ 1/93
6/ 1/93
6/ 1/93
6/ 7/93
6/ 7/93
6/11/93
6/11/93
6/11/93
6/11/93
7/21/93
7/21/93
7/21/93
7/21/93
7/21/93
7/21/93
7/21/93
7/21/93
7/22/93
7/22/93
7/22/93
7/22/93
7/22/93
7/22/93
7/22/93
7/27/93
8/ 6/93
8/ 9/93
8/25/93
9/ 1/93
9/13/93
9/13/93
9/13/93
4/13/93
7/ 8/93
7/ 8/93
7/16/93
7/19/93
9/ 3/93
9/ 8/93
4/27/93
5/28/93
6/11/93
8/ 5/93
8/ 5/93
8/12/93
8/13/93
8/13/93
8/16/93
8/24/93
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
18,298
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
18,298
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,018
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
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 INSPECTOR GENERAL
-------
Questioned Costs
Assignment
Control Number
N3HVK3-07-0115-3500903
N3HUK3-07-0152-3500910
N3HUK3-07-0151-3500911
N3HUK3-07-0154-3500936
N3HVK3 -07 -0114 -3500946
TOTAL OF
C3HVK3 -08-0117-3500979
G3HVJ3-08-0079-3500772
G3HVJ3-08-0083-3500775
G3HVK3-08-0084 -3500776
G3HVJ3 -08-0087-3500777
G3HVK3 -08-0092-3500879
G3HVK3-08-0093 -3500889
G3HVK3 -08-0096 -3 500904
G3HVK3 -08-0102- 3500935
G3HVK3 -08-0101-3500937
N3HVK3-08-0070-3500572
N3HVK3 -08 -0082 -3500766
N3HVJ3 -08-0081 -3500767
N3HVK3 -08-0080-3500769
N3HVK3 -08-0085-3500774
N3HVK3-08-0071 -3500778
N3HVK3 -08-0076-3500850
N3HVK3 -08-0075-3500885
N3HVK3 -08-0074 -3500887
N3HVK3 -08 -0095 -3500895
N3HVK3 -08-0100-3500901
N3HVK3 -08-0090-3500902
N3HVK3 -08 -0107- 3500932
N3HVK3 -08 -0106-350093 3
N3HVK3 -08-01 11 -3500934
N3HVK3 -08-01 10- 3500938
N3HVK3 -08 -01 14 -3500942
N3HVK3 -08-01 12 -3500951
N3HVK3 -08 -01 15-3500953
N3HVK3 -08 -01 19 -3500961
N3HVK3 -08 -0103 -3500980
N3HVJ3 -08-012 1-3500981
N3HVK3 -08 -0122 -3 500982
TOTAL OF
C3HVK3-09 -0244 -3500945
G3HVK3 -09 -0144 -3500513
G3HVK3 -09-0184-3500673
G3HVK3 -09 -0204 -3500779
G3HVK2 -09 -0293 -3 500826
G3HVK3 -09 -0214 -3 500862
G3HVK3 -09 -0220- 3500896
G3HVK3 -09 -019 5- 3500957
G3HVK2 -09 -0292 -3500974
G3HVK3 -09 -0251 -3500992
N3HVK3 -09 -0095 -3500510
N3HVK2 -09 -0290-3500511
N3HVK2 -09 -03 10-3500534
N3HVK2-09-0346-3500535
N3HVK3 -09 -0035- 3 500536
N3HVK3 -09 -0149 -3500537
N3HVK3 -09 -0148-3500539
N3HVK3-09-0152-3500547
N3HVK3 -09 -0099 -3 500548
N3HVK3 -09 -0153 -3500552
N3HVK3 -09-0157-3500556
N3HVK3 -09-0156-3500557
N3HVK3-09-0159-3500565
N3HVK3 -09 -01 58-3500566
N3HVK2 -09 -0285-3500574
N3HVK3 -09-0 161- 3500575
N3HVK3 -09-0162-3500585
N3HVK3 -09 -0105 -350061 3
N3HVK2 -09 -0273 -3500614
N3HVK3 -09 -0055 -3500615
N3HVK3 -09 -0123 -3500623
N3HVK3 -09 -01 74 -3500624
N3HVK3-09-0173-3500625
N3HVK3 -09 -0172- 3 500626
N3HVK3 -09 -0176- 3500627
N3HVK3 -09-0106-3500630
N3HVK3-09-0032-3500636
N3HVK3 -09 -0026 -3500637
N3HVK3 -09 -0135-3500638
N3HVK3-09-0134-3500639
N3HVK2- 09 -0354 -3500640
N3HVK3- 09 -0087- 3 500641
N3HVK3 -09 -0179 -3500656
N3HVK3 -09 -0178 -3500657
N3HVK3 -09 -0025-3500674
N3HVK3 -09 -0027 -3500677
N3HVK3 -09 -0186 -3500681
N3HVK3-09 -0107-3500695
Title
KANSAS CITY MO
UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA SYST.NE
UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA-SYST.NE
UN IV OF KS CENTER FOR REASEAKS
LINCOLN SANITARY SEWER NE
REGION 07 = 22
SIOUX FALLS SD
SOUTHEAST CASS WATER DIST ND
MENDORA NE
CENTRAL COLORADO WATER DIST CO
BUFFALO WY
EAST DAKOTA WATER DEV DIST. SD
TRIPP SD
SO ADAMS COUNTY WATER DIST. CO
BURLINGTON WY
LONGMONT CO
UTE INDIAN TRIBE UT
CASTLE ROCK CO
CASS COUNTY ND
ASSINIBOINE & SIOUX TRIBES MT
SALISH & KOOTENAI TRIBES MT
NORTHERN CHEYENNE TRIBE MT
CHEYENNE RIVER SIOUX TRIBE SD
SOUTHERN UTE INDIAN TRIBE CO
DENVER REGIONAL COUNCIL CO
B I SHARK ND
WESTMINISTER CO
WESTMINISTER CO
ROCK SPRINGS WY
THREE AFFILIATED TRIBES
GRAND FORKS ND
CHEYENNE RIVER SIOUX TRIBE SD
CROW TRIBE OF INDIANS MT
NORTHERN CHEYENNE TRIBE MT
CROW TRIBE OF INDIANS MT
WYOMING DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
MINOT ND
PENNINGTON COUNTY SD
UTE INDIAN TRIBE UT
REGION 08 = 33
SAN DIEGO, CITY OF CA
BOULDER CITY, CITY OF NV
EAST BAY DISCHARGERS AUTH CA
CALAVERAS COUNTY WATER DIST CA
HAWAII, COUNTY OF HI
VALLEJO SANIT & FLOOD CTRL CA
CARSON CITY NV
BOULDER CITY, CITY OF NV
HAWAII COUNTY OF HI
SAN LUCAS CO WATER DIST. CA
MARSHALL ISLANDS REPUBLIC OFMH
NAVAJO NATION AZ
COLORADO RIVER IND. TRIBES AZ
GLENDALE, CITY OF AZ
HOOPA VALLEY TRIBE CA
SHASTA, COUNTY OF CA
PACIFICA, CITY OF CA
NEVADA, COUNTY OF CA
HENDERSON, CITY OF NV
WEOTT COMM. SVCS . DIST CA
SANTA CRUZ, CITY OF CA
LOS ANGELES CNTY SANT. DIST CA
STANISLAUS, COUNTY OF CA
SAN LUIS OBISPO, COUNTY OF CA
BOULDER CITY, CITY OF NV
CORNING, CITY OF CA
ASSN OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENT CA
POHNPEI, STATE OF FM
WASHOE COUNTY NV
LAKE OROVILLE AREA PUD CA
WASHOE COUNTY NV
SACRAMENTO, COUNTY OF CA
SOUTH COAST AIR QTY MGMT DISCA
EAST BAY MUNI UTILITY DIS CA
ALAMEDA, COUNTY OF CA
KOSRAE, STATE OF FM
GILA RIVER IND. COMMUNITY AZ
TUCSON, CITY OF AZ
TUSCON, CITY OF AZ
VENTURA, COUNTY OF CA
FRESNO, CITY OF CA
PRESCOTT, CITY OF AZ
HUGHSON, CITY OF CA
SAN DIEGO ASSN OF GOVERNMENTCA
SALT RIVER PIMA-MAR IND COMMAZ
MARICOPA ASSN OF GOVTS AZ
MONTEREY, COUNTY OF CA
FEDERATED STATES MICRONESIA FM
Final Report
Issued
8/24/93
8/25/93
8/25/93
9/ 1/93
9/ 3/93
9/27/93
7/ 8/93
7/ 8/93
7/ 8/93
7/ 8/93
8/12/93
8/13/93
8/24/93
9/ 1/93
9/ 1/93
4/27/93
7/ 7/93
7/ 7/93
7/ 8/93
7/ 8/93
7/ 8/93
8/ 5/93
8/13/93
8/13/93
8/19/93
8/24/93
8/24/93
9/ 1/93
9/ 1/93
9/ 1/93
9/ 1/93
9/ 3/93
9/ 8/93
9/10/93
9/14/93
9/27/93
9/27/93
9/28/93
9/ 3/93
4/ 8/93
5/27/93
7/ 9/93
7/22/93
8/10/93
8/19/93
9/14/93
9/17/93
9/29/93
4/ 8/93
4/ 8/93
4/15/93
4/15/93
4/15/93
4/16/93
4/16/93
4/21/93
4/21/93
4/21/93
4/22/93
4/22/93
4/23/93
4/23/93
4/27/93
4/27/93
4/29/93
5/12/93
5/12/93
5/12/93
5/14/93
5/14/93
5/14/93
5/14/93
5/17/93
5/17/93
5/18/93
5/18/93
5/18/93
5/18/93
5/18/93
5/18/93
5/20/93
5/20/93
5/27/93
6/ 1/93
6/ 1/93
6/ 4/93
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
21,405
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Unsupported
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
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Unnecessary/
Unreasonable
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
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Recommended
Efficiencies
(Funds be Put
To Better Use)
APRIL 1, 1993 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 1993
43
-------
Questioned Costs
Recommended
Assignment
Control Number
N3HVK3 -09-0100-3500700
N3HUK3 -09 -0051 -3500716
N3HVK3-09-0122-3500719
N3HVK3-09 -0191-3500720
N3HVK3-09-0192-3500727
N3HUK3-09-0054-3500728
N3HVK3-09-0169-3S00734
N3HUK2-09-0326-3500738
N3HVK3-09-0085-3500741
N3HVK3 -09-0102 -3500747
N3HVJ3 -09-0155-3500786
N3HVK3 -09 -0031 -3500787
N3HVK3 -09-0188-3500791
N3HUK3 -09 -0060-3500792
N3HUK3-09-0181-3500794
N3HVK3 -09-0216-3500854
N3HVK3-09-0215-3500855
N3HUK3 -09 -0030 -3 500861
N3HVK3 -09 -0108-3500864
N3HVK3 -09 -0218-3500865
N3HVK3 -09 -0217 -3500875
N3HVK3-09 -0113 -3600915
N3HVK3 -09 -01 54 -3500921
N3HUK3 -09 -0121 -3500922
N3HVK3-09 -0249-3500923
N3HVK3-09-0238-3500924
N3HUK3 -09-0182 -3500928
N3HVK3 -09-0245- 3 5009 47
N3HVK3-09-0196-3500959
N3HVK3 -09 -0246 -3500960
N3HVK3-09-0183-3500962
N3HVK3 -09 -0236- 3500976
N3HVK3 -09 -0222 -3 500978
N3HVK3 -09 -0256-3500983
N3HVK3 -09 -0198-350099 3
TOTAL OF
G3HVJ3- 10 -0072 -3500512
G3HVK3- 10-0082 -3500567
G3HVJ3- 10-0004 -3 5007 60
G3HVJ3 -10-0122-3500863
G3HVJ3 -10 -0145 -3500989
N3HVJ3-10-OOS7-3500538
N3HVK3- 10-0077 -3 500549
N3HVK3 -10 -0078 -3500550
N3HVJ3 -10-0027 -3500551
N3HVK3 -10-002 6-3500558
N3HVK2 -10-0115-3500584
N3HVJ3 -10-0051 -3500616
N3HVJ3- 10-0046-3500617
N3HVJ3- 10 -0047 -3500618
N3HVJ3- 10-0049 -3500619
N3HVJ3- 10-0005-3500620
N3HUK3- 10-0063 -3500628
N3HUK3-10-0064-3500629
N3HVJ2 -10-0130-3500631
N3HUK3 -10 -0006-3500635
N3HVK3 -10 -0050-3500678
N3HVK3 -10-0003 -3 500679
N3HVK3- 10 -0002 -3500680
N3HVK3 -10 -0010-3500689
N3HVK3 -10 -0070-3500690
N3HVK3 -10 -007 1-3500691
N3HVK3 -10 -0079 -3 500696
N3HVK3 -10 -0032 -3500698
N3HVK2-10-009 6-3500699
N3HVK3 -10-0065-3500717
N3HVK3-10-0100-3500718
N3HVK3- 10-001 1-3500729
N3HVK3- 10-0060- 3500733
N3HVK3-10-0012-3500735
N3HUK3-10-0059 -3500736
N3HVK3-10-0020-3500739
N3HVK3 -10-0038-3500740
N3HVJ2 -10 -0106 -3 500742
N3HVK2 -10-0125-3500746
N3HVK2 -10-0124 -3500759
N3HVK3-10-0041 -3500780
N3HVK3- 10-0035-3500784
N3HVK3- 10-0066-3500785
N3HVK2- 10-0093 -3 500793
N3HUJ3 -10-0085 -3 500824
N3HVK2 -10-01 16-3 500825
N3HVK3- 10-0087- 3 500856
N3HVK3 -10-0053 -3500857
N3HVK3- 10-0048-3500858
N3HVK3-10-0124-3S00860
N3HVK3-10-0084-3500869
N3HVK3 -10-0123-3500870
N3HVK3 -10-0052-3500871
N3HVK3-10-0102 -3500876
Title Final Report
Issued
MAO I, COUNTY OF HI
LONG BEACH FOUN CA ST. UNIV.CA
ASSN MONTEREY BAY AREA GOVT CA
MERCED COUNTY CA
PHOENIX, CITY OF AZ
SAN DIEGO STATE UNIV FOUND CA
FLAGSTAFF, CITY OF AZ
CALIF PUBLIC HLTH FOUNDATIONCA
RINCON, S.L.B. MISSION IND CA
GUAM, GOVERNMENT OF GU
PIMA COUNTY AZ
QUECHAN INDIAN TRIBE AZ
TOHONO O'ODHAM NATION AZ
SONOMA STATE UNIV ACAD FOUN CA
PIMA CNTY COMM COLLEGE DIST AZ
SAN JOAQUIN, COUNTY OF CA
KERN, COUNTY OF CA
HUMBOLT STATE UNIV FOUND CA
CHUUK STATE GOVERNMENT FM
KINGS, COUNTY OF CA
NAPA, COUNTY OF CA
CW OF NOR MARIANA ISLANDS MP
CLARK COUNTY HLTH DISTRICT NV
PACIFIC BASIN DEVELOP COUN HI
SONOMA, COUNTY OF CA
ORANGE, COUNTY OF CA
ASOC NACIONAL PRO PER MAYORECA
GERBER-LAS FLORES COMM SVC CA
SALT RIVER PIMA-MAR IND COMMAZ
FRESNO, CITY OF CA
HOOPA VALLEY TRIBE CA
LOS ANGELES, CITY OF CA
HAWAII, DEPT OF AGRICULT. HI
SAN FRANCISCO, CITY & CO CA
MARICOPA ASSN OF GOVT'S. AZ
REGION 09 = 83
YAKIMA, CITY OF WA
POST FALLS, CITY OF ID
CHEHALIS, CITY OF WA
CHEHALIS, CITY OF WA
CHEHALIS, CITY OF WA
KITSAP COUNTY WA
PORT GAMBLE S ' KLALLAM WA
PORT GAMBLE S' KLALLAM TRIBE WA
KING COUNTY WA
ANCHORAGE, MUNICIPALITY OF AK
NEZ PERCE TRIBE ID
TACOMA, CITY OF WA
SPOKANE COUNTY WA
MUNI OF METRO SEATTLE WA
PORT OF FRIDAY HARBOR WA
OLYMPIA, CITY OF WA
LINN-BENTON COMM COLLEGE OR
LINN-BENTON COMM COLLEGE OR
OREGON, STATE OF OR
KLAWOCK CITY SCH DISTRICT AK
NORTH BEND, CITY OF OR
MCMINNVILLE, CITY OF OR
JAMESTOWN KLALLAM TRIBE WA
COLUM RIV INTER-TRIBAL FIS OR
SPOKANE TRIBE OF INDIANS WA
CONFED TRIBES COLVILLE RES WA
KALISPEL TRIBE OF INDIANS WA
LEWISTON, CITY OF ID
SALEM, CITY OF OR
SWINOMISH INDIAN TRIBAL COMMWA
SWINOMISH INDIAN TRIBAL COMMWA
PUYALLAP TRIBE OF INDIANS WA
QUINAULT INDIAN NATION WA
NORTHWEST IND FISHERIES COM WA
HOMER SOCIETY OF NATURAL HISAK
STILLAQUAMISH INDIAN TRIBE WA
LOWER ELWHA KLALLAM TRIBE WA
WASHINGTON, STATE OF WA
COEUR D'ALENE TRIBE OF IDAHOID
SKAGIT SYSTEM COOPERATIVE WA
FAIRBANKS NOR STAR BOROUGH AK
UPPER SKAGIT INDIAN TRIBE WA
NEZ PERCE TRIBE ID
CONFED TRIBES WARM SPRNG RE OR
PASCO SCHOOL DISTRICT NO.l WA
PORTLAND, CITY OF OR
CONFED TRIBES WARM SPRING REOR
METROPOLITAN SERVICE DIST OR
LUMMI INDIAN BUSINESS COUNCLWA
POCATELLO, CITY OF ID
CON TRIBES YAKIMA IND NATIONWA
SALEM, CITY OF OR
SALEM, CITY OF OR
TULALIP TRIBES WA
6/ 4/93
6/10/93
6/10/93
6/10/93
6/14/93
6/14/93
6/18/93
6/22/93
6/22/93
6/24/93
7/15/93
7/15/93
7/16/93
7/16/93
7/16/93
8/ 6/93
8/ 6/93
8/10/93
8/11/93
8/11/93
8/12/93
8/26/93
8/26/93
8/26/93
8/26/93
8/26/93
8/31/93
9/ 3/93
9/14/93
9/14/93
9/16/93
9/21/93
9/22/93
9/28/93
9/29/93
4/ 8/93
4/23/93
7/ 1/93
8/10/93
9/29/93
4/16/93
4/21/93
4/21/93
4/21/93
4/22/93
4/29/93
5/12/93
5/12/93
5/12/93
6/12/93
5/12/93
5/17/93
5/17/93
5/17/93
5/18/93
6/ 1/93
6/ 1/93
6/ 1/93
6/ 2/93
6/ 2/93
6/ 2/93
6/ 4/93
6/ 4/93
6/ 4/93
6/10/93
6/10/93
6/14/93
6/18/93
6/18/93
6/18/93
6/22/93
6/22/93
6/22/93
6/24/93
7/ 1/93
11 9/93
7/15/93
7/15/93
7/16/93
7/22/93
7/22/93
8/ 6/93
8/ 6/93
8/ 6/93
8/10/93
8/12/93
8/12/93
8/12/93
8/12/93
Ineligible Unsupported Unnecessary/ Efficiencies
Costs Costs Unreasonable (Funds be Put
Costs To Better Use)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
13,341
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
44,953
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6,801
0
0
86, 500
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10,000
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
0
44
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAl
-------
Questioned Costs
Assignment
Control Number
N3HVJ3 -10-0080- 3500897
N3HVK3- 10-0090-3500914
N3HVK3- 10-0086 -3500916
N3HVK3-10-0120-3500920
N3HVK3 -10-0091-3500927
N3HVK3-10-0121 -3500943
N3HVK3- 10-0106 -3500944
N3HVJ3 -10 -0104 -3500966
N3HVJ3- 10-0103 -3 500967
N3HVJ3- 10-0108- 3500968
N3HVK3 -10-0116-3500975
N3HVK3-10-0118-3500977
N3HVK3-10-0125-3500990
N3HVK3-10-0105-3500991
N3HVJ3 -10-0109 -3501001
TOTAL OF
Title
SEATTLE, CITY OF
BOISE, CITY
WA
ID
COEUR D'ALENE TRIBE OF IDAHOID
SQUAXIN TRIBE
THE SUQUAMISK TRIBE
COEUR D'ALENE TRIBE
SKAGIT SYSTEM COOPERATIVE
IDAHO DEPT OF WATER RES
IDAHO DEPT OF WATER RES
IDAHO DEPT OF LABOR & IND
NORTHWEST IND FISHER COMM
MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE
JUNEAU, CITY & BOROUGH OF
KLAMATH TRIBE
IDAHO DEPT OF LABOR & IND
REGION 10 = 69
WA
WA
ID
WA
ID
ID
SVID
WA
WA
AK
OR
SVID
TOTAL OTHER GRANT ASSIGNMENTS
Final Report
Issued
8/19/93
8/26/93
8/26/93
8/26/93
8/31/93
9/ 3/93
9/ 3/93
9/16/93
9/16/93
9/16/93
9/21/93
9/21/93
9/29/93
9/29/93
9/30/93
506
Ineligible
Costs
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5,218
15,218
631,059
Unsupported
Costs
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
36,496
Unnecessary/
Unreasonable
Costs
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Recommended
Efficiencies
(Funds be Put
To Better Use)
S. SUPERFUND GRANT ASSIGNMENTS
E5CFP3-03-0308-3400060 SUPERFUND COOPERATIVE AGREE VA
P5FGN2-03-0508-3300056 PA COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS PA
TOTAL OF REGION 03 = 2
P5CGL2-04-0399-3100189 FL DEPT. ENVIR. REGULATIONS FL
P5BGL2-04-0400-3100218 MIAMI-DADE WSA FL
TOTAL OF REGION 04 = 2
P5EGL1-07-0190-3100269 KANSAS DEPT OF HEALTH
TOTAL OF REGION 07 = 1
P5BGL2-09-0044-3100361 ARIZONA DEPT OF WTR RES.
SSBGN1-09-0132-3300037 SAN GABRIEL VALLEY MWD
TOTAL OF REGION 09 = 2
H5BFL2-11-0030-3100398 SF-IAG FY91 HHS EXPENDITURES
H5BFL2-11-0030-3100399 SF-IAG FY91 HHS EXPENDITURES
M5BFL2-11-0028-3100400 SF-IAG FY 91 DOT COAST GUARD
TOTAL OF REGION 11 = 3
TOTAL SUPERFUND GRANT ASSIGNMENTS
KS
AZ
CA
6/ 8/93
II 6/93
5/21/93
6/ 9/93
II 6/93
9/ 1/93
4/27/93
9/30/93
9/30/93
9/30/93
10
266
266
108,798
108,798
17,380
17,380
212,920
212,920
2,806,575
2,806,575
0
0
85,654
85,654
0
0
339,364
2,892,229
3. OTHER CONTRACT ASSIGNMENTS
D8DML3
D8FML3
D8AML3
D8AML2
D8DML3
D8AML3
D8DML3
D8DML3
D8AML2
D8DML3-
D8DML3
D8DML3
D8DML3-
D8DML3-
D8DML3-
D8DML3-
D8EML3-
D8EML3-
D8EML3-
D8DML3-
D8DML3-
D8DML3
D8AML3
D8DML3-
D8DML3-
D8DML3-
D8AML3-
D8AML3-
D8AML3-
D8AML3-
D8AML3-
D8DML3-
D8AWL3-
P8DMLO-
01-0106-3100160 SIGMA RESEARCH CORPORATION MA
01-0146-3100167 EG&G DYNATREND INC MA
01-0144-3100168 MONITORING INSTRUMENTS ENV MA
-01-0250-3100180 ABT ASSOCIATES MA
01-0145-3100183 COMBUSTION ENGINEERING INC. CT
01-0149-3100195 CADMUS GROUP INC MA
01-0169-3100216 METCALF & EDDY INC. MA
01-0171-3100220 ABB COMBUSTION ENGINEERING CT
01-0269-3100222 EASTERN RESEARCH GROUP MA
-01-0170-3100225 COM FEDERAL PROGRAM MA
01-0183-3100242 FAY, SPOFFORD, &. THORNDIKE MA
01-0179-3100243 ABB COMBUSTION ENGR. SYSTEM CT
01-0181-3100244 ABB COMBUSTION ENGR. NUCL CT
01-0182-3100245 WPI INC. MA
01-0172-3100246 DYNATREND CORPORATION MA
01-0180-3100247 ARTHUR D. LITTLE INC. MA
01-0177-3100248 ARTHUR D. LITTLE INC. MA
01-0178-3100251 ARTHUR D. LITTLE INC. MA
01-0176-3100252 INDUSTRIAL ECONOMICS INC. MA
01-0175-3100253 INDUSTRIAL ECONOMICS INC. MA
01-0174-3100254 CAMP DRESSER AND MCKEE MA
01-0190-3100257 EG&G DYNATREND MA
01-0159-3100274 ABT ASSOCIATES MA
01-0208-3100277 RILEY CONSOLIDATED INC. MA
01-0207-3100283 ABT ASSOCIATES MA
01-0197-3100286 ABB COMBUSTION ENG. NUCLEAR CT
01-0191-3100290 ASCENSION TECH. INC. MA
01-0166-3100293 INTERNATIONAL FUEL CELLS CT
01-0150-3100294 METCALF & EDDY MA
01-0215-3100367 NORTHBRIDGE ENV. MGT. CONSU MA
01-0216-3100368 EASTERN RESEARCH GROUP MA
01-0261-3100370 INDUSTRIAL ECONOMICS INC. MA
01-0242-3100386 CADMUS GROUP MA
01-0067-3100305 NEW HAMPSHIRE DBS NH
TOTAL OF REGION 01 = 34
D8DML3-02-0138-3100166
D8FML3-02-0142-3100181
EBASCO SERVICES INC
TAMS CONSULTANTS INC.
NY
NY
4/ 8/93
4/29/93
4/29/93
5/11/93
5/11/93
6/ 1/93
6/ 9/93
6/10/93
6/10/93
6/11/93
6/18/93
6/18/93
6/18/93
6/18/93
6/18/93
6/18/93
6/18/93
6/18/93
6/18/93
6/18/93
6/18/93
6/24/93
7/15/93
7/19/93
7/19/93
7/23/93
7/27/93
7/30/93
8/ 3/93
9/ 3/93
9/ 7/93
9/ 8/93
9/24/93
8/10/93
4/29/93
5/11/93
*The dollar value of contract audits 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.
APRIL 1, 1993 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 1993
45
-------
Questioned Costs
Assignment
Control Number
D8BML3 -02-0143 -3100182
D8FML3 -02 -0145-3100186
D8CML3-02-0116-3 100221
D8DML3-02-0159-3100261
D8DML3 -02-0194-3100348
D8DML3 -02 -0193 -3100350
D8AML3-02-0178-3100354
D8EML3 -02 -0269-3100385
D8EMN3 -02 -0152-3300052
E8AZP3-02-0156-3400083
P8AXP3-02-0113 -3400044
P8AXP3-02-0126-3400047
P8AXP3-02-0127-3400055
P8AXP3-02 -0136-3400065
TOTAL OF
D8AML3 -03 -0235-3100185
D8AML3 -03-0159-3100234
D8AAL3 -03 -0100-3 100235
D8ABL3 -03 -0246-3 100238
D8APL3 -03-0268-3100239
D8APL3 -03 -0223 -3 100240
D8AML3 -03 -0336-3 100327
D8AML3-03-0313-3100328
D8AWL3-03 -0318-3100329
D8AML3-03-0321-3100332
D8AML3-03-03 17-3100333
D8AML3 -03-0238-3100334
D8AWL3 -03 -0276-3 100335
D8AML3 -03-0311-3 100337
D8AML3-03-0333-3100338
D8AML3 -03 -0347 -3100339
D8AML3 -03-0309 -3100342
D8AWL3-03 -0278-3100344
D8AML3-03 -03 10-3100345
D8AWL3-03-0277-3100346
D8AML3-03-0249-3100347
D8AAL3-03-0346-3100349
D8AML3 -03 -0345 -3100351
D8AML3-03-0359-3100352
D8APL3-03 -0391-3100376
D8APL3 -03 -0388-3100378
D8APL3 -03-0386-3100401
D8AML3-03-0358-3100402
P8DML2-03-0365-3100159
TOTAL OF
D8BML3-04 -0252-3100171
D8BML3 -04 -0256-3 100 172
D8BML3 -04 -0255-3 100173
D8BML2 -04 -0227 -3 100174
D8CML3 -04 -0270-3 100 191
D8BML3 -04 -0094 -3 100194
D8AML3 -04 -0233 -3 100197
D8BML3-04-0052-3100198
D8BML3-04-0274-3100199
D8BML3 -04-0273-3100200
D8BML3 -04-0053-3100201
D8BML3 -04 -0272 -3 100202
D8BML3 -04 -0282 -3 100207
D8AML3-04 -0257-3 100223
D8EML3 -04 -0258-3 100224
D8CML3 -04 -0247-3 100249
D8CML3 -04 -0246- 3 100250
D8AML3 -04 -0285 -3100273
D8AML3-04-0286-3100292
D8AML3 -04 -0289 -3 100297
D8CML3-04-0261 -3100310
D8AML3-04-0299-3100311
D8AML3-04-0291-3100314
D8AML3 -04 -0306-3 100324
D8EML3-04-0325-3100364
D8AML3-04-0307-3100369
D8EML3 -04 -0330 -3100371
D8CML3 -04 -0288-3100380
D8EML3-04-0344-3100381
D8EML3 -04-0343-3 100382
D8AML3-04-0314-3100383
TOTAL OF
D8BML3-05-0184-3100178
08CML2 -05-0158-3100262
D8AML3-05-0236-3100263
D8AML3-05-0291-3100300
D8AML3-05-0292-3 100301
D8AML3-05-0259-3100302
D8AML3-05-0278-3100303
D8AML3-05-0299-3100306
D8AML3 -05-0293-3100307
Title
FOSTER WHEELER CORP NJ
EBASCO SERVICES INC. NY
SYRACUSE RESEARCH CORP NY
EBASCO SERVICES INC, NY
SYRACUSE RESEARCH CORP. NY
SYRACUSE RESEARCH CORP. NY
SYRACUSE RESEARCH NY
SYRACUSE RESEARCH CORP. NY
EBASCO SERVICES INC. NY
ECOLOGY & ENVIRONMENT NY
ECOLOGY & ENVIR NY
ECOLOGY & ENVIR NY
ECOLOGY & ENVIR NY
ECOLOGY & ENVIR NY
REGION 02 = 16
VERSAR VA
AVANTI CORPORATION VA
ROY F. WESTON PA
VERSAR VA
VISTA COMPUTER SERVICES VA
NCI INFORMATION SYSTEM VA
WESTAT MD
DATEX, INC. VA
MAR INC. MD
LABAT ANDERSON VA
SCIENTIFIC CONSULTING GROUP MD
THE BIONETICS CORPORATION VA
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT MD
ENGINEERING COMPUTER OPTEC MD
SOLUTIONS BY DESIGN VA
TRAINING RESOURCES GROUP VA
BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON MD
WADE MILLER ASSOCIATES
TECHNICAL RESOURCES, INC. MD
TOXACHEMICA INTERNATIONAL MD
RESOLVE, INCORPORATED DC
SCIENTIFIC & COMMERCIAL SYS . VA
PREMIER, INC. VA
BREGMAN & COMPANY, INC. MD
SYSTEMS INTEGRATION GROUP MD
ONE NUMBER INFORMATION INC. VA
GARCIA CONSULTING INC. VA
ENVIRON VA
ASCI CORPORATION VA
REGION 03 = 29
MANTECH NC
JONES OPERATIONS & MAINT. NC
JONES OPERATIONS & MAINT. NC
JONES OPERATIONS & MAINT. NC
ENTROPY ENVIRONMENTALISTS NC
RESEARCH INFO ORGANIZERS NC
MANTECH ENV. RESEARCH SVC. NC
RESEARCH INFO. ORGANIZERS NC
ENTROPY ENVIRONMENTALISTS NC
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & ENG FL
RESEARCH INFO. ORGANIZERS NC
INTEGRATED LABORATORY SYSTEMNC
SYSTEMS RESEARCH & DEV. NC
RAO ENTERPRISE NC
MANTECH ENV. RESEARCH NC
MANTECH NC
MANTECH NC
GENERAL OFFSHORE CORPORATIONFL
SEAWARD SERVICES FL
MANTECH NC
MANTECH NC
ENVIRONMNETAL QUALITY MGMT. TO
RESEARCH i EVALUATION ASSOC.NC
MIT ASSOC. TN
MANTECH ENVIRONMENTAL TECH NC
CALL HENRY, INC. FL
CONTINENTAL SHELF ASSOCIATESFL
RESEARCH & EVALUATION ASSOC.NC
ADVANCED SYSTEMS TECH GA
AMBAC INTERNATIONAL SC
AMBAC INTERNATIONAL SC
REGION 04 = 31
TARITAS PS MI
TARITAS PS MI
BATTELLE OH
AUTO TESTING LAB OH
INTERNATIONAL CONS OH
AT KEARNEY IL
NEXUS TSC IL
BATTELLE OH
RIGO & RIGO OH
Final Report
Issued
5/11/93
5/20/93
6/10/93
6/28/93
8/26/93
8/26/93
8/27/93
9/21/93
6/ 9/93
9/ 7/93
4/ 1/93
4/14/93
5/24/93
7/ 2/93
5/13/93
6/16/93
6/16/93
6/16/93
6/16/93
6/16/93
8/25/93
8/25/93
8/25/93
8/25/93
8/25/93
8/25/93
8/25/93
8/25/93
8/25/93
8/25/93
8/26/93
8/26/93
8/26/93
8/26/93
8/26/93
8/26/93
8/26/93
8/26/93
9/17/93
9/17/93
9/30/93
9/30/93
4/ 5/93
4/30/93
S/ 4/93
5/ 4/93
S/ 4/93
5/24/93
5/27/93
6/ 1/93
6/ 1/93
6/ 1/93
6/ 1/93
(,/ 2/93
6/ 2/93
&/ 4/93
6/11/93
6/11/93
6/18/93
6/18/93
7/14/93
7/30/93
8/ 4/93
8/12/93
8/13/93
8/13/93
8/23/93
9/ 3/93
9/ 8/93
9/ 8/93
9/20/93
9/20/93
9/20/93
9/20/93
5/ 5/93
6/28/93
6/28/93
8/ 6/93
8/ 6/93
8/ 6/93
8/ 6/93
8/10/93
8/10/93
Recommended
Ineligible Unsupported Unnecessary/ Efficiencies
Costs Costs Unreasonable (Funds be Put
Costs To Better Use)
46
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
-------
Assignment
Control Number
Title
Final Report
Issued
Questioned Costs
Ineligible
Costs
Unsupported
Costs
Unnecessary/
Unreasonable
Costs
Recommended
Efficiencies
(Funds be Put
To Better Use)
D8EMN3-05-0306-3300060
D8EHN3-05-0306-3300062
E8AZP3-05-0307-3400078
E8AXP3-05-0317-3400079
E8AWP3-05-0350-3400090
P8AXP3-05-0222-3400049
AT KEARNEY (D/S) IL
AT KEARNEY (D/S) IL
PRC EMI (DOE) IL
PRC EMI (NAVY CLEAN4) IL
PRC EMI (GROUND WATER) IL
WW ENG MI
TOTAL OF REGION 05 = 15
D8AML3-
D8AML3-
D8AML3-
D8BML2-
D8CML3-
D8AML3-
D8AML3-
D8AML3-
D8AML3-
D8AML3-
D8BML2-
D8CML3-
D8EML3-
D8AML3-
D8CML3-
06-0079-
06-0103-
06-0104-
06-0075-
06-0064-
06-0129-
06-0131-
06-0154-
06-0151-
06-0152-
06-0126-
06-0094-
06-0194-
06-0155-
06-0093-
3100170
3100188
3100190
3100192
3100203
3100271
3100272
3100309
3100312
3100313
3100323
3100365
3100366
3100372
3100390
EG&G AUTOMOTIVE RESEARCH
LOCKHEED
LOCKHEED
LOCKHEED
RADIAN CORPORATION
SOUTHWEST RESEARCH
RADIAN
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
INSTITUTETX
TX
LOCKHEED ENV. SYS & TECH
RADIAN
TECHNICIAN'S CO.
GEOSCIENCE CONSULTANTS LTD
LOCKHEED
LOCKHEED ENVIRONMENTAL SYS
EG&G AUTOMOTIVE RSCH INC,
RADIAN
TX
TX
TX
NM
TX
TX
TX
TX
TOTAL OF REGION 06 = IS
D8AML3-07-0133-3100289 FRANKLIN ASSOCIATES LIMITED KS
TOTAL OF REGION 07 = 1
D8ABL3-08-0056-3100165 WESTERN RESEARCH
TOTAL OF REGION 08 =
WY
TOTAL OF REGION 23 = 12
TOTAL OTHER CONTRACT ASSIGNMENTS
8/27/93
8/27/93
9/ 2/93
9/ 2/93
9/23/93
5/12/93
4/30/93
5/21/93
5/21/93
5/25/93
6/ 2/93
7/ 9/93
7/ 9/93
8/12/93
8/13/93
8/13/93
8/23/93
9/ 3/93
9/ 3/93
9/10/93
9/29/93
7/23/93
4/20/93
D8BML3-09-0151-3100164
D8CPL2-09-0125-3100177
D8CML3-09-0128-3100187
D8CAL3-09 -0118-3 100193
D8BML3 -09 -0185 -3100206
D8AAL3 -09 -0160-3 1002 13
D8APL3-09-0163-3100214
D8CAL2-09 -0247 -3 100219
D8CAL3 -09-0166-3100228
D8BML3-09 -0193-3100229
D8BML3-09-0194-3100230
D8AAL3-09-0147-3100260
D8AAL3 -09 -0208-3100295
D8AML3-09 -0202-3 100296
D8AML3 -09 -0201 -3 100320
D8AAL3 -09-0209-3100355
D8AWL3-09-0210-3100356
D8ABL3-09-023 1-3 100360
D8ABL3-09 -0233 -310037 5
D8ABN3-09 -0232 -3300064
D8APP3-09-0200-3400063
H8ABL3 -09-0112-3100176
S8AWN2 -09 -0344 -3 300065
TOTAL OF
D8BML3-10-0094 -3100205
E8AZL3- 10-0073 -3 1002 15
E8AWL3- 10-0 137 -3 100389
P8EXL2 -10-0126- 3 100210
TOTAL OF
E8AML3 -22 -0289 -3 100304
E8AZN3-22-0366-3300073
E8AXP3 -22 -0328- 3400085
TOTAL OF
D8AML3 -23 -0283 -31 00308
E8AXP3 -23 -001 1-3400075
E8CXP3 -23 -0009 -3400092
P8BMP1 -23 -0339 -3400050
P8BMPO-23 -0175-3400053
P8BMPO-23 -0177-3400062
P8CMP2 -23 -0180 -3400071
P8CMP2 -23 -0176 -3400072
P8CMP2-23 -0183 -3400073
P8CMP2-23 -0181 -3400074
P8CMP2 -23 -0177 -3400077
P8CMP2-23 -0179 -3400082
GEO/RESOURCE DC FY89-91
AQUA TERRA FINAL
ACUREX ENVL CORP
SAIC FINAL
ECOS, INC FYE MARCH '89 OH
IT P. A.
SAIC P. A. MARITME SVCS
ENGINEERING SCIENCE FINAL
SRI INTERNATIONAL FINAL
ECOS, INC FY1990 OH&DC
ECOS, INC. FY 1991 OH £ DC
JACOBS P. A.
ACUREX P. A.
ACUREX COST VAR PROPOSAL
S -CUBED MAXWELL LAB P. A.
ENERGY & ENVIRONMENTAL RES
TETRA TECH P. A.
AUTOMOTIVE TESTING PA
ED PINK RACING ENGINS PA
EFI TECHNOLOGY PA
SAIC/MARITIME ACCG SYSTEM
DESERT RESEARCH INSTITUTE
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
NV
MONTEREY RWP CA ASSIST AUDITCA
REGION 09 = 23
PTI ENVIRONMENTAL SVCS 89OH
TEAM SUPPORT P. A.
CH2M PA
CH2M CAS STMT PEVIS 8/18/92
REGION 10 = 4
ASCI D201848M1
ICF DE-RP01-92DP70067
ICF DTRS-57-92-R00026
REGION 22 = 3
EQM (AIR)
OHM REM (ARMY)
OHM REM (EVEREADY BATTERY)
PEI ASSOC FY 89
PEI ASSOC FY 86
PEI ASSOC FY 87/88
PEI ASSOC (68-02-3546)
PEI ASSOC (68-01-6310)
PEI ASSOC (68-02-3760)
PEI ASSOC (68-02-3554)
PEI ASSOC (68-02-3173)
PEI ASSOC (68-02-3512)
WA
OR
OR
OR
VA
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
4/19/93
5/ 5/93
5/20/93
5/27/93
6/ 3/93
6/ 8/93
6/ 8/93
6/ 9/93
6/15/93
6/15/93
6/15/93
6/25/93
8/ 3/93
8/ 3/93
8/17/93
8/27/93
8/27/93
9/ 1/93
9/15/93
9/15/93
6/30/93
5/ 5/93
9/16/93
6/ 3/93
6/ 8/93
9/28/93
6/ 4/93
8/ 9/93
9/29/93
9/ 8/93
8/10/93
8/31/93
9/23/93
5/13/93
5/14/93
6/14/93
8/25/93
8/26/93
8/27/93
8/27/93
9/ 1/93
9/ 3/93
184
3,114,511
5,441,999
40,455,060
APRIL 1, 1993 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 1993
47
-------
Assignment
Control Number
Title
Final Report
Issued
Questioned Costs
Ineligible
Costs
Unsupported
Costs
Unnecessary/
Unreasonable
Costs
Recommended
Efficiencies
(Funds be Put
To Better Use)
9. SUPERFUND CONTRACT ASSIGNMENTS
D9AJL3-01-0156-3100275
E9AJP3-01-0155-3400064
HYDRAULIC & WATER RESOURCES MA
TRC ENVIRONMENTAL CORP MA
D9DFL3-
D9EGL3-
D9DFL3-
D9EFL3-
D9DFL3-
D9DFL3-
D9EFL3
D9DFL3-
D9DFL2-
D9AKL3-
D9AJL3
D9AJL3
D9AJL3
D9AJL3
D9AFL3
D9AFL3
D9AJL3
D9AJL3
D9AJL3
D9AJL3
D9AJL3
D9AJL3
P9DFN2
P9EKN3
P9EKN3
P9AKN3
INC.
INC.
TOTAL OF REGION 01 = 2
-02-0153-3100226 EBASCO SERVICES INC.
02-0169-3100276 EBASCO SERVICES INC.
02-0174-3100278 EBASCO SERVICES INC.
-02-0176-3100279 EBASCO SERVICES
02-0175-3100280 EBASCO SERVICES
02-0162-3100281 EBASCO SERVICES INC.
-02-0173-3100282 EBASCO SERVICES INC.
-02-0161-3100285 EBASCO SERVICES INC.
-02-0271-3100288 S&D ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
-02-0245-3100387 POSTER WHEELER US CORP.
TOTAL OF REGION 02 = 10
-03-0253-3100231 AE ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
-03-0241-3100232 JOHN HEMENWAY ASSOCIATES
-03-0273-3100233 LAW OFFICE OF CLAUDIA BARBERMD
-03-0252-3100241 RESOURCE APPLICATIONS, INC
-03-0334-3100330 BIONETICS
-03-0335-3100331 HUGHES STX CORPORATION
-03-0254-3100336 KEVRIC COMPANY
-03-0240-3100340 HYDROGEOLOGIC, INC.
-03-0244-3100341 ISSI INC.
-03-0239-3100343 TECHLAW INC.
-03-0245-3100353 FINANCIAL INVESTIGATIONS
-03-0362-3100377 EXECUTIVE RESOURCE
-03-0501-3300040 GUARDIAN
-03-0271-3300042 ICF INC. - ICF TECH. INC.
-03-0112-3300043 ICF INC. ICF INTERNATIONAL
-03-0067-3300045 ICF-INC.
TOTAL OF REGION 03 = 16
D9EKL3-04-0320-3100315
D9EKL3-04-0319-3100316
D9AKL3-04-0284-3100317
E9AHP3-04-0232-3400056
TECHNOLOGY PLANNING AND MGMTNC
TECHNOLOGY PLANNING AND MGMTNC
TECHNOLOGY PLANNING & MGMT.
WESTINGHOUSE ERCS PROPOSAL
D9AML3-
D9AKL3-
E9EGP3-
E9AJP3-
E9AJP3-
E9AJP3-
E9AJP3-
E9AJP3-
E9EFP3-
E9EFP3-
P9DGL1-
INC
TOTAL OF REGION 04 =
05-0245-3100217 LIFE SYSTEMS
05-0247-3100299 AT KEARNEY
05-0072-3400046 PRC EMI D/S Al
05-0212-3400048 PRC EMI
05-0233-3400051 PRC EMI
05-0234-3400052 PRC EMI
05-0257-3400057 PRC EMI
05-0258-3400058 PRC EMI
05-0285-3400066 PRC EMI D/S A2
05-0341-3400091 PRC EMI D/S A3
05-0123-3100184 DONOHUE ARCS1 FY 88/89
(RIO ENF SUPP)
(R8 ENF SUPP)
(R9 ENF SUPP)
(R2 ENF SUPP)
(R5 ENF SUPP)
TOTAL OF REGION 05 = 11
D9AJL3-07-0124-3100209
D9CKL3-07-0038-3100258
D9CKL3-07-0037-3100259
D9AKL2-07-0001-3100325
DPRA INC.
A-S-K ASSOCIATES
A-S-K ASSOCIATES
MIDWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE
TOTAL OF REGION 07 =
D9AJL3-08-0072-3100208
D9AJL3-08-0078-3100212
AGEISS ENVIRONMENTAL CORP.
AGEISS ENVIRONMENTAL CORP
D9CGL3-
D9AJL3-
D9BGL3-
D9BGL2-
D9BGL3-
D9CGL2-
D9BGL2-
D9AJN3-
D9AHN3-
TOTAL OF REGION 08 = 2
09-0146-3100162 SAIC FINAL
09-0175-3100227 SAIC P.A. SUB TO KEARNEY
09-0119-3100268 SAFETY SCIENCE OH&DC FY83-87CA
09-0158-3100362 ENGINEERING SCI. OHSDC 88
09-0257-3100363 THE RAND CORP OH & DC FY90
09-0262-3100373 BECHTEL NATIONAL FINAL
09-0345-3100379 JONES & STOKES OH&DC FY'91
09-0132-3300044 SAIC P.A.
09-0143-3300053 INTERNATIONAL TECHNOLOGY
TOTAL OF REGION 09 = 9
E9BHP2-10-0024-3400095
P9EGP2-10-0129-3400061
RES-SELF INSURANCE
RES INITIAL CAS DISCL STM
TOTAL OF REGION 10 =
E9EHP2-23-0422-3400069
E9EHP2-23-0422-3400070
E9EHP3-23-0003-3400081
OHM REM DATA RELIABILITY
OHM REM DATA RELIABILITY
OHM REM CAS 401
7/15/93
7/ 2/93
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NJ
NJ
WV
PA
IMD
VA
VA
MD
MD
VA
VA
VA
DC
VA
DE
VA
VA
VA
TOC
?NC
NC
GA
OH
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
WI
KS
MO
CO
CO
CA
CA
'CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
OR
OR
OH
OH
OH
6/11/93
7/19/93
7/19/93
7/19/93
7/19/93
7/19/93
7/19/93
7/23/93
7/23/93
9/24/93
6/16/93
6/16/93
6/16/93
6/16/93
8/25/93
8/25/93
8/25/93
8/25/93
8/25/93
8/26/93
8/27/93
9/17/93
5/ 4/93
5/12/93
5/12/93
5/21/93
8/13/93
8/13/93
8/13/93
5/26/93
6/ 9/93
8/ 6/93
4/ 9/93
5/ 3/93
5/13/93
5/13/93
6/ 1/93
6/ 1/93
11 8/93
9/23/93
5/12/93
6/ 4/93
6/25/93
6/25/93
8/24/93
6/ 4/93
6/ 7/93
4/13/93
6/14/93
6/30/93
9/ 1/93
9/ 2/93
9/10/93
9/20/93
5/20/93
6/29/93
9/29/93
6/ 8/93
8/23/93
8/23/93
9/ 2/93
48
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
-------
Questioned Costs
Assignment Title
Control Number
Final Report
Issued
Ineligible
Costs
Unsupported
Costs
Unnecessary/
Unreasonable
Costs
Recommended
Efficiencies
(Funds be Put
To Better Use)
P9DHL2-23-0260-3100267
P9BGL1-23-0278-3100298
P9DHL1-23-0340-3100403
P9BHP2-23-0459-3400087
P9BHP2-23-0142-3400089
OHM REM FY 91 OH 6/30/93
DONOHUE ARCS1 PM WI 8/ 4/93
PEI ASSOC FY 89 OH 9/30/93
OHM REM ERCS2 Zl FY 91 OH 9/17/93
PEI ASSOC ERCS2 23 FY 88/89 OH 9/20/93
TOTAL OF REGION 23 =
8
TOTAL SUPERFUND CONTRACT ASSIGNMENTS
TOTAL ASSIGNMENTS = 851
3,872,053
62,039,087
9,764
58,069,971
25,245,911
6,389,649
46,844,709
APRIL 1. 1993 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 1993
49
-------
Appendix 2 - Reports Issued Without Management Decision
THE INSPECTOR GENERAL ACT REQUIRES A SUMMARY OF EACH REPORT ISSUED BEFORE THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE REPORTING
PERIOD FOR WHICH NO MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS BEEN MADE BY THE END OF THE REPORTING PERIOD (INCLUDING THE DATE AND
TITLE OF EACH SUCH REPORT), AN EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS SUCH MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE, AND A
STATEMENT CONCERNING THE DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION ON EACH SUCH REPORT. (The IG
provides the summary, the date and title of each such report. The Agency provides the explanation of the reasons why such management decision has
not been made, and a statement concerning the desired timetable for achieving a management decision on each such report.)
IG Followup Status Codes of Agency's Response at 9/30/93:
1. No Response
2. Incomplete Response Received
3. Proposed Response Received Awaiting Final Determination
4. Proposed Response Received in Review Process
5. Final Response Received in Review Process
6. Resolution Under Negotiation in Headquarters
Assignment Control
Number
Title
Final Report
Issued
Assistant Administrator for Administration Resources Management
E1XZG2-13-0046-3400033 WORKMANS COMP 3/24/93
Summary! EPA HAS NOT ADEQUATELY MANAGED/EXECUTED ITS FECA
RESPONSIBILITIES; VERIFIED/CORRECTLY ASSIGNED FECA COSTS;
DESIGNATED RESPONSIBILITY FOR FECA FUNCTIONS; SET UP A LIGHT
DUTY/RETURN TO WORK PROGRAM; PREPARED FECA POLICY/GUIDANCE; SET UP
NATIONAL OVERSIGHT; ADEQUATELY TRAINED PERSONNEL.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADEl RESOLUTION WAS DELAYED DUE TO OARM ESTABLISHING A SENIOR
LEVEL COMMITTEE AND WORKGROUP TO WORK THROUGH THE OIG'S ISSUES AS
WELL AS OTHER ISSUES RELATED TO WORKER'S COMPENSATION. THE OIG
DID NOT ACCEPT THE PROGRAM OFFICE'S ORIGINAL RESPONSE. THE
PROGRAM OFFICE PROVIDED A REVISED RESPONSE ON OCTOBER 1, 1993.
. DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION! THE OIG
AND PROGRAM OFFICE REACHED RESOLUTION ON OCTOBER 5, 1993.
10 FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/93 [5] (The response was both
received and Che report was closed out on October 5, 1993 )
E1AMP2-20-0019-3400039 OIL SPILL TRUST FUND 3/29/93
SummaryI EPA DID NOT HAVE ADEQUATE CONTROLS OR PROCEDURES TO
PROPERLY ACCOUNT FOR $18.4 MILLION AVAILABLE IN FISCAL 1992 FROM
THE OIL SPILL LIABILITY TRUST FUND.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADEl RESOLUTION WAS DELAYED DUE TO OARM FULFILLING THE OIG'S
RECOMMENDATION FOR CREATING A STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE.
ALTHOUGH THE OIG DID NOT REQUIRE SIGNATURES, OARM FELT THE
DOCUMENT SHOULD BE FORMALIZED WITH THE APPROPRIATE SIGNATURES
BEFORE SENDING THE FINAL RESPONSE TO THE OIG. THE PROGRAM OFFICE
IS AWAITING THE OIG'S REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED RESPONSE PROVIDED ON
OCTOBER 8, 1993.
- DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION WILL BE DETERMINED ONCE THE OIG COMPLETES ITS REVIEW.
Assignment control
Number
Title
Final Report
Issued
Assistant Administrator for Research & Development
E6ABF2-11-0032-3100153 USE OF CRADA BY EMSL-CIN 3/31/93
Summary! CRADAS ENTERED BY EMSL-CINCINNATI WERE AN INAPPROPRIATE
USE OF THE FTTA, CREATED POTENTIAL FOR GOVERNMENT CONTROLLED
MONOPOLY AND PRESENTED A CONFLICT BETWEEN EPA'S NEED TO ADMINISTER
FAIR AND EQUITABLE REGULATION AND THE DESIRE TO INCREASE REVENUE
FROM SALES TO THE REGULATED COMMUNITY.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEH
MADEi THE PROGRAM OFFICE PROVIDED A RESPONSE TO THE OIG ON JULY ',
1993. THE OIG HAD DIFFICULTY WITH THE RESPONSE REGARDING THE EIA
MARKET SURVEY. THE OFFICE AND OIG ARE CURRENTLY IN NEGOTIATION
AND THE OFFICE IS DEVELOPING A POSITION PAPER TO HELP CLARIFY TIE
ISSUES.
- DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION!
RESOLUTION IS EXPECTED BY MARCH 31, 1994.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/93 [2]
Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste & Emergency Response
E1SJE2-02-0063-3100152 SUPERFUND CAPPING REPORT NY 3/31/3
Summary! THE AGENCY'S USE OF RPS TO CLEANUP SUPERFUND SITES HS
BEEN HAMPERED BY NUMEROUS PROBLEMS, INCLUDING DELAYS IN INITIATIG
CLEANUPS, LACK OF AGGRESSIVE ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS, AND INEFFECTIE
MANAGEMENT OF CONTRACTORS.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BBB
MADEl THE PROGRAM OFFICE MET WITH THE OIG ON SEPTEMBER 1, 199J
THE OIG ASKED FOR ADDITIONAL CLARIFICATION TO THE PROGRAM OFFICES
RESPONSE SENT IN JULY. THE PROGRAM OFFICE PROVIDED WRITTEN
CLARIFICATION TO THE OIG ON SEPTEMBER 28, 1993. THE OIG HAS
REVIEWED THE RESPONSE.
- DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION IS EXPECTED BY OCTOBER 29, 1993.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/93
October 19, 1993.I
I1J (This report was closed on
10 FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/93
IS]
50
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
-------
Assignment
Number
Title
Final Report
Issued
Assignment
Number
Title
Final Report
Issued
Offlca ot General Counsel
E1JBF1-05-0175-2100443 DOLUTH LAB MN II 7/92
Summaryi ALL FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS HAVE BEEN CLEARED
EXCEPT ONE OGC FINDING. ETHICS OFFICIALS ARE NOT DOCUMENTING, OR
REQUIRED TO DOCUMENT, SIGNIFICANT ETHICS ADVICE.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADEi THE OIG ACCEPTED THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION AND RESOURCES
MANAGEMENT AND THE OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT'S RESPONSE
TO THE AUDIT RECOMMENDATIONS. THE OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC)
HAS ADDRESSED THREE OF THE FOUR OUTSTANDING ISSUES. THE OIG IS
EVALUATING OGC'S POSITION ON THE LAST ISSUE. AN OIG DECISION
REGARDING THE LAST ISSUE IS EXPECTED BY OCTOBER 29, 1993.
« DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION!
RESOLUTION CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT THIS TIME.
I(3 FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/93
[1]
Contracts Management Division Cincinnati
D8CML3-02-0124-3100138 SYRACUSE RESEARCH CORP NY 3/19/93
Summaryi $826,813 REPRESENTS ALLOWABLE COSTS FOR THE BASIC
CONTRACT, $940,493 REPRESENTS ALLOWABLE COSTS UNDER OPTION 1; AND
$1,116,603 REPRESENTS ALLOWABLE COSTS UNDER OPTION 2. THE FINAL
VOUCHER INCLUDED $50,305 OF OTHERWISE ALLOWABLE COSTS IN EXCESS OF
CONTRACT LIMIT FOR OPTION 2.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADEi THE CINCINNATI COST ADVISORY BRANCH HAS DELAYED ISSUING ITS
REPORT DUE TO HIGHER PRIORITY WORKLOAD. THE OFFICE EXPECTS TO
RESOLVE ALL ISSUES REGARDING THIS AUDIT.
D8CML3-03-0147-3100107 VERSAR VA 2/22/93
Summaryi TOTAL FIXED FEE ALLOWABLE IS $129,881. TOTAL FIXED FEE
INCENTIVE PAYABLE IS $214,539. THE FEE NEEDS TO BE ADJUSTED.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADEi THE OIG AND RTF CONTRACT OFFICE ARE CURRENTLY IN
NEGOTIATIONS. THERE IS A DISPUTE CONCERNING THE AMOUNT OF THE
FIXED FEE EARNED.
- DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION IS EXPECTED BY DECEMBER 31, 1993.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/93
[1]
D8AML2-04-0335-2100440 ALPHA-GAMMA TECHNOLOGIES INCNC 6/25/92
Summary! (PREAWARD AUDIT UNDER NEGOTIATIONS)
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
HADEi THE MANAGEMENT DECISION IS DELAYED DUE TO THE COMPLEXITY OF
THE TECHNICAL EVALUATION.
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISIONi
ANTICIPATE AWARD OF CONTRACT BY DECEMBER 15, 1993.
10 FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/93
[1]
D8AML2-04-0242-2100467 EC/R INC.
Summary: (PREAWARD AUDIT UNDER NEGOTIATIONS)
NC 7/10/92
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADEi THE MANAGEMENT DECISION IS DELAYED DUE TO THE COMPLEXITY OF
THE TECHNICAL EVALUATION.
- DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISIONi
RESOLUTION IS EXPECTED BY JANUARY 18, 1994.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/93
[1]
- DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION!
ANTICIPATE AWARD OF CONTRACT BY DECEMBER 15, 1993.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/93
[1]
D8AML3-05-010B-3100093 AUTO TESTING LAB
Summaryt (PREAWARD AUDIT UNDER NEGOTIATIONS)
OH
2/ 3/93
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADEi RESOLUTION WAS DELAYED DUE TO THE CINCINNATI CONTRACT
OFFICE'S REQUEST FOR AN ASSIST AUDIT. FINAL NEGOTIATION WAS
REACHED AND THE CONTRACT WAS AWARDED ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1993.
- DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISIONi THE
AWARD OF THE CONTRACT CLOSED THIS AUDIT.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/93 [1] (when the Agency provided the
above status on October 20, 1993 had not received a copy of the award document.
Upon receipt of the award document the report can be removed from the followup
process )
Contracts Managamont Division RTF
D8CAL2-03-0433-2100604 ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL VA 9/10/92
Summaryi THE CONTRACTOR'S FINAL VOUCHER INCLUDED COSTS IN
EXCESS OF CONTRACT LIMITATIONS TOTALING $51,622.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADEi RESOLUTION WAS DELAYED DUE TO THE RTF CONTRACT OFFICE
ENCOUNTERING PROBLEMS IN OBTAINING COST OVERRUN DOCUMENTATION AS
WELL AS DISAGREEING WITH THE CALCULATION OF FEE ADJUSTMENT. THE
OFFICE AND OIG HAVE REACHED RESOLUTION.
» DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISIONi THE OIG
CLOSED THIS AUDIT ON OCTOBER 14, 1993.
IO FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/93 [1] (OIO received the proposed
response on October 12, 1993 and closed the audit after receiving the final
response on October 14, 1993.)
D6CPL2-03-0432-2100620 MIRANDA ASSOCIATES INC DC 9/16/92
Summaryi DCAA QUESTIONED $278,979 DUE TO 1) THE LIMITATIONS OF
FUNDS CLAUSE, 2) OVERSTATED OVERHEAD COSTS, AND 3) A COMPUTATIONAL
ERROR.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADEi THE RTF CONTRACT OFFICE AND OIG ARE CURRENTLY IN
NEGOTIATIONS FOR CLOSING OUT THE CONTRACT. THE CONTRACTOR IS
HAVING DIFFICULTY IN LOCATING RECORDS TO RESPOND TO THE AUDIT
EXCEPTIONS.
- DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION IS EXPECTED BY DECEMBER 31, 1993.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/93
[1]
APRIL 1, 1993 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 1993
D6AML2-04-0362-2100474 ANALYTICAL TESTING CONSULT
Summaryi (PREAWARD AUDIT UNDER NEGOTIATIONS)
NC 7/15/92
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE) THE MANAGEMENT DECISION IS DELAYED DUE TO THE COMPLEXITY OF
THE TECHNICAL EVALUATION.
> DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISIONi
ANTICIPATE AWARD OF CONTRACT BY DECEMBER 15, 1993.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/93
[1]
D8BML2-04-0410-2100514
summaryi
INTEGRATED LABORATORY SYS NC 8/6/92
- EXPLANATION OF TKE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADEi RESOLUTION HAS BEEN DELAYED DUE TO THE INCORRECT OFFICE
RECEIVING THE FINAL REPORT. THE RTF CONTRACT OFFICE RECEIVED THE
REPORT FOR ITS REVIEW ON SEPTEMBER 27, 1993. THIS OFFICE IS NOW
FORMING ITS RESPONSE.
- DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION)
RESOLUTION IS EXPECTED BY DECEMBER 31, 1993.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/93
[1]
D8BML2-04-0409-2100515
Summary:
INTEGRATED LABORATORY SYS NC 8/ 6/92
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADEi THIS AUDIT COVERED TWO ORGANIZATIONS. ONE OFFICE SENT A
PROPOSED MANAGEMENT DECISION TO THE OIG ON JANUARY 15, 1993
REGARDING THE INDIRECT COSTS. THE OTHER OFFICE ANTICIPATES
RECEIVING THE REPORT THE WEEK OF OCTOBER 18, 1993 TO BEGIN ITS
REVIEW OF DIRECT COSTS.
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISIONi
RESOLUTION IS EXPECTED BY DECEMBER 31, 1993.
10 FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/93 [1]
D8CML3-06-0031-3100014 SOUTHWESTERN PUBLIC SERVICE TX10/27/92
Summaryt
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADEi THE FINANCE OFFICE IS HAVING DIFFICULTY IN LOCATING THE FILES
IN ORDER TO DETERMINE THE TOTAL AMOUNT PAID.
» DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISIONi REVISED
TARGET DATE FOR RESOLUTION IS OCTOBER 31, 1993.
IO FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/93
[1]
51
-------
Assignment
Number
Title
Final Report
Issued
Assignment
Number
Title
Final Report
Issued
D8CML3-09-0075-3100119 ACUREX ENV CORP FINAL CA 3/ 5/93
Summaryi CONTRACTOR'S FINAL VOUCHER INCLUDED $89,292.00 OF
COSTS IN EXCESS OF CONTRACT FUNDING LIMITATIONS. THE CONTRACTOR
HAS NOT MET ITS LEVEL-OF-EFFORT REQUIREMENTS FOR BOTH OPTION YEARS
AND THE FEE MAY NEED ADJUSTMENT.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS HOT BEEN
HADE I THE RTF CONTRACT OFFICE IS AWAITING THE CONTRACTOR'S
SUBMISSION OF THE CREDIT VOUCHER AND CHECK.
- DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION!
RESOLUTION IS EXPECTED BY DECEMBER 31, 1993.
10 FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/93
11)
P8AMP2-23-0301-2400052 EQM (AIR)
summaryi (PREAWARP AUDIT UNDER NEGOTIATIONS)
OH 7/ 2/92
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADEt THE MANAGEMENT DECISION IS DELAYED DUE TO THE COMPLEXITY OF
THE TECHNICAL EVALUATION.
- DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISIONl
ANTICIPATE AWARD OF CONTRACT BY DECEMBER 15, 1993.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/93 [1]
OFFICE OF ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT
P9BGL2-04-0046-3100015 WESTINOHOUSE HAZTECH GA 10/28/92
Summaryi COSTS QUESTIONED AS INELIGIBLE REPRESENTS THE
APPLICATION OF THE INCORRECT G & A RATE. UNSUPPORTED COSTS WERE
FOR MATERIALS BILLED AT A FIXED-RATE NOT PROVIDED FOR IN THE
CONTRACT AND NO OTHER DOCUMENTATION WAS ALLOWABLE TO SUPPORT UNIT
PRICE USED.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: THE OIG IS CURRENTLY REVIEWING THE CONTRACTOR'S ADDITIONAL
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION FOR FIXED RATE MATERIALS. THE OIG
EXPECTS TO ISSUE THE REPORT BY DECEMBER, 1993.
- DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION]
RESOLUTION IS EXPECTED BY JUNE 30, 1994.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/93
[1]
OFFICE OF ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT
Cost Advisory & Financial Analysis Division
Cost Review & Rate Negotiation Branch
D8DML2-02-0121-2100404 MALCOLM PIRNIE INC
*Suramaryi
NY 6/10/92
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADEl THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR HAS INITIATED A LABOR PRACTICES SUIT
AGAINST THE CONTRACTOR WHICH WILL IMPACT THE ALLOWABILITY OF
CERTAIN INDIRECT COSTS. NEGOTIATIONS HAVE BEEN SUSPENDED UNTIL
THE LEGAL ACTION IS COMPLETE. THE OFFICE INFORMED THE OIG OF THIS
SITUATION ON FEBRUARY 25, 1993.
» DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISIONl
RESOLUTION IS EXPECTED BY DECEMBER 31, 1993.
IQ FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/93
[1]
D8DML2-02-0122-2100405
Summary!
MALCOLM PIRNIE INC
NY 6/10/92
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADEt THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR HAS INITIATED A LABOR PRACTICES SUIT
AGAINST THE CONTRACTOR WHICH WILL IMPACT THE ALLOWABILITY OF
CERTAIN INDIRECT COSTS. NEGOTIATIONS HAVE BEEN SUSPENDED UNTIL
THE LEGAL ACTION IS COMPLETE. THE OFFICE INFORMED THE OIG OF THIS
SITUATION ON FEBRUARY 25, 1993.
» DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISIONl
RESOLUTION IS EXPECTED BY DECEMBER 31, 1993.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/93
[11
D8EML2-03-0302-2100315 GILBERT ASSOCIATES INC PA 4/ 7/92
Summaryi DCAA DETERMINED THAT GILBERT COMMONWEALTH OWES THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT $2,538,438 AS A CREDIT REFUND DUE TO THE
TERMINATION OF A DEFINED BENEFIT PENSION PLAN. EPA'S PORTION IS
$1,285.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADEl THIS AUDIT INVOLVES A PENSION PLAN TERMINATION TO BE
RESOLVED BY THE COGNIZANT FEDERAL AGENCY FOR THE CONTRACTOR
(DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE (DOD). DCAA ISSUED THE REPORT FOR
52
APPROPRIATE ACTION. THE EPA OIG REISSUED THE DCAA REPORT. EPA CAN
TAKE NO ACTION.
. DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISIONl DOD
EXPECTS RESOLUTION BY DECEMBER 31, 1993.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/93
[3]
D8DMLS-04-0182-2100420 CLAUDE TERRY £ ASSOCIATES
Summary i
GA 6/17/92
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADEl THE PROGRAM OFFICE PROVIDED ITS RESPONSE TO THE OIG ON
SEPTEMBER 16, 1993.
» DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISIONl
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/93 [2] (The program off ice's response
was not adequate in accordance with EPA Directive 2750. The OIG considers that it
is premature to close assignment until the program office negotiates final rates
with the contractor.)
D8BML2-04-0136-2100422
*SuBB»ryi
CLAUDE TERRY 4 ASSOCIATES GA 6/17/92
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADEl THE PROGRAM OFFICE PROVIDED ITS RESPONSE TO THE OIG ON
SEPTEMBER 16, 1993.
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISIONl
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/93 [2) (The program office's response
was not adequate in accordance with EPA Directive 2T50. The OIG considers that it
is premature to close assignment until the program office negotiates final rates
with the contractor )
D8BML2-04-0181-2100423
summary!
CLAUDE TERRY & ASSOCIATES GA 6/17/92
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADEl THE PROGRAM OFFICE PROVIDED ITS RESPONSE TO THE OIG ON
SEPTEMBER 16, 1993.
- DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISIONl
IQ FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/93 [2] (The program office's response
was not adequate in accordance with EPA Directive 2750. The OIG considers that it
is premature to close assignment until the program office negotiates final rates
with the contractor.)
D9BKL3-04-0034-3100010 EHRT
Eununaryt
KY 10/ 9/92
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADEl
THE OIG REQUESTED THAT THE OFFICE SUSPEND NEGOTIATIONS UNTIL A COST
IMPACT OF RECENT INVESTIGATORY FINDINGS COULD BE ASSESSED.
- DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISIONl
RESOLUTION CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT THIS TIME.
IO FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/93
[1)
P9DHL2-04-0047-3100012
Summaryi
WESTINGHOUSE HAZTECH
GA IO/ 9/92
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADEl THE AUDIT IS INCOMPLETE AS IT DID NOT INCLUDE AN ASSIST AUDIT
FOR THE CORPORATE ALLOCATION. THE DCAA AUDIT OF THE CORPORATE
ALLOCATION IS EXPECTED BY FEBRUARY, 1994.
. DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION]
RESOLUTION IS EXPECTED BY AUGUST 31, 1994.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/93
[1]
THE
P9DHL9-10-0110-1100108 RES FY86 INDIRECT COSTS OR 1/24/S1
Summary! THE OIG REQUESTED THAT THE OFFICE SUSPEND NEGOTIATIONS
WHILE AN INVESTIGATION OF THE CONTRACTOR WAS BEING PERFORMED.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE IS TAKING ACTION AGAINST THE CONTRACTOR.
. DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION!
RESOLUTION WILL OCCUR ONCE A SETTLEMENT HAS BEEN REACHED.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/93 [1] (The OIO aoreea with the ab<|>ve
atatufl And doaa not expect a response until the review la complete.)
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
-------
Assignment
Number
Title
Final Report
Issued
Assignment
Number
Title
Final Report
Issued
P9DHLO -10 -0096 -210 0304
summary!
RES 87 OH
OR 3/31/92
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE. THE OIG REQUESTED THAT THE OFFICE SUSPEND NEGOTIATIONS WHILE
AN INVESTIGATION OF THE CONTRACTOR WAS BEING PERFORMED. THE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE IS TAKING ACTION AGAINST THE CONTRACTOR.
. DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACBIEVINQ A MANAGEMENT DECISION!
RESOLUTION WILL OCCUR ONCE A SETTLEMENT HAS BEEN REACHED.
IS FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/93
[1]
P9DHL9-10-0148-2100642
summaryi
RES 88 OH
OR 9/28/92
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAOEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADEl THE OIG REQUESTED THAT THE OFFICE SUSPEND NEGOTIATIONS WHILE
AN INVESTIGATION OF THE CONTRACTOR WAS BEING PERFORMED. THE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE IS TAKING ACTION AGAINST THE CONTRACTOR.
« DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DEC IS ION I
RESOLUTION WILL OCCUR ONCE A SETTLEMENT HAS BEEN REACHED.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/93
PSDHL1-10-0005-3100147 RES 89 OH
Summary t
[1]
OR 3/29/93
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE I
THE OIG REQUESTED THAT THE OFFICE SUSPEND NEGOTIATIONS WHILE AN
INVESTIGATION OF THE CONTRACTOR WAS BEING PERFORMED. THE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE IS TAKING ACTION AGAINST THE CONTRACTOR.
« DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION!
RESOLUTION WILL OCCUR ONCE A SETTLEMENT HAS BEEN REACHED.
10 FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/93
[1]
P8DMLO-23-0421-2100376 PEI ASSOC FY 90
Summary*
OH 5/20/92
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADEI THE AUDIT IS INCOMPLETE AS IT DID NOT INCLUDE AN ASSIST
AUDIT FOR THE CORPORATE ALLOCATION. THE REPORT RECOMMENDED THAT
ACTION NOT BE TAKEN UNTIL THE CORPORATE ALLOCATION AUDIT IS
COMPLETE. PER DCAA, THE AUDIT REPORT WILL BE ISSUED IN FEBRUARY,
1994.
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION!
RESOLUTION IS EXPECTED BY MARCH 31, 1994.
OFFICE OF ACQUISITION MANAOEMENT
Coet Advisory t Financial Analytic Division
Financial Analysis Branch
D9BFL2-03-0367-2100622 COMPUTER SCIENCE CORP VA 9/17/92
Summary. DCAA QUESTIONED 7,692 LABOR HOURS IN EXCESS OF THOS]
AUTHORIZED IN THE CONTRACT. DCAA WAS UNABLE TO DETERMINE IF HOUR:
BILLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DOPO'S MEMORANDUM.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE. THE CONTRACTING OFFICER REQUESTED DCAA TO REVIEW THE
CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSE ON SEPTEMBER 15, 1993.
- DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION!
RESOLUTION IS EXPECTED BY NOVEMBER 30, 1993.
IO FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/93
[1]
P8BMN1-03-0146-2300014 O&R MANAGEMENT CORPORATION MD ll/ 5/91
Summary. WE QUESTIONED $557,442 OF OTHER DIRECT COSTS. ONE
HUNDRED PERCENT OF THE CONTRACT WAS QUESTIONED BECAUSE O&R DID NO'
MAINTAIN RECORDS.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE! RESOLUTION HAS BEEN DELAYED DUE TO THE COMPANY NO LONGER
BEING IN BUSINESS. THE CONTRACTING OFFICER IS WRITING A DECISIO1
ON THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE COST CLAIMED BY THE CONTRACTOR IN TH]
AUDIT REPORT. THIS DECISION IS EXPECTED TO BE FINALIZED BY
DECEMBER 31, 1993.
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION!
RESOLUTION IS EXPECTED BY DECEMBER 31, 1993.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/93
[11
D9BGL2-04-0368-2100587 VESTA TECHNOLOGY LTD FL 9/ 9/92
Summary: VESTA PROVIDED INCINERATION SERVICES TO RES. DELAY
CLAIM DUE TO FAILED TEST BURNS 4 DEMOBILIZATION. $113,000
QUESTIONED ON INCINERATION DELAY. $129,000 QUESTIONED ON EXTENDE1
OVERHEAD. $264,000 WAS UNAUDITED SUBJECT (FLINT). $88,000 PROFI'
WAS QUESTIONED.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADEi THIS AUDIT COVERS THE FIRST TIER SUBCONTRACTOR'S CLAIM TO TH]
PRIME CONTRACTOR. NEGOTIATIONS OF THIS AUDIT ARE AWAITING
NEGOTIATION OF AN ASSIST AUDIT ON THE SECOND TIER SUBCONTRACTOR
THE ASSIST AUDIT HAS BEEN COMPLETED AND RESULTS WERE SENT TO TH]
CONTRACTOR OFFICE ON JULY 23, 1993. NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN THE
CONTRACTING OFFICER AND CONTRACTOR ARE IN PROCESS.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION IS EXPECTED BY DECEMBER 31, 1993.
IS FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/93
[1]
IO FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/93
[1]
P8BMP1-23-0335-2400073 PEI ASSOC {FY 85) OH 9/ 9/92
Summaryi THE REVIEW FOUND $224,781 OF INELIGIBLE AND $195,886
OF UNSUPPORTED COSTS.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE! THE OFFICE RECENTLY MET WITH THE OIG ON SEPTEMBER 15, 1993
TO DEVELOP A PROCEDURE TO RESOLVE THE ISSUES.
- DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION IS EXPECTED BY DECEMBER 31, 1993.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/93
[1]
D8CML2-09-0319-2100524
Summary.
GEO RESOURCE CONSULTANTS FN CA 8/12/92
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADEi THE CONTRACTING OFFICER FORWARDED THE SETTLEMENT POSITION T(
THE CONTRACTOR ON APRIL 30, 1993. THEY ARE CURRENTLY UNDERGOINl
ACTIVE NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE CONTRACTOR'S ATTORNEY.
- DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION IS EXPECTED BY NOVEMBER 30, 1993.
10 FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/93
[1]
P8DMLO-23-0178-3100137 PEI ASSOC FY 87/88 OH 3/17/93
Summary! NEARLY $2 MILLION WAS UNSUPPORTED BECAUSE OF A LACK OF
A JOB COSTS SYSTEM-INDIRECT RATES FOR LAB & NON-LAB OVERHEADS
COULD NOT BE DETERMINED. $840,906 OF INELIGIBLE COSTS INCLUDED
$479,316 OF PROPOSED COSTS NOT RECEIVED.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADEi THE AUDIT IS INCOMPLETE AS IT DID NOT INCLUDE AN ASSIST
AUDIT FOR THE CORPORATE ALLOCATION FROM DCAA. THE REPORT
RECOMMENDED THAT ACTION NOT BE TAKEN UNTIL THE CORPORATE
ALLOCATION AUDIT IS COMPLETE. THE DCAA AUDIT WAS RECENTLY
COMPLETED.
> DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION!
RESOLUTION IS EXPECTED BY MARCH 31, 1994.
P9AKN9-23-0347-0300036 OH MATERIALS (PR EQ RATES)
summary. (PREAWARD AUDIT UNDER NEGOTIATIONS)
OH 3/27/90
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE. THE OFFICE REQUESTED FURTHER AUDITS ON THE CONTRACTOR'S
EQUIPMENT UTILIZATION RATES FOR 1990 IN ORDER TO RESOLVE THESE
COSTS. THE YEARS 1987 THROUGH 1989 SHOULD BE RESOLVED WITHIN 1
MONTHS FROM RECEIPT OF THESE AUDITS. ALSO, THERE HAS BEEN A NE!
CONTRACTING OFFICER ASSIGNED.
- DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION!
RESOLUTION IS EXPECTED BY SEPTEMBER 30, 1994.
IO FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/93
[1]
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/93
[1]
APRIL 1, 1993 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 1993
53
-------
Assignment
Number
Title
Final Report
Issued
Assignment
Number
Title
Final Report
Issued
P9AKNO-23-0260-0300047 OH MATERIALS (PR KQ RATES)
t (PREAWARD AUDIT UNDER NEGOTIATIONS)
OH 4/37/90
- EXPLANATION OP THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE! THE CONTRACTING OFFICER NEGOTIATED AND SETTLED ISSUES
COVERED BY THE AUDIT REPORT. AFTER THE SETTLEMENT DOCUMENTS ARE
REVIEWED, THIS AUDIT WILL BE CLOSED.
- DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DEC IS ION t
RESOLUTION IS EXPECTED BY OCTOBER 29, 1993.
M5BFL2-11-002S-3100040 EP-IAG FY90 DOT-COAST GUARD DC12/ 1/92
Summary t
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE! THE HEADQUARTERS GRANTS OFFICE IS AWAITING THE RESULTS OF THE
ORGANIZATIONS' REVIEW OF THE AUDIT FINDINGS.
. DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION!
RESOLUTION IS EXPECTED BY DECEMBER 31, 1993.
10 FOLLOWOP STATUS AS OF 9/30/93
Ul
P9AHN1-23-0144-2300023 OHM REM ERCS2 Z2 FY 89
Summaryi (PREAWARD AUDIT UNDER NEGOTIATIONS)
OH 12/26/91
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADEl THE CONTRACTING OFFICER NEGOTIATED AND SETTLED ISSUES
COVERED BY THE AUDIT REPORT. AFTER THE SETTLEMENT DOCUMENTS ARE
REVIEWED, THIS AUDIT WILL BE CLOSED.
« DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION I
RESOLUTION IS EXPECTED BY OCTOBER 29, 1993.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/93 [1]
P9AHN1-23-0143-2300024 OHM REM ERCS2 Zl FY 89
Summaryi (PREAWARD AUDIT UNDER NEGOTIATIONS)
OH 12/27/91
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADEl NEGOTIATIONS ARE STILL PENDING. THE OFFICE REQUESTED
FURTHER AUDITS ON THE CONTRACTOR'S EQUIPMENT UTILIZATION RATES FOR
1990 IN ORDER TO RESOLVE THESE COSTS. THE YEARS 1987 THROUGH 1989
SHOULD BE RESOLVED WITHIN 12 MONTHS FROM RECEIPT OF THESE AUDITS.
» DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION!
RESOLUTION IS EXPECTED BY SEPTEMBER 30, 1994.
10 FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/93
[1]
P8BMPO-23-0422-2400046 PEI ASSOC FY 90 OH 6/ 2/92
Summaryi REVIEW OF INCURRED COSTS IS INCOMPLETE BECAUSE AUDITED
INDIRECT RATES HAVE NOT BEEN FINALIZED AND APPLIED.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADEl THE AUDIT IS INCOMPLETE AS IT DID NOT INCLUDE AN ASSIST
AUDIT FOR THE CORPORATE ALLOCATION. THE REPORT RECOMMENDED THAT
ACTION NOT BE TAKEN UNTIL THE CORPORATE ALLOCATION AUDIT IS
COMPLETE.
- DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION!
RESOLUTION IS EXPECTED BY MARCH 31, 1994.
IG POLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/93
OFFICE OF ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT
111
Coat Advisory & Financial Analysis Division
Washington Coat Advisory Branch
P9AKN1-23-0191-1300085 OHM REM ERCS3 Rl
Summary! (PREAWARD AUDIT UNDER NEGOTIATIONS)
OH 7/ 9/91
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADEl THE CONTRACT HAS NOT BEEN AWARDED; HOWEVER, CONTRACT
NEGOTIATIONS ARE ON-GOING.
> DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION!
RESOLUTION IS EXPECTED BY DECEMBER 31, 1993.
IG POLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/93 [1]
Grants Administration Division
N3HVJ3-05-0052-3500272 WISCONSIN U OF FY 90/91 HI 1/21/93
Summary! THE GRANTEE EXCEEDED THE FEDERAL GRANT AMOUNT BY
$1,558.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADEl THE HEADQUARTERS GRANTS OFFICE LOST THIS REPORT DURING AN
OFFICE MOVE. THE OFFICE REQUESTED A COPY OF THE AUDIT REPORT AND
RECEIVED IT ON OCTOBER 13, 1993.
- DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION!
RESOLUTION IS EXPECTED BY JANUARY 31, 1994.
10 FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/93 [1]
IO FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/93
[1]
MSBFL3-11-0014-3100046 SF IAO DOI USGS
Summaryj
12/ 3/92
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADEt THE HEADQUARTERS GRANTS OFFICE IS AWAITING THE RESULTS OF THE
ORGANIZATIONS' REVIEW OF THE QUESTIONED COSTS.
- DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION!
RESOLUTION IS EXPECTED BY DECEMBER 31, 1993.
IO FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/93
[1]
M5BFL2-11-0045-3100059
Summaryi
SF-IAG FY91 DOI
I/ 4/93
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADEl THE HEADQUARTERS GRANTS OFFICE IS AWAITING THE RESULTS OF THE
ORGANIZATIONS' REVIEW OF THE REPORT.
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION!
RESOLUTION IS EXPECTED BY DECEMBER 31, 1993.
10 FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/93 [1]
M5BFL2-11-004S-3100158 SF-IAG FY91 DOI
Summary!
3/31/93
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADEl THE HEADQUARTERS GRANTS OFFICE IS AV'AITING THE RESULTS OF THE
ORGANIZATIONS' REVIEW OF THE REPORT.
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION!
RESOLUTION IS EXPECTED BY DECEMBER 31, 1993.
10 FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/93
[1]
Office ot Administration & Resources Management RTF NC
B8BML2-03-0179-2100667 E. H. PECHAN VA 9/30/92
Summary i WE FOUND NUMEROUS WEAKNESSES SUCH AS AWARDING A
CONTRACT TO AN INEXPERIENCED CONTRACTOR, NUMEROUS AMENDMENTS WITH
LITTLE OR NO JUSTIFICATION AND POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST
BETWEEN CONTRACTOR AND EPA GRANTEE. WE QUESTIONED 5441,768 IN
INELIGIBLE CONSULTANT, DIRECT LABOR & OTHER COSTS.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADEl THE RTF CONTRACT OFFICE SUBMITTED A PROPOSED MANAGEMENT
DECISION TO THE OIG ON AUGUST 11, 1993. THE OIG DID NOT ACCEPT THE
DECISION.
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION) REVISED
TARGET DATE FOR RESOLUTION IS DECEMBER 31, 1993.
IO FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/93 [2]
Regional Adminiatrator, Region 1
K3BWL1-01-0178-2100S22 RI ESTUARY PROGRAM GRANTS RI 8/11/92
Summaryi A TOTAL OF $198, 111 IS QUESTIONED. VARIOUS WEAKNESSES
IN THE GRANTEE'S INTERNAL CONTROLS ARE ALSO REPORTED, OF WHICH
$41,954 UNREASONABLE, $154,522 UNSUPPORTED, $1,635 INELIGIBLE.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADEl THE REGION AND THE OIG HAVE REACHED AGREEMENT ON MOST ISSUES
IN THIS INTERIM AUDIT. THE REMAINING ISSUE INVOLVES DETERMINING
CONTRACTOR'S OBLIGATIONS TO MEET THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT.
- DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION! A FINAL
DETERMINATION LETTER IS EXPECTED BY DECEMBER 31, 1993.
IO FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/93
[2]
54
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
-------
Assignment
Number
Title
Final Report
Issued
Assignment
Number
Title
Final Report
Issued
Regional Administrator, Ragion 2
P2BW*8-02-0017-2100449 NYC - NORTH RIVKR NY 7/ 5/92
Summary! THE GRANTEE CLAIMED $2,661,322 OF INELIGIBLE COSTS AND
$11,814,277 OF UNSUPPORTED COSTS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE NORTH
RIVER WASTEWATER WATER TREATMENT PLANT AND A SLUDGE VESSEL.
- EXPLANATION OF THB REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADEi THE NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
IS THE DELEGATED AGENCY RESPONSIBLE FOR DRAFTING THIS AUDIT
RESOLUTION FOR THE REGION. A HIGH VOLUME OF AUDITS AND THE LARGE
AMOUNT OF QUESTIONED COSTS CAUSED A DELAY IN THE RESOLUTION OF
THIS AUDIT. REGION IS AWAITING OIG RESPONSE BASED ON INFORMATION
PROVIDED ON AUGUST 25, 1993.
- DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION! A FINAL
DETERMINATION LETTER IS EXPECTED BY DECEMBER 31, 1993.
- DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION! A FINAI
DETERMINATION LETTER IS EXPECTED BY MARCH 31, 1994.
IO FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/93
[4]
D2CWL3-02-0030-3100021 NYCDEP - NORTH RIVER NY 117 3/92
Summary! THE CITY OF NEW YORK CLAIMED $1,311,893 OF OVERHEAD
COSTS FOR WHICH THE CONSULTING ENGINEER COULD NOT SUPPORT THE
AMOUNT CLAIMED. AN ADDITIONAL $35,359 WAS QUESTIONED AS INELIGIBLE
BASED ON APPLICATION OF THE PRORATION FACTOR.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADEi THE NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
IS THE DELEGATED AGENCY RESPONSIBLE FOR DRAFTING THIS AUDIT
RESOLUTION FOR THE REGION. A HIGH VOLUME OF AUDITS AND THE LARGE
AMOUNT OF QUESTIONED COSTS CAUSED A DELAY IN THE RESOLUTION OF
THIS AUDIT. REGION AWAITING OIG RESPONSE BASED ON INFORMATION
PROVIDED ON AUGUST 25, 1993.
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION! A FINAL
DETERMINATION LETTER IS EXPECTED BY DECEMBER 31, 1993.
IO POLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/93
[41
P2CWL1-02-0104-310011B NYCDEP NY 3/ 2/93
Summary! THE CITY OF NEW YORK CLAIMED UNALLOWABLE PROJECT COSTS
OF $13,953,725 FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF 8 DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION WATER POLLUTION CONTROL FACILITIES AND
APPURTENANCES.
- EXPLANATION OF THB REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE! THE NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
IS THE DELEGATED AGENCY RESPONSIBLE FOR DRAFTING THIS AUDIT
RESOLUTION FOR THE REGION. A HIGH VOLUME OF AUDITS AND THE LARGE
AMOUNT OF QUESTIONED COSTS CAUSED A DELAY IN THE RESOLUTION OF
THIS AUDIT.
- DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION! A FINAL
DETERMINATION LETTER IS EXPECTED BY DECEMBER 31, 1993.
IO FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/93
[1]
E2AWT3-02-0016-3400002 EARLY WARNING-RED HOOK WPCP NY10/28/92
Summary! OUR REVIEW OF THE NEW YORK CITY RED HOOK WPCP
DISCLOSED THAT LABORATORY FACILITIES WERE NOT IN USE AND HAD NOT
BEEN UTILIZED SINCE CONSTRUCTION WAS COMPLETED. IN ADDITION, THE
COMPUTERIZED CONTROL ROOM WAS UNFINISHED.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: THE NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
IS THE DELEGATED AGENCY RESPONSIBLE FOR DRAFTING THIS AUDIT
RESOLUTION FOR THE REGION. A HIGH VOLUME OF AUDITS AND THE LARGE
AMOUNT OF QUESTIONED COSTS CAUSED A DELAY IN THE RESOLUTION OF
THIS AUDIT.
« DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION! A FINAL
DETERMINATION LETTER IS EXPECTED BY DECEMBER 31, 1993.
10 FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/93 [1]
Regional Administrator, Region 3
P6DWNO-03-0261-230004S DC GOVERNMENT DC 3/31/92
Summary! REVIEW OF THE WASHINGTON TIMES ALLEGATIONS CONCERNING
THE BLUE PLAINS TREATMENT PLANT DISCLOSED CONTRACT OVERRUNS OF $21
MILLION. IN ADDITION EXCESSIVE DELAYS OCCURRED BECAUSE OF
PROCUREMENT POLICIES AND PRACTICES.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADEi THE OIG DISAGREED WITH THE $41.1 MILLION FINAL DETERMINATION
LETTER ISSUED ON MARCH 5, 1993, REQUIRING ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION
FROM THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS. REGION SUBMITTED A REVISED FINAL
DETERMINATION LETTER TO OIG ON AUGUST 10, 1993. OIG IDENTIFIED
THE FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER AS INCOMPLETE UNTIL ITS ENGINEERING
UNIT PERFORMS A TECHNICAL REVIEW OF A $1.1 MILLION ISSUE.
IO FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/93
(2}
F2CWN1-03-0123-23000«2 PHILADELPHIA CITY OF PA 7/23/92
SUMuryi THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA WATER DEPARTMENT CLAIMED MORE
THAN $20 MILLION OF INELIGIBLE COSTS INCLUDING $8.7 MILLION OF
COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH ABANDONED SYSTEMS AND EQUIPMENT.
- EXPLANATION OF THB REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADEi THE SIZE AND COMPLEXITY OF THIS MEGA-AUDIT, INVOLVING SEVERAI
GRANTS, HAS REQUIRED SIGNIFICANT TIME TO RESOLVE. MEETINGS AND
CORRESPONDENCE WITH GRANTEE ARE ONGOING.
- DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION! A FINAL
DETERMINATION LETTER IS EXPECTED DECEMBER 31, 1993.
IO FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/93
(11
P2CWN9-03-0256-3300026 BALTIMORE MAYOR fc CTY COON MD 3/25/93
SUUaaryi CITY OF BALTIMORE CLAIMED QUESTIONED COSTS IN EXCESS OF
$3M. THESE INCLUDED $2 . 1M OF PROJECT INSPECTION CLAIMED COSTS THAI
EXCEEDED INCURRED COSTS.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADEi DUE TO SEVERAL QUESTIONS CONCERNING VARIOUS COST CATEGORIES
WHICH TOTAL MORE THAN $3.85 MILLION IN COSTS, FURTHER DOCUMENTATION
WAS SOUGHT IN ADDITION TO THE SEVERAL GRANTEE SUBMISSIONS WHICH
REQUIRED EXTENSIVE REVIEW.
- DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION! A FINAL
DETERMINATION LETTER IS EXPECTED BY OCTOBER 31, 1993.
10 FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/93 (1]
Regional Administrator, Ragion 4
E2CWN1-04-OOS2-1300086 HILLSBOROUGH CTY FL 7/17/91
Summary! THE GRANTEE RECEIVED EPA FUNDS TO EXPAND ITS WASTEWATEF
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! JUSTIFICATION FOR THE EXPANSION OF THE TREATMENT PLANT IS
DEPENDENT UPON THE OUTCOME OF THE CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN FOR THE
RUSKIN/WIMAUMA PROJECT.
. DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: THE
REGION AND OIG CONCUR THAT A FINAL DETERMINATION IS PREMATURE.
10 FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF
status.)
9/30/93
[2] (OIG agrees with the above
Regional Administrator, Region 5
E2AWT1-05-0116-1400048 ENGLISH EWS IN 9/2S/91
Summary! THE GRANTEE HAS BEGUN A SIGNIFICANT REDEVELOPMENT
PROJECT WHICH RAISES QUESTIONS ABOUT THE CONCLUSIONS OF THE
FACILITIES PLANNING PROCESS. AS A RESULT THE GRANT AWARD OF
$2,676,600 WAS PREMATURE AND THE PRELIMINARY PLANNING NEEDS TO BE
REEVALUATED.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADEi THE OIG DID NOT ACCEPT THE REGION'S PROPOSED FINAL
DETERMINATION LETTER OF JANUARY 7, 1992. THE AUDIT HAS BEEN
ELEVATED TO THE HEADQUARTERS OIG AND PROGRAM OFFICE TO RESOLVE
OUTSTANDING ISSUES. THE OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL IS WORKING ON I
LEGAL INTERPRETATION TO HELP REACH RESOLUTION.
- DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT THIS TIME.
10 FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/93
[2]
Regional Administrator, Region 5
Qranta Financial Management, Region 5
P2CWP6-05-0298-2400004 W LAKE SUPERIOR MN 12/12/91
Summary: THE GRANTEE CLAIMED $8,595,588 OF INELIGIBLE
CONSTRUCTION, ENGINEERING AND ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS, AND $166,834 OE
UNSUPPORTED COSTS.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE! THE OIG DID NOT ACCEPT THE REGION'S PROPOSED FINAL
DETERMINATION LETTER OF JANUARY 7, 1992. THE AUDIT HAS BEEN
ELEVATED TO THE HEADQUARTERS OIG AND PROGRAM OFFICE ON JULY 24,
1992 TO RESOLVE OUTSTANDING ISSUES. THE OIG AND THE OFFICE OF
GENERAL COUNSEL MET AND DETERMINED THAT THE OUTSTANDING ISSUES AR1
APRIL 1, 1993 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 1993
55
-------
Assignment
Number
Title
Final Report
Issued
Assignment
Number
Title
Final Report
Issued
REGULATORY AND THAT THE OIG IS RESEARCHING THE REGULATION IN PLACE
AT THE TIME OF THE AWARD.
> DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION! THE OIG
EXPECTS THIS AUDIT TO BE ELEVATED TO THE AUDIT RESOLUTION BOARD.
- DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING) A MANAGEMENT DECISION! A FINAL
DETERMINATION LETTER IS EXPECTED BY DECEMBER 31, 1993.
1(3 FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/93
[6]
E2CWL3-05-0121-3100141 CLEVELAND NEORSD OH 3/26/93
Summary! NEORSD CLAIMED $35,402,826 OF UNNECESSARY/UNREASONABLE
COSTS FOR ABANDONED PORTIONS OF A WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM. IN
ADDITION, THE GRANTEE CLAIMED $12,274,972 FOR ENGINEERING COSTS
THAT IT COULD NOT RECONCILE WITH ITS BOOKS AND RECORDS.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADEi THE REGION AND OIG HAVE BEEN UNABLE TO COME TO AGREEMENT ON
DISALLOWANCE OF QUESTIONED COSTS. THE OIG QUESTIONED ALL COSTS
DESPITE THE GRANTEE'S SUPPORT FOR SOME COSTS. THE REGION AND OIG
ARE ATTEMPTING TO OBTAIN FINAL PAY REQUESTS FROM THE GRANTEE WHICH
WILL ALLOW THE OIG TO AGREE WITH THE REGION'S PROPOSAL.
» DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION! A FINAL
DETERMINATION LETTER IS EXPECTED BY NOVEMBER 30, 1993.
10 POLLOWOP STATUS AS OF 9/30/93
[1]
P2CWP7-05-0079-3400038 FLINT MI 3/29/93
Summary! THE CITY OF FLINT, MI CLAIMED $1,189,038 OF INELIGIBLE
CONSTRUCTION & ENGINEERING COSTS; $252,325 OF UNSUPPORTED
ADMINISTRATIVE &. ENGINEERING COSTS; AND $5,520 OF UNNECESSARY/
UNREASONABLE ENGINEERING START-UP COSTS.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE! RESOLUTION OF THE REPORT WAS DELAYED DUE TO THE REGION'S
INABILITY TO LOCATE THE EPA PROJECT FILE. PRELIMINARY
DETERMINATION LETTER SENT TO THE GRANTEE ON SEPTEMBER 15, 1993.
- DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION! A FINAL
DETERMINATION LETTER IS EXPECTED BY NOVEMBER 1, 1993.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/93
[3]
E2BWL5-05-0136-7000980 SAUOET IL 3/31/67
Summary! WE QUESTIONED OVER $7 MILLION FOR INELIGIBLE AND
UNNECESSARY PROJECT COSTS.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADEi THE REGION IS SEEKING GUIDANCE FROM REGIONAL COUNSEL AND
WATER DIVISION REGARDING COMPLEX TECHNICAL AND LEGAL ISSUES. THE
REGION AND FIELD OIG HAVE DISAGREEMENTS. THESE WILL BE ELEVATED
TO HEADQUARTERS OIG WHEN THE REGION SUBMITS THE PROPOSED FINAL
DETERMINATION LETTER. THE PRELIMINARY FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER
IS EXPECTED BY NOVEMBER 30, 1993.
- DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION!
RESOLUTION CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT THIS TIME.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS Of 9/30/93
[3]
P2CMN5-05-0169-8100774 DETROIT WSD MI 9/ 1/88
SUMaryi THE GRANTEE CLAIMED $5, 600 OF INELIGIBLE AND $992,000 OF
UNSUPPORTED FORCE ACCOUNT COSTS. THE GRANTEE ALSO CLAIMED
INELIGIBLE CONSTRUCTION AND MISC. COSTS OF $91,000.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADBt THE REGION AND OIG REACHED AGREEMENT IN MAY 1993 ON 10 OF THE
13 REPORTS ISSUED ON DETROIT WATER AND SEWAGE DEPARTMENT GRANTS.
RESOLUTION OF THIS AUDIT HAS BEEN SUSPENDED PENDING OIG'S AGREEMENT
WITH THE REGION'S PROPOSED RESOLUTION OF THE OTHER 10 REPORTS WHICH
DID NOT OCCUR UNTIL MAY 1993.
- DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION! A FINAL
DETERMINATION LETTER IS EXPECTED BY DECEMBER 31, 1993.
IO FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/93 [2]
Regional Administrator, Ragion 6
E2CWN1-06-0155-3300025 KENNER LA 3/24/93
Summary! KENNER, LA CLAIMED $651,084 OF INELIGIBLE CONSTRUCTION
CHANGE ORDER COSTS. AN ADDITIONAL $632,000 OF CONTRACTOR CLAIM
COSTS AND $30,263 OF UNSUPPORTED ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS WERE
QUESTIONED.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE! THE REGION IS AWAITING A DECISION FROM HEADQUARTERS GRANTS
ADMINISTRATION DIVISION REGARDING A DEVIATION REQUEST SENT ON
SEPTEMBER 22, 1993 REQUESTING $651,084 BE REINSTATED.
- DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION! A FINAL
DETERMINATION LETTER IS EXPECTED BY DECEMBER 31, 1993.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/93 [1]
Regional Administrator, Region 7
P2CWN2-07-0183-3300027 DES MOINES IA 3/29/93
Summaryi WE QUESTIONED $98,921 CONSISTING OF $47,518 OF
ENGINEERING COSTS, $35,466 OF INELIGIBLE CONSTRUCTION CHANGE ORDER
COSTS AND $15,937 OF CONSTRUCTION DEPOSITS ON PLANS AND
SPECIFICATIONS.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADEi THE REGION SUBMITTED THE FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER ON
SEPTEMBER 22, 1993. THE OIG AGREED TO THE FINAL DETERMINATION
LETTER ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1993. HOWEVER, THE IG AUDIT TRACKING
SYSTEM DID NOT REFLECT THIS ACTION UNTIL OCTOBER 13, 1993.
- DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION! THIS
AUDIT IS CLOSED.
IS FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/93
[2]
10 FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/93
explanation.)
[3] (OIG agrees with the above
P2CWN5-OS-0132-8000464 DETROIT WSD MI 1/20/88
Summary! THE GRANTEE CLAIMED UNSUPPORTED FORCE ACCOUNT COSTS OF
$2 MILLION. THE GRANTEE ALSO CLAIMED $2.6 MILLION OF INELIGIBLE
AND $119,000 OF UNSUPPORTED CONSTRUCTION COSTS.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: THE REGION AND OIG REACHED AGREEMENT IN MAY 1993 ON 10 OF
THE 13 REPORTS ISSUED ON DETROIT WATER AND SEWAGE DEPARTMENT
GRANTS. THE GRANTEE HAS SUBSEQUENTLY PROVIDED THE REGION WITH
VOLUMINOUS, COMPLEX DOCUMENTATION WHICH IS CURRENTLY UNDER REVIEW
BY THE WATER DIVISION. THE PROPOSED FINAL DETERMINATION WAS
AGREED TO BY THE OIG.
« DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION! A FINAL
DETERMINATION LETTER IS EXPECTED BY DECEMBER 31, 1993.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/93
[3]
P2BWN2-07-0184-3300029 DES MOINES IA 3/29/93
Summary! WE QUESTIONED $347,793 CONSISTING OF $311,945 OF
CONSTRUCTION CHANGE ORDER COSTS THAT WERE NOT ADEQUATELY SUPPORTED
AND $30,887 OF ENGINEERING SERVICE COSTS ALLOCABLE TO INELIGIBLE
CONSTRUCTION.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADEi THE REGION ISSUED THE FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER ON AUGUST
26, 1993. ALTHOUGH THE OIG AGREED WITH THE FINAL DETERMINATION
LETTER, THE IG AUDIT TRACKING SYSTEM DID NOT REFLECT THIS ACTION
UNTIL OCTOBER 13, 1993.
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION! THIS
AUDIT IS CLOSED.
IO FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/93
explanation.)
[3] (OIG agrees with the above
P2CWN7-05-0237-8100724 DETROIT WSD MI 8/29/88
Summary! THE GRANTEE CLAIMED UNSUPPORTED FORCE ACCOUNT COSTS OF
$662,000 AND INELIGIBLE CONSTRUCTION COSTS OF $274,000.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: THE REGION AND OIG REACHED AGREEMENT IN MAY 1993 ON 10 OF
THE 13 REPORTS ISSUED ON DETROIT WATER AND SEWAGE DEPARTMENT
GRANTS. GRANTEE HAS SUBSEQUENTLY PROVIDED THE REGION WITH
VOLUMINOUS, COMPLEX DOCUMENTATION WHICH IS CURRENTLY UNDER REVIEW
BY THE WATER DIVISION. THE PROPOSED FINAL DETERMINATION WAS
AGREED TO BY THE OIG.
Regional Administrator, Region 8
P2CWL8-08-0104-3100144 NORTHGLENN CO 3/29/93
Summary i COSTS QUESTIONED OF $683, 571 FOR LEGAL COSTS OF $10, 519
PROJECT INSPECTION COSTS OF $298,885; CLAIM SETTLEMENT COSTS OF
$660, FORCE ACCOUNT COSTS OF $259,024, CONSTRUCTION COSTS OF
$50,000, DEBRIS REMOVAL COSTS OF $64,492.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE! THE MANAGEMENT DECISION WAS DELAYED BECAUSE OF A LACK OF
RESOURCES TO ADDRESS AUDIT RESOLUTION.
56
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
-------
Assignment
Number
Title
Final Report
Issued
Assignment
Number
Title
Final Report
Issued
- DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION! A FINAL
DETERMINATION LETTER IS EXPECTED BY MARCH 31, 1994.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/93
[1]
E2CWN7-08-0139-3300026 CASPER WY 3/29/93
Summary! GRANTEE OVERESTIMATED REQUIRED WASTEWATER TREATMENT
CAPACITY VALUED AT $6.1 MILLION. THE GRANTEE DID NOT BASE ITS
PROJECTED NON-RESIDENTIAL FLOWS ON ACTUAL MEASURED FLOW
INFORMATION EVEN THOUGH THE INFORMATION WAS INCLUDED IN THE
FACILITY PLAN.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADEl THE MANAGEMENT DECISION WAS DELAYED BECAUSE OF A LACK OF
RESOURCES TO ADDRESS AUDIT RESOLUTION.
- DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION! A FINAL
DETERMINATION LETTER IS EXPECTED BY MARCH 31, 1994.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/93
[1]
P5BGN2-08-0019-3300033 DEPT OF HEALTH 6 ENVIR SCI MT 3/31/93
Summary! WE QUESTIONED $12 MILLION OF UNSUPPORTED SUPERFUND
CONTRACT COSTS. THE STATE DID NOT HAVE ADEQUATE CONTROLS OVER
SUPERFUND CONTRACTS. IN ADDITION, MDHES DID NOT HAVE AN
ACCEPTABLE LEAVE ALLOCATION METHOD OR AN EFFECTIVE AUDIT
RESOLUTION PROCESS.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADEl THE MANAGEMENT DECISION WAS DELAYED BECAUSE OF A LACK OF
RESOURCES TO ADDRESS AUDIT RESOLUTION.
- DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION! A FINAL
DETERMINATION LETTER IS EXPECTED BY MARCH 31, 1994.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/93
tl]
N3HVJ3-08-0025-3500293 SOUTH DAKOTA, STATE OF SD 1/28/93
Summary! THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA IMPROPERLY ALLOCATED PAYROLL
EXPENSES FOR TWO EPA GRANTS AND MADE UNALLOWABLE PAYMENTS TO THE
TRUSTEE FOR THE STATE REVOLVING FUND. AS A RESULT THE STATE
INCURRED UNSUPPORTED COSTS OF $20,812 AND UNALLOWABLE AND
UNNECESSARY COSTS OF $1,001.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADEl THE MANAGEMENT DECISION WAS DELAYED BECAUSE OF A LACK OF
RESOURCES TO ADDRESS AUDIT RESOLUTION.
- DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISIONi A FINAL
DETERMINATION LETTER IS EXPECTED BY FEBRUARY 22, 1994.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/93
[1]
N3HVK3-08-0049-3500407 CASPER COLLEGE WY 3/ 3/93
Summaryi CASPER COLLEGE IMPROPERLY ALLOCATED EXPENSES BETWEEN
THE WATER POLLUTION CONTROL GRANT AND THE SAFE DRINKING WATER
RESEARCH AND DEMONSTRATION GRANT. AS A RESULT THE COLLEGE
OVERCHARGED THE WATER POLLUTION GRANT BY $1,373.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADEl THE MANAGEMENT DECISION WAS DELAYED BECAUSE OF A LACK OF
RESOURCES TO ADDRESS AUDIT RESOLUTION.
- DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISIONi A FINAL
DETERMINATION LETTER IS EXPECTED BY MARCH 4, 1994.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/93
[1]
G3HVK3-08-0059-3500437 LAKE ANDES SD 3/16/93
Summary! THE CITY RECEIVED AN ADVERSE OPINION ON ITS FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS DUE TO CONTROL AND PROCEDURAL DEFICIENCIES AND ERRORS
AND OMISSIONS IN THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. LAKE ANDES DID NOT HAVE
A SUFFICIENT FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM TO QUALIFY FOR A GRANT.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADEi THE MANAGEMENT DECISION WAS DELAYED BECAUSE OF A LACK OF
RESOURCES TO ADDRESS AUDIT RESOLUTION.
- DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION! A FINAL
DETERMINATION LETTER IS EXPECTED BY MARCH 16, 1994.
UNDOCUMENTED FORCE ACCOUNT AND $1,099,261 ARCHITECT/ENGINEERING
COSTS INCURRED UNDER PROHIBITED CONTRACT METHOD.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADKl A FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER HAS BEEN DRAFTED BY THE STATE
AND REVIEWED BY THE LOCAL OIG. DUE TO OUTSTANDING ISSUES, THE
LOCAL OIG HAS DEFERRED DISCUSSION OF THIS AND THREE OTHER LOS
ANGELES DRAFT FINAL DETERMINATION LETTERS UNTIL FY 1994.
» DESIRBD TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISIONi REVISED
TARGET DATE FOR A FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER IS SEPTEMBER 30, 1994.
JO FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/93
[11
S2CWN9-09-003S-1300117 LOS ANGELES, CITY OF CA 9/30/91
Summaryi INELIGIBLE COSTS INCLUDED $4,004,695 FOR COST INCURRED
PRIOR TO APPROVAL $3,659,407 IN EXCESS OF APPROVAL ADDITIONAL
ARCHITECT/ENGINEERING, 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
MADKl A FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER HAS BEEN DRAFTED BY THE STATE
AND REVIEWED BY THE LOCAL OIG. DUE TO OUTSTANDING ISSUES, THE
LOCAL OIG HAS DEFERRED DISCUSSION OF THIS AND THREE OTHER LOS
ANGELES DRAFT FINAL DETERMINATION LETTERS UNTIL FY 1994.
- DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION! REVISED
TARGET DATE FOR A FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER IS SEPTEMBER 30, 1994.
10 FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/93
[1)
S2CWN9-09-0032-1300118 MONTEREY REG HATER POLL CON CA 9/30/91
Summary! THE STATE CLAIMED $7,491,007 OF INELIGIBLE
CONSTRUCTION, ENGINEERING, ADMINISTRATIVE, AND OTHER COSTS.
ADDITIONAL $51,118,958 OF UNREASONABLE PROJECT COSTS WERE
QUESTIONED.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADEl THE LOCAL OIG DISAGREED WITH FOUR OF THE PROPOSED
DETERMINATIONS AND HAS ASKED TO DEFER DISCUSSION UNTIL FY 1994.
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION) REVISED
TARGET DATE FOR FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER IS SEPTEMBER 30, 1994.
10 FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/93
II]
S2CW*8-09-0156-1300119 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 FORCE ACCOUNT ALLOCABLE TO INELIGIBLE
CONSTRUCTION; UNREASONABLE COSTS OF $68,150,598 RELATED TO
EXCESSIVE LANDSCAPING, FORCE ACCOUNT AND UNUSED FACILITIES.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADEi FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER HAS BEEN DRAFTED BY THE STATE ANE
REVIEWED BY THE LOCAL OIG. DUE TO OUTSTANDING ISSUES, THE LOCAL
OIG HAS DEFERRED DISCUSSION OF THIS AND THREE OTHER LOS ANGELES
DRAFT FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER UNTIL FY 1994.
- DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISIONi REVISE!
TARGET DATE FOR A FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER IS SEPTEMBER 30, 1994.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/93
[1]
S2CWM1-09-0157-2200040 SUTTER CREEK, CITY OF CA 9/30/92
Summary. COST QUESTIONED OF $12,916 INCLUDES $5,566 OF
ENGINEERING COST IN EXCESS OF APPROVED AMOUNT, AND $6,850 OF
UNDOCUMENTED ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS AND $500 PERMIT FEES,
UNREASONABLE COSTS OF $343,467 RELATED TO FIXUP FACILITIES
CONSTRUCTED UNDER PRIOR GRANT.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE! THE LOCAL OIG DISAGREED WITH THE MAY 18, 1993 DRAFT FINAL
DETERMINATION LETTER. THE STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD IS
PREPARING ANOTHER DRAFT FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER AND IS AWAITINC
A LEGAL OPINION FROM ITS LEGAL COUNSEL.
- DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISIONi REVISEI
TARGET DATE FOR A FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER IS SEPTEMBER 30, 1994,
IO FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/93
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/93
[1]
[11
Regional Adminiatrotor, Ragion 9
S2CW*8-09-0157-1300112 LOS ANGELES, CITY OF CA 9/25/91
Summaryi 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
APRIL 1, 1993 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 1993
57
-------
Assignment
Number
Title
Final Report
Issued
Assignment
Number
Title
Final Report
Issued
S2CWN1-09-0228-2300044 LOS ANGELES, CITY OP CA 3/13/92
Summary: INELIGIBLE COSTS INCLUDED $1,400,564 FOR UNUSED
EQUIPMENT ITEMS, $202,058 FOR UNALLOWABLE ARCHITECT/ENGINEERING,
AND $572,354 FOR UNALLOWABLE FORCE ACCOUNT UNREASONABLE COSTS OF
$1,010,586 FOR EXCESSIVE ARCHITECT/ENGINEERING AND FORCE ACCOUNT,
ADDITIONAL $11,188,321 PLANT NOT OPERATING IN ACCORDANCE WITH
GRANT CONCEPTS.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE! A FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER HAS BEEN DRAFTED BY THE STATE
AND REVIEWED BY THE LOCAL OIG. DUE TO OUTSTANDING ISSUES, THE
LOCAL OIG HAS DEFERRED DISCUSSION OF THIS AND THREE OTHER LOS
ANGELES DRAFT FINAL DETERMINATION LETTERS UNTIL FY 1994.
- DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISIONl REVISED
TARGET DATE FOR A FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER IS SEPTEMBER 30,
1994.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OP 9/30/93
[11
E1SO*7-09-0219-23000«3 REGION 9 MGMT OF STNGPELLO CA 7/30/92
Summaryi REGION 9 HAS NOT EFFECTIVELY MANAGED THE STRNFELLOW
SUPERFUND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT. PROBLEMS WITH ACCURACY OF
LABORATORY ANALYSES; DELAY IN COMPLETION OF RI/FS; DELAY IN
COMPLETION AND STARTUP OF INTERIM PRETREATMENT FACILITY; AND
REVIEW OF STATES ROLE.
- EXPLANATION OP THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADBi RESOLUTION WAS DELAYED UNTIL THE LOCAL OIG'S CONCERNS COULD
BE ADDRESSED VIA ADDITIONAL TECHNICAL AND LEGAL SETTLEMENT
EFFORTS. A DRAFT FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER WAS SENT TO THE LOCAL
OIG FOR REVIEW ON SEPTEMBER 17, 1993.
- DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION! REVISED
TARGET DATE FOR A FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER IS DECEMBER 31, 1993.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OP 9/30/93
[2]
E2CWN1-09-0092-2300082 RUSSIAN RIVER CSD CA 9/25/92
Summary: COSTS OF $8,344,066 HAVE BEEN QUESTIONED AS
INELIGIBLE, INCLUDING INELIGIBLE CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND
FORCE ACCOUNT COSTS, AN ADDITIONAL $18,297,400 HAVE BEEN
QUESTIONED AS UNNECESSARY BECAUSE THE PLANT WAS NOT FULLY
UTILIZED.
- EXPLANATION OP THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADEi THE REGION IS CURRENTLY REVIEWING THE STATE'S DRAFT FINAL
DETERMINATION LETTER AND WILL DISCUSS IT SOON WITH THE STATE.
» DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION! TARGET
DATE FOR A FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER IS DECEMBER 31, 1994.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OP 9/30/93
[1]
S2CWNO-09-0262-2300089 SAN FRANCISCO, CITY S. CO CA 9/30/92
Summary! INELIGIBLE COST INCLUDE $50,015 OF UNALLOWABLE
ARCHITECT/ENGINEERING COSTS AND $271,092 FOR COSTS ALLOCABLE TO
OTHER FEDERAL FACILITIES RELATED TO UNSUPPORTED CONSTRUCTION
ARCHITECT/ENGINEERING FORCE ACCOUNT COSTS.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADEI THE LOCAL OIG CONTINUES TO QUESTION THE USE OF COMPUTER TAPE
DATA IN PLACE OF TIMECARDS. THE STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL
BOARD AND THE LOCAL OIG WILL MEET AGAIN TO DISCUSS THIS ISSUE
AFTER OCTOBER 1, 1993.
» DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION! TARGET
DATE FOR A FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER IS SEPTEMBER 30, 1994.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/93
[1]
E2CNMO-09-0291-3200028 NIPOMO COMM SERV. DIST. CA 2/11/93
Summaryi INELIGIBLE COSTS OF $45,237 INCLUDES $8,541.00 OF
EXCESSIVE CONSTRUCTION COSTS AND $36,696.00 OF UNALLOWABLE
ENGINEERING, $4,853,609 REPRESENTS COSTS RELATED TO UNDERUTILIZED
FACILITIES.
- EXPLANATION OP THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE! THE REGION RECEIVED THE STATE'S DRAFT FINAL DETERMINATION
LETTER ON SEPTEMBER 27, 1993 AND HAS SINCE SENT IT THE LOCAL OIG
FOR ITS REVIEW.
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION! REVISED
TARGET DATE FOR A FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER IS SEPTEMBER 30, 1994 .
10 FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/93
[1]
S2CWN9-09-0028-3300010 SACRAMENTO RCSD CA 2/ 1/93
Summary. INELIGIBLE COSTS $1,395,800 INCLUDE: $710,337 FOR
CONSTRUCTION COSTS IN EXCESS OF APPROVED, $320,600 UNALLOWABLE
ADMINISTRATIVE AND FORCE ACCOUNT, $163,079.00 OF UNALLOWABLE
ARCHITECT/ENGINEERING AND $201,734.00 OF LAND COSTS $2,624,778 OF
UNREASONABLE COSTS IN EXCESS OF APPROVED GRANT AMOUNT.
- EXPLANATION OP THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE! THE REGION IS WORKING WITH THE STATE TO RESOLVE TECHNICAL
ISSUES BEFORE THE DRAFT FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER CAN BE DRAFTED.
- DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION! A FINAL
DETERMINATION LETTER IS EXPECTED BY APRIL 29, 1994.
10 FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/93
[1]
S2CWNO-09-0242-3300022 SAUSLITO MARIN CSD CA 3/16/93
Summaryi INELIGIBLE COST OF $1,058,613 INCLUDES $1,002,874 FOR
COSTS ALLOCABLE TO OTHER FEDERAL FACILITIES AND $55,739 FOR
UNALLOWABLE ARCHITECT/ENGINEERING AND ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS.
$8,023,895 OF UNREASONABLE COST QUESTIONED BECAUSE PLANT DID NOT
MEET DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE! THE REGION IS WORKING WITH THE STATE TO RESOLVE TECHNICAL
ISSUES BEFORE THE DRAFT FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER CAN BE DRAFTED.
. DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION! A FINAL
DETERMINATION LETTER IS EXPECTED BY SEPTEMBER 30, 1994.
IO FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/93
[1]
S2CWN2-09-0046-3300023 WATSONVILLB, CITY OP CA 3/18/93
Summaryi INELIGIBLE COST QUESTIONED OF $521, 020 REPRESENTS FORCE
ACCOUNT AND ENGINEERING COSTS CONSIDERED OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE
APPROVED PROJECT. UNNECESSARY COSTS INCLUDE : $2 , 457 , 378 IN EXCESS
OF GRANT AMOUNT AND $24,201,000 FOR UNDERUTILIZED FACILITIES.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE! THE REGION HAS REQUESTED REVISIONS TO THE FINAL DETERMINATION
LETTER FROM THE STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD (SWRCB) . THE
SWRCB IS REDRAFTING THE FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER AND IS AWAITING
MORE INFORMATION FROM THE U.S. CORPS OF ENGINEERS.
> DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION! REVISED
TARGET DATE FOR A FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER IS SEPTEMBER 30, 1994.
IO FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/93 [1]
S2CWNO-09-0077-3300031 FRESNO, CITY OF CA 3/29/93
Summaryi INELIGIBLE COSTS OF $1,454,430 INCLUDES $37,022 FOR
UNAPPROVED COSTS; $51,674 ALLOCABLE TO INELIGIBLE CONSTRUCTION;
$198,000 FOR UNUSED EQUIPMENT; AND $1,167,734 FOR REPLACEMENT
FACILITIES; $433,434 QUESTIONED FOR NONCOMPLIANCE WITH GRANT
CONCEPT APPROVAL.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADEi AS OF SEPTEMBER 16, 1993 THE LOCAL OIG REQUESTED A COMPLETION
DATE FOR ONE OF THE AUDIT FINDINGS.
. DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION! REVISED
TARGET DATE FOR A FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER IS DECEMBER 31, 1993.
IO FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/93
[1]
2ANT2-09-0333-3400016 LAKEPORT SD MIDDLBTOWN CA 1/21/93
Summary: THE LAKE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT SEWER PROJECT
CONSTRUCTED IN MIDDLETOWN, CALIFORNIA DID NOT MEET THE EFFLUENT
DISPOSAL OBJECTIVE OF ITS $7.2 MILLION CONSTRUCTION GRANT.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADEi AT THE OIG REQUEST, THE GRANTEE, THE STATE, AND A CONTRACTOR
ARE WORKING ON A CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN TO CORRECT SYSTEM
DEFICIENCIES. AT THE OIG'S REQUEST, THIS SCHEDULE WILL BE ADDED TO
58
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
-------
Assignment
Number
Title
Final Report
Issued
Assignment
Number
Title
Final Report
Issued
THE FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER.
- DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION! A FINAL
DETERMINATION LETTER IS EXPECTED BY JUNE 30, 1994.
10 FOLLOWOP STATUS AS OF 9/30/93
[2]
E2AWT3-09-OOB2-3400037 SAN DIEGO, CITY OF CA 3/29/93
Svunmaryi THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO HAS CONSTRUCTED AN $11.8 MILLION
LAND OUTFALL WHICH WILL NOT BE USED BY THE CITY FOR THE INTENDED
PURPOSE OF THE GRANT NOR WILL IT BE USED IN THE FORESEEABLE
FUTURE.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADEl THE REGION IS SCHEDULED TO MEET WITH REGIONAL ATTORNEYS ON
OCTOBER 14, 1993 TO DISCUSS THE IMPOSED COURSE OF ACTION RESULTING
FROM A TRIAL HEARING CONDUCTED ON OCTOBER 8, 1993.
- DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DBCISIONl REVISED
TARGET DATE FOR A FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER IS SEPTEMBER 30,
1994.
IO FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/93
[2]
E2AWP9-09-0065-9400025 HOMELAND EARLY WARNING CA 3/31/89
Summaryi SPECIAL REVIEW OF CONSTRUCTION GRANT OF WASTEWATER
TREATMENT PLANT FOUND $3,737,139 IN FED. SHARE COSTS QUESTIONED.
AN EARLY WARNING LETTER ADVISED THAT COSTS FOR THE COLLECTION
SYSTEM PORTION OF THE PROJECT DID NOT QUALIFY FOR FUNDING BECAUSE
-OF THE '2/3 RULE' .
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADEl THE REGION REQUESTED ASSISTANCE FROM THE AUDIT REVIEW GROUP
IN RESOLVING THIS AUDIT. THE OFFICE OF WATER ISSUED A POLICY
CLARIFICATION ON THE 2/3 RULE. THE OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL
EXPECTS TO REVIEW THE POLICY CLARIFICATION IN FY 1994. THE REGION
WILL APPLY THE POLICY CLARIFICATION IN RESOLVING THIS AUDIT.
' DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION!
RESOLUTION CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT THIS TIME.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/93 [6]
E2AWP9-09-0230-9400043 EARLY WARNING-MARINA CWD CA 9/26/89
Summaryi 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
MADEl RESOLUTION OF THIS AUDIT IS LINKED TO THE MONTEREY EARLY
WARNING AUDIT. THE REGION AND OIG ARE DISCUSSING ISSUES TO HELP
REACH RESOLUTION.
* DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: A FINAL
DETERMINATION LETTER IS EXPECTED BY SEPTEMBER 30, 1994.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/93 [4]
Regional Administrator, Region 10
P2CWL9-10-0002-2100669 PIERCE COUNTY UTILITIES DEP WA 9/30/92
Summaryi THE GRANTEE CLAIMED TOTAL QUESTIONABLE COSTS OF
$4,496,181 FOR REIMBURSEMENT UNDER EPA'S CONSTRUCTION GRANTS
PROGRAM. COST CLAIMED OF $2,179,647 WERE FOUND TO BE INELIGIBLE
AND CLAIMS FOR $2,316,534 WERE UNNECESSARY AND UNREASONABLE.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADEl THE REGION OBTAINED ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION FOR REVIEW OF
GRANT ELIGIBILITY AND LACK OF DOCUMENTATION ISSUES IN AUDIT
REPORT. THE REGION MUST REVIEW 16 GRANTS AND EXTENSIVE
DOCUMENTATION OBTAINED FROM VARIOUS SOURCES TO REACH RESOLUTION.
THE REGION WILL ISSUE THE DRAFT FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER TO THE
OIG BY NOVEMBER 30, 1993.
- DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION! A FINAL
DETERMINATION LETTER IS EXPECTED BY MARCH 31, 1994.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/93
[1]
P2CWN1-10-0042-2300088 NEWBERO, CITY OF OR 9/30/92
Summary! INELIGIBLE COSTS OF $8,998 RELATED COSTS IN EXCESS OF
APPROVAL; $151,758 FOR COSTS NOT SUPPORTED BY ADEQUATE SOURCE
DOCUMENTATION; AND $15,480,301 UNREASONABLE RELATED TO UNUSED
FACILITIES AND EXPIRED NPDES PERMIT.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADEl THE REGION HAS ENCOUNTERED A DELAY IN GETTING ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION FROM THE AUDITEE, STATE, AND CORPS OF ENGINEERS FOR
REVIEW AND RESOLUTION OF 'UNSUPPORTED COSTS' AND 'COSTS CLAIMED IN
EXCESS OF APPROVED AMOUNTS' ISSUES CONTAINED IN THE AUDIT REPORT.
THE REGION WILL ISSUE THE DRAFT FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER TO THE
OIG BY OCTOBER 31, 1993.
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION! A FINAL
DETERMINATION LETTER IS EXPECTED BY MARCH 31, 1994.
IO FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/93
[1]
P2CNN9-10-0107-2300091 FED WAY WATER AND SEW WA 9/30/92
Summaryi INELIGIBLE COSTS OF $1,304,725 CONSISTED OF $67,287 FOR
UNALLOWABLE CONSTRUCTION COST, $61,048 RELATED TO INELIGIBLE CONST
PERCENTAGE; $21,243 OF UNAPPROVED ARCHITECT/ENGINEERING; AND
$1,155,147 RELATED TO EXCESS CAPACITY. ALSO QUESTIONED WERE
$2,242,049 AS UNSUPPORTED.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE i THE REGION IS OBTAINING ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FROM THE
GRANTEE AND THE STATE TO REVIEW/RESOLVE ISSUE OF GRANT ELIGIBLE
COSTS FOR A 30-YEAR PLAN VS. A 20-YEAR PLAN. THE ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENTATION WAS TIME CONSUMING TO OBTAIN SINCE THE PROJECT IS 15
YEARS OLD. THE REGION WILL ISSUE THE DRAFT FINAL DETERMINATION
LETTER TO THE OIG BY OCTOBER 29, 1993.
- DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION! A FINAL
DETERMINATION LETTER IS EXPECTED BY MARCH 31, 1994.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/93
(II
E6EWN2-10-0020-3300012 REVIEW OF ADEC SDW PROGRAM AK 2/10/93
Summaryi PROCEDURAL WEAKNESSES IN THE ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION'S (ADEC) SAFE DRINKING WATER PROGRAM
RESULTED IN COSTS THAT WERE UNAUDITABLE. ALSO, ADEC FAILED TO
EITHER COMPLETE TIMELY OR DOCUMENT COMPLETION FOR SIX WORK PLAN
OBJECTIVES THAT WE REVIEWED.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADEl THE REGION WAS AWAITING THE SIGNING OF THE STATE EPA
AGREEMENT (SEA) WHICH INCLUDES A PLAN FOR CORRECTIVE ACTIONS. THE
SEA WAS SIGNED AT THE END OF AUGUST, 1993. THE REGION SENT A DRAFT
FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER TO THE OIG ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1993 FOR ITS
CONCURRENCE.
- DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION! A FINAL
DETERMINATION LETTER IS EXPECTED BY NOVEMBER 30, 1993.
10 FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/93
[4]
P2CWNO-10-0008-3300030 CHEHALIS, CITY OF WA 3/29/93
Summaryi INELIGIBLE COSTS OF $119,184 INCLUDES $6,770 OF
UNALLOWABLE ADMINISTRATIVE & ARCHITECT/ENGINEERING; $22,986.00 OF
COSTS OUTSIDE SCOPE OF APPROVED PROJECT; $13,038.00 FOR REPAIR
WORK; $43,390.00 FOR UNSUBSTANTIATED FORCE ACCOUNT AND
ARCHITECT/ENGINEERING COSTS.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADEl THE REGION SENT THE DRAFT FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER TO THE
OIG ON SEPTEMBER 22, 1993. THE OIG DISAGREED WITH THE DRAFT FINAI
DETERMINATION LETTER. ALTHOUGH THE AUDIT FINDINGS ARE UNDER
$100,000, THE REGION IS HOLDING ISSUANCE OF THE FINAL DETERMINATE
LETTER AS A COURTESY TO THE OIG. THE REGION AND OIG ARE CONTINUINC
DISCUSSIONS.
- DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DEC IS ION 1 A FINA!
DETERMINATION LETTER IS EXPECTED BY NOVEMBER 30, 1993.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/93
[2]
E3BO*6-10-0066-8100761 MOSES LAKE IRR & REHAB DIST WA 8/31/68
Summaryi INTERIM AUDIT OF DEMONSTRATION GRANT TO RESTORE MOSE:
LAKE AND TO CONTROL NON-POINT POLLUTION SOURCES FOUND TOTAL COST:
QUESTIONED OF $2,439,103 (F.S. $1,205,039). GRANTEE USED STANDARI
METHODOLOGY INSTEAD OF DEVELOPING NEW INNOVATIVE TECHNIQUES.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADEl THE HEADQUARTER OIG AND THE OFFICE OF WATER ARE REVIEWING
ISSUES THAT ARE STILL NOT RESOLVED. THE OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSE]
ESTABLISHED A LEGAL TEST TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE UNDER REVIEW. THI
OIG IS WAITING ON ITS ENGINEERS FOR REVIEW RESULTS.
« DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: A FINA'
DETERMINATION LETTER IS EXPECTED BY MARCH 31, 1994.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/93
161
TOTAL AUDITS ISSUED BEFORE REPORTING PERIOD FOR WHICH NO MANAGEMEN1
DECISION WAS MADE DURING THE REPORTING PERIODl 100
* » Agency procedures do not require the IG'S approval on Agency'
Management Decision on an audit (other than a preaward or an
internal and management audit) with the Federal share of questions
costs of less than $100,000. Therefore, we have not provided a
summary of these audits.
APRIL 1, 1993 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 1993
59
-------
PIG MAILING ADDRESSES and TELEPHONE NUMBERS
PIG HOTLINE (800) 424-4000 or (2021 260-4977
Headquarters
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
401 M Street, S.W. (2441)
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-3137
Atlanta
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
1475 Peachtree Street, ME
Suite 1100
Atlanta, GA 30309-3003
Audit: (404) 347-3623
Investigations: (404) 347-2398
Boston
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
JFK Federal Building (OIG)
(office at 1 Congress St)
Boston, MA 02203
Audit: (617)565-3160
lnvestigations:(617) 565-3928
Chicago
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
77 West Jackson Boulevard
13th Floor (IA-13J)
Chicago, IL 60604
Audit: (312)353-2486
Investigations: (312) 353-2507
Cincinnati
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
4411 Montgomery (MS Norwood)
Cincinnati, OH 45268-7001
Audit: (513) 366-4360
Dallas
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General (6OIG)
1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200
Dallas, Texas 75202-2733
Audit: (214) 655-6621
Investigations: (404) 347-2398
Denver
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
999 18th Street, Suite 500
Denver, CO 80202-2405
Audit: (303) 294-7520
Kansas City
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
726 Minnesota Avenue
(office at 630 Minnesota Ave)
Kansas City, KS 66101
Audit: (913)551-7824
Investigations: (312) 353-2507
New York
Office of Inspector General
90 Church Street, Room 802
New York, NY 10007
Audit: (212) 264-5730
Investigations: (212) 264-0399
Philadelphia
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
841 Chestnut Street, 13th Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Audit: (215)597-0497
Investigations: (215) 597-9421
Research Triangle Park, NC
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
Catawba Building
Highway 54, Mail Drop 53
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Audit: (919)541-1028
Investigations: (919) 541-1027
Sacramento
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of inspector General
650 Capitol Mall, Suite 6309
Sacramento, CA 95814
Audit: (916)551-1076
San Francisco
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
75 Hawthorne St (1-1)
19th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
Audit: (415)744-2445
Investigations: (415) 744-2465
Seattle
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
1111 3rd Avenue, Suite 1460
Seattle, WA 98101
Audit: (206) 553-1273
Investigations: (415) 744-2465
60
------- |