TD171
I .U56c
193/05
United States
~nvironmental Protectior
Agency
Office of
Inspector General
(A-109)
Office of Inspector General
Semiannual Report
to the Congress
October 1,1992 through
March 31,1993
350R93004
'" If »*
..,, *r *
-------
On the cover: Brown pelicans at theii
northernmost rookery, Assawoman Bay. Maryland
(photo by Steve Delaney)
-------
During this semiannual reporting period, the Office
of Inspector General has extended its mission of
promoting economy, efficiency and effectiveness
in the delivery of environmental programs to new areas
of the Agency's operations.
Among the subjects discussed in this report are oil spill
cleanups, contract and assistance agreements, drinking
water, energy conservation, laboratory management,
Superfund cleanups, and accounting systems. These
are some of today's most important issues at EPA.
OIG employees are deeply committed to improving the
environment and making sure that the scarce resources
allocated to this purpose are spent as productively as
possible. To help achieve this commitment we have
dedicated ourselves to providing Agency managers
timely, accurate, and useful products.
We are encouraged by the Agency's actions to correct
its contract management problems, and recognize the
strength of the Administrator's commitment to lead this
effort. We look forward to working with the
Administrator and her staff as they deal with this and
other difficult issues facing the Agency.
John C. Martin
Inspector General
-------
i
-------
Executive Summary 1
EPA High Risk Areas of Significant Concern
to the DIG 4
Profile of Activities and Results 6
Establishment of the OIG in EPA—Its Role and Authority 7
Organization and Resources 7
Purpose and Requirements of the Office of Inspector General Semiannual Report 7
Section 1—Significant Problems, Abuses, and Recommendations
Summary of Audit Activities and Results 9
Agency Management 10
Construction Grants 13
Superfund Program 16
Special and Early Warning Reviews 18
Section 2—Report Resolution
Status Report on Perpetual Inventory of Reports in Resolution Process for the
Semiannual Period Ending March 31, 1993 22
Audit Followup 23
Status of Management Decisions on IG Reports 24
Resolution of Significant Reports 25
Section 3—Prosecutive Actions
Summary of Investigative Activity 26
Description of Selected Prosecutive and Administrative Actions 27
Civil and Administrative Actions to Recover EPA Funds 29
Section 4—Fraud Prevention and Resource Management Improvements
Review of Legislation and Regulations 30
Suspension and Debarment Activities 31
Congressional Testimony by the Inspector General 32
OIG Management Initiatives 32
President's Council on Integrity and Efficiency 33
Committee on Integrity and Management Improvement 33
Hotline Activities 34
Personnel Security Program 34
Appendices
Appendix 1—Reports Issued 35
Appendix 2—Reports Without Management Decisions 49
Tb) 7 /
Tangier Island in Chesapeake Bay
(photo by Steve Delaney)
Environments! Protection Ae°ncv
*'
-------
v\,
Gates of the Arctic National Monument, Brooks Range, Alaska
(photo Courtesy of National Park Service, Department of the Interior)
-------
Executive Summary
Section 1—
Significant Problems,
Abuses, and
Recommendations
1. Better Oversight Needed
of Athens Laboratory's
Contracts and Assistance
Agreements.
EPA's Environmental
Research Laboratory, Athens,
Georgia, did not fully comply
with applicable laws,
regulations, and Agency
policies in awarding and
administering contracts,
cooperative agreements, and
interagency agreements. As a
result, EPA could not be
assured that these resources
were effectively and efficiently
used (page 10).
2. EPA's Involvement in the
Sale of Quality Assurance
Materials Potentially
Conflicts with Its Regulatory
Role.
To provide funds for continuing
its Quality Assurance Program,
EPA granted five companies
exclusive rights to manufacture
and sell "EPA Certified" quality
assurance materials used by
laboratories to calibrate and
test equipment for analyzing
samples for hazardous
chemicals in the environment.
As a result, EPA has created
an unfair competitive
advantage for these
companies and could
compromise its ability to
administer fair and equitable
regulations (page 11).
3. Alaska Not Accounting for
Safe Drinking Water Grants.
The Alaska Department of
Environmental Conservation
had not effectively accounted
for $877,500 awarded by EPA
to support the State's safe
drinking water program or
documented accomplishment
of grant objectives (page 11).
4. EPA Region 3's
Certification Process for
Sewage Treatment Plants
Unreliable.
EPA Region 3's certification
process for wastewater
treatment facilities does not
ensure that all permit violations
and performance problems are
disclosed, (page 12).
5. Improvements Needed in
Region 7's Efforts to Identify
and Report Internal Control
Weaknesses.
Region 7 had not effectively
implemented the Federal
Managers' Financial Integrity
Act. As a result, the Region
could not assure the
Administrator that it was
meeting its mission and
protecting its resources (page
12).
6. Nearly $14 Million of
Questioned Costs Claimed
for New York City Projects.
New York City claimed
$2,423,359 of ineligible design
and construction costs. An
additional $11,530,366 of
unsupported costs were also
questioned (page 14).
7. Orlando, Florida, Claimed
Over $4 Million of Ineligible
Costs.
Orlando, Florida, claimed
$4,392,846 of ineligible
engineering and construction
costs (page 14).
8. Baltimore, Maryland,
Claimed Nearly $3.9 Million
of Questioned Costs.
Baltimore, Maryland, claimed
$3,167,090 of ineligible
architectural engineering,
construction, administrative,
and equipment costs. An
additional $730,476 of
unsupported costs were
questioned (page 14).
9. Over $3.1 Million of
Ineligible Costs Claimed for
Parkersburg, West Virginia,
Project.
The Parkersburg, West
Virginia, Sanitary Board
claimed $3,143,885 of
ineligible legal, architectural
engineering, and equipment
costs (page 14).
10. Sacramento, California,
Claimed Over $4 Million of
Ineligible and Unreasonable
Costs.
The Sacramento Regional
County Sanitation District,
Sacramento, California,
claimed $1,395,800 of
ineligible administrative, force
account, engineering,
construction, and land
acquisition costs. An
additional $2,624,778 of
unreasonable project costs
were questioned (page 15).
11. Grantee's $9.1 Million
Project Claim Questioned
Pending Compliance With
Discharge Requirements.
The Sausalito-Marin City
Sanitary District, Sausalito,
California, claimed $9,082,508
of costs for the design and
construction improvements to
a wastewater treatment facility
that was not consistently
meeting waste discharge
requirements (page 15).
12. Improvements Needed in
Timeliness and Controls
Over Responsible Party (RP)
Cleanups.
The Agency's use of RPs to
clean up Superfund sites has
been hampered by numerous
problems, including delays in
initiating cleanups, lack of
aggressive enforcement
actions, and ineffective
management of contractors
(page 16).
13. Continuing Weaknesses
in Superfund Accounting
and Controls.
Pervasive and persistent
problems related to managing
accounts receivable and
personal property have
continued during the 10 years
of the Superfund program. In
addition, the Agency's
Integrated Financial
Management System did not
provide complete and accurate
reports to Superfund
management (page 17).
14. Superfund Indirect Cost
Rates Not Adequate for Full
Recovery of Cleanup Costs.
EPA's fiscal 1987 and 1988
Superfund indirect cost rate
calculations inappropriately
excluded $144.2 million and
$225.9 million, respectively,
severely reducing the total
amounts for recovery from
parties responsible for
hazardous waste sites (page
17).
15. $1.6 Million in EPA
Training Grants Not
Adequately Evaluated.
EPA did not adequately
monitor or evaluate the
effectiveness of training
provided to assist minority
contractors in obtaining
environmental contracts. In
addition, EPA awarded grants
without considering alternative
lower cost sources (page 18).
16. Better Accounting
Needed For Oil Spill Funds.
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 (page 18).
17. EPA Lacks an Adequate
Energy Conservation
Program.
EPA had not developed an
energy management and
conservation program as
required by statutes and
regulations. As a result, EPA
could not adequately
determine its energy
consumption costs and
measure its progress in
reducing consumption (page
19).
18. Improper Procurements
Circumvented Federal
Acquisition Regulation.
The Office of Communications,
Education, and Public Affairs
officials routinely obtained
goods and services without
proper authorization or
competition as required by the
Federal Acquisition Regulation
(page 19).
OCTOBER 1, 1992 THROUGH MARCH 31, 1993
-------
19. ERA'S Administration of
the Federal Employees'
Compensation Act Needs
Improvement.
EPA has not adequately
managed claims and payments
under the Federal Employees'
Compensation Act. As a
result, EPA may be paying
benefits for individuals who are
not EPA employees and may
not be encouraging its
employees to return to work as
soon as possible (page 20).
20. $21.5 Million Grant to
San Diego Should Be
Annulled.
San Diego, California, has no
need for a land outfall after it
canceled plans to construct a
related secondary treatment
plant (page 21).
21. $7.2 Million Middletown,
California, Project Does Not
Meet Effluent Goals.
The Lake County Sanitation
District in Middletown,
California, claimed $1.7 million
of costs for a leaking storage
pond and an unused disposal
system for treated effluent
which rendered the project in
noncompliance with its
discharge permit (page 21).
Section 2—
Report Resolution
At the beginning of the
semiannual period, there were
341 reports for which no
management decision had
been made. During the first
half of fiscal 1993, the Office
of Inspector General issued
722 reports and closed 733
reports. At the end of the
reporting period, 330 reports
remained in the Agency
followup system for which no
management decision had
been made. Of the 330
reports, 146 reports remained
in the Agency followup system
for which no management
decision was made within 6
months of issuance (page 22).
In two followup reviews, the
Office of Inspector General
found that some problems
identified in previous reports
continued (page 23).
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 224 reports closed
that required Agency action,
EPA management disallowed
$26.8 million of questioned
costs for recovery and agreed
with our recommendations that
$5.4 million be put to better
use (page 22). In addition,
cost recoveries in current and
prior periods included $4.6
million in cash collections, and
at least $14.8 million in offsets
against billings (page 6).
Section 3—
Prosecutive Actions
During this semiannual
reporting period, our
investigative efforts resulted in
6 convictions and 6
indictments. Also, this
semiannual period our
investigative work led to $13.2
million in fines and recoveries
(page 26).
In the largest environmental
crimes case prosecuted under
the Superfund law, an Illinois
corporation agreed to pay
$11.6 million for its felony
actions at a Pennsylvania site
(page 27).
Results of investigations of
EPA's contract laboratory
program included the
sentencing of a testing
company and its owner for
false claims; development of a
community service program by
a Louisiana firm in lieu of a
$174,000 fine, which was
suspended; and sentencing of
2 supervisors of a New York
lab company (page 27).
In other cases, claiming
credentials not earned is
resulting in weekend jail time
for a would-be asbestos
removal instructor; and an
employee of an EPA
contractor was charged with
making $3,600 in personal
overseas phone calls at
Government expense. Also,
an EPA office director at
Headquarters was indicted for
conspiracy and other crimes,
and another Headquarters
employee was sentenced to
jail for a false jury duty claim
(page 28).
Also, two testing firms
agreed to civil settlements with
the Government, under which
they will pay $660,000 (page
29).
Section 4—
Fraud Prevention and
Resources
Management
Review of Proposed
Legislation and Regulations
During this semiannual period,
we reviewed one legislative
and 68 regulatory items. The
most significant were
comments on the Small
Business Administration's draft
position on the proposed
Regulatory Flexibility
Amendments Act of 1993; a
proposed amendment to EPA
Order 1900.1, Use of
Contractor Services; and a
whistleblower guide developed
by the President's Council on
Integrity and Efficiency (page
30).
Suspension and Debarment
Activities
We completed 37 cases during
this reporting period, resulting
in 19 debarments, 12
suspensions, and 6
compliance agreements (page
31).
Congressional Testimony by
the Inspector General
The Inspector General testified
before a subcommittee of the
House Committee on
Government Operations on
elevating EPA to cabinet-level
status (page 32).
Committee on Integrity and
Management Improvement
The EPA Committee on
Integrity and Management
Improvement, chaired by the
Inspector General, published
"A Brief Guide for New
Executives," a booklet
designed to provide an
overview of many of the main
areas on which EPA
executives need to focus
(page 33).
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
4,587 telephone callers to the
appropropriate EPA program
office, State agency, or other
Federal agency for assistance.
Thirty-six cases were opened
and 31 were closed during the
reporting period. Of the closec
cases, 8 resulted in
environmental, prosecutive, or
administrative corrective action
(page 34).
Personnel Security Program
During this reporting period,
the Personnel Security Staff
reviewed 455 investigations
(page 34).
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERA'
-------
Major Laws Administered by EPA
Statute
Toxic Substances Control Act
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,
and Rodenticide Act
Federal Food, Drug and
Cosmetic Act
Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act
Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act
Provisions
Requires EPA notification of any new chemical prior to its
manufacture and authorizes EPA to regulate production, use, or
disposal of a chemical.
Authorizes EPA to register all pesticides, specify the terms and
conditions of their use, and remove unreasonably hazardous
pesticides from the marketplace.
Authorizes EPA in cooperation with FDA to establish tolerance
levels for pesticide residues on food.
Authorizes EPA to identify hazardous wastes and regulate their
generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal.
Requires EPA to designate hazardous substances that can
present substantial danger and authorizes the cleanup of sites
contaminated with such substances.
Clean Air Act
Clean Water Act
Safe Drinking Water Act
Marine Protection, Research
and Sanctuaries Act
Asbestos School Hazard
Abatement Act
Asbestos Hazard Emergency
Response Act
Emergency Planning and
Community Right-to-Know Act
Oil Pollution Act of 1990
Authorizes EPA to set emission standards to limit the release of
criteria pollutants and hazardous air pollutants.
Requires EPA to establish a list of toxic water pollutants and set
standards.
Requires EPA to set drinking water standards to protect public
health from hazardous substances.
Regulates ocean dumping of toxic contaminants.
Authorizes EPA to provide loans and grants to schools with
financial need for abatement of severe asbestos hazards.
Requires EPA to establish a comprehensive regulatory framework
for controlling asbestos hazards in schools.
Requires States to develop programs for responding to hazardous
chemical releases and requires industries to report on the
presence and release of certain hazardous substances.
Makes EPA responsible for oil spill prevention, preparedness,
response, and enforcement activities associated with non-
transportation-related onshore oil facilities.
-------
EPA High Risk Areas Of Significant
Concern To The OIG
This section of our report
presents the Office of
Inspector General's (OIG)
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 September
30, 1992, presented the OIG's
perspective on six major
areas: Contract Management,
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 have
captured the attention of
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. For this
reporting period, the
discussion of contract
management has been
expanded to include grants,
cooperative agreements, and
interagency agreements.
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 concerns
through cooperative
agreements; or other agencies
of the Federal government that
provide assistance through
interagency agreements.
EPA is implementing the 40
recommendations of the
Standing Committee on
Contract Management's June
1992 report. However, not
enough time has elapsed for
us to evaluate whether the
Agency's actions have
corrected the underlying
causes of the problems.
Our recent work at the
Office of Research and
Development and the Office of
Communication, Education,
and Public Affairs has clearly
shown the pervasive nature of
resource management
problems at EPA. Significant
issues identified during these
audits are discussed below.
• Work Outside the Scope of
the Contract. Contractors
were performing work outside
the scope of their contract at
seven EPA laboratories we
reviewed. EPA contracts'
statements of work often were
very broad and not well
defined which may encourage
questionable work. For
example, technical lab
contractor personnel were
performing handyman duties,
such as remodeling offices,
painting, and repairing
plumbing leaks.
• Personal Services. Audits
of Office of Research and
Development labs found that
often contractor employees
were used as personal staff,
such as secretaries to Federal
managers, although prohibited
by Federal regulations. There
were also repeated instances
of EPA officials being involved
in the selection and hiring of
contractor employees.
• 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. One of the worst
examples of potential conflicts
of interest involved an EPA
chemist who was the technical
monitor of a contractor for
which he also worked up to 4
hours per week as a
consultant. This outside
employment was highly
improper and should not have
been approved by his
supervisor.
• Procurement Process.
EPA has not competitively
awarded certain contracts in
order to retain incumbent
contractors. We found, for
instance, that one EPA
laboratory used the 8(a) small
business set-aside program
repeatedly to obtain sole
source contracts for an
incumbent contractor to retain
contract employees who had
worked at the lab longer than
many EPA employees. The
EPA laboratory then switched
to a competitive procurement,
without adequate justification,
when the contractor graduated
from the 8(a) program. EPA's
Office of Communication,
Education, and Public Affairs
instructed contractors to
provide services although
there was no purchase order
to allow the contractor to be
paid. In one case, the
contractor was not paid until
the unauthorized procurement
was ratified 8 months after the
work was performed.
• Cooperative and
Interagency Agreements.
Audits have shown that
mismanagement of extramural
resources is not limited to
contracts, but also extends to
other types of extramural
resources. We reported that
parts of 11 cooperative
agreements that one EPA lab
had with various universities
only benefitted EPA, violating
the purpose of assistance
agreements. We also reported
that EPA used interagency
agreements to improperly
obtain travel funding for EPA
employees from another
Federal agency, and in return
provided that agency with
travel funds through the same
mechanism.
• Audits of EPA Contracts.
We expect EPA's extensive
use of contractors and the
corresponding demand for
audits will continue to grow.
At the end of fiscal 1992, EPA
had 1,872 contracts with
obligations of $4.9 billion
whose performance periods
had expired, but had not been
closed out.
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. While EPA
has devoted considerable time
to improving the Agency's
overall performance in the
area, results have been less
than anticipated. Significant
issues identified during recent
audits of Superfund obligations
and disbursements and
accounting controls for the Oil
Spill Liability Trust Fund are
discussed on pages 17 and
18.
In response to the Chief
Financial Officers Act and our
perceived need, we will
continue emphasizing audits in
the financial management
area. 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
responsibility and authority to
correct EPA's longstanding
financial management
problems.
Scientific Data Integrity
The accuracy and reliability of
scientific data have always
been crucial to EPA's mission
as a regulator/ agency
because it forms the basis for
decisions that affect all major
American industries and
national policies to prevent
hazards and risks to health
and safety. However, audits
and investigations show that
EPA is not always getting the
research for which it pays, nor
is such research always
accurate or objective.
The Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Ac
requires registrants of
pesticide products to
demonstrate that products do
not cause adverse effects to
public health and the
environment. The registrant
either performs the study in-
house or contracts with a
laboratory. Good Laboratory
Practices standards specify th<
minimum practices and
procedures which must be
followed in order to ensure the
integrity of submitted
pesticides data. However we
have reported that the Agency
lacked assurance that the date
submitted by independent
laboratories in support of
pesticide registrations was
accurate and reliable.
Under the Contract
Laboratory Program (CLP),
independent laboratories test
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENER/
-------
samples from Superfund sites.
Investigations have disclosed
fraudulent analyses, falsified
data, uncalibrated equipment,
and backdated analyses which
could call into question
cleanup decisions and hamper
the recovery of EPA's cleanup
costs from responsible parties.
Our audits have found that the
controls over the Superfund
CLP quality assurance/quality
control program at
Environmental Monitoring
Systems Laboratory, Las
Vegas, Nevada, were not
complete or fully effective for
evaluating contract
laboratories' performance and
that EPA used laboratories
with poor performance
histories to analyze samples
while laboratories with superior
performance histories were not
used to their capacity.
Information Resources
Management (IRM)
IRM is critical to the success
of all program activities.
Despite extensive criticism
over the last 12 years, EPA's
IRM program is still hampered
by many problems, including
significant cost overruns and
delays in developing and
implementing information
systems; material data quality
deficiencies; development of
duplicate information systems;
failure to economically manage
mainframe storage devices;
exposure of the Agency's most
sensitive information systems
to access by unethical users;
and lack of Agency assurance
that ADP support services
contracts are being
implemented effectively,
efficiently, and at the lowest
cost to the Government. Two
recent audits discussing these
significant IRM problems are
summarized below.
• Computer Systems
Integrity. EPA had not
implemented certain
fundamental management
practices in its IRM program.
A serious absence of top
management central direction
and control and the
decentralized nature of Agency
operations have made it
extremely difficult to effectively
manage IRM activities.
• Software Integrity. EPA
user and contractor access to
highly sensitive payroll,
contractor payment, and other
sensitive financial files was not
adequately controlled.
Knowledgeable users could
access systems on the
mainframe and view, modify,
or destroy information,
programs, or other important
computer resources with little
fear of detection.
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. Although
EPA management has worked
to improve EPA's enforcement
program in response to or
concurrent with our audit
efforts, more still needs to be
done. For example, in our
capping report on EPA's
management of Superfund
cleanups performed by
responsible parties, we noted
that untimeliness was a
pervasive condition. In
addition, EPA did not
aggressively use its penalty
authority against noncompliers,
but preferred to stress
cooperation in getting
responsible parties to clean up
hazardous waste sites.
Contractors used to monitor
responsible party cleanups
were given too much latitude
without sufficient oversight
which led to delays,
inefficiencies, and additional
expenditures. We also
reported the lack of
documentation in all phases of
the Superfund enforcement
process (page 16).
EPA has initiated actions to
speed up the Superfund
cleanup process, drafted
guidance on proper use of
penalty authorities, improved
contractor monitoring, and
recognized the need for
improved documentation. We
will continue to assist EPA in
assessing its success in
Superfund enforcement and
enforcement activities in other
program areas.
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. However, we
are still reporting problems. In
a recent followup audit on
EPA's Suspended and
Canceled Pesticide Program,
we reported that the Office of
Prevention, Pesticides and
Toxic Substances did not use
the established Management
Audit Tracking System to
monitor corrective action plans
for audit recommendations.
This was reportedly due to
problems interfacing with the
Agency's main computers at
the Washington Information
Center and Research Triangle
Park (see page 23).
The Office of Prevention,
Pesticides and Toxic
Substances is working to
remedy this problem and
expects to review the accuracy
of all data on corrective
actions taken in response to
audits by the summer of 1993.
Likewise, 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." The goal is to
identify procedural changes
that will result in a timely, fair
audit resolution process.
OCTOBER 1, 1992 THROUGH MARCH 31, 1993
-------
Profile Of Activities And Results
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
October 1, 1992, to
March 31, 1993
Audit Operations
OIG Managed Reviews:
- Reviews Performed by EPA, Independent
Public Accountants and State Auditors
- Questioned Costs
(Ineligible, Unsupported, and
Unnecessary/Unreasonable)
- Total $170.3 Million
- Federal Share * $127.8 Million
- Recommended Efficiencies
(Funds be Put to Better Use)
- Total Efficiencies* $23.4 Million
- Federal Share Efficiencies* $12.9 Million
- Cost Disallowed to be Recovered
- Federal Share (costs which EPA
management agrees are unallowable
and is committed to recover or
offset against future payments) $26.3 Million
- Cost Disallowed as Cost Efficiency
- Federal Share (funds made available
by EPA management's commitment to
implement recommendations in OIG
performance and preaward audits) $3.3 Million
Other Reviews:
- Reviews Performed by another
Federal Agency or Single Audit Act Auditors
- Questioned Costs
- Total $5.1 Million
- Federal Share * $4.5 Million
- Recommended Efficiencies
- Total Efficiencies* $3.4 Million
- Federal Share Efficiencies* $3.4 Million
- Cost Disallowed to be Recovered
- Federal Share $0.7 Million
- Cost Disallowed as Cost Efficiency
- Federal Share $2.1 Million
October 1,1992, t
March 31, 199
Agency Recoveries:
- Recoveries from Audit Resolutions of
Current and Prior Periods (cash collections
or offsets to future payments)** $19.4 Millio
Reports Issued:
- OIG Managed Reviews:
- EPA Reviews Performed by the OIG
- EPA Reviews Performed by Independent Public
Accountants and State Auditors
- Other Reviews:
- Single Audit Act Reviews and EPA Reviews
Performed by another Federal Agency
Total Reports Issued
Reports Resolved (agreement by Agency officials
to take satisfactory corrective action)***
7'
4
60
72
22
Investigative Operations
- Fines and Recoveries (including civil)
- Investigations Opened
- Investigations Closed
- Indictments of Persons or Firms
- Convictions of Persons or Firms
- Administrative Actions Against EPA Employees
Fraud Detection and Prevention Operations
- Debarments, Suspensions and Settlement
Agreements
- Hotline Cases Opened
- Hotline Cases Processed and Closed
- Personnel Security Investigations Adjudicated
$13.2 Millio
12:
13'
3
3l
3
45!
* Questioned Cost 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.
OCTOBER 1, 1992 THROUGH MARCH 31, 19
-------
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
an approved staffing level of
456 FTE positions. The
funding and FTE available to
the OIG represent 0.6 percent
and 2.5 percent, respectively,
of the Agency's totals.
Purpose and
Requirements of the
Office of the
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), Review of Legislation and Regulations 4 30
Section 5(a)(1), Significant Problems, Abuses, and 1 9
Deficiencies
Section 5(a)(2), Recommendations with Respect to 1 9
Significant Problems, Abuses, and
Deficiencies
Section 5(a)(3), Prior Significant Recommendations on
Which Corrective Action Has Not
Been Completed Appendix 2 49
Section 5(a)(4), Matters Referred to Prosecutive Authorities 3 26
Section 5(a)(5), Summary of Instances
Where Information Was Refused *
Section 5(a)(6), List of Audit Reports Appendix 1 35
Section 5(a)(7), Summary of Significant Reports 1 9
Section 5(a)(8), Statistical Table 1-Reports With
Questioned Costs 2 24
Section 5(a)(9), Statistical Table 2-Reports With
Recommendations That Funds Be Put
To Better Use 2 24
Section 5(a)(10), Summary of Previous Audit Reports
Without Management Decisions Appendix 2 49
Section 5(a)(11), Description and Explanation of Revised
Management Decisions Appendix 2 49
Section 5(a)(12), Management Decisions with Which the
Inspector General Is in Disagreement **
* There were no instances where information or assistance requested by the
Inspector General was refused during this reporting period. Accordingly, we have
nothing to report under section 5(a)(5) of the Inspector General Act of 1978, as
amended.
" There were no instances of management decisions with which the Inspector
General was in disagreement.
OCTOBER 1, 1992 THROUGH MARCH 31, 1993
-------
Office of Inspector General - Who's Who
Headquarters
Inspector General
John C. Martin
Deputy Inspector General
Anna Hopkins Virbick
Office of Audit
Kenneth A. Konz
Assistant Inspector General
James O. (touch
Deputy
Internal & Performance
Audit Staff
Vacant
Policy and Resources
Management Staff
Kenneth D. Hockman
Director
Office of Investigations
Daniel S. Sweeney
Assistant Inspector General
Michael J. Fitzsimmons
Deputy
Acquisition Assistance
Staff
Vacant
Technical Assistance
Division
Gordon C. Milbourn
Director
Office of Management
John C. Jones
Assistant Inspector General
Program Management
! Division
John T. Walsh
Director
Resources Management
Division
Michael J. Binder
Director
Divisional inspectors General
Region 9 & 10
Truman R. Beeler,
Audit
H Brooks Griffin
Investigations
Region 5
Anthony C. Carrollo, Audit
Region 5, 7, & 8
Allen P. Fallin, Investigations
Region 7 & 8
Nikki Tinsley, Audit
Region 4 & 6
Mary Boyer. Audit
Patricia K. Brady, Acting,
Investigations
Region 1 & 2
Paul McKechnie, Audit
Robert M. Byrnes,
Investigations
Region 3
Paul R Gandolfo, Audit
Martin Squitien
Investigations
Headquarters
Edward Gekosky
HQs Audit Div.
Melissa M. Heist
Financial Audit Div.
Francis C. Kiley
Washington Field Div.
Investigations
Emmett D. Dashiell
Procurement Fraud Div.
Investigations
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENER
-------
Section 1-Significant Problems, Abuses, And Recommendations
As required by sections
5(a)(1) and (2) of the
Inspector General Act of
1978, as amended, this
section identifies significant
problems, abuses, and
deficiencies relating to the
Agency's programs and
operations along with
recommendations for the
current period. The findings
described in this section
resulted from audits and
reviews performed by or for
the Office of Audit and
reviews conducted by the
Office of Investigations.
Because these represent
some of our most significant
findings, they should not be
considered representative of
the overall adequacy of EPA
management. Audit findings
are open to further review
but are the final position of
the Office of Inspector
General. This section is
divided into five areas:
Summary of Audit Activities
and Results, Agency
Management, Construction
Grants, Superfund, and
Special and Early Warning
Reviews.
Summary Of Audit
Activities And
Results
Questioned Costs And Recommended
Effeciencies By Type Of Assignment
rieo
•140
120
100
80
60
.40
20
Non Federal
Rec EH
Construction
Superfund
Other
Source Of Reviews
Areas Of Effort By Staff Days
State
Auditors-6
LUST
Performance-89
EPA-70
LUST
Financial-36
SUPERFUND
Performance-1,889
IPA
Firms-38
Total-722 Reviews
Total-18,564 Days
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
-------
Agency
Management
The Inspector General Act
requires the OIG to initiate
reviews and other activities
to promote economy and
efficiency and to detect and
prevent fraud, waste, and
mismanagement in EPA
programs and operations.
Internal and management
audits and reviews are
conducted to accomplish
these objectives largely by
evaluating the economy,
efficiency, and effectiveness
of operations.
The following are the most
significant internal and
management audit and
review findings and
recommendations.
Better Oversight
Needed of Athens
Laboratory's
Contracts and
Assistance
Agreements
Problem
EPA's Environmental
Research Laboratory (ERL),
Athens, Georgia, did not
fully comply with applicable
laws, regulations, and
Agency policies in awarding
and administering contracts,
cooperative agreements
(CA), and interagency
agreements (IAG). As a
result, EPA could not be
assured that these
resources were effectively
and efficiently used.
We Found That
Between 1986 and 1992, the
Office of Research and
Development and ERL
became highly dependent on
contracts, CAs, and lAGs to
perform critical laboratory
research and support
operations. Our review
covered 20 contracts, CAs,
and lAGs with total maximum
values of $44 million. There
were a number of questionable
actions by ERL in the award,
use, and funding of contracts,
CAs, and lAGs. More
specifically ERL improperly
used extramural resources by:
• Awarding repetitive sole-
source Small Business Act,
section 8(a) contracts over 7
years to retain long-term on-
site contractors and contractor
staff. In one case when the
contractor became too large
for an 8(a) award, the
laboratory removed the
requirement from the program
without justification to allow the
incumbent contractor to
compete for the new award.
The laboratory then
established ranking factors
which assigned the most value
to experience and key
personnel, favoring the
incumbent and permitting it to
easily win the $16.8 million
award.
• Splitting and underestimating
contract requirements to avoid
the $3 million competition
threshold established for sole-
source contracts under the
8(a) set-aside program. For
example, ERL split its on-site
support contract into an off-site
and on-site 8(a) sole-source
procurement. However, the
off-site work was actually
performed near the site with
the same site manager and
statement of work.
• Supplementing ERL's in-
house staff with contractor
personnel who performed
inherently governmental
functions, such as quality
assurance and health and
safety activities.
• Improperly awarding CAs and
lAGs, rather than contracts, to
obtain services for the direct
benefit of ERL research
projects, including a $5.2
million CA awarded to the
University of Georgia (UGA).
At least 14 UGA employees
worked on-site in 1992 under
the CA to support ERL
scientists in their research or
provided administrative support
to ERL staff. Also, there were
potential conflict-of-interest
situations in the award of 9 of
the 11 CAs included in our
sample.
ERL's procurement problems
were due largely to inadequate
controls over extramural
resources at the laboratory,
management's emphasis on
mission accomplishment by
any means, and lack of
oversight of ERL operations by
EPA Headquarters.
We Recommended That
The Acting Assistant
Administrator for Research and
Development:
• In collaboration with the
Grants Administration Division
and the Comptroller, issue
additional guidance to
laboratories regarding
competitive awards of
extramural agreements and
the proper use of research and
development funds under
assistance agreements.
• Strengthen Headquarters
oversight and control of
laboratories' management of
extramural resources to
include periodic on-site
reviews of laboratory
operations performed jointly
with other appropriate
Headquarters offices.
• Ensure that ERL properly
implements FMFIA
requirements and establishes
effective internal controls over
all critical phases of laboratory
operations.
The Assistant Administrator for
Administration and Resources
Management:
EPA's lab in Athens, Georgia
(OIGphoto by Southern Audit Division staff).
10
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENER,
-------
• Strengthen and streamline
the contracting process to
ensure that proposals are
thoroughly reviewed,
questionable actions are
quickly and properly resolved,
and unnecessary
administrative burden on
program offices is reduced.
• Provide definitive guidance to
project officers and program
managers on the
award.administration, and
appropriate uses of assistance
agreements and contracts.
What Action Was Taken
The final audit report
(3100156) was issued to the
Acting Assistant Administrator
for Research and Development
and the Assistant Administrator
for Administration and
Resources Management on
March 31, 1993. In
responding to the draft report,
the Agency generally agreed
with our recommendations and
provided substantive planned
or already initiated actions to
correct the identified
weaknesses. A response to
the final report is due by June
29, 1993.
EPA's Involvement in
the Sale of Quality
Assurance Materials
Potentially Conflicts
with Its Regulatory
Role
Problem
To provide funds for
continuing its Quality
Assurance Program, EPA
granted five companies
exclusive rights to
manufacture and sell "EPA
Certified" quality assurance
(QA) materials used by
laboratories to calibrate and
test equipment for analyzing
samples for hazardous
chemicals in the
environment. As a result,
EPA has created an unfair
competitive advantage for
these companies and could
compromise its ability to
administer fair and equitable
regulations.
Background
The Federal Technology
Transfer Act (FTTA) allows
Government-operated
laboratories to enter into
Cooperative Research and
Development Agreements
(CRADA) with other Federal
agencies and private industry
to encourage the development
and transfer of technology to
the private sector, thereby
improving the nation's
economic, environmental, and
social well-being. The FTTA
permits Federal laboratories
and employees to collect
royalties from patents and
licensing agreements for
Government-owned inventions.
In the early 1970s, EPA
promulgated new regulations
requiring testing for hazardous
chemicals in the environment.
In order to test for the various
regulated chemicals,
laboratories needed calibration
standards to adjust equipment
settings and quality control
samples to periodically check
the operations of their
equipment. At the time, many
of the QA materials were not
available for many of the
regulated chemicals. As a
result, under its QA Program,
the Environmental Monitoring
Systems Laboratory in
Cincinnati, Ohio (EMSL-Cin)
began to develop,
manufacture, and distribute
these materials free to
qualified users. Eventually,
these materials were largely
produced, stored, and
distributed by EPA contractors.
We Found That
In the mid 1980s, due to a
combination of increased costs
and budget reductions, EMSL-
Cin began looking for ways to
continue funding its QA
program. When the FTTA was
enacted in 1986, EMSL-Cin
saw an opportunity to obtain
the needed funds. In 1991,
EMSL-Cin entered into five
CRADAs to develop,
manufacture, and sell QA
materials needed to calibrate
and test instruments used by
laboratories to analyze
samples for regulated
hazardous chemicals. The five
companies were required to
advertise their products as
"EPA Certified." EMSL-Cin
also made available for sale
about 750,000 ampuls of
material valued at over $26
million to the five CRADA
companies. EMSL-Cin would
receive a percentage of the
companies' sales of the
transferred inventory and any
new materials manufactured
by the CRADA companies.
By granting the five CRADA
companies exclusive rights to
sell the existing inventory and
any new material, EPA created
conditions for a Government-
controlled oligopoly. Although
other firms manufacture similar
materials, only the five
companies can advertise the
products they manufacture as
"EPA Certified." As is typical
of an oligopoly, QA material
prices increased substantially
from 1990 to 1991, the year
the CRADAs were established.
For example, the price for the
QA material for chlordane
increased from $.20 to $1.40.
By requiring the CRADA
companies to market their
products as "EPA Certified,"
the Agency created the
appearance of a conflict of
interest because it may have
to choose between fair and
equitable regulations and a
desire to increase revenue
through sales of QA materials.
As a regulator, the
Government must not be
biased towards the community
it is regulating or provide a
competitive advantage to
commercial enterprises.
Although EMSL-Cin officials
said that the CRADAs were
established under the FTTA,
they are an inappropriate use
of the Act. No new technology
was transferred to the private
sector (only QA materials from
EPA's inventory). Any
research conducted involved
developing and marketing QA
materials and not the
development of new
technology. Also, by making
available marketable QA
materials to the CRADA
companies, EMSL-Cin
provided a source of funds to
the companies, which is not
permitted under the FTTA.
We Recommended That
To ensure that the Agency no
longer competes with private
industry, the Acting Assistant
Administrator for Research and
Development instruct the
Director, EMSL-Cin, to
immediately cancel the
laboratory's participation in
these five CRADAs, recover
any inventory which had been
transferred to the five
companies which has not yet
been sold, and determine the
proper method to dispose of
those QA materials not needed
to meet existing obligations,
such as under memorandums
of understanding with other
agencies.
What Action was Taken
The final audit report
(3100153) was issued to the
Acting Assistant Administrator
for Research and Development
on March 31, 1993. A
response to the final report is
due by June 29, 1993. In
responding to the draft report,
the Acting Assistant
Administrator did not agree
with our recommendations and
proposed several actions
which the Office of Research
and Development would take
to determine whether CRADAs
are the best way to continue
the reference material
program. However, until ORD
completes its analyses, we
continue to believe that the
five CRADAs are
inappropriate.
Alaska Not
Accounting for Safe
Drinking Water
Grants
Problem
The Alaska Department of
Environmental Conservation
(ADEC) had not effectively
accounted for $877,500
awarded by EPA to support
the State's safe drinking
water (SOW) program or
documented
accomplishment of grant
objectives.
OCTOBER 1, 1992 THROUGH MARCH 31, 1993
11
-------
Background
EPA provides direct financial
assistance to any State that
assumes primary enforcement
responsibility for its public
drinking water program,
provided that its drinking water
standards are not lower than
national standards and that it
establishes adequate reporting
and enforcement procedures.
We Found That
ADEC's fiscal and accounting
procedures were inadequate to
maintain effective control and
accountability of the $877,500
in 1991 SOW grant funds
received from EPA. Rather
than charging actual costs
incurred in administering its
SOW program, ADEC charged
costs to the grant based on
budget allocations. In addition,
ADEC did not have written
procedures for charging costs
to the grant nor did it have a
cost allocation plan for
distributing some joint
administrative costs.
Personnel costs were the
major portion of the claimed
grant expenditures, but it was
impossible to trace employees
charged to the grant because
of incompatibilities between
Alaska's payroll system and
accounting system used to
record grant expenditures.
Further, ADEC charged costs
for non-drinking water activities
to the grant and lacked
documentation for other
expenditures. For example,
from our randomly selected
sample of 48 non-personnel
transactions, only 12 were
adequately documented as
grant-related expenditures-all
involving travel. Also, ADEC
either did not fully or timely
complete six reviewed work
plan objectives. For example,
none of the State regional
offices consistently reported
the number of engineering
plans for public drinking water
systems which were received
and reviewed.
We Recommended That
The Regional Administrator,
Region 10, withhold additional
SOW grant awards until
ADEC:
• Establishes written policies
and procedures for charging
costs to the grant based upon
actual costs incurred; and
• Ensures the State/EPA
Agreement work plan tasks are
performed and reported on
consistently and
documentation is submitted to
support reported activities.
What Action Was Taken
The final audit report
(3300012) was issued to the
Regional Administrator, Region
10, on February 10, 1993. A
final response is due from the
Regional Administrator by May
11, 1993. ADEC agreed with
many of the conditions
described in our draft report
and advised us of corrective
actions taken or planned.
EPA Region 3's
Certification Process
for Sewage
Treatment Plants
Unreliable
Problem
EPA Region 3's certification
process for wastewater
treatment facilities does not
ensure that all permit violations
and performance problems are
disclosed.
Background
In January 1983, EPA
implemented the Water
Management Division (WMD)
Certification process. The OIG
believes that a positive
certification indicates that a
facility is operating properly
and is complying with its
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES)
permit. However, the Office of
Water and Region 3 WMD
contend that a positive
certification means only that
the plant's flow is at least 75
percent of the planned initial
flow, Federal funds were not
used for unnecessary or
unreasonable aesthetic
features, and there were no
abandoned, unused or
inoperable facilities.
Certifications were intended to
provide the OIG information,
other than a project's dollar
size, for deciding (1) whether
to initiate an audit and (2) the
scope of such audit. A
negative certification, indicating
performance problems, could
influence the OIG to initiate an
audit on a project that might
not otherwise meet its criteria
or focus attention in that area
when a project would routinely
be audited. Conversely, a
positive certification could
influence the OIG to perform
little or no review of a project's
operations.
We Found That
Of 16 facilities reviewed by the
OIG for which WMD project
officers had provided positive
certifications, six facilities, or
37 percent were violating their
NPDES permits, and four
facilities were experiencing
infiltration and inflow (I/I)
problems. Facilities with new
and existing sewers were
hydraulically overloaded
because of excessive I/I and
deficient maintenance
procedures. The excessive
flows resulted in the discharge
of untreated wastewater into
receiving waters.
For example, one grantee
received over $2 million from
EPA to construct a treatment
facility and install a sewer
system. After 1 year of
operation, the facility began to
experience a serious I/I
problem which appeared to be
the direct result of poor
construction of the collection
system. Subsequently, the
grantee received a $100,000
State grant to repair the
problem. If the certification
process had been operated
properly, Region 3 could have
identified the problem and
encouraged the grantee to
request the installing
contractors to make the
needed repairs.
It is essential that such
performance problems be
highlighted by the certification
process. Improved
certifications would ensure that
performance problems are
disclosed so that corrective
action could be required before
the grant is closed. An
improved certification process
would help ensure that
Federal, as well as grantee,
monies were spent for projects
that operated properly.
We Recommended That
The Regional Administrator,
Region 3, assure that
certifications identify to the
OIG whether a facility is
operating properly or
complying with its NPDES
permit requirements and
highlight any problems with its
performance.
What Action Was Taken
The final report (3100111) was
issued to the Regional
Administrator, Region 3, on
February 23, 1993. A
response to the final report is
due by May 24, 1993.
Although disagreeing with our
draft report, the Region
indicated a willingness to
revise the certification process
to make it more meaningful.
Improvements
Needed in Region 7's
Efforts to Identify
and Report Internal
Control Weaknesses
Problem
Region 7 had not effectively
implemented the Federal
Managers' Financial Integrity
Act (FMFIA). As a result, the
Region could not assure the
Administrator that it was
meeting its mission and
protecting its resources.
We Found That
Region 7 had not properly
administered FMFIA to
incorporate management
controls into the Region's day-
to-day activities and
understand the importance of
maintaining and using up-to-
12
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAI
-------
date, documented controls.
While managers completed
required FMFIA paperwork,
they did not relate FMFIA to
program activities or perform
sufficient control assessments
to disclose program
weaknesses or resources
highly vulnerable to abuse,
loss, or theft.
From 1988 through 1992,
Region 7 had not reported
weaknesses in its assurance
letter to the Administrator,
although OIG audits and other
reviews had identified
significant weaknesses in the
Region's operations. For
example, the Region had not
addressed contracts
management as a high risk
area, although OIG reviews
and the Agency Research
Triangle Park's Contract
Management Division had
disclosed weaknesses. In
another case, the Region had
not rated state monitoring as
highly vulnerable, although
adequate controls had not
been established to evaluate
states' compliance with air
program requirements.
Because the Region did not
have a strong commitment to
FMFIA, Region 7 managers
had not developed plans for
determining whether subunit
managers scheduled
necessary management
reviews. As a result,
managers had not identified
high risk areas and taken
appropriate corrective action.
We Recommended That
The Acting Regional
Administrator, Region 7:
• Require managers to identify
and report material control
weaknesses and track
corrective actions.
• Require managers to report
the status of control systems
based on documented control
reviews which have been
scheduled in proper
management plans.
• Require the Management
Control Coordinator to develop
annual workplans and monitor
managers' performance.
• Ensure that managers'
performance agreements
include internal control
responsibilities and managers
are trained on their FMFIA
responsibilities and appraised
on their performance.
What Action Was Taken
The final audit report
(3100148) was issued to the
Acting Regional Administrator,
Region 7, on March 30, 1993.
A response to the final report
is due by June 28, 1993. In
responding to the draft report,
the Acting Regional
Administrator generally agreed
with the findings and
recommendations and agreed
to take corrective action. Until
our recommendations are fully
implemented, the Region
cannot assure the
Administrator that its internal
controls are adequate.
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, $124
million was obligated on 9 new
construction grant awards and
109 increases to existing
grants. As of March 31, 1993,
there were 2,498 grants
involving $18.8 billion which
were potentially subject to
audit. Of this total, there were
502 active construction grants,
representing $4.6 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,
$136 million was awarded for
three continuation SRF grants.
As of March 31, 1993, EPA
had obligated $6.7 billion to 50
States and Puerto Rico under
the State Revolving Fund
program.
OCTOBER 1, 1992 THROUGH MARCH 31, 1993
13
-------
• $188,870 of administrative
and architectural engineering
costs attributed to ineligible
construction;
• $80,895 of administrative and
engineering costs incurred
after the project cutoff date;
and
• $37,540 of costs for
equipment purchased without
prior EPA approval.
We also questioned $730,476
of costs primarily associated
with a litigation claim against a
contractor.
We Recommended That
The Acting Regional
Administrator, Region 3, not
participate in the Federal share
of ineligible costs ($2,375,318)
and determine the eligibility of
the Federal share of
unsupported costs ($547,877).
What Action Was Taken
The final report (3300026) was
issued to the Acting Regional
Administrator, Region 3, on
March 25, 1993. A response
is due by June 23, 1993.
Over $3.1 Million of
Ineligible Costs
Claimed for
Parkersburg, West
Virginia, Project
Problem
The Parkersburg, West
Virginia, Sanitary Board
claimed $3,143,885 of
ineligible legal, architectural
engineering, and equipment
costs.
We Found That
EPA awarded grants to the
Parkersburg Sanitary Board to
construct a wastewater
treatment plant designed to
treat 9.7 million gallons of
wastewater daily. We
questioned $3,143,885 of the
grantee's final claim as
ineligible for Federal grant
participation, including:
Nearly $14 Million of
Questioned Costs
Claimed for New
York City Projects
Problem
New York City claimed
$2,423,359 of ineligible
design and construction
costs. An additional
$11,530,366 of unsupported
costs were also questioned.
We Found That
EPA awarded eight grants
totalling $309,355,670 to New
York City for the design and
construction of additions and
alterations to eight existing
facilities. The grantee claimed
$2,423,359 of ineligible costs
under those grants, including:
• $1,496,343 of construction
costs determined to be
ineligible because of
understated deductions for
change orders, costs
previously declared ineligible
by the New York State
Department of Environmental
Conservation (NYSDEC),
unapproved change orders,
and ineligible bid items;
• $574,239 of architectural
engineering fees which
exceeded the NYSDEC's
approved contract amounts
and related to ineligible
construction; and
• $352,777 of force account
costs related to ineligible
construction.
We also questioned
$11,530,366 of unsupported
costs, including construction
and engineering costs which
exceeded approved contract
amounts and force account
costs which were incurred
beyond the construction
contracts' completion dates.
We Recommended That
The Acting Regional
Administrator, Region 2, not
participate in the Federal share
of ineligible costs ($1,337,198),
determine the eligibility of the
Federal share of unsupported
costs ($6,380,330), and
recover the applicable amount
from the grantee.
What Action Was Taken
The final report (3100118) was
issued to the Acting Regional
Administrator, Region 2, on
March 2, 1993. A response is
due by June 1, 1993.
Orlando, Florida,
Claimed Over $4
Million of Ineligible
Costs
Problem
Orlando, Florida, claimed
$4,392,846 of ineligible
engineering and
construction costs.
We Found That
EPA awarded a construction
grant to Orlando to upgrade its
McLeod Road Wastewater
Treatment Plant, including the
construction of a transmission
pipeline and a distribution
network for spray irrigation.
The grantee claimed
$4,392,846 of ineligible costs,
including:
• $3,373,326 for engineering
fees computed under the cost-
plus-percentage-of-cost
contract method, which is
prohibited by EPA regulations;
• $378,169 for design
allowance in excess of the
amount allowed by EPA
regulations;
• $367,916 for engineering
fees applicable to construction
outside the project's scope;
• $152,831 for profit under
change orders in excess of the
amount allowed under the
construction contract; and
• $120,604 for maintenance
and other costs claimed under
change orders that were the
responsibility of the grantee or
its contractors and
miscellaneous engineering
fees.
We Recommended That
The Acting Regional
Administrator, Region 4, not
participate in the Federal share
of ineligible costs ($2,914,127)
and recover this amount from
the grantee.
What Action Was Taken
The final report (3300011) was
issued to the Acting Regional
Administrator, Region 4, on
Februarys, 1993. On April
26, 1993, Region 4 issued a
letter to the grantee requesting
that $2,914,006 be refunded to
EPA.
Baltimore, Maryland,
Claimed Nearly $3.9
Million of Questioned
Costs
Problem
Baltimore, Maryland, claimed
$3,167,090 of ineligible
architectural engineering,
construction, administrative,
and equipment costs. An
additional $730,476 of
unsupported costs were
questioned.
We Found That
EPA awarded a grant to the
City of Baltimore to construct
sludge handling and disposal
facilities for the Patapsco
Wastewater Treatment Plant.
The grantee claimed
$3,167,090 of ineligible costs
under the grant, including:
• $2,095,075 of project
inspection costs that exceeded
incurred costs;
• $498,119 of administrative
and architectural engineering
costs not supported by the
expenditure report;
• $266,591 of construction
costs claimed in excess of
eligible bid items and change
orders and costs not related to
the project;
14
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
-------
• $1,448,446 of legal fees,
including those incurred for
litigation against the
architectural engineering firm
related to the treatment plant's
inability to operate as
designed, which had
previously been disapproved
by EPA and the West Virginia
Department of Natural
Resources (WVDNR);
• $1,058,287 of architectural
engineering and project
inspection fees which
exceeded the engineer's
budget and grant ceiling
without any increase in scope
of work, was included in
another agreement for
corrective work, or was
applicable to ineligible
construction;
• $553,392 of construction and
project improvement costs for
duplicate and unused
equipment, repair and
maintenance equipment,
change orders related to
alternative technology, i.e., gas
recovery for gas generation;
and
• $83,760 of administrative
expenses previously
determined ineligible for grant
participation by WVDNR.
We Recommended That
The Acting Regional
Administrator, Region 3, not
participate in the Federal share
of ineligible costs ($1,856,114)
and recover the applicable
amount from the grantee.
What Action Was Taken
The final report (3300013) was
issued to the Acting Regional
Administrator, Region 3, on
February 10, 1993. A
response is due by May 9,
1993.
Sacramento,
California, Claimed
Over $4 Million of
Ineligible and
Unreasonable Costs
Problem
The Sacramento Regional
County Sanitation District,
Sacramento, California,
claimed $1,395,800 of
ineligible administrative,
force account, engineering,
construction, and land
acquisition costs. An
additional $2,624,778 of
unreasonable project costs
were questioned.
We Found That
EPA awarded five grants
totaling $288,800,986 to the
County for the design and
construction of wastewater
treatment facilities. These
facilities included a cryogenic
plant, an interceptor, an outfall,
solids handling facilities, and a
combined wet weather control
system. We questioned
$1,395,800 of the costs
included in the grantee's final
claim as ineligible, including:
• $961,744 of administrative,
force account, construction,
and relocation costs which
were outside the scope of the
approved project;
• $257,738 of administrative,
force account, and engineering
costs allocable to the ineligible
portion of the construction
project; and
• $176,318 of engineering and
land acquisitbn costs related
to easements and rights-of-
way which had previously
been disallowed by EPA as
unnecessary for the
construction of the project.
Additionally, we questioned
$2,624,778 of unreasonable
costs claimed in excess of the
approved grant amount.
We Recommended That
The Acting Regional
Administrator, Region 9, not
participate in the Federal share
of ineligible costs ($1,049,051)
and determine the eligibility of
the Federal share ($1,968,584)
of unreasonable costs.
What Action Was Taken
The final report (3300010) was
issued to the Acting Regional
Administrator, Region 9, on
February 1, 1993. A response
to the final report is due by
May 2, 1993.
Grantee's $9.1 Million
Project Claim
Questioned Pending
Compliance With
Discharge
Requirements
Problem
The Sausalito-Marin City
Sanitary District, Sausalito,
California, claimed
$9,082,508 of costs for the
design and construction
improvements to a
wastewater treatment facility
that was not consistently
meeting waste discharge
requirements.
We Found That
EPA awarded two grants to
the Sausalito-Marin City
Sanitary District for the design
and construction of
improvements to its
wastewater treatment facility.
At the time of the California
State Water Resources Control
Board's (SWRCB) final
inspection in May 1990, the
grantee was not consistently
meeting waste discharge
limitations. The grantee is
responsible for completing the
facility to specifications,
maintenance and operation,
and correction of deficiencies
to meet discharge
requirements for the facility's
design life.
A January 1992 inspection
by the California Regional
Water Facility Board indicated
that modifications to the facility
had resulted in its successfully
meeting standards for
suspended solids, but not for
settleable solids. Although,
the grantee has apparently
expended significant efforts
since start-up of the facility in
1987, the costs claimed cannot
be accepted without the
SWRCB's certification that the
facility is meeting its discharge
limitations. Therefore, we
questioned $8,023,895 of the
grantee's claim as
unreasonable, pending EPA's
receipt of such certification.
Should the grantee
eventually obtain a certification
from the SWRCB, we still
question $1,058,613 of the
costs included in the grantee's
final claim as ineligible,
including:
• $1,002,874 of costs allocable
to the facility's capacity
reserved for the United States
Department of Interior; and
• $55,739 of administrative and
engineering costs considered
outside the scope of the
approved project or allocable
to the ineligible portion of
construction.
We Recommended That
The Acting Regional
Administrator, Region 9,
disallow the Federal share of
ineligible costs ($793,961),
assess the eligibility of the
Federal share of unreasonable
costs ($6,017,921), and
recover the applicable amount
from the grantee.
What Action Was Taken
The final report (3300022) was
issued to the Acting Regional
Administrator, Region 9, on
March 16, 1993. A response
is due by June 14, 1993.
OCTOBER 1, 1992 THROUGH MARCH 31, 1993
15
-------
Superfund
Program
The Superfund program was
created by the Comprehensive
Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability
Act of 1980 (CERCLA). The
Act provided a $1.6 billion trust
fund to pay for the costs
associated with the cleanup of
sites contaminated with
hazardous waste. Taxing
authority for the trust fund
expired on September 30,
1985. For more than a year,
the Superfund program
operated at a reduced level
from carryover funds and
temporary funds provided by
Congress.
On October 17, 1986, the
Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1986
(SARA) was enacted. It
provided $8.5 billion to
continue the program for 5
more years and made many
program 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 sixth annual
report, covering fiscal 1992,
must be issued by September
1993.
Improvements
Needed in Timeliness
and Controls Over
Responsible Party
(RP) Cleanups
Problem
The Agency's use of RPs to
clean up Superfund sites
has been hampered by
numerous problems,
including delays in initiating
cleanups, lack of aggressive
enforcement actions, and
ineffective management of
contractors.
Background
Through September 1992,
EPA had negotiated over $7
billion of settlements with RPs,
of which over $5 billion had
been negotiated since 1989.
During the past 4 years, the
OIG and the U.S. General
Accounting Office issued 15
audit reports covering all
aspects of Superfund
enforcement activities which
are summarized in this
capping report.
We Found That
EPA's cleanup process was
extended by many delays in
all phases of the process.
These delays included
initiating searches for RPs;
negotiating settlement
agreements after RPs were
identified; EPA Regions'
review and approval of RP
deliverables, such as work
plans and project operation
plans; and contractor
submissions of deliverables
such as reports on RP
searches. The Agency was
reluctant to set time frames for
its own actions because of
individual site uniqueness.
Project managers, who were
mainly responsible for many
cleanup tasks, had inadequate
supervision, training, guidance,
resources, or monitoring tools
to assist them in
accomplishing their work.
There was a lack of
aggressiveness in EPA's
Superfund enforcement
program. Stipulated penalties
were not pursued. EPA
primarily relied on verbal
negotiations and warning
letters in an attempt to
encourage RPs to comply.
Agency officials believed the
use of stipulated penalties
should be discretionary and
there should be a balance
between cooperation and
enforcement.
EPA ineffectively managed
contractors used to identify
and monitor RP activities at
cleanup sites. There were
insufficient safeguards to
assure appropriate contractor
performance. Moreover,
planning was ineffective
because the differences and
complexities of required tasks
were not considered.
EPA's automated tracking
systems were not always
sufficiently comprehensive,
current or accurate to allow
timely and effective
management oversight.
Systems were not always
designed to monitor essential
data on the cleanup process,
and some offices still used
manual systems. Program
personnel were not always
aware of the existence or
capability of these monitoring
tools, encouraged to use them,
or sufficiently motivated to
assure timely and accurate
data input.
There was a lack of
documentation in all phases
of the Superfund
enforcement process. Key
decisions and significant
events were not always
recorded or maintained in
official files. Reports and
minutes of meetings were not
16
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
-------
prepared, and justifications of
strategies or positions were
not written or retained.
Personnel did not give priority
to preparing or maintaining
appropriate documentation and
files.
EPA has made progress in
getting RPs involved in
cleaning up Superfund sites
and taking responsibility for
their share of costs associated
with the cleanups. However,
EPA's enforcement program
provided little incentive for RP
compliance and sometimes
tended to delay the overall
cleanup progress. Despite
EPA's efforts, there has not
been a marked increase in
enforcement efforts against
noncomplying RPs. In
addition, EPA Headquarters
still had not determined the
types and composition of
Agency systems needed for
tracking cleanups to allow
timely and effective
management oversight.
We Recommended That
The Assistant Administrators
for Solid Waste and
Emergency Response and
Enforcement:
• Require EPA Headquarters
policy guidance be
established, updated,
reinforced, or implemented
with respect to Superfund
cleanup activities in the areas
of RP oversight, timeliness,
stipulated penalty, cost
recovery enforcement, contract
monitoring, data input, and
documentation;
• Require EPA Headquarters
to perform in-depth annual
reviews which evaluate the
quality and consistency of
program performance; and
• Establish a task force to
review all enforcement
management systems.
What Action Was Taken
The final report (3100152) was
issued on March 31, 1993, to
the Acting Assistant
Administrator for Solid Waste
and Emergency Response and
the Acting Assistant
Administrator for Enforcement.
A response to the final report
is due by June 29, 1993. In
responding to the draft report,
the Acting Assistant
Administrator for Solid Waste
and Emergency Response
generally agreed with our
findings. EPA had initiated
several actions to address the
problems discussed in the
report, including issuing new
guidance to speed the
negotiation process,
reorganizing to facilitate closer
regional management
involvement, and streamlining
the cleanup process.
Continuing
Weaknesses in
Superfund
Accounting and
Controls
Problem
Pervasive and persistent
problems related to
managing accounts
receivable and personal
property have continued
during the 10 years of the
Superfund program. In
addition, the Agency's
Integrated Financial
Management System (IFMS)
did not provide complete
and accurate reports to
Superfund management.
We Found That
While Superfund obligations
and disbursements for fiscal
years 1981 through 1990
appropriations were presented
fairly, there were continuing
weaknesses in controls over
resources and assets, primarily
relating to managing accounts
receivable and personal
property. In addition, although
the Agency's IFMS was
implemented in fiscal 1989 to
provide a comprehensive
financial management system,
IFMS did not provide complete
and accurate reports for
management.
From 1983 through 1990,
over $94 million of receivables
were not posted timely. For
example, in 1989 and 1990,
$40.3 million of receivables
were not posted in the correct
year. In addition, the Agency
did not always take action
required to follow up on late
accounts or assess added
charges to such accounts.
Without proper management of
receivables, EPA cannot
collect funds to which it is
entitled.
Problems have persisted in
recording, locating, and
accounting for property since
1982. As of September 30,
1990, Superfund property
recorded in the property
system totaled $76.5 million,
but $12 million in property
purchased since 1981 had not
been recorded. Property was
not recorded because
contracting offices, custodial
officers, and receiving
personnel did not always
forward obligating documents
and receiving reports to
property officials. Also,
several regional offices had
not performed annual
inventories and reconciliations
of their property for years.
In some cases, the Agency
reported the above problems
to the President as required by
the Federal Managers'
Financial Integrity Act. The
Agency has generally
completed or initiated actions
to correct the problems found
in the Superfund program.
However, most of the
procedures and internal
controls reviewed cross
program lines and were
applicable Agency-wide.
We Recommended That
The Assistant Administrator for
Administration and Resources
Management, who is also the
Chief Financial Officer and the
senior internal control official,
inform other principal
managers within the Agency
and the Senior Council on
Management Controls about
the persistent weaknesses
found in the Superfund
program over the past decade.
What Action Was Taken
The audit report (3100058)
was issued to the Assistant
Administrator for
Administration and Resources
Management and the Assistant
Administrator for Solid Waste
and Emergency Response on
December 29, 1992. In
response to the audit report,
the Assistant Administrator for
Administration and Resources
Management agreed to
implement our
recommendation.
Superfund Indirect
Cost Rates Not
Adequate for Full
Recovery of Cleanup
Costs
Problem
EPA's fiscal 1987 and 1988
Superfund indirect cost rate
calculations inappropriately
excluded $144.2 million and
$225.9 million, respectively,
severely reducing the total
amounts for recovery from
parties responsible for
hazardous waste sites.
Background
The cost of removal and
remedial actions incurred by
EPA include direct and indirect
costs, both of which are
recoverable from responsible
parties (RP) under the
Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act. On August 6,
1992, EPA published in the
Federal Register a major
proposed change in the
methodology for calculating
indirect cost rates that would
provide for "full cost recovery."
We Found That
Although the present
conservative method for
calculating Superfund indirect
cost rates complies with
Agency guidance, this method
did not present fairly the
Superfund indirect cost rates
for fiscal years 1988 and 1987
in conformity with generally
accepted accounting
principles. Because significant
costs were excluded from the
indirect cost pools, EPA's
indirect cost rates were not
high enough to ensure full
recovery from RPs of costs
incurred by the Government in
OCTOBER 1, 1992 THROUGH MARCH 31, 1993
17
-------
cleaning up hazardous waste
sites. These costs are for
assessment of sites before
starting remedial, removal, and
enforcement activities,
research and development,
and depreciation for capital
expenditures.
The costs excluded from the
indirect cost pools amounted
to $370 million for fiscal 1988
and 1987. If these costs are
not included in the indirect cost
pools and then sought, they
will never be recovered from
RPs. In addition to costs
omitted from the indirect
costpool, the way costs were
allocated to sites resulted in
the Agency not recovering part
of the indirect costs.
Further, delays in
establishing indirect cost rates
result in underrecoveries from
RPs of costs incurred by the
Government in cleaning up
hazardous waste sites. The
fiscal 1987 indirect cost rates
were not established until
September 28, 1989, and the
fiscal 1988 rates were not
established as of February 22,
1993.
We Recommended That
The Comptroller establish a
time frame for timely
completion of calculations and
establishment of provisional
indirect cost rates in
accordance with its proposed
rule which provides for full cost
recovery of cleanup costs.
What Action Was Taken
The final audit report
(3100114) was issued to the
Assistant Administrator for
Administration and Resources
Management on February 22,
1993. A response to the final
report is due by May 24, 1993.
In response to our draft report,
the Assistant Administrator
generally agreed with our
findings and recommendation.
Special And Early
Warning Reviews
This section in 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
intended to help Agency
managers correct problems
and recognize the potential for
savings before resources are
fully committed.
Special Reviews
Special reviews are narrowly
focused studies of programs or
activities providing
management a timely,
informative, independent
picture of operations. Special
reviews are not statistical
research studies or detailed
audits. Rather, they are
information gathering studies
that identify issue areas for
management attention.
$1.6 Million in EPA
Training Grants Not
Adequately Evaluated
Problem
EPA did not adequately
monitor or evaluate the
effectiveness of training
provided to assist minority
contractors in obtaining
environmental contracts. In
addition, EPA awarded
grants without considering
alternative lower cost
sources.
We Found That
The Office of Small and
Disadvantaged Business
Utilization (OSDBU) had
awarded grants totalling $1.6
million to the National
Association of Minority
Contractors (NAMC) to provide
training to small, minority and
disadvantaged businesses in
the areas of Superfund,
Leaking Underground Storage
Tanks, Asbestos, and Radon.
Neither NAMC or OSDBU
determined whether the
minority contractors who
attended the training
subsequently received
contracts in the above areas,
which was the principal
objective of the grants. Of 33
minority contractors we
contacted, only 15, or 45
percent, were working in the
environmental field for which
NAMC had provided them
training.
In addition, as a result of
OSDBU's and the Grants
Administration Division's failure
to adequately monitor the
grantee, NAMC did not (1)
submit progress and financial
status reports; (2) perform
need surveys; (3) develop
indirect cost rate proposals;
and (4) comply with OMB
Circular A-133 requiring
nonprofit institutions receiving
$100,000 or more each year in
Federal awards to have annual
audits conducted. These
deficiencies resulted primarily
from a lack of supervisory
review and insufficient training
of the project officer.
Also, during fiscal 1989
through 1991, EPA awarded
grants totaling $1.8 million
(including the $1.6 million of
grants funded by OSDBU) to
NAMC without considering
lower cost alternative training
sources. NAMC's costs per
course ranged from $442 to
$3,425 per person. Other
nonprofit institutions were
providing similar training for
between $325 and $775. As a
result, EPA may have paid
unreasonably high costs to
train minority contractors.
We Recommended That
The Directors of OSDBU and
the Grants Administration
Division (GAD) provide
sufficient training and
increased supervisory review
of project officers to ensure
that training grants are
adequately monitored.
What Action Was Taken
The final special review report
(3400017) was issued to the
Directors of OSDBU and GAD
on January 25, 1993. In
responding to the draft report,
the Directors agreed with the
issues and recommendations
presented in the draft report.
A response due to the final
report by April 26, 1993, had
not been received as of April
28, 1993.
Better Accounting
Needed For Oil Spill
Funds
Problem
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.
Background
A five-cent tax on each barrel
of imported oil is charged and
deposited in the Oil Spill
Liability Trust Fund. These
funds are earmarked for oil
pollution prevention and
cleanup actions by Federal
agencies.
18
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAI
-------
We Found That
EPA's Offices of Research and
Development (ORD) and
Enforcement (OE) received
$2,571,400 in fiscal 1992 from
the Oil Spill Liability Trust
Fund without account numbers
for separately tracking Oil Spill
expenditures or guidance from
the EPA Comptroller. Further,
these two offices were not
formally advised that they had
been allocated Oil Spill funds.
Also, the Office of the
Comptroller did not act to
make the appropriated Oil Spill
funding available for
disbursement until after we
raised the issue in March
1992, nearly 7 months into the
fiscal year.
We Recommended That
The Chief Financial Officer:
• Review the Agency's fiscal
1992 obligations and
expenditures and adjust the
Agency's accounting records
to accurately reflect EPA's use
of the Oil Spill Liability Trust
Fund.
• Establish policies and
procedures to ensure that the
Agency's annual
appropriations act is reviewed,
all necessary accounting
codes have been established,
and adequate guidance has
been provided to program and
regional offices.
• Develop procedures and
assign responsibility for
ensuring that all funds
appropriated from the Trust
Fund are properly transferred
to an EPA account so that
they are available for EPA's
use.
What Action Was Taken
The final special review report
(3100039) was issued to the
Chief Financial Officer on
March 31, 1993. The Chief
Financial Officer, in responding
to the draft report, generally
agreed with our findings and
recommendations. He stated
that a survey of all offices that
received funds during fiscal
1992 indicated that all funds
were used for their intended
purposes. Also, he stated that
steps had been taken to
ensure that all funds
appropriated from the Trust
Fund are properly transferred
to an EPA account. A
response to the final report is
due by June 29, 1993.
EPA Lacks an
Adequate Energy
Conservation
Program
Problem
EPA had not developed an
energy management and
conservation program as
required by statutes and
regulations. As a result,
EPA could not adequately
determine its energy
consumption costs and
measure its progress in
reducing consumption.
Background
The 1975 Energy Policy and
Conservation Act and
subsequent energy
conservation legislation
requires Federal agencies to
develop a 10-year plan to
conserve energy in Federally
owned or leased buildings.
The 1992 Energy Policy Act
requires all Federal Inspectors
General to review each
Agency's compliance with
energy conservation
requirements.
We Found That
EPA was not in substantial
compliance with energy
conservation requirements. In
1984 EPA began to develop
an Agency-wide program but
did not complete the project.
The Agency recently re-
initiated the effort, with EPA's
Facilities Management and
Services Division assuming
responsibility for developing a
program, but did not assign
clear organizational
responsibilities or commit the
resources necessary to
implement the program. As a
result, EPA did not have an
Agency-wide 10-year plan for
reducing energy consumption.
Although EPA had initiated an
energy program for its
Washington, D.C. site, formal
energy programs were not
implemented at the other eight
field sites reviewed.
In addition, EPA did not
have a complete Agency-wide
data base of energy
consumption and cost data for
fiscal 1985 through fiscal 1992.
Therefore, EPA was unable to
monitor its progress in meeting
required energy consumption
reduction of 20 percent from
its fiscal 1985 base. EPA's
fiscal 1992 energy
consumption data base did not
include an estimated 38
percent of the total square
footage of facilities for which
EPA was required to report,
resulting in substantial
understatement of energy
consumption costs.
EPA implemented a "Green
Lights" program for retrofitting
buildings with energy efficient
lighting. However, EPA had
not developed a centrally
organized and comprehensive
survey and retrofit program to
identify, install, and monitor all
types of potential retrofit
projects.
We Recommended That
The Assistant Administrator for
Administration and Resources
Management:
• Establish and implement an
Agency-wide energy
management and conservation
program in compliance with
applicable statutes and
regulations.
• Formally designate an
Agency-wide energy
coordinator and assign clear
organizational responsibilities
and authority to implement the
program.
• Establish a program to
identify and monitor retrofit
activities.
• Establish controls and
procedures to maintain timely
and accurate energy
consumption data.
• Establish controls and
procedures to ensure that 10-
year plans and progress
reports are prepared and
updated.
• Request sufficient resources
to comply with applicable
energy conservation statutes
and regulations.
What Action Was Taken
The special review report
(3400024) was issued to the
Assistant Administrator for
Administration and Resources
Management on February 22,
1993. A response to the final
report is due by May 23, 1993.
The Assistant Administrator's
response to the draft report
generally agreed with our
findings and recommendations.
Improper
Procurements
Circumvented
Federal Acquisition
Regulation
Problem
Office of Communications,
Education, and Public
Affairs (OCEPA) officials
routinely obtained goods
and services without proper
authorization or competition
as required by the Federal
Acquisition Regulation.
We Found That
OCEPA staff preselected
vendors and prepared vague
or inadequate statements of
work. For one procurement
action, a contractor was asked
to provide two other sources to
compete with its bid. This
same vendor was paid for a
videotape that was never
received. In another case,
OCEPA officials split one
requirement into three
separate purchase orders to
avoid the competitive process
OCTOBER 1, 1992 THROUGH MARCH 31, 1993
19
-------
and requested the
Procurement and Contracts
Management Division (PCMD)
to process a fourth purchase
order, which PCMD refused to
do. Also, OCEPA used
contracts or interagency
agreements established by
other offices to ensure that
services were obtained from
contractors of choice. OCEPA
made unauthorized
procurements by receiving
goods and services before
purchase orders were issued,
or occasionally without
purchase orders being issued
at all.
OCEPA made improper
procurements because
managers did not adequately
plan for anticipated
requirements and placed more
importance on "who" was to
provide goods and services,
rather than "what" goods and
services were needed. And,
the Senior Procurement Officer
failed to ensure the
effectiveness and integrity of
OCEPA's procurement
activities.
We Recommended That
The Associate Administrator
for Communications,
Education, and Public Affairs:
• Ensure that contract
requirements are competed;
statements of work are
complete; and no work is
performed before a contract or
purchase order has been
issued.
• Ensure that staff involved in
procurement are properly
trained and designate a senior-
level official as OCEPA's
Senior Procurement Officer.
What Action Was Taken
The special review report
(3400035) was issued on
March 31, 1993. In
responding to our draft report,
the Associate Administrator for
Communications, Education,
and Public Affairs agreed with
our report's findings and has
implemented or is in the
process of implementing all of
our recommendations. A
response to the final report is
due by June 29, 1993.
ERA'S Administration
of the Federal
Employees'
Compensation Act
Needs Improvement
Problem
EPA has not adequately
managed claims and
payments under the Federal
Employees' Compensation
Act(FECA). As a result,
EPA may be paying benefits
for individuals who are not
EPA employees and may not
be encouraging its
employees to return to work
as soon as possible.
We Found That
Despite knowing that it is often
charged by the Department of
Labor (DOL) for benefits paid
to individuals who are not EPA
employees, EPA was not
verifying or correctly assigning
FECA costs. Under the
chargeback system, the costs
of compensation for job-related
injuries and deaths paid by
DOL are assigned to
employing agencies. FECA
charges to EPA in 1992
totalled $2,142,269.
Costs are not being charged
to the lowest organizational
level and managers may not
have a monetary incentive for
seeking their employees'
return to work. Instead, most
employees are lumped
organizationally under the
Office of Administrator, even
though they are assigned to a
region or headquarters
program office. Of the 353
employee cases that EPA paid
in 1992, 231 cases, or 66
percent, were coded as
belonging to the Office of the
Administrator.
EPA had not designated
organizational responsibility for
all FECA functions and there
was no national FECA policy,
guidance, or oversight. The
Agency had not adequately
trained supervisors, managers,
and employees about their
FECA responsibilities, nor had
it effectively communicated
and coordinated FECA
activities with DOL. EPA had
not established a light
duty/return-to-work program.
Lack of prompt action to return
employees to work or
accommodate employees with
special needs can increase
FECA costs.
We Recommended That
The Assistant Administrator for
Administration and Resources
Management:
• Verify the FECA chargeback
report and work with DOL to
assign chargeback codes at
the lowest practical
organizational level;
• Clearly identify the offices
responsible for FECA functions
and establish or update
Agency policy, procedures,
and guidance to accurately
reflect current FECA
requirements.
• Establish an Agency-wide
light duty/return-to-work
program and FECA monitoring
and evaluation program; and
• Disseminate information to all
employees about FECA's
coverage, responsibilities, and
claims processing
requirements.
What Action Was Taken
The special review report
(3400033) was issued to the
Assistant Administrator for
Administration and Resources
Management on March 26,
1993. In responding to the
draft report, the Assistant
Administrator generally
concurred with our findings
and recommendations. A
response to the final report is
due by June 14, 1993.
Construction Grant
Early Warning
System
This program is designed to
identify potential problem
construction projects early in
their life cycle so that EPA
management can take
appropriate corrective action.
The long-range goal of the
construction grants program is
to reduce the discharge of
municipal wastewater
pollutants to improve water
quality and protect public
health. EPA provides grants
to municipal agencies to assist
in financing the construction of
wastewater treatment works, a
process which takes 2 to 10
years to complete.
Because audits are
generally performed after the
project is complete, problems
which affect the efficient
design, construction,
management, or operation of a
treatment plant are not
disclosed until thousands or
millions of dollars have been
spent. Under its early warning
system, the OIG reviews
projects to identify problems
and preclude the ineffective
expenditure of funds. Some
reviews focus on certain
indicators and attributes that
can suggest the likelihood of a
potential problem.
20
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
-------
$21.5 Million Grant to
San Diego Should Be
Annulled
Problem
San Diego, California, has
no need for a land outfall
after it canceled plans to
construct a related
secondary treatment plant.
We Found That
EPA awarded a $21.5 million
grant to San Diego in 1989 to
participate in a 2.3 mile, 12-
foot diameter land outfall to
serve two proposed secondary
wastewater treatment plants
(San Diego and International
Treatment Plants). Although
required by a special grant
condition, San Diego canceled
its plans to construct the
secondary plant. Therefore,
the nearly completed land
outfall will not be used by San
Diego for its intended purpose,
nor will it be used in the
foreseeable future.
San Diego maintained that,
although the treatment plant
may not be built, the land
outfall could be used for future
flows from other projects.
Because these projects are not
scheduled to be built until
2025, they cannot satisfy the
special grant condition.
The award of the land outfall
grant was premature. San
Diego's primary purpose in
seeking the grant was to take
advantage of EPA
construction grant funds which
were expiring in 1988.
However, at the time of grant
award, San Diego had not
decided on whether a
treatment plant would be built
or designated the area to be
served.
We Recommended That
The Regional Administrator,
Region 9:
• Not participate in the Federal
share of ineligible costs ($11.8
million) by annulling the land
outfall grant, unless the
secondary treatment plant is
constructed in accordance with
the approved facility plan.
• Advise San Diego that the
use of available land outfall
capacity to accommodate
future flows from other projects
which exceeded its existing
needs are ineligible for grant
funding.
What Action Was Taken
The special review report
(3400037) was issued to the
Regional Administrator, Region
9, on March 29, 1993. In
response to our March 1,
1993, position paper, San
Diego disagreed that it had
violated the grant condition
requiring construction of the
secondary treatment plant, A
response to the final report is
due by June 29, 1993.
$7.2 Million
Middletown,
California, Project
Does Not Meet
Effluent Goals
Problem
The Lake County Sanitation
District in Middletown,
California, claimed $1.7
million of costs for a leaking
storage pond and an unused
disposal system for treated
effluent which rendered the
project in noncompliance
with its discharge permit.
We Found That
EPA awarded a $7.2 million
grant to the Lake County
Sanitation District for
construction of a sewage
treatment facility, including a
storage pond of about 20
acres (with a capacity of about
79 million gallons) and an 88-
acre disposal area. The
facility was designed to
provide controlled disposal of
treated wastewater by spray
irrigation. We questioned $1.7
million of the grantee's claimed
costs as ineligible, including:
• $300,000 for the storage
pond which had not been
properly constructed or
adequately tested and leaked
excessively, even after being
repaired; and
• $1.4 million for the disposal
system that was not being
used for irrigation because of
the lower than expected flows
into the storage pond and the
leakage of the storage pond.
Consequently, the District had
not fulfilled the grant objective
requiring the disposal of the
wastewater effluent into an 88-
acre area for crop irrigation.
As a result, the District was
violating its waste discharge
permit because the leakage
experienced in the storage
pond caused the effluent to
flow directly into the ground.
After several years, the
concentration of nitrates in the
groundwater would likely
approach or exceed the state's
drinking water standards,
thereby potentially threatening
the community's public water
supply.
We Recommended That
The Acting Regional
Administrator, Region 9,
disallow the costs of the
storage pond and disposal
system for grant funding,
unless the District
demonstrates that the facilities
are being used and the project
is in compliance with the waste
discharge permit.
What Action Was Taken
The special review report
(3400016) was issued to the
Acting Regional Administrator,
Region 9, on January 21,
1993. A response due by April
20, 1993, had not been
received as of April 28, 1993.
The
unnecessary
2.3 mile outfall
(photo by
Western Audit
Division staff)
OCTOBER 1, 1992 THROUGH MARCH 31, 1993
Lake County Sewage Treatment Plant
(OIG photo by Western Audit Division staff)
21
-------
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.
Appendix 2 summarizes the
status of each report issued
before the commencement
of the reporting period for
which no management
decision had been made by
the end of the reporting
period.
EPA Office of Inspector General Status Report On Perpetual Inventory of Reports in
Resolution Process For The Semiannual Period Ending: March 31,1993
Dollar Values (in thousands)
Report Issuance
Report Resolution
Costs Sustained
Number
Questioned Recommended
Costs Efficiencies
To Be
Recovered
As
Efficiencies
A. For which no 341 437,616 233,670
management decision
has been made by the
commencement of the
reporting period*
B. Which were issued 722 132,332 16,296
during the reporting
period
C. Which were issued 509 0 0
during the reporting
period that required no
resolution
Subtotals (A + B - C) 554 569,948 249,966
D. For which a 224 66,965 118,388
management decision
was made during the
reporting period
E. For which no 330 502,983 131,578
management decision
has been made by the
end of the reporting
period
Reports for which no 146 371,0632 115,579
management decision
was made within six
months of issuance
26,808
5,398
* 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.
22
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
-------
Audit Followup
The Inspector General Act
Amendments of 1988 have
focused increased attention on
Agency responses to the
findings of the Inspectors
General (IG). Agency
management is now required
to report semiannual/y, in a
separate report to Congress,
the corrective actions taken in
response to the IG's reviews.
The Office of Inspector
General reviews the Agency's
followup actions on selected
reviews. Below are
summaries of two of these
reviews.
Despite Progress in
Superfund Post-
settlement Activities,
Additional Actions
Are Still Needed
Previous Problems and
Findings
Our March 1990 audit
concluded that Region 2
needed to intensify its
oversight of responsible
party (RP) activities to
assure timely completion of
Superfund cleanups and
proper compliance with
settlement requirements.
We reported that the
initiation of Superfund
cleanup work was
unnecessarily delayed
because of the Region's
lengthy review and approval
of plans and other
documents before work
could be undertaken;
stipulated penalties were not
being assessed for
noncompliance with
settlement milestone dates;
improvement was needed in
the oversight of Technical
Enforcement Support (TES)
contractors; and oversight
costs were not being
recovered from RPs.
Followup Findings
Our followup report (3400005)
found that Region 2 had
initiated actions to correct
many of the findings from our
prior audit. Several of these
had been implemented, while
others were in the
development stage.
Regional internal review
problems were still resulting in
the approval process for RPs'
plans and documents taking
more than a year. Recent
regional initiatives to decrease
the project manager/site ratio
and supervisor/staff ratio could
further improve the timeliness
of the approval process.
The Region had not
implemented an effective
system for the timely recovery
from RPs of costs incurred by
EPA in overseeing the cleanup
of Superfund sites. EPA had
collected or initiated actions to
collect oversight costs for only
3 of the 8 cases totaling
$627,761 cited in our prior
report, while costs continued to
accumulate.
Followup Recommendations
We recommended that the
Regional Administrator, Region
2:
• Complete and implement
guidance on timely regional
review and approval of plans
and other documents
submitted by RPs for
Superfund cleanups.
• Implement the Region's
proposal on stipulated
penalties.
• Implement an effective
system for the timely recovery
of Superfund cleanup oversight
costs.
• Use a computerized narrative
containing sufficient detail to
record the conditions observed
at TES contractors' sites.
What Action Was Taken
The special review report
(3400005) was issued on
November 24, 1992, to the
Regional Administrator, Region
2. A response due by
February 24, 1993, had not
been received as of April 28,
1993. In responding to the
draft report, the Region
generally agreed with the
report's findings and
recommendations. However,
the Region did not concur with
the recommendation that
specific time frames be
established for review and
approval of RP submissions.
Major Improvements
Made to Properly
Dispose of Banned
Pesticides
Previous Problems and
Findings
After hearings in 1986 and
1987, the House Government
Operations Committee
recommended that EPA
develop a policy for holders
to properly store and report
emergency suspended and
cancelled (banned)
pesticides. EPA had banned
three pesticides—Ethylene
Dibromide, 2,4,5-T/silvex,
and dinoseb. Our
September 1990 report
found that EPA still had not
ensured that banned
pesticides holders safely
controlled their stocks and
complied with disposal
rules. Regions and States
could not fully identify and
inspect all known banned
pesticide storage locations
because EPA had not
developed procedures to
match Headquarters, Region
and State records. Also,
emergency planners and fire
officials were not aware of
banned pesticide storage
locations or emergency
handling procedures.
Followup Findings
Our followup report found that
the Office of Prevention,
Pesticides and Toxic
Substances (OPPTS) had
initiated action to address most
of the findings and
recommendations in our 1990
report. For those findings
where corrective action had
not been taken, OPPTS
proposed to take such action
during the next year.
The OPPTS Office of
Compliance Monitoring (OCM)
still did not have complete
information to track dinoseb
inspections and did not track
referrals separately from the
regular inspections. Also,
even though OPPTS had
distributed lists of dinoseb
holders, the emergency
planners and fire officials still
did not have the information.
OCTOBER 1, 1992 THROUG> JARCH 31, 1993
23
-------
OPPTS had nearly completed
its collection and disposal of
dinoseb, but agreed to
continue to improve its
program to ensure safe
storage and disposal of any
uncollected amounts of the
pesticide.
OPPTS also agreed to take
action to improve its internal
control system. Our review
found that OPPTS did not
follow the Agency's guidance
for documenting alternative
internal control reviews or
training. Also, OPPTS did not
use the Management Audit
Tracking System to monitor
corrective action plans for OIG
audits. Without improving its
internal control system,
OPPTS may not detect or
correct program deficiencies.
The 1988 amendments to
the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
eliminated the requirement that
OPPTS must accept banned
pesticides and dispose of
them. OPPTS can now
require registrants to recall
banned pesticides. However,
OPPTS has not completed
new regulations for storage
and disposal of banned
pesticides. It is unclear how
OPPTS will ensure the safe
disposal of future banned
pesticides until the regulations
are completed.
What Action Was Taken
The final report (3400030) was
issued to the Acting Assistant
Administrator for Prevention,
Pesticides and Toxic
Substances on March 26,
1993. A response to the final
report is due by June 14,
1993. In responding to the
draft report, the Agency
agreed with our findings and
proposed corrective actions to
address all of our
recommendations. As a result,
the final report contained no
recommendations and was
closed upon issuance.
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 $21.7 million being
sustained out of $31.8 million
considered ineligible in reports
under OIG control. This is a
68 percent sustained rate.
Table 1—Inspector General Issued Reports With Questioned
Costs Semiannual Period Ending: March 31,1993
Dollar Values (thousands)
Questioned* Unsupported
Number Costs Costs
A For which no management decision has been 155 437,616 89,358
made by the commencement of the reporting
period"
B. New Reports issued during period 71 132,332 38,611
Subtotals (A + B) 226 569,948 127,969
C. For which a management decision was made 79 66,965 23,207
during the reporting period
(i) Dollar value of disallowed costs 61 26,808 2,273
(ii) Dollar value of costs not disallowed"* 46 40,157 20,934
D. For which no management decision has been 147 502,983 104,762
made by the end of the reporting period
Reports for which no management decision was 81 371,063 66,151
made within six months of issuance
* Questioned costs include the unsupported costs.
" Any difference in number of reports and amounts of questioned costs or recommended
efficiencies between this report and our previous semiannual report results from corrections
made to data in our audit tracking system.
*** On 18 reports management did not sustain any of the $20,777,579 questioned costs
Twenty-eight reports are also included in C(u) because they were only partially sustained
Only the costs questioned that were not sustained in C(i) are included in this category
Table 2—Inspector General Issued Reports With
Recommendations That Funds Be Put To Better Use
Semiannual Period Ending: March 31,1993
Number
Dollar Value
(in thousands)
A. For which no management decision has 67 233,670
been made by the commencement of the
reporting period*
B. Which were issued during the reporting penod 15 16,296
Subtotals (A + B) 82 249,966
C. For which a management decision was 41 118,388
made during the reporting period
(i) Dollar value of recommendations that 13 5,398
were agreed to by management
- based on proposed management action n/a n/a
- based on proposed legislative action n/a n/a
(ii) Dollar value of recommendations that 14" 26,800
were not agreed to by management
(iii) Dollar value of non-awards or 18 86,190*"
unsuccessful bidders
D. For which no management decision has 41 131,578
been made by the end of the reporting penod
Reports for which no management decision 29 115,579
was made within six months of issuance
' 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.
" Four 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 jn C(ii).
'" This amount represents the dollar value of recommendations that funds be put to better
use
24
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
-------
Resolution of Significant Reports
Repoer Number / Grantee /
Report Date Contractor
E2CWMO-02-0268
2200027
REPORT DATE
9/2/92
E2CWM1-02-0118
2200034
REPORT DATE
9/22/92
P2BW8-02-0268
2100450
REPORT DATE
7/5/92
P2CWL9-02-0019
2100328
REPORT DATE
4/16/92
D8AML2-03-0406
2100534
REPORT DATE
8/28/92
E2AWT2-03-0603
2400084
REPORT DATE
9/30/92
NORTH CASTLE
NY
MIDDLESEX
COUNTY NJ
NYC-OAKWOOD
BEACH NY
WESTCHESTER
COUNTY NY
BIONETICS VA
EW PHILADELPHIA
PA
Report Issuance
FS Questioned /
Recommended
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
469,490
0
0
0
264,500
1,188,912
0
0
304,715
917,165
0
0
1,766,797
0
0
0
0
0
0
2,646,339
0
0
0
3,311,261
Report Resolution
Federal Share
to be Recovered /
Sustained
Efficiency
INEL
UNSP
UNUR
SUST
INEL
UNSP
UNUR
SUST
INEL
UNSP
UNUR
SUST
INEL
UNSP
UNUR
SUST
INEL
UNSP
UNUR
SUST
INEL
UNSP
UNUR
SUST
469,489
0
0
0
264,500
564,049
0
0
304,715
917,165
0
0
1,766,797
0
0
0
0
0
0
672,643
0
0
0
3,311,261
Resolution of Significant Reports
Repoer Number / Grantee /
Report Date Contractor
E2CW7-09-0192
1300053
REPORT DATE
3/28/91
E2CWMO-09-0052
2200030
REPORT DATE
9/15/92
E2CWNO-09-0071
2300085
REPORT DATE
9/29/92
S2BWN1 -09-0095
2300090
REPORT DATE
9/30/92
P2CW7-10-0104
2100303
REPORT DATE
3/31/92
SUN VALLEY
WATER & SAN
DIST NV
HAWAII COUNTY
HI
HONOLULU CITY &
COUNTY, HI
SAN FRANCISCO
C&C SEWWTP CA
OLYMPIA WA
Report Issuance
FS Questioned /
Recommended
Efficiency
INEL
UNSP
UNUR
RCOM
INEL
UNSP
UNUR
RCOM
INEL
UNSP
UNUR
RCOM
INEL
UNSP
UNUR
RCOM
INEL
UNSP
UNUR
RCOM
4,665,840
0
1,760,811
0
5,218,260
0
0
0
1,292,855
0
4,516,290
0
5,425,295
0
0
0
778,712
226,892
0
0
Report Resolution
Federal Shan
to be Recovered /
Sustained
Efficiency
INEL
UNSP
UNUR
SUST
INEL
UNSP
UNUR
SUST
INEL
UNSP
UNUR
SUST
INEL
UNSP
UNUR
SUST
INEL
UNSP
UNUR
SUST
296,105
0
1,760,811
0
5,218,260
0
0
0
664,383
0
695,902
0
5,425,295
0
0
0
720,332
0
0
0
INEL = INELIGIBLE COST
UNSP = UNSUPPORTED COST
UNUR = UNNECESSARY/UNREASONABLE COST
RCOM = RECOMMENDED EFFICIENCIES
E2BWN1 -04-0050
2300081
REPORT DATE
9/24/92
P2CWP9-05-0072
2400023
REPORT DATE
3/12/92
E3CLN1 -06-01 57
2300052
REPORT DATE
5/20/92
E2AWP2-09-0243
2400076
REPORT DATE
9/24/92
FT LAUDERDALE
FL
WASHTENAW CO
DPW (ANN ARBOR)
Ml
LUST
COOPERATIVE
AGREEMENTS OK
SAN DIEGO CA
INEL
UNSP
UNUR
RCOM
INEL
UNSP
UNUR
RCOM
INEL
UNSP
UNUR
RCOM
INEL
UNSP
UNUR
RCOM
1,475,976
55,610
0
0
449,642
0
0
0
501,190
7,891
0
0
0
0
0
5,500,000
INEL
UNSP
UNUR
SUST
INEL
UNSP
UNUR
SUST
INEL
UNSP
UNUR
SUST
INEL
UNSP
UNUR
SUST
1 ,451 ,688
55,610
0
1,507,298
449,642
0
0
0
408,632
0
0
0
0
0
0
5,500,000
SUST = RECOMMENDED EFFICIENCIES SUSTAINED
OCTOBER 1, 1992 THROUGH MARCH 31, 1993
25
-------
Section 3-Prosecutive Actions
The following is a summary
of investigative activities
during this reporting period.
These include investigations
of alleged criminal violations
which may result in
prosecution and conviction,
investigations of alleged
violations of Agency
regulations and policies, and
OIG personnel security
investigations. The Office of
Investigations tracks
investigations in the
following categories:
preliminary inquiries and
investigations, joint
investigations with other
agencies, and OIG
background investigations.
Summary Of
Investigative
Activities
Pending Investigations as of
September 30, 1992 205
New Investigations Opened
This Period 125
Investigations Closed This
Period 137
Pending Investigations as of
March 31, 1993 193
Prosecutive and
Administrative
Actions
In this period, investigative
efforts resulted in 6 convictions
and 6* indictments. Fines and
recoveries, including those
associated with civil actions,
amounted to $13.2 million.
Eighteen administrative
actions** were taken as a
result of investigations:
Reprimands 6
Resignations/Removals 5
Suspensions 3
Other 4
Total ?8
* Does not include indictments
obtained in cases in which we
provided investigative
assistance.
** Does not include
suspensions and debarments
resulting from Office of
Investigations activities or
actions resulting from reviews
of personnel security
investigations.
Profiles Olf Pending Investigations By Type
(Total-193)
General EPA Programs
Total Cases-138
Superfund And LUST
Total Cases-55
Other-14
Other-1
26
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
-------
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
October 1, 1992.
$11.6 Million
Settlement Reached
in Pennsylvania
Superfund Case
Chemical Waste Management
(CWM), Inc., of Oak Brook,
Illinois, reached an $11.6
million settlement with the
Government in October 1992,
regarding the Lackawanna
Refuse Superfund Site in
Lackawanna County,
Pennsylvania. The $11.6
million in fines, penalties,
restitution, and costs
associated with the criminal
and civil settlement to be paid
by the company makes this
the largest environmental
crimes case ever prosecuted
under the Superfund law.
The Lackawanna site was
originally used for disposal of
municipal and commercial
refuse. In the late 1970's,
thousands of 55-gallon drums
containing hazardous
substances such as solvents,
paint thinners, sludge, organic
acids and toxic metals were
illegally dumped at the site. In
June 1987, EPA, through the
Army Corps of Engineers,
awarded CWM a contract to
clean up the site, specifying
that all drums containing over
one inch of material were to be
carefully removed from the
excavation area and placed in
85 gallon overpacks for
shipment to qualifying landfill
facilities.
CWM pleaded guilty to six
felony violations of the
Superfund law. CWM
employees knowingly and
intentionally crushed numerous
drums containing over one
inch of material in order to
speed up the project. The
hazardous substances
contained in the drums leaked
out into the environment and
contributed to the
contamination of the site.
CWM failed to report this
activity, in violation of the
Superfund law.
In addition to the monetary
settlement, CWM agreed to
terminate and/or discipline six
CWM employees; continue its
newly instituted Contracts
Compliance Program and
Environmental Compliance
Program; subject itself to EPA
audits for 3 years to ensure
compliance with the
agreement; and be subject to
debarment if it fails to strictly
adhere to its compliance
program.
The Defense Criminal
Investigative Service, U.S.
Army Criminal Investigation
Command, and Defense
Contract Audit Agency
assisted EPA OIG in
developing this case.
Superfund Contract
Laboratory Program
Investigations
The Office of Investigations
has a major investigative
initiative underway within the
Superfund program, directed at
fraud in the Contract
Laboratory Program (CLP).
Laboratory analyses under the
CLP are the empirical basis for
the entire Superfund program.
Based on testing for the
presence of hazardous
chemicals by these
laboratories, the Superfund
program decides which
cleanups to initiate and how to
carry them out. Fraudulent
analyses could result in a
danger to the public health and
safety as well as the
unnecessary expenditure of
cleanup funds. In addition,
fraudulent analyses could
hinder the Department of
Justice's efforts to collect the
cost of cleanups from the
responsible parties.
Several actions resulting
from the contract lab
investigations are described
below.
l-Chem Research and Its
President Sentenced in
Contaminated Container
Case
l-Chem Research, Inc., and
Anita C. Rudd, its president,
chief executive officer, and a
principal owner, were
sentenced in February 1993
after pleading guilty to making
a false claim to EPA for
$35,000. Also, in October
1992, Marvin W. Rudd, a co-
owner and former president of
the California research
company, pleaded guilty to two
counts of making false claims
to the Agency, totaling
approximately $50,000.
The sentence against Anita
Rudd was suspended and she
was placed on three years
probation. The conditions of
her probation require that she
pay a $50,000 fine and a $50
assessment. The sentence
against l-Chem was
suspended, the company was
placed on three years
probation, and is required to
pay a $100,000 fine and a
$100 assessment. These
fines are in addition to the
$435,000 that defendants
Anita Rudd, Marvin Rudd, and
l-Chem previously agreed to
pay the Department of Justice
as part of a settlement of civil
claims related to the case, I-
Chem and Anita Rudd had
also agreed to an 18 month
voluntary exclusion from
participating in Government
contracts or grants.
From June 1983 until
December 1987, the company,
as EPA's sole supplier under
contract, was required to
provide clean, contaminant-
free sample containers for
laboratory use, and to perform
quality control testing on the
containers. The sample
containers were used to collect
site samples for laboratory
analysis under EPA's Contract
Laboratory Program.
The investigation found that
the company had defrauded
EPA by intentionally failing to
perform the required testing
and by creating records to
disguise that fact.
EIRA Inc. of Louisiana
Pleads Guilty to Fraud
Environmental Industrial
Research Associates, Inc.
(EIRA), a Louisiana
corporation, was sentenced in
March 1993 after pleading
guilty to conspiracy to defraud
the Government. EIRA was
fined $174,000, which was
suspended, and placed on 5
years probation. As a
condition of its suspended fine
EIRA must implement a 2-year
community service program
consisting of at least 24
seminars in Louisiana,
OCTOBER 1, 1992 THROUGH MARCH 31, 1993
27
-------
Mississippi, and North Carolina
to increase industry and public
awareness of problems
associated with the quality of
analytical data produced by
laboratories. Also, EIRA must
prepare and publish a
comprehensive article to assist
the national laboratory
community in implementing a
suitable data integrity and self-
audit program.
In conjunction with the criminal
sentence, EIRA also entered
into a compliance agreement
with EPA (see page 29).
EIRA and three of its
employees pleaded guilty to
making false claims to EPA for
analyses of soil and water
samples taken from Superfund
sites. EPA requires the use of
properly calibrated Gas
Chromatograph/Mass
Spectrometer (GC/MS)
instruments in making the
analyses. EIRA, through the
employees who pleaded guilty,
manually overrode the GC/MS
instruments' calibration
readings to falsely reflect that
the instruments were properly
calibrated. By doing so, EIRA
avoided the time-consuming
process of recalibration.
However, the analytical results
that EIRA then reported to
EPA, and for which EIRA billed
the Agency, were
compromised, resulting in
EIRA's submission of false
data and false claims.
Two New York Lab
Supervisors Sentenced
Two supervisors at Nanco
Environmental Services, Inc.,
of Dutchess County, New
York, have been sentenced for
submitting false test reports to
EPA on analyses of soil and
water samples. 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. Sohail Jahani, who
pleaded guilty in May 1992 to
conspiracy to defraud EPA,
was sentenced to 3 years
probation, ordered to perform
100 hours of community
service, and fined $5,000.
James Daly, another
supervisor at Nanco, who
pleaded guilty in October 1991
to causing false submissions
to be made to EPA, received 1
year of probation and was
fined $50.
Other Cases
False Credentials Result In
Jail Time
After pleading guilty to
submitting false statements to
EPA, Christopher Tate, of
Altoona, Pennsylvania, an
owner of the Safety
Management Institute (SMI),
was sentenced in January
1993 to 2 years probation and
fined $3,000. Tate was also
sentenced to jail for ten
consecutive weekends.
Tate submitted two resume
packages to EPA, Region 3, in
which he falsely claimed both
to be a Certified Industrial
Hygienist and to hold a
Bachelor of Science degree in
chemistry. The falsified
information was submitted to
the Agency so that SMI could
be approved as a training
center under the Asbestos
Abatement Training Program.
Contractor Employee
Charged with Telephone
Abuse
An employee of a contractor at
Region 5 in Chicago has been
charged with making over
$3,600 in personal overseas
telephone calls at Government
expense. The case was
developed by the EPA OIG in
cooperation with the Federal
Protective Service Division of
the General Services
Administration and the U.S.
Immigration and Naturalization
Service.
Office Director at
Headquarters Indicted
An EPA Headquarters office
director was indicted in March
1993 and charged with
conspiracy, bank fraud, filing
false income tax returns,
money laundering, and making
false statements to Federal
agents.
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 Internal
Revenue Service, the Federal
Bureau of Investigation, the
Defense Criminal Investigative
Service, Department of
Defense Inspector General,
the United States Postal
Inspection Service, and the
EPA OIG.
Headquarters Employee
Guilty in Jury Duty Scam
In November 1992, an EPA
Headquarters employee
pleaded guilty of submitting
false statements and theft of
government property. In
January 1993, the employee
was sentenced to 2 years
probation. As a special
condition to the probation, she
was ordered to serve 3 months
in jail and pay EPA restitution
of $5,960.
The investigation by the OIG
determined that, in late 1991,
the employee received a
notice for jury duty for 2
weeks. The employee altered
the form so that it appeared
that she would be needed for
6 months of jury service in
1992. The Agency excused
the employee from work for 6
months with pay, when, in fact,
the employee actually served
on a petit jury for only seven
days and took four months off
from work, receiving nearly
$6,000 in salary during that
time. The woman's
employment at EPA has been
terminated.
Chicago Employee
Convicted in Time Card
Fraud Case
An EPA Region 5 employee in
Chicago resigned in March
1993, after her August 1992
conviction in Cook County
Circuit Court on a
misdemeanor theft charge, in
addition to her admission to
falsifying her time card.
The employee, a division
secretary responsible for
obtaining cash travel advances
and airline tickets for official
travel by division staff, stole
portions of their cash
advances. The secretary
altered the office copy of the
travel authorizations to reflect
that less than the full advance
was approved and disbursed
by the Region 5 imprest
cashier. The employee also
falsified one of her time cards
by deleting 20 hours charged
to annual leave.
As a result of the guilty plea
in the county court, the
employee was sentenced to 1
year of court supervision.
Contract Specialist Loses
Job
In October 1992, a contract
specialist was terminated from
employment with EPA based
on her falsification of
information on two SF-171's,
Application for Federal
Employment, submitted to the
Agency.
The investigation determined
that the employee failed to
disclose a prior felony
conviction for defrauding an
insurance company in Florida.
In addition to the undisclosed
criminal record, there was an
outstanding warrant for her
arrest issued after she failed to
appear for sentencing following
the felony conviction.
28
-------
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, 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.
Government's allegations that
ChemWest had engaged in
fraudulent data manipulation.
Environmental Industrial
Research Associates
Working with EPA's
Suspension and Debarment
Division, the IGD negotiated a
compliance agreement with
Environmental Industrial
Research Associates, Inc.
(EIRA) as part of the global
resolution of a laboratory fraud
case. Under the compliance
agreement EIRA agreed to
repay EPA approximately
$160,000, which includes
approximately $56,000 for the
Office of Inspector General's
costs of investigating EIRA's
fraud. Under the compliance
agreement EIRA is obligated
to make full restitution to EPA,
enforce its data integrity
program, provide ethics
training to all laboratory
employees involved in data
analysis, employ a full-time
compliance officer, and
establish a hotline to receive
anonymous reports of
violations. EIRA's promise to
make restitution of
approximately $160,000 has
been made part of EIRA's
criminal sentence.
Two Testing Firms
Agree to Pay
Government
ChemWest Analytical
Laboratories
The IGD, working with EPA's
Office of Regional Counsel for
Region 9 and the United
States Attorney's Office for the
Eastern District of California,
finalized a civil settlement
agreement with ChemWest
Analytical Laboratories, Inc.
(ChemWest). Under the
agreement ChemWest paid
$500,000 to resolve the
OCTOBER 1, 1992 THROUGH MARCH 31, 1993
29
-------
Section 4-Fraud Prevention And Management Improvements
This section describes
several activities of the
Office of Inspector General
to promote economy and
efficiency and to prevent
and detect fraud, waste, and
abuse in the administration
of EPA programs and
operations. This section
includes information
required by statute,
recommended by Senate
report, or deemed
appropriate by the Inspector
General.
Review of
Legislation and
Regulations
Section 4(a)(2) of the Inspector
General Act of 1978, as
amended, directs the Office of
Inspector General to review
existing and proposed
legislation and regulations
relating to Agency programs
and operations to determine
their effect on economy and
efficiency and the prevention
and detection of fraud and
abuse. During this semiannual
reporting period, we reviewed
one legislative and 68
regulatory items. The most
significant items reviewed are
summarized below.
Proposed Regulatory
Flexibility
Amendments Act of
1993(H.R. 830)
We reviewed and commented
on the Small Business
Administration's (SBA) draft
position on H.R. 830, the
proposed Regulatory Flexibility
Amendments Act of 1993.
The Regulatory Flexibility
Act of 1980 (Act) requires
Federal agencies to consider
the economic impact their
regulations will have on small
entities. Under the Act's
provisions, agencies are
required to conduct a
regulatory flexibility analysis if
a rule will have a significant
economic impact on a
substantial number of small
entities so that alternatives can
be considered to accomplish
the objectives of the applicable
statutes while minimizing the
cost to small businesses. SBA
maintains that, although the
Act has helped to assure that
the effect of new rulemakings
on small business is properly
considered, often the burdens
on small entities have either
been underestimated or
ignored since there is no
enforcement mechanism in the
Act.
To address this concern,
H.R. 830 would require
agencies to work more closely
with the SBA's Chief Counsel
for Advocacy, who is
responsible for monitoring
compliance with the Act, by
requiring agencies to transmit
a copy of any proposed rule
30 days prior to publication in
the Federal Register, along
with a copy of the initial
regulatory flexibility analysis for
the rule or an explanation of a
determination that such an
analysis is not required. If the
Chief Counsel transmits to the
agency a written statement of
opposition to the proposed rule
within 15 days, the agency
must publish that statement,
together with its response, in
the Federal Register at the
same time the notice of
proposed rulemaking is
published. In our opinion, this
procedure would likely lead to
increased litigation, since it
would provide potential
litigants information to block or
delay proposed rules.
Accordingly, we recommended
that the proposed legislation
contain language specifying a
mechanism for resolving
interagency differences, if
possible, prior to a rule's
publication.
In addition, the SBA's draft
position referred to the lack of
an "enforcement mechanism"
for addressing the concerns of
small businesses under the
current legislation. We
recommended that SBA's
comments specifically describe
how the proposed legislation
resolves this concern.
Proposed
Amendment to EPA
Order 1900.1, Use of
Contractor Services
The purpose of EPA Order
1900.1 is to assist EPA
personnel in avoiding personal
services arrangements in
contract management
activities. Unless specifically
allowed by the Congress, it is
illegal for the Government to
contract out for the services of
people who in the course of
their work are treated as if
they were Government
employees. EPA Order
1900.1 explains the nature of a
personal services contract and
the duties and responsibilities
of EPA employees to ensure
that such relationships are
avoided.
The proposed amendment
includes specific guideJines for
communications between
Agency and contractor
employees and requirements
concerning space and
equipment for contractors
working in EPA facilities. We
supported the intent of the
amendment, but were
concerned that distribution of
the guidance would be limited
to EPA employees only.
Accordingly, we recommended
that guidance concerning
contractor employees be
distributed to the contractor
community, since these
requirements will clearly affect
them in the everyday
performance of their duties.
PCIE Whistleblower
Guide
The PCIE's Investigative
Standards and Training
Subcommittee's Hotline
Working Group developed a
proposed guide to processing
whistleblower reprisal
allegations. The document
outlined current legislation
pertaining to whistleblowers,
the purpose of such legislation,
and how it should be
implemented. It is essentially
an implementing guide for the
development of draft standard
operating procedures for
agency hotlines.
30
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAl
-------
The whistleblower paper
offered guidelines for the
handling of allegations of
reprisal, and indicated that the
processing of such complaints
is governed by the employee
status of each complainant.
While the paper provided
information on the statutes and
implementing agency
guidelines that are in force to
protect whistleblowers in
various employment capacities
(non-federal employees,
appropriated and non-
appropriated fund employees,
military personnel, and DOD
contractor employees) and the
procedures to be taken in each
instance, it was still essentially
general in nature.
We generally agreed with
the paper's approach to
handling hotline calls, with the
following reservations. We
were concerned about an
apparent discrepancy between
language in the paper which
stated that non-Federal
employees have no statutory
protection against reprisals
and an attachment that lists
several statutes designed to
protect public or private
employees from reprisal. We
recommended a correction or
clarification of this issue. In
addition, the procedures
outlined for processing
referrals of appropriated fund
employees were somewhat
unclear. We suggested
modifying the language and
revising the format of that
section to avoid confusion
among those handling such
calls.
Suspension and
Debarment
Activities
EPA's policy is to do business
only with contractors and
grantees who are honest and
responsible. EPA enforces
this policy by suspending or
debarring contractors or
grantees from further EPA
contracts or assistance if there
has been a conviction of, or
civil judgment for:
• commission of a fraud or a
criminal offense in connection
with obtaining, attempting to
obtain, or performing a public
contract or subcontract;
• violation of Federal or State
antitrust statutes relating to the
submission of offers;
• commission of
embezzlement, theft, forgery,
bribery, falsification or
destruction of records, making
a false statement, or receiving
stolen property; or
• commission of any other
offense indicating a lack of
business integrity or business
honesty that seriously and
directly affects the present
responsibility of a Government
contractor or subcontractor.
A contractor may also be
debarred for violating the
terms of a Government
contract or subcontract, such
as willful failure to perform in
accordance with the terms of
one or more contracts, or a
history of failure to perform, or
of unsatisfactory performance
on one or more contracts. A
contractor may also be
debarred for any other cause
of so serious or compelling a
nature that it affects the
present responsibility of the
contractor. Thus, a contractor
need not have committed fraud
or been convicted of an
offense to warrant being
debarred. Debarments are to
be for a period commensurate
with the seriousness of the
cause, but are generally not to
exceed 3 years.
The effectiveness of the
suspension and debarment
(S&D) program has been
enhanced by regulations that
provide all Federal agencies a
uniform system for debarring
contractors from receiving
work funded by Federal grants,
loans, or cooperative
agreements. The system,
required by Executive Order
12549, provides that a
nonprocurement debarment or
suspension by one agency is
effective in all agencies and
requires the General Services
Administration (GSA) to
publish monthly a "List of
Parties Excluded from Federal
Procurement or
Nonprocurement Programs."
Formerly, a nonprocurement
debarment was effective only
in the programs administered
by the debarring agency, and
each agency maintained its
own list. The EPA Office of
Grants and Debarment (OGD)
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
OGD 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 12 suspensions, 19
debarments and 6 compliance
agreements, a total of 37
actions.
The following are examples:
• At the request of EPA's
Office of General Counsel
(OGC), Inspector General
Divisjon (IGD), EPA
suspended Caribe General
Constructors, Inc. (Caribe);
Osvaldo J. Ortiz, its president;
and Jose M. Bonnin, its vice
president for operations. An
OIG investigation indicated
that Caribe had submitted
false claims to EPA in
connection with the
construction of an EPA-funded
sanitary sewer system in
Ponce, Puerto Rico.
• Stevens Analytical
Laboratories, Inc. (SAL) and a
related company, Stevens
Environmental Technology,
Inc. (SET), under an
agreement negotiated by
OGC's IGD, voluntarily
consented to debarment from
participation in Federal
assistance, loan, and benefit
programs and activities for 3
years. SAL and SET had
previously been suspended,
based on an indictment of SAL
and its president, Alan
Stevens, for providing false
and fictitious analyses of
drinking water and waste water
samples. Further, based on
Alan Stevens' conviction for
mail fraud, EPA proposed to
debar Mr. Stevens, who had
previously been suspended by
EPA.
• Robert Q. Bradley was
debarred by EPA for 3 years
following his conviction for
making false statements. His
2 year prison sentence was
suspended, but he was fined
$1,000. Mr. Bradley made
false certifications on a
contract laboratory program
data package which indicated
that water samples for EPA
were analyzed within a
prescribed holding time. Some
of the samples whose holding
times had expired had been
analyzed on testing
instruments that had been
backdated to make it appear
that the samples had been
analyzed within the prescribed
holding time.
• Pipex Inc., and C. Square
Inc., of Kansas, along with
James and Elizabeth
O'Connor, were debarred by
EPA for 3 years. The
O'Connors formed Pipex to
sell materials used in the
construction of municipal water
systems and waste water
treatment plants. At the time
the O'Connors formed Pipex,
James O'Connor was under
OCTOBER 1, 1992 THROUGH MARCH 31, 1993
31
-------
contract to sell water works
materials exclusively for
Midwest Pipe Fabrications Inc.
O'Connor bid against Midwest
on EPA-funded projects, using
bribes and confidential
information he obtained as a
salesman for Midwest. A civil
judgment was entered against
Pipex Inc. and the O'Connors
for violation of the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt
Organization Act. As a result,
James O'Connor was held
liable for damages of
$745,500, and the O'Connors
and Pipex were held jointly
and severally liable for
$325,000.
• EPA debarred Ivan Clay
Kimbrough for 3 years. Mr.
Kimbrough, a contract
computer operator assigned to
the Information Management
Branch, Office of Policy and
Management, EPA Region 4,
pleaded guilty of violating the
Georgia Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organization Act
and was sentenced to 5 years
in jail.
• EPA debarred Carol H.
Byington, Executive Vice
President and Chief Operating
Officer of MetaTrace Inc., for 7
years. Initially MetaTrace,
located in Earth City, Missouri,
reported a limited falsification
of test data by first line
supervisors and a small
number of technicians working
in the gas chromatograph
laboratory. Laboratory
personnel had falsified and
fraudulently submitted
computer-generated test data
on pesticides/polychlorinated
biphenyls to EPA. Also,
pesticides analyses for certain
samples submitted to EPA
were not performed in
compliance with the protocols
required by EPA contracts.
Evidence showed the company
normally falsified test data, and
Ms. Byington instructed
supervisors on falsifying test
data and records. She was
convicted of making false
statements and
representations.
Congressional
Testimony by the
Inspector General
On March 29, 1993, the IG
testified before the
Subcommittee on Legislation
and National Security and the
Subcommittee on
Environment, Energy and
Natural Resources, House
Committee on Government
Operations, on elevating EPA
to cabinet level status. While
fully supporting this initiative,
the IG discussed significant
problems confronting EPA in
its management of extramural
resources (contracts,
cooperative agreements, and
interagency agreements),
information resources
management, financial
management, and internal
control systems. The IG
stated that these areas of
concern were not in need of
new legislation as a remedy.
In his view, the Chief Financial
Officers Act, the Federal
Managers' Financial Integrity
Act, the Federal Grant and
Cooperative Agreement Act,
the Competition in Contracting
Act, Office of Management and
Budget circulars, and EPA
regulations provide sufficient
legislative authorities and
administrative guidance that a
strong EPA management team
can use successfully to
address the problems.
OIG Management
Initiatives
This section discusses OIG
initiatives to promote
management and financial
improvements and integrity in
EPA's operations. During this
semiannual period, we are
highlighting OIG efforts to
conduct financial audits of EPA
contracts.
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. Two new
branch offices were
established while the OIG
continued to conduct
significant financial audits of
the 14 contractors over which
it has cognizance and work
with DCAA to reduce audit
backlog. The OIG also worked
with the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB), EPA's
Office of Acquisition
Management (OAM), and other
Federal agencies to complete
the OMB SWAT Team effort
on civilian agency contracting,
implement the
recommendations of the EPA
SWAT Team, and improve the
Federal Acquisition Regulation
which governs Government
contracting.
The OIG established branch
offices in the Cincinnati, OH,
and Washington, DC, areas to
perform financial audits of EPA
contractors. Both offices will
have OIG staff on-site at major
EPA contractor facilities. The
Cincinnati, OH, office will also
include performance auditors.
Close coordination between
financial and performance
auditors will enhance reviews
of EPA operations by helping
ensure that contracting
activities are efficiently covered
in those audits. The new
offices will also facilitate close
coordination between auditors
and investigators and thereby
enhance the efficiency of
reviews of potentially
fraudulent activities.
The OMB SWAT Team
report was completed with the
participation of the OIG in the
project management group.
The EPA SWAT Team,
composed of representatives
of EPA OAM and the OIG,
developed 38 of the 115
Government-wide and 41 of a
total 136 Agency-specific
recommendations presented in
the OMB SWAT Team report.
The Government-wide
recommended improvements
include changes to the Federal
cost principles governing
employee morale and
entertainment costs, insurance
costs and contingent fees.
The corrective actions
identified will significantly
improve Federal cost principles
and EPA cost review
procedures. The OIG assisted
EPA OAM in the development
and implementation of its
action plan to address the
issues identified in the EPA
SWAT Team report. OIG
involvement in Government
contracting has also included
commenting on contemplated
changes to the Federal
Acquisition Regulation
concerning service contracting
and Cost Accounting
Standards coverage
thresholds.
OIG Training Catalog
To help OIG supervisors
identify and select appropriate
development opportunities for
members of their staffs, we
have issued the FY 1993
edition of the OIG training
catalog. This catalog
describes national CPA
training sources, lists video
tapes available, and provides
schedules of over 97 courses
that are included in the OIG
career profiles for auditors,
investigators, and support
staff. For the first time, the
catalog was provided to the
field offices on a diskette.
Total Quality Management
The Office of Inspector
General has adopted the
management philosophy
known as Total Quality
32
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
-------
Management (TQM). A
Quality Council consisting of
the Deputy Inspector General,
the three Assistant Inspectors
General, and the Quality
Coordinator directs the TQM
process within the OIG. Also,
the Deputy Inspector General
participates as a member of
EPA's Deputy Leadership
Team. Quality Action Teams
(QAT) have been established
within OIG to improve training,
recruiting, data gathering and
sharing, and processing of
interagency agreements.
During this reporting period, a
new QAT was created to
examine the distribution of
administrative and secretarial
assignments. In addition to
the teams within OIG, OIG
employees are members of
Headquarters and Regional
Quality Action Teams seeking
to improve processes such as
performance management,
employees recognition and
awards, audit followup,
procurement, and
implementation of the Chief
Financial Officers Act.
During this reporting period
OIG's TQM facilitators
provided 1-day awareness
training in Dallas, Texas, for
10 employees, and 2-day TQM
"tools" training to 33 OIG
members of Quality Action
Teams.
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
(OMB), 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. During this six month
period, the Committee
completed the transfer of
responsibility for distribution of
PCIE publications to the
National Technical Information
Service (NTIS) of the
Department of Commerce.
NTIS is the largest single
source for public access to
federally-produced information.
It provides a centralized
information management
system that can store,
process, and distribute
publications. The cost of each
publication ordered from NTIS
is paid for by the requestor.
An advantage of using NTIS to
distribute PCIE publications is
that they will be made
permanently available and
become part of the NTIS
computerized bibliographic
database. NTIS believes that
PCIE publications may be of
interest to a wide untapped
audience.
The second symposium for
Assistant Inspectors General
for Administration was held in
November 1992. The topic
was "Contracting for Audit
Support." This symposium,
conducted under the auspices
of the Internal Operations
Committee, provides an
opportunity to exchange ideas,
problems, and solutions
regarding many administrative
issues of common interest.
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.
A Brief Guide for New
Executives
As Federal employees,
executives represent the
Government to many people
and their actions must always
be beyond reproach. To guide
them in this effort, a significant
number of rules have been
developed. To actively
promote the highest degree of
integrity in EPA, the CIMI
developed a booklet designed
to briefly cover many of the
main areas on which
executives need to focus their
attention. The booklet
discusses standards of
conduct, financial disclosure
requirements, prohibited use of
personnel, employment
principles, contract
management, the procurement
of products and services, and
travel policies and regulations.
The booklet highlights the
need for executives to comply
with the rules to ensure that
Government business is
conducted properly, and that
the high ethical standards of
public service are met.
OCTOBER 1, 1992 THROUGH MARCH 31, 1993
33
-------
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
IG Hotlines to make
suggestions for improving the
Government and saving
money. Attended operating
hours were expanded to serve
the needs of the public.
During this period, the
Hotline referred 4,587
telephone callers to the
appropriate EPA program
office, State agency, or other
Federal agency for assistance.
The OIG Hotline opened 36
new cases and completed and
closed 31 cases. Of the cases
closed, 8 resulted in
environmental, prosecutive, or
administrative corrective
action, while 23 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 inspector for a State
agency used undue influence
to secure a subcontract on an
EPA-funded project for a
company in which the
inspector had a financial
interest. In addition, the
complainant stated that the
inspector falsified records so
that the company could obtain
funds in excess of the contract
price. A review of the
complaint disclosed violations
which resulted in the State
taking action against three
individuals. The inspector
resigned rather than be
terminated, another State
official was suspended without
pay for 8 weeks, and a third
State official pleaded guilty to
a misdemeanor and was
suspended without pay for 12
weeks.
• A complainant alleged that
an employee inflated two local
travel claims and received
payment. A review of the
complaint disclosed that the
employee had submitted 2
fraudulent local travel claims.
As a result, the employee was
liable under the Program
Fraud Civil Remedies Act and
was penalized 10 times the
amount of the fraud.
• A complainant alleged that a
company was fraudulently
violating vehicle emission and
safety laws. A review of the
complaint disclosed that the
company had tampered with
emission control equipment.
As a result, a notice of
violation was issued to the
company for 11 tampering
violations and the company
was fined $16,500.
Personnel
Security Program
The personnel security
program is one of the
Agency's first-line defenses
against fraud. The program
uses background
investigations and National
Agency Checks and Inquiries
to review the integrity of EPA
employees and contractors.
During this semiannual
reporting period, the Personnel
Security Staff reviewed 455
investigations.
34
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
-------
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 AN
THE DOLLAR VALUE OF RECOMMENDATIONS THAT FUNDS BE PUT TO BETTER USE.
Questioned Costs
Assignment
Control Number
Title
Final Report
Issued
Ineligible
Costs
Unsupported
Costs
Unnecessary/
Unreasonable
Costs
Recommendec
Efficiencies
(Funds Be Pul
To Better Use
1. INTERNAL & MANAGEMENT ASSIGNMENTS
Office of the Administrator
E1SFF2-11-0019-3100095 SUPERFUND REPORT TO CONGRESS
FISCAL 1991
21 4/93
E6AMG2-13-2052-3400035 PROCUREMENT ACTIVITIES BY OFFICIALS
IN THE OFFICE OF COMMUNICATION,
EDUCATION AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS 3/26/93
E6AMG3-15-0071-3400042 OFFICE OF COMMUNICATION, EDUCATION
AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS COMPLIANCE
WITH FEDERAL COPYRIGHT LAWS
PROTECTING COMPUTER SOFTWARE 3/31/93
Assistant Administrator for Administration and Resources Management
E1XMG3- 24-0024-3400024
E1XMG3-03-0044-3400029
E1MXG2-13-0046-3400033
E1AHP2-20-0019-3400039
P1SFF1-11-0027-3100058
E1SKC1-06-0123-3100143
P1SFFO-11-0041-3100114
ERA'S ENERGY MANAGEMENT AND
CONSERVATION PROGRAM
NEW RESTRICTIONS ON LOBBYING
EPA'S ADMINISTRATION OF THE
FEDERAL EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION
ACT
2/22/93
3/ 8/93
3/24/93
OIL SPILL TRUST FUND FISCAL 1992 3/29/93
DECADE OF SUPERFUND TRUST FUND
AUDITS
MANAGEMENT OF SUPERFUND SUPPORT
CONTRACTS
EPA'S SUPERFUND INDIRECT COST
RATES FOR FISCAL YEARS 1987
AND 1988
M 4/93
3/26/93
2/24/93
Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response
E1SJE2-02-0063-3100152 CAPPING REPORT ON WHETHER EPA HAS
MAXIMIZED THE USE OF POTENTIALLY
RESPONSIBLE PARTIES TO EFFECT
SUPERFUND SITE CLEANUPS 3/31/93
Assistant Administrator for Prevention. Pesticides and Toxic Substances
E1EPF2-06-6131-3100097
E1EPG2-05-6008-3400030
E1EPP2-15-7001-3400043
PESTICIDES IMPORTS PROGRAM
FOLLOWUP REVIEW 2/10/93
EPA'S EMERGENCY SUSPENDED AND
CANCELED PESTICIDES PROGRAM
FOLLOWUP REVIEW 3/26/93
EDP INTERNAL CONTROLS FOR SELECTED
PESTICIDE REVOLVING FUNDS
INFORMATION SYSTEMS 3/31/93
OCTOBER 1, 1992 THROUGH MARCH 31, 1993
-------
Assignment
Control Number
Title
Questioned Costs _ . .
Recommended
Final Report Ineligible Unsupported Unnecessary/ Efficiencies
Issued Costs Costs Unreasonable (Funds Be Put
Costs To Better Use)
Assistant Administrator for Research and Development
E1XMG2-04-0102-3400007 CONTRACTING ACTIVITIES AT ORD'S
ATHENS LAB 11/30/92
E1BMG2-01-0372-3400006 CONTRACTING ACTIVITIES AT ORD'S
NARRAGANSETT LAB 12/ 2/92
E1JBG2-10-0080-3400019 CONTRACTING ACTIVITIES AT ORD'S
CORVALLIS LAB 2/ 3/93
E1JBP3-24-0019-3400025 CONTRACTING ACTIVITIES AT ORD'S
AEERL LAB 2/26/93
E1JBG2-09-0329-3400041 CONTRACTING ACTIVITIES AT ORD'S
EMSL LAB 3/31/93
E1JBF2-04-0300-3100156 ORD'S ATHENS LAB MANAGEMENT OF
EXTRAMURAL RESOURCES 3/31/93
E6ABF2-11-0032-3100153 ORD'S USE OF COOPERATIVE RESEARCH
AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS 3/31/93
Office of the Comptroller
E1RMG2-11-0052-3400023 EPA 1992 FMFIA ACTIVITIES 2/19/93
Office of Acquisition Management
E1BMF2-11-0050-3100089 ADVISORY AND ASSISTANT CONTRACTS 1/29/93
Regional Administrator. Region 3
E1HWF1-03-0339-3100111 PROJECT CERTIFICATION PROGRAM OF
UASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS -
REGION 3 2/23/93
E6ASG3-03-0023-3400003 RCRA ENFORCEMENT ACTION 11/ 9/92
Regional Administrator. Region 7
E1RMF2-07-0134-3100H8 FMFIA ACTIVITIES - REGION 7 3/30/93
Regional Administrator. Region 1
E1HWF2-01-0100-3100035 ESTUARY PROGRAM - REGION 1 11/18/92
E1HWG3-01-0023-3400034 ENFORCEMENT OF THE SURFACE 3/25/93
WATER TREATMENT RULE
Regional Administrator. Region 2
E1HWD3-02-0018-3400010 SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT
PRIMACY ACTIVITIES - REGION 2 12/22/92
E1SJG2-02-5000-3400005 POST-SETTLEMENT FOLLOWUP 11/24/92
Regional Administrator. Region 8
E1SGG2-14-0016-3400018 UHITEWOOD CREEK RI/FS REVIEW 1/28/93
Regional Administrator. Region 10
36
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
-------
Questioned Costs
Assignment Title
Control Number
Final Report
Issued
Ineligible
Costs
Unsupported
Costs
Unnecessary/
Unreasonable
Costs
Efficiencies
(Funds Be Put
To Better Use)
E6EWN2-10-0020-3300012 REVIEW OF ALASKA'S SAFE DRINKING
WATER ACT ACTIVITIES
TOTAL INTERNAL & MANAGEMENT AUDITS
2. CONSTRUCTION GRANT AUDITS
D2CWL3-01 -01 16-3100140 CONCORD
S2CWLO-01 -0130-3100030 MWRA
S2CWLO-01 -0293-3100098 CONCORD
TOTAL OF REGION 01 = 3
D2CWL3-02-0030-3100021 NYCDEP - NORTH RIVER
D2CWL3-02-0031-3100022 NYCDEP - OAKWOOD BEACH
E2CWM1 -02-0018-3200002 PAWLING JT SEWER
E2CWMO-02-0275-3200003 FALLSBURG
E2CWM1- 02- 00 11 -3200009 ONONDAGA
E2CWMO-02-0300-3200010 TRI -MUNICIPAL SEWER
E2CWM1- 02- 001 0-320001 3 THOMPSON
E2CWM1 -02-0087-3200043 SAUGERTIES
E2AWT3-02-0016-3400002 EARLY WARNING-RED HOOK WPCP
P2EUQ1 -02-0104-31001 18 NYCDEP
TOTAL OF REGION 02 = 10
P2CWM9-03-0363-3200041 BALTIMORE MAYOR & CTY COUN
P2CWN9-03-0019-3300003 HOPEWELL CITY OF
P2CWNO-03-0412-3300005 ALLEGHENY CTY SANI DIST
P2CWNO-03-0104-3300013 PARKERSBURG CITY OF
P2CWN9-03-0256-3300026 BALTIMORE MAYOR & CTY COUN
TOTAL OF REGION 03 = 5
E2CWM2-04-0425-3200001 HUNTSVILLE
E2CWM2-04-0160-3200035 PRICHARD
E2CUM2-04-0417-3200036 GREENVILLE
E2CWM3-04-0054-3200037 ANDALUSIA
E2CUM2-04-0289-3200038 UNION SPRINGS UTIL. BOARD
E2CWM2-04-0320-3200039 02ARK UTILITIES BOARD
E2CWM3-04-0085-3200040 ANNISTON WWSB
E2CWM3-04-0033-3200042 CULLMAN
E2CWN1 -04-0417-3300006 GARNER
E2CWNO-04-0399-3300015 FT LAUDERDALE
P2CWNO-04-0392-3300011 ORLANDO
TOTAL OF REGION 04 = 11
E2CWL3-05-0121 -3100141 CLEVELAND NEORSD
P2CWP7-05-0079-3400038 FLINT
TOTAL OF REGION 05 = 2
E2CWN1 -06-0139-3300014 ST TAMMANY PARISH SEW DIS 7
E2CWN1 -06-0155-3300025 KENNER
P2CUN2-06-0088-3300024 TULSA
TOTAL OF REGION 06 = 3
P2CWN2-07-0183-3300027 DES MOINES
P2BWN2-07-0184-3300029 DES MOINES
TOTAL OF REGION 07 = 2
E2CUN1 -08-0095-3300009 LAPLATA COUNTY
E2CWN7-08-0139-3300028 CASPER
P2CWL8-08-0104-3100144 NORTHGLENN
=
NH
MA
MA
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
MD
VA
MD
WV
MD
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
NC
FL
FL
OH
MI
LA
LA
OK
IA
IA
CO
wr
CO
2/10/93
32
3/24/93
11/17/92
2/10/93
11/ 3/92
11/ 3/92
IV 2/92
11/17/92
12/17/92
12/22/92
1/28/93
3/29/93
10/28/92
3/ 2/93
3/25/93
IV 4/92
11/10/92
2/10/93
3/25/93
10/27/92
3/ 9/93
3/17/93
3/19/93
3/19/93
3/19/93
3/24/93
3/26/93
11/23/92
2/18/93
2/ 4/93
3/26/93
3/29/93
2/17/93
3/24/93
3/19/93
3/29/93
3/29/93
1/29/93
3/29/93
3/29/93
184,928
77,041
261,969
19,447
24,693
1,534,439
2,495,355
344,247
1,649,932
958,042
688,654
1,337,198
9,052,007
779,784
588,283
378,702
1,856,114
2,375,318
5,978,201
184,224
36,829
19,666
34,902
63,069
50,332
122,944
87,692
479,707
8,743
2,914,127
4,002,235
1,157,669
891,778
2,049,447
0
962,313
0
962,313
74,328
60,635
134,963
163,574
0
360,939
0
0
0
721,541
0
0
0
0
0
4,642
170,607
6,380,330
7,277,120
30,949
326,419
1,678,345
0
547,877
2,583,590
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2,375,049
136,516
0
2,511,565
9,041,738
189,244
9,230,982
17,852
22,697
11,320
51,869
0
200,209
200,209
74,742
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
367,177
0
367,177
27,664,633
11,640
27,676,273
133,350
0
175,026
308,376
0
0
0
0
4,810,578
0
89,663
89,663
TOTAL OF REGION 08
524,513
74,742
4,810,578
OCTOBER 1, 1992 THROUGH MARCH 31, 1993
37
-------
Questioned Costs
Assignment Title
Control Number
E2CWMO-09-0291 -3200028 NIPOMO COMM SERV. DIST.
E2CWM1- 09- 0035 -3200034 TURLOCK. CITY OF
E2CWN1 -09-0034-3300017 BANNING, CITY OF
E2AWT2-09-0333-3400016 LAKEPORT SD MIDDLETOWN
E2AWT3-09-0082-3400037 SAN DIEGO, CITY OF
S2CUN9-09-0028-3300010 SACRAMENTO RCSD
S2CWNO-09-0242-3300022 SAUSLITO MAR IN CSD
S2CWN2-09-0046-3300023 WATSONVILLE, CITY OF
S2CWNO-09-0077-3300031 FRESNO, CITY OF
TOTAL OF REGION 09 = 9
P2CWN1-10-0030-3300021 ROSEBURG URBAN SD
P2CWNO- 10-0008-3300030 CHEHAL1S, CITY OF
TOTAL OF REGION 10 = 2
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION GRANT AUDITS
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
OR
UA
=
Final Report
Issued
2/11/93
3/ 3/93
2/23/93
1/21/93
3/29/93
21 1/93
3/16/93
3/18/93
3/29/93
3/11/93
3/29/93
50
Ineligible
Costs
33.927
63,076
0
1,049,052
793,961
390,764
1,090,822
3,421,602
94,535
89,388
183,923
26,571,173
Unsupported
Costs
0
0
1,392,714
1,968,584
0
0
0
3,361,298
0
0
0
25,291,375
Unnecessary/
Unreasonable
Costs
3,640,207
0
0
0
6,017,921
19,993,784
325,076
29,976,988
0
0
0
63,139,392
nct*uniiiidiui;i
Efficiencies
(Funds Be Put
To Better Use
935,000
11,800,000
12,735,000
12,824,663
3. OTHER GRANT AUDITS
C3HVK2-01 -0375-3500178
G3HVK2-01 -0364-3500026
G3HVK2-01 -0360-3500027
G3HVK2-01-0371-3500126
G3HVK2-01 -0370-3500138
G3HVK3-01 -0041 -3500186
G3HVK3-01-0051-3500187
G3HVK3-01 -0059-3500194
G3HVK3-01 -0056-3500226
G3HVK3-01 -0065-3500281
G3HVK3-01 -0066-3500325
G3HVK3-01 -0085-3500358
G3HVK3-01 -0086-3500412
G3HVK3- 01 -0084-3500460
G3HVK1 -01 -0123-3500461
G3HVK3-01 -0094-3500465
N3HVJ2-01 -0255-3500127
N3HVJ2-01 -0374-3500137
N3HVK2-01 -0330-3500180
N3HVK2-01 -0210-3500188
N3HUK3-01 -0047-3500192
N3HVK3-01-0070-3500326
N3HVK1 -01 -0213-3500456
N3HVK3-01 -0109-3500457
TOTAL OF
C3HVK3-02-0092-3500266
G3HVK3- 02 -002 1-3500041
G3HVK3-02-0026-3500042
G3HVK3-02-0027-3500043
G3HVK3-02-0023-3500051
G3HVK3-02-0081 -3500134
G3HVK3-02-0084-3500156
G3HVK3-02-0089-3500221
G3HVK3 - 02-0096- 3500255
G3HVK3-02-0097-3500259
G3HVK3-02-0104-3500260
G3HVK3-02-0106-3500268
G3HVK3-02-01 15-3500392
G3HVK3-02-0117-3500411
G3HVK3-02-0122-3500448
G3HVK3-02-0123-3500449
N3HVK2-02-0142-3500040
N3HVK3-02-0029-3500075
N3HVK2-02-0149-3500135
N3HVK2-02-0151 -3500136
N3HUK3-02-0017-3500157
N3HVK2-02-0154-3500256
N3HVK3-02-0045-3500270
N3HVK3- 02- 0091 -3500329
N3HVK3-02-01 12-3500330
PITTSFIELD MA
FAIRHAVEN MA
GARDNER MA
PRESQUE ISLE SEWER DISTRICT ME
ORLEANS, BREUSTER, EASTHAM MA
MATTAUAMKEAG TOWN OF ME
PLYMOUTH CT
CT HAZARDOUS WASTE MGT SER CT
RI CLEAN WATER PROTECTION AGRI
WALPOLE, TOWN OF MA
DOVER, CITY OF NH
WALLINGFORD, TOWN OF CT
MANCHESTER CITY OF NH
MASS WATER POLLUTION TRUST MA
DUDLEY MA
NORTH HAVEN, TOWN OF CT
MASSACHUSETTS, STATE MA
OCVERMONT, STATE OF VT
CHATHAM MA
AMERICAN METEOROLOGICAL SOC.MA
AMERICAN METEOROLOGICAL SOC MA
STRAFFORD REGIONAL PLAN.COMMNH
NORTHAMPTON MA
MAINE AUDUBON SOCIETY ME
REGION 01 = 24
BINGHAMTON NY
BERGEN COUNTY UA NJ
OXFORD NY
LOVE CANAL AREA REVITALIZATINY
MANASQUAN RIVER RSA NJ
SALEM NJ
PORT WASHINGTON WPCD NY
MIDDLETOWN NY
BOLIVAR NY
MIDDLESEX COUNTY UA NJ
DELAWARE RIVER BASIN COMM NJ
HUDSON REGIONAL HEALTH COMM NJ
FLORHAM PARK SA NJ
OCEAN COUNTY UA NJ
GOWANDA NY
GOWANDA NY
ROCKLAND COUNTY NY
ELIZABETH NJ
MONROE COUNTY NY
NEW HARTFORD NY
RENSSALAER POLYTECHNIC INST NY
OSWEGO NY
MIDDLESEX COUNTY NJ
WESTCHESTER COUNTY NY
PR DEPT OF AGRICULTURE PR
12/ 3/92
10/ 8/92
10/ 8/92
11/16/92
11/17/92
12/10/92
12/10/92
12/11/92
12/28/92
1/22/93
2/10/93
2/19/93
3/ 9/93
3/22/93
3/22/93
3/24/93
11/16/92
11/17/92
12/ 8/92
12/10/92
12/10/92
2/10/93
3/19/93
3/19/93
1/15/93
10/27/92
10/27/92
10/27/92
10/28/92
11/17/92
11/24/92
12/21/92
1/12/93
1/14/93
1/14/93
1/20/93
3/ 1/93
3/ 9/93
3/18/93
3/18/93
10/27/92
11/ 2/92
11/17/92
11/17/92
11/24/92
1/12/93
1/20/93
2/1 V93
2/11/93
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
900
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
956
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
38
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
-------
Questioned Costs
Assignment
Control Number
Title
Final Report
Issued
Ineligible
Costs
Unsupported
Costs
Unnecessary/
Unreasonable
Costs
Recommended
Efficiencies
(Funds Be Put
To Better Use)
N3HVK2-02-0113-3500331
N3HVK3-02-0088-3500447
N3HVK3-02-0093-3500471
N3HVK3-02-0090-3500472
N3HVK3-02-0024-3500473
NEW YORK STATE
ST REGIS MOHAWK TRIBE
NORWICH
KINGSTON
NEW JERSEY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NJ
TOTAL OF REGION 02
30
C3HVK2-03-0475-3500029 BALTIMORE COUNTY
C3HVK3-03-0048-3500172 WASHINGTON COUNTY
C3HVK3-03-0059-3500214 VA RESOURCES AUTHORITY
C3HVK2-03-0570-3500241 ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY
C3HVK3-03-0080-3500244 CARROLL COUNTY
C3HVK3-03-0118-3500304 HARFORD COUNTY
C3HVK3-03-0118-3500305 HARFORD COUNTY
C3HVK3-03-0084-3500480 SUSSEX COUNTY
C3HVK3-03-0193-3500485 FAIRFAX COUNTY
E3FMP2-03-0364-3400017 OSDBU-NAMC
G3HVK3-03-0047-3500084 SUSQUEHANNA RIVER BASIN
G3HVK3-03-0060-3500168 PLUM BOROUGH SEWAR AUTH
G3HVK3-03-0061-3500169 BOONSBORO
G3HVK3-03-0063-3500170 HAMPTON ROADS SANITATION
G3HVK3-03-0058-3500171 RIDGELY
G3HUK3-03-0064-3500213 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW INSTITUTE DC
G3HVK3-03-0079-3500243 CAMBRIDGE
G3HVK3-03-0115-3500298 MARIANNA-WEST BETHLEHEM
G3HVK3-03-0116-3500299 WASHINGTON SUBURBAN SANITAT MD
G3HUK3-03-0117-3500306 RESOURCES FOR THE FUTURE
G3HVK3-03-0154-3500384 WYOMING VALLEY SANITARY AUTHPA
G3HVK3-03-0155-3500385 GARRETT COUNTY
G3HVK3-03-0156-3500386 PATTERSON TOWNSHIP MA
G3HUK3-03-0157-3500387 NATIONAL ASSOC.ATTORNEYS GENDC
G3HUK2-03-0476-3500446 NAMC
G3HUK3-03-0190-3500482 NAT ASSOC ATTORNEYS GENERAL DC
G3HVK3-03-0191-3500483 JACKSON TOWNSHIP MUA
G3HVK3-03-0192-3500484 MARIANNA-WEST BETHLEHEM
G3HVK3-03-0195-3500489 BUCKINGHAM TOWNSHIP
N3HUK3-03-0046-3500079 AMERICAN STATISTICAL ASSN
N3HVK2-03-0536-3500085 PA COMMONWEALTH OF
N3HVJ2-03-0535-3500086 VA COMMONWEALTH OF
N3HUK2-03-0573-3500099 GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY
N3HUK2-03-0532-3500100 GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY
N3HUK2-03-0533-3500101 UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND
N3HUK3-03-0049-3500212 NATIONAL COUNCIL OF SENIORS DC
N3HVK2-03-0604-3500242 WEST VIRGINIA STATE
N3HVK2-03-0091-3500307 DC DEPT OF PUBLIC WORKS
N3HVH2-03-0571-3500308 PHILADEPHIA CITY
N3HVK3-03-0081-3500381 FREDERICK CITY
N3HVK3-03-0083-3500382 HENRICO COUNTY
N3HVK3-03-0123-3500383 ALLEGHENY COUNTY
N3HVK2-03-0528-3500477 BALTIMORE CITY OF
N3HVK2-03-0524-3500478 DC DEPT OF PUBLIC WORKS
N3HVK3-03-0121-3500479 METRO WASHINGTON COG
N3HUK3-03-0194-3500488 ACADEMY OF NATURAL SCIENCES PA
TOTAL OF REGION 03 = 46
C3HVK2-04-0472-3500229 DEKALB COUNTY GA
C3HVJ3-04-0119-3500378 JEFFERSON COUNTY AL
C3HVK3-04-0128-3500391 NASHVILLE/DAVIDSON COUNTY TN
C3HVK3-04-0152-3500470 GREENSBORO NC
G3HVK2-04-0474-3500005 CLEVELAND UTILITIES TN
G3HVK2-04-0461-3500010 MUNFORD TN
G3HVK2-04-0475-3500011 ATHENS UTILITIES BOARD-SEWERTN
G3HVK3-04-0027-3500017 LAWRENCEBURG TN
G3HVK2-04-0469-3500018 ATOKA TN
G3HVK2-04-0468-3500020 MUNFORD TN
G3HVK2-04-0467-3500021 MUNFORD TN
G3HVK3-04-0026-3500022 LAWRENCEBURG TN
G3HVK2-04-0450-3500033 ATOKA TN
G3HVK2-04-0453-3500038 LAKE CITY TN
G3HVK2-04-0452-3500039 LAKE CITY TN
G3HVK2-04-0459-3500044 OLIVER SPRINGS TN
G3HVK2-04-0454-3500045 LAKE CITY TN
2/12/93
3/18/93
3/26/93
3/26/93
3/26/93
12/29/92
2/23/93
3/ 1/93
3/25/93
10/ 5/92
10/ 7/92
10/ 7/92
10/ 7/92
10/ 7/92
10/ 7/92
10/ 7/92
10/ 7/92
10/ 9/92
10/26/92
10/26/92
10/27/92
10/27/92
0
0
0
0
0
1,856
MD
MD
VA
MD
MD
MD
MD
DE
VA
DC
PA
PA
MD
VA
MD
DC
MD
PA
MD
:oc
1PA
MD
PA
JDC
DC
DC
PA
PA
PA
VA
PA
VA
DC
DC
MD
DC
WV
DC
PA
MD
VA
PA
MD
DC
DC
PA
10/ 7/92
11/30/92
12/17/92
12/31/92
12/31/92
1/28/93
1/28/93
3/30/93
3/30/93
1/25/93
11/ 4/92
11/24/92
11/24/92
11/24/92
11/25/92
12/17/92
12/31/92
1/28/93
1/28/93
1/28/93
2/26/93
2/26/93
2/26/93
2/26/93
3/17/93
3/30/93
3/30/93
3/30/93
3/30/93
11/ 3/92
11/ 4/92
11/ 4/92
1V 6/92
11/ 6/92
11/ 6/92
12/17/92
12/31/92
1/28/93
1/28/93
2/26/93
2/26/93
2/26/93
3/30/93
3/30/93
3/30/93
3/30/93
0
0
0
2,000
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
2,372,761
0
0
0
2,374.761
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
OCTOBER 1, 1992 THROUGH MARCH 31, 1993
39
-------
Assignment
Control Number
G3HVK2-04-0476-3500108
G3HVK2- 04- 0473-35001 16
G3HVK2-04-0478-3500125
G3HVK3-04-0019-3500130
G3HVK3-04-0035-3500143
G3HVK3-04-0036-3500144
G3HVK3-04-0049-3500201
G3HVK3-04-0047-3500202
G3H VK3 - 04 - 0064 - 3500228
G3HVK3-04-0074-3500231
G3HVK3-04-0050-3500236
G3 H VK3 - 04 - 0077- 3500237
G3HVK3-04-0075-3500245
G3HVK3-04-0078-3500246
G3H VK3 - 04 - 0082 - 3500247
G3HVK3-04-0098-3500249
G3HVK3-04-0091 -3500250
G3HVK3-04-0101 -3500253
G3HVK3-04-0104-3500269
G3HVK3-04-0107-3500278
G3HVK3-04-0103-3500279
G3HVK3-04-0106-3500280
G3HVK3-04-01 18-3500318
G3HVK3-04-0132-3500338
G3HV<3-04-0133-3500339
G3HVK3-04-0138-3500351
G3HVK3-04-0145-3500399
G3HVK3-04-0127-3500401
G3HVK3-04-0149-3500413
G3HVK3-04-0135-3500414
G3HVK3-04-0158-3500417
G3HVK3-04-0155-3500425
G3HVK3-04-0160-3500450
G3HV<3-04-0157-3500452
G3HVK3-04-0154-3500462
G3HVK3-04-0153-3500463
G3HVK3-04-0159-3500494
N3HVJ2-04-0401 -3500058
N3HVJ2-04-0466-3500124
N3HVK2-04-0427-3500129
N3HVK2-04-0350-3500145
N3HVK2 - 04 - 0449-3500 1 46
N3HVK2-04-0412-3500199
N3HVK2-04-0451 -3500203
N3HVIC3-04-0020-3500216
N3H VK2 - 04 - 0462 - 3500230
N3H V J 2 - 04 - 0407- 3500254
N3HUK3-04-0046-3500315
N3HUK3-04-0090-3500316
N3HUIC3-04-01 10-3500337
N3H VK3 - 04 - 0089- 3500349
N3HUK3-04-0100-3500350
N3HVK3-04-0109-3500352
N3HVK3-04-0173-3500353
N3HVJ2-04-0477-3500379
N3HVK3-04-0105-3500380
N3HVIC3-04-0136-3500400
N3HVK3-04-0097-3500402
N3HVK3-04-0147-3500403
N3HVK3-04-0156-3500415
N3HVK3-04-0164-3500416
N3HVK3-04-0150-3500426
N3HUK3-04-0120-3500440
N3HVK2-04-0481 -3500451
N3HVK3-04-0108-3500453
N3HVK3-04-0126-3500459
N3HVK3 - 04 - 0025 - 3500492
M3HUJ3-04-0163-3500493
Title
CULLMAN AL
MEDINA TN
ANNISTON WATER WORKS & SEWERAL
OLD HICKORY UTILITY DIST TN
PARRISH AL
ROGERSVILLE TN
CARYVILLE TN
SALEMBURG NC
WESTERN CAROLINA REGIONAL SESC
BENSON NC
IRVINGTON KY
UNION COUNTY NC
SMITHVILLE TN
GALLAWAY TN
LOUISVILLE MS
SPARTANBURG SANITARY SEWER SC
WASHINGTON NC
GRAND STRAND WATER & SEWER SC
NEW BERN NC
SNEEDVILLE TN
FAYETTEVILLE NC
LEXINGTON NC
BAY RIVER METROPOLITAN SEWAGNC
OZARK UTILITIES BOARD AL
CENTRAL CITY KY
SPRINGFIELD GA
STAR NC
CELINA TN
BURLINGTON NC
PILOT MOUNTAIN NC
NASHVILLE GA
CHOCOWINITY NC
CHARLESTON MS
HENDERSON NC
STALL INGS NC
STALL INGS NC
LOUISVILLE & JEFFERSON SEWERKY
SOUTH CAROLINA SC
KENTUCKY COMMON WEALTH KY
AUGUSTA GA
SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA FL
ROCK HILL SC
BROWARD COUNTY FL
SAVANNAH GA
DADE COUNTY FL
HILLSBOROUGH CO. FL
FLORIDA, STATE OF FL
NORTHERN KENTUCKY UNIVERSITYKY
WESTERN KENTUCKY UNIVERSITY KY
DUKE UNIVERSITY NC
MECKLENBURG COUNTY NC
CLEMSON UNIVERSITY SC
KNOX COUNTY TN
OKALOOSA COUNTY FL
NORTH CAROLINA STATE NC
SALISBURY NC
MANCHESTER GA
FORSYTH COUNTY NC
BELHAVEN NC
CLAYTON AL
ELIZABETH CITY NC
RALEIGH NC
LOUISVILLE UNIVERSITY OF KY
GEORGIA RESEARCH FOUNDATION GA
BUNCOMBE COUNTY NC
RESEARCH TRIANGLE INSTITUTE NC
NE REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT CTR GA
MISSISSIPPI STATE UNIVERSITYMS
Final Report
Issued
11/10/92
11/12/92
11/13/92
11/16/92
11/18/92
11/18/92
12/15/92
12/16/92
12/29/92
12/29/92
12/30/92
12/30/92
M 4/93
M 4/93
M 4/93
I/ 7/93
M 7/93
M 8/93
1/20/93
1/22/93
1/22/93
1/22/93
21 9/93
2/18/93
2/18/93
2/18/93
3/ 3/93
3/ 3/93
3/ 9/93
3/ 9/93
3/ 9/93
3/11/93
3/18/93
3/18/93
3/23/93
3/23/93
3/31/93
10/29/92
11/13/92
11/16/92
11/18/92
11/18/92
12/15/92
12/16/92
12/18/92
12/29/92
M 8/93
2/ 4/93
2/ 4/93
2/18/93
2/18/93
2/18/93
2/18/93
2/18/93
2/24/93
2/24/93
3/ 3/93
3/ 3/93
3/ 3/93
3/ 9/93
3/ 9/93
3/11/93
3/17/93
3/18/93
3/18/93
3/19/93
3/30/93
3/30/93
' — I1C«*VRF IIIW1IWU
Ineligible Unsupported Unnecessary/ Efficiencies
Costs Costs Unreasonable (Funds Be Put
Costs To Better Use)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
TOTAL OF REGION 04 = 85
40
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
-------
Questioned Costs
Assignment Title
Control Number
C3HVK2-05-0451 -3500035 GRAND RAPIDS FY 91
C3HVJ3-05-0032-3500083 FT UAYNE FY 91
C3HVJ3-05-0051 -3500155 HAMMOND FY 91
G3HVJ2-05-0425-3500036 LAKE DALECARLIA RUD FY 90/1
G3HVJ2-05-0424-3500037 LAKE DALECARLIA RWD FY 89
G3HVK2-05-0447-3500048 DOWNERS GROVE SD FY 92
G3HVJ2-05-0453-3500063 LOOGOOTEE FY 91
G3HVJ2-05-0452-3500064 BOONVILLE FY 91
G3HVK2-05-0456-3500065 N SHORE SD FY 92
G3HVK2-05-0458-3500066 E LANSING SD FY 92
G3HVJ3-05-0030-3500081 ST PAUL MWCC FY 91
G3HVK3-05-0033-3500082 AHMEEK FY 92
G3HVJ3-05-0023-3500112 DECATUR FY 91
G3HVK3-05-0025-3500113 STACY FY 91
G3HVJ3-05-0043-3500140 TOLEDO LSD FY 90
G3HVJ3-05-0040-3500141 TOLEDO LSD FY 87
G3HVJ3-05-0041 -3500142 TOLEDO LSD FY 88
G3HVJ3-05-0029-3500147 SULLIVAN FY 91
G3HVK3-05-0067-3500148 NEWAYGO FY 92
G3HVK3-05-0065-3500149 DECATUR SD FY 92
G3HVK3-05-0046-3500160 ADDISON FY 92
G3HVJ3-05-0086-3500162 BERNE FY 91
G3HVK3-05-0044-3500198 PINCKNEY FY 92
G3HVK3-05-0104-3500217 GARDEN CITY FY 92
G3HVK3-05-0102-3500218 INKSTER FY 92
G3HVK3-05-0094-3500219 COPPER HARBOR FY 92
G3HVJ3-05-0109-3500273 WANATAH FY 90/91
G3HVJ3-05-01 10-3500274 JASPER FY 91
G3HVJ3-05-01 14-3500275 MCDONALD FY 90
G3HVJ3-05-0123-3500314 RENSSELAER FY 91
G3HVJ3-05-0137-3500333 U WAYNE RSD FY 90/91
G3HVK3-05-0145-3500369 NIPC FY 92
G3HVJ3-05-0149-3500370 CLARKSVILLE FY 91
G3HVJ3-05-0144-3500371 JEFFERSONVILLE FY 91
G3HVK3-05-0151 -3500372 CINCINNATI MSD FY 91
G3HVJ3-05-0150-3500373 BAINBRIDGE FY 90/91
G3HVJ3-05-0152-3500374 TURKEY CREEK RSD FY 90/91
G3HVJ3-05-0164-3500419 COATSVILLE FY 90/91
G3HVJ3-05-0162-3500420 PALMYRA FY 90/91
G3HVJ3-05-0163-3500422 CARBON FY 90/91
G3HVJ3-05-0160-3500423 AMO FY 90/91
G3HVJ3-05-0159-3500424 VAN BUREN FY 90/91
G3HVJ3-05-0183-3500428 MIDDLETOWN FY 90/91
G3HVJ3-05-0182-3500429 ETNA GREEN FY 90/91
G3HVJ3-05-0181 -3500431 MITCHELL FY 91
G3HVJ3-05-0171-3500441 GEORGETOWN FY 90/91
G3HVJ3-05-0165-3500442 LAPAZ FY 90/91
G3HVJ3-05-0166-3500443 MICHIGAN CITY FY 91
G3HVJ3-05-0161 -3500444 DALE FY 90/91
N3HVJ2-05-0454-3500034 MN U OF FY 91
N3HVK2-05-0292-3500046 COLUMBUS FY 91
N3HVK2-05-0365-3500047 CHICAGO PD FY 90
N3HVJ2-05-0446-3500049 ELKHART FY 91
N3HUK2-05-0382-3500050 TOLEDO U FY 91
N3HVK2-05-0378-3500060 MENOMINEE IT FY 91
N3HVK2-05-0344-3500061 DANVILLE FY 91
N3HVK2-05-0428-3500062 TRAVERSE CITY FY 91
N3HVK2-05-0444-3500067 NEWARK FY 91
N3HVJ2-05-0381 -3500068 INDIANA BOH FY 91
N3HUK2-05-0432-3500069 OAKLAND U FY 91
N3HVJ2-05-0433-3500080 SUMMIT CO FY 90
N3HVKO-05-021 1-3500106 CHICAGO BOE FY 88
N3HVK2-05-0449-3500107 CHIPPEWA INDIANS
N3HVJO-05-0454-3500109 MARENGO FY 89
N3HUJ2-05-0450-3500110 INDIANA U FY 91
N3HVK2-05-041 1-35001 11 EAU CLAIRE FY 91
N3HVJ2-05-0427-3500131 S BEND FY 91
N3HUJ1-05-0385-3500132 PURDUE U FY 90
N3HVK3-05-0026-3500133 STOCKBRIDGE MUNSEE FY 91
N3HVK1 -05-0033-3500139 INDIANAPOLIS FY 89
N3HVJ1 -05-0482-3500150 WILLOUGHBY FY 89
N3HVK1 -05-0223-3500151 WARREN FY 89
N3HUK2-05-0455-3500195 MN U OF FY 91
N3HUK3-05-0089-3500196 ST MARYS COLLEGE FY 91
MI
IN
IN
IN
IN
IL
IN
IN
IL
MI
MN
MI
IN
MN
OH
OH
OH
IN
MI
IL
IL
IN
MI
MI
MI
MI
IN
IN
OH
IN
IN
IL
IN
IN
OH
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
MN
OH
IN
IN
OH
WI
IL
MI
OH
IN
MI
OH
IL
WI
IN
IN
WI
IN
IN
WI
IN
OH
OH
MN
MN
Final Report
Issued
10/ 9/92
11/ 3/92
11/23/92
10/ 9/92
10/ 9/92
10/27/92
10/30/92
10/30/92
10/30/92
10/30/92
11/ 3/92
1V 3/92
11/10/92
11/10/92
11/17/92
11/17/92
11/17/92
11/18/92
11/18/92
11/18/92
11/24/92
11/24/92
12/15/92
12/18/92
12/18/92
12/18/92
1/21/93
1/21/93
1/21/93
2/ 3/93
2/17/93
2/23/93
2/23/93
2/23/93
2/23/93
2/23/93
2/23/93
3/ 9/93
3/ 9/93
3/ 9/93
3/ 9/93
3/ 9/93
3/11/93
3/11/93
3/11/93
3/17/93
3/17/93
3/17/93
3/17/93
10/ 9/92
10/27/92
10/27/92
10/27/92
10/27/92
10/30/92
10/30/92
10/30/92
10/30/92
10/30/92
10/30/92
11/ 3/92
11/10/92
11/10/92
11/10/92
11/10/92
11/10/92
11/16/92
11/16/92
11/16/92
11/17/92
11/18/92
11/18/92
12/15/92
12/15/92
Ineligible Unsupported Unnecessary/ Efficienc
Costs Costs Unreasonable (Funds Be f
Costs To Better U
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
11,414
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
n
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
n
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
OCTOBER 1, 1992 THROUGH MARCH 31, 1993
-------
Assignment Title
Control Number
N3HVK3-05-0090-3500197 IRONWOOO ASD FY 92 MI
N3HVJ3-05-0103-3500220 BLOOMINGTON FY 90 IN
N3HVJ3-05-0052-3500272 WISCONSIN U OF FY 90/91 WI
N3HVK2-05-0227-3500327 WARREN FY 90 OH
N3HVK3-05-0130-3500328 LEECH LAKE RES FY 91 MN
N3HVK2-05-0370-3500334 OAKLAND CO FY 91 MI
N3HVK3-05-0099-3500335 LEECH LAKE RES FY 90 MN
N3HUK3-05-0120-3500368 CINCINNATI U OF FY 91 OH
N3HVK3-05-0082-3500418 TOLEDO FY 91 OH
N3HUK3-05-0105-3500421 BUTLER U FY 91/92 IN
N3HUK3-05-01 19-3500427 MICHIGAN TECH U FY 92 MI
N3HVK2-05-0274-3500430 INDIANAPOLIS FY 90 IN
N3HVJ3-05-0087-3500445 EVANSVILLE FY 91 IN
TOTAL OF REGION 05 = 87
G3HVK3-06-0044-3500115 VICTORIA COUNTY WCID #2 TX
G3HVK3-06-0052-3500204 COLLINSVILLE OK
G3HVK3-06-0053-3500206 COLLINSVILLE, OK
G3HVK3-06-0054-3500207 COLLINSVILLE OK
G3HVK3-06-0059-3500211 BROWNSVILLE TX
G3HVK3-06-0085-3500398 TAHLEQUAH OK
G3HVK3-06-0086-3500434 CLEO SPRINGS OK
G3HVK3-06-0087-3500435 IDALOU TX
G3HVK3-06-0091 -3500436 NASH OK
N3HVK3-06-0022-3500012 NO. CENTRAL TX COUNCIL OF GOTX
N3HVK3-06-0023-3500013 CENTRAL TEXAS COUNCIL OF GOVTX
N3HVK3-06-0024-3500015 HOUSTON TX
N3HVK3-06-0025-3500016 HOUSTON TX
N3HVK3-06-0026-3500019 ST. BERNARD PARISH POLICE JULA
N3HVK3-06-0027-3500023 SANTA FE NM
N3HUK3-06-0028-3500024 UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA OK
N3HVK3-06-0029-3500025 TERREBONNE PARISH CONSOL.GVMLA
N3HVK3-06-0030-3500028 ALBUQUERQUE NM
N3HVK3-06-0035-3500070 EL PASO TX
N3HUK3-06-0034-3500071 ROSE STATE COLLEGE OK
N3HVK3-06-0033-3500072 CHEROKEE NATION OF OKLAHOMA OK
N3HVK3-06-0038-3500073 GALVESTON COUNTY HEALTH DISTTX
N3HVK3-06-0040-3500076 LOWER RIO GRAND VALLEY DEV. TX
N3HVK3-06-0041 -3500077 AUSTIN TX
N3HVK3-06-0042-3500078 POJOAQUE PUEBLO NM
N3HVK3-06-0043-3500114 PUEBLO OF SANDIA NM
N3HVK3-06-0045-3500120 ARKANSAS DEPT. OF ED.GEN.DIVAR
N3HVK3-06-0046-3500121 ARKANSAS DEPT OF ED.GEN.DIV.AR
N3HVK3-06-0057-3500209 LOWER RIO GRANDE VALLEY DEV.TX
N3HVK3-06-0058-3500210 BAYTOWN TX
N3HUJ3- 06- 0062-3500257 UNIVERSITY OF AR MEDICAL SCIAR
N3HUJ3-06-0061 -3500258 UNIVERSITY OF AR MED.SCIENCEAR
N3HUK3-06-0080-3500365 OKLAHOMA ST. UNIVERSITY^ OK
N3HVK3-06-0081 -3500366 EDMOND OK
N3HVK3-06-0082-3500367 CENTRAL TEXAS COG TX
N3HVK3-06-0084-3500390 ENERGY MINERALS NATURAL RS. NM
TOTAL OF REGION 06 = 36
C3HVJ3-07-0069-3500345 DEPT OF ENVIRON CONTROL NE
C3HVK2-07-0212-3500466 KANSAS CITY KS
G3HVK2-07-0217-3500004 ARCADIA MO
G3HVK3-07-0023-3500091 LOUP CITY NE
G3HVK3-07-0024-3500092 LANSING KS
G3HVK3-07-0027-3500095 MONETT MO
G3HVK3-07-0031 -3500128 JUNCTION CITY KS
G3HVK3-07-0045-3500239 MCPHERSON KS
G3HVK3-07-0052-3500262 LAKE WABAUNSEE IMPROVEMENT KS
G3HVK3-07-0068-3500263 OWENSVILLE MO
G3HVK3-07-0053-3500276 ANKENY IA
G3HVK3-07-0051 -3500277 DIAMOND MO
G3HVK3-07-0074-3500286 FORSYTH MO
G3HVK3-07-0077-3500291 MINATARE NE
G3HVK3-07-0079-3500292 SCOTTSBLUFF NE
G3HVK3-07-0082-3500309 HORACE KS
G3HVK3-07-0056-3500310 MET ST LOUIS SEWER DISTRICT MO
G3HVK3-07-0089-3500320 TILDEN NE
G3HVK3-07-0086-3500321 GORDON NE
Final Report
Issued
12/15/92
12/18/92
1/21/93
2/10/93
2/10/93
2/17/93
2/17/93
2/23/93
3/ 9/93
3/ 9/93
3/11/93
3/11/93
3/17/93
11/10/92
12/17/92
12/17/92
12/17/92
12/17/92
3/ 2/93
3/15/93
3/15/93
3/16/93
10/ 7/92
10/ 7/92
10/ 7/92
10/ 7/92
10/ 7/92
10/ 7/92
10/ 8/92
10/ 8/92
10/ 8/92
1V 2/92
11/ 2/92
11/ 2/92
11/ 2/92
11/ 2/92
11/ 2/92
11/ 2/92
11/10/92
11/12/92
11/12/92
12/17/92
12/17/92
1/12/93
1/12/93
2/23/93
2/23/93
2/23/93
2/26/93
2/18/93
3/24/93
10/ 5/92
1V 6/92
1V 6/92
IV 6/92
11/16/92
12/30/92
1/14/93
1/14/93
1/22/93
1/22/93
1/27/93
1/27/93
1/27/93
1/28/93
1/29/93
21 9/93
2/ 9/93
Ineligible Unsupported Unnecessary/ Efficiencies
Costs Costs Unreasonable (Funds Be Put
Costs To Better Use
0
0
1,558
0
0
275
0
0
o
o
0
36,053
0
49,300
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
o
0
o
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
n
U
o
0
0
o
o
o
0
o
o
o
o
o
o
0
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
0
o
0
o
o
o
0
o
0
o
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
0
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
n
U
o
o
o
o
o
0
0
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
0
o
o
o
o
o
o
0
42
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENEFW
-------
Assignment
Control Number
G3HVK3- 07- 0088-3500323
G3HVK3-07-0084-3500324
G3HVK3-07-0090-3500340
G3HVK3-07-0085-3500347
G3HVK3-07-0083-3500348
G3HVK3-07-0081 -3500354
G3HVK3-07-0093-3500355
G3HVK3-07-0094-3500359
G3HVK3-07-0091 -3500360
G3HVK2-07-0220-3500393
G3HVK3-07-0057-3500394
G3H VK3 - 07- 0055 - 3500396
G3HVK3-07-0107-3500454
G3HVK3-07-0105-3500481
G3HVK3-07-0102-3500486
G3HVK3-07-01 18-3500491
N3HVK2-07-0215-3500007
N3HVK3-07-0022-3500090
N3HVK3-07-0029-3500103
N3HUK3-07-0030-3500105
N3HVK3-07-0042-3500158
N3HVK2-07-021 1-3500161
N3HVK3-07-0040-3500164
N3HVK3-07-0041 -3500165
N3HVK3-07-0043-3500174
N3HVK3-07-0066-3500248
N3HVJ3-07-0026-3500264
N3HVK3-07-0067-3500265
N3HVK3-07-0075-3500267
N3HUK3-07-0058-3500271
N3HVJ3-07-0076-3500284
N3 H VK3 - 07- 0060 - 3500285
N3HVK3-07-0059-3500297
N3HVJ2-07-0216-3500362
N3HVJ2-07-0199-3500363
N3HVK3-07-0028-3500364
N3HVK3-07-0092-3500395
N3HVK3-07-0096-3500404
Title
NEVADA,
SUMMERSVILLE
ALTAMONT
WEBB CITY,
PUXICO
BENNET
LOCKWOOD
PORTSMOUTH
ST MARYS
DODGE CITY
LAUREL
FAIR GROVE
CUMMING
ST PETERS
AINSWORTH
HARVEY
BONNER SPRINGS
SELIGMAN
TOPEKA
MISSOURI UNIV OF-COLUMBIA
WICHITA
JOHNSON COUNTY
RENO COUNTY
DOUGLAS COUNTY
IRONDALE
MARION COUNTY
NEBRASKA DEPT OF HEALTH
MERAMEC REGIONAL PLANNING
NEVADA
JR COLLEGE DIST
KIRKWOOD COMMUNITY COLLEGE
WINNEBAGO TRIBE
OMAHA
IOWA STATE OF
MISSOURI STATE
KANSAS STATE OF
GOLDEN CITY
FARMINGTON
IA
MO
MO
MO
MO
NE
MO
IA
IA
KS
IA
MO
IA
MO
NE
IA
KS
MO
KS
MO
KS
KS
KS
NE
MO
KS
NE
MO
IA
MO
IA
NE
NE
IA
MO
KS
MO
MO
Final Report
Issued
21 9/93
2/ 9/93
2/18/93
2/18/93
2/18/93
2/18/93
2/18/93
2/19/93
2/19/93
3/ 1/93
3/ 1/93
3/ 1/93
3/18/93
3/30/93
3/30/93
3/30/93
10/ 6/92
11/ 6/92
11/ 6/92
1V 6/92
11/24/92
11/24/92
11/24/92
11/24/92
12/ 2/92
V 6/93
1/14/93
1/14/93
1/15/93
1/21/93
1/27/93
1/27/93
1/28/93
2/22/93
2/22/93
2/22/93
3/ 1/93
3/ 3/93
Ineligible Unsupported Unnecessary/ Efficiencie
Costs Costs Unreasonable (Funds Be Pu
Costs To Better Use
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,148
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
TOTAL OF REGION 07 = 57
G3HVK3-08-0023-3500102 MINOT
G3HVJ3-08-0026-3500123 CENTRAL CASS SCHOOL DIST
G3HVK3-08-0040-3500287 MISSION
G3HVJ3-08-0042-3500295 LIDGERWOOD
G3HVK3-08-0036-3500303 CUSTER CITY
G3HVK3-08-0051-3500336 CASPER
G3HVK3-08-0045-3500341 CHEYENNE
G3HVK3-08-0047-3500342 GILLETTE
G3HVK3-08-0048-3500343 WHEATLAND
G3HVK3-08-0046-3500356 MISSOULA
G3HVK2-08-0102-3500397 LONGMONT
G3HVK3-08-0059-3500437 LAKE ANDES
G3HVK3-08-0060-3500438 SARATOGA - CARBON COUNTY
G3HVK3-08-0061-3500439 LARAMIE
G3HVK2-08-0072-3500458 HAZEL
G3HVK3-08-0063-3500467 SILVERTON
G3HVK3-08-0064-3500474 THE KEYSTONE CENTER
G3HVK3-08-0062-3500487 KEYSTONE CENTER
G3HVK3-08-0067-3500490 GREAT FALLS
N3HVK2-08-0101-3500008 FARGO
N3HVK2-08-0098-3500009 ASSINIBOINE & SIOUX TRIBES
N3HVK3-08-0024-3500104 MINOT
N3HVK2-08-0099-3500159 OGLALA SOUIX TRIBE
N3HVK3-08-0029-3500173 LOWER BRULE SIOUX TRIBE
N3HVK3-08-0030-3500175 DEPT. HEALTH & SOCIAL SER
N3HVK3-08-0028-3500176 CHEYENNE RIVER SIOUX TRIBE
N3HVK3-08-0027-3500177 BISMARCK
N3HVK2-08-0084-3500261 LOVELL
N3HVJ2-08-0100-3500288 UTAH STATE OF
N3HVK3-08-0034-3500289 BOULDER
N3HVJ3-08-0025-3500293 SOUTH DAKOTA, STATE OF
N3HVJ2-08-0103-3500300 MONTANA STATE OF
N3HVK3-08-0037-3500319 PLATTE
ND
ND
SD
ND
SD
WY
WY
WY
WY
MT
CO
SD
WY
WY
SD
CO
CO
CO
MT
ND
MT
ND
SD
SD
WY
SD
ND
WY
UT
CO
SD
MT
SD
11/ 6/92
11/13/92
1/27/93
1/28/93
1/28/93
2/17/93
2/18/93
2/18/93
2/18/93
2/18/93
3/ 1/93
3/16/93
3/16/93
3/16/93
3/19/93
3/24/93
3/30/93
3/30/93
3/30/93
10/ 6/92
10/ 6/92
1V 6/92
11/24/92
12/ 2/92
12/ 2/92
12/ 2/92
12/ 2/92
1/14/93
1/27/93
1/27/93
1/28/93
1/28/93
2/ 9/93
1,148
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
20,812
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
OCTOBER 1, 1992 THROUGH MARCH 31, 1993
-------
Assignment
Control Number
N3HVK3-08-0043-3500357
N3HVK3-08-0050-3500405
N3HVK3-08-0052-3500406
N3HVK3- 08- 0049-3500407
N3HVK2-08-0088-3500408
N3HVJ2-08-0087-3500409
N3HVK3- 08- 0065 - 3500475
N3HVK3-08-0066-3500476
TOTAL OF
C3HVK3-09-0142-3500495
G3HVK3-09-0067-3500191
G3HVK3-09-0068-3500193
G3HVK3-09-0079-3500238
G3HVK3-09-01 14-3500361
G3HVK3-09-0133-3500455
N3HUK2-09-0280-3500031
N3HVK2-09-0288-3500032
N3HVK2-09-0038-3500052
N3HVK2-09-0324-3500053
N3HVK3-09-0039-3500056
N3HVK3-09-0042-3500087
N3HVK2-09-0291 -3500088
N3HVK2- 09- 0284 - 3500093
N3HVK3-09-0047-3500094
N3HVK3-09-0048-3500098
N3HVK2-09-0294-3500118
N3HVK2-09-0287-3500119
N3HVK2-09-0286-3500122
N3HVK2-09-0356-3500152
N3HVK2-09-0325-3500153
N3HVK2-09-0283-3500154
N3HUK3-09-0057-3500166
N3H VK2 - 09- 0277- 3500 1 79
N3HVK2-09-0276-3500183
N3HVK3-09-0061 -3500185
N3HVK2-09-0353-3500189
N3HVK3-09-0033-3500200
N3HVK2-09-0330-3500225
N3HVK3 - 09- 0077- 3500227
N3HVK2-09-0301 -3500232
N3HVK3 - 09-0078-3500234
N3HVK2-09-0282-3500235
N3HVK3- 09- 0088-3500252
N3HVK3-09-0059-3500282
N3HVK3-09-0103-3500312
N3H VK2 - 09- 0323-35003 1 3
N3HUK2-09-0289-3500317
N3HVK2-09-0275-3500332
N3HVK3-09-01 15-3500376
N3HVK2- 09- 0295 -3500388
N3HUK3-09-0050-3500389
N3HVJ3-09-0071 -3500410
N3HVK3-09-0127-3500432
N3HVK2-09-0355-3500433
N3HUK3-09-0028-3500464
N3HVK3-09-0139-3500468
TOTAL OF
G3HVJ3- 10-0022-3500181
G3HVK3-10-0024-3500184
G3HVJ3-10-0028-3500190
G3HVK3- 10-0029-3500222
G3HVK3- 10-0030-3500223
G3HVK3- 10-0031 -3500224
G3HVK3- 1 0- 0037-3500251
N3HVK2- 10-0131 -3500014
N3HVK2- 10-0104-3500030
N3HVJ2- 10-0095-3500054
N3HVJ2-10-0090-3500055
N3HVK2- 10-0094-3500057
N3HUK2- 10-0091 -3500059
N3HVJ2- 10-0099-3500089
Title
TURTLE HTN BAND OF CHIPPEWA ND
PUEBLO CO
MISSOULA COUNTY MT
CASPER COLLEGE UY
WELD CO
CASS COUNTY ND
THE KEYSTONE CENTER CO
THE KEYSTONE CENTER CO
REGION 08 = 41
HONOLULU CITY AND COUNTY OF HI
SEDONA, CITY OF AZ
PINETOP-LAKESIDE SAN DIST AZ
LITTLE COLORADO SAN IT DIST CO
AVONDALE, CITY OF AZ
LAKE HAVASU CITY AZ
CALIF PUBLIC HEALTH FOUNDAT CA
CLARK COUNTY HLTH DIST NV
MODESTO, CITY OF CA
VENTURA, COUNTY OF CA
SONOMA, COUNTY OF CA
SAN DIEGO COUNTY OF CA
GILA RIVER INDIAN COMMUNITY AZ
BAY AREA AIR QTY MGM DIST CA
GUALALA COMMUNITY SVCS DIST CA
KINGS, COUNTY OF CA
KAUAI, COUNTY OF HI
CLARK COUNTY NV
CLARK COUNTY NV
LAKE HAVASU CITY AZ
HAWAII, DEPT OF HEALTH HI
ASOC NAC PRO PERS CA
POINT REYES BIRD OBSERVATORYCA
CHUUK, STATE OF FM
POHNPEI, STATE OF FM
L.A. DEPT OF WATER & POWER CA
WHITE MOUNTAIN APACHE TRIBE AZ
FORT MOJAVE IND. TRIBE CA
NEVADA, STATE OF NV
WHITE MOUNTAIN APACHE TRIBE AZ
SONOMA STATE UN IV ACAD FOUN CA
MADERA, CITY OF CA
AMERICAN SAMOA GOVERNMENT AS
AMERICAN SAMOA GOVERNMENT AS
SANTA ANA WTRSHED PROJ AUT CA
FIELDBROOK COMM SERVICES DISCA
LOS ANGELES, CITY OF CA
PIMA CNTY COMM COLLEGE DIS AZ
PALAU, REPUBLIC OF PU
LAKE, COUNTY OF CA
PRESCOTT, CITY OF AZ
CA POLYTECH STATE UN IV FOUN CA
PIMA COUNTY AZ
SAN DIEGO, CITY OF CA
HAWAII, DEPT OF AGRICULTURE HI
HORNET FOUNDATION, INC CA
ALBANY, CITY OF CA
REGION 09 = 47
CAMAS, CITY OF WA
TROY, CITY OF ID
BLACK DIAMOND, CITY OF WA
POST FALLS, CITY OF ID
POST FALLS, CITY OF ID
POST FALLS, CITY OF ID
NEWPORT, CITY OF OR
CORVALLIS, CITY OF OR
SUQUAMISH TRIBE WA
MUNI OF METRO SEATTLE WA
ALASKA, STATE OF AK
LUMMI BUSINESS COUNCIL WA
BOISE STATE UNIVERSITY ID
CAMAS, CITY OF WA
Final Report
Issued
2/18/93
3/ 3/93
3/ 3/93
3/ 3/93
3/ 3/93
3/ 3/93
3/30/93
3/30/93
3/31/93
12/10/92
12/10/92
12/30/92
2/22/93
3/18/93
10/ 8/92
10/ 8/92
10/28/92
10/28/92
10/28/92
IV 4/92
IV 4/92
1V 6/92
1V 6/92
1V 6/92
11/12/92
11/12/92
11/12/92
11/19/92
11/19/92
11/19/92
11/24/92
12/ 4/92
12/ 8/92
12/ 9/92
12/10/92
12/15/92
12/23/92
12/28/92
12/29/92
12/29/92
12/29/92
V 7/93
1/26/93
1/29/93
1/29/93
2/ 4/93
2/12/93
2/23/93
2/26/93
2/26/93
3/ 4/93
3/11/93
3/11/93
3/23/93
3/25/93
12/ 8/92
12/ 8/92
12/10/92
12/22/92
12/22/92
12/22/92
V 7/93
10/ 7/92
10/ 8/92
10/28/92
10/28/92
10/28/92
10/29/92
1V 4/92
II^VWII •• « 1^1 l*J*iV*
Ineligible Unsupported Unnecessary/ Efficiencies
Costs Costs Unreasonable (Funds Be Put
Costs To Better Use)
0
0
0
1,373
0
0
0
0
22,185
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
17,227
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2,035
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
19,262
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
44
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
-------
Questioned Costs
Assignment Title
Control Number
N3HVK2-10-0117-3500097 YAK I MA INDIAN NATION
N3HUK3- 10-0009-35001 17 IDAHO, UNIV OF
N3HVK2- 10-0097-3500167 ANCHORAGE, MUNICIPALITY OF
N3HVK3- 10-0023-3500182 MAKAH TRIBAL COUNCIL
N3HVJ2-10-0105-3500233 TACOMA, CITY OF
N3HVK2-10-0114-3500283 MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE
N3HVK2- 10-0102-3500311 LEWISTON, CITY OF
N3HVK2- 10-0098-3500375 BOISE CITY
N3HVJ2- 10-0103-3500377 MUNI OF METRO SEATTLE
N3HVJ3- 10-0045-3500469 CLARK COUNTY
TOTAL OF REGION 10 = 24
TOTAL OTHER GRANT AUDITS
5. SUPERFUND GRANTS
P5BKN1 -03-0305-3300004 SF COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS
P5BGN1 -03-0306-3300008 SF COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS
TOTAL OF REGION 03 = 2
P5EGN1 -07-0191 -3300032 MISSOURI DNR
TOTAL OF REGION 07 = 1
P5BGN2-08-0019-3300033 DEPT OF HEALTH & ENVIR SCI
TOTAL OF REGION 08 = 1
H5BFL2-11-0046-3100041 SF lAG'S HHS FY 90
H5BFL2-1 1-0046-3100042 SF lAG'S HHS FY 90
M5BFL2-1 1-0025-3100040 SF-IAG FY90 DOT-COAST GUARD
M5BFL3-1 1-0014-3100046 SF IAG DOI USGS
M5BFL2-1 1-0045-3100059 SF-IAG FY91 DOI
M5BFL2-1 1-0026-3100090 SF-IAG FY 91 DOT
M5BFL2-11-0027-3100123 SF-IAG FY 91 ARMY
M5BFL2-11-0023-3100142 SF-IAG FY91 FEMA EXPEND.
M5BFL2-11-0045-3100158 SF-IAG FY91 DOI
TOTAL OF REGION 11 = 9
TOTAL SUPERFUND GRANTS
D8DML2-01 -0355-3100028 EASTERN RESEARCH GROUP, INC
D8AML2-01 -0259-3100031 INTERNATIONAL FUEL CELLS
D8AAL3-01 -0019-3100032 ENSR
D8BML2-01 -0162-3100047 COMBUSTION ENGINEERING CORP
D8AML3-01 -0022-3100048 EASTERN RESEARCH GROUP
D8AAL3-01 -0018-3100049 SIGMA RESEARCH CORP.
D8CAL2-01 -0155-3100105 COMBUSTION ENGINEERING INC.
D8AML3-01 -01 17-3100139 INDUSTRIAL ECONOMICS INC
D8AMP3-01 -0078-3400020 CADMUS GROUP INC.
D8AMP3- 01 -0075 -3400028 MULTISYSTEMS INC
E8AXP3- 01 -0055 -340001 3 TRC ENVIRONMENTAL CORP.
E8AXP3-01 -0058-3400021 TRC ENVIRONMENTAL CORP
E8AAP3-01 -0077-3400031 TRC ENVIRONMENTAL CORP
E8AAP3- 01 -0076- 3400032 TRC ENVIRONMENTAL CORP
P8AML2-01 -0367-3100009 ALLIANCE TECH. CORP.
TOTAL OF REGION 01 = 15
D8DML3-02-0080-3100029 MALCOLM PIRNIE INC.
D8CML3-02-0124-3100138 SYRACUSE RESEARCH CORP
P8AXP3- 02 -0098 -3400022 ECOLOGY & ENVIR
P8AXP3- 02 -0094 -3400026 ECOLOGY & ENVIR
ID
ID
AK
UA
UA
UA
ID
ID
UA
UA
=
DC
MD
MO
MT
DC
DC
=
.MA
CT
MA
.CT
MA
MA
CT
MA
MA
MA
CT
CT
MA
MA
MA
NY
NY
NY
NY
Final Report
Issued
1V 6/92
11/12/92
11/24/92
12/ 8/92
12/29/92
1/26/93
1/29/93
2/23/93
2/23/93
3/25/93
477
1V 6/92
1/27/93
3/30/93
3/31/93
12/ 1/92
12/ 1/92
12/ 1/92
12/ 3/92
V 4/93
21 1/93
3/ 9/93
3/25/93
3/31/93
13
Ineligible Unsupported Unnecessary/ Efficiencie
Costs Costs Unreasonable (Funds Be Pu
Costs To Better Use
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
2,468,512 0 0
3,140 699,988 0
214,804 83,578 0
217,944 783,566 0
135,781 62,643 0
135,781 62,643 0
0 12,057,987 0
0 12,057,987 0
353,725 12,904,196 0
11/16/92 *The dollar value of contract audits have not been shown.
11/17/92
11/17/92
12/ 3/92
12/ 8/92
12/ 9/92
2/18/93
3/19/93
2/16/93
3/ 8/93
V 8/93
2/19/93
3/22/93
3/22/93
10/ 8/92
11/17/92
3/19/93
2/19/93
3/ 1/93
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 displayei
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.
TOTAL OF REGION 02 =
OCTOBER 1, 1992 THROUGH MARCH 31, 1993
45
-------
Assignment Title
Control Number
D8AWL3-03-0020-3100033 ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGIES AS MD
D8AWL3-03-0019-3100034 JACA PA
D8BML3- 03 -0072-31 00063 VIKING SYSTEMS INTERNATIONALPA
D8EML3-03-0086-3100064 NETWORK CORPORATION VA
D8BML3-03-0087-3100065 EG&G WASHINGTON MD
D8BHL3-03-0088-3100066 VIGYAN INCORPORATED VA
D8EML3-03-0089-3100067 SCIENTEX CORP VA
D8EML3- 03- 0090-31 00068 CIEL, INC. DC
D8DML3-03-0091 -3100069 CONSOLIDATED COAL CO. PA
D8BML3-03-0092-3100070 PA STATE UNIVERSITY PA
D8EML3-03-0095-3100071 ECG, INC VA
D8ALL3-03-0022-3100072 MERIDIAN RESEARCH INC MD
D8AAL3-03-0018-3100073 SULLIVAN ENVIRONMENTAL VA
D8AAL3-03-0104-3100100 MCWANE & COMPANY VA
D8CML3-03-0147-3100107 VERSAR VA
D8CML3-03-0148-3100108 VERSAR VA
D8CML3-03-0149-3100109 VERSAR VA
D8CML3-03-0150-3100110 VERSAR VA
D8AAL3-03-0097-3100120 E.H. PECHAN VA
D8AAL3-03-0099-3100121 VIGYAN VA
D8AAL3-03-0102-3100122 E.H. PECHAN VA
D8AAL3-03-0109-3100134 SOCIOECONOMIC TECHNICAL VA
D8AAL3-03-0103-3100135 PACIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL VA
P8AXP3-03-0073-3400008 ICF CORP. VA
TOTAL OF REGION 03 = 24
D8AML3-04-0059-3100020 TRIGON ENGINEERING CONSULTI NC
D8AML3-04-0028-3100025 EC/R NC
D8EML3-04-0037-3100039 ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATIONSNC
D8CML3-04-0021 -3100043 MANTECH NC
D8AML3-04-0079-3100057 SYSTEMS RESEARCH & DEVELOP. NC
D8CML3-04-0058-3100060 MANTECH NC
D8CML3-04-0057-3100081 SOUTHERN RESEARCH INSTITUTE AL
D8AML3-04-0122-3100115 EC/R NC
D8AML3-04-0114-3100116 TRIGON ENGINEERING NC
D8AML3-04-0116-3100117 ALPHA-GAMMA NC
D8AML3-04-01 13-3100125 EMAC NC
D8BML3-04-0189-3100126 MANTECH NC
D8AML3-04-01 12-3100127 EC/R NC
D8AMU3-04-0129-3100128 EASTERN TECHNICAL NC
D8BML3-04-0190-3100131 GEORGIA TECH GA
D8AML3-04-0115-3100133 ENTROPY NC
H8CML2-04-0344-3100026 RESEARCH TRIANGLE INST NC
H8AML3-04-01 17-3100154 RESEARCH TRIANGLE INSTITUTE NC
TOTAL OF REGION 04 = 18
D8BML2-05-0383-3100011 FEV OF AMERICA FY 92 MI
D8BML2-05-0313-3100052 AT KEARNEY FY 89 IL
D8CML3-05-0088-3100080 COLEJON MECH OH
D8AML3-05-0108-3100093 AUTO TESTING LAB OH
D8CML3-05-0097-3100112 LIFE SYSTEMS INC OH
D8BML3-05-0155-3100124 SHINGOBEE BUILDERS MN
D8BML2-05-0310-3100136 CHAMBERLAIN FY 90 IL
E8AXP3- 05 -003 1-3400009 PRC EMI (ARMY GOCO) IL
P8DMLO-05-0176-3100088 PEI ASSOC FY 86 OH
P8DMLO-05-0178-3100137 PEI ASSOC FY 87/88 OH
P8AAP3-05-0147-3400027 EQM (AIR SUB) OH
TOTAL OF REGION 05 = 11
D8AAL2-06-0195-3100013 LOCKHEED TX
D8CML3-06-0031 -3100014 SOUTHWESTERN PUBLIC SERVICE TX
D8AML3-06-0065-3100129 RADIAN TX
D8EML3-06-0088-3100130 TRINITY CONSULTANTS, INC. TX
D8AML3-06-0066-3100132 TRINITY CONSULTANTS INC. TX
TOTAL OF REGION 06 = 5
D8AHL2-07-0166-3100000 MRI KS
D8AML2-07-0194-3100001 MIDWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE MO
D8CUL2-07-0150-3100002 DEV PLAN & RESEARCH ASSOC KS
D8CPL2-07-0151 -3100003 DEV PLAN & RESEARCH ASSO KS
D8CML2-07-0148-3100004 DEV PLAN & RESEARCH ASSOC KS
Final Report
Issued
11/17/92
11/17/92
M 6/93
M 6/93
1/ 6/93
V 6/93
M 6/93
M 7/93
V 7/93
M 7/93
M 8/93
V 8/93
M 8/93
2/11/93
2/22/93
2/22/93
2/22/93
2/22/93
3/ 8/93
3/ 8/93
3/ 8/93
3/16/93
3/16/93
12/ 3/92
11/ 2/92
IV 6/92
11/20/92
12/ 2/92
V 4/93
V 4/93
1/22/93
2/26/93
3/ 1/9^
3/ 1/93
3/11/93
3/11/93
3/11/93
3/11/93
3/11/93
3/11/93
11/13/92
3/31/93
10/ 9/92
12/15/92
1/21/93
2/ 3/93
2/23/93
3/ 9/93
3/17/93
12/14/92
1/28/93
3/17/93
3/ 2/93
10/26/92
10/27/92
3/11/93
3/11/93
3/11/93
10/ 7/92
10/ 7/92
10/ 7/92
10/ 7/92
10/ 7/92
Ineligible Unsupported Unnecessary/ Efficiencies
Costs Costs Unreasonable (Funds Be Put
Costs To Better Use)
46
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
-------
Questioned Costs
Assignment
Control Number
Title
Final Report
Issued
Ineligible
Costs
Unsupported
Costs
Unnecessary/
Unreasonable
Costs
Recommended
Efficiencies
(Funds Be Put
To Better Use)
D8EML3-07-0019-31UUU1f
D8AML3-07-0001-3100036
D8AAL3-07-0072-3100106
D8AAL3-07-0073-3100150
BLACK & VEACH
MIDWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE
MR I
TRINITY CONSULTANTS
MO
MO
MO
KS
TOTAL OF REGION 07 = 9
D8AML2-08-0086-3100023 ROGERS & ASSOC ENG CORP
TOTAL OF REGION 08 = 1
D8AAL3-
D8HLL3-
D8AWL3-
D8CAL3-
D8AML3-
D8AML2-
D8AAL3-
D8CBL3-
D8CML3-
D8CML3-
D8AWN2-
D8AAN3-
D8AAN3-
D8AAN3-
D8EMP3-
09-0022-3100050 SONOMA TECHNOLOGICAL INC PA CA
09-0037-3100051 SCS ENGINEERS PA CA
09-0036-3100053 TETRA TECH PA CA
09-0070-3100076 ROCKWELL INTL-ROCKETDYNE CA
09-0073-3100083 HAMILTON TEST SYSTEM PA AZ
09-0318-3100084 STERLING FEDERAL SYSTEMS PA CA
09-0094-3100092 ACUREX ENVIRONMENTAL CORP CA
09-0074-3100113 ACUREX ENV. CORP FINAL CA
09-0075-3100119 ACUREX ENV CORP FINAL CA
09-0141-3100146 SAIC FINAL CA
09-0299-3300002 TETRA TECH P.A. CA
09-0092-3300018 SAIC P.A. CA
09-0093-3300019 ENGINEERING SCIENCE CA
09-0091-3300020 ENGINEERING SCIENCE CA
09-0049-3400004 ENERGY & ENVL RES CORP CA
TOTAL OF REGION 09 = 15
P8AXL3-10-0017-3100104 CH2M P.A.
TOTAL OF REGION 10 = 1
TOTAL OTHER CONTRACT REPORTS
OR
10/28/92
11/18/92
2/19/93
3/30/93
11/ 4/92
12/ 9/92
12/ 9/92
12/15/92
1/13/93
1/25/93
1/25/93
2/ 2/93
2/23/93
3/ 5/93
3/29/93
10/29/92
2/23/93
2/25/93
2/25/93
11/10/92
2/11/93
103
94,083
3,098,342
9. SUPERFUND CONTRACTS
D9CFL2-01-0381-3100006 INDUSTRIAL ECONOMICS, INC. MA
TOTAL OF REGION 01 = 1
TOTAL OF REGION 04 = 6
OCTOBER 1, 1992 THROUGH MARCH 31, 1993
10/ 8/92
D9DGL2-02-0094-3100007
D9BFL2-02-0076-3100019
D9DFL2-02-0282-3100054
D9CFL3-02-0107-3100082
D9EGL3-02-0082-3100096
D9EGP2-02-0380-3400001
E9BGLO-02-0242-3100145
M9BGL2-02-0273-3100005
M9EGL2-02-0272-3100008
TOTAL OF
D9AKL3-03-0016-3100027
D9AKL3-03-0015-3100045
D9BFL2-03-0234-3100085
D9BFL2-03-0184-3100086
D9BFL2-03-0273-3100099
D9EFL3-03-0125-3100101
D9EFL3-03-0141-3100102
D9EFL3-03-0142-3100103
P9EKN3 - 03 - 0096-3300007
P9AXN3-03-011 1-3300016
P9DGN3-03-01 13-3300034
TOTAL OF
D9BKL3-04-0034-3100010
D9AICL3 - 04 - 0084 - 3 1 00094
P9DHL2-04-0047-3100012
P9BGL2-04-0046-3100015
P9BHL2-04-0353-3100061
P9DHL2-04-0352-3100091
TAMS CONSULTANTS INC.
LEONARD G. BIRNBAUM & COMP.
TAMS CONSULTANTS INC.
LEONARD BIRNBAUM & COMPANY
TAMS CONSUTANTS, INC.
EBASCO
MALCOLM PIRN IE INC
EBASCO
EBASCO
REGION 02 = 9
APOGEE RESEARCH INC
ECG INC
UNISYS
COMPUTER SCIENCE CORP
ROY F WESTON
COMPUTER SCIENCE CORP
COMPUTER SCIENCE CORP
COMPUTER SCIENCE CORP
ICF CORP
ICF INC.
ICF, INC. ESAT
REGION 03 = 11
EHRT
MANTECH ENVIRONMENTAL
WESTINGHOUSE HAZTECH
WESTINGHOUSE HAZTECH
ENSITE INC
ENSITE INC
NY
NJ
NY
NJ
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
MD
VA
VA
VA
PA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
KY
NC
GA
GA
GA
GA
10/ 8/92
1V 2/92
12/23/92
1/25/93
2/10/93
10/ 8/92
3/29/93
10/ 8/92
10/ 8/92
11/13/92
12/ 3/92
1/26/93
1/26/93
2/11/93
2/11/93
2/11/93
2/11/93
1/21/93
2/19/93
3/31/93
10/ 9/92
2/ 4/93
10/ 9/92
10/28/92
M 5/93
2/ 2/93
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)
D9AKL3-05-0047-3100074
E9AHP2-05-0415-3400000
E9EGP2-05-0438-3400011
E9EHP2-05-0278-3400015
E9EKP1-05-0400-3400040
P90HL1-05-0282-3100155
EQM (RCRA SUB)
OHM REM (ADD TO 2400058)
PSI-JAMMAL
OHM REM D/S
PRC EMI FY 86-FY 87
OHM REM FY 90
TOTAL OF REGION 05 =
D9AGL3-06-0048-3100056
D9CKN2-06-0194-3300001
LOCKHEED ENG. & SCI. CO.
LOCKHEED ENGR & SCI
TOTAL OF REGION 06 =
D9BGL2-07-0132-3100018
D9BGL3-07-0021-3100024
D9BGL3-07-0035-3100037
D9DGL3-07-0018-3100062
D9DFL3-07-0117-3100149
SVERDRUP
SVERDRUP
SVERDRUP ENVIRONMENTAL
SVERDRUP CORP
DPRA INC
OH
OH
IL
OH
IL
OH
TX
TX
MO
MO
MO
KS
TOTAL OF REGION 07 = 5
D9CGL2-08-0061-3100016 TECHLAW INC
TOTAL OF REGION 08 = 1
D9BGL2
D9BGL2
E9AGP3
E9DGP2
P90GL2
P90HL1
1/12/93
10/ 7/92
12/23/92
1/21/93
3/30/93
3/31/93
12/30/92
10/26/92
10/28/92
11/ 4/92
11/18/92
M 5/93
3/30/93
CO 10/28/92
09-0134-3100075 BECHTEL GROUP. INC 89 OH&DC CA 1/12/93
•09-0072-3100079 AQUA TERRA OH & DC FY 89-91 CA 1/20/93
•09-0083-3400014 ENG COMPUTER OPTECNOMICS MD 1/19/93
TOTAL OF REGION 09 = 3
•10-0081-3400036 CH2M HILL TRAVEL DECREMENT OR 3/26/93
•10-0128-3100038 CH2M 1992 FUD PRICING - OH OR 11/19/92
•10-0005-3100147 RES 89 OH OR 3/29/93
TOTAL OF REGION 10 = 3
TOTAL SUPERFUND CONTRACT REPORTS = 47
1,093,753
0
415,397
372,951
TOTAL AUDITS = 722
901 - REPORTS ISSUED BY ASSIGNMENT TYPE AND EPA REGION
SEMI-ANNUAL PERIOD ENDING 3/31/93
30,581,246 38,610,968 63,139,392 16,295,95<
48
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
-------
Appendix 2-Reports Without Management Decision
THE INSPECTOR GENERAL ACT REQUIRES A SUMMARY OF EACH REPORT ISSUED BEFORE THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE REPORTING
PERIOD FOR WHICH NO MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS BEEN MADE BY THE END OF THE REPORTING PERIOD (INCLUDING THE DATE AND
TITLE OF EACH SUCH REPORT), AN EXPLANATION OF THE REASON SUCH MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE, AND A STATEME
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 9/30/92
1 No Response
2 Incomplete Response Received
3 Proposed Response Received Awaiting Final Determination
4 Proposed Response Received in Review Process
5. Final Response Received in Review Process
6 Resolution Under Negotiation in Headquarters
Assignment Control
Number
Title
Final Report
Issued
Assignment Control
Number
Title
Final Report
Issued
ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR PDB PREVENTION. PESTICIDES HO TOXIC SUBSTANCES
E1EPF1-05-0117-1100378 PESTICIDES INERTS 9/27/91
Suimary: EPA DID NOT ENSURE (1) ADEQUATE ENFORCEMENT OF ITS INERTS
STRATEGY (2) PROMPT REVIEW Of THE POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF INERT INGREDIENTS ON
HLMANS AND THE ENVIRONMENT AM) (3) THE ACCURACY OF COMPUTERIZED INFORMATION
CN INERTS.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS HANAGDCHT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN NUDE: THE
PROCESS OF ENFORCEMENT BY THE STATES PROVED TO BE MORE COMPLICATED THAN
ANTICIPATED. INFORMATION THAT WAS TO BE PROVIDED TO THE STATES WAS
DETERMINED TO BE CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A HANACDCMT DECISION: AN OFFICE OF
GENERAL COUNSEL ISSUE PAPER ALLOUED THE ISSUANCE OF THE MANAGEMENT DECISION
ON APRIL 8, 1993.
IG FOLLQUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/93 El
ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR ADMINISTRATION AND RESOURCES HANAGEMENT
E1WC1-04-0169-2100295 EPA MGT OF CSC CONTRACT 3/27/92
Suimary: A GENERAL LAISSEZ-FAIRE CULTURE THAT AFFECTED EPA'S MANAGEMENT OF
ITS SUPPORT SERVICES CONTRACT WITH COMPUTER SCIENCES CORPORATION LESSENED EPA
CONTROL OVER CRITICAL PROGRAM ACTIVITIES AND PERMITTED NUMEROUS PROHIBITED
AND IMPROPER ACTIONS BY BOTH AGENCY AND CONTRACTOR STAFFS.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN NUDE: THE
AGENCY HAS BEEN WORKING WITH DIG TO RESOLVE OPEN ISSUES. SIGNIFICANT PROGRESS
HAS BEEN MADE AND ONLY SEVERAL ITEMS REMAIN OUTSTANDING. ON FEBRUARY 26, 1993
OIG REJECTED OARM'S RESPONSE TO SETTLE TVJD ISSUES.
= DESIRED TIHETABJE FOR ACHIEVING A NAMACDCNT DECISION: THE RESPONSE IS
EXPECTED TO BE COMPLETED BY APRIL 30, 1993.
IG FGUCUJP STATUS AS OF 3/31/93 El
E1NMF1-15-0055-210tE91 ERA SYS. SOFTWARE INTEGRITY 9/22/92
Surmary: INADEQUATE EMPHASIS ON MAINFRAME SECURITY AND SOFTWARE INTEGRITY,
AND WEAK CONTRACT MANAGEMENT PRACTICES, HAVE INCREASED EPA'S VULNERABILITY TO
WASTE, FRAUD AND ABUSE IN ITS
HIGHLY SENSITIVE ADP SYSTEMS. ALSO, EPA COULD RECOVER/USE NEARLY S2.2M WORTH
OF DISK STORAGE SPACE.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MUNACDOtT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN HADE: OIG
REQUESTED ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FROM OARM'S INITIAL RESPONSE TO THE AUDIT
RECOMMENDATIONS.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A NANACPOT DECISION: FINAL DETERMINATION
EXPECTED ON APRIL 15, 1993.
IG FOJUTMP STATUS AS OF 3/31/93 [2]
OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL
E1JBF1-05-0175-2100M3 EM. DUJUTH HM 7/7/92
Sumy: EPA DID NOT ENSURE THAT $21 MILLION IN CONTRACTS TO SUPPORT THE
AGENCY'S DULUTH ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY WERE AWARDED AND MONITORED I*
THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE GOVERNMENT.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS NANACDCNT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN HADE: 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 WILL ADDRESS THE ONLY OUTSTANDING ISSUES RELATED T(
THIS AUDIT.
= DESIRED TIHETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A HANACPCNT DECISION: RESOLUTION IS
EXPECTED BY SEPTEMBER 30, 1993.
IG FOLLCUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/93 0
GRANTS ADMINISTRATION DIVISION
E3BST2-03-0452-2400059 CERHA EARLY WARNING 7/ 9/92
Suimary: WE DISCLOSED A POSSIBLE CONFLICT OF INTEREST IN THE
AWARDING OF AN EPA COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT TO A NON-PROFIT FIRM.
A REVIEW IS IN PROCESS. INTERIM FINDINGS HAVE RESULTED IN AN
INVESTIGATIVE REFERRAL.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
HADE: THE GRANTS ADMINISTRATION DIVISION REVIEWED EARLY WARNINC
REPORT AND REQUESTED OIG TO PERFORM A FULL AUDIT. THIS AUDIT IS
STILL PENDING.
= DESIRED TIHETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/93 [1] (Requested audit is in process am
draft report expected by end of May 1993.)
E5BKN1-04-0290-2300045 NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIV. NC 3/26/92
Sunnary: THIRTY-NINE PROJECTS DID NOT RELATE TO THE GRANT.
OER QUESTIONED 12 PROJECTS AS UNSUPPORTED. EXCESS OVERHEAD WAS
CLAIMED. CENTER DIRECTOR MISCHARGED TIME.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS NANAGEHENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
HADE: THE COMPLEXITY OF THIS AUDIT HAS REQUIRED NUMEROUS
MEETINGS WITH OIG, PROGRAM OFFICE, AND NC STATE. THE PROGRAM
OFFICE DOES NOT AGREE WITH THE PROPOSED RESOLUTION.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
IG FOLLOUUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/93 [1]
OCTOBER 1, 1992 THROUGH MARCH 31, 1993
49
-------
Assignment Control
Number
Title
Final Report
Issued
Assignment Control
Number
Title
Final Report
Issued
N3HVJ1-04-0432-2500251 TENNESSEE STATE OF
*Suimary:
TN 12/18/91
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: THE AUDIT REPORT WAS ORIGINALLY ASSIGNED TO REGION 4 FOR
RESOLUTION. THE GRANT ADMINISTRATION DIVISION IS AWAITING
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FROM RECIPIENT IN RESPONSE TO AUDIT
FINDINGS.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION IS EXPECTED BY JULY 15, 1993.
IG FOLLOUUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/93 [1]
DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATION. RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK
E8BHL2-03-0179-2100667 E. H. PECHAN VA 9/30/92
Suimary: 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
$441,768 IN INELIGIBLE CONSULTANT, DIRECT LABOR & OTHER COSTS.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: OFFICE SENT ITS RESPONSE TO THE OIG ON MARCH 31, 1993.
DIG DID NOT ACCEPT RESPONSE. CONTRACTOR MUST PROVIDE ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION TO CONTRACTING OFFICER. INFORMATION WILL BE
FURNISHED ON 5/31/93.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
IG FOLLOUUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/93 [21
OFFICE OF ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT
Cost Review and Rate Negotiation Section
D9EFL2-03-0299-2100309 COMPUTER SCIENCE CORP VA 4/ 6/92
Suimary: RESTATEMENT OF TWO PRIOR FINDINGS (1) VOLUMINOUS
LABOR TRANSFERS (2) INADEQUATE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION FOR
LABOR ADJUSTMENTS AND VERBAL AUTHORIZATIONS.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: A DELAY IN THE RESOLUTION OF THIS AUDIT WAS CAUSED BY THE
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE BEING THE COGNIZANT AGENCY FOR CSC, RATHER
THAN EPA. THE CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN FOR THE RECOMMENDATIONS TO
THIS AUDIT HAVE BEEN APPROVED.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/93 [1] (Additional audits have been
requested and completed by DCAA. When the requested reports are resolved the issues of these
reports will be resolved also.)
D9EFL2-03-0300-2100310 COMPUTER SCIENCE CORP VA 4/ 6/92
Sunmary: SIX INTERNAL CONTROL WEAKNESSES WERE REPORTED:
PAYROLL PROCEDURES, RECORDS, SEGREGATION OF DUTIES, BILLING AND
TIMEKEEPING RECORDS.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
HADE: A DELAY IN THE RESOLUTION OF THIS AUDIT WAS CAUSED BY THE
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE BEING THE COGNIZANT AGENCY FOR CSC, RATHER
THAN EPA. A REVIEW OF THE LABOR CHARGING PRACTICES MUST STILL BE
COMPLETED. THE CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN FOR THE RECOMMENDATIONS TO
THIS AUDIT HAVE BEEN APPROVED.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
IG FOLLOUUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/93 11] (Additional audits have been
requested and completed by DCAA. When the requested reports are resolved the issues of these
reports will be resolved also.)
D8DML2-02-0121-2100404 MALCOLM PIRNIE
*Sumary:
INC
NY 6/10/92
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR HAS TAKEN ISSUE WITH SOME OF THE
COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS AUDIT. NEGOTIATIONS ARE PENDING. THIS
AUDIT CANNOT BE RESOLVED UNTIL THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR LAW SUIT
IS SETTLED.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/93 [1] (OIG agrees with the above status
and does not expect a response until the litigation has been completed.)
D8DML2-02-0122-2100405 MALCOLM PIRNIE INC
*Sumary:
NY 6/10/92
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR HAS TAKEN ISSUE WITH SOME OF THE
COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS AUDIT. NEGOTIATIONS ARE PENDING. THIS
AUDIT CANNOT BE RESOLVED UNTIL THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR LAW SUIT
IS SETTLED.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
IG FOLLOUUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/93 [1] (OIG agrees with the above status
and does not expect a response until the litigation has been completed.)
P2DU*8-03-0174-1300105 PHILADELPHIA CITY OF PA 9/12/91
Suimary: PWD CLAIMED THAT OPERATING COSTS WERE ALLOCABLE TO
EPA GRANTS, BUT ALSO CHARGED THESE SAME COSTS TO THEIR CUSTOMERS
THROUGH THEIR WATER AND SEWER RATES.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: THE OIG IS RESEARCHING INTERNAL EPA APPEAL PROCEDURES
BECAUSE OF LEGAL ISSUES INVOLVED. RESOLUTION OF THIS AUDIT IS
PENDING REVIEW OF THESE LEGAL ISSUES. ONCE THESE ISSUES ARE
RESOLVED, STEPS TO CLOSE THIS AUDIT WILL CONTINUE.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
IG FOLLOUUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/93 [1]
P8AAL2-03-0072-2100087 ICF CORP
Sunnary: (PREAWARD AUDIT UNDER NEGOTIATION)
VA 12/ 4/91
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: THIS CONTRACT HAS NOT BEEN AWARDED.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: THE
CONTRACT IS EXPECTED TO BE AWARDED BY APRIL 30, 1993.
IG FOLLOUUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/93 [1]
P9AKN2-03-0547-2300092 ICF CORP
Sunnary: (PREAWARD AUDIT UNDER NEGOTIATION)
VA 9/30/92
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: CONTRACT AWARD DETERMINATION HAS NOT BEEN MADE.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
IG FOLLOUUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/93 [1] (An explanation was not provided
by EPA relating to the reasons a management decision had. not been made at 3/31 /93. A desired
timetable for achieving a management decision was also not provided.)
D8EML2-03-0302-2100315 GILBERT ASSOCIATES INC PA 4/ 7/92
Sunnary: 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 AND EPA HAS A
PORTION OF $1,285.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE:
50
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
IG FOLLOUUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/93 11] (An explanation was not provided
by EPA relating to the reasons a management decision had not been made at 3/31 /93. A desired
timetable for achieving a management decision was also not provided.)
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENEFSAl
-------
Assignment Control
Number
Title
Final Report
Issued
Assignment Control
Number Title
Final Report
Issued
P8ASL2-03-0329-2100390 ICF CORP VA 5/27/92
Summary: (PREAWARD AUDIT UNDER NEGOTIATION)
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
4ADE: THE CONTRACT HAS NOT BEEN AWARDED.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
IG FOLLOUUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/93 [1] (An explanation was not provided
>y EPA relating to the reasons a management decision had not been made at 3/31/93. A desired
metabto for achieving a management decision was also not provided)
P8AML2-03-0357-2100419 ICF CORP
Sunmary: (PREAUARD AUDIT UNDER NEGOTIATION)
VA 6/16/92
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
ADE: CONTRACT AWARD DETERMINATION HAS NOT BEEN MADE.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
IG FOLLOUUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/93 [1] (An explanation was not provided by
EPA relating to the reasons a management decision had not been made at 3/31/93. A desired
timetable for achieving a management decision was also not provided.)
D8DML2-03-0549-2100536 VIGYAN INC VA 8/31/92
Senary: DCAA AUDITED THE DIRECT AND INDIRECT COSTS FOR
CY1988. THE AUDIT OF DIRECT COSTS DISCLOSED NO EXCEPTIONS. DCAA
DID NOT QUESTION ANY COSTS IN THE OH EXPENSE POOLS. DCAA
QUESTIONED .1% OF THE G&E EXPENSE POOL RELATED TO DIRECT LABOR IN
THE ALLOCATION BASE.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: NEGOTIATIONS COMPLETE. AWAITING CONTRACTOR TO SIGN
AGREEMENT AND RETURN.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
EXPECT CLOSURE BY APRIL 30, 1993.
IG FOLLOUUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/93 [1]
D8EML2-03-0563-2100619 ROY F UESTON PA 9/16/92
Suoaary: DCAA FOUND THAT THE CONTRACTOR'S INTERNAL CONTROLS
PERTAINING TO THE ACCOUNTING SEGREGATION AND DELETION OF
UNALLOWABLE COSTS AS REQUIRED BY FAR 31.201-6 AND CAS 405 ARE
INADEQUATE.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE:
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
IG FOLLOUUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/93 11] (An explanation was not provided by
EPA relating to the reasons a management decision had not been made at 3/31/83. A desired
timetable for achieving a management decision was also not provided.)
P8AAN2-03-0445-2300059 ICF CORP VA 7/16/92
Suonry: (PREAUARD AUDIT UNDER NEGOTIATION)
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: THE CONTRACTOR MUST REVISE ITS POLICY AND PROCEDURES AND
SEND TO EPA FOR EVALUATION. ONCE THIS IS RECEIVED, PROCEDURES TO
CLOSE THIS AUDIT WILL CONTINUE.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
IG FOLLOUUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/93 [1] (A desired timetable for achieving a
management decision was not provided by EPA.)
D8DML2-04-0182-2100420 CLAUDE TERRY & ASSOCIATES GA 6/17/92
*Sumnary:
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: THIS CONTRACT IS IN ACTIVE NEGOTIATIONS.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
IG FOLLOUUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/93 [1] (An explanation was not provide.
by EPA relating to the reasons a management decision had not been made at 3/31 /93. A desirec
timetable for achieving a management decision was also not provided.)
D8DML2-04-0136-2100422 CLAUDE TERRY & ASSOCIATES GA 6/17/92
•Summary:
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEI
MADE: THIS CONTRACT IS IN ACTIVE NEGOTIATIONS.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
IG FOLLOUUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/93 [1] (An explanation was not provide.
by EPA relating to the reasons a management decision had not been made at 3/31 /93. A desirec
timetable for achieving a management decision was also not provided.)
D8DML2-04-0181-2100423 CLAUDE TERRY & ASSOCIATES GA 6/17/92
•Sumnary:
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEI
MADE: THIS CONTRACT IS IN ACTIVE NEGOTIATIONS.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
IG FOLLOUUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/93 [1] (An explanation was not provide.
by EPA relating to the reasons a management decision had not been made at
3/31/93. A desired timetable for achieving a management decision was also not provided.)
D9BGL2-04-0368-2100587 VESTA TECHNOLOGY LTD FL 9/ 9/92
Summary: VESTA PROVIDED INCINERATION SERVICES TO REIDEL
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES. DELAY CLAIM DUE TO FAILED TEST BURNS &
DEMOBILIZATION. $113 THOUSAND QUESTIONED ON DELAY. $129
THOUSAND QUESTIONED ON EXTENDED OVERHEAD. $264 THOUSAND
UNAUDITED SUB CONTRACTOR (FLINT). $88 THOUSAND PROFIT
QUESTIONED.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE:
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
IG FOLLOUUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/93 [1] (An explanation was not provide,
by EPA relating to the reasons a management decision had not been made at 3/31/93. A desirec
timetable for achieving a management decision was also not provided.)
P8DMLO-05-0421-2100376 PEI ASSOC FY 90 OH 5/20/92
Sunmary: THE AUDIT QUESTIONED ABOUT $100,000 AS INELIGIBLE
AND $248,000 AS UNSUPPORTED. IN ADDITION, $980,000 IS UNAUDITE
PENDING RECEIPT OF A REPORT FROM DCAA.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: THE AUDIT IS AWAITING REVIEW OF GENERAL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS. ONCE DCAA AUDIT COMPLETES REVIEW OF
CORPORATE ALLOCATION IS COMPLETE, THE AUDIT WILL BE CLOSED.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
IG FOLLOUUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/93 [1] (A desired timetable for achievin;
a management decision was not provided by EPA.)
OCTOBER 1, 1992 THROUGH MARCH 31, 1993
51
-------
Assignment Control
Number
Title
Final Report
Issued
Assignment Control
Number
Title
Final Report
Issued
P8DML1-05-0189-2100528 PEI ASSOC FY 85 OH 8/20/92
Suimary: WE HAVE QUESTIONED $130,000 INELIGIBLE AND $362,546
IN UNSUPPORTED THE PROPOSED INDIRECT RATES WERE ADJUSTED
ACCORDINGLY.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
HADE: PEI HAS PROVIDED CONTRACTING OFFICER WITH ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENTATION FOR REVIEW. A SUPPLEMENTAL AUDIT HAS BEEN
REQUESTED. THE OIG WILL PERFORM THE AUDIT AND ISSUE SUPPLEMENTAL
REPORT. ONCE SUPPLEMENTAL AUDIT IS RECEIVED, PROCEDURES TO CLOSE
AUDIT WILL CONTINUE.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
IG FOLLOUUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/93 [1] (The OIG received the above March
1, 1993 request for a supplemental audit. We reviewed the response submitted to EPA by PEI and
determined that no further audit work was necessary or appropriate. We responded to EPA on March
17,1993 with recommended adjustments. We considered this letter satisfactory to respond to EPA's
request. EPA still has to respond to the initial audit report above.)
P8BMP1-05-0335-2400073 PEI ASSOC (FY 85) OH 9/ 9/92
SuMary: THE REVIEW FOUND $224,781 OF INELIGIBLE AND $195,886
OF UNSUPPORTED COSTS.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: PEI HAS PROVIDED CONTRACTING OFFICER WITH ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENTATION. A SUPPLEMENTAL AUDIT HAS BEEN REQUESTED. THE OIG
WILL PERFORM THE AUDIT AND ISSUE SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT. ONCE
SUPPLEMENTAL AUDIT IS RECEIVED, PROCEDURES TO CLOSE AUDIT WILL
CONTINUE.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
IG FOLLOUUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/93 [1] (The OK3 received the above March
1,1993 request for a supplemental audit. We reviewed the response submitted to EPA by PEI and
determined that no further audit work was necessary or appropriate. We responded to EPA on March
17, 1993 with recommended adjustments. We considered this letter satisfactory to respond to EPA's
request. EPA still has to respond to the initial audit report above.)
P9DHL9-10-0110-1100108 RES FY86 INDIRECT COSTS
•Suoaary:
OR 1/24/91
P9DHL9-10-0174-2100504 CH2M 88 OH OR 7/30/92
Suraiary: COSTS QUESTIONED OF $17,150,592 ARE UNALLOWABLE FOR
FEDERAL PARTICIPATION. SIGNIFICANT INTERNAL CONTROL AND
COMPLIANCE WEAKNESSES WERE ALSO NOTED.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE:
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
NEGOTIATIONS ARE EXPECTED TO BE COMPLETED ON APRIL 21, 1993.
POST NEGOTIATION MEMORANDUMS WILL BE FORWARDED TO THE OIG.
IG FOLLOUUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/93 II]
P9DHLO-10-0085-2100505 CH2M 89 OH OR 7/30/92
Suimary: COSTS QUESTIONED OF $16,474,583 ARE UNALLOWABLE FOR
FEDERAL PARTICIPATION SIGNIFICANT INTERNAL CONTROL AND
COMPLIANCE WEAKNESSES WERE ALSO NOTED.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE:
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
NEGOTIATIONS ARE EXPECTED TO BE COMPLETED ON APRIL 21, 1993.
POST NEGOTIATION MEMORANDUMS WILL BE FORWARDED TO THE OIG.
IG FOLLOUUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/93 [1]
P9DHL9-10-0148-2100642 RES 88 OH OR 9/28/92
Suimary: RES INCLUDED INELIGIBLE COSTS IN ITS PROPOSED 1988
FINAL INDIRECT COST RATES. AS A RESULT RES MAY HAVE BEEN
REIMBURSED FOR UNALLOWABLE COSTS UNDER EPA CONTRACTS.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: THE OIG ASKED THAT NEGOTIATIONS BE SUSPENDED PENDING THE
RESOLUTION OF OTHER ISSUES THAT MAY IMPACT THE OUTCOME OF THIS
AUDIT. OIG WILL ISSUE REVISED AUDIT REPORTS. ONCE THESE ISSUES
ARE RESOLVED, STEPS TO CLOSE THIS AUDIT WILL CONTINUE.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: THE OIG ASKED THAT NEGOTIATIONS BE SUSPENDED PENDING THE IG FOLLOUUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/93 [1] (OIG agrees with the above status
RESOLUTION OF OTHER ISSUES THAT MAY IMPACT THE OUTCOME OF THIS ^Jo" not expert a r«Hx«1se mill tf» review ha. b«m compl««l. The OIG doe. not issue
AUDIT. ONCE THESE ISSUES ARE RESOLVED, STEPS TO CLOSE THIS AUDIT revl repo '
UILL CONTINUE
' OFFICE OF ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
IG FOLLOUUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/93 [1] (OK3 agree, with the above status
and does not expect a response until the review has been completed.)
Durham Contracts Management Division
D8AML2-03-0399-2100603 EXPERIMENTAL PATHOLOGY LABS
Suwary: (PREAUARD AUDIT UNDER NEGOTIATION)
9/10/92
P9DHLO-10-0096-2100304 RES 87 OH
•SuMary:
OR 3/31/92
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: THE OIG ASKED THAT NEGOTIATIONS BE SUSPENDED PENDING THE
RESOLUTION OF OTHER ISSUES THAT MAY IMPACT THE OUTCOME OF THIS
AUDIT. ONCE THESE ISSUES ARE RESOLVED, STEPS TO CLOSE THIS AUDIT
WILL CONTINUE.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
IG FOLLOUUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/93 [1] (OIG agrees with the above status
and does not expect a response until the review has been completed.)
P9DH*8-10-0080-2100503 CH2M 87 OH OR 7/30/92
Suimary: COSTS QUESTIONED OF $7,126,600 ARE UNALLOWABLE FOR
FEDERAL PARTICIPATION. SIGNIFICANT INTERNAL CONTROL AND
COMPLIANCE WEAKNESSES WERE ALSO NOTED.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE:
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
NEGOTIATIONS ARE EXPECTED TO BE COMPLETED ON APRIL 21, 1993.
POST NEGOTIATION MEMORANDUMS WILL BE FORWARDED TO THE OIG.
IG FOLLOUUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/93 [1]
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
HADE: NEGOTIATIONS HAVE BEEN CONCLUDED AND A SOURCE SELECTED.
THE CONTRACT FILE IS UNDER REVIEW.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: AN
AWARD TO ANOTHER FIRM IS EXPECTED BY MAY 1, 1993.
IG FOLLOUUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/93 HI
D8CAL2-03-0433-2100604 ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL VA 9/10/92
SuHary: THE CONTRACTOR'S FINAL VOUCHER INCLUDED COSTS IN
EXCESS OF CONTRACT LIMITATIONS TOTALING $51,622.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: THIS CONTRACT CLOSE OUT HAS COST QUESTIONED DUE TO
CONTRACT OVERRUN. IN ADDITION, THE FEE MUST BE ADJUSTED SINCE
LEVEL OF EFFORT WAS NOT MET. THE CONTRACTOR HAS BEEN REQUESTED TO
PROVIDE DATA FOR CONTRACTOR OFFICER DECISION ON BOTH ISSUES.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION IS EXPECTED BY MAY 15, 1993.
IG FOLLOUUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/93 [11
52
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
-------
Assignment Control
Number
Title
Final Report
Issued
Assignment Control
Number
Title
Final Report
Issued
D8CPL2-03-0432-2100620 MIRANDA ASSOCIATES INC DC 9/16/92
SuMary: 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
HADE: THE CONTRACT HAS BEEN CLOSED OUT. INDIRECT COST QUESTIONED
DUE TO CLAIMS IN EXCESS OF CONTRACT CEILING. IN ADDITION, FEE
DETERMINATION MUST BE MADE UNDER LEVEL OF EFFORT. THE CONTRACTOR
REQUESTED TO CERTIFY LEVEL OF EFFORT SO THAT A CONTRACTOR OFFICER
DECISION CAN BE MADE.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION IS EXPECTED BY MAY 14, 1993.
IG FOLLOUUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/93 [1]
D8AML2-04-0335-2100440 ALPHA-GAMMA TECHNOLOGIES INCNC 6/25/92
Summary: (PREAWARD AUDIT UNDER NEGOTIATION)
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: THE COMPETITIVE RANGE HAS NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED BECAUSE THE
TECHNICAL EVALUATION PANEL HAS NOT RESPONDED TO REVIEW COMMENTS.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: THE
PROJECTED AWARD DATE IS JUNE 30, 1993.
IG FOLLOUUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/93 [1]
D8ANL2-04-0242-2100467 EC/R INC.
ary: (PREAWARD AUDIT UNDER NEGOTIATION)
NC 7/10/92
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: THE COMPETITIVE RANGE HAS NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED BECAUSE THE
TECHNICAL EVALUATION PANEL HAS NOT RESPONDED TO REVIEW COMMENTS.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: THE
PROJECTED AWARD DATE IS JUNE 30, 1993.
IG FOLLOUUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/93 [1]
D8AML2-04-0362-2100474 ANALYTICAL TESTING CONSULT NC 7/15/92
Summary: (PREAWARD AUDIT UNDER NEGOTIATION)
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: THE COMPETITIVE RANGE HAS NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED BECAUSE THE
TECHNICAL REVIEW PANEL HAS NOT RESPONDED TO REVIEW COMMENTS.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: THE
PROJECTED AWARD DATE IS JUNE 30, 1993.
IG FOLLOUUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/93 [1]
P8AHP2-05-0301-2400052 EQM (AIR)
Suimary: (PREAUARD AUDIT UNDER NEGOTIATION)
OH 7/ 2/92
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: THE COMPETITIVE RANGE HAS NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED BECAUSE
THE TECHNICAL EVALUATION PANEL HAS NOT RESPONDED TO REVIEW
COMMENTS.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: THE
PROJECTED AWARD DATE IS JUNE 30, 1993.
IG FOLLOUUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/93 [1]
D8AML2-09-0175-2100457 MAXWELL LABORATORIES INC PA CA 7/ 7/92
Summary: (PREAUARD AUDIT UNDER NEGOTIATION)
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
HADE: THE PROCUREMENT WAS PUT ON HOLD DUE TO A DELAY IN
APPROVAL OF THE PROCUREMENT REQUEST, WHICH WAS RECEIVED IN
NOVEMBER 1992.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: THE
PROJECTED AWARD DATE IS JUNE 15, 1993.
IG FOLLOUUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/93 [1]
OFFICE OF ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT
Financial Analysis Branch
D9BFL2-03-0367-2100622 COMPUTER SCIENCE CORP VA 9/17/92
Suimary: DCAA QUESTIONED 7,692 LABOR HOURS IN EXCESS OF THOSE
AUTHORIZED IN THE CONTRACT. DCAA WAS UNABLE TO DETERMINE IF
HOURS BILLED WERE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DOPO'S MEMORANDUM.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: THE CONTRACTING OFFICER IS AWAITING CONTRACTOR RESPONSE
TO ISSUES IN DCAA AUDIT REPORT.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
IG FOLLOUUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/93 [1] (A desired timetable for achieving
a management decision was not provided by EPA}
P8BMN1-03-0146-2300014 O&R MANAGEMENT CORPORATION HD 11/ 5/91
Summary: O&R MANAGEMENT CLAIMED $557,442 OF OTHER DIRECT
COSTS. ONE HUNDRED PERCENT OF THE CONTRACT WAS QUESTIONED
BECAUSE O&R DID NOT MAINTAIN RECORDS.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
HADE: THE CONTRACTING OFFICER IS WRITING A DECISION ON THE
DISALLOWANCE OF COST CLAIMED BY CONTRACTOR IN AUDIT REPORT.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: THIS
AUDIT SHOULD BE CLOSED SEPTEMBER 30, 1993.
IG FOLLOUUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/93 [1]
D8EMP2-03-0309-2400071 COMPUTER SCIENCE CORP VA 9/ 9/92
Summary: THE LABOR ADJUSTMENTS SELECTED DURING DCAA'S AUDIT
WERE UNACCEPTABLE BECAUSE THE CONTRACTOR DID NOT PROVIDE
SUFFICIENT CORROBORATING EVIDENCE.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
HADE: A RESPONSE TO THE DCAA LABOR ADJUSTMENT AUDIT IS BEING
PREPARED. SUBSEQUENT TO THIS RESPONSE, DCAA WILL PERFORM A
FINAL DIRECT COST AUDIT.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: ONCE
RESOLUTION OF AUDIT #2400072 OCCURS, THIS AUDIT WILL BE
RESOLVED.
IG FOLLOUUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/93 [3]
D9EFP2-03-0308-2400072 COMPUTER SCIENCE CORP VA 9/ 9/92
Sumary: DCAA'S AUDIT DISCLOSED NUMEROUS INADEQUATELY
EXPLAINED AND DOCUMENTED LABOR ADJUSTMENTS FROM 68-01-6360
68-01-3840, 68-01-6363, AND 68-01-6639.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: DCAA WAS PROVIDED A DRAFT RESPONSE AND BEGAN CALCULATING A
REVISED POSITION. ANALYSIS OF THE INITIAL IMPACTS RESULTED IN
UNDISCLOSED AUDIT ISSUES. A MEETING WITH DCAA IS PLANNED.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION IS EXPECTED BY SEPTEMBER 30, 1993.
IG FOLLOUUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/93 [33
P9AHN9-05-0347-0300036 OH MATERIALS (PR EQ RATES) OH 3/27/90
Summary: (PREAUARD AUDIT UNDER NEGOTIATION)
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: NEGOTIATIONS ARE PENDING. EPA REQUESTED FURTHER AUDITS ON
THE CONTRACTOR'S EQUIPMENT UTILIZATION RATES FOR 1990 IN ORDER TO
RESOLVE THESE COSTS. RATES FROM 1987 THROUGH 1989 SHOULD BE
RESOLVED WITHIN TWELVE MONTHS FROM RECEIPT OF THESE AUDITS.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
IG FOLLOUUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/93 [1] (Ongoing aud.ts on the contractor's
equipment utilization rates will not help in the resolution of this audit since the audits involve different
fiscal periods.)
OCTOBER 1, 1992 THROUGH MARCH 31, 1993
53
-------
Assignment Control
Number
Title
Final Report
Issued
P9AHNO-05-0260-0300047 OH MATERIALS (PR EQ RATES) OH 4/27/90
Sumary: CPREAUARD AUDIT UNDER NEGOTIATION)
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
HADE: AWAITING CONTRACTOR PROPOSAL TO FIX FINAL EQUIPMENT RATES
SINCE SEPTEMBER 1992. CONTRACTOR INFORMED THAT EPA WILL PROCEED
TO UNILATERALLY SET RATES IF NO RESPONSE IS RECEIVED BY APRIL 17,
1993.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
IG FOLLOUUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/93
management decision was not provided by EPA.)
[1] (A desired timetable for achieving a
D9BGL2-05-0342-2100609 UARZYN ENG UI 9/14/92
Sumary: THE CONTRACTOR'S FINAL VOUCHER INCLUDED $40,420 IN
ALLOWABLE COSTS IN EXCESS OF CONTRACT LIMITATION.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: THE CONTRACTING OFFICER HAS DETERMINED THAT CONTRACTOR IS
ENTITLED TO QUESTIONED COSTS IN EXCESS OF CONTRACT FUNDING
PENDING SUPERVISORY APPROVAL. THE PROJECT OFFICER IS IN THE
PROCESS OF AUTHORIZING ADDITIONAL FUNDING TO PAY THE FINAL
CLAIMED CONTRACT COST.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
IG FOLLOUUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/93
management decision was not provided by EPA.)
[1] (A desired timetable for achieving a
P9AHN1-05-0144-2300023 OHM REM ERCS2 22 FY 89
Smmary: CPREAUARD AUDIT UNDER NEGOTIATION)
OH 12/26/91
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: THE CONTRACTING OFFICER HAS BEEN AWAITING CONTRACTOR
PROPOSAL TO FIX FINAL EQUIPMENT RATES SINCE SEPTEMBER 1992.
CONTRACTOR INFORMED THAT EPA WILL PROCEED TO UNILATERALLY SET
RATES IF NO RESPONSE IS RECEIVED BY APRIL 17, 1993.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
IG FOLLOUUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/93
a management decision was not provided by EPA.)
C11 (A desired timetable for achieving
P9AHN1-05-0143-2300024 OHM REN ERCS2 Z1 FY 89
Suimary: CPREAUARD AUDIT UNDER NEGOTIATION)
OH 12/27/91
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
HADE: NEGOTIATIONS ARE STILL PENDING. EPA REQUESTED FURTHER
AUDITS ON THE CONTRACTOR'S EQUIPMENT UTILIZATION RATES FOR 1990
IN ORDER TO RESOLVE THESE COSTS. RATES FROM 1987 THROUGH 1989
SHOULD BE RESOLVED WITHIN TWELVE MONTHS FROM RECEIPT OF THESE
AUDITS.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
IG FOLLOUUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/93 [1] (Ongoing audits on the
contractor's equipment utilization rates will not help in the resolution of this audit since the audits
involve different fiscal periods.)
P8BMPO-05-0422-2400046 PEI ASSOC FY 90 OH 6/ 2/92
Suimary: 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
MADE: PEI HAS PROVIDED EPA WITH ADDITIONAL DATA/DOCUMENTATION
FOR REVIEW. A SUPPLEMENTAL AUDIT HAS BEEN REQUESTED. THE DIG
WILL PERFORM AUDIT AND ISSUE SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: THIS
AUDIT SHOULD BE RESOLVED BY JUNE 30, 1993.
IG FOLLOUUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/93 [1]
Assignment Control
Number
Title
Final Report
Issued
D8CHL2-09-0319-2100524 GEO RESOURCE CONSULTANTS FN CA 8/12/92
•Summary:
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
HADE: ORIGINAL DCAA REPORT ISSUED BY THE OIG WAS INCOMPLETE IN
THAT THE REPORT DID NOT ADDRESS ALL OF THE COSTS CLAIMED UNDER
THE CONTRACT. A SUPPLEMENTAL DCAA REPORT WAS ISSUED TO ADDRESS
THE CLAIMED COSTS. THE CONTRACTING OFFICER IS PREPARING
NEGOTIATION POSITION.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
IG FOLLOUUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/93 [1] (A desired timetable for reaching a
management decision was not provided by EPA.)
OFFICE OF ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT
Washington Cost Advisory Branch
P8AML2-03-0152-2100146 ICF CORP VA 12/20/91
Suimary: (PREAWARD AUDIT UNDER NEGOTIATION)
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: CONTRACT HAS NOT BEEN AWARDED.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
IG FOLLOUUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/93 [1] (An explanation was not provided by
EPA relating to the reasons a management decision had not been made at 3/31 /93. A desired
timetable for achieving a management decision was also not provided.)
D9AKL2-03-0115-2100169 DYNAMAC MD 1/ 6/92
Suimary: (PREAWARD AUDIT UNDER NEGOTIATION)
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE:
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
IG FOLLOUUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/93 [1] (An explanation was not provided by
EPA relating to the reasons a management decision had not been made at 3/31/93. A desired
timetable for achieving a management decision was also not provided.)
D9AKL2-03-0120-2100181 APEX ENVIRONMENTAL
Sumary: (PREAWARD AUDIT UNDER NEGOTIATION)
MD
6/92
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: CONTRACT AWARD DETERMINATION HAS NOT BEEN MADE.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
IG FOLLOUUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/93 [1] (An explanation was not provided by
EPA relating to the reasons a management decision had not been made at 3/31 /93. A desired
timetable for achieving a management decision was also not provided.)
D8AML2-03-0124-2100185 EG&G WASHINGTON ANALYTICAL MD I/ 6/92
Suqmary: CPREAUARD AUDIT UNDER NEGOTIATION)
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE:
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
IG FOLLOUUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/93 [1] (An explanation was not provided by
EPA relating to the reasons a management decision had not been made at 3/31 /93. A desired
timetable for achieving a management decision was also not provided.)
D9AGL2-03-0305-2100490 NUS CORP - HALLIBURTON
Summary: (PREAWARD AUDIT UNDER NEGOTIATION)
PA 7/23/92
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: CONTRACT AWARD DETERMINATION HAS NOT BEEN MADE.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
IG FOLLOUUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/93 [1] (An explanation was not provided by
EPA relating to the reasons a management decision had not been made at 3/31/93. A desired
timetable for achieving a management decision was also not provided.)
54
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
-------
Assignment Control
Number Title
Final Report
Issued
Assignment Control
Number Title
Final Report
Issued
D9AFL2-03-0240-2100557 UNISYS VA 9/ 4/92
Sunmary: (PREAWARD AUDIT UNDER NEGOTIATION)
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: DCAA IS CURRENTLY PERFORMING AN INCURRED COST AUDIT ON
THE CONTRACT. AUDIT STATUS IS PENDING OUTCOME.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
IG FOLLOUUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/93 II] (A desired timetable for achieving
a management decision was not provided by EPA.)
D9AKN2-03-0488-2300083 BRUCE COMPANY DC 9/29/92
Suimary: (PREAWARD AUDIT UNDER NEGOTIATION)
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
HADE: CONTRACT HAS NOT BEEN AWARDED.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
CONTRACT AWARD EXPECTED SEPTEMBER 30. 1993.
IG FOLLOUUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/93 [1]
P9AHN1-05-0191-1300085 OHM REN ERCS3 R1 OH 7/ 9/91
Siranary: (PREAWARD AUDIT UNDER NEGOTIATION)
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS ARE ONGOING.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
IG FOLLOUUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/93 [1] (An explanation was not provided
by EPA relating to the reasons a management decision had not been made at 3/31 /93. A desired
timetable for achieving a management decision was also not provided.)
P9AHP1-05-0313-1400035 OHM REM ERCS3 R2 OH 9/ 6/91
Summary: (PREAWARD AUDIT UNDER NEGOTIATION)
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS ARE ONGOING.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
IG FOLLOUUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/93 [1] (An explanation was not provided
by EPA relating to the reasons a management decision had not been made at 3/31/93. A desired
timetable for achieving a management decision was also not provided.)
P9AHP1-05-0313-1400036 OHM REM ERCS3 R2 OH 9/ 6/91
Sumnary: (PREAWARD AUDIT UNDER NEGOTIATION)
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS ARE ONGOING.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
IG FOLLOUUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/93 [1] (An explanation was not provided
by EPA relating to the reasons a management decision had not been made at 3/31 /93. A desired
timetable for achieving a management decision was also not provided.)
E9AHP2-05-0036-2400001 EQM ERCS3 R5 OH 11/27/91
Suimary: (PREAUARD AUDIT UNDER NEGOTIATION)
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: CONTRACT HAS NOT BEEN AWARDED.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
CONTRACT AWARD EXPECTED SEPTEMBER 30, 1993.
ry: (PREAUARD AUDIT UNDER NEGOTIATION)
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: CONTRACT HAS NOT BEEN AWARDED.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
CONTRACT AWARDED EXPECTED SEPTEMBER 30, 1993.
IG FOLLOUUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/93 [1]
P9AHP2-05-0052-2400010 SAMSEL SERVICES ERCS3 R5 OH 12/26/91
Sunmary: (PREAUARD AUDIT UNDER NEGOTIATION)
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: CONTRACT HAS NOT BEEN AWARDED.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
CONTRACT AWARD EXPECTED SEPTEMBER 30, 1993.
IG FOLLOUUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/93 [1]
P9AHP2-05-0306-2400058 OHM REM ERCS3 R
Sunmary: (PREAWARD AUDIT UNDER NEGOTIATION)
OH 7/23/92
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS ARE ONGOING.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
IG FOLLOUUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/93 [1] (An explanation was not provided by
EPA relating to the reasons a management decision had not been made at 3/31/93. A desired
timetable for achieving a management decision was also not provided.)
P9AHP2-05-0350-2400063 MAECORP ERCS3 R5 IL 8/11/92
Sunnary: (PREAWARD AUDIT UNDER NEGOTIATION)
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: CONTRACT HAS NOT BEEN AWARDED.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
CONTRACT AWARD EXPECTED SEPTEMBER 30, 1993.
IG FOLLOUUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/93 [1]
P9AGL2-10-0079-2100607 RES PRE-AUARD
Sunmary: (PREAWARD AUDIT UNDER NEGOTIATION)
OR 9/11/92
IG FOLLOUUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/93 [1]
P9AHP2-05-0054-2400007 MARS E/S ERCS3 R5
IL 12/18/91
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: CONTRACT HAS NOT BEEN AWARDED.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
CONTRACT AWARD EXPECTED SEPTEMBER 30, 1993.
IG FOLLOUUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/93 [1]
REGION 1. REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR
E3BUL1-01-0178-2100522 RI ESTUARY PROGRAM GRANTS RI 8/11/92
Sunmary: A TOTAL OF $198,111 IS QUESTIONED; VARIOUS
WEAKNESSES IN THE GRANTEE'S INTERNAL CONTROLS ARE ALSO REPORTED.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
HADE: THE REGION AND THE DIG HAVE REACHED AGREEMENT ON MOST
ISSUES IN THIS INTERIM AUDIT. DISCUSSION AND AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE REGION, STATE AND DIG WILL BE COMPLETE BY APRIL 30, 1993.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION OF THIS AUDIT IS EXPECTED BY MAY 31, 1993.
IG FOLLOUUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/93 [2]
OCTOBER 1, 1992 THROUGH MARCH 31, 1993
55
-------
Assignment Control
Number
Title
Final Report
Issued
Assignment Control
Number
Title
Final Report
Issued
REGION 2. REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR
P5BGLO-02-0278-2100134 EQB PR 12/19/91
Summary: THE TOTAL CLAIM OF $248,063 WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY
ADEQUATE SOURCE DOCUMENTATION FOR US TO AUDIT THE CLAIM.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: AUDITOR QUESTIONED ALL GRANTEE COSTS AS UNSUPPORTED FOR
LACK OF RECORDS, REPORTEDLY DESTROYED IN HURRICANE. EQB
SUBSEQUENTLY FOUND SOME DOCUMENTATION. REGION AND OIG ARE
HAVING CPA TO EVALUATE THE DOCUMENTATION.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: THE
FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER IS EXPECTED TO BE ISSUED BY SEPTEMBER
30, 1993.
IG FOLLOUUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/93 [2]
P2CWL9-02-0231-2100399 TONAUANDA NY 6/ 9/92
Suimary: THE GRANTEE CLAIMED $409,391 OF INELIGIBLE COST AND
$566,507 OF UNSUPPORTED COST FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A PUMPING
STATION, FORCE MAIN AND INTERCEPTOR SEWER LINE.
- 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 VERY LIMITED STAFF AT NYSDEC HAS CAUSED A DELAY IN THE
RESOLUTION OF THIS AUDIT.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: THE
FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER IS EXPECTED TO BE ISSUED BY JUNE 30,
1993.
IG FOLLOUUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/93 [1]
P2CUL9-02-02047-2100400 ERIE COUNTY - SOUTHTOWNS NY 6/ 9/92
Summary: THE GRANTEE CLAIMED $171,699 OF INELIGIBLE COST AND
$90,190 OF UNSUPPORTED COST FOR CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADVANCED
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT, INTERCEPTOR SEWERS AND PUMP
STATIONS.
- 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 VERY LIMITED STAFF AT NYSDEC HAS CAUSED A DELAY IN THE
RESOLUTION OF THIS AUDIT.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: THE
FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER IS EXPECTED TO BE ISSUED BY JUNE 30,
1993.
IG FOLLOUUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/93 [1]
P2CUL9-02-0341-2100402 SARATOGA COUNTY SEWER NY 6/ 9/92
SUMHfy: THE GRANTEE CLAIMED $266,624 OF INELIGIBLE COST AND
$29,906 OF UNSUPPORTED COST FOR CONSTRUCTION OF AN INTERCEPTOR
AND COLLECTION SYSTEM AND CONSTRUCTION OF A MAINTENANCE AND
FACILITY BUILDING.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
HADE: 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
AUDITSOOOOOOO AND VERY LIMITED STAFF AT NYSDEC HAS CAUSED A DELAY
IN THE RESOLUTION OF THIS AUDIT.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: THE
FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER IS EXPECTED TO BE ISSUED BY JUNE 30,
1993.
IG FOLLOUUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/93 [1]
56
P2CULO-02-0149-2100448 NIAGARA COUNTY SD1 NY 7/ 5/92
Smmary: THE GRANTEE CLAIMED $75,549 OF INELIGIBLE COST AND
$938,238 OF UNSUPPORTED COST FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A WASTEWATER
TREATMENT PLANT, INTERCEPTOR SEWERS AND PUMP STATIONS.
- 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 VERY LIMITED STAFF AT NYSDEC HAS CAUSED A DELAY IN THE
RESOLUTION OF THIS AUDIT.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: THE
FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER IS EXPECTED TO BE ISSUED BY JUNE 30,
1993.
IG FOLLOUUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/93 [1]
P2BU*8-02-0017-2100449 NYC - NORTH RIVER NY 7/ 5/92
Sunnary: 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 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 A HIGH AMOUNT OF QUESTIONED COSTS CAUSED A DELAY IN THE
RESOLUTION OF THIS AUDIT.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: THE
FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER IS EXPECTED TO BE ISSUED BY JUNE 30,
1993.
IG FOLLOUUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/93 [4]
E9BHL1-02-0114-2100586 ERCS - SAD ENVIRONMENTAL NJ 9/ 9/92
Suimary: THE MINI-ERCS CONTRACTOR CLAIMED $561,118 OF
QUESTIONED COSTS CONSISTING OF $30,241 OF INELIGIBLE AND
$539,877 OF UNSUPPORTED COSTS IN PERFORMANCE SUPERFUND CLEANUP
ACTIVITIES.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: THE REGION SUBMITTED A DRAFT RESOLUTION TO OIG ON
FEBRUARY 25, 1993. THE OIG RAISED QUESTIONS AND IS PREPARING
MEMORANDUM TO THE REGION LISTING ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRE
FOR FINAL RESOLUTION.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: THE
FINAL DETERMINATION IS EXPECTED TO BE ISSUED BY JUNE 30, 1993.
IG FOLLOUUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/93 [1]
REGION 3. REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR
P2CUMO-03-0270-2200023 LEESBURG VA 7/23/92
Summary: TOWN OF LEESBURG, VA CLAIMED $395,602 OF COSTS IN
EXCESS OF THE GRANTS AMOUNTS.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
HADE: REGION ISSUED FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER TO GRANTEE ON
FEBRUARY 2, 1993.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
IG FOLLOUUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/93 C3] (The audit was closed on April 5
1993.)
P2CUMO-03-0114-2200041 BERKELEY COUNTY PSD UV 9/50/9J
Suimary: COSTS OF $517,956 WERE INELIGIBLE PRIMARILY BECAUSE
THE GRANTEE CLAIMED $219,488 OF INELIGIBLE CHANGE ORDERS AND
$169,091 OF COSTS INCURRED BEYOND THE CUT-OFF DATE.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEI
MADE: THIS AUDIT WAS ISSUED ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1992 AND CLOSED (
APRIL 1, 1993.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
IG FOLLOUUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/93 [5] (The OIG received the manag.
decision on March 30, 1993 and closed the report on April 1, 1993.)
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
-------
Assignment Control
Number
Title
Final Report
Issued
Assignment Control
Number
Title
Final Report
Issued
P6DUNO-03-0261-2300046 DC GOVERNMENT DC 3/31/92
Sunmary: 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
MADE: A MULTITUDE OF ISSUES TOTALING $8.5 MILLION REQUIRED
EXTRAORDINARY TIME TO REVIEW AND RESOLVE. THE OIG DISAGREED
WITH MANAGEMENT'S PROPOSED FINAL DETERMINATION AND REQUESTS
ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION FROM THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: THE
FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER IS EXPECTED TO BE ISSUED BY MAY 15,
1993.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/93 [2] (The OIG determined the response
to be inadequate)
P2CWN1-03-0123-2300062 PHILADELPHIA CITY OF PA 7/23/92
Suimary: 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 THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: THE SIZE AND COMPLEXITY OF THIS MEGA-AUDIT, INVOLVING
SEVERAL GRANTS, WILL REQUIRE MUCH TIME TO RESOLVE. MEETINGS AND
CORRESPONDENCE WITH GRANTEE ARE ONGOING.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: THE
FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER IS EXPECTED TO BE ISSUED BY SEPTEMBER
30, 1993.
IG FOLLOUUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/93 [1]
REGION 4. REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR
E2CUN1-04-0052-1300086 HILLSBOROUGH CTY FL 7/17/91
Suwary: THE GRANTEE RECEIVED EPA FUNDS TO EXPAND THEIR
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT. WE DID NOT FIND JUSTIFICATION FOR
THE EXPANSION. THEREFORE, WE QUESTIONED 84% OF THE EXPANSION
COST THAT WAS UNNECESSARY, WHICH COMES TO $5,052,880 EPA SHARE.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: JUSTIFICATION FOR THE EXPANSION OF THE TREATMENT PLANT
IS DEPENDENT UPON THE OUTCOME OF THE CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN FOR
THE RUSKIN/WIMAUMA PROJECT. THE REGION AND OIG CONCUR THAT A
FINAL DETERMINATION IS PREMATURE.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
IG FOLLOUUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/93 [2] (OIG agrees with the above status.)
REGION 5. REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR
P2CUN9-05-0336-0300076 UELLSVILLE OH 8/ 6/90
Sunary: WE QUESTIONED AS INELIGIBLE OVER $1.9 MILLION BECAUSE
OF THE GRANTEE'S FAILURE TO REHABILITATE ITS SEWERS.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: GRANTEE RESOLVED ALL COMPLIANCE FINDINGS ON DECEMBER 23,
1992, AS INSTRUCTED UNDER 1988 CONSENT DECREE. OIG AGREED TO
REGION'S FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER DATED MARCH 26, 1993, BUT
WILL NOT CLOSE AUDIT UNTIL GRANTEE COMPLIES WITH SPECIAL
CONDITIONS OF GRANT AWARD.
P2CUP9-05-0075-1400037 GARY SO IN 9/ 9/91
SuMary: ALMOST $2.8 MILLION WASTED WHEN THE GRANTEE FAILED TO
OPERATE AND MAINTAIN A WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: THE ENTIRE GRANT OF $33 MILLION WAS QUESTIONED DUE TO
ALLEGED IMPROPER PLANT OPERATION AND VIOLATION OF NPDES. GRANTEE
PROVIDED VOLUMINOUS DOCUMENTATION TWO WEEKS BEFORE FINAL
DETERMINATION DUE DATE. A CONSENT DECREE GIVES GARY UNTIL 1994 TO
COMPLY.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
IG FOLLOUUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/93 [3]
P2CUP8-05-0026-1400038 GARY SO IN 9/ 9/91
Suimary: ALMOST $25 MILLION WASTED WHEN THE GRANTEE FAILED TO
OPERATE AND MAINTAIN A WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: THE ENTIRE GRANT OF $33 MILLION WAS QUESTIONED DUE TO
ALLEGED IMPROPER PLANT OPERATION AND VIOLATION OF NPDES. GRANTEE
PROVIDED VOLUMINOUS DOCUMENTATION TWO WEEKS BEFORE FINAL
DETERMINATION DUE DATE. A CONSENT DECREE GIVES GARY UNTIL 1994
TO COMPLY.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
IG FOLLOUUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/93 [3]
P2CUNO-05-0032-2300074 UASHTENAW CO DPU HI 9/ 4/92
Suimary: THE GRANTEE CLAIMED $942,874 OF INELIGIBLE COSTS
THAT WERE NOT PROPERLY PROCURED RELATING TO LEGAL SERVICES AND
ENGINEERING COSTS INCURRED AFTER CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION DATE.
THE GRANTEE ALSO CLAIMED $3,742,844 OF UNSUPPORTED CONSTRUCTION
AND ENGINEERING COSTS.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: COMPLEX LEGAL ISSUES HAD TO BE RESOLVED BEFORE THE AUDIT
COULD BE RESOLVED. THE. PRELIMINARY DETERMINATION WAS ISSUED ON
JANUARY 29, 1993.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: THE
EXPECTED ISSUANCE OF THE FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER IS APRIL 30,
IG FOLLOUUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/93 [3]
P2CUP6-05-0298-2400004 W LAKE SUPERIOR (DULUTH) MN 12/12/91
Suimary: THE WESTERN LAKE SUPERIOR SANITARY DISTRICT CLAIMED
$8,595,588 OF INELIGIBLE CONSTRUCTION, ENGINEERING AND
ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS AND $166,834 OF UNSUPPORTED COSTS.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: THE DIVISIONAL INSPECTOR GENERAL FORWARDED THIS AUDIT TO
THE OFFICE OF ASSISTANT INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR AUDITS ON JULY 24
1992. THE REPORT QUESTIONED OVER $8 MILLION RELATED TO THE SOLID
WASTE PROCESSING PORTION OF THE PLANT. OF THIS, $7 563 075 OF
CONSTRUCTION COSTS PLUS RELATED ARCHITECTURE AND ENGINEERING
EXPENSES ARE AT ISSUE.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION OF THIS AUDIT IS EXPECTED BY SEPTEMBER 30, 1993.
IG FOLLOUUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/93 [6]
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
IG FOLLOUUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/93 [3]
OCTOBER 1, 1992 THROUGH MARCH 31, 1993
57
-------
Assignment Control
Number
Title
Final Report
Issued
Assignment Control
Number
Title
Final Report
Issued
P2BWP1-05-0357-2400064 MILWAUKEE MSD UI 8/18/92
Sunroary: MILWAUKEE METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT CLAIMED
$3,060,908 OF INELIGIBLE COSTS AND $2,720,064 OF UNSUPPORTED
COSTS.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
HADE: DUE TO THE LARGE NUMBER OF GRANTS BEING AUDITED, THE
GRANTEE WAS UNABLE TO SUBMIT A COMPLETE RESPONSE UNTIL JANUARY,
1993.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: THE
FINAL DETERMINATION IS EXPECTED TO BE COMPLETED BY JUNE 30,1993.
IG FOLLOUUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/93 D]
P2CWP8-05-0264-2400077 GARY SO IN 9/28/92
Sumiary: THE ENTIRE GRANT $14,860,519 IS QUESTIONED BECAUSE
THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT DOES NOT MEET ITS NPDES LIMITS
IN ADDITION, $7,593.204 OF THE GRANT IS QUESTIONED BECAUSE THE
TERTIARY FILTER FACILITY HAS NOT BEEN MAINTAINED AND IS
INOPERABLE.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: OVER $7 MILLION OF FILTER COSTS AND ASSOCIATED ENGINEERING
FEES WERE QUESTIONED BECAUSE THE FILTERS ARE INOPERABLE.
CONSEQUENTLY, THE GRANTEE IS IN VIOLATION OF ITS NPDES PERMIT A
CONSENT DECREE GIVES GARY UNTIL 1994 TO COMPLY.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
IG FOLLOUUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/93 D]
N3HVJ2-05-0225-2501051 MICHIGAN DNR FY 88/89 MI 9/ 4/92
Sumiary: AUDITOR QUESTIONED $618,689 DUE TO PRE-BILLING OF
WORK NOT PAID FOR; NOT MAINTAINING REQUIRED PERCENTAGE AT LEVEL
OF FUNDING REQUIRED, AND NOT COMPLYING WITH SPECIAL CONDITIONS ON
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: COMPLIANCE ISSUES NEEDED TO BE ADDRESSED BEFORE
DETERMINING THE ELIGIBILITY OF THE QUESTIONED COSTS. THE
PRELIMINARY DETERMINATION WAS ISSUED ON MARCH 2, 1993.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: THE
FINAL DETERMINATION IS EXPECTED TO BE ISSUED BY APRIL 30, 1993.
IG FOLLOUUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/93 O]
PZCWN4-05-0183-5100159 EUCLID OH 7/12/85
Suroary: WE QUESTIONED THE ENTIRE GRANT AWARD OF ALMOST $14.3
MILLION. THE GRANTEE FAILED TO MEET GRANT CONDITION NO. 3 AND
OPERATE THE PLANT SUFFICIENTLY TO MEET ITS NPDES PERMIT.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: RESOLUTION OF QUESTIONED COSTS DEPENDS UPON GRANTEE'S
SATISFACTORY COMPLETION OF ACTIONS IMPOSED BY CONSENT DECREE.
CONSENT DECREE ALLOWS GRANTEE UNTIL 1996 TO COMPLETE CORRECTIVE
ACTIONS.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
IG FOLLOUUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/93 [3]
P2CUN4-05-0357-6100389 DETROIT US MI 8/25/86
Sumnary: THE CITY OF DETROIT, MI CLAIMED OVER $169,000 OF
UNREASONABLE ENGINEERING COSTS.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: THE OIG WILL SUBMIT A PACKAGE OUTLINING THE AUDIT ISSUES
TO THE ASSISTANT INSPECTOR GENERAL (AIGA) FOR AUDITS BY MAY 31
1993. THE AIGA WILL PRESENT THESE ISSUES TO THE AUDIT RESOLUTION
BOARD. RESOLUTION DATE IS DEPENDENT UPON REVIEW OF AUDIT BY THE
ARB.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
IG FOLLOUUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/93 [2]
P2GUN4-05-0264-6100390 DETROIT USD HI 8/25/1
Summary: WE QUESTIONED INELIGIBLE FORCE ACCOUNT COSTS OF
$20,872 INCURRED PRIOR TO THE GRANT AWARD. IN ADDITION,
UNSUPPORTED FORCE ACCOUNT COSTS OF $36,370 INCURRED AFTER THE
APPROVED CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION DATE WERE QUESTIONED.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BE
MADE: THE OIG WILL SUBMIT A PACKAGE OUTLINING THE AUDIT ISSU
TO THE ASSISTANT INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR AUDITS BY MAY 31, 1993
THE AIGA WILL PRESENT THESE ISSUES TO THE AUDIT RESOLUTION
BOARD. RESOLUTION DATE IS DEPENDENT UPON REVIEW OF AUDIT BY
ARB.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
IG FOLLOUUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/93 [21
P2CUN4-05-0263-6100391 DETROIT USD MI S/25/
Summary: THE GRANTEE CLAIMED UNREASONABLE FORCE ACCOUNT CC
OF $286,000. THE GRANTEE ALSO CLAIMED INELIGIBLE COSTS OF
$15,000.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BI
HADE: THE OIG WILL SUBMIT A PACKAGE OUTLINING THE AUDIT ISSl
TO THE ASSISTANT INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR AUDITS BY MAY 31, 1993
THE AIGA WILL PRESENT THESE ISSUES TO THE AUDIT RESOLUTION
BOARD. RESOLUTION DATE IS DEPENDENT UPON REVIEW OF AUDIT BY
ARB.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
IG FOLLOUUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/93 [2]
P2CUN4-05-0280-6100574 DETROIT USD MI 9/30,
Summary: WE QUESTIONED INELIGIBLE COST OF $293,000 MOSTLY
CHANGE ORDERS. WE ALSO QUESTIONED UNNECESSARY COST OF $399,1
FOR FORCE ACCOUNT AND GRANTEE DELAYS. CHANGE ORDER COSTS OF
$148,00 WERE UNSUPPORTED.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BI
HADE: THE OIG WILL SUBMIT A PACKAGE OUTLINING THE AUDIT ISSl
TO THE ASSISTANT INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR AUDITS BY MAY 31, 199!
THE AIGA WILL PRESENT THESE ISSUES TO THE AUDIT RESOLUTION
BOARD. RESOLUTION DATE IS DEPENDENT UPON REVIEW OF AUDIT BY
ARB.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
IG FOLLOUUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/93 [2]
P2CUN4-05-0265-6100575 DETROIT USD UI 9/30
Suimary: THE GRANTEE CLAIMED INELIGIBLE AND UNSUPPORTED
CONSTRUCTION COSTS OF $559,000. THE GRANTEE ALSO CLAIMED
UNREASONABLE ENGINEERING COSTS OF $374,000.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT B
HADE: THE OIG WILL SUBMIT A PACKAGE OUTLINING THE AUDIT ISS
TO THE ASSISTANT INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR AUDITS BY MAY 31, 199
THE AIGA WILL PRESENT THESE ISSUES TO THE AUDIT RESOLUTION
BOARD. RESOLUTION DATE IS DEPENDENT UPON REVIEW OF AUDIT BY
ARB.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
IG FOLLOUUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/93 [2]
58
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENEFiAL
-------
Assignment Control
Number
Title
Final Report
Issued
Assignment Control
Number
Title
Final Report
Issued
P2CWM5-05-0242-7000034 DETROIT USD NI 10/ 6/86
Sumary: WE QUESTIONED INELIGIBLE CONSTRUCTION AND ENGINEERING
COSTS OF $20,006. IN ADDITION, WE QUESTIONED UNSUPPORTED
ENGINEERING COSTS OF $40,495 INCURRED AFTER THE APPROVED
CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION DATE.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: THE DIG WILL SUBMIT A PACKAGE OUTLINING THE AUDIT ISSUES
TO THE ASSISTANT INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR AUDITS BY MAY 31, 1993.
THE AIGA WILL PRESENT THESE ISSUES TO THE AUDIT RESOLUTION BOARD.
RESOLUTION DATE IS DEPENDENT UPON REVIEW OF AUDIT BY THE ARB.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
IG FOLLOUUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/93 [21
P2CUN5-05-0246-7000044 DETROIT USD HI 10/ 7/86
SUBBary: THE GRANTEE CLAIMED UNREASONABLE FORCE ACCOUNT COSTS
OF $336,000.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: THE OIG WILL SUBMIT A PACKAGE OUTLINING THE AUDIT ISSUES
TO THE ASSISTANT INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR AUDITS BY MAY 31, 1993.
THE AIGA WILL PRESENT THESE ISSUES TO THE AUDIT RESOLUTION BOARD.
RESOLUTION DATE IS DEPENDENT UPON REVIEW OF AUDIT BY THE ARB.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
IG FOLLOUUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/93 [2]
P2GUN5-05-0275-7D00045 DETROIT USD MI 10/ 7/86
Sunary: WE QUESTIONED $80,000 OF INELIGIBLE ENGINEERING AND
CONSTRUCTION COSTS. ENGINEERING COSTS OF $112,000 INCURRED AFTER
THE CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION DATE WERE NOT SUPPORTED.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS HOT BEEN
MADE: THE OIG WILL SUBMIT A PACKAGE OUTLINING THE AUDIT ISSUES
TO THE ASSISTANT INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR AUDITS BY MAY 31, 1993.
THE AIGA WILL PRESENT THESE ISSUES TO THE AUDIT RESOLUTION BOARD.
RESOLUTION DATE IS DEPENDENT UPON REVIEW OF AUDIT BY THE ARB.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
IG FOLLOUUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/93 [2]
P2CWN5-05-0247-7000049 DETROIT USD MI 10/ 8/86
Sunary: WE QUESTIONED UNREASONABLE TECHNICAL SERVICES AND
CONSTRUCTION COSTS OF $559,000.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: THE OIG WILL SUBMIT A PACKAGE OUTLINING THE AUDIT ISSUES
TO THE ASSISTANT INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR AUDITS BY MAY 31, 1993.
THE AIGA WILL PRESENT THESE ISSUES TO THE AUDIT RESOLUTION BOARD.
RESOLUTION DATE IS DEPENDENT UPON REVIEW OF AUDIT BY THE ARB.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
IG FOLLOUUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/93 [21
P2CUN5-05-0276-7000050 DETROIT USD MI 10/ 8/86
Sumary: WE QUESTIONED $59,000 OF INELIGIBLE ENGINEERING
COSTS. ENGINEERING COSTS OF $433,600 INCURRED AFTER THE
APPROVED CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION DATE WERE NOT SUPPORTED.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: THE OIG WILL SUBMIT A PACKAGE OUTLINING THE AUDIT ISSUES
TO THE ASSISTANT INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR AUDITS BY MAY 31, 1993.
THE AIGA WILL PRESENT THESE ISSUES TO THE AUDIT RESOLUTION
BOARD. RESOLUTION DATE IS DEPENDENT UPON REVIEW OF AUDIT BY THE
ARB.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
IG FOLLOUUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/93 [2]
E2BUL5-05-0136-7000980 SAUGET IL 3/31/87
Suimary: SAUGET, IL WAS AWARDED FEDERAL FUNDS IN EXCESS OF $7
MILLION FOR INELIGIBLE AND UNNECESSARY PROJECT COSTS.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
HADE: THE REGION IS SEEKING GUIDANCE FROM REGIONAL COUNSEL AND
THE WATER DIVISION REGARDING COMPLEX TECHNICAL AND LEGAL ISSUES.
REGION AND OIG HAVE DISAGREEMENTS THAT WILL BE ELEVATED TO THE
AUDIT RESOLUTION BOARD WHEN THE PROPOSED FINAL DETERMINATION IS
SENT.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: THE
EXPECTED PRELIMINARY FINAL DETERMINATION IS APRIL 30, 1993.
IG FOLLOUUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/93 12]
P2GUN5-05-0132-8000464 DETROIT USD NI 1/20/88
Suimary: DETROIT CLAIMED INELIGIBLE COSTS OF ALMOST $2.6
MILLION RESULTING FROM ITS FAILURE TO HONOR A CONTRACT. WE ALSC
QUESTIONED UNSUPPORTED COSTS OF ALMOST $2.1 MILLION.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
HADE: THE OIG WILL SUBMIT A PACKAGE OUTLINING THE AUDIT ISSUES
TO THE ASSISTANT INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR AUDITS BY MAY 31, 1993.
THE AIGA WILL PRESENT THESE ISSUES TO THE AUDIT RESOLUTION
BOARD. RESOLUTION DATE IS DEPENDENT UPON REVIEW OF AUDIT BY TH[
ARB.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
IG FOLLOUUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/93 [2]
P2CUN7-05-0237-8100724 DETROIT USD HI 8/29/88
Suimary: DETROIT, MI CLAIMED OVER $274,000 OF INELIGIBLE
CONSTRUCTION COSTS. WE ALSO QUESTIONED UNSUPPORTED ENGINEERING
AND FORCE ACCOUNT COSTS OF $662,000.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: THE OIG WILL SUBMIT A PACKAGE OUTLINING THE AUDIT ISSUES
TO THE ASSISTANT INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR AUDITS BY MAY 31, 1993.
THE AIGA WILL PRESENT THESE ISSUES TO THE AUDIT RESOLUTION
BOARD. RESOLUTION DATE IS DEPENDENT UPON REVIEW OF AUDIT BY THf
AR8.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
IG FOLLOUUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/93 [2]
P2GUN5-05-0169-8100774 DETROIT USD MI 9/ 1/88
Suimary: WE QUESTIONED INELIGIBLE CONSTRUCTION AND
ENGINEERING COSTS OF $96,520. IN ADDITION, WE QUESTIONED THAT
ENGINEERING COSTS OF $992,430 INCURRED AFTER THE APPROVED
CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION DATE WERE NOT SUPPORTED.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: THE OIG WILL SUBMIT A PACKAGE OUTLINING THE AUDIT ISSUES
TO THE ASSISTANT INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR AUDITS BY MAY 31, 1993.
THE AIGA WILL PRESENT THESE ISSUES TO THE AUDIT RESOLUTION BOARD
RESOLUTION DATE IS DEPENDENT UPON REVIEW OF AUDIT BY THE ARB.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
IG FOLLOUUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/93 [21
OCTOBER 1, 1992 THROUGH MARCH 31, 1993
59
-------
Assignment Control
Number
Title
Final Report
Issued
Assignment Control
Number
Title
Final Report
Issued
E2AUTO-05-0223-0400020 SELLERSBURG EUS IN 6/14/90
Sumary: REGION S AWARDED A $5.5 MILLION STEP 2+3 GRANT TO
SELLERSBURG, IN FOR A PROJECT WHICH DID NOT MEET THE ELIGIBILITY
REQUIREMENTS FOR A STEP 2+3 GRANT.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
HADE: THE REGION AND DIVISION OIG CANNOT REACH AGREEMENT ON A
MANAGEMENT DECISION. THE OIG HAS BEEN FORWARDED TO THE AIGA FOR
FURTHER ANALYSIS AND RESOLUTION. THE MAIN ISSUE IS WHETHER OR
NOT THE GRANT AWARD IS INVALID.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION IS EXPECTED BY SEPTEMBER 30, 1993.
IG FOLLOUUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/93 [6]
E2AWTO-05-0224-0400045 W TERRE HAUTE EUS IN 9/28/90
Suanary: REGION 5 AWARDED A STEP 2+3 GRANT OF $5,275,325 TO
WEST TERRE HAUTE, IN FOR A PROJECT WHICH DID NOT MEET THE
ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR A STEP 2+3 GRANT.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: THE REGION AND DIVISION OIG CANNOT REACH AGREEMENT ON A
MANAGEMENT DECISION. THE OIG HAS BEEN FORWARDED TO THE AIGA FOR
FURTHER ANALYSIS AND RESOLUTION.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION IS EXPECTED BY SEPTEMBER 30, 1993.
IG FOLLOUUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/93 [6]
E2AUT1-05-0134-14000070 S HENRY RSD EUS IN 2/25/91
Sunary: REGION 5 AWARDED A STEP 2+3 GRANT OF $4,461,050 TO
SOUTH HENRY REGIONAL WASTE DISTRICT, IN FOR A PROJECT WHICH DID
NOT MEET THE ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR A STEP 2+3 GRANT.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
HADE: THE REGION AND DIVISION OIG CANNOT REACH AGREEMENT ON A
MANAGEMENT DECISION. THE OIG HAS BEEN FORWARDED TO THE AIGA FOR
FURTHER ANALYSIS AND RESOLUTION. THE MAIN ISSUE IS WHETHER OR
NOT THE GRANT AWARD IS INVALID.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION IS EXPECTED BY SEPTEMBER 30, 1993.
IG FOLLOUUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/93 [6]
E2AWT1-05-0116-1400048 ENGLISH EUS IN 9/25/91
Suimary: 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
MADE: THE OIG DID NOT ACCEPT MANAGEMENT'S FINAL DETERMINATION
AND IS ELEVATING THE AUDIT TO THE HEADQUARTERS OIG FOR FURTHER
ATTENTION AND ANALYSIS. THE MAIN ISSUE IS WHETHER OR NOT THE
GRANT AWARD IS INVALID.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION IS EXPECTED BY SEPTEMBER 30, 1993.
IG FOLLOUUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/93 [6]
REGION 8. REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR
P2CU*8-08-0052-2100634 HAYDEN, TOWN OF CO 9/22/92
Suimary: GRANTEE CLAIMED A/E, CONSTRUCTION, AND EQUIPMENT
COSTS OF $16,335.00 WHICH WERE UNSUPPORTED AND DESIGN,
ENGINEERING, AND CONSTRUCTION COSTS OF $1,382,470 WHICH WERE
UNNECESSARY/UNREASONABLE BECAUSE OF UNDER UTILIZATION OF
CAPACITY.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: ON DECEMBER 21. 1992, THE REGION FORWARDED A DRAFT FINAL
DETERMINATION LETTER TO THE OIG. THE OIG CODED THIS AUDIT AS
INCOMPLETE, AND THE REGION REQUESTED REASONS FOR THIS ACTION ON
MARCH 9, 1993. THE REGION PLANS TO RESPOND QUICKLY TO THE OIG'S
CONCERNS. NO CORRESPONDENCE HAS BEEN RECEIVED FROM THE OIG AS
OF APRIL 20, 1993.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: THE
EXPECTED DATE FOR THE FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER IS JUNE 30,
1993.
IG FOLLOUUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/93 [2] (Discussions were held with the
Regional representative on March 9, 1993. The report is expected to be resolved during the
semiannual period ending September 30, 1993.)
REGION 9. REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR
S5BG*8-09-0202-0300037 CA DEPT OF HEALTH CA 3/30/90
Sunnary: COSTS OF $2,419,415 QUESTIONED AS INELIGIBLE AND
$1,639,629 AS UNREASONABLE. INELIGIBLES RELATED TO FORCE
ACCOUNT AND CONTRACT COSTS. UNREASONABLE RELATED TO CONTRACT
COSTS. GRANTEE'S FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM DETERMINED
INADEQUATE. MOST INELIGIBLE COST RESULT OF THIS.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: THE REGION HAS CONDUCTED EXTENSIVE WORK ON RESOLVING THE
COST/PRICE ANALYSIS AND THE LAB DATA INTEGRITY COST ISSUES
ASSOCIATED WITH THIS AUDIT. RESOLUTION WAS DELAYED BY A LENGTH1
NEGOTIATION PERIOD WITH THE OIG ON HOW ISSUES NEEDED TO
ADDRESSED.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
APRIL 30, 1993.
IG FOLLOUUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/93 12]
P2CUM1-09-0157-2200040 SUTTER CREEK, CITY OF CA 9/30/92
Suimary: COST QUESTIONED OF $12,916 INCLUDES $5,566 OF
ENGINEERING COST IN EXCESS OF APPROVED AMOUNT, AND $6,850 OF
UNDOCUMENTED ADMINISTRATIVE AND $500 PERMIT FEES, UNREASONABLE
COSTS OF $343,467 RELATED TO FIX UP FACILITIES CONSTRUCTED UNDEF
PRIOR GRANT.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
HADE: THE STATE HAS DRAFTED A FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER WHICH
IS IN ITS CONCURRENCE CYCLE. THE REGION EXPECTS THE DRAFT FINAI
DETERMINATION LETTER SOON AND WILL REQUEST LOCAL OIG REVIEW.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: THE
TARGET DATE FOR THE FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER IS DECEMBER 31,
1993.
IG FOLLOUUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/93 [1]
S2CUMO-09-0262-2300089 SAN FRANCISCO, CITY ft CO CA 9/30/92
SuMry: INELIGIBLE COST INCLUDE $50,015 OF UNALLOWABLE A/E
COSTS AND $271,092 FOR COSTS ALLOCABLE TO OTHER FEDERAL
FACILITIES RELATED TO UNSUPPORTED CONSTRUCTION R/E FORCE ACCOUN
COSTS.
60
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: THE DRAFT FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER HAS BEEN DELAYED BY
THE STATE'S CONCURRENCE CYCLE.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: THE
TARGET DATE FOR THE FINAL DETERMINATION IS SEPTEMBER 30, 1993.
IG FOLLOUUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/93 [1]
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
-------
Assignment Control
Number
Title
Final Report
Issued
Assignment Control
Number
Title
Final Report
Issued
P2BWLO-09-0175-1100436 CLARK COUNTY SO HV 9/30/91
SuMary: THE CLARK COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT, NEVADA (THE
GRANTEE) CLAIMED INELIGIBLE COSTS OF $6,851,921, ABOUT $26
MILLION OF UNNECESSARY/UNREASONABLE OR UNSUPPORTED COSTS FOR A
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT USED AT ONLY ABOUT HALF OF ITS
CAPACITY.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: THE REGION IS WORKING WITH THE STATE TO RESOLVE THIS AUDIT
AND FACILITATE THE RECOVERY OF ANY OUTSTANDING RESOURCES. THE
REGION REQUIRED ADDITIONAL TIME TO RESOLVE THIS INTERIM AUDIT TO
IDENTIFY AND ADDRESS NOT ONLY THE ISSUES HIGHLIGHTED BY THIS OIG
REPORT BUT ALSO OTHER POTENTIAL ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH THIS
3RANT.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
REVISED TARGET DATE FOR RESOLUTION IS SEPTEMBER 30, 1993.
IG FOLLOUUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/93 [1]
S2CU*8-09-0157-1300112 LOS ANGELES, CITY OF CA 9/25/91
Sunwry: INELIGIBLE COSTS OF $723,627 INCLUDED: $650,255 OF
JNALLOWABLE FORCE ACCOUNT COSTS AND $73,372 FOR UNALLOWABLE
ENGINEERING COSTS. UNREASONABLE COSTS INCLUDE $879,630 OF
JNDOCUMENTED FORCE ACCOUNT AND $1,099,261.
\RCHITECT/ENGINEERING COSTS INCURRED UNDER PROHIBITED CONTRACT
1ETHOD.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
WDE: THIS IS A DELEGATED STATE. THE STATE HAS BEEN RESOLVING
SEVERAL OF THE TECHNICAL ISSUES WITH THE GRANTEE. THE GRANTEE
HAS PROVIDED ADDITIONAL SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION. A FINAL
DETERMINATION LETTER HAS BEEN DRAFTED BY THE STATE AND WILL BE
SOON REVIEWED BY THE OIG. THIS AUDIT IS RELATED TOY SEVERAL
OTHERS OF THE GRANTEE.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
TARGET DATE FOR THE FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER IS SEPTEMBER 30,
1993.
IG FOLLOUUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/93 [1]
S2CWN9-09-0039-1300117 LOS ANGELES, CITY OF CA 9/30/91
Summary: INELIGIBLE COSTS INCLUDED $4,004,695 FOR COST
INCURRED PRIOR TO APPROVAL $3,659,407 IN EXCESS OF APPROVAL
ADDITIONAL AE QUESTIONED $3,999,353 RELATED TO REPLACEMENT OF
BAS ENGINES WITH ELECTRIC MOTORS AND $5,275,186 FOR INADEQUATELY
DOCUMENTED FORCE ACCOUNT COSTS.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: THIS IS A DELEGATED STATE. THE STATE HAS BEEN RESOLVING
SEVERAL OF THE TECHNICAL ISSUES WITH THE GRANTEE. THE GRANTEE
HAS PROVIDED ADDITIONAL SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION. A FINAL
DETERMINATION LETTER HAS BEEN DRAFTED BY THE STATE AND WILL BE
SOON REVIEWED BY THE OIG. THIS AUDIT IS RELATED TO SEVERAL
OTHERS OF THE GRANTEE.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
TARGET DATE FOR THE FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER IS SEPTEMBER 30,
1993.
IG FOLLOUUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/93 [1]
S2CUN9-09-0032-1300118 MONTEREY REG WATER POLL CON CA 9/30/91
Suimary: 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
MADE: THE STATE HAS COMPLETED WORK ON THE MANY TECHNICAL ISSUES
AND DRAFTED A FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER WHICH IS CURRENTLY
UNDER STATE MANAGEMENT REVIEW. IT WILL SOON BE REVIEWED BY THE
OIG.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: THE
TARGET DATE FOR THE FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER IS SEPTEMBER 30,
1993.
IG FOLLOUUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/93 [1]
S2CU*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
MADE: THIS IS A DELEGATED STATE. THE STATE HAS BEEN RESOLVING
SEVERAL OF THE TECHNICAL ISSUES WITH THE GRANTEE. THE GRANTEE
HAS PROVIDED ADDITIONAL SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION. A FINAL
DETERMINATION LETTER HAS BEEN DRAFTED BY THE STATE AND WILL BE
SOON REVIEWED BY THE OIG. THIS AUDIT IS RELATED TO SEVERAL
OTHERS OF THE GRANTEE.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: THE
TARGET DATE FOR THE FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER IS SEPTEMBER 30,
1993.
IG FOLLOUUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/93 [1]
CA 9/30/91
S2CUN9-09-0171-1300120 TRACY, CITY OF
Suimary: INELIGIBLE COSTS INCLUDED: $11,438 FOR
ARCHITECT/ENGINEERING COSTS; $655,329 OF INTEREST EARNED;
$2,916,214 FOR LITIGATION SETTLEMENT; UNREASONABLE COST OF
$5,516,623 WERE RELATED TO "FIXING UP" OF FAILED FACILITIES.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: THE CLAIMS POLICY HAS BEEN ISSUED. THE STATE SUBMITTED
THE DRAFT FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER TO THE OIG FOR ITS REVIEW.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: THE
REVISED TARGET DATE FOR THE FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER APRIL 30,
1993.
IG FOLLOUUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/93 [11
E2AUP9-09-0189-1400006 EARLY WARNING - MONTEREY CA 2/11/91
Sumary: REGION 9 AWARDED $8.1 MILLION GRANT AMENDMENT WHICH
DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT OR THE EPA
REGULATIONS. IN ADDITION, THE U.S. ARMY OVERPAID $6.2 MILLION
FOR ITS SHARE OF THE CONSTRUCTION PROJECT.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER IS AT OIG FOR REVIEW; POSTPONED
TO OBTAIN LEGAL OPINION REQUESTED BY OIG. THIS AUDIT IS LINKED TO
EARLY WARNING-MARINA (#9400043).
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: THE
TARGET DATE FOR THE FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER IS SEPTEMBER 30,
1993.
IG FOLLOUUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/93 [1] (OIG agrees with the above status
The OIG had not received a draft or final determination letter as of March 31, 1993. The need for a
legal opinion was recommended in the OIG's report in 1991. The Region has verbally suggested
alternative action that they believe will satisfy the intent of our recommendation. However, they have
not yet convinced the grantee to take their alternative action. If the alternative action is not taken, a
legal opinion may still be required.)
OCTOBER 1, 1992 THROUGH MARCH 31, 1993
61
-------
Assignment Control
Number
Title
Final Report
Issued
Assignment Control
Number
Title
Final Repot
Issuei
E1KAG1-09-6094-1400049 FOLLOW UP REVIEW REG. IX AI CA 9/25/91
Sunmary: REGION 9 TOOK INADEQUATE ACTION TO MONITOR AIR GRANT
ELIGIBILITY. AS A RESULT, $2.1 MILLION IN AIR GRANTS FROM FY
1983 TO 1985 REMAIN QUESTIONABLE. AN ADDITIONAL $1.9 MILLION IN
QUESTIONABLE GRANTS WAS AWARDED FROM FY 1986 TO 1990.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: A UNIQUE RESPONSE TO THIS INTERNAL AUDIT WAS REQUIRED
BECAUSE CORRECTIVE ACTIONS REQUIRED FOLLOWUP WITH MULTIPLE
EXTERNAL GRANTEES. A DEVIATION REQUEST FOR WASHOE IS AT EPA-HQ
(OGC). WE HAVE REQUESTED IMMEDIATE ATTENTION TO ASSIST THE
REGION WITH AUDIT RESOLUTION.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
IG FOLLOUUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/93 C6]
P2CUMO-09-0294-2200036 EL MIRAGE. CITY OF AZ 9/29/92
Sunmary: UNSUPPORTED ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS OF $110,285
QUESTIONED. INELIGIBLE COSTS INCLUDE $9,681 FOR ADMINISTRATION
AND ARCHITECT/ENGINEERING ALLOCABLE TO INELIGIBLE CONSTRUCTION
AND $98,019 FOR CONSTRUCTION IN EXCESS OF APPROVED $6,280,011 OF
UNREASONABLE COSTS RELATED TO UNDER UTILIZED FACILITIES.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: THE STATE HAS REQUESTED THAT THE GRANTEE PROVIDE
ADDITIONAL SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION. ONCE RECEIVED AND REVIEWED,
A FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER WILL BE PREPARED AND FORWARDED TO
THE REGION AND LOCAL OIG.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: THE
FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER IS SEPTEMBER 30, 1993.
IG FOLLOUUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/93 [1]
P2CWNO-09-0031-2300017 PINETOP LAKESIDE SO AZ 12/ 4/91
Sunmary: UNNECESSARY COSTS OF $4,105,313 QUESTIONED RELATED
TO UNUSED AND UNDERUTILIZED FACILITIES CONSTRUCTED UNDER THE
PROJECT.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: THE OIG REQUESTED ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IN OCTOBER 1992
TO SUPPORT THE REGION'S POSITION ON ONE AUDIT ISSUE.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: AFTER
CONSIDERABLE EFFORT TO COLLECT THE DOCUMENTATION, THE REGION
REACHED AGREEMENT WITH THE OIG AND ISSUED THE FINAL
DETERMINATION LETTER TO THE GRANTEE ON MARCH 25, 1993.
IG FOLLOUUP STATUS AS OF
on April 5, 1993.)
3/31/93 [5] (This audit was closed
S5BGNO-09-0303-2300043 L.A. DEPT WATER & POWER CA 3/13/92
Summary: INELIGIBLE COSTS OF $2,321,195 INCURRED; $4,810 OF
UNALLOWABLE TRAINING AND STORAGE COST; $287,450 FOR RETENTIONS
NOT PAID; AND $1,991,131 FOR UNALLOWABLE FORCE ACCOUNT
UNREASONABLE COSTS OF $4,354,690 FOR ARCHITECT/ENGINEERING
SUBAGREEMENTS NOT CONTAINING EPA PRIVITY CLAUSE.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: TO FACILITATE AGREEMENT WITH THE OIG, THE REGION HOSTED
MEETINGS WITH ALL PARTIES ON APRIL 15, 1993 TO DISCUSS AND
RESOLVE ISSUES.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: A
FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER IS EXPECTED BY MAY 30, 1993.
IG FOLLOUUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/93 [2]
S2CUN1-09-0228-2300044 LOS ANGELES, CITY OF CA 3/13/9
Sunmary: INELIGIBLE COSTS INCLUDED $1,400,564 FOR UNUSED
EQUIPMENT ITEMS $202,058; FOR UNALLOWABLE ARCHITECT/ENGINEERIN
FEES; 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 BEE
MADE: THIS IS A DELEGATED STATE. THE STATE HAS BEEN RESOLVIN
SEVERAL OF THE TECHNICAL ISSUES WITH THE GRANTEE. THE GRANTEE
HAS PROVIDED ADDITIONAL SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION. A FINAL
DETERMINATION LETTER HAS BEEN DRAFTED BY THE STATE AND WILL BE
SOON REVIEWED BY THE OIG. THIS AUDIT IS RELATED TO SEVERAL
OTHERS OF THE GRANTEE.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION::
TARGET DATE FOR THE FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER IS SEPTEMBER 30
1993.
IG FOLLOUUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/93 [1]
E1SG*7-09-0219-2300063 REGION 9 MGMT OF STNGFELLOU CA 7/30/9
Summary: REGION 9 HAS NOT EFFECTIVELY MANAGED THE
STRINGFELLOW 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 OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEE
MADE: ALL CONCERNS OF THE OIG HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED VIA
ADDITIONAL TECHNICAL AND LEGAL SETTLEMENT EFFORTS. A FINAL
DETERMINATION LETTER WILL SOON BE PREPARED TO CAPTURE THESE
RESOLUTIONS.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:: TH
TARGET DATE FOR THE FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER IS MAY 30, 1993
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/93 [1]
S2CUNO-09-0124-2300076 SELMA-KINGSBURG-FOULER CA 9/ 8/9
Swmary: INELIGIBLE COST OF $1,012,364 INCLUDED $4,762 OF
UNALLOWABLE ADMINISTRATIVE COST; $75,115 FOR
ARCHITECT/ENGINEERING COSTS; $409,487 OF INELIGIBLE CONSTRUCTI
AND $525,000 OF SETTLEMENT REVENUE. UNREASONABLE COSTS OF
$4,053,969 RELATED TO UTILIZED FACILITIES.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEE
MADE: THE STATE HAS DRAFTED A FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER WHIC
HAS BEEN DELAYED BY THE STATE'S CONCURRENCE CYCLE. IT SHOULD
FORWARDED TO THE REGION SHORTLY.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: TH
REVISED FINAL DETERMINATION DATE IS SEPTEMBER 30, 1993.
IG FOLLOUUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/93 [1]
E2CUN1-09-0092-2300082 RUSSIAN RIVER CSD CA 9/25/9
Sunmary: COSTS OF $8,344,066 HAVE BEEN QUESTIONED AS
INELIGIBLE, INCLUDING INELIGIBLE CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND
FORCE ACCOUNT COSTS AN ADDITIONAL $18,297,400 HAS BEEN QUESTION
AS UNNECESSARY BECAUSE THE PLANT WAS NOT FULLY UTILIZED.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEE
MADE: THE STATE HAS BEEN DELAYED BY EXTENDED WORK ON TECHNICS
ISSUES (E.G..SETTLEMENT COSTS). IT WILL SOON DRAFT FINAL
DETERMINATION LETTER. ONCE DRAFTED, OIG REVIEW WILL BE
REQUESTED.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: Th
TARGET DATE FOR THE FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER IS DECEMBER 12,
1993.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/93 [1J
62
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENER/
-------
Assignment Control
Number
Title
Final Report
Issued
Assignment Control
Number
Title
Final Report
Issued
P2CUN1-09-0044-2300086 NACO SAN DIST. AZ 9/29/92
Sumary: INELIGIBLE COSTS OF $8,487 INCLUDES UNALLOWABLE
ADMINISTRATIVE AND ARCHITECT/ENGINEERING COSTS; $43,060 RELATED
TO COSTS NOT SUPPORTED BY ADEQUATE SOURCE DOCUMENTATION; AND
11,390,917 RELATED TO UNDERUTILIZED FACILITIES.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
IADE: AZ DEQ IS AWAITING ADDITIONAL SUPPORT DOCUMENTS FROM THE
3RANTEE. DELAY EXACERBATED BY EXTENSIVE CHANGE IN RECIPIENT'S
ADMINISTRATIVE PERSONNEL.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: THE
ARGET DATE FOR THE FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER IS SEPTEMBER 30,
993.
IG FOLLOUUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/93 [1]
E2AWP9-09-0065-9400025 HOMELAND EARLY WARNING CA 3/31/89
Suimary: SPECIAL REVIEW OF CONSTRUCTION GRANT OF WASTEWATER
REATMENT PLANT FOUND $3,737,139 IN FEDERAL SHARE COSTS
UESTIONED. AN EARLY WARNING LETTER ADVISED THAT COSTS FOR THE
OLLECTION SYSTEM PORTION OF THE PROJECT DID NOT QUALIFY FOR
UNO ING BECAUSE OF THE "2/3 RULE".
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
ADE: RESOLUTION OF THIS AUDIT HAS BEEN REFERRED TO THE AUDIT
ESOLUTION GROUP. THE REGION IS WORKING WITH THE AGENCY'S AUDIT
ESOLUTION GROUP TO RESOLVE THE ISSUE OR PREPARE THE PACKAGE FOR
N AUDIT RESOLUTION BOARD DECISION. THE OFFICE OF WATER ISSUED
POLICY CLARIFICATION ON THE 2/3 RULE. THE DIG ASKED OFFICE OF
ENERAL COUNSEL FOR FURTHER POLICY CLARIFICATION.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: THE
EVISED FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER TARGET DATE IS DECEMBER 31,
993.
IG FOLLOUUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/93 [6]
E2AUP9-09-0230-9400043 EARLY WARNING-MARINA CUD CA 9/26/89
Summary: SPECIAL REVIEW OF GRANT TO BUY CAPACITY RIGHTS FROM
EGIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT RESULTED IN AN EARLY WARNING
ETTER TO EPA MANAGEMENT THAT THE AWARD VIOLATED 40 CFR3S 2250
iND THAT TOTAL COSTS QUESTIONED OF $1,694,000 (F.S. $931,700)
OULD CAUSE "WINDFALL" PROFITS.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
IADE: THIS AUDIT IS LINKED TO THE MONTEREY EARLY WARNING AUDIT
;#140006). BUY-IN COSTS FOR THE MARINA WILL BE DETERMINED AFTER
IN DIG AUDIT OF MONTEREY EXPANSION COSTS AND THE RESOLUTION OF
10NTEREY'S EARLY WARNING AUDIT.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: THE
ARGET DATE FOR THE FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER IS SEPTEMBER 30
1993.
IG FOLLOUUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/93 15] (OIQ agrees with the above
status)
REGION 10. REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR
P5CHN9-10-0151-0300095 OREGON DEQ
*Sunmary:
OR 9/27/90
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: THE REGION REQUIRED ADDITIONAL TIME TO RESOLVE A LEAVE
ISSUE SINCE IT INVOLVED SEVERAL STATES. THE REGION ISSUED THE
FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER TO THE GRANTEE ON MARCH 30, 1993, AND
A FAX COPY WAS SENT TO THE 01G.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
IG FOLLOUUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/93 [4] (This audit was closed on April 5,
1993.)
P2CUL9-10-0002-2100669 PIERCE COUNTY UTILITIES DEP UA 9/30/92
Sunmary: 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
MADE: 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 40 LARGE BOXES OF
DOCUMENTATION WHICH OBTAINED FROM VARIOUS SOURCES TO COMPLETE
THIS RESOLUTION.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: THE
REGION WILL ISSUE A DRAFT FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER TO OIG BY
JULY 30, 1993.
IG FOLLOUUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/93 [1]
P2CUN1-10-0042-23O0088 NEUBERG, CITY OF OR 9/30/92
Suimary: 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
MADE: 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.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: THE
REGION WILL ISSUE THE DRAFT FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER TO THE OIG
BY JUNE 30, 1993.
IG FOLLOUUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/93 [1]
P2CWN9-10-0107-2300091 FED WAY WATER AND SEUER UA 9/30/92
Sunmary: INELIGIBLE COSTS OF $1,304,725 CONSISTED OF $67,387
FOR UNALLOWABLE CONSTRUCTION COST; $61,048 RELATED TO INELIGIBLE
CONSTRUCTION PERCENTAGE; $21,243 OF UNAPPROVED
ARCHITECT/ENGINEERING FEES; AND $1,155,147 RELATED TO EXCESS
CAPACITY. ALSO QUESTIONED WERE $2,242,049 AS UNSUPPORTED.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS HOT BEEN
MADE: 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.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: THE
REGION WILL ISSUE A DRAFT FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER TO THE OIG
BY MAY 31, 1993.
IG FOLLOUUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/93 [1]
P5CG*8-10-0076-1100146 WASHINGTON DEPT OF ECOLOGY UA 3/20/91
Sumary: COSTS QUESTIONED FOR IMPROPER PROCUREMENT, PERSONNEL
SERVICES AND INDIRECT COSTS.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: SUPERFUND BRANCH IS WORKING WITH OIG ON A PROCUREMENT
ISSUE. SUPERFUND SECTION IS IN THE FINAL STAGE OF REVIEWING
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED TO SETTLE THE PROCUREMENT ISSUES.
THIS REVIEW REQUIRED ADDITIONAL TIME BECAUSE WAS THE
DOCUMENTATION WAS LOCATED IN AUDITEE'S CONTRACTOR FILES.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: THE
DRAFT FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER SHOULD BE ISSUED BY APRIL 30,
1993.
IG FOLLOUUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/93 [1]
OCTOBER 1, 1992 THROUGH MARCH 31, 1993
63
-------
Assignment Control
Number
Title
Final Report
Issued
Assignment Control
Number
Title
Final Report
Issued
P5CG*8-10-0084-1100156 ALASKA DEPT OF ENV CONSER AK 3/29/91
Sunmary: COSTS QUESTIONED AS INELIGIBLE FOR SUBCONTRACTOR
SERVICES NOT PERFORMED; EXCESS PROFIT AND ENGINEERING SERVICES
PERFORMED ON SITES OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE COOPERATIVE
AGREEMENT.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
HADE: THE REGION IS NEGOTIATING WITH THE IG ON PROCUREMENT AND
LEAVE ISSUES. THE LEAVE ISSUE HAS BEEN THE MAJOR DELAYING FACTOR
SINCE IT IS A CROSSCUTTING ISSUE WITH SEVERAL STATES. A DRAFT
FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER WAS ISSUED TO THE IG ON MARCH 30,
1993.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
UNLESS THE OIG DOES NOT AGREE WITH THE DECISION, THE FINAL
DETERMINATION SHOULD BE ISSUED BY MAY 25, 1993.
IG FOLLOUUP STATUS AS OF
determination letter on April 6, 1993.)
3/31/93 [1] (The OIG received the draft final
P2CU*7-10-0046-1200039 BRISTOL BAY, BOROUGH AK 9/30/91
Suimary: BRISTOL BAY BOROUGH, NAKNEK, ALASKA (THE GRANTEE)
CLAIMED INELIGIBLE COSTS OF $1,145,973 AND UNSUPPORTED COSTS OF
$6699. ALSO, COSTS OF $148,200 WERE QUESTIONED AS
UNNECESSARY/UNREASONABLE.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: A DRAFT FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER WAS SENT TO THE OIG
FOR CONCURRENCE ON FEB. 24, 1993. THE OIG HAS CODED THIS
RESPONSE AS INCOMPLETE BUT HAS NOT YET FORWARDED CORRESPONDENCE
TO THE REGION CONCERNING THIS DETERMINATION. THE REGION PLANS
TO RESPOND QUICKLY TO THE OIG'S CONCERNS, BUT CANNOT ESTIMATE A
FINAL DETERMINATION DATE UNTIL THE OIG'S POSITION IS REVIEWED.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/93 C1] (The OIG discussed the above
report with a RegionaJ Representative on March 12,1993. tn this discussion, we agreed (hat
additional discussion between the Region and OIG Western Audit Division will be needed in order to
come up with the allowable project costs.)
P5CHN9-10-0155-1300047 WASHINGTON DEPT OF ECOLOGY
•Suimary:
UA 3/26/91
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: THE REGION SUBMITTED A DRAFT FINAL DETERMINATION AND
RECEIVED OIG CONCURRENCE ON FEBRUARY 18, 1993.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: THE
REGION ISSUED THE FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER TO THE GRANTEE AND
SENT A COPY TO THE OIG ON MARCH 31, 1993. THIS AUDIT WAS CLOSED
IN THE OIG TRACKING SYSTEM ON APRIL 20, 1993.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/93
OIG and the audit was closed on April 20, 1993.)
L3] (The response was received by the
P5CGNO-10-0011-1300066 WASHINGTON DEPT OF ECOLOGY UA 5/ 7/91
Sunmary: THE WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY DID NOT PROCURE
ITS CONTRACTS IN A MANNER THAT ASSURED A REASONABLE PRICE OR
THAT THE BEST OFFERORS ARE AWARDED CONTRACTS. WDOE NEEDS TO
STRENGTHEN MANAGEMENT CONTROLS. WDOE CLAIMED COSTS THAT WERE NOT
ALLOCABLE TO THE COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: THE REGION IS NEGOTIATING WITH THE OIG ON A PROCUREMENT
ISSUE. ADDITIONAL TIME HAS BEEN NEEDED TO REVIEW THE COST PRICE
ANALYSIS AND APPROPRIATE AWARD ISSUES.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: A
DRAFT FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER SHOULD BE SUBMITTED TO THE OIG
FOR REVIEW BY APRIL 30, 1993.
IG FOLLOUUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/93 [1]
P5CGLO-10-0066-2100299 WASH DOE MULTI-SITE UA 3/30/92
Sumary: GRANTEE DID NOT PROCURE SERVICES IN A MANNER THAT
ASSURED REASONABLE PRICE OR THAT BEST OFFERORS WERE AWARDED
CONTRACTS. ALSO, MANAGEMENT CONTROLS NEED STRENGTHENING TO
PROPERLY RECORD AND CLAIM TO GRANTS. FINALLY, CONTRACTOR
PERFORMANCE MONITORING NEEDS IMPROVEMENT.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: THE REGION RECENTLY RECEIVED ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION FRC
THE GRANTEE RELATED TO A COST PLUS PERCENTAGE CONTRACT ISSUE.
THE AUDITEE'S DELAY IN PROVIDING THIS INFORMATION POSTPONED THE
RESOLUTION OF THIS AUDIT.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: A
DRAFT FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER WILL BE FORWARDED TO THE OIG B
APRIL 30, 1993.
IG FOLLOUUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/93 [2]
P5BGL1-10-0046-2100612 IDAHO DHU S/F COOP AGREEM. ID 9/15/92
Sumary: COSTS QUESTIONED AS UNSUPPORTED FOR; CONTRACTUAL
SERVICES FOR WHICH IDHW DID NOT FOLLOW PROPER PROCUREMENT
PROCEDURES, AND PERSONNEL COSTS BECAUSE IDHW DID NOT ALLOCATE
FRINGE BENEFIT COSTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH OMB CIRCULAR A-87.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEE*
MADE: THE REGION SENT A DRAFT FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER TO TH
OIG ON JANUARY 21, 1993. THE OIG RESPONDED TO THE REGION ON
MARCH 22, AGREEING WITH THE REGION'S DECISIONS CONCERNING THE
AUDIT FINDINGS BUT STIPULATING THAT THE REGION NEEDED TO
ARTICULATE ITS FOLLOW-UP COMMITMENTS. THE REGION DISAGREED IN
PRINCIPLE. THE GRANTEE HAS BEEN APPRISED OF THE DECISIONS
REGARDING THE AUDIT FINDINGS. THE REGION AND THE OIG HAVE BEEK
REQUESTED TO RESOLVE THE FOLLOW-UP ISSUE. THE ISSUE HAS ALSO
BEEN REFERRED TO AN AGENCY-WIDE TASK FORCE ON AUDIT MANAGEMENT.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
IG FOLLOUUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/93 [2] (OIG agrees with the above statui
P2CU*8-10-0021-2200029 UNALASKA, CITY OF AK 9/10/92
Sumary: FINAL AUDIT OF CONSTRUCTION GRANT NOS. COS0064-01, C
AND 03 FOR CITY OF UNALASKA, AK. THE GRANTEE CLAIMED INELIGIBLE
UNSUPPORTED, AND UNNECESSARY/UNREASONABLE COSTS OF $234,046,
$52,900 AND $299,235 RESPECTIVELY.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: THE REGION SUBMITTED A DRAFT FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER T
OIG ON FEBRUARY 2, 1993. AS OF 4/20/93, THE OIG HAS NOT PROVIDE
A WRITTEN RESPONSE TO THIS DRAFT FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
DEPENDING ON IG RESPONSE TIME TO DRAFT FINAL DETERMINATION
LETTER, REGION WILL ISSUE THE FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER BY MAY
30, 1993.
IG FOLLOUUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/93 [2] (On March 17, 1993, we analyze.
and discussed the draft final determination letter with the Regional Representative. The OIG Inforrm
the Region of the concerns In that in four of the eleven instances, the Alaska Department of
Environmental Conservation (ADEC) claims that the criteria used in the audit report did not exist. V
informed the Region that the criteria did exist and that ADEC needs to address this. We agreed to
code the response as Incomplete and that the Region would look into the matter.)
64
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
-------
Assignment Control Final Report
Number Title Issued
E2AWP2-10-0002-2400024 NPDES PERMIT AK 3/12/92
Summary: REGION 10 MADE AN IMPROPER AND INADEQUATELY
DOCUMENTED DECISION TO ISSUE A NPDES PERMIT FOR SEAFOOD WASTE
DISCHARGE INTO A RELATIVELY PRISTINE ALASKAN BAY. REGION 10
DELAYED IN ENFORCING OVER 170 VIOLATIONS OF THE PERMIT
CONDITIONS, INCLUDING ILLEGAL DISCHARGE.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: THE REGION IS NEGOTIATING WITH OIG ON PERMIT
MODIFICATIONS.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: THE
REGION EXPECTS TO HAVE PUBLIC NOTICE TO ACHIEVE THE PERMIT
MODIFICATIONS AND ISSUE A FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER TO THE
GRANTEE BY JUNE 30. 1993.
IG FOLLOUUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/93 [21
E3BG*6-10-0066-8100761 NOSES LAKE IRR & REHAB DIST UA 8/31/88
Summary: INTERIM AUDIT OF DEMONSTRATION GRANT TO RESTORE
MOSES LAKE AND TO CONTROL NON-POINT POLLUTION SOURCES FOUND
TOTAL COSTS QUESTIONED OF $2,439,103 (F.S. $1,205,039). GRANTEE
USED STANDARD METHODOLOGY INSTEAD OF DEVELOPING NEW INNOVATIVE
TECHNIQUES.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: THE HEADQUARTER OIG AND THE OFFICE OF WATER ARE REVIEWING
ISSUES THAT ARE STILL NOT RESOLVED. THE OFFICE OF THE GENERAL
COUNSEL ESTABLISHED A LEGAL TEST TO ADDRESS THE ISSUES UNDER
REVIEW.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: A
FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER SHOULD BE ISSUED BY DECEMBER 31,
1993.
IG FOLLOUUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/93 [6]
P2CUL8-10-0007-2100664 LOON LAKE SEWER DIST NO 4 UA 9/30/92
Suimary: THE GRANTEE CLAIMED INELIGIBLE ADMINISTRATIVE, LEGAL
SETTLEMENT, ENGINEERING AND MISCELLANEOUS AND CONSTRUCTION COSTS
TOTALING $204,089. ALSO CLAIMED WERE $141,943 IN UNNECESSARY
AND UNREASONABLE CONSTRUCTION COSTS RELATED TO OVER DESIGN OF
THE PLANT.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: A DRAFT FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER WAS FORWARDED TO THE
OIG FOR CONCURRENCE ON JANUARY 7, 1993. ON FEB.18, 1993 THE OIG
RESPONDED TO THE DRAFT FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER. THE REGION IS
GATHERING ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TO ADDRESS THE OIG'S CONCERNS
INCLUDING SUPPORTING INFORMATION ON THE 75 PERCENT FLOW ISSUE.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: THE
FINAL DETERMINATION SHOULD BE ISSUED BY APRIL 30, 1993.
IG FOLLOUUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/93 [2]
TOTAL AUDITS ISSUED BEFORE REPORTING PERIOD FOR WHICH NO MANAGEMENT DECISION WAS MADE DURING THE REPORTING
PERIOD: 146
* = Agency procedures do not require the IG'» approval on Agency's Management Decision on an audit (other than a preaward or an internal and
management audit) with the Federal share of questioned costs of less than $100,000. Therefore, we have not provided a summary of the audit.
OCTOBER 1, 1992 THROUGH MARCH 31, 1993 65
-------
OIG Mailing Addresses and Telephone Numbers • OIG Hotline (800) 424-4000 or (202) 260-4977
Headquarters
Enyironmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
401 M Street, S.W. (A-109)
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-3137
Atlanta
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
1475 Peachtree Street, NE
11th Floor
Atlanta, GA 30309-3111
Audit: (404) 347-3623
Investigations: (404) 347-2398
Boston
Enyironmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
JFK Federal Building OIG 521
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
MS Norwood
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Audit: (513) 366-4360
Dallas
Enyironmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
Audit: (214)655-6621
investigations: (404) 347-2398
Denver
Enyironmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
999 18th Street, Suite 500
Denver, CO 80205-2405
Audit: (303) 294-7520
Investigations: (303) 236-5080
Kansas City
Enyironmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, KS66101
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
Enyironmental 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
EPA Administration Building
Alexander Drive, Room 113
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Audit: (919) 541-1028
Investigations: (919) 541-1027
Sacramento
Enyironmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
801 I Street, Room 466
Sacramento, CA95814
Audit: (916) 551-1076
San Francisco
Enyironmental 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
Enyironmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
1111 3rd Avenue, Suite 1460
Seattle, WA98101
Audit: (206) 553-1273
Investigations: (415) 744-2465
66
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERA
------- |