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:

-------