SUPERFUND DATA INTEGRITY
PROCESS TEAM
Improving Cost Documentation through
Total Quality Management
Phase I Management Report
October 1992
MGMT
EPA
205
R
92
003
"cvr
T^'J^ f'»'~\
^;^!-v-x>t'^ *' 'V "'>K
V'4'Ji"«' Zf-^ v-' VS.
•X%^S V?*"' ' V- 0"
?fe<^--"-.,---F*,;
,-,vT^v
5. '/( ^
v'^.V^^ •> -?V
«J- f^f Ov ^ '^
»'lw' >»" » ""*&>
*"'•>. -ff "v^s.v
>*, ,,'*Ai'S;-Vv
\-.Att ^i'.x'-.
Office of the Comptroller
Financial Management Division
Superfund Accounting Branch
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
J
-------
, EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
i
AD)
EPA's headquarters Superf und Accounting Branch and Regional Superfund
^ Finance Offices are responsible for maintaining Superfund active site files,
preparing accurate, timely, and legally defensible cost documentation packages to
be used in various court cases. The success of the litigation, and the effectiveness
of cost recovery of the nation's worst hazardous waste sites is dependent on
receiving accurate and complete information from the financial reports.
The Data Integrity Critical Process Team was formed to identify and resolve
cost recovery and Superfund financial management issues which put the Agency
at risk-of understating costs in cost recovery actions. The team used Total Quality
Management principles to determine the data integrity issues that existed.
Eighteen significant data integrity issues were identified and addressed. Of
the eighteen issues, seven were categorized as payroll issues, three were identified
as JFMS/MARS issues, and eight were identified as problems related to FMS/SPUR.
Two sub-groups, the "Data Collection Group" and the "Data Flow Group" were
formed by the team to investigate and analyze each issue. The "Data Collection
Group" was responsible for gathering statistics and information about procedures
used in processing documents. The "Data Flow Group" created flow charts of the
systems and document flows to help in identifying possible sources of problems.
Once the information gathering was completed, the team regrouped to describe the
actual problem, prioritize each issue, identify solutions, make recommendations,
and take action.
At the end of Phase I, eight issues have been completely resolved; preliminary
work was done on six issues and is awaiting approval and implementation; three
issues were identified as long-term issues and not addressed during Phase I; and
one issue was identified as beyond the control of the Team.
The Team is proud of its accomplishments. We know that there are still
unresolved long-term data integrity issues. There are also new issues to be
prioritized by the reorganized team for Phase II. In addition, there are matters from
Phase I requiring close foliow-up: SERFs that have been written but not funded,
policies that have been formulated but not yet approved, and procedures that have
ben improved but hot implemented. These will require the close attention of the
. reorganized team in Phase II.
As the team moves forward to Phase II, the commitment to improve
Superfund financial data integrity to provide the most accurate, timely, and cost
effective Cost Recovery packages remains their goal.
22 HEADQUARTERS LIBRARY
JQ ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
pg WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
fcs
CD
-------
Q>
'.5
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION 2
METHODOLOGY 3
ISSUES ADDRESSED 7
ROAD BLOCKS 18
LESSONS LEARNED 19
FUTURE STEPS 21
APPENDICES 22
-------
-------
INTRODUCTION
EPA's Headquarters Superfund Accounting Branch and Regional Superfund
Finance Offices are responsible for maintaining Superfund active site files. These
files contain hardcopy financial documents of all EPA expenditures paid during the
cleanup of a Superfund site. Upon request, these Finance Offices must prepare
accurate, timely and legally defensible cost documentation packages for attorneys
to argue successfully their cases in court. The documentation furnished must
agree with and support the detail line item information shown on financial reports
prepared for the site involved. Successful cases mean hundreds of millions of
dollars are recovered by the Agency and are available to clean up the nation's
worst hazardous waste sites. However, Regions and SAB find that the information
on the financial reports is sometimes inaccurate or incomplete, and the Agency
may be at risk of understating costs in cost recovery actions.
The purpose of this project was to use Total Quality Management principles
to identify and resolve cost recovery and Superfund financial management issues
as follows:
o Identify the most serious data integrity issues the Superfund financial
community is facing in preparing cost recovery packages;
o Benchmark the relative extent and costs of these problems;
o Prioritize the major data integrity issues related to cost recovery;
o Develop a plan with options to resolve the top two or three issues
identified;
o Implement the agreed upon plan;
o Evaluate and record the benefits and savings derived from the plan; and
o Use Total Quality Management principles to resolve other cost recovery
and Superfund financial management issues.
The Data Integrity Critical Process Team includes two "process owners"; the
Chief of the Superfund Accounting Branch (SAB) and the Chief of the Financial
Systems Branch (FSB) in the Financial Management Division (FMD) of the Office of
the Comptroller. The facilitator was chosen from the group of trained FMD
facilitators. The Chief of the Cost Documentation Section, SAB, is the Team
Leader, and Team members are from FMD and the Regions. [See Appendix A.}
-------
-------
METHODOLOGY
For some participants who arrived at the first team orientation session on
April 30, 1991, TQM was a new acronym; others had some prior experience with
the idea of Quality Culture. In this session and a subsequent two-day session on
May 8 and 9, Mike Smith, a consultant with the Cumberland Group, led us to
articulate our improvement opportunity and taught us the tools and concepts of
TQM for problem solving.
We learned that Total Quality Management is a process of continuous
improvement:
After hours of discussion among the team members, we defined the
improvement opportunity:
Superfund Finance Offices which prepare cost documentation packages to
be used in litigation have discovered discrepancies between accounting
system data and actual documents. Extensive amounts of time have been
spent reconciling, making adjustments and adding missing information.
There is concern that some costs may be overlooked and, as a result, the
agency may not be recovering the maximum amounts possible.
We set our goals:
1. To achieve 100% accuracy of CDMS/SCORE$ reports as compared to
source documentation.
•*
2. To increase the dollar value of cost recovery packages.
3. To reduce the time required to put cost documentation packages
together.
-------
4. To improve FMS/1FMS data integrity.
5. To improve internal control procedures.
These goals were formulated into our mission statement:
To improve Superfund financial data integrity in order to provide the
most accurate, timely, and cost effective Cost Recovery packages.
Once the team had identified the improvement opportunity, we needed to find
out what was causing the breakdown in data integrity. TQM problem solving tools
were used to gather information, organize and prioritize, and analyze possible
solutions. For example, brainstorming, cause and effect diagrams (fishbone) and
the nominal group technique were used to identify and prioritize the causes of
inconsistent data. Of the twenty-two problem indicators identified, seven were
determined to be the most significant causes as shown in the table below:
RANK
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
CAUSE
IFMS/FMS Incompatibility
Source Document Problems
People Not Trained
Internal Controls (Lacking)
IFMS Priority Over FMS
Data Entry Problems
Reconciliations
VOTES*
46
18
16
15
15
14
13
VOTERS
10
5
5
7
5
4
4
"Vote points on scale of 1 (least important) to 5
Our plan involved three major activities:
1. Benchmarking to measure and prioritize identified problems and
solutions.
2. Review of document processing to identify types of problems and
their sources.
3. Analysis of systems and data flow to pinpoint potential problems and
their causes.
-------
The team formed two 6-member working sub-groups:
1. The "Data Collection Group" to gather statistics for benchmarking and
to collect information about the procedures used in processing proper
documents.
2. The "Data Flow Group" to create flowcharts of systems and data
processing and to identify possible sources of problems.
The Data Collection Group developed survey questionnaires to collect data
about procedures used to process transactions for payroll, travel, contracts, lAGs,
and miscellaneous purchases. [See Appendix B.] Regional employees involved in
cost documentation were asked for information by types and quantities of errors
found. These questionnaires were first tested by the regional team members in
their own regions and then were extended to other regions on a limited basis. The
results of the questionnaire were interesting. Although the personnel processing
the initial transactions related that agency procedures were being followed exactly,
those doing cost documentation were finding frequent discrepancies between
documents and IFMS/FMS data.
The Data Flow Group developed document and processing flow charts for
payroll, travel, interagency agreements and contract documents, and non-payroll
data for IFWIS to FMS processing. [See Appendix C.]
From the data collected, team members did extensive analyses of the many
processes that are integrated in our financial system to produce a cost
documentation package. We then identified problem areas and .developed an
action plan to find what was causing these problems and how they could be
remedied. Further analysis led the team to divide these items into short and long-
term issues.
The team decided to focus on issues that would give the highest payback in
the shortest time. These were further prioritized and set up as "milestones" on our
action plan. New sub-groups of two or three persons looked at the root causes of
the problems and developed possible solutions. Often, team members went
outside the group to seek input and cooperation.
On assigned due dates, sub-groups reported to the whole group on their
action items. Possible solutions to problems were discussed and further analyzed
as to whether the matter was within our control, outside our control but something
we could influence, or completely outside our control. Often, the discussion would
identify a new issue or further an existing one. This would cause a repetition of
the cycle.
-------
Throughout this process, from the initial orientation through our last meeting,
attention has been given to the development of the team as well as to the problem
solving process. Joanne Steen and Edie Alexander, our advisors from PRC and Len
Bechtel, our EPA facilitator have helped us to understand our mission and
ourselves.
in our very first meeting, we defined the roles of various members of the
team:
1. The team owners would attend meetings when requested, act as our
liaison with other managers, assist us by providing necessary input
and resources and give us guidance on matters beyond our expertise.
2. The team leader would be our communication link with the owners.
He would be our "trail boss": scheduling meetings and work products,
keeping the team intact and preventing us from getting sidetracked.
3. The facilitator would act as our meeting technician, knowing and
demonstrating appropriate TQM techniques as needed.
4. Team members would be active participants, attend all meetings and
teleconferences, complete assigned tasks timely, discuss problems
with the team leader, treat the project as a high priority and act as
home office representatives, communicating team concerns and
accomplishments and providing feedback from each session of our
discussions.
We also established ground rules for our meetings that have been
instrumental in our success. We met face-to-face approximately once a month for
1- or 2-day sessions. Teleconferences were scheduled weekly at first, then
biweekly or as needed. Agendas and minutes were prepared and circulated for
each meeting in a prescribed format. Meetings were based on non-attribution
principles, decisions were made based on consensus, and confidential items were
specifically identified. These criteria have all been met. (The openness and
enthusiasm of one process owner has given all the team members a sense of their
value to the process.)
-------
ISSUES ADDRESSED
As a result of this process, we identified eighteen significant data integrity
issues to be addressed. For discussion, we have divided these issues as follows:
PAYROLL
IFMS/MARS
FMS/SPUR
1. CPARS Negative Entries
2. Duplicate Updates of Payroll Transactions
3. Imbalance at the Account Number Level Between
FMS, CPARS and IFMS
4. Timesheet Policies and Procedures
5. TAPP Procedure for 80 hours .
6. CPARS Access (Option 3)
7. Control Over TSO Changes - Payroll
1. Referencing in IFMS
2. SERF for Historical Data in MARS
3. Super-fund Site Identifier (SSID)
1. Deletion of MCDF Account Numbers
2. QA Review of FMS Rejects
3. Comparison of Payroll Files
4. FMS History and Allotment File Monitoring
5. Explanation of SPUR Condition Codes
6. Method of Communicating Changes to FMS/SPUR Files
7. Upkeep of FMS
8. SCORES Data Reliability/Accuracy
Details of each issue and its status are addressed in the following section.
7
-------
AREA OF FOCUS
1). ISSUE: CPARS Negative Entries
DESCRIPTION: CPARS allowed redistribution of negative amounts, caused by
CPARS users inadvertently posting erroneous data. This caused transactions to
reverse signs when going through the FMS edit routine, resulting in erroneous data
being posted to FMS.
RECOMMENDATION: . Prevent posting negative amounts
ACTION TAKEN: . CPARS modified
SERF#CPARS 91203
STATUS: Since implementation of SERF #CPARS 91203 {Appendix D], there have
been no further occurrences of negative entries being accepted into CPARS. Prior
negative postings have been corrected.
2). ISSUE: Duplicate Updates of Payroll Transactions
DESCRIPTION: It was determined that on several occasions payroll transactions
have been posted more than once in FMS CPARS, and then in I FMS. It was
determined that human error was the case. There were no controls in place to
prevent the multiple posting of the same transaction file.
RECOMMENDATIONS: . Establish file controls
Enhancement for payroll transaction processing
ACTION TAKEN: . System enhancement developed
Automated file log control established
STATUS: Since implementation of recommended payroll process enhancement, no
further occurrence of multiple posting of payroll transactions has occurred. Prior
erroneous postings have been corrected.
-------
3). ISSUE: Imbalance at the Account Number Level Between FMS, CPARS and
IFMS Due to Invalid TAPP Account Numbers
DESCRIPTION: (A) During labor distribution through TAPP, if the Superfund site
account is not on the MCDF table the hours charged automatically default to the
fixed account number (FAN). The FMS edit routine validates the account number
for each transaction against the MCDF. If no match is found, it replaces the TAPP
entered account number with the employee's FAN. (B) During labor redistribution
through CPARS, transactions are validated against ZACX. A valid payroll
transaction in IFMS may be an invalid transaction when downloaded to FMS -
because the MCDF and ZACX tables do not match.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
ACTION TAKEN:
Part (A) - Reject Transactions to reject file
Correct reject file
Part (B) - Modify the FMS edit routine
SERF#FMS91205
STATUS: Part (A) requires a procedural change. This issue was tabled for further
review. Part (B) SERF #FMS 91205 {Appendix £] has been requested.
Implementation of the enhancement will eliminate a cause of imbalance at the
account number level between FMS and IFMS. Final action on the SERF is
pending.
4). ISSUE: Timesheet Policies and Procedures
DESCRIPTION: Based on the survey distributed to regional offices, it was
determined that no standards existed to designate authority to make changes to
timesheet information.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Determine what controls are in place governing
authorization of changes to timesheets.
Review policies and procedures for making
revisions and formulate relevant policies and
procedures if none exist.
-------
Policies and procedures should be issued to
prohibit changes by anyone except the employee.
ACTION TAKEN: . Contacted two OGC attorneys concerning
timesheet changes.
Research was done to see if "established" policy
existed for corrections/changes regarding site
ID/site name changes. A policy was found that
only covers SSN and name corrections.
Based on findings, policies and procedures were
written {Appendix F\ to be reviewed and approved
by the TQM Team and SAB's policy and
procedures group.
STATUS: Awaiting review by SAB's policy and procedures group.
5). ISSUE: TAPP Procedure for 80 Hours
DESCRIPTION: TAPP does not require input of the full 80 hours for Labor
Distribution. If an employee has an 80 hour work schedule and 60 hours are keyed
in through TAPP, the remaining hours of the work schedule automatically default
to the fixed account number. This policy may result in Superfund hours not being
properly charged to Superfund site accounts but, instead, erroneously defaulting to
the fixed account number.
RECOMMENDATIONS: . Review TAPP Labor Distribution Process
Require input of all hours of work schedule
Change existing policy
ACTION TAKEN: . Reviewed TAPP Labor Distribution Process
STATUS: The TQM Team has no control over this issue. It is the consensus of
the team that this issue qualifies as long-term to be addressed in a future phase of
the process. This issue is tabled and no further action is anticipated in Phase I.
10
-------
6) ISSUE: CPARS Access (Option 3)
DESCRIPTION: Option 3 of the Combined Payroll Redistribution and Reporting
System {CPARS) allows a user the capability to enter unbalanced transactions..
This at times results in the generation of "one sided" entries in the finance
system. Access to CPARS Option 3 is controlled by the CPARS Database
Administrator in Headquarters Accounting Operations Branch (HAOB) and in the
Financial Systems Branch (FSB).
RECOMMENDATION:
ACTION TAKEN:
Restrict access to Option 3
Advise FSB
FSB assured restricted access
STATUS: FSB has assured the TQM team that there are tight controls in place and
that authority for the use of CPARS Option 3 is restricted to designated individuals
In one or two regional offices. No adverse effects evident.
7). ISSUE: Control Over TSO Changes - Payroll
DESCRIPTION: A payroll reject file exists that can be corrected by going directly
into the data base file and altering data before updating. The possibility exists for
changes to data thus bypassing controls over data totals. The responsibility lies
with Headquarters Accounting Operations Branch.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
ACTION TAKEN:
Verify a procedure exists
Verify procedures are documented
Verify controls in place
Addressed issue with HAOB
STATUS: HAOB has assured the TQM Team that procedures and controls are in
place. Follow-up is planned to ensure that procedures are documented. No
adverse effects are evident.
11
-------
AREA OF FOCUS
IFMS/MARS
1). ISSUE: Referencing in IFMS
DESCRIPTION: There is a need for complete referencing of obligations and
payments to the document control number (DON). In IFMS, obligations and
payment transactions can be posted without reference back to the DCN that was
assigned at the commitment stage. The absence of the DCN will cause the
transaction to be rejected in FMS. The FMS data, however, continues to be used
for cost recovery purposes.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
ACTION TAKEN:
Change EPA procedures
Enhance software
Referencing capability analysis
STATUS: The EPA systems staff has reviewed an analysis paper prepared by AMS
and is developing a time frame for a phased approach to referencing.
2). ISSUE: SERF for Historical Data in MARS
DESCRIPTION: In support of the Superfund Cost Recovery effort and the EPA
Construction and Program Grants, there is a requirement within EPA to have all
current {IFMS inception to date) and historical (FMS until March 1989) financial
data available from the Agency's official reporting system, MARS.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
ACTION TAKEN:
Survey data requirements
Survey feasibility of system enhancement
Develop SERF
Survey questionnaire developed
Three step approach survey initiated
- survey EPA communities
- analyze survey responses alternatives
- evaluate, rank and recommend approaches
12
-------
STATUS: The questionnaire [Appendix G] has been developed, reviewed and
commented on by the TQM Workgroup. Appropriate suggestions were integrated
into the questionnaire before issuance to the EPA communities. When survey
questionnaire information has been gathered, considered and evaluated, the SERF
requirements will be developed and implemented.
3). ISSUE: Superfund Site Identifier (SSID)
DESCRIPTION: IFWIS presently does not require a Superfund site identifier as part
of the account number. If the field is left blank, IFMS zero-fills the last three
positions of the account number that are the activity code and the Superfund site
identifier {SSID}.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
ACTION TAKEN:
Train users on the importance of project field
Use the module with cost accounting
capabilities for recording Superfund costs of the
Project Cost Accounting Subsystems (PCAS) that
has a data structure that will capture SSIDs and
accounting codes.
Data flow sub-group could develop special reports
to show only rejects.
Data flow sub-group to write memoranda to
Superfund Accountants to review and correct
rejects.
Suggestion to write Systems Enhancement
Request Form (SERF) to have site identifier
included. •
SERF has been prepared {Appendix H\ and will be
submitted to the System Management Group
(SMG) where priority will be established for
possible funding.
STATUS: Awaiting approval of SERF and PCAS enhancement.
13
-------
AREA OF FOCUS
1). ISSUE: Deletion of MCDF Account Numbers
DESCRIPTION: On a yearly cycle the Financial Reports and Analysis Branch
{FRAB} in Headquarters deleted prior year account numbers that did not have an
open obligation. During the reconciliation of prior year Super-fund charges,
corrections were required to the account numbers that were deleted. On an
individual basis, these account numbers had to be reestablished by FRAB. This
step further slowed the Cost Recovery process.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
ACTION TAKEN:
Do not delete MCDF account numbers
Discuss with FRAB
Discussions with FRAB representative
FRAB stopped deleting from MCDF
STATUS: FRAB has agreed not to delete any more account numbers in the MCDF
file. Implementation of this policy has resolved this issue.
2). ISSUE: QA Review of FMS Rejects
DESCRIPTION: The financial transactions that are entered in IFMS are downloaded
to the FMS system nightly and posted to the history files. During the posting
process, some transactions reject and are not posted to FMS. If the rejected
transaction is not corrected and reentered into FMS, these costs will not be
reflected in Cost Recovery reports. The APW-1 reflects batch data as initially
entered by the FMO. The report is used to verify that all transactions have been
accepted by the system. All rejected items must be corrected and reentered. The
APW-1 is available weekly.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Advise the Super-fund Users' community of the
availability of the monitoring reports. The APW-1,
Transaction Input Ledger, is the monitoring report
that is readily available.
14
-------
Prepare a guidance paper concerning using the
APW-1 to review Superfund payment rejects and
in recording specific site information.
Allow each region to correct, on-line, their
monitoring report through transaction input listing.
(CSC is doing a design paper to handle this.) The
regions need a report to monitor history/allotment -
may not be necessary after flat file
implementation.
ACTION TAKEN: . Memorandum prepared by Kevin Brittingham
addressing the usage and availability of the APW-1
in the Superfund Users' community. [See
Appendix /.]
Topic presented at Superfund Financial
Management Workshop in April 1992.
STATUS: Memorandum was sent to Regional Comptrollers and Financial
Management Officers on August 3, 1992. An on-line monitoring report prototype
developed by CSC is available for limited testing.
3). ISSUE: Comparison of Payroll Files
DESCRIPTION: After posting of payroll transactions to the SPUR files, the
subsidiary files did not agree with the master payroll files. The subsidiary files are
used for cost recovery site information.
RECOMMENDATION: . Develop reports that run after the posting of
payroll to determine if all payroll files are in
agreement.
ACTION TAKEN: . Requested monitoring report from SAB and ASD.
STATUS: Development of the reports has not taken place. No reports have been
received to date.
15
-------
FMS/SPUR I
4. ISSUE: FMS History and Allotment File Monitoring
DESCRIPTION: During the past year, Superfund Accountants found that some
transactions were recorded in the allotment files but not in the history files. In
some instances, the amounts were significant (e.g., a single transaction of
$100,000.00). Omission of this data raises questions about the accuracy of the
cost recovery process. Because CDMS/SCORES reports are generated from the
history files, the agency may be losing cost records and understating cost recovery
actions.
RECOMMENDATIONS: . Develop automated monitoring reports to ensure
both history and allotment files agree
Include file verification in year-end process
Periodically reconcile record count of files
Files reviewed
Tested discrepancies between files and recreated
FY89 and FY90 year-end history files
SERF developed
Software program written
STATUS: A System Enhancement Request Form (SERF) [Appendix Jl was
developed to create programs and automated monitoring reports to verify that
transaction record counts of these files agree. The SERF calls for a verification to
be done at six-month intervals for each year-end history file since 1980. The SERF
also requires that this verification be included in the year-end process. In addition,
record counts will be similarly verified for selected Superfund specific summary and
detail files. After review by FRAB, SERF was submitted to ASD for
implementation.
ACTION TAKEN:
16
-------
FMS/SPUR
5). ISSUE: Explanation of SPUR Condition Codes
DESCRIPTION: Users do not recognize the SPUR program codes and error
messages indicating unsuccessful job completion. These codes and error
messages appear in specific locations on the JCL printout and are difficult to
understand.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
ACTION TAKEN:
Provide condition code explanation
Present at workshop with handouts
Presented at Superfuhd Financial Management
Workshop
STATUS: With the assistance of the ASD staff, a listing of possible error
messages and codes was prepared and presented at the Superfund Workshop in
April, 1992. The presentation and handout will enable users to detect possible
problems in SPUR jobs.
6). ISSUE: Method of Communicating Changes to FMS/SPUR Files
DESCRIPTION: When FMS files were recreated, users were not notified of the
changes.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
ACTION TAKEN:
Ongoing communication on file changes
Maintain valid master list on line
FSB established a User Support Email box
Instruction on how to access master list on line is
being sent with Superfund Financial Workshop
follow-up memorandum.
STATUS: System is operational.
17
-------
FMS/SPUR
7). ISSUE: Upkeep of FMS
DESCRIPTION: To improve the integrity of the historical data in FMS, controls
need to be in place to ensure that all information is in the appropriate files; and
that all current transactions are downloaded correctly from IFMS to FMS. The
Superfund community depends heavily oh the data stored in FMS for cost recovery
purposes; however, IFMS is the Agency's official accounting system and therefore
receives the resource support.
RECOMMENDATION:
ACTION TAKEN:
Devote resources to maintain FMS until MARS
meets the needs of Superfund cost recovery
Concerns communicated to management
STATUS: No additional support for FMS upkeep will be forthcoming. Task Force
has been established to eliminate FMS.
8) ISSUE: SCORE* Data Reliability/Accuracy
DESCRIPTION: The SCORE* financial information is downloaded from the
Financial Management System Historical Files. In the past year, some historical
files in FMS were recreated because of missing data. As a result, the SCORE*
data base in each regional office may be missing data. If the information from
IFMS can be directly downloaded into the SCORE* data base, we can be assured
that data is complete.
RECOMMENDATION:
ACTION TAKEN:
Develop and implement a process to obtain
financial information/data directly from IFMS
without having to download the data into FMS.
(i.e., MARS Flat File) ,
Flat file program written
STATUS: The fiat file program has been written and tested. SAB projects an
August 1992 release date except for payroll data.
18
-------
ROAD BLOCKS
Working together to improve data integrity has been a very satisfying
experience for the team members, but there have been several substantial
roadblocks along the way that have interfered with our effectiveness.
One of the principles set out in our initial training sessions was the
importance of keeping the group intact. In our twelve-month history, we have had
a change in process owner, a change in team leader, and a change in our
contractor advisor. Fortunately the rest of the team has remained stable and has
been able to maintain continuity.
Every member of the team has experienced conflicts between their regular
workload, additional work assignments, and their team assignments. Some
members found that their workloads did not allow them to complete team
assignments timely. Long distance commuting for regional members of the team
was difficult, and sometimes it was hard to communicate with sub-group
members because of differences of time and distance.
Conflicting messages about system improvements also interfered with our
process. For example, we knew that many data problems were directly related to
the nightly download process between IFMS and FMS necessary to produce SPUR
reports. We were told that many of these reporting problems would be alleviated
when MARS was fully implemented. We deferred taking action on those items
until we discovered that the date for full implementation of MARS was less and
less definite. Although some of these conflicts could not be avoided, better
communication may have alleviated these problems to some extent.
As we developed our action plans, it became apparent that some solutions to
the problems identified were beyond our control. Sometimes we needed the
cooperation of other divisions to resolve issues. ASD personnel attended two of
our meetings and were helpful in describing processes; we need further assistance
from them to resolve control issues. Another area beyond our control is funding.
We have developed several proposals for improving the accuracy and integrity of
our data, but we do not know if these items will be funded.
Finally, as we continue working on our long-term action plans, we would like
to develop a better system for tracking and coordinating our assignments. We
occasionally had items that we thought were completed, that resurfaced at later
times still unresolved.
19
-------
LESSONS LEARNED
As we reflect on our experiences as members of this Quality Action Team,
we have discovered that each of us has benefited in professional and personal
ways that extend beyond the immediate scope of our team's mission. With
hindsight, we have also identified areas that we would handle differently in future
team efforts.
Our work on the team has opened new channels of communication and
awareness and fostered ongoing contacts with people in areas both within and
outside the offices represented by the team members. Working with people from
different regions and offices has created a rich network of contacts useful outside
the team context. We have also found that TQM techniques used in this process
action team can be applied to job situations outside the group. Our knowledge of
Superfund issues has also expanded beyond our individual work areas to form a
more integrated perspective of the program. This is largely due to the team's
membership with representatives from technical, operating, and accounting areas.
Greater self-awareness and an understanding of group dynamics were
additional byproducts of the TQM experience. Through the Keirsey Temperament
Sorter that shows individual personality attributes and the Strength Deployment
Inventory that assesses how an individual relates to others, team members learned
about their own personal behavioral preferences and their implications for team
interaction. Overall, team members experienced no major personality conflicts.
Instead, we had "good" disagreements in which team members felt free to offer
differences of opinion that were resolved through consensus.
Although our team experience has been overall a positive one, we would
consider different approaches in certain areas. To create a successful, effective
team, the need for commitment by each team member is extremely important.
Because of the high level of commitment required, employees should become team
members voluntarily rather than by appointment. At a minimum, each prospective
team member should have the option to decline membership on a team if he/she
feels that an honest commitment to participate actively and take responsibility for
team initiatives cannot be made.
Changes in how the team conducted its business could result in smoother,
more efficient future operations and greater team productivity. For instance, the
way the team tracked its work in process could have been improved. We kept
multiple lists of action items and accomplished tasks that tended to overlap.
Therefore, we had to take time to crosswalk the lists to eliminate duplicate entries
20
-------
and to get a clear sense of which tasks were finished and which required further
action. A centralized method of tracking team progress would have been useful.
Furthermore, taking minutes at team meetings inhibited the full participation of the
individual taking the notes. Instead of rotating this task among team members, we
might consider having a permanent recorder from outside the team attend meetings
and prepare minutes or set up a system to tape meetings for later transcription.
Finally, better preliminary planning would have contributed to more productive
team teleconferences and meetings.
21
-------
FUTURE STEPS
Continuous improvement is the hallmark of Total Quality Management. In
this report, we have documented how the Data Integrity Team has defined
improvement opportunities, collected data, analyzed opportunities, developed
solutions, planned, checked, and adjusted our goals. As we come to the end of
Phase I of this project, we realize that there are additional opportunities for
improvement in the area of data integrity and in team management.
First, we will reorganize. Each member of the current team will have the
opportunity to decide if he or she can make a new commitment to continue the
work of the data integrity team. In addition, new members from other regions and
divisions will be invited to participate. (Several people expressed an interest at the
Superfund Financial Management Workshop.) The process owners and team
members will decide whether an outside advisor will be needed for Phase II. We
will also choose a suitable location for monthly meetings and request a new
facilitator. As soon as the new team membership is established, the process
owners and the team leader will work with the team to develop an agenda for the
first session of the new Data Integrity quality team.
This team is proud of its accomplishments. We know that there are still
unresolved long-term data integrity issues. There are also new issues to be
prioritized by the reorganized team for Phase II. There are matters from Phase I
requiring close follow-up: SERFs that have been written but not funded, policies
that have been formulated but not yet approved, and procedures that have been
improved but not implemented. These will require the close attention of the new
team.
As we move forward with the new Data Integrity Team, we renew our
commitment to our mission statement:
To improve Superfund financial data integrity in order to provide the most
accurate, timely, and cost effective Cost Recovery packages.
22
-------
APPENDIXA
SUPSRFuHD DATA INTEGRITY TQM TEAM PARTICIPANTS
HEADQUARTERS PARTICIPANTS
Ron Bachand (Co-Process Owner)--Chief, Superfund Accounting
Branch, FMD. x Ron has worked in this position since September
£990. His prior positions were Chief, Management Improvement
Branch, RMD; Chief, Superfund/RCRA/LUST Branch, BD; and Superfund
Program Analyst, Superfund/RCRA Branch, RMD.
Len Bechtel (Facilitator)--Program Analyst, RMD. Len has 3
years' experience working on the Public-Private Partnerships
Initiative. He is now involved in the audit follow-up process.
. Vicki Blackmon (Team Member)--Systems Accountant/ 'Financial
Systems Branch, FMD. Vicki has worked in this position since
December 1990. Prior to coming to FMD, she was employed in
Region III as an Operating Accountant.
Kevin Brittingham (Team Leader)--Supervisory Accountant, Cost
Documentation Section, Superfund Accounting Branch, FMD. Kevin
has worked in this position for the past 5 months. His prior
position was in the Financial Reports and Analysis Branch and,
for 11 years, he worked in the Headquarters Accounting Branch,
FMD.
Jessica Brown (Team Member)--Financial Specialist, Superfund
Accounting Branch, FMD. Jessica previously worked as an
Accountant in the Financial Reports and Analysis Branch, FMD.
Barbara Edmondson (Team Member)--Staff Accountant, Superfund
Accounting Branch, FMD. Barbara transferred to the Superfund
Accounting Branch in November 1986. She began working at EPA in
April 1973 and joined FMD/HAOB in September 1973 where she worked
in the Customer Assistance Office as Unit Chief for Accounting
and Reports and Cash Management Units.
Bill Faustman (Team Member)--Systems Accountant, Financial '
Systems Branch, FMD. Bill has worked for the past 18 years in
. FMD, mostly in the Financial Systems Branch.
Sheila Murphy (Team Member)--Superfund Accountant/Acting Section
~ Chief, Customer Assistance and Quality Assurance Section, HAOB,
FMD. Sheila came to EPA in April 1991.
Daniel Payton (Team Member)--Staff Accountant, Superfund
Accounting Branch, FMD. Daniel has worked in this position since
December 1989. His prior positions were as Payroll Supervisor
and Operating Accountant in Headquarters Accounting Branch, FMD.
-------
Ellen Rajewski (Team Member)--Accountant, Superfund Accounting
Branch, FMD. Ellen has worked in this position for the past 2
years.
Michael Whitacre (Co-Process Owner)--Supervisory Systems
Accountant, Financial Systems Branch, FMD. Mike joined EPA in
April 1991 as a Team Leader in the Financial Systems Branch.
He served as Acting Branch Chief from September 1991 to February
1992. He is currently Team Leader, User Support Section, FSB,
FMD.
REGIONAL PARTICIPANTS
Barbara Lee (Team Member)--Cost Accountant, Region IX, San
Francisco, California. Barbara has worked in Superfund
Accounting for the past 3 years and has been with EPA for 9
years.
Steve Pandza (Team Member)--Superfund Cost Accountant, Region
III, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Steve has worked for the past
6-1/2 years as an Accountant in the Office of the Comptroller.
He previously worked as an Auditor with the Inspector General for
1-1/2 years.
Mary Ellen Ryan (Team Member)- -Team Leader, Cost Documentation
Section, Region V, Chicago, Illinois. Mary Ellen has worked in
this position for approximately 2 years. She was formerly
employed in private industry.
SERVICING FINANCE OFFICE PARTICIPANTS
Diane Harris (Team Member)--Certifying Accountant, National,
Contract Payment Division, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina. Diane began working in FMD/RTP in January 1978.
PRC
Edith Alexander--Quality Advisor, of PRC, Inc.'s Total Quality
Management staff. Her major responsibility is training and
support in TQM for Federal and corporate clientele.
Although TQM was very new to most of the team members, some had
been exposed to the TQM process. Each team member was asked the
following question:
Question: What are the most significant benefits gained from
participating on-the TQM team?
-------
HEADQUARTERS RESPONSES:
.Ron Bachand--For me, the most beneficial and interesting aspect
of the Data Integrity Team was watching the team itself grow: we
learned about our strengths, weaknesses and differences as a team
and as individuals; we let down our defenses and built trust; and
finally, we came together as a single unit to help understand the
process and solve thorny technical issues. The respect,
openness, and "can do" team spirit that evolved was very special
to me. I never doubted our collective technical expertise, but
without that special "people" chemistry that evolved, we would
not have achieved our goals.
Len Bechtel--The most beneficial and interesting aspect of the
TQM group was getting to work with people from FMD. Just
learning about some of the Division's issues and perspectives has
made me appreciate the work, employees, and accomplishments of
FMD.
Vicki Blackmon--Through team dynamics and TQM techniques, I have
gained enhanced understanding and insight to the unique
problems/issues encountered in compiling Superfund cost recovery
documentation. Involvement in the problem solving process has
begun to achieve beneficial and rewarding results for the group,
and has allowed us to access information and explore various
options available in order to meet our goals.
Kevin Brittingham--I have a better understanding of the inherent
problems that exist when leading a group like this.
Jessica Brown--The most significant benefits I gained from
participating on the TQM team are as follows:
* I found it very beneficial to work with people having
differing responsibilities as this fostered many viewpoints and
made you look at more options and different priorities.
* The importance of having the correct group mix. You need
representatives from each organization involved; either directly
or indirectly.
Barbara Edmondson--Taking the data integrity issues and flow
charting the flow of the document and/or system process to better
understand issues identified.
Bill Faustman--The benefits are improved communication between
Headquarters and field staffs.
-------
Sheila Murphy--The most significant benefits gained are as
follows:
1. Gaining a lot of systems knowledge that I would have
never received if for not being on the team.
2. Learning about the superfund cost recovery process.and
how accurate data is needed for court.
3. Meeting a lot of nice people at Headquarters and in the
regions and learning about their operations.
Daniel Payton--Gaining insight to a broader picture of the
Superfund effort. Knowledge gained from others. Accomplishments
realized from working with a team that could not be accomplished
individually and hopefully making an impact on the Superfund Cost
Recovery process that will make life (work) a little easier.
P.S. And meeting some very nice people--
Ellen Rajewski--! get to hear everybody's problems and
suggestions for solutions. I get a sense of the "big picture"
and what can be done to improve the agency.
Michael Whitacre--FSB's participation in this process has
provided the branch with an opportunity to demonstrate effective
utilization of the current and projected financial system's
features. In addition, the process team has made FSB more aware
of the problems and data requirements necessary to support
Superfund Cost Recovery.
REGIONAL RESPONSES:
Barbara Lee--I had a chance to work with people from other
regions and Headquarters which built a bond that made it
comfortable to work on common problems and enabled us to work on
making a current process better. I also feel it built
friendships which are invaluable.
Steve Pandza--0ne benefit is learning to work in a team to solve
a complex problem.
Mary Ellen Ryan--Working as a team to identify and resolve
problems gives you a greater understanding of and a sense of
being part of the whole process. When something is accomplished,
everyone feels that he/she has made a contribution and is more
sensitive to the needs of all the members of the group and the
needs of the organization.
-------
Learning TQM techniques is a benefit that can be used away from
this team in the team member's regular function. It has also
helped to meet people who can assist with problems which are not
part of the team's focus.
SERVICING FINANCE OFFICE RESPONSE;
Diane Harris--Since my office at RTP had been trained in TQM when
the team began, I had some experience with how TQM worked and
improved work processes. However, the additional training and
exposure in TQM has been very beneficial to me. The benefits
gained are numerous as listed below:
1. It has been the most beneficial experience in my career
to work as a team to provide recommendations to improve the
overall Superfund Cost Recovery Process.
2. Learning about systems and how to improve the- quality of
the data we need to use everyday to do our jobs has" been an extra
added benefit.
3. Making new friendships and getting to know team members
from Headquarters and Regional offices has provided me with
contacts which have proved to be invaluable.
4. Now we can go back to our offices and continue to use
TQM techniques to improve our own work processes.
-------
-------
APPENDIX B
Region
TOJH DAIA COLLECTION
Payroll
Initial Document Review: . ....
When are timesheets due in financial office?
How many time sheets are received each pay period?^
What are toe critical iteas which you review for?__
What are the common reasons for rejection of the timesheets?
Signature missing
SSN
wrong account number_
Account number not set up_
Overtime discrepancy
Kath Error
Other
Are timesheets containing errors returned to employ ees?
Under what conditions?
Are any changes made by the reviever?_
What kinds of changes? "
Are the changes initialed? By whom?_
TAP£ Entry of Timesheets:
Bow many timesheets are processed through TAPP?_
Is RCB-3A reconciled to timesheets?
If no/ what type of reconciliation is done?
What per cent of timesheets are reconciled?.
What types of errors axe encountered? "
Bow are errors corrected?
-------
TQM DATA COLLECTION PAYROLL REVIEW
PAY PERIOD . NUMBER OF TIMESHEETS PROCESSED
DOCUMENT REVIEW
'REASONS FOR REJECTION OF TIMESHZET:
NAME ,
SIGNATURE
SSN .__ " •
WRONG ACCT
ACCTf NOT SET UP
OVERTIME DISCREPANCY^
MATH ERROR
,'
OTHER
-------
Region
TQM DATA COLLECTION
Payroll
CPARS Entry of Tiraesheets:
Kow many redistribution of payroll charges were processed
thro-ugh -CPARS? . For the period thru '
Of the total entries processed. how many were the result of:
a. Late submission of tiaiesheets
b- Errors/problems with data
c. Amended timesheets
Data Entry Review:
Are you reviewing data entry on screen? Yes No
Are you reconciling option 4 transaction input reports to
documents before CPARS update? Yes No __
Are errors detected and corrected at this stage?
Yes . No
To the best of your Icnowledge is the RCB-3A being reviewed?
Yes No If yes, by whom? _
Are errors reported? Yes No
If yes, how many errors are reported?
How many are determined input errors?
-------
REGION
TQM DATA COLLECTION
PQM DATA COLLECTION SHEET - ORIGINAL FILES
L. Is regional original file
reconciled to SPOR?
Payroll Travel Other
Yes ( }
2. How.often?
( )
3.. Who performs this reconciliation?
4. What kinds of errors are found?
5. What corrective action is taken?
-------
REGIOS
TQM DATA COLLECTION
QUESTIONNAIRE
Type of Data collected '
What is the total number of documents processed for the period
. thru ?
Total:
Document Review - • Superfund Documents: . .
Are they reviewed for superfund data ? Yes No
If yes - What exactly do you review. and verify?
(Be specific: Example - 1 review and verify accounting data on
vouchers against accounting data on TA and -against obligation in
IFMS). ' •
List items I
How many discrepancies/errors are identified at the review
stage? ; ; What is the percentage of documents with
errors? , .
-------
Region
TQM DATA COLLECTION
Type of Data Collected .
Data Entry Review:
Are you reviewing data entry-in IFMS? " Yes No
Are errors detected at this stage? Yes No
If yes; What kind of errors?
What percent of errors? •
Are errors corrected at this stage? Yes ._ No
If not corrected at this stage, what is the time frame for
correcting ? . 3 workdays
5 workdays
More than 5 workdays
Are you reconciling APW-1 to documents? Yes No
Are errors detected at this stage? Yes No
If yes; what kind of errors?
Are errors corrected this stage? Yes No
If not corrected at this stage, what is the time frame for
correcting ? 3 workdays
5 workdays
wore than 5 workdays
To the best of your knowledge are the program offices
reviewing their RCM-4s and reporting errors involving Superfund?
what kind of errors are reported?
-------
Region
TQM DATA COLLECTION
TQM Data Collection Sheet - Active site Pile
Is the regional site file reconciled to SPUR?
Is this reconciliation performed monthly?
Is this reconciliation performed semi-annually?
Who performs this reconciliation?
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
fchat documents or reports are reconciled?
Timesheets
Travel vouchers .
Cooperative agreements
SPUR
RCB3A
Miscellaneous payments (commercial payments, imprest) During
the reconciliation process, what types of errors are found?
Hissing documents
Wrong site information
Site specific information missing
Line items lost in conversion process
Other (list)
-------
Region
TQX Data collection Sheet
I Payroll
'What items are reconciled?
Timesheets
SPUR
CDMS
Other (describe)
What kinds of errors are found?
Document missing
Wrong site information
Data entry error
Errors in amount charged
Overtime mischarged
Other (list)
How are errors corrected?
In CDMS only
In CPAES
Other
cost Documentation Package
-------
TQM Data collection Sheet Cost Documentation' Process
II Travel
What items are reconciled?
Travel voucher
Employee name
Supporting documents
(receipts etc.).
'Treasury schedule
SPUR
CDMS
Tiaesheet data
How are errors corrected?
In CDMS
In IFMS
In FMS
III Cooperative Agreements
What items are reconciled?
EPA Assistance Agreement
Payment voucher/Letter
of credit
SPUR
CDMS
State documentation
How are errors corrected?
In CDMS '
In IFMS
In FMS
-------
TQM DATA COLLECTION SS3E21
COST DOCUMENTATION
IV.
v.
Miscellaneous Expenditures
What items are reconciled?
original document detailing expenditure
Confirmation of payment
SPUR
CDMS
How are corrections made?
In CDMS
In IFMS
In EMS
Contracts
What items are reconciled?
Site specific voucher information
Project officer approval
CDMS .
SPUR
Are corrections made in
CDMS?'
What procedure is used to correct accounting errors in
contracts? (describe)
-------
TQM DATA COLLECTION SHEET COST DOCtJHEHTATION "PACKAGE
VI. Interagency Agreements
What items are reconciled?
Agency name
IAG number
Dollar amount
SPUR -
CDMS
Are Department of Justice costs excluded .froia the cost
documentation package?
Is this fact footnoted?
VII. Final QA Review
Who does final QA review before the package is released?
What items are reviewed? % of items
Payroll
.Travel
Cooperative Agreements
Contracts
Miscellaneous Expenditures
Interest Calculation
Indirect Costs •
Cover sheet summary •
-------
TO.M DATA COLLECTION SHEET
Cost Documentation Package
Calcxilation of fre
-------
APPENDIXC
<
LU
^
o
°
UJ
Z
i
-------
£
Of,
0
g
1
I
i
i
i
8
JJ £5
i I i
-------
5
UJ
o
5
CO to
|I|
u. **
>~
s
iis
ii
•t
I
<
o
iii
1
S
& i
00
S Q
§
s H
I 11
O SO
0>-DDOO
-------
<
g
u
ui "t
81
0
UJ
Z
i
£0
OO
-------
o
5s
ttO
I
I
III
il
I i
ii
OODQO>D-DOO
-------
<
LU
co {2
ill
s
1 I
5 i
i
&
'
a
Ul
£
o
8
§z>.
^ 55
o s;§
z og
z ?S
o ^°-
o 5o
-------
w . •»«»«!& Q U V> »U
OODQO>DDOO
-------
-------
\ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
8 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
MAY 2 9 1991
MEMORANDUM • • .
ADMINISTRATION
ANBflESOURCES
MANAGEMENT
'"'SUBJECT: System Enhancement Request for SERF I CPARS 91203
.TITLE: CPARS PROGRAM
JROM: Vincent Serio, Chief
TO: Orlando Plater, Acting Chief
Applications Software Branch
. • We have • attached a request for Maintenance/Enhancements to
systems.software. In the space below, please acknowledge receipt
-q^^^ls^f»qiies^--'JTiffir--a^«i-'feha-jIiTtJt3L^iBnt«»T-/^Tia1ygt ?ihO Will complete
this task, and provide an estimated completion date.'.The Financial
Systems Branch contact on this SERF is GUNNAR SANDINE.
Please return a completed copy of this memorandum to the
Financial Systems Branch. Thank you for you cooperation.
Acknowledgement of Receipt
i . ...Chief, ASB . . . Date
."ASB Contact-:on SERF:
. .name .of ..Individual
^.Estimated .-..Completion .Date:
Date~"
Cf
:s. Michael Reggie
..Robert. Farmer
. "TSB.Fie
Printed en Recycled Paper
-------
-------
SYSTEM .ENHANCEMENT REQUEST FORM (SERF)
SYSTEM TO BE MODIFIED:
SERF NUMBER: 91203 SERF REQUEST DATE: 05/29/91
REQUIRED COMPLETION DATE: 06/15/91
-INSTRUCTIONS: The SERF is used to request maintenance to existing
systems software and minor system enhancements. Significant
functional system modifications will be requested by submitting a
user needs statement. See Appendix A of the Financial Systems
Development Methodology (SOI} .for a more detailed explanation on
.when to use the SERF.and User Needs Statement. A separate SERF
must be prepared (typed) for each Maintenance/Enhancement Request
and submitted to the Financial Systems Branch. The SERF will be
prepared as detailed below: The requesting organization will
f complete Items 1 through 4 and 8 plus Attachment .1.. The Resources
'Management Systems Branch will complete Items 5 and 7. Items 6, 9,
and 10 plus Attachment 2 will be completed by the Financial
Systems Branch. Following Acceptance of the SERF as completed
(ITEM 9) this original is to be returned to the Chief, ASB.
1. Name and Address of FINANCIAL SYSTEMS BRANCH
. Requesting Organization 401 M St.,. SW, Wash., DC 20460
2. Name, phone number, and ' .
signature of requester ; •
7(Signature andTDate)
3. Title: CPARS PROGRAM MODIFICATION - TO PREVENT NEGATIVE
REDISTRIBUTIONS /
4. User's concurrence with the
Description of Requested
. Service stated in Attachment 1'.{Signature and Date)
5. ASB's Certification that
: '•..-.modification and "testing are ______________________
' -complete in a test environment. (Signature and Date)
6. FSB • s Certification of testing
and•authorization
..Implementation .by. ASB. (Signature .and Date)
'.-. 7. . AS8» s .certification that
Implementation is complete ~
-------
ATTACHMENT 1 TO serf -f: 91203
PAGE 2 OF 3
DESCRIPTION OF REQUESTED SERVICE
1.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE NEED OR PROBLEM,(A GENERAL STATEMENT)
CFARS' allows negative redistributions from one account to another,
This causes.transactions to reverse their signs when they go
.through the TMS edit routine. CPARS needs to be aodifide to
prevent users froa. redistributing negative amounts.
2.0 DESCRIPTION OF: PROPOSED MODIFICATION (IN NON-TECHNICAL TERMS)
•
Modify ;CPARS..to.prevent users from entering/redistributing
negative amounts in.-all data'entry:-screens.
-3-D
•Continuity of data between FKS, - CPARS f £ IFMS.
-------
ATTACHMENT 1 TO serf #: 91203
PAGE 3 OF 3
4.0 FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS
..See. Item. 3.. 0 . above.
-------
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY/4PPENDIX E
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
MEMOfiANDIIM
MAY .2 S J99J
OFFJCEOF
AND RESOURCES
MANAGEMENT
SUBJECT: System Enhancement" Request for SERF f IMS 91205
-TITLE:. ypT>TFT.r'Vp7'nlJ OF. JUS .-EDIT. fiDDTIHE. - FAN REVERSION
FROM: Vincent Serio/ Chief
Financial Systems Branch
T0« Orlando 'Plater/ Acting'Chief
Applications Software Branch
; We have-attached a request for Maintenance/Enhancements to
/systems'software* in the space below, please acknowledge receipt
of "this request, 'indicate .the.programmer/analyst who wall complete
this task, arid provide-an estimated completion date. The Financial
Systems Branch contact on this SERF.:is GDNKAR .SANDXHE.
Please return a completed copy of this memorandum to the
Financial Systems Branch. Thank you for you cooperation.
Acknowledgement of Receipt
.Chief ,..ASB
ASB -:Contact:on .SERF:
.Date
.Name .of. Individual
Estimated .'Completion;Date:
Date
: Michael Reggie
• .Robert Farmer
' "duznar
3SB
Printed on Hocyd»d Paper
-------
-------
SYSTEM ENHANCEMENT REQUEST FORM (SERF)
SYSTEM TO BE MODIFIED:
SERF NUMBER: 91205 SERF REQUEST DATE: 05/29/91
REQUIRED COMPLETION DATE: 06/15/91
- .INSTRUCTIONS: The SERF is.used "to request maintenance to existing
.-systems software and minor system enhancements. Significant
functional system modifications will be requested by submitting a
user needs, statement. See Appendix A of the Financial Systems
Development Methodology (SDM) for a more detailed explanation on
when to use the SERF and User Heeds -Statement. A separate SERF
must be prepared (typed)"tor each Maintenance/Enhancement Request
and submitted to the Financial Systems Branch. The SERF will be
.. prepared as detailed below; The requesting organization will
.-complete Items 1 through 4 and f plus Attachment 1. The Resources
Management Systems Branch vill complete Items 5 and 7. Items 6, 9,
and 10 plus Attachment 2 will be completed by the Financial
Systems Branch. Following Acceptance of the SERF as completed
(ITEM 9) this original is to be returned to the Chief, ASB.
.1. . Mama and .Address of
./•Bequesting Organization
3.
4.
5.
FINANCIAL 'SYSTEMS BRANCH
401 M St., SV, Wash., DC 20460
,3f%*54 )
t IF ir£f^f
Name, phoneYnumber, and : '
signature of requester ...
Title: MODIFICATION OF FMS EDIT ROUTINE - FAN REVERSION
/'
User's concurrence with the/
Description of Requested '
Service stated in Attachment l"
(Signature and Date)
ASB's Certification that
modification and testing are ,_
•complete in.m..testrenvironmentT
6. FSB'.s Certification of testing
and .authorization for
-Implementation-by ASB,
(Signature and Date)
(Signature ana Date)
,7.
-------
ATTACHMENT 1 TO serf #: 91205
PAGE 2 OF 3
DESCRIPTION OF REQUESTED SERVICE
1.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE NEED OR PROBLEM (A GENERAL STATEMENT)
• „_ m ^H^^HV^BM^
.The- FMS edit routine validates each transaction's account maber
to HCDF. If no match is found it replaces the account number vith
the employee's Fixed Account Number (FAN). This procedure works
veil for incoming EPAYS transactions. However, CPARS validates
transactions against ZACX. A valid CPARS transaction can be
changed by the FMS edit routine. Causing an imbalance at the
account number level between FMS and IFMS. .
.2•0"'.:13ESCR1PT1DN' OF PROPOSED MODIFICATION (IN NON-TECHNICAL TERMS)
Modify the FHS edit-routine to not change in-coning. CPARS
transactions to the employee's FAN when an MCDF match is not
found. (The easiest way to do this is, may be to key on schedule
number, eg. CPARS schedule 90C12, EPAYS schedule 90M12).
"3.D
'Continuity cof data between .FMS,. CPARS, jjand: 3FHS.
-------
ATTACHMENT 1 TO serf #: 91205
PAGE 3 OF 3
4.0 FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS
See Jtern 2.0.
-------
-------
APPENDIXF
COMPTROLLER POLICY ANNOUNCEMENT
NO.
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
Policy
Correcting Time Sheets Prior to Completion of Payroll
Processing
Sallyanne Harper,.Director
Financial Management Division
Management Division Directors, Regions I-X •
Senior Budget Officers
This policy announcement establishes standards for
correcting time sheets before processing is completed by payroll
service centers. These.standards are necessary to ensure control
of data in support of Superfund cost recovery.
Time sheets are important sources of cost documentation in
litigating Superfund cost recovery cases. Therefore, it is
imperative that all changes be recorded in a consistent manner.
Background
Chapter 4 of RMDS 2550A, Reporting on Labor Distribution
(Time Sheets), Part 4 sets forth procedures for making accounting
changes to time sheets after processing has been completed by
payroll service centers. However, there are currently no
agencywide standards for making corrections to time sheets when
errors are found before payroll service centers complete final
processing. Corrections to time sheets may be required when they
are received and reviewed by timekeepers, supervisors, designated
agents, and/or payroll processing personnel.
Standards For Correcting Time Sheets
When time sheets are submitted to timekeepers, supervisors,
designated agents, and payroll personnel, errors may be detected
in social security numbers, account numbers, Superfund site
numbers, site names, hours worked, etc. When such errors are
corrected, internal control procedures must be followed so that
the integrity of the time sheet data is maintained.
-------
Who Makes Corrections
The employee must correct the following items when they are
incorrect:
account numbers
Superfund site numbers
— Superfund site names
hours worked
The employee's timekeeper or supervisor may correct other
types of errors such as footing errors or mispellings.
How To Make Corrections
Corrections may be made on:
1) the original time sheet,
2) a copy of the original time sheet, or
3) an amended time sheet.
When using options 2 or 3, attach the original time sheet
and mark the corrected copy or amended time sheet as appropriate
(i.e.r "corrected", "amended").
For all options, the individual making the corrections must
initial each correction and sign the document on which the
corrections were made.
Effective Date
This policy announcement is effective beginning xx-xx-xx.
All EPA offices are required to follow these procedures for
correcting time sheets.
Sunset Date
Pages for including this policy in appropriate financial
management directives will by provided to you by xx-xx-xx. This
Comptroller Policy Announcement may be discarded when those pages
are provided to you.
-------
APPENDIXG
HISTORICAL DATA REPORTING
BACKGROUND: A requirement within EPA, particularly in support of
Superfund cost recovery and the EPA construction and program
grants, is to have all current (IFMS inception to date) and
historical (FMS until March, 1989} financial data available from
one single reporting system.
PURPOSE (OF TEE QUESTIONNAIRE): To analyze the Agency's
requirements for access to historical data through one reporting
system and to develop feasible alternatives for providing access
to the data in an efficient and effective manner. The
questionnaire is designed to provide data to enable the Study/Work
Plan below to occur.
STUDY/WORK PLAN:
1. Identify and validate requirements for accessing historical
data.
2. Develop and analyze alternatives for providing access to data
and to analyze storage requirements.
3. Evaluate and recommend feasible approaches for data access
and storage.
-------
-------
DRAFT
QUESTIONNAIRE FOR STUDIES/ANALYSES OF HISTORICAL DATA REPORTING
(DATA RETRIEVAL AMD STORAGE REQUIREMENTS)
I. Historical Data Requirements (For data in FMS, all years
till March, 1989)
1. How are you now accessing historical data?
Check all that apply
SPUR
SPUR Downloads to PC
FHSTI
LOOKUP
Other (Please describe)
2. For each access method you use, exactly what work
function or process are you performing that .requires
historical data?
FMSTI is used for
LOOKUP is used for
SPUR reports are used for
Construction and/or program grants
Superfund cost recovery documentation
To provide information for audits
Other
SPUR downloads to PC are used for
Other
3. When using historical data for performing your work
functions, what is the most frequent sort order used?
Sort Order:
-------
4. When designing or using SPUR reports to access historical
data, what data elements are required?
Required Data Elements:
5. How frequently do you need to access historical data?
Check all that apply.
Superfund cost documentation:
Hourly
Daily
Weekly
Monthly
Quarterly
Annually
Construction and/or program grants:
Hourly
Daily
Weekly
Monthly
Quarterly
Annually
Audits:
Hourly
Daily
Weekly
Monthly
Quarterly
Annually
Other (please specify):
Hourly
Weekly
Monthly
Quarterly
Annually
-------
6. How long do you usually have to wait to review
historical data from SPUR on line?
1-30 minutes
. 31-60 minutes
1 - 3 hours
3-6 hours
overnight
more than a few days
7. How long do you usually have to wait to
receive your printed report for historical data?
1-30 minutes
31-60 minutes
1-3 hours
3-6 hours
overnight
._ more than a few days
8. Which FMS files and fiscal years do you use for your
historical data requirements?
Fiscal Year
. General Ledger
Accounts Receivable
FMS Master
FMS History
Other (please specify)
-------
II. Financial Management System Transaction Input (FMSTI)
(Analysis of adjusting entries)
1. Are there any adjusting entries entered on FMSTI for which
you have no record? (i.e., post 3/89 transactions entered
into FMSTI, but not into IFMS)?
2. How frequently were FMSTI updates performed by your SFO
since IFMS was implemented.
Daily,
"Weekly,
approximately,
approximately'
_Monthly, approximately.
_updates
_updates
'updates
Of the FMSTI updates performed since IFMS was implemented,
estimate the percentage of re-entered data due to:
_% were IFMS - FMS download rejections
% were valid corrections/adjustments to- historical
(pre 3/89) data
-------
APPENDIX H
ACTION REQUEST RECORD PRINT nil L-iVLStS\ I
AR No.: 9200115 Page: 1
Request Date: 07/17/92 Print Date: 07/17/92
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaadaaaaadaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaadaaaaaad
Last Name:
First Name:
Address 1:
Address 2;
City St Zip:
Phone-FTS:
Phone-Other;
EMail Id:
Mail Code:
organization:
Secondary Id:
Short Title:
Sys/Subsys
Affected:
Required:
FAUSTMAN
BILL
FAIRCHILD BLD 6TH FLOOR
499 SOUTH CAPITAL STREET
WASHINGTON DC
260-5094
(202) 260-5094
FAUSTMAN.B
PM226-F
OC, FMD, FSB, DEV
WHITACRE, MICHAEL
DEVELOP EDIT TO ASSURE VALID SITE/PROJEC
T PRESENT FOR CERTAIN APPROPRIATIONS
IFMS - ALL EXEPT GL/JV/SV
06/01/92
Problem Desc: Superfund and Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUST)
' programs presently require the use of activity codes below
the program element level. These codes are used in
reports to Congress. Without the presence of these codes
in the site/project field, reports will be inaccurate. In
addition, the Superfund appropriation uses the
site/project field to gather financial data by specific
site for cost recovery. The absence of a site ID means
that the cost incurred at the site may be missed when .
reimbursement is sought thereby resulting in a loss to the
government.
Recommended
Solution;
Develop a table which contains all BFY and FUND codes for
which site/project data should be captured. This table
would be EPA maintainable. As each entry (excluding
balance sheet transfer or general ledger type entries) is
being processed, use the table to determine if the
site/project field should be used. If the table
determines that the field is mandatory, edit to ensure
that the data contained in the field is valid for the
region.
Advantage/
Disadvant.:
Status Comment: ENHANCE IFMS TO VALIDATE SITE/PROJECT FIELD FOR SUPERFUND
& LUST APPROP
Historical
Status Comment:
-------
ACTION REQUEST RECORD PRINT
ARNo.: 9200115 Page: 2
Request Date: 07/17/92 Print Date: 07/17/92
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaadaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa4aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Key AR No.
Assigned: 0
Request
Status Code: SS Status: Scheduled for SHG Review
Priority Code: 2 Priority: Major Syst Prop, bypass availa
Lead Contact:
Phone (FTS):
Routed to:
Date Routed:
Date Due Back:
Date Received:
Short
Title (REV):
TA FIELD FOR
Contr Est Hrs:
Dollars:
Contractor Id:
Funding Code:
Why Change
Required:
Desired Way
To Perf.:
How Perf. Now:
New Function
Change:
New Skills
Required:
New Data
Elements:
Avail. OTS
Hdwre/Sftw:
Productivity
Improvements:
FAUSTMAN, BILL
260-9054
WHITACRE, M
/ /
/ /
/ /
ENHANCE IFMS TO VALIDATE SITE/PROJECT DA
SUPERFUND & LUST APPROP
Contractor:
To enhance the integrity of Superfund and Lust financial
transactions.
We would like the capability of selecting specific
appropriations for specific fiscal years that require
validation of the site/project field and then validate the
input to ensure that it is correct.
Currently the only validation is manual. The number of
erroneous entries is significant and requires substantial
work by the Cost Recovery Teams for Superfund.
None.
-------
APPENDIX!
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
AUG -3 1992
MEMORANDUM
OFFICE OF
ADMINISTRATION
AND RESOURCES
MANAGEMENT
Correcting Superfund Rejects in the Financial
gement System
(PM-226F)
yanrte Hatpefl, Director
inancial Management Division
Regional Comptrollers
Financial Management Officers
The purpose of this memorandum is to make you aware of the
existence of rejected transactions in the Financial Management
System (FMS) and the importance of ensuring these rejected
transactions are corrected in FMS.
BACKGROUND
For a variety of reasons, information and data in the
Financial Management System continue to be used for ad-hoc
reporting purposes and to feed information and management systems
such as the Superfund Cost Organization and Recovery Enhancement
System (SCORE$). After the nightly download of transactions from
the Integrated Financial Management System (IFMS) to FMS, the
transactions are then "updated" into FMS. After the FMS update,
some valid transactions reject due to the incompatibilities
between the two systems. A Transaction Input Ledger Listing
(APW-1) is then printed and routed to your finance office. The
APW-1 will reflect all financial transactions for your finance
office that were accepted and rejected during the FMS update.
Rejected transactions are identified on the APW-1 with a reject
code which identifies the reason(s) that the transaction was
rejected.
To assist you in correcting rejected transactions, I have
attached an example of an APW-1 along with a listing of reject
codes and their descriptions. Currently, much of the financial
information used in Superfund cost recovery is derived from FMS
data. Therefore, Superfund transactions MUST BE CORRECTED and
RE-ENTERED into FMS. Since rejected transactions are not in FMS,
SPUR/SCORE$ reports will not reflect these transactions. As a
result, valid Superfund costs may not be identified.
Mart on Rmydtd Paper
-------
We are currently exploring alternatives that will reduce our
dependency on FMS data. One viable alternative is the new
subrelease of the Agency's Management and Accounting Reporting
System (MARS). This subrelease will contain several new
enhancements that will give users greater flexibility in
retrieving IFMS data and in creating customized reports.
Please let me know by August 17, 1992 what actions you have
already taken or plan to take to ensure that rejected
transactions are being monitored and controlled by your finance
office. In addition, I would like to know of any problems you
are experiencing. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
If you have any questions or need assistance, please contact
Kevin Brittingham on FTS (202) 260-2886 (dmail BRITTINGHAM.KEVIN)
or William Faustman on 260-9054 (dmail FAUSTMAN.BILL).
Attachments
CC: Lead Superfund Accountants
TQM Data Integrity Team
-------
ATTACHMENT I.
ill
S 8 2
i
cc
UJ
o
S
a
u
cc
I
CL
SSSSSSS«i«»SSSS5RSSSJ5S
5iuBOoooeee
O»*»»**»»
BtBooaoaoeeeaoaoeoea
**UO.»»»»F»f«»>.»«»»t»»%P»»»»»»»K«»»«
ExMbH
-------
-------
RESOURCES MANAGEMENT DIRECTIVES
ACCOUNTING PROCESSES
RECORDING TRANSACTIONS
Attachment
-.1 of 5
11.
2530
FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM TRANSACTION EDIT AND
REJECT CRITERIA '
REJECT CODES
A* i. Amount non-numeric.
2. Amount in Excess of Si 00.000,000-00 with Reverse Code "T or '2".
3. Amount in excess of 599,999.99 with Reverse Code "1" or,"2" for Transaction Codes Col,
062, and 242, 243.
4. Travel Amount Applied (Field Positions 75-20) contains non-numeric. Applies to Trans-
action Code 181 or 191 where Major Object Class equals 21, and where field positions 53-
80 are used.
5. Amount field not numeric or collection amount exceeds uncollected amount in master
record. •
B 1. Invalid Account Number. (Not in the MCOF).
2. Invalid Appropriation Symbol. Not in the MCOF or not valid with this transaction
code/modifier code.
3. Inter-Office Transfer Voucher (IOTV) Process. The appropriation (field positions 31 -40) is
not 68X0108 or 68F3875 on Transaction Code 399 with General Ledger. Account Number
501.8 or 501.9 cited.
C 1. Invalid Major Object Class - Prior Years.
2. Invalid Object Class (Major and Sub-object) • Current year only.
3. Sub-object class contains '00' for Major object Classes other than 11 or 12 for Trans-
action Codes 050.051, 053, 059, 171, 181, 183, 191. or 236. Applies to current year only.
4. Invalid Status Code, not in table: not valid for this transaction/modifier code; or master
record dollar amount conditions not met for *V" status.
0 1. SFO on Transaction Record and Batch Header Record differ.
2. SFO on Batch/Transaction Record is not the same as SFO submitting the update.
.3. Invalid SFO per MCOF.
E 1. Invalid Transaction Code (Not in Table).
2. Transaction Code not valid with appropriation used.
F - Invalid Reverse Code. (Not "V or "2").
G • Invalid Reversal. Amount of reversal transaction is greater than applicable amount field
of master record.
H 1. Invalid Ledger Account Number on a 399 transaction. (Not in the MCOF).
2. General Ledger Account on a 399-1 transaction is not compatible with appropriation coded
in column 31-40.
3. Invalid General Ledger account number. Transaction Code used generates an account
number different than shown on existing master record.
I Not used.
Exhibit 2530-3-10a
-------
RESOURCES MANAGEMENT DIRECTIVES
ACCOUNTING PROCESSES
RECORDING TRANSACTIONS
Attachment 11
2 of 5
2530
FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM TRANSACTION EDIT AND
REJECT CRITERIA
(Continued)
REJECT CODE
J Invalid use of Transaction Code 191-1-1. This transaction indicates a final payment for a
document not previously obligated. However the document was obligated in a previous
update under the same SFO, OCN, Obligating Document Number and Account Number.
K 1. Transaction does not match with existing record:
a. Transaction Code 181-1 or 999-1 or any transaction with a reverse code "2" must
match on SFO, OCN, Obligating Document Number, Account Number, and Object
Class.
b. A Transaction Code 191-1 must match on SrO, DCN, Obligating Document Number,
and Account Number.
c. Transaction does not match an existing record. Reversal or collection entry has no
"billed" master record on file.
L 1. Invalid use of a Modifier Code:
a. Only Modifier Code "1" may be -used on Transaction Code 181 or 191.
b. Only Modifier Codes "1" through "4" may be used on Transaction Code 037.
c. A modifier Code may not be used for Transaction Code 037 if Target Object Class
2699 or 2799 is cited.
d. Modifier Code invalid: Fed/Noh-Fed indicator disagrees with master record General
Ledger account: Modifier Codes "T". "H", or "P" used with no billed master record on
. file.
2. Erroneous application of the Document Type Code (DTC).
a. If a Transaction Code 999-1 is used to correct the DTC, the Federal/Non-Federal
Code (FNF) field must be blank, the amount field must be zero filled and the
GEOCODE (Geographic Code)/V1N field must be blank.
b. A Transaction Code 999-1 used to correct a DTC must use a valid DTC, i.e., 'A', '8',
'C1, T1, or 'X'.
M 1. The Document Control Number (DCN) contains all zeros, or blanks or special characters
.for all transactions other than General Ledger.
2. Accounts Receivable (Document) Control Number (Positions 15-19) is not blank or "00000"
for unbilled transaction.
Exhibit 2530-3-1 Ob
-------
RESOURCES MANAGEMENT DIRECTIVES
ACCOUNTING PROCESSES
RECORDING TRANSACTIONS'
Attachment 11
3 of 5
2520
FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM TRANSACTION EDIT AND
REJECT CRITERIA
(Continued)
REJECT CODE
N 1. The Obligation Document Number (DOCNO) contains air zeros, or blanks or special
characters, excluding "-* for Transaction Codes 050, 051, 053, 059, 171, 181, 183, 191. and
236 only.
2. Document number field contains an invalid account number per MCDF for Source Cede 1,
29, 30, or 31 transaction.
3. IOTV Process. Document Number (field positions 21-30 =) is blank en Transaction Cede
399 with General Ledger account number 501.8 or 501.9 cited.
O Not Used. -
P i. Invalid Federal/Non-federal Code. A valid code must appear for Transaction Codes 050-1,
051-1. 059-1, 236-1, 191-1, and 191-1-1 oniy.
2. Travel. A valid travel purpose code must appear for sub-object classes 21.11, 21.13. 21.14,
21.15, and 21.17.
» • l
Q Invalid VIN Code.- The VIN field (fietd positions 63-73) is used but does not match with
the Vendor (VIN) File. (Transaction Code 999 for all Sue-Object Classes in Major Object
Class 41 except 41.25 or 3.301.
R Invalid Date (Not numeric or validated).
S • 1. Invalid obligation against a prior year account. Transaction Code. 050-1 or 051-1 should
not be used to. obligate prior year funds. Use Transaction Code 059-1.
2. Transaction Code 191-1-1 exceeds S500.
T Non-numeric social security number (field positions 22-30) for Transaction Code 061 or
242, and Transaction Code 181 or 191 when Travel Applied option coding is used.
U First two positions of traveler's last name (field positions 73-74) is blank or contains ncn-
afpha characters when Travel Applied option coding is used.
Invalid Source Code. Not in table or not valid for this Transaction Code/Appropriation
Code.
• Payer name is blank on billed transaction.
V
W
X
Y
2
Blank Audit/Collection Schedule Number (Position 32-62).
transaction or Source Code.
Not Used.
Code is required for this
FTE Ceiling (Transaction Code 037). Field positions 21 through 27 contain non-numeric
characters when target object classes 2699 and 2799 are used.
Exhibit 2530-3-IOc
-------
RESOURCES MANAGEMENT DIRECTIVES
ACCOUNTING PROCESSES
RECORDING TRANSACTIONS
Attachment 11
4 of 5
2530
FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM TRANSACTION EDIT AND
REJECT CRITERIA
(Continued)
REJECT CODE
AA
BB
CC
Local Operating Target (Transaction Code 037) Invalid Target Object Class used.
Psuedo Account Number used tor transaction codes other than 037.
1. Invalid use of Transaction Code 191. Transaction Code 191 may not be used on
grants/cooperative agreements (OCMAJ '4V), intergovernmental agreements (OCSUB
'25.70'), or contracts {'68' in third and fourth position of the obligation document
number). . .
2. Partial payment exceeds unpaid. Amount of Transaction Code 181-1 may not exceed
unpaid amount on Major Object Class 41, Sub-object Class 25.70 or when a '63' is
used in Obligation Document Number positions 3 and 4.
DO Applies to transaction code 040 only. Invalid Document Type Code (DTC) in Modifier
Code Field (card position 14). Only DTCs 'A', '8', 'C', 'P', or 'X' will be accepted on any
Major Object Class other than 11, 12. or 13. The DTC is not used (or payroll.
EC Invalid Use of Object Class.
1. For Appropriations S8M0108, 687/80108, 686/70108, 634/50108, 685/60108 only Sub-
object Class 24.02, 25.32. 25.33, 25.35, 25.70. 42.01 and Major Classes 25.19 and 25.27
are acceptable for use with Transaction Codes 181.1 and 191.1 for Appropriations
6SM0108 and 632/30108. Exception: All Object classes are acceptable tor Program
Elements 88XE3A, B66C2C, B77D2C. 8FJE3A. J66C2C. BNCD2C and B6SC2C.
2. For Appropriations 68M0107, 687/80107, 636/70107, 684/50107, 635/60107 only Sub-
object Class 25.32. 25.33, 25.35. 25.70 and Major Object Class 4i are acceptable.
(Object Classes 25.19 and 25.27 are acceptable for use with Transaction' Codes 181.1
and 191.1 with Appropriations 68M0107 and 682/30107).
3. For Appropriations 685/60108, 686/70108, and 6XX0108, Major Object Classes 11, 12,
and 13 are not acceptable.
4. For Appropriations 63M0200, 6870200. 6360200 and 6850200 Sub-object classes 25.32,
25.35, 25.70 and Major Object Class 41 are not acceptable. Exceptions: All object
classes are acceptable where Program Element Function Code equals 5 or Appro-
priation Code equals X and Training Grants Object Class 41.21 are acceptable.
Exhibit 2530-3-1 Od
-------
RESOURCES MANAGEMENT DIRECTIVES
ACCOUNTING PROCESSES
RECORDING TRANSACTIONS
Attachment 11
5 of 5
2530
FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM TRANSACTION EDIT AND
REJECT CRITERIA
(Continued)
REJECT CODE " . .
\ . .
FF IOTV Number problems. IOTV Number (field positions 72-78} is not acceptable where (1)
field position 72 does not equal the fourth digit of the current fiscal year, e.g., for fiscal
year 1985, field position 72 should indicate '5': (2) field positions 73-74 does not ccntain
a valid Servicing Finance Office (SFO) code for the SFO issuing the IOTV: (3) field
positions 75-76 does not contain a valid SFO code for the SrO receiving the IOTV: and
(4) field positions 77-78 contain a non-numeric serial number.
GG Invalid Travel Data. Foreign/Domestic Code (field position 72} does not equal '1* (for
domestic travel) or '2' (for foreign travel) for Transaction Codes 050-1, 051-1, 181-1, and
191-1; or the Destination field (field positions 73-80) contains all blanks for Transaction
Codes 050-1 and 051-1 only. This applies to current year transactions only.
Exhibit 2530-3-1 Oe
-------
-------
APPENDIXJ
ACTION REQUEST RECORD PRINT
ARNo.: 9200030 Page: 1
Request Date: 04/29/92 Print Date: 07/17/92
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaadaaaaaaaaaaaaadaaaaaaaaa
Last Name: FAUSTMAN
First Name: BILL
Address 1: FSB
Address 2:
City St Zip:
Phone-FTS: -
Phone-Other: (202) 260-9054
\ EMail Id: FAUSTMAN.B -. .
Mail Code: PM-226F
Organization:
Secondary Id:
FSB
Short Title: FMS HISTORY AND ALLOTMENT FILE INTEGRITY
VERIFICATION
Sys/Subsys
Affected:
Required:
Problem Desc:
Recommended
Solution:
X.
Advantage/
Disadvant.:
FMS - SYS ASSURANCE
06/30/92
During the past year, on several occasions, it was found
that transactions that were recorded on the Allotment file
of FMS could not be found on the History file of FMS. No
logical explanation of the event has been determined. The
History files were able to be recreated with the missing
transactions. Because the History file is still being
used for Superfund cost recovery purposes, the omission
raises questions on the accuracy of the cost recovery •
process.
When the History file is created at the end of each fiscal
year, record counts are obtained to ensure that the
monthly files have been properly consolidated. These
record counts should be retained. On a six month
interval, run a program to count the number of
transactions on the Year-end history files and then verify
that the record count is still the same as when the file
was originally 'prduced. The verification should be done
for each of the Year-end History Files since 1986.
For assurance purposes, a similar record count
verification should be performed on the Year-end Master
Allotment Files.
There,are several Superfund specific files which.are
created at the end of the fiscal year. These include a
Superfund allotment and a cumulative history file. The
control checks performed on the Agencywide files should
also be performed on these specific files. . {\v
If data is lost off the History File, cost recovery
actions will not be accurate. »
-------
ACTION REQUEST RECORD PRINT
AR No.: 9200030 Page: 2
Request Date: 04/29/92 Print Date: 07/17/92
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaadaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Status Comment: SHORT TITLE: FMS History & Allotment File Imbalance
Historical
Status Comment:
Date: 05/18/92
This was implemented.
Date: 06/29/92
Although this item was entered 4/29/92 it appears that
no action has been taken since that time. We would like .
to enter this into CMS as an action item. ASD's Bill
Grabsch agreed to follow up on this at the SAB Quality
Action Team meeting on data integrity.
Date: 05/18/92
Key AR No.
Assigned: 0
Request
Status Code: AA Status: Submitted to ASD in CMS
Priority Code: 2 Priority: Major Syst Prop, bypass availa
Lead Contact: FAUSTMAN, BILL
Phone (FTS): 260-9054
Routed to: BOB CLUCK
Date Routed: 06/29/92
Date Due Back: / /
Date Received: / /
Short
Title (REV): FMS HISTORY AND ALLOTMENT FILE INTEGRITY
VERIFICATION
Contr Est Hrs:
Dollars:
Contractor Id:
Funding Code:
Why Change
Required:
Desired Way
To Perf.:
How Perf. Now:
Contractor:
------- |