PA/350/K-02/001
SB
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Inspector General (2441)
Washington DC 20460
EPA-350-K-02-001
May 2002
Office of Inspector General
Semiannual Report
to the Congress
October 1, 2001 through
March 31,2002
%• X; \s i
-------
We are agents of positive change striving for continuous improvement in our Agency's
management and program operations, and in our own offices.
The Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, requires the Inspector General to:
(1) conduct and supervise audits and investigations relating to programs and operations
of the Agency; (2) provide leadership and coordination, and make recommendations
designed to (a) promote economy, efficiency, and effectiveness, and (b) prevent and
detect fraud and abuse in Agency programs and operations; and (3) fully and currently
inform the Administrator and the Congress about problems and deficiencies identified
by the Office of Inspector General relating to the administration of Agency programs
and operations.
1. Contribute to improved environmental quality and human health.
2. Improve EPA's management and program operations.
3. Produce timely, quality, and cost-effective products and services that
meet customer needs.
4. Enhance diversity, innovation, teamwork, and competencies.
Cover photo courtesy of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration
-------
Di
Iuring this semiannual reporting period, ERA'S Office of Inspector General,
(OIG) identified Major Management Challenges which could severely
impact the attainment of EPA's mission. What makes the OIG's current work
and subsequent list of Challenges particularly relevant is its close relationship to the
President's Management Agenda, represented by five bold initiatives for an efficient
and effective federal Government. Most of the OIG reported Management Challenges
and associated recommendations correspond to one of the five Presidential
Management Agenda initiatives (PMAI). For example, the EPA Challenges of
Linking Mission and Management (Cost Accounting) and Working Relationship
With the States, address the PMAIs for Improved Financial Performance and Budget
pl and Performance Integration. The Management Challenge of Employee
Competencies addresses the PMAI for Strategic Management of Human Capital.
The EPA Management Challenge of Use of Assistance Agreements and Grants to
Accomplish Its Mission addresses the PMAI for Competitive Sourcing; and the EPA
Management Challenges of Information Resources Management, Results-Based
Information Technology Project Management, and Information Security
Program address the PMAI for Expanded Electronic Government. By focusing
»,: attention on resolving these Challenges, EPA can become a leading example for
fulfilling the PMAIs.
#?-»^J
' \ £t'%;*
The OIG also took a major step in implementing our Strategic Plan, and in
demonstrating full accountability by issuing our first separate Annual Performance
Report for Fiscal 2001. The Report demonstrates how the OIG is measuring and
reporting performance against our Strategic Goals, and identifies areas requiring
increased attention for improvement. Since our Strategic Plan was designed "starting
with the end in mind," the Report provides summary performance information about
outcomes and outputs from our business line products and services, customer survey
results, and internal operations. The Report includes analyses of financial and staff
resource usage, a revision of FY 2002 Annual Goal Targets based on the OIG's
progress and lessons learned from FY 2001, and concludes with a list of OIG
Management Challenges to be addressed during FY 2002. By comparing key
measures, the OIG now produces a "Scorecard" of performance, progress, results,
activities, and investments.
The OIG will continue its pursuit of improved performance and meaningful results.
By recommending improvements to EPA processes and programs, I am convinced
that we can help the Agency deliver environmental programs that are citizen-centered,
results-oriented, and market-based.
Nikki L. Tinsley (J
Inspector General
-------
Profile of Activities and Results
October 1, 2001 to March 31, 2002
OIG-Managed Reviews
(Reviews Performed by EPA, Independent Public Accountants,
and State Auditors)
Other Reviews
(Reviews Performed by Another Federal Agency
or Single Audit Act Auditors)
Questioned Costs *
-Total
- Federal
Recommended Efficiencies *
- Federal
Costs Disallowed to be Recovered
- Federal
Costs Disallowed as Cost Efficiency
- Federal
Reports Issued - OIG-Managed Reviews
- EPA Reviews Performed by OIG
- EPA Reviews Performed by
Independent Public Accountants
- EPA Reviews Performed by
State Auditors
Total
Reports Resolved
(Agreement by Agency officials to take
satisfactory corrective actions) ***
$3.0
$2.7
$.03
$5.6
$0
24
0
_0
24
86
Questioned Costs *
-Total
- Federal
Recommended Efficiencies *
- Federal
Costs Disallowed to be Recovered
- Federal
Costs Disallowed as Cost Efficiency
- Federal
Reports Issued - Other Reviews
- EPA Reviews Performed by
Another Federal Agency
- Single Audit Act Reviews
Total
Agency Recoveries -
Recoveries from Audit Resolutions
of Current and Prior Periods
(cash collections or offsets to
future payments) **
$.6
$.6
$0
$.9
$0
102
76
178
$10.6
Investigative
Operations
Fines and Recoveries
(including civil) **** $19 M
Investigations Opened 25
Investigations Closed 22
Indictments/Criminal Complaints of 10
Persons or Firms
Convictions of Persons or Firms 13
Administrative Actions Against 5
EPA Employees / Firms
Civil Filings/Settlements 2
Questioned Costs and Recommended Efficiencies subject to change pending further review in audit resolution process
Information on recoveries from audit resolution is provided from EPA Financial Management Division and is unaudited
Reports Resolved are subject to change pending further review.
Total includes actions resulting from joint investigations
-------
Table of Contents
Goal 1: Contribute to Improved Environmental Quality and
Human Health
Goal 2: Improve EPA's Management and Program Operations 4
Goal 3: Produce Timely, Quality and Cost-Effective Products
and Services That Meet Customer Needs 22
Goal 4: Enhance Diversity, Innovation, Teamwork and Competencies .... 24
Audit Report Resolution and Summary of Investigative Results
Status Report on Perpetual Inventory of Reports in Resolution Process 27
Status of Management Decisions on Inspector General Reports 28
Inspector General Issued Reports With Questioned Costs 28
Inspector General Issued Reports With Recommendations that Funds Be
Put to Better Use 29
Summary of Investigative Results 30
Appendices
Appendix 1- Reports Issued 31
Appendix 2- Reports Issued Without Management Decisions (Available upon request)
\t*>:-*''
Printed with vegetable oil based inks on 100% recycled paper (minimum 50% postconsumer)
-------
Goal 1: Contribute to Improved Environmental Quality and Human
Health
The work of the OIG is designed to assist EPA in
achieving its environmental goals, thus contributing to
environmental improvements. The following represent
some examples of the more significant efforts under this
OIG goal.
Status of Land
Application of
Biosolids Program
Examined
OIG reviewed the land application of biosolids (treated sewage sludge)
applied to agricultural, horticultural, forest, and reclamation land.
Although there has been controversy about potentially adverse impacts of
biosolids on human health and the environment, EPA believes that land
application of biosolids presents a low risk to human health and the
environment. Consequently, EPA has taken the position that the biosolids
program is a low priority.
In March 2001, the National Whistleblower Center submitted to OIG a
series of allegations concerning EPA's conduct in regard to regulating
biosolids. Also, a March 2000 OIG audit report had found inadequacies in
EPA's management and enforcement of the biosolids program. For these
reasons, we prepared a status report on land application of biosolids. The
specific issues examined and the status of each are summarized below.
• EPA and State Biosolids Program Staff. Some State officials
expressed concerns that EPA is not dedicating sufficient staffing and
financial resources to the program. EPA staff assigned to the biosolids
program have been declining, but EPA's position is that the resources
allocated to biosolids are appropriate when balanced against
competing priorities.
• Delegation of the Biosolids Program to the States. The Clean Water
Act gives EPA authority to delegate the biosolids program to States,
but little progress has been made thus far. Only five States have
received formal delegation from EPA for the biosolids program.
• Responding to and Tracking Health Complaints. Of the
21 complaints that the National Whistleblower Center contended EPA
failed to investigate, EPA and/or a State agency investigated 14. For
the remaining seven, EPA and State officials indicated five complaints
were not reported to them, and we determined that the other two did
not involve biosolids.
PAGH I -OCTOBFR 1.2001 THROUGH MARCH 31.2002
-------
• Risk Assessment and Pathogen Testing Concerns. Discussions
about whether further research is needed regarding EPA's biosolids
risk assessment and pathogens have contributed to the controversy.
EPA does not plan to complete a comprehensive evaluation and
monitoring study to address risk assessment uncertainties. However,
EPA has asked the National Research Council to review the biosolids
risk assessment and make recommendations. Also, there are
indications more research on pathogens is needed.
• EPA's Relationship with a Professional Association. The National
Whistleblower Center expressed concern about EPA's support of a
professional association and its research group. However, of the
$12.9 million EPA provided, 96 percent ($12.4 million) had been
Congressionally mandated, and EPA had no discretion in awarding
those funds.
Public Acceptance Concerns. There are public concerns regarding
the impact of biosolids land application on health, quality of life, and
natural resources. These concerns have led to restricting or banning
land application of biosolids in some places.
We issued our final report (2002-S-00004) on March 28, 2002. The report
does not contain any findings and recommendations, and no response was
required.
Corporation
Pleads Guilty to
Conspiracy to
Commit Mail
Fraud
On October 5, 2001, Intertek Testing Services Environmental Laboratory
(ITS), Richardson, Texas, pleaded guilty to a one-count criminal
information charging the corporation with conspiracy to commit mail
fraud. As part of the plea, ITS agreed to pay the United States a $9 million
fine pursuant to the terms of the court and upon acceptance of the plea by
the court.
A vice president and 12 former employees of ITS, formerly known as
NDRC Laboratories, Inc., and Inchcape Testing Services Environmental
Laboratories, Inc., were previously indicted on September 21, 2000, in
U.S. District Court, Dallas, Texas, on charges of conspiracy, mail fraud,
wire fraud, and presenting false claims against the government.
The criminal information charged that ITS conspired to perform improper
manual integrations, such as peak juicing and peak shaving, on initial
calibrations, for the purpose of causing the instrumentation to appear to be
within the quality assurance/quality control criteria required by the
applicable EPA method.
HTTP //WWW EPA GOV/OIGFARTH - PAGH 2
-------
It was further charged that ITS engaged in the conduct for the purpose of
saving time and money that would otherwise be spent to properly maintain
the testing equipment and to repeat tests.
On February 8, 2002, ITS was sentenced as a corporation to 3 years and
6 months probation and fined $9 million. On March 25, 2002, ITS
entered into a civil settlement agreement with the Department of Justice
Civil Litigation Branch, Washington, DC, in which they agreed to pay
$8,741,000. The settlement agreement was reached in order to resolve
certain civil claims the United States had on behalf of the Army Corps of
Engineers, Department of Defense, and the EPA against ITS for tests the
United States alleged were not done pursuant to contractual requirements
since 1989.
This investigation was conducted jointly by the EPA GIG, the EPA
Criminal Investigation Division, the Defense Criminal Investigative
Service, the Army Criminal Investigation Command, and the Air Force
Office of Special Investigations.
Utility Vice
President Pleads
Guilty to Polluting
Sarasota Bay
Watershed
On October 31, 2001, El i Ray Bontrager, Vice President of South Bay
Utilities, Inc. (SBU), Sarasota, Florida, pleaded guilty in U.S. District
Court, Tampa, Florida, to count one of a criminal indictment, charging
him with discharging pollutants without a permit, in violation of the Clean
Water Act.
Shortly after SBU's wastewater treatment plant came on line in 1976, its
drain fields became saturated and were not able to process the amount of
effluent discharged. To relieve the pressure on the drain fields, SBU
illegally installed underground bypass pipes without informing
government regulators. After the installation, the pipes allowed effluent to
flow through the storm water pipes directly into Dryman Bay, discharging
about 1 !/2 tons of nitrogen into Sarasota Ba> annuall).
In the plea agreement, Bontrager admitted that, as Vice President of
Utilities for SBU, he was a "responsible corporate officer'" over field
activities for SBU's utilities, including the wastewater treatment plant, and
knew that such a connection would require a National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System permit. Bontrager further admitted that he could have
intervened to correct the situation affecting the drain fields, but opted not
to act and became willfully blind to the ongoing situation.
This investigation was conducted jointly by the EPA GIG. the EPA
Criminal Investigation Division, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the
Internal Revenue Service, the Florida Department of Law Enforcement,
the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, and the Sarasota
County Office of Pollution Control.
PA (if- 3-OCTORF R I. 200! THRO1 '(,11 MARCH 3 I 2002
-------
Goal 2: Improve EPA's Management and Program Operations
The OIG assesses EPA's management and program operations
to identify best practices, areas for improvement, and
cooperative solutions to problems. The OIG's work is designed
to promote efficiency and effectiveness within EPA. The
following represent some examples of the more significant
efforts under this OIG goal.
Draft
Super/and
Environmental
Indicators
Suitable, But
Concerns
Remain
We found that the two draft Superfund Environmental Indicators (Els) reviewed -
human exposure under control and contaminated groundwater migration under
control - were suitable because they measure a state of the environment, rather than
just mark the completion of an administrative step in the Superfund cleanup
process. The two Els are specific measures of program performance used to assess
progress toward cleaning up a hazardous waste site. However, we identified some
policy and technical issues that should be resolved.
The two draft Els were modeled after Els used by the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) Corrective Action Program, but we found several policy and
technical differences between the El documentation for Superfund and RCRA. We
understand there are inherent distinctions between the Superfund and RCRA
programs. Even so, we believe the policy and technical differences need to be
resolved before implementation of the draft Superfund Els, to ensure similar results.
We recommended that the Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency
Response make changes to resolve these policy and technical differences, make
changes to the Superfund El documentation, and develop supplemental El guidance
more applicable to Superfund. We also recommended that, in addition to the draft
Els of interim progress Superfund officials have already developed, Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response officials partner with state officials to develop
ecological and final Els. Finally, since mega-sites (sites that will cost $50 million
or more for cleanup) will require extensive effort and resources, we suggested that
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response officials consider adopting a
supplemental measure of interim cleanup progress specifically for mega-sites.
We issued our final report (2002-P-00003) on December 27, 2001. In her response,
the Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response stated that
the recommendations will be useful in improving their Els and indicated they were
making progress in resolving the issues highlighted in our report.
HTTP //WWW F.PA GOV/O1GHARTH - PAGK 4
-------
Inadvertent
Disclosure of
Data for
Preventing
Chemical
Accidents
Prompts
Concern
Unauthorized off-site consequence analysis information was inadvertently made
available for download on EPA's website. As a result, a temporary opportunity was
created for unauthorized individuals to download sensitive information on the
potential effects of accidental chemical releases from industry facilities. This off-
site consequence analysis data is a part of Risk Management Plans used to help
prevent chemical accidents and provide an estimate of the potential consequences to
surrounding communities. Unauthorized disclosure of off-site consequence analysis
information in downloadable files occurred due to a lack of management oversight
for testing program changes.
Risk Management Plans, which document how a company plans to manage its
chemicals and operate in a safe and responsible manner, are routinely maintained in
the System for Risk Management Plans. Collection of this information is driven by
the Clean Air Act. EPA's Chemical Emergency Preparedness and Prevention
Office is responsible for coordinating the information and providing it to the public.
In response to a congressional mandate (The Chemical Safety Information. Site
Security and Fuels Regulatory Relief Act of 1999), prior to August 2000, off-site
consequence analysis information was made available only to authorized officials
for emergency planning and response purposes. Also in response to this mandate,
EPA and the Department of Justice issued a rule authorizing limited access to the
off-site consequence analysis information and allowing some limited data elements
to be made public. As a result, in April 2001, these limited data elements of off-site
consequence analysis information were included on EPA's website for the first
time. However, from April through June 2001. some unauthorized information was
inadvertently made available for download. This occurred because EPA's Chemical
Emergency Preparedness and Prevention Office did not adequately oversee testing
program changes made b> the contractors responsible for maintaining the System
for Risk Management Plans. Immediately upon discovery of the error on June 6,
200!, EPA removed the unauthorized information from its website.
We recommended that the Director of EPA's Chemical Emergency Preparedness
and Prevention Office establish a policy requiring that downloadable files be
reviewed to ensure only authorized elements of off-site consequence data are made
available to the public. In addition, we recommended the establishment of data
testing requirements to prevent future unauthorized disclosures.
We issued our final report (2002-P-00006) on March 22, 2002. A response to the
report is due by June 20, 2002.
PACiF 5 -OCPOBI-R I. 2001 THROUGH MARCH 31 2002
-------
Unreliable
Pollutant
Reductions
Data Reported
to Congress
EPA under-reported the environmental impact of enforcement actions under the
Government Performance and Results Act. Our audit disclosed that 69 percent of
the applicable fiscal 2000 pollutant records in the National Enforcement Docket
System (DOCKET) contained blank pollutant amount fields. We also noted other
errors. Until management takes decisive steps to address data weaknesses, neither
Congress, the public, nor EPA management should depend on DOCKET as a
reliable source of data.
DOCKET is EPA's official database for tracking and reporting on civil and
administrative enforcement actions. DOCKET'S pollutant amount field should have
contained amounts used to compute and report pollutant reductions, but often did
not. Additionally, the DOCKET system as a whole contained significant instances
of inaccurate and incomplete data. Of the cases reviewed, 94 percent contained at
least one error in a key field. Factors contributing to the poor data quality included
a cumbersome system lacking in functionality; inadequate and outdated policies,
procedures, and guidance; and the absence of comprehensive reviews.
We recommended that EPA's Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance improve overall policies and procedures for computing
pollutant-related information, performing quality assurance, disseminating training,
and monitoring policy implementation.
In general, EPA agreed with the conditions noted in the report. We issued our final
report (2002-P-00004) on January 18, 2002. A response to the report is due
May 3, 2002.
EPA Earned an
Unqualified
Opinion on its
Financial
Statements
EPA earned an unqualified opinion on its fiscal 2001 financial statements. In
evaluating EPA's internal controls, we noted certain matters that we consider to be
reportable conditions, but none are believed to be a material weakness that would
prevent the presentation of reliable financial statement amounts. In evaluating the
Agency's internal control structure, we identified three reportable conditions in the
following areas:
• Implementing Accounting for Internal Use Software Timely
• EPA's Interagency Agreement Invoice Approval Process
• Automated Application Processing Controls for the Integrated Financial
Management System
We did not identify any instances of noncompliance with laws and regulations that
would result in material misstatements to the audited financial statements. In our
report under the caption of "substantial noncompliance with Federal Financial
Managers Integrity Act (FFMIA)," we again noted, as we did in our fiscal 1999 and
2000 audits, that EPA did not comply with the managerial cost accounting standard.
HTTP //WWW EPA GOV/OIGHARTH - PAGK 6
-------
In addition, EPA continues to experience difficulties in reconciling some of its
intra-governmental assets and liabilities due to some Federal entities not performing
reconciliations. Without the proper confirmations from other agencies, EPA has
limited assurance that intra-governmental balances are accurate.
During the audit of the fiscal 2001 financial statements, we noted substantial
progress in completing corrective actions in fiscal 2002 in a number of areas. Two
corrective actions expected to be completed in fiscal 2002 include: (1) financial
system security remediation plan being revised and submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget as part of EPA's fiscal 2003 budget submission, and
(2) the agency implementing an automated process for the interagency agreement
invoice approval process.
In a February 12, 2002, response to our draft report, the Agency generally concurred
with our recommendations and has completed or planned a number of corrective
actions. However, the agency did not agree with the issue on substantial non-
compliance with the managerial cost accounting standard. In our opinion, EPA's
cost accounting system does not completely satisfy the objectives of the standard.
The Deputy Chief Financial Officer, while acknowledging the desirability for
continuing improvements as envisioned by the standard, continued to disagree with
our conclusion that EPA did not comply with the standard. On December 12, 2001,
we elevated this issue to the Administrator for resolution, as is required by FFMIA.
The agency is currently working with the Administrator on a response to this issue.
We issued the final report (2002-1-00082) on February 26, 2002. A final response
to our report is due by May 30, 2002.
California State
Water Pollution
Control
Revolving Fund
Receives
Qualified
Opinion
We issued a qualified opinion on the financial statements of the California State
Water Pollution Control Revolving Loan Fund as of June 30, 2000, because the
state over-committed loans by approximately $45 million. This occurred because
the state's projections included receiving $200 million in revenue bond proceeds
before the bonds were issued. EPA issued a Notice of Noncompliance to the state
on April 17, 2002 for deficiencies in the financial and programmatic management
of the Fund. The Notice of Noncompliance requires the state to submit a corrective
action plan with milestones to remedy the program deficiencies.
California did not comply with certain provisions of laws, regulations, and grants.
Specifically, the state did not properly manage the Fund, and the accounting system
did not properly account for all transactions and accounts. High staff turnover also
contributed to California's inability to prepare timely and accurate financial
statements necessary to present the financial statements in accordance with
generally accepted accounting principles.
We also noted several material internal control weaknesses. The control
environment established by management was not conducive to having an accurate
accounting system.
PAGK7-(X:TOBHR 1. 2001 THROUGH MARCH 31.2002
-------
As a result, accounting and financial reporting for the Fund was not a priority.
Further, decentralization of Fund accounting activities resulted in a lack of a
coordinated effort in accounting. Most instances of noncompliance with Federal
regulations were attributed to the inadequate accounting system.
We recommended that the state: (1) establish a control environment and develop an
accounting system that enables recording all transactions and allows full
accountability and control over the Fund; (2) establish a Revolving Fund Manager
position to have responsibility and authority over all accounting and managerial
aspects of the program; and (3) establish the Fund as an enterprise fund and conduct
an annual financial statement audit of the program. We issued the final report
(2002-1-00095) on March 7, 2002. The State of California concurred with the
recommendations and its responses were incorporated into the final report.
More Progress
Needed In
Issuing Title V
Air Permits
As of December 31, 2001, state and local agencies nationwide had issued 70 percent
(13,036 of 18,709) of the operating permits required by Title V of the Clean Air
Act. If EPA and the state and local agencies had met the schedule in the Clean Air
Act, all of the initial permits would have been issued by November 1997. However,
translating and consolidating the applicable air pollution requirements for major
stationary sources into site-specific, legally enforceable permit limits is a complex,
time-consuming, and resource intensive process. Consequently, as of
December 31, 2001, of 112 state and local agencies approved to administer the Title
V program, only 4 state and 17 local agencies had issued all of their Title V permits.
Jn the six states we reviewed, key factors delaying the issuance of permits included:
• States allotting insufficient resources.
• Complex regulations and limited guidance contusing permit writers.
• Conflicting priorities of state agencies.
EPA did not provide adequate oversight and technical assistance to state and local
Title V programs For example, from 1998 through 2001. EPA evaluated onK 28 of
112 state and local agencies on their assessment and management of Fitle V tee^.
EP \ also did not consistentlv require state and local agencies to prov =dc HP \ the
information it needed to adequatelv oversee the Title V program. Although mrst
state ,ind local programs did not issue their permits within 3 vears ot '• !-'A .'sporv* al.
EPA did not use the Act's provisions tor issuing notices of deficsencv, sanctions.
and program withdrawal when state and local agencies inis--ed the ("lean Air Wl's
deadline tor issuing permits
-------
In the six states reviewed, three practices contributed to progress in issuing Title V
permits:
• State agency management support for the program.
• State agency and industry partnering.
• Permit writer site visits to facilities.
However, EPA had not taken a leadership role in collecting and disseminating
information on practices showing promise of facilitating more timely issuance of
Title V permits.
We recommended that the Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation require
EPA regions to conduct fee protocol reviews and revive agency efforts to make air
toxics standards easier to incorporate into Title V permits. We also recommended
that EPA develop and execute a national plan for addressing implementation
deficiencies in Title V programs.
We issued our final report (2002-P-00008) on March 29, 2002. In responding to the
draft report, the Assistant Administrator stated that many of the sources remaining
to be permitted are the more complex facilities, and agreed with our conclusion that
more needs to be done to address the permitting backlog. A response to the final
report is due June 27, 2002.
Program
Evaluation
Identifies
Opportunities
to Improve
Research
Programs
EPA OIG, in collaboration with EPA's Office of Research and Development
(ORD), conducted a pilot evaluation to determine whether program evaluation
techniques are appropriate for measuring progress in accomplishing Government
Performance and Results Act goals. We looked at EPA's Goal 8, Sound Science
and Innovative Approaches, and focused on Objective 8.4, Pollution Prevention and
New Technologies research.
We concluded that the evaluation process was appropriate. The approach afforded a
better understanding of the programs, answered key questions, and provided a
partnership approach beneficial in developing meaningful observations about Goal
8 and Objective 8.4 designs.
We found that ORD's Goal 8 research priorities are consistent with National
Research Council recommendations for core research, but identified opportunities
for improvement. ORD can place more focus on outcomes rather than outputs, and
can expand its transfer of technology to customers. Further, ORD can make
program design documents more consistent, enhance its planning system, more
clearly explain the two-tiered Goal 8 strategy, and better address externalities
(factors beyond the program's control) affecting Goal 8 research.
PAGH 9 - (XrrOBFK I. 2001 THROUGH MARCH 31.2002
-------
We issued our report (2002-P-000002) on November 21, 2001. In an effort to
improve the designs and outcome orientation of its research programs, ORD has
used our logic model in midyear reviews of its National Laboratories and Centers,
and has made presentations that prominently feature the logic model to external
audiences. It also developed guidance to increase the outcome orientation of annual
performance goals and measures. In addition, it is considering revisions to the
annual research planning system to focus discussions and decisions on performance
information.
Increased
Region 8
Involvement
Would Improve
Tribal Program
Results
We questioned approximately 70 percent, or $1.37 million, ( f the $1.97 million
claimed by four EPA Region 8 Tribes under grants awarded by the Regional Tribal
Assistance Program and recommended that Region 8 recover $1.28 million of
payments made to the four Tribes for which we questioned costs. Although Region
8 has taken some important, positive steps to help Tribes comply with grant
requirements during the last several years, and has shown a willingness to take
strong steps when it deems necessary, three of the four Tribes we visited had
difficulty managing environmental grants during the period covered by our audit
(1996 through 2000).
On March 29, 2002, we issued an overall report, Increased Region 8 Involvement
Would Improve Tribal Program Results (Report No. 100370-2002-1-000100).
Three of four Tribes we reviewed lacked the internal controls necessary to
adequately manage environmental grants. Tribal leadership, management, and staff
need to emphasize good internal controls. We recommended that Region 8 continue
to actively participate in the National EPA Grants and Debarment Workgroup to
provide sufficient oversight, assistance, and guidance to help the Tribes effectively
manage their grants. We also recommended that Region 8 continue its efforts to
provide better guidance and a comprehensive approach to assessing grant
management capabilities, as well as various other steps to improve internal controls.
Further, we recommended that Region 8 designate three of the Tribal grantees as
high risk until each develops and implements adequate procedures and controls, and
suspend all current and new grants to those grantees if, after 6 months, substantial
progress has not been made. Region 8 generally agreed with our other findings and
recommendations, and is to provide a response to the report by July 2002.
HI IT WWVv FPA (lOY.OIdFARrH -TACil 10
-------
EPA Not
Planning or
Measuring
Grants Results
EPA did not measure whether the assistance agreements awarded under Catalog of
Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number 66.606, "Surveys, Studies,
Investigations, and Special Purpose Grants," achieved results that contributed to
protecting human health and the environment. These agreements totaled
$617 million of EPA's $1.3 billion of discretionary assistance agreements. EPA
frequently funded the same assistance agreement recipients year after year.
Consequently, EPA had no assurance that money used for assistance agreements
was awarded for projects that were useful and contributed to achieving EPA's
mission of protecting human health and the environment.
The deficiencies occurred because program offices generally focused on outputs
(activities or products used to attain an ultimate outcome), not the actual results
achieved. Individual assistance agreement outcomes must be planned and measured
to determine the usefulness and success of the assistance agreement. However,
EPA program offices did not adequately measure the outcomes generated from such
awards.
EPA frequently funded the same assistance agreement recipients year after year.
Grant objectives were often vague, which allowed EPA to continuously amend the
objectives sometimes for up to 6 years. A review of a database for all CFDA
66.606 awards from fiscal years 1996 through 2000 disclosed that 80 percent of the
funding went to repeat recipients. By providing funding to the same recipients year
after year, EPA is creating the appearance of preferential treatment and limiting
other potential entities from providing similar, if not better, services.
We recommended that EPA: (1) require its personnel to award assistance
agreements with measurable results that contribute to protecting human health and
the environment, and (2) develop clear policy on the use and purpose of assistance
agreement amendments. In response, EPA agreed to work with the program offices
to improve the performance in the areas discussed and improve guidance as well.
We issued our final report (2002-P-00005) on March 21, 2002. A response to the
final report is due June 19, 2002.
Procurements
Made by
Assistance
Agreement
Recipients
Should Be
Competitive
EPA had no assurance that as much as $187 million spent by assistance agreement
recipients for procurements was used to obtain the best products, at the best price,
from the most qualified firms. Recipients did not compete contract awards or
perform cost or price analyses as required by regulations. The conditions noted
occurred because EPA did not monitor recipients' procurement transactions. Also,
recipients said they did not have sufficient knowledge of procurement regulations,
and often procured services as a result of familiarity and long-term relationships
with contractors.
PACif- 11-OCTOBhR 1.2001 THROUGH MARCH 31.2002
-------
Obtaining the best price allows EPA to fund the maximum number of projects to
support its environmental mission. It is also important to have the most qualified
firm perform each task, and even when a firm is qualified, not competing the work
can result in a contract price that is not competitive with the market. Also, lack of
competition can result in other problems, such as conflicts of interest.
We recommended that the Assistant Administrator for Administration and
Resources Management require EPA personnel to: (1) perform the level of
monitoring of assistance agreement procurement transactions required by
regulations; and (2) ensure that when assistance agreement recipients identify
proposed contractors in applications that the sole source justification provided is
adequate and a cost or price analysis is performed. We issued the final report
(2002-P-00009) on March 28, 2002. In response to the draft report, the Agency
agreed with OIG on the need to foster competition in recipient procurements to
achieve high quality work under EPA assistance agreements at the lowest cost, and
said it is taking various improvement actions. A response to the final report is due
June 26, 2002.
Procurement
Practices of
Assistance
Agreement
Recipient
Inadequate
MBI International, a non-profit company in Lansing, Michigan, did not have
adequate justification to support the award of its sole source contracts issued with
EPA assistance agreement funds. Of the 23 contracts awarded by MBI, 20 were
awarded sole source. Also, MBI's procurement practices did not meet federal
requirements. As a result, procurements totaling $1.3 million were not eligible for
federal reimbursement.
We also noted apparent conflicts of interest because MBI issued numerous contracts
to Grand River Technologies, Inc., a for-profit company created by MBI, as well as
to three for-profit companies created by GRT. Officers of MBI and GRT served on
the Boards of Directors of the subsidiary companies.
We issued the final report (2002-2-00008) on January 29, 2002. We recommended
that the Director, Grants Administration Division, disallow the $1.3 million in
ineligible costs incurred. EPA stated in its response to the draft report that it would
wait until the final report was issued before preparing its response. The EPA
response to the final report is due May 29, 2002.
HTTP //WWW KPA GOV/OIGHARTH-PAGF 12
-------
Watershed
Management
District Violates
Conflict of
Interest and
Procurement
Procedures
The Lake Wallenpaupack Watershed Management District did not follow federal
procurement procedures when using EPA funds to hire an engineering firm. The
District, based in Paupack, Pennsylvania, received $2.2 million in assistance
agreement funds from EPA Region 3 to perform various watershed management
tasks. The $2.2 million included funds to hire an engineering firm. However, we
found that the District did not follow federal procurement procedures regarding
conflicts of interest and competition when it awarded a $547,000 contract to an
engineering firm.
The District's application, work plan, budget, and work schedules submitted to EPA
for the funding were prepared by the firm that received the contract. The District
awarded a second contract to the same firm for $360,000 (for a total of $907,000)
also without following federal procurement procedures. Further, the District billed
EPA for $71,000 in additional work done by the engineering firm that was not part
of the scope of work of either of the two contracts.
We recommended that Region 3 determine whether the prices paid by the District
for the engineering services were reasonable, and take appropriate actions. We also
recommended that the Region discontinue payments to the District until the
concerns were resolved.
We issued a final report (2002-M-00007) on January 18, 2002. In response to the
draft report, Region 3 agreed with what we recommended and said it would evaluate
information submitted by the District. The Region also stated that the District
voluntarily agreed to stop incurring any additional costs under its engineering
contracts. A response to the final report is due May 18, 2002.
EPA
Strengthens
Procedures for
Employee
Information
Protected by
EEOC
Regulations
In response to a complaint, O1G found that EPA Region 5 employees not assigned
to the Region's Office of Civil Rights had inappropriately collected information on
employees' race, national origin, and sex. The information was used in preparing
certain non-monetary awards and reports on newly hired employees. Region 5
managers had requested these reports so that they could compare Region 5 award
and new hire practices to goals in the Region's diversity action plan. These reports
were provided to the Director of the Region's Office of Civil Rights.
Regulations issued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
provide that each agency will establish a system to collect and maintain accurate
employment information on the race, national origin, sex, and disability(s) of its
employees. The information collected on its employees cannot be disclosed, except
in the form of gross statistics. The Privacy Act also provides additional
requirements on when an Agency can disclose this type of employee information in
the performance of its duties.
PAGF 13-OCTOBFR I. 2001 THROUGH MARCH 31,2002
-------
We issued our final report (2002-S-00002) on December 13,2001. We
recommended that Region 5 take certain steps that would ensure that the collection
of employee information was in full accordance with the EEOC regulations. We
also recommended that the Agency's Office of Civil Rights and Office of Human
Resources ensure that all EPA regions are collecting this type of employee
information in a proper manner.
In a February 1 1, 2002, response, officials from EPA's Office of Human Resources
and Organizational Services agreed with our recommendations. They advised all
Regional Human Resource Offices and EPA staff of applicable laws, and directed
Regional human resource offices to work in coordination with regional offices of
civil rights to review processes to ensure violations do not occur. Both Region 5
and Headquarters officials also agreed with our recommendations in a March 7,
2002, response. Region 5's Regional Administrator directed, immediately, that
employee-specific information collected, developed, or analyzed in connection with
Region 5 activities be issued by the Office of Civil Rights, that only appropriate
staff work with the information, and that adequate security is provided for the
information.
Better
Guidance
Neededfor
Reporting Safe
Drinking Water
Violations
We conducted a review on reporting of maximum contaminant level violations of
the Safe Drinking Water Act in Pennsylvania due to a previous incident in which a
public health risk occurred and EPA initially was not notified of the incident. We
reviewed 27 public water systems to determine whether additional maximum
contaminant level violations had occurred and gone unreported to EPA. We did not
find any such instances.
However, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP)
could take further steps to ensure that all maximum contaminant level violations are
reported to EPA. Specifically, the state needs to clarify its guidance to ensure
consistency of information. In addition, Federal reporting guidance needs to be
clarified. EPA's guidance for the Safe Drinking Water Information System does
not clearly define what is meant by an "active" source. Further, we noted that
PADEP does not notify EPA of all its drinking water sources, because EPA does not
explicitly require this information. In the event of an environmental disaster,
drought, or outside threat, EPA should have knowledge of all drinking water
sources that are in use or could be put into service quickly, in case the information
is needed to protect the public.
We recommended that the EPA Region 3 Administrator require PADEP to align its
monitoring guidance with Federal and State regulations and review the compliance
reporting procedures for other Region 3 States. We also recommended that the EPA
Assistant Administrator for Water revise the Safe Drinking Water Information
System guidance.
We issued our final report (2002-P-00007) on March 25, 2001. A response to the
final report is due June 24, 2002.
HTTP //WWW HPA GOV/OKiHARTH- PACih 14
-------
Office of Water
Disposed of
Official Agency
Records
The Office of Water inappropriately disposed of senior management calendar
records from 1993 through 1998 that were considered to be permanent Agency
records. According to EPA officials, these records were not intentionally destroyed,
and steps have been taken to safeguard such records in the future. However, the
Agency did not have the information necessary to respond to a request under the
Freedom of Information Act, which, in turn, could engender mistrust of EPA by the
public or the media.
We concluded that while the Office of Water did not comply with the Federal
Records Act, we were unable to determine whether the destruction of the calendars
was connected to a Presidential decision regarding arsenic standards, as alleged in a
formal complaint received by the Agency. The complainant sought the records to
determine whether the Assistant Administrator for the Office of Water had met with
certain water industry groups.
We recommended that the Assistant Administrator for Water ensure that Office of
Water staff follow EPA's Records Management Schedule to properly dispose or
store, retain, and archive official records; and ensure that staff receive records
management training through courses, memoranda, performance agreements, or
directives as necessary. We issued a letter to the complainant and a memorandum
to the current Assistant Administrator on March 29, 2002, and closed the
assignment upon issuance.
Corporate
President
Sentenced for
Obstruction of
Federal Audit
Pritam Singh Sabharwal, President of Environmental Health Research & Testing,
Inc., (EHRT), of Lexington, Kentucky, was sentenced on January 11, 2002, in U.S.
District Court, Lexington, Kentucky, for obstructing federal auditors from the EPA
OIG. Sabharwa! had plead guilty on March 9, 2001, to a one-count criminal
information charging him with obstruction of a federal audit. EHRT was a
government contractor from 1980 through 1994 engaged in soil remediation and
environmental cleanup.
The criminal information and guilty plea by Sabharwal were part of a plea
agreement negotiated between Sabharwal and the U.S. Attorney's Office, Eastern
District of Kentucky, stemming from a prior criminal indictment on federal
racketeering charges against Sabharwal and several family members on May 30,
2000. That indictment alleged that Sabharwal and associates engaged in
racketeering activities to include obstruction of a federal audit, bank fraud,
bankruptcy fraud, bribery of a public official with regard to obtaining inside
information on government contracts, and money laundering.
I>AC;F IS-OCTOBKR 1.2001 THROUIHMARCH 31 2002
-------
Sabharwal was sentenced to 3 years probation, 6 months of home detention, a
$2 million fine, and the required payment of an outstanding $963,196.83 balance
due by EHRT to the U.S. District Court, Middle District of North Carolina. That
payment stemmed from an earlier 1993 bribery investigation against Sabharwal and
EHRT that resulted in a $1 million fine against the corporation. In that case, EHRT
had made only partial payments of the fine before filing for bankruptcy protection
on February 6, 1996.
This investigation was conducted by the EPA OIG and the Defense Criminal
Investigative Service.
Three Found
Guilty of
Conspiracy and
Theft from a
Tribal
Organization
On February 5, 2002, three members of the payroll office for the Oglala Sioux
Tribe, Pine Ridge Reservation, Pine Ridge, South Dakota, were found guilty by jury
of conspiracy and theft from a tribal organization in U.S. District Court, District of
South Dakota, Western Division. Estelle Goings, Vonnie Goings, and Carol Vitalis
were all employed in handling government grant monies awarded to the tribe,
including more than $2 million in EPA grants since 1997. The three individuals
were indicted by a federal grand jury on April 25, 2001, charging them with five
felony violations, including one count of conspiracy and four counts of theft from
an Indian tribal organization. The five-count indictment charged them with
devising a conspiratorial scheme that operated from 1996 through 1999 and resulted
in the embezzlement of approximately $196,000. The funds were diverted from the
tribe and converted to the three employees' own personal use under the guise of
payroll and overtime advances.
investigation was conducted jointly by the EPA OIG, the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, the Department of the Interior OIG, and the Department of Veterans
Affairs OIG.
Several Plead
Guilty to
Charges of
Conspiracy and
Kickbacks
Several business persons in New York and New Jersey have plead guilty to criminal
charges in a scheme to pay kickbacks to a division manager of Ebasco Services,
Inc., New York, New York. Ebasco is a government contractor that provided
printing and graphic design services to various federal agencies, including EPA.
The following, whose firms were subcontractors of Ebasco, each plead guilty to a
criminal information of conspiring to violate the Federal Anti-Kickback Act of
1996:
William J. Cruciata, president of Multi-Media Graphics and Design Ltd.,
Mineola, New York, on October 19, 2001. Multi-Media paid more that
$288,700 in kickback payments.
HTTP //WWW EPA GOV/OIGKARTH - PAGE 16
-------
• Robert A. Higgins, owner of Markets-in-Motion, Stoney Brook, New York, on
December 20, 2001. Higgins paid more than $139,000 in kickback payments.
The information also charged Higgins with subscribing to a false Internal
Revenue Service tax return.
• Robert Steinberg, president of Big Apple Color & Design, Ltd., New York,
New York, on December 20, 2001. Big Apple paid more than $73,000 in
kickback payments.
• Loretta Herrmann, president, Gallagher Verityping Service Inc., Pine Brook,
New Jersey, on December 20, 2001. Gallagher Verityping paid more than
$148,000 in kickback payments.
Each of the four informations charged that, dating back to 1989, the person paid
kickbacks to the manager of Ebasco's printing and graphics department in exchange
for favored treatment and subcontracts. The subcontracts provided to all four firms
were contrary to Ebasco's purchasing system and did not utilize the competitive
bidding process required by federal agencies.
Also, Angelo Rizzotto, president, AMJO Printing Services Corporation,
Farmingdale, New York, plead guilty on January 30, 2002, to a criminal indictment
charging him with one count of conspiracy and six counts of paying kickbacks.
Rizzotto caused AMJO to inflate the amount of invoices billed to Ebasco to account
for kickback payments made in exchange for favored treatment and subcontracts.
Again, the subcontracts were provided to AMJO contrary to Ebasco's purchasing
system and without utilizing the required competitive bidding process. As a result
of the conspiracy, AMJO paid more than $456,000 in kickback payments.
This investigation was conducted jointly by the EPA OIG, U.S. Postal Service OIG,,
National Aeronautics and Space Administration OIG, and the Defense Criminal
Investigation Service.
Woman
Convicted of
Wire Fraud
and
Impersonating
an EPA
Employee
On October 5, 2001, a U.S. District Court jury in Concord, New Hampshire,
convicted a Massachusetts woman of wire fraud and impersonating a federal
employee.
The charges, filed against Cheryl Burnette of Newburyport, Massachusetts,
stemmed from her stealing products and services by pretending to be an EPA
employee. She falsely represented to victims that the products and services she
received from them would be paid for by EPA. The conduct included the renting of
homes in Massachusetts and the procurement of groceries, computer equipment,
office supplies, and such luxury items as Rolex watches.
PAGE 17-OCTOBER 1,2001 THROUGH MARCH 31,2002
-------
Burnette had used assumed identities and her fictitious affiliation with EPA to steal
goods and services totaling more than $75,000 from individuals and businesses
throughout the country. The defendant's scheme included the use of fictitious
government procurement numbers and purchase orders to establish direct billing
accounts with victims who believed they were doing business with EPA.
EPA Major
Management
Challenges for
Fiscal 2002
Identified
OIG has identified the following 10 items as key management challenges
confronting EPA in fiscal 2002. These items include an assessment of the Agency's
progress in addressing these challenges since our last reporting. All except the final
challenge (Protecting Critical Infrastructure from Non-Traditional Attacks) were
previously reported to Congress.
1. Linking Mission and Management (Cost Accounting)
When the Agency merged the budget and Government Performance and Results Act
process, it adopted a set of goals and measures that reflected each aspect of EPA's
budget. The Agency has output data on activities, but few environmental
performance goals and measures, and little data that support the Agency's ability to
measure environmental outcomes and impacts. EPA also needs to implement a cost
accounting system and processes so Agency managers have useful, consistent,
timely, and reliable information on the cost of carrying out EPA's programs.
2. Information Resources Management
Deficiencies within the Agency's data information systems have been long
standing. While most states have developed environmental programs with their own
supporting information systems, EPA and the states often apply different data
definitions within these information systems, and input different data. In addition,
EPA has not revised its outdated information technology strategy or fully developed
an Enterprise Architecture Plan to address the integration and management of its
environmental data to support EPA strategic goals.
3. Results-Based Information Technology Project Management
Six years after the Clinger-Cohen Act introduced new requirements for managing
Information Technology investments, EPA's strategic Information Technology plan
does not reflect the current needs of the Agency, much less the Act's requirements
to manage an integrated investment portfolio approach for environmental
information. EPA only has an evolving, decentralized, and unmonitored approach
to integrating information using existing projects.
4. Employee Competencies
EPA recognizes the importance of Human Capital as a key Agency priority, but has
not integrated and translated that need into its strategic plans by more effectively
defining and developing needed competencies in leadership, management, science,
and technical skills. The Agency needs to further deploy its Human Capital strategy
by dedicating resources, developing performance measures, implementing
necessary systems for recruiting, and developing needed competencies, and then
holding managers accountable.
HTTP://WWW.EPA GOV/OIGEARTH - PAGE 18
-------
5. Quality of Laboratory Data
The questionable quality and integrity of laboratory data supplied to the EPA for
regulatory compliance, enforcement, policy, and remediation purposes compromises
the soundness of EPA decisions on the protection of the environment and public
health. This problem includes the trend in the number of environmental laboratories
that are providing misleading and fraudulent data to the states for monitoring the
nation's public water supplies and other indicators of health hazards, such as air
toxins, pesticides in food supplies, and hazardous wastes.
6. EPA's Information Security Program
We have cited numerous critical inadequacies in the Agency's information security
program and recommended specific corrective actions. The General Accounting
Office also found serious and pervasive problems within the Agency's information
security program that "essentially rendered it ineffective." We believe that EPA
needs to establish a strong centralized security program with oversight processes to
address risks and ensure valuable information resources and environmental data are
secure.
7. EPA's Use of Assistance Agreements and Grants to Accomplish Its Mission
OIG reported that some grant recipients did not have adequate financial and internal
controls to ensure that federal grant funds were managed properly, used in
accordance with workplans, and met negotiated environmental targets. OIG
reported that the Agency did not have a policy for awarding discretionary assistance
funds, totaling $1.3 billion, competitively. Without competition, EPA cannot
ensure it is funding the best products based on merit and cost effectiveness,
achieving program objectives, and accomplishing its environmental mission.
8. Backlog of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permits
Backlogged permits are an important issue because the conditions upon which the
existing permit is based may have changed since the original permit was issued, and
more stringent requirements may subsequently be necessary that would not be
contained in the backlogged permit. While EPA realizes it needs new ways of
implementing the permit program, the number of sources needing permits has
increased five times in the past 10 years.
9. EPA's Working Relationship With the States
EPA depends heavily on states to fund and implement national programs and
provide environmental data, yet EPA and states have not yet agreed on how states
will have flexibility while being accountable for environmental results. Relations
between EPA and states have been strained due to disagreements over:
(1) respective roles and the extent of federal oversight; (2) priorities and budgets;
and (3) results-oriented performance measures, milestones, and data. EPA can
improve its relationship with states by facilitating joint planning and priority setting.
PAGE 19-OCTOBER 1, 2001 THROUGH MARCH 31.2002
-------
10. Protecting Infrastructure From Non-Traditional Attacks
Under Presidential Decision Directive 63, initiated in May 1998, EPA has been
assigned the designated Lead Agency and Sector Liaison for reviewing the
vulnerability of the nation's water systems as a critical physical infrastructure, to
ensure the performance of mission and safety in the event of non-traditional attacks.
We reported that funding problems caused delays in attempts by EPA and the private
sector to develop a national framework for protecting this critical infrastructure.
Following September 11, 2001, the Agency has accelerated and expanded work in
this area to include support for both drinking water and wastewater. This Agency
initiative, of national impact, merits continued attention.
HTTP://WWW.EPA.GOV/OIGEARTH - PAGE 20
-------
While the Agency is making progress in resolving its Major Management
Challenges, several have been longstanding problems. The following
table shows which challenges have been listed from 1997 through 2001.
EPA's Top Management Challenges as Reported by OIG
(Historical Perspective)
Closeout of Construction Grant Program
Inconsistent/Oversight Enforcement Activities
Quality Assurance/Plans
Use of Inefficient Contract Types
Managerial Cost Accounting *
Automated Information System Security Plans
Oversight/Use of Assistance Agreements to Accomplish Mission
Environmental Data Quality
Emission Factor Development
Year 2000 Modification on Information Systems
Agency Relationship with Contractors
Environmental Data Information Systems
Accountability *
Backlog of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permits
Resources to Enhance Employee Competencies/Human Capital
Process for Preparing Financial Statements
Superfund Five-Year Reviews
Great Lakes Program
Quality of Laboratory Data
Information Resources Management
Working Relationships with States and Other Partners
Results-Based Information Technology Project Management
Protecting Critical Infrastructure from Non-Traditional Attacks
* Combined for 2001
PAGE 21 - OCTOBER 1,2001 THROUGH MARCH 31,2002
-------
Goal 3: Produce Timely, Quality and Cost-Effective Products and Services
That Meets Customer Needs
The OIG is a customer-driven organization in which customer
needs serve as the basis for work planning and the design of OIG
products and services. All OIG work is based on anticipated
value to Congress and EPA, The following represent some
examples of the more significant efforts under this OIG goal.
OIG Issues
First Annual
Performance
Report -
Scorecardof
Measures
EPA OIG issued its first Annual Performance Report, summarizing key statistical
performance results and measures, to demonstrate progress toward the attainment of
its fiscal 2001 Performance Targets and Strategic Goals through fiscal 2005.
In compliance with the Government Performance and Results Act, the Report
describes examples of specific outputs and outcomes, provides financial statements,
Management Challenges, progress on previous Management Challenges, and
revised annual performance targets for fiscal 2002. It also provides additional
operational performance measures and indicators about OIG product timeliness,
customer survey results, and completeness and quality of data entry into OIG
Management Information Systems.
Because our Strategic Plan was designed "Starting with the End in Mind," this
report provides summary performance information on effectiveness, beginning with
outcomes and outputs from our business line products and services related to each
of our four Goals. The Report also includes measures of economy and efficiency
through analyses of financial and staff resource usage and product timeliness. It
concludes with a list of the Management Challenges (Federal Managers' Financial
Integrity Act weaknesses) within the OIG to be addressed during fiscal 2002, and
revised fiscal 2002 Annual Goal Targets, based on the OIG's progress and lessons
learned from fiscal 2001 performance.
Example of a Balanced Scorecard Dashboard
Operational Activity
TimeHness/Cycle Ttimc
Management Challenges
Human Resource Usage
Product Quality
Use of Technology
HTTP://WWW.EPA.GOV/OIGEARTH - PAGE 22
-------
The net result of this report is to present a "Scoreboard" of performance, progress,
results, activities, and investments that tell a complete story of OIG performance
and accountability. While this is the OIG's first Annual Performance Report based
on our Strategic Plan, we are continuing to research new and better ways to
measure, collect, and report data on the results of our operations. This report will be
used to direct the future application of resources for even greater accountability and
results.
OIG Launches
Electronic
Work Papers
The OIG has created and launched its own "AutoAudit" database to provide its staff
with an automated, uniform method for preparing electronic work papers.
AutoAudit is a Lotus Notes database that contains, organizes, and displays
electronic workpapers for audits, program evaluations, and consulting assignments.
It enables staff to work in teams, creating, editing, and reviewing work papers in
real time. AutoAudit is where much of the core work of our organization will be
done. A major advantage of AutoAudit is that it facilitates cooperation and
information sharing among geographically separated staff, thus promoting
teamwork, more efficient production, and the "One OIG" concept.
AutoAudit uses commercial-off-the-shelf software that was customized to fit our
work process by a group of OIG auditors and computer specialists. We trained OIG
staff and managers in two phases. First, in a "train-the-trainer" phase, an OIG staff
member in each office who understands OIG business processes gained familiarity
with the software. Second, the software vendor provided training to the entire staff.
A group of OIG computer specialists wrote an AutoAudit security plan.
Information in AutoAudit is protected by server port encryption, user identification,
and password protection in Lotus Notes, controlled access to the AutoAudit
database, and - within AutoAudit - through the ability to restrict access to an entire
assignment or to specific documents.
PAGE 23 - OCTOBER 1. 2001 THROUGH MARCH 31, 2002
-------
Goal 4: Enhance Diversity, Innovation, Teamwork and Competencies
The OIG is committed to becoming a high performance
organization by recruiting and maintaining a diverse and highly
competent workforce. The OIG promotes continuous learning
and is expanding its use of technology and multi-discipline
teams. The following represent some examples of the more
significant efforts under this OIG goal.
OIG-Wide
Conference
Stresses
Achieving
Organization's
Goals
The entire staff of the EPA OIG met for an "Achieving Our Strategic Goals"
training conference December 4-6, 2001, in Phoenix, Arizona, to strengthen the
OIG's ability to become an agent for positive change.
One of the main themes of the conference was the need for the OIG to make its
products work for its customers. "What difference are we making?" was a question
often asked. Consequently, ways for the OIG to help the Agency improve
environmental quality and protect human health were explored throughout the
conference.
"Job Number One is to contribute to improving the environment and human health,"
stressed Nikki Tinsley, the EPA Inspector General, in her opening remarks to the
gathering. Tinsley pointed out that great strides have already been made in
achieving the OIG's four strategic goals, and more work is still needed.
EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman videotaped a message (photo by: Erica
Vernon, EPA OIG)
HTTP://WWW.EPA.OOV/OIGEARTH - PAGE 24
-------
During the conference, numerous sessions were held to better enable the OIG
achieve its Goal 1, Contributing to Improved Environmental Quality and Human
Health. The ways to identify potential areas for Agency improvement were
discussed, including best practices within EPA that could be applied on a wider
scale. The need to stress outcomes was emphasized, and examples of recent
projects contributing to improved water and air, as well as reduced exposure to
hazardous substances, were discussed.
Emphasis was also placed on Goal 2, Improving EPA 's Management and Program
Operations. Various sessions stressed that OIG's efforts should be geared to help
the Agency perform like an efficient business and deliver results. Directions in
which the OIG could provide such opportunities to the Agency were noted.
Goal 3, Producing Timely, Quality, and Cost-Effective Products and Services that
Meet Customer Needs, was also discussed in detail. Does the OIG provide the right
products, at the right time, to the right customer, at the right cost? These types of
questions were considered, and ways to better build partnerships with the Agency
and provide the products and services that the Agency needs were discussed.
Goal 4, Enhancing Diversity, Innovation, Teamwork, and Competencies, is the
organization's "people" goal. Ultimately, following Goal 4 is the road to the OIG
achieving all its goals, since continuous learning, state-of-the-art technology, and
multi-discipline teams will have a direct bearing on product quality. One of the
measures being used to carry out OIG's strategic plan, the "KEYS" questionnaire
which is designed to measure organizational climate and employee attitude, was
discussed.
*•*, r-/ *;-'
-«, >;< t«.<-j-<
®
viv
-'if *»- tJL*". C
tSf-sSfe-*. * iWfe'v^W >*-£ *»-*
-------
Goal 1. Contribute to Improved Environmental Quality and Human Health
Scoreboard of Results Compared to FY2002Uoal Targets
Reported as of 3/31/02
(Business Line Goals, Objectives and Measures from DIG Strategic Plan 2001-1005
Improvements/Changes/Docisions/Actions Influencing Environmental Impacts or Preventing Loss
Legislative Changes/Decisions
Regulatory Changes/Decisions
EPA Policy, Directive, Process or Practice Changes
Example of Environmental/Health Improvements or Impacts
Best Practices Implemented
0
"l
IT
~°!
o?
12%[ GoalTafggf
50
Environmental Risks Reduced or Eliminated from Solutions and Enforcement Actions
Environmental Risks Reduced/Eliminated
Certifications/Validations /Verifications
Recommendations, Best Practices and Risks Identified
Recommendations for Environmental Improvement
Environmental Best Practices Identified
Environmental Risks Identified
15
"4*
To"
Goal 2. Improve EPA's Management, Accountability and Program Operations
291 39%[ GoalTarge^
75
Return on Investment in IG Budget from Improved Business Practices, Sa vings. Recoveries and Fines
Questioned Costs (includes items not in Audit Resolution)
Recommended Efficiencies (includes items not in Audit Resolution)
Fines, Recoveries, Restitutions
$3,517,000
" $1,305,000"
~$T8J80b,oo6'
lof Goalj S23,622^XX>| S1%| Goal targa^ $45,900.000;
ctions Reducing or Eliminating Risk of Loss or Improving Efficiency and Integrity
Criminal, Civil, Administrative Actions
Certifications/Validations /Verifications
Examples of Process/Practice Changes
Corrected Management Challenges
Best Practices Implemented
30
4"
TT
56
7S%[ GoalTarga^
Percent EPA GRPA Rating Increase from OK3 Influence
0%
Recommendations, Best Practices, FMFIA or Management Challenges Identified to Promote Action
Recommendations for Management Improvement
125
New FMFIA/Management Challenges Identified
HTTP://WWW.EPA.GOV/OIGEARTH - PAGE 26
-------
Audit Report Resolution
Status Report on Perpetual Inventory of Reports in Resolution Process for Semiannual Period Ending
March 31, 2002
Report Category
A. For which no
management decision was
made by October 1, 2001*
B. Which were issued
during the reporting period
C. Which were issued
during the reporting period
that required no resolution
Subtotals (A + B - C)
D. For which a
management decision was
made during the reporting
period
E. For which no
management decision was
made by March 31, 2002
Reports for which no
management decision was
made within six months of
issuance
No.
of
Reports
122
202
145
179
86
93
53
Report Issuance
(Dollar Value in Thousands)
Questioned
Costs
$51,691
3309
0
55,000
9371
45,623
42,597
Recommended
Efficiencies
$33,403
25
0
33,428
1,238
32,190
3,465
Report Resolution Costs Sustained
(Dollar Value in Thousands)
To Be Recovered
$6,587
As Efficiencies
$0
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.
PAGE 27-OCTOBER 1,2001 THROUGH MARCH31,2002
-------
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.
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 were prepared by other
Federal auditors or independent
public accountants. EPA OIG staff
do not manage or control such
assignments. A uditees frequently
provide additional documentation to
support the allowability of such costs
subsequent to report issuance. We
expect that a high proportion of
unsupported costs may not be
sustained.
Table 1 —Inspector General Issued Reports With Questioned Costs for Semiannual Period Ending
March 31, 2002
Report Category
A. For which no management decision was
made by October 1, 2001"
B. New reports issued during period
Subtotals (A + B)
C. For which a management decision was made
during the reporting period
(i) Dollar value of disallowed costs
(ii) Dollar value of costs not disallowed
D. For which no management decision was
made by March 31, 2002
Reports for which no management decision was
made within six months of issuance
Number of
Reports
41
15
56
23
20
3
33
24
Questioned Costs*
(Dollar Value in Thousands)
$51,691
3,309
55,000
9^71
6,587
2,784
45,623
42,596
Unsupported Costs
(Dollar Value in
Thousands)
$15,671
1,278
16,949
1,013
88
925
15,936
14,658
* 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.
Knp-yAVWW.EPA.GOV/OIGEARTH-PAGE 28
-------
Table 2 — Inspector General Issued Reports With Recommendations That Funds Be Put To
Better Use for Semiannual Period Ending March 31, 2002
Report Category
A. For which no management decision was made by October 1, 2001
B. Which were issued during the reporting period
Subtotals (A + B)
C. For which a management decision was made during the
reporting period
(i) Dollar value of recommendations from reports that were
agreed to by management
(ii) Dollar value of recommendations from reports that were
not agreed to by management
(iii) Dollar value of non-awards or unsuccessful bidders
D. For which no management decision was made by
March 31,2002
Reports for which no management decision was made within six
months of issuance
Number of
Reports
5
1
6
1
0
1
0
5
4
Dollar Value
(In Thousands)
$33,403
26
33,429
1,238
0
1,238
0
32,190
32,165
Audits With No Final Action As Of March 31, 2002 Which
Are Over 365 Days Past OIG Report Issuance Date
Audits
Programs
Assistance Agreements
Contract Audits
Single Audits
Financial Statement Audits
TOTAL
Total
21
81
19
8
3
132
Percentage
16
61.4
14.4
6
2.2
100
PAGE 29-OCTOBER 1,2001 THROUGH MARCH 31,2002
-------
Summary of Investigative Results
Summary Of Investigative
Activities
Pending Investigations as
of September 30, 2001
New Investigations
Opened This Period
Investigations Closed
This Period
Pending Investigations as
of March 31,2002
160
25
22
163
Prosecutive and
Administrative Actions
In this period, investigative efforts
resulted in 13 convictions and 10
indictments (does not include
indictments obtained in cases in
which we provided investigative
assistance). Fines and recoveries,
including those associated with civil
actions, amounted to $19 million.
Five administrative actions were
taken as a result of investigations.
Resignations
Restitutions
Reprimands
Other
TOTAL
1
1
2
1
Profiles of Pending Investigations by Type
General EPA Programs
Total Cases = 110
Superfund
Total Cases = 53
Contract
Assistance Agreement
Employee Integrity
Program Integrity
Other
HTTPyAVWW.EPA.GOV/OIGEARTH-PAGE 30
-------
Appendix 1 - Reports Issued
THE INSPECTOR GENERAL ACT REQUIRES A LISTING, SUBDIVIDED ACCORDING TO SUBJECT MATTER, OF EACH REPORT ISSUED BY
THE OFFICE DURING THE REPORTING PERIOD AND FOR EACH REPORT, WHERE APPLICABLE, THE DOLLAR VALUE OF QUESTIONED COSTS
AND THE DOLLAR VALUE OF RECOMMENDATIONS THAT FUNDS BE PUT TO BETTER USE.
Report Number Title
2002-2-00011
2002-2-00012
2002-P-00002
2002-P-00003
2002-P-00004
2002-P-00005
2002-P-00006
2002-P-00007
2002-P-00008
2002-P-00009
2002-P-00010
2002-1-00089
2002-1-00092
2002-1-00096
2002-1-00098
2002-1-00099
2002-1-00100
2002-2-00001
2002-2-00008
2002-3-00001
2002-3-00002
2002-3-00003
2002-3-00004
2002-3-00005
2002-3-00006
2002-3-00007
2002-3-00009
2002-3-00010
2002-3-00011
2002-3-00012
2002-3-00013
2002-3-00014
2002-3-00015
2002-3-00016
2002-3-00017
2002-3-00018
2002-3-00019
2002-3-00020
2002-3-00021
2002-3-00022
2002-3-00023
2002-3-00024
2002-3-00025
2002-3-00026
2002-3-00027
MPI - USAGE SOL CBAENPL-01-005
MPI ACOE Solicitation DACW41-01-R-0015
Sound Science - Phase I Evaluation
Mega: Environmental Indicators
Quality of Data in Enforcement's DOCKET Syste
m
CFDA Program 66.606
Off -Site Consequence Analysis Info. Mgt .
Pennsylvania's Reporting of Drinking Water Vi
olations to EPA
TITLE V
Grantee Procurement Practices
Dal Grantee Procurement Practices
TOTAL PERFORMANCE REPORTS = 9
Region 8 Tribal Allegation (phase 3)
Sault Ste . Marie Chippewa Asisstance Agreemen
ts
Region 8 Tribal Allegation (phase 3)
Region 8 Tribal Allegation (phase 3)
Region 8 Tribal Allegation (phase 3)
Region 8 Tribal Allegation (phase 3)
Superfund Cooperative Agreements-- Utah
MBI International Assistance Agreement
TOTAL ASSISTANCE AGREEMENT REPORTS =
Oglala Sioux Tribe
knoxville, City of
Ascension, Parish of
Ascension, Parish of
Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. & Associa
tes
San Ildefonso, Pueblo of
Lac Courte Orielles Band of Chippewa Indians
I llama Village Council
Wayne State University
Prince William County
lake Michigan Directors Consortium
Yankton Sioux Tribe FY 1998
Yankton Sioux Tribe FY 1999
YANKTON SIOUX TRIBE FY 2000
3 Rivers Wet Weather, Inc.
National Academy of Sciences
Stockbridge-Munseo Community
Cocopah Indian Tr ibe
Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians
South Dakota, State of
Logan, Township of
Pennsylvania, University of
Southern Ute Indian Tribe
North Dakota, State of
North Dakota, State of
Kickapoo Traditional Tribe of Texas
Questioned Costs
Final Report Ineligible Unsupported
Issued Costs Costs
28-MAR-02
28-MAR-02
21-NOV-01
27-DEC-01
18-JAN-02
21-MAR-02
22-MAR-02
25-MAR-02
29-MAR-02
28-MAR-02
29-MAR-02
0 0
05-MAR-02 $25,789
18-DEC-01 $0 $34,034
19-MAR-02 $11,727 $375,831
27-MAR-02 $1,019 $236,664
29-MAR-02 $781 $631,379
29-MAR-02
06-NOV-01
29-JAN-02 $1,301,365
8 1,340,681 1,277,908
03-OCT-01
03-OCT-01
04-OCT-01
04-OCT-01
10-OCT-Ol
10-OCT-Ol
10-OCT-Ol
12-OCT-01
12-OCT-01
12-OCT-01
18-OCT-01
18-OCT-01
18-OCT-01
18-OCT-01
23-OCT-01 $150,201
23-OCT-01
23-OCT-01
30-OCT-01
30-OCT-01
30-OCT-01
31-OCT-01
31-OCT-01
31-OCT-01
Ol-NOV-01
Ol-NOV-01
Ol-NOV-01
Recommended
Efficiencies
Unreasonable (Funds Be Put
Costs To Better Use)
0 0
$25,789
$0
$62
$455
517 25,789
PAGE 31 - OCTOBER 1, 2001 THROUGH MARCH 31,2002
-------
Questioned Costs
Recommend
Efficienc
Report Number Title
2002-3-00028 Raw Nation of Oklahoma
2002-3-00029 Kaw Nation of Oklahoma
2002-3-00030 Concurrent Technologies Corporation
2002-3-00031 Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Mgmn
t, Inc & Affili
2002-3-00032 Grand Portage Reservation Tribal Council
2002-3-00033 Grand Portage Reservation Tribal Council
2002-3-00034 WAMPANOAG TRIBE OF GAY HEAD
2002-3-00035 Intertribal Bison, Inc
2002-3-00036 American Indian Science and Engineerig Societ
y
2002-3-00037 DENVER, UNIVERSITY OF
2002-3-00038 American Indian Science and Engineering Socie
ty
2002-3-00039 3 Rivers Wet Weather, Inc.
2002-3-00040 Cheyenne and Arapahoe Tribes of Oklahoma
2002-3-00041 Cheyenne and Arapahoe Tribes of Oklahoma
2002-3-00042 Lliamna Village Council
2002-3-00043 Kentucky, Commonwealth of
2002-3-00044 Redlands , University of
2002-3-00045 Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe
2002-3-00046 Nevada Rural Water Association FY 2000
2002-3-00047 Nevada Rural Water Association FY 1999
2002-3-00048 Johnston, County of
2002-3-00049 Northeast Rural Water Association
2002-3-00050 Clark County Health District
2002-3-00051 Howard University
2002-3-00052 Harvard University
2002-3-00053 Hamlin Public Service District
2002-3-00054 Follansbee, City of
2002-3-00055 Delware Rural Water Association
2002-3-00056 Delaware Rural Water Association
2002-3-00057 Nevada, University t Community College System
of
2002-3-00058 Environmental Council of States, Inc. and Aff
iliate
2002-3-00059 Joplin, City of
2002-3-00060 Ashley Valley Sewer Management Board
2002-3-00061 Winterset, City of
2002-3-00062 Iberville Parish Council
2002-3-00063 Big Valley Rancheria Band of Porno Indians
2002-3-00064 Ellijay Giltner County Water & Sewerage Author
ity
2002-3-00065 Greenwood, City of
2002-3-00066 Penobscot Indian Natiom
2002-3-00067 Savage, City of
2002-3-00068 Central City, City of
2002-3-00069 Hartford, City of
2002-3-00070 Cochrane, Village of
2002-3-00071 Morgantown Utility Board
2002-3-00072 Leech Lake Reservation
2002-3-00073 Stephen's Water and Sewer System
2002-3-00074 Geothermal Heat Pump Consortium
2002-3-00075 Alaska Energy Authority
2002-3-00076 Veneta, City of
2002-3-00077 Conrad, City of
Final Report Ineligible Unsupported Unreasonable (Funds Be
Issued Costs Costs Costs To Better Use
Ol-NOV-01
Ol-NOV-01
Ol-NOV-01
06-NOV-01
06-NOV-01
06-NOV-01
08-NOV-01
09-NOV-01 $15,567
14-NOV-01 $19,736
14-NOV-01
14-NOV-01
20-NOV-01
20-NOV-01
20-NOV-01
21-NOV-01 $182,868
27-NOV-01
27-NOV-01
27-NOV-01
29-NOV-01
29-NOV-01
29-NOV-01
ll-DEC-01
13-DEC-01
13-DEC-01
13-DEC-01
17-DEC-01
18-DEC-01
19-DEC-01
19rDEC-01
19-DEC-01
04-JAN-02
04-JAN-02
09-JAN-02
09-JAN-02
09-JAN-02
09-JAN-02
09-JAN-02
10-JAN-02
10-JAN-02
10-JAN-02
26-MAR-02
26-MAR-02
26-MAR-02
26-MAR-02
27-MAR-02
27-MAR-02
27-MAR-02
27-MAR-02 $171,600 $0 $0
28-MAR-02
28-MAR-02
TOTAL SINGLE AUDIT REPORTS « 76
2002-2-00004 MPI Proposal PR-CI-01-12171
TOTAL OIG ISSUED CONTRACT REPORTS - 1
539,972
21-DEC-01
HTTP://WWW.EPA.GOV/OIGEARTH-PAGE 32
-------
Questioned Costs
Report Number
Title
Final Report
Issued
Ineligible
Costs
Unsupported
Costs
Recommended
Efficiencies
Unreasonable (Funds Be Put
Costs To Better Use)
2002-1-00001 S Cohen 5, Associates-FY99 Incurred Cost ll-OCT-01
2002-1-00002 MANTECH ENVIRONMENTAL TECH-Revised Disclosure ll-OCT-01
Statement 1/97
2002-1-00003 DynCorp Inc-FY99 Incurred cost 12-OCT-01
2002-1-00004 Poster Wheeler-FY97 RAC Close-out 68-W8-0110 12-OCT-01
2002-1-00005 Solutions By Detign-FY99 Incurred cost 14-OCT-01
2002-1-00006 Sierra Research Inc-Accounting System 14-OCT-01
2002-1-00007 DCT, Inc-FY 1998 Incurred cost 14-OCT-01
2002-1-00008 DCT, Inc-FY 1999 Incurred cost 14-OCT-01
2002-1-00009 FY 2001 Provisional Billing Rates 15-OCT-01
2002-1-00010 Tetra Tech, Inc-CAS 420 15-OCT-01
2002-1-00011 Tetra Tech NUS-CAS 420 15-OCT-01
2002-1-00012 Mar Inc-FY 1999 Incurred Cost 15-OCT-01
2002-1-00013 Computer Based Systems-FY99 Incurred cost 15-OCT-01
2002-1-00014 ECG, Inc-FY97 4 98 Incurred cost 16-OCT-01
2002-1-00015 Marasco Newton Group LTD-FY 1999 Incurred cos 16-OCT-01
t
2002-1-00016 CH2M Hill Inc-FY98 Incurred Cost 17-OCT-01
2002-1-00017 Black & Veatch Special Projects Corp-FY98 Inc 17-OCT-01
urred Cost
2002-1-00018 ABT Associates, Inc-GDM 18-OCT-01
2002-1-00019 American Management Systems-CACS 68-W9-0039 18-OCT-01
2002-1-00020 Washington Group Intl (Morison Knudsen)-FY99 22-OCT-01
ARCS 68W90025
2002-1-00021 Lockheed Martin Services, Inc-FY92 Incurred C 23-OCT-01
ost
2002-1-00022 ABT Associates Inc-GDM w/ CAS 401 23-OCT-01
2002-1-00023 American Management Systems-CACS 68-W9-0038 24-OCT-01
2002-1-00024 Grace Analytical Labs, Inc-FY 1999 Incurred c 24-OCT-01
ost
2002-1-00025 Washington Group Int'1(Morrison Knudsen)FY99 25-OCT-01
RAC 68-W7-0039
2002-1-00026 CH2M HILL INC-FY 1997 Incurred Cost 25-OCT-01
2002-1-00027 S. COHEN AND ASSOCIATES-FY 1995 Incurred Cost 26-OCT-01
2002-1-00028 Southwest Research Inst-FY2000 Incurred cost 26-OCT-01
2002-1-00029 Perrin Quarles Associates-FY 1999 Incurred co 26-OCT-01
st
2002-1-00030 EG&G Automotive Research-FY 97 Incurred cost 26-OCT-01
2002-1-00031 Versar, Inc-FY2000 incurred cost 26-OCT-01
2002-1-00032 ABT Associates Inc-CAS 408 26-OCT-01
2002-1-00033 Zedek Corporation-FY98 Incurred Cost 29-OCT-01
2002-1-00034 B&V Special Project Corp-FY1997 RAC Closeout 29-OCT-01
68-W5-0004
2002-1-00035 Automotive Testing Laboratories Inc-FY 1999 I 29-OCT-01
ncurred cost
2002-1-00036 Automotive Testing Laboratories-FY2000 Incurr 29-OCT-01
ed cost
2002-1-00037 FEV of America-FY99 Incurred cost 29-OCT-01
2002-1-00038 EG&G Automotive Research-FY98 Incurred cost 29-OCT-01
2002-1-00039 IT Group-FY99 Incurred cost 29-OCT-01
2002-1-00041 Development Planning & Research Assoc-FY 2000 05-NOV-01
Incurred cost
2002-1-00042 Tapan AM Associates, Inc-FY97 Closeout 08-NOV-01
2002-1-00043 Systems Integration Group-FY99 Incurred cost 14-NOV-01
2002-1-00044 Battelle Memorial Institute-BMI-39 Rev Disclo 14-NOV-01
sure Stmt
2002-1-00045 OAO CORP-FY 1997 Incurred Cost 14-NOV-01
2002-1-00046 SoBran Inc-FY99 Incurred Cost 19-NOV-01
2002-1-00047 SoBran Inc-FY98 Incurred cost 19-NOV-01
2002-1-00048 Parsons Engineering Science-FY98 Incurred cos 19-NOV-01
t
2002-1-00049 Parsons Engineering Science-FY96 Incurred cos 19-NOV-01
t
2002-1-00050 OAO Corporation-FY98 Incurred cost 20-NOV-01
2002-1-00051 OAO Corporation-FY99 Incurred cost 20-NOV-01
2802-1-00052 ABT Associates Inc-CAS 410 Noncompliance 20-NOV-01
2002-1-00053 Parsons Engineering Science-FY97 Incurred cos 20-NOV-01
t
$16,717
$1,048
PAGE 33 - OCTOBER 1,2001 THROUGH MARCH 31,2002
-------
Recommended
Questioned Costs Efficiencies
Final Report Ineligible Unsupported Unreasonable (Funds Be Put
Report Number Title Issued Costs Costs Costs To Better Use)
2002-1-00054 ABB Environmetal Services-FY96 Incurred Cost 26-NOV-01
2002-1-00055 CH2M Hill I4E Business Group-Home Allocation 27-NOV-01
FY98 I/C
2002-1-00056 UNIVERSAL SYS t TECH INC-FY 1997 Incurred Cos 15-JAN-02
t
2002-1-00057 Universal System & Technology, Inc-FY98 Incur 16-JAN-02
red cost
2002-1-00058 CH2M Hill, Inc. - FY 1999 Incurred Cost 16-JAN-02
2002-1-00059 Industrial Economics, Inc-FY99 Incurred Cost 16-JAN-02
2002-1-00060 GeoLogics Corporation-FY99 Incurred cost 16-JAN-02
2002-1-00061 TN & Aasociates-FY2000 Incurred cost 18-JAN-02
2002-1-00062 SoBran Inc-FY2000 Incurred cost 18-JAN-02
2002-1-00063 Aqua Terra Consultants-FY99 Incurred cost 18-JAN-02
2002-1-00064 Bionetics Corporation-FY99 Incurred cost 24-JAN-02
2002-1-00065 Tetra Tech EMI-Revised Disclosure Statement 25-JAN-02
2002-1-00066 Tetra Tech, Inc-Floorcheck 25-JAN-02
2002-1-00067 Versar Inc-FY99 Incurred cost 29-JAN-02
2002-1-00068 CMC Inc-FY99 Incurred cost 29-JAN-02
2002-1-00069 CMC, Inc-FY2000 Incurred cost 29-JAN-02
2002-1-00070 IntelliTech Systems, Inc-Preaward Accounting 29-JAN-02
System Review
2002-1-00071 Battelle Memorial Inst-FY2002-2006 Bidding 4 29-JAN-02
Billing rates
2002-1-00072 CMC Inc-FY98 Incurred cost 30-JAN-02
2002-1-00073 CH2M Hill Companies, Ltd-FY1999 Incurred cost Ol-FEB-02
2002-1-00074 CH2M Hill I4E Business Group-FY1999 Home Offi Ol-FEB-02
ce Proposal
2002-1-00075 Abt Associates Inc-CAS 403 04-FEB-02
2002-1-00076 Integrated Laboratory Systems-FY98 Incurred c 04-FEB-02
ost
2002-1-00077 Lockheed Martin Svcs-Indirect & Direct Cost S 05-FEB-02
ystem
2002-1-00078 Earth Tech, Inc-FY1997 Incurred cost 12-FEB-02 $7,400
2002-1-00079 TAMS Consultants Inc-FY98 Incurred Cost 15-FEB-02
2002-1-00080 Advanced Technologies Systems-FY99 Incurred c 15-FEB-02
ost
2002-1-00081 Southwest Research Inst FY99 Compliance w/OMB 15-FEB-02
Circular A-133
2002-1-00083 Lockheed Martin Services-FY2002 Disclosure St 22-FEB-02
atement Rev 5
2002-1-00084 ICES Ltd-FY 1999 Incurred cost 23-FEB-02
2002-1-00085 FY Accounting System Review 25-FEB-02
2002-1-00086 Battelle Memorial Inst-FY2001 Estimating Syst 25-FEB-02
em 1C
2002-1-00087 Sierra Research Inc-FY2000 Incurred cost 25-FEB-02
2002-1-00088 FEV Engine Technology-Floorcheck 26-FEB-02
2002-1-00090 Integrated Laboratory Systems-FY99 Incurred c 26-FEB-02
ost
2002-1-00091 FY 2000 OMB Circular A-133 & Review of Indire 26-FEB-02
ct Rates
2002-1-00093 Westinghouse Remediation Service Inc-FY98 Inc 06-MAR-02
urred cost
2002-1-00097 Indus Corporation-FY99 Incurred cost 14-MAR-02
2002-7-nno03 LIMITED COST REVIEW GET VOUCHER 68-W7-0016 IN 05-NOV-01
VK9974-004-02
2002-2-00005 Cadmus Group-Agreed Upon Procedure-Preaward P 18-JAN-02
roposal
2002-2-00006 IntelliTech Systems, Inc 24-JAN-02
2002-2-00007 Horsley & Witten-Preaward 25-JAN-02
2002-2-00009 SOBRAN INC-FY 1996 Incurred Cost 27-FEB-02
2002-2-00010 SOBRAN INC-FY 1997 Incurred Cost 27-FEB-02
2002-4-00001 CADMUS GROUP, THE-FY 1998 Incurred Cost 14-OCT-01
2002-4-00002 AeroVironment Inc-FY98 Incurred Cost 15-OCT-01
2002-4-00003 ZEDEK CORPORATION-FY 1996 Incurred Cost 26-OCT-01
2002-4-00004 Midwest Research Institute-Material Purchases 30-OCT-01
HTTP-.//WWW.EPA.GOV/OIGEARTH-PAGE 34
-------
Report Number Title
Control System
2002-4-00005 Tetra Tech NUS-Floorcheck
2002-4-00006 Arthur D Little Inc-Financial Capability
Final Report
Issued
05-NOV-01
20-NOV-01
Questioned Costs
Ineligible Unsupported
Costs Costs
Recommended
Efficiencies
Unreasonable (Funds Be Put
Costs To Better Use)
TOTAL DCCA CONTRACT REPORTS
102
25,165
2002-1-00082 2001 AGCY F/S - PREPARATION AND REPORTING - FAD (M 26-FEB-02
ASTER)
2002-1-00095 Audit of California State FY2000 CWSRF Financial S 07-MAR-02
tatements
TOTAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT REPORTS = 2 0
2002-S-00001 Review of Parker Landfill Response Claim II 31-OCT-01 $110,486
2002-S-00002 EEO Allegation 13-DEC-01
2002-S-00003 EiE - 2001 Floorcheck 26-FEB-02
2002-S-00004 NWC Biosolids Allegations
TOTAL SPECIAL REVIEW REPORTS = 4
TOTAL REPORTS ISSUED = 202
28-MAR-02
110,486
$2,016,304
0
$0
$1,277,908
0
$14,068
14,068 0
$ 14,585 $25,789
PAGE 35 - OCTOBER 1,2001 THROUGH MARCH 31,2002
-------
PIG MAILING ADDRESSES and TELEPHONE NUMBERS
PIG HOTLINE 1-888-546-8740 or (202) 260-4977
Headquarters
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW (2441)
Washington, DC 20460
(202)260-3137
Atlanta
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, GA 30303
Audit: (404) 562-9830
Investigations: (404) 562-9857
Boston
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
One Congress St.
Suite 1100 (Mailcode)
Boston, MA 02114-2023
Audit: (617) 918-1470
Investigations:(617) 915-1481
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 45268-7001
Audit: (513) 487-2360
Investigations: (312) 353-2507 (Chicago)
Dallas
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General (6OIG)
1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
Audit: (214) 665-6621
Investigations: (404) 562-9857 (Atlanta)
Denver
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
999 18th Street, Suite 500
Denver, CO 80202-2405
Audit: (303) 312-6872
Investigations: (312) 353-2507 (Chicago)
Kansas City
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
901 N. 5th Street
Kansas City, KS 66101
Audit: (913) 551-7878
Investigations: (312) 353-2507 (Chicago)
New York
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
290 Broadway, Room 1520
New York, NY 10007
Audit: (212) 637-3080
Investigations: (212) 637-3041
Philadelphia
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
1650 Arch Street, 3rd Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029
Audit: (215) 814-5800
Investigations: (215) 814-2361
Research Triangle Park
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
Mail Drop N283-01
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Audit: (919) 541-2204
Investigations: (919) 541-1027
Sacramento
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
8011 Street, Room 264
Sacramento, CA 95814
Audit: (916) 498-6530
Investigations: (415) 744-2465 (SF)
San Francisco
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
75 Hawthorne St. (IGA-1)
7th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
Audit: (415) 947-4521
Investigations: (415)947-8711
Seattle
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
1200 6th Avenue, 19th Floor
Suite 1920, M/SOIG-195
Seattle, WA 98101
Audit: (206) 553-4033
Investigations: (206) 553-1273
HTTP://WWW.EPA.GOV/OIGEARTH- PAGE 36
------- |