3 Vr*? United States Off ice of
/ /-- Environmental P-otecnon Inspector General
- LIfrv /O A9enCV 401 M Street. SW
Wasn.nqton. DC 20460
v>EPA Report of Audit
REPORT OF AUDIT ON THE MANAGEMENT OF
THE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TEAM SERVICES
AUDIT REPORT NUMBER E5eH7-03-0290-8l949
September 28, 1988
U.S.
taisrary, Soon 2404 FS1-C11-A
•m M Street, S
. 00
-------
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES 1
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 2
ACTION REQUIRED - 6
BACKGROUND 6
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
1 - IMPROVEMENT NEEDED IN THE UTILIZATION OF CONTRACTOR
PERSONNEL 8
2 - CONTRACTOR MONITORING NEEDS IMPROVEMENT 16
3 - IMPROPER USE OF CONTRACTOR STAFF FOR PERSONAL
SERVICES 25
4 - TECHNICAL DIRECTION NEEDS IMPROVEMENT 32
5 - IMPROVED EVALUATION PROCEDURES NEEDED 39
6 - UNQUALIFIED TAT PERSONNEL ASSIGNED TO EPA 46
7 - PROCEDURES FOR SPECIAL PROJECTS SHOULD BE FOLLOWED... 49
APPENDIX A - REGION III'S RESPONSE TO DRAFT AUDIT
REPORT 53
APPENDIX B - OERR'S RESPONSE TO DRAFT AUDIT REPORT 66
APPENDIX C - DISTRIBUTION 73
-------
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE Of THE INS'ECTOM GENCMAl
MID-ATLANTIC OIVHION
•41 CHESTNUT tUILDING
*HILAD£i.rMIA. PENNSYLVANIA 191C7
September 28, 1988
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
Audit Report Number E5eH7-03-0290-81949
Report of Audit on the Management of
the Technical Assistance Team CTAT) Services
P. Ronald Gandolfo
Divisional Inspector General for Audit
James M. Seif
Regional Administrator >
Henry L. Longest, II, Director
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES
We performed an audit of the Technical Assistance Team (TAT)
contract administered by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
We examined EPA's management of the services provided under con-
tract number 68-01-7367. The purpose of this audit was to evaluate
how effectively EPA Region III managed the contract. We performed
the audit in accordance with the Standards for Audit of Governmental
Organizations, Programs, Activities, and Functions issued by the
Comptroller General of the United States as they apply to economy
and efficiency and program results audits. Our review included
tests of the project files and other auditing procedures we
considered necessary.
Our audit encompassed reviews at EPA Headquarters, Emergency
Response Division (ERD), the Procurement and Contracts Management
Division, and the Region III Emergency Response Division. We also
visited the contractor's office (Zone Program Management) in West
Chester, PA, Washington, DC (Headquarters' TAT), and Cherry Hill,
NJ (TAT Office Region III).
-------
We did not perform a detailed financial and compliance audit
of the contract. Our review evaluated the economy, efficiency,
and program results expected only in relation to the procedures m
used by the Agency to administer and manage the contract. This ™
review disclosed several areas needing improvement which are
discussed in this report. No other issues came to our attention
which we believe were significant enough to warrant expanding the
scope of the audit. We did not perform a study and evaluation of
internal accounting controls and accordingly did not include a
report on them.
Our survey work for this review began on August 13, 1987, and
was completed on October 15, 1987. As a result of the survey, we
initiated an in-depth audit review in November 1987. The fieldwork
for this audit was completed April 30/ 1988. We examined project
files including correspondence at EPA andvthe contractor's offices.
We also reviewed financial, management, and operational reports
for the TAT contract. Our review basically encompassed TAT contract
documentation for calendar year 1987. We selected calendar year
1987 because this was the most current information available. How-
ever, in selected instances, we reviewed documentation from calendar
year 1988, when appropriate. During the audit, we judgmentally
selected our samples.
e,
During this audit we also:
1. Examined the TAT contract and EPA policy and
regulations regarding the program.
2. Performed a review of the documents, records, ™
and reports issued under the TAT contract.
3. Visited several removal sites.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
The findings included in this report are summarized below.
The detailed findings, along with related recommendations for
corrective action, are provided in the "Findings and Recommendations"
section of this report. We believe that the administration and
management of the TAT contract can be strengthened if action is
taken in the following areas.
1. IMPROVEMENT NEEDED IN THE UTILIZATION OF CONTRACTOR PERSONNEL
Improvement is needed to ensure that professional contractor
personnel are not used to perform administrative type duties. We
found that during calendar year 1987, approximately 6,100 hours of
administrative work, costing about $187,000, were provided by
-------
engineers, scientists and geologists. They performed such tasks
as file organization, referencing, indexing and working in the
Regional Response Center (RRC). The Technical Assistance Team
(TAT) contract does not provide for the use of professional level
personnel to provide this administrative support.. We believe
these contract personnel should be utilized more efficiently to
perform higher priority tasks which are in the TAT members' field
of expertise and in conformance with the requirements of the
contract. Region III personnel stated that the use of TAT personnel
for administrative support duties was due to a lack of sufficient
EPA personnel available to perform these tasks. We recommended
that Region III discontinue the use of professional level personnel
to perform administrative duties and utilize these personnel on
more essential tasks.
2. CONTRACTOR MONITORING NEEDS IMPROVEMENT
Region III needs to improve its monitoring of the contractor's
performance. The primary responsibility for monitoring the contrac-
tor's performance is that of the Deputy Project Officer (DPO).
However, we found that the DPO did not: (1) ensure that required
management reports were accurate and useful, (2) maintain a current
log showing the status of TDDs, (3) conduct Regional contractor
office reviews as required by EPA guidance, and (4) determine the
accuracy of the contractor's invoices. In order to ensure that
the contractor is progressing satisfactorily in implementing
assigned tasks and in meeting planned financial and programmatic
objectives, it is necessary for EPA to regularly monitor contractor
performance. Adequate monitoring would also assist in an early
identification and prevention of potential problems that otherwise
may adversely affect the smooth operation and implementation of
the program. We believe that the lack of adequate monitoring was
partially attributed to the fact that the DPO was not available on
a full-time basis to direct the efforts of the contractor who
incurred costs of $4.4 million under the contract during calendar
year 1987. We recommended to both Region III and the Office of
Emergency and Remedial Response (OERR) that improvements be made
in monitoring of the contractor's performance.
3. IMPROPER USE OF CONTRACTOR STAFF FOR PERSONAL SERVICES
Region III did not comply with the Federal Acquisition Regula-
tions (FAR) and the provisions of the TAT Users' Manual by improp-
erly using contractor staff for personal services. According to
the FAR, personal services occur when contractor personnel appear,
in effect, to be Government employees. We found that Region III
directed professional level contractor personnel to work in the
RRC, under EPA supervision, doing routine administrative tasks,
which makes them appear to be EPA employees. Region III officials
-------
informed us that due to a shortage of EPA administrative support
personnel, they used contractor staff to assist in the operations
of the Response Center. We believe that the use of contractor |
personnel to work in the Response Center performing administrative
tasks under the direct supervision of EPA, constituted prohibited
personal services. We recommended that Region III.discontinue the
use of contractor personnel for personal services.
4. TECHNICAL DIRECTION NEEDS IMPROVEMENT
Region III needs to improve its technical direction of the
TAT contractor. The principal mechanism for directing the contrac-
tor is by issuance of a Technical Direction Document (TDD). The
TDD should provide the contractor with a clear understanding of the
services that are required. In our review of the administration
of TDDs we found several problems which included: (1) inadequate
preparation, (2) delayed processing, and (3) insufficient direc-
tion. We believe that these deficiencies stem from the fact that
the DPO is not available on a full-time basis to properly issue
and manage technical direction. Similar deficiencies were cited
in both an OIG survey report dated April 18, 1984, and the results
of a review of Region III by Headquarters ERD dated October 29,
1984. The absence of clear, complete work authorizations, impedes
efficient management of the contractor by the Region. Also, EPA
may not be in a position to hold the contractor accountable or
establish a record of the tasks it directed the contractor to
perform. A future consequence of incomplete TDDs is that the
Agency may not have complete records to recover cleanup costs
under Superfund. We recommended that Region III ensure that
technical direction guidelines are followed.
5. IMPROVED EVALUATION PROCEDURES NEEDED
Evaluation procedures need to be followed to ensure that the
award fees paid to the contractor are justified. For the first
two rating periods ending September 30, 1987, the contractor
received over 80 percent of the maximum award fee available
($59,152 of $73,480) for demonstrated performance in Region III.
Our review disclosed that Region III did not: (1) substantiate
evaluations as to how and why a rating was meritorious or deficient,
and (2) ensure that Acknowledgement of Completion/Performance
Observation Reports (AOC/PORs) were submitted within ten days of
the task being completed. We believe these conditions occurred
because the Region did not place a high priority on these evalua-
tions . Lack of sufficient support for contractor ratings and late
submission of AOCs were also noted in a management review performed
by ERD in 1984. We believe that these problems demonstrated that
Region III did not adequately perform the evaluation process in
order to justify the award fee paid. We recommended to both
Region III and OERR that evaluations should be properly supported
and completed promptly.
-------
6. UNQUALIFIED TAT PERSONNEL ASSIGNED TO EPA
The contractor did not always provide personnel who possessed
the necessary education and experience as required by the contract.
We examined the resumes of all 40 contractor, personnel who were
assigned to Region III. Our review identified four employees who
did not possess the required qualifications. Consequently, EPA
was overbilled approximately $14,414 for these unqualified con-
tractor personnel and did not receive the experienced technical
assistance needed to respond to removal and prevention activities.
We recommended that OERR ensure that resumes of all contractor
personnel are reviewed so that only qualified personnel are
provided.
7. PROCEDURES FOR SPECIAL PROJECTS SHOULD BE FOLLOWED
Region III did not follow procedures to properly administer
and manage the issuance of TDDs^for special projects. These TDDs
should be utilized to provide EPA, during emergency removal activi-
ties, with specialized resources not routinely available from the
contractor. Our review for the nine month period ending September
30, 1987, encompassed 22 TDDs with estimated costs of $130,461,
This review disclosed the following: (1) the procurement of services
not allowed by the contract, and (2) a lack of proper review and
authorization. We believe that this condition resulted because of
the lack of adequate oversight and control by the DPO. Improvement ,.„.;
in the areas cited "above is essential to ensure that only authorized
purchases are made and proper approval is obtained in accordance
with prescribed procedures. We recommended that OERR clarify the
criteria for special projects and Region III comply with the require-
ments for special projects.
During the audit, we held discussions with Region III officials
and informed them of our findings. We also provided preliminary
copies of five of the seven findings to ERD and Region III.
Written comments were provided by the recipients. Our evaluation
of the comments did not alter the content of the findings. On
July 22, 1988, we issued a draft report to the Regional Administrator
of Region III and OERR. On August 22, 1988, OERR provided a written
response to our draft report. On August 25, 1988, Region III
provided a written response to our draft report. The written
responses generally disagreed with our findings. Subsequently, we
held exit conferences with OERR personnel on September 15, 1988,
and with Region III personnel on September 16, 1988. During these
conferences, we further explained some of the details concerning
our findings. At this time, we were able to resolve several areas
of disagreement contained in the responses. To provide a balanced
understanding of the issues, we summarized the responses of OERR
and Region III after each finding. We also included the complete
responses in Appendices A and B.
The courtesies and cooperation extended by your staff during
this audit are appreciated.
-------
ACTION REQUIRED
In accordance with EPA Directive 2750, the action official is
required to provide this office with a written response to the
audit report within 90 days of the audit report date. Since this
report deals primarily with the management of the contract at the
Regional level, the Regional Administrator of EPA Region III is
designated as the primary action official and should take the lead
in coordinating the response to this report.
BACKGROUND
The "Superfund" program was established by the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980
{CERCLA), Public Law 96-510, enacted on December 11, 1980. The
Superfund program was created to protect public health and the
environment from the release, or threat of release, of hazardous
substances from abandoned hazardous waste sites and other sources
where response was not required by other Federal laws. A Trust
Fund was established by CERCLA to provide funding for responses
ranging from control of emergency situations to provision of
permanent remedies at uncontrolled sites. CERCLA authorized a
$1.6 billion program financed by a five-year environmental tax on
industry and some general revenues. CERCLA requires that re-
sponse, or payment for response, be sought from those responsible
for the problem, including property owners, generators and trans-
porters .
CERCLA was revised and expanded by the Superfund Amendments
and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA), Public Law 99-499, enacted
on October 17, 1986. SARA reinstituted the environmental- tax and
expanded the taxing mechanisms available for a five-year period.
It authorized an $8,5 billion program for the 1987-1991 period.
The Trust Fund was renamed the Hazardous Substance Superfund.
The basic regulatory blueprint for the Superfund Program is
the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan (NCP),
40 CFR Part 300. The NCP was first published in 1968 as part of
the Federal Water Pollution Control Plan, and has been substanti-
ally revised to meet CERCLA requirements. The NCP lays out two
broad categories of response: removals and remedial response.
Removals are relatively short-term responses, and modify an earlier
program under the Clean Water Act. Remedial response is long-term
planning and action to provide permanent remedies for serious
abandoned or uncontrolled hazardous waste sites.
To provide technical support for the emergency response
programs, the Agency awarded a Cost-Plus-Award Fee (CPAF) contract
on December 16, 1986. This contract is entitled "Technical Assis-
tance Teams (TAT) for Emergency Response, Removal and Prevention
-------
(Zone I)" and is for a base period of two years with a two year
option. This contract has a potential value of $120 million. As
of the end of December 1987 the contractor had billed the Agency
$15.5 million for services performed. Approximately $4.4 million
was for services in Region III. As identified in the Financial
Management Report for December 1987, costs incurred for Region III
included: $175,081 for special projects, $347,768 for analytical -
services, $934,684 for administrative expenses, and $2,927,393 for
direct costs of professional personnel.
Prior to this award, EPA had a contract for nationwide TAT
services with the current contractor. EPA awarded this $62 million
CPAF contract on September 30, 1982. The contract period was for
two years with an option for two additional years.
In accordance with the current contract terms, the contractor
developed an organization consisting of a Zone Program Manager
(ZPM) and support management effort. TAT members are located in
each Region of Zone I (Regions I-V), at TAT Headquarters, Washington
DC and at the Environmental Response Team in Edison, New Jersey.
The TATs are comprised of a TAT Leader (TATL) and technical staff.
The TAT contract provides that the contractor shall support EPA's
capability to adequately respond to environmental emergencies
caused by the discharge or release of oil, petroleum, or hazardous
substances to any media (air, land, surface water, or ground water)
and perform spill prevention compliance inspections, process
inspections, contingency planning, and training.
Within the EPA Headquarters, ERD under the Office of Emergency
and Remedial Response (OERR) is charged with overall management
responsibility for the TAT contract. ERD oversees total resource
utilization of the TAT contract and coordinates implementation of
the contract through the EPA Regional offices. In addition, Head-
quarters must ensure that the TAT contractor adheres to all estab-
lished Agency or other Federal regulations, procedures and guidelines
An EPA Project Officer (PO), who works for the ERD, provides overall
technical direction and coordination for the technical contractual
efforts. To assist the PO, each Region designated a Deputy Project
Officer (DPO) to direct the TATs at the Regional level. Technical
direction is in the form of Technical Direction Documents (TDDs)
assigned by the DPO to the TATL. The DPO also monitors the TATs'
work and evaluates their performance after the task is complete.
The contract requires that a specified number of members be
dedicated to the TAT project in each Region. The members must be
available on a full-time basis (1,900 hours a year). The DPO has
program management responsibility for planning, executing and
controlling the utilization of dedicated TAT resources. In Region
III the DPO directed the work of about 45 professional TAT members.
In addition, during calendar year 1987, the DPO authorized 480
work orders {TDDs).
-------
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
1. IMPROVEMENT NEEDED IN THE UTILIZATION OF CONTRACTOR PERSONNEL A
Improvement is needed to ensure that professional contractor
personnel are not used to perform administrative type duties. We
found that during calendar year 1987, approximately 6,100 hours of
administrative work, costing about $187,000, were provided by
engineers, scientists and geologists. They performed such tasks
as file organization, referencing, indexing and working in the
Regional Response Center (RRC). The TAT contract does not provide
for the use of professional level personnel to provide this admin-
istrative support. We believe these contract personnel should be
utilized more efficiently to perform higher priority tasks which
are in the TAT members' field of expertise and in conformance with
the requirements of the contract. Region III personnel stated
that the use of TAT personnel for administrative support duties
was due to a lack of sufficient EPA personnel available to perform
these tasks,
Under Contract No. 68-01-7367, the contractor is required to
provide the personnel, materials, and facilities to establish and
manage a zone organization to augment EPA's response, removal, and
prevention programs within Zone 1. The contractor is also required
to perform this work within a specified number of hours or level
of effort (LOE). According to Section H.13 of the contract, "admin-
istrative support of the TATs (management, clerical, typing, etc.)
shall be provided by the contractor as necessary. Administrative
support personnel are not included either in the TATs or in the LOE.;
The LOE direct labor hours should only include the direct labor '
hours of the TAT Leaders (TATL) and TAT members. The TATs are
comprised of a multidisciplined technical "staff consisting of
groundwater hydrologists, toxicologists, chemists, and environmental
scientists etc.
Section H.15 of the contract details the personnel qualifica-
tions of the TAT members. To serve as a Professional Level (PL)-l,
PL-2, or PL-3, personnel must possess the required technical
knowledge and the capability to perform varied assignments utiliz-
ing this expertise. The required education ranged from a B.S.
degree or equivalent with zero to three years experience for a
PL-1 to a masters degree or equivalent and six to twelve years
experience for a PL-3. To serve as a Technician Level (TL)-l, TL-
2, or TL-3, personnel must be able to perform routine, standard-
ized or complex assignments usually entailing testing or operating
equipment.
We identified 14 TDDs where professional staff were utilized
to perform administrative duties. Our analysis of these 14 TDDs
disclosed the following hours expended during calendar year 1987
by professionals performing these tasks:
8
-------
PROFESSIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE
DISCIPLINE HOURS WORKED
Engineers
Hygienist
TATL
Computer
Toxicologist
Assistant TATL
Scientists
Chemists
Hydrogeolegists
Geologists
Biologists
Technicians
Total Hours 6,106
A breakdown of the hours by professional level is shown
below:
LEVEL HOURS
PL-3 580
PL-2 1,042
PL-1 2,614
TL-2 84
TL-1 1,786
Total Hours
We estimate the cost of performing these tasks at approxi-
mately $187,000 (6,106 hours x costs of $30.68 per hour). The
hourly rate was computed based on the costs of professional level
personnel as shown on the Financial Management Report as of December
31, 1987. The costs of $2,927,393 were divided by the number of
professional hours of 95,418 for an average rate of $30.68.
In addition, another 1,413" hours were charged by the contrac-
tor's secretarial support staff to these 14vTDDs. Although the
contract provides for administrative duties to be performed and
charged to the contract by overhead personnel, the type of adminis-
trative support being provided should not be performed by the
professional staff. This staff was not being utilized to their
level of expertise.
As shown above, 6,106 hours were expended by professional
staff on 14 TDDs performing administrative tasks. Examples of
several of these TDDs describing the duties performed are shown
below.
-------
o We noted instances of professional TAT members
performing administrative tasks in the Regional
Response Center (RRC) as detailed in the finding
entitled "Improper Use of Contractor Staff For
Personal Services." For example/ on TDD number
0138, a total of 1,832 hours were charged by
PL-1, PL-2 and PL-3 staff and 1,286 hours were
charged by TL-2 staff. This medium priority
TDD provided for administrative support at the
RRC. One of the contractor personnel, a PL-1
geologist, who charged 676 hours of his time
to this TDD, informed us that he worked at the
RRC for approximately nine months under both
the previous and current contracts. Some of
the tasks he performed included: filing reports,
answering the phone, updating lists, and main-
taining charts for the DPO. The description
of duties as shown on the Performance Observation
Report (FOR) specifies the nature of adminis-
trative tasks performed by TAT personnel. The
FOR provides the contractor's assessment of
performance under the TDD. The POR for the
period ending May 22, 1987, details such duties
as organizing, continuously updating, and cate-
gorizing file and reference material as part
of the TATs ongoing administrative duties in
the RRC. Other professional TAT members
charging this TDD for similar duties included
270 hours for a PL-2 scientist and 236 hours
for a PL-1 scientist. Interviews with other
TAT members charging this TDD confirmed the
numerous clerical duties required of this
assignment.
o On TDD number 0140, 179 hours were charged
by PL-3 personnel, 49 hours by PL-2 person-
nel and 48 hours by PL-1 personnel. These
professionals were the TATL, scientists
and engineers. The task they performed
according to the task description on the
TDD was data compilation and preparation
of statistics and summaries for the RRC.
The description of duties on the POR stated
"TAT personnel assisted the ERS Chief in
compiling weekly, monthly and semiannual
fact sheets for all past and ongoing CERCLA
sites in a timely and well organized fashion."
The observation by the ERS Chief on the POR
stated "Long drawn out job; but I feel it
is a routine tasking assignment of little
difficulty."
10
-------
o Under the medium priority TDD number 0221,
a total of 504 hours were charged by pro-
fessional staff including engineers,
scientists and a hydrologist to organize
and review files at the TAT Field Office
in Wheeling, West Virginia. The FOR stated
that a more centralized and systematic meth-
odology of file retrieval was required. The
FOR further stated that support was provided
through the TATs efficient organization of
all pertinent files and deliverables consis-
tent with the filing.system at the main
TAT office.
o On TDD number 0517, the professional staff charged
156 hours which included computer personnel,
a chemist, a hydrogeblogist and several scientists.
This TDD was issued to review and organize Spill
Prevention Control and Countermeasures (SPCC)
Program files. The POR in describing the duties
performed stated "TAT was asked to review and
organize SPCC files for EPA Regional Headquarters
in Philadelphia, PA. TAT indexed the entire file
into colorcoded categories to create an easily
accessible, centralized file system."
We believe that the expertise of the professional staff could
have been better utilized to perform more essential tasks. For ex-
ample, we evaluated the time delay in issuing on-scene-coordinator's
(OSC) reports. We reviewed the 26 TDDs issued during January 1987
to prepare reports and found that it took an average of 257 days
between the date the TDD was issued and completion of the report.
In four cases, the report was completed 362 days after issuance of
the TDD. In most instances, the original TDD due dates were ex-
tended to allow for completion of the reports at later dates. We
found that an average of only 80 hours was spent by TAT personnel
in actually preparing the 26 OSC reports, yet it took over six
months to complete them. Thus, it appears that the issuance of
these reports was unduly delayed because the TAT personnel were
assigned to administrative duties.
Utilization of professional level staff to work on more
critical assignments, such as OSC reports, would be a more efficient
use of resources. Detailed documentation and reporting on all
aspects of the removal action is essential. The OSC report is
critical in this process and should be completed promptly upon
conclusion of the removal action. 40 CFR 300.40 provides, in part,
that within 60 days after the conclusion of a major discharge, the
OSC shall submit a complete report on the response operation and
the actions taken.
11
-------
The importance of the OSC report was emphasized in a -report
dated March 27, 1987, entitled Report of the Workgroup on Manage-
ment Support for Superfund's QSC. The workgroup consisted of
representatives of the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response,
the Regions and the Office of Administration and Resources Manage-
ment. This report discussed the administrative, financial and
contractual support aspects of OSC's activities. This report
commented on the backlog in preparing final OSC reports — the
basic documentation for removal cost recovery actions. The report
further stated:
The OSC report is regarded as the seminal
document in the cost recovery process. A
delayed final report may reduce the probabil-
ity of recovery and may be less comprehensive
and accurate, as events and activities fade in
memory as time passes, notwithstanding the
adequacy of the logs, files and notes used
as a record of their occurrence.
This "Workgroup" report acknowledged that many OSCs rely
heavily on their TAT contractor for administrative support and
recommended establishment of administrative support units in each
Regional Office. An OIG report issued September 30, 1985, on
Region Ill's Administration of Superfund also disclosed substantial
delays in preparing OSC reports. The report stated that these
delays occurred because Regional personnel placed a low priority
on these tasks once the removal action was completed. We believe
improvement is still needed in this area to expedite the completion
of OSC reports.
EPA personnel stated that the utilization of professional
staff for administrative duties occurred because of the lack of
adequate administrative support personnel available to the OSCs.
This situation was also cited in the "Workgroup" report and in
the finding entitled "Improper Use Of Contractor Staff For Personal
Services." Also, Region III personnel stated that since this is a
LOE contract, TAT resources should be utilized whenever or wherever.
possible because EPA must pay for a dedicated staff encompassing a
minimum number of hours.
Agency Comments
The Region did not concur with recommendation number one and
stated that the support provided by the TAT for the TDDs requires
technical expertise. EPA files have specific formats and require
an understanding of the complex programs or specific projects to
be organized properly. Of critical importance is the future use
of these files. They may be ultimately needed in legal proceedings
12
-------
or negotiations and serve as a basis for obtaining important infor-
mation for all levels of management. EPA places strong emphasis
on maintaining good records. The omission or misplacing of a
document could result in the loss of a cost recovery action or
perhaps a potential legal action.
The Region further stated that the TAT contract Scope-of-
Work under "General Effort" provides for maintenance of records
as does the Users' Manual which includes "managerial support"
in the description of technical assistance. Section H-13 of the
contract refers to the internal administrative support staff. If
the hours are allocable to a specific site and administrative
staff have charged this site, then this is proper for cost re-
covery purposes.
OERR supports the Region and stated that the professional
staff are not being asked or expected to do administrative/clerical
work. Many tasks identified in the report require professional,
technical skills and background to complete.
The Region did not concur with recommendation number two
stating that it is frequently cost-effective and efficient to use
personnel to perform tasks outside their particular educational
expertise. It is infrequent that a given task will require the
full-time daily participation of, say, a Geologist. It is there-
fore practical to make full use of that person's time rather than
use another partial person to perform whatever tasks are needed.
The determination of what work is essential and the prioritization
of that work is the prerogative of the Program manager. The use
of the TAT as suggested by the OIG is not always practical, especial-
ly in the Emergency Response Program. The approximately 6,000 hours
costing $187,000 were selected from a biased sample representing
approximately 6.4 percent of the LOE dollars. Consequently, the
data does not support the OIG contention that TAT personnel were
diverted from more important tasks to do administrative functions.
OERR supports the Region and stated that TAT professional
staff are generally being used to the best advantage by the Region.
The fact that OSC reports are not being completed in a timely
fashion does not necessarily mean TAT staff are being inappro-
priately assigned. Usually, the OSC report must be put together
by, a senior TAT involved in the response. This TAT person may be
assigned to other high priority responses which could cause the
delay in the report. Also, OSC reports are not always the highest
priority action. For example, organizing files and establishing
the administrative record, which both take technical expertise,
may take precedence over closing out a completed removal action
and actually be prerequisite to finalizing the OSC's after action
report.
13
-------
Auditor's Comments
We disagree with both the Region's and OERR's comments. We
believe that a substantial portion of the work was clerical or
administrative and that the professional staff could have been
better utilized on more essential tasks.
We have not taken exception to administrative work in support
of OSCs in the field or pertaining to a specific site. Also, we
did not question the fact that the contract allows for record
maintenance and that in some instances file organization is impor-
tant. However, we believe that in many cases the work identified
in the TDDs was administrative and should have been performed by
clerical or administrative staff which are not included in the
LOE. A substantial portion of this work was performed at Region
III in the RRC. For example, a total of 3,118 hours were expended
under TDD 0138 for administrative support. As detailed in the
finding, the description of duties on the FOR, and discussion
with the TAT personnel involved, disclosed that clerical duties
were performed in the RRC.
The TATL, during an interview, stated he expressed dissatis-
faction with the use of TATs in the RRC. The TATL stated that
EPA wanted the TATs to continue to work in the RRC. The TATL
then prepared a memorandum dated September 24, 1987, to the Chief,
Emergency Response Preparedness Section delineating the.RRC duties
of the TATs. The tasks described in this memorandum were mostly
administrative and included filing, typing and mailing, maintain-
ing the RRC library and updating charts for the OSC.
Further, we question the rationale for using 504 hours of
professional staff to set up a filing system in Wheeling, West
Virginia. It seems more reasonable to use one or two of the
TAT .professional staff to oversee the organization of the filing
system utilizing clerical personnel, thereby freeing other profes-
sional staff such as engineers, scientists and geologists to
perform more essential work. We believe that the professional
staff should be utilized to generate the data for the files.
Once generated, it is primarily an administrative function to
establish and maintain the files.
We take exception to the statement that the figures in the
report resulted from a biased sample. The figures of 6,106 hours
with an estimated cost of $187,000 were not the result of a sample.
These figures were based on our review of all TDDs issued during
calendar year 1987. We believe the figures are significant
enough to warrant prompt corrective action.
14
-------
We also believe that TAT personnel could have been better
utilized to prepare OSC reports. We believe that completion of
these reports is definitely a higher priority than use of the TAT,. ,
staff to perform administrative and clerical tasks. The importance
of a timely OSC report was emphasized previously in this finding
in the comments contained in the "Workgroup" report. Regarding
OERR's comments that usually OSC reports must be put together by
a senior TAT involved in the response, we reviewed the time spent
on 22 OSC reports completed during calendar year 1987. We found
that the lead TAT spent little or no time on preparation of these
reports in eight of the 22 cases. We still maintain that better
use could have been made of TAT personnel to expedite issuance of
these critical reports.
In the Region's response to the finding entitled "Improper
Use of Contractor Staff For Personal Services," action was taken
to eliminate the long-term stationing of TATs in the RRC by re-
cruiting other personnel to perform these functions. Of the 6,106
hours identified in this finding, 4,970 or 82 percent was for work
performed in the RRC. Therefore, the Region in eliminating the
stationing of TAT personnel in the RRC have, in essence, taken
corrective action on this finding. We believe these personnel
can now be utilized to perform more essential functions. Regional
personnel stated that the TATs formerly assigned to the RRC are
being replaced with clerical personnel recruited from the American
Association of Retired Persons. We believe this action supports
our position that much of the work performed by the TATs in the
RRC was administrative or clerical.
Recommendations
We recommend that the Regional Administrator of EPA, Region
III:
1. Discontinue the use of professional level
contract personnel to perform administrative
duties.
2. Take appropriate action to utilize these
personnel to perform essential tasks re-
quiring the expertise of the professional
level staff in accordance with the contract
requirements.
15
-------
2. CONTRACTOR MONITORING NEEDS IMPROVEMENT
Region III needs to improve its monitoring of the contractor's 1
performance. The primary responsibility for monitoring the contrac-
tor's performance is that of the DPO. However, we found that the
DPO did not: (1) ensure that required management reports were
accurate and useful, (2) maintain a current log showing the status
of TDDs, (3) conduct Regional contractor office reviews as. required
by EPA guidance, and (4) determine the accuracy of the contractor's
invoices. In order to ensure that the contractor is progressing
satisfactorily in implementing assigned tasks and in meeting planned
financial and programmatic objectives, it is necessary for EPA to
regularly monitor contractor performance. Adequate monitoring
would also assist in an early identification and prevention of
potential problems that otherwise may adversely affect the smooth
operation and implementation of the program. We believe that the
lack of adequate monitoring was partially attributed to the fact
that the DPO was not available on a full-time basis to direct the
efforts of the contractor who incurred costs of $4.4 million under
the contract during calendar year 1987.
EPA OSWER Directive 9242.4-01A (TAT Users' Manual), Chapter
VI, provides guidance on monitoring of project performance and
financial management. This guidance states the monitoring respon-
sibilities of the DPO are as follows:
o Ensuring that the TAT contractor prepares and
submits all required reports on time including
financial reports.
o Establishing and maintaining a log for tracking
TDDs.
o Conducting Regional TAT contractor office reviews.
As stated in the Users' Manual, the DPO has program management
responsibility for planning, executing and controlling the utiliza-
tion of dedicated TAT resources. The Users' Manual further provides
that the DPO should track TAT project performance against required
schedules, budgets and procedures. This would help determine:
(1) whether work was completed within a reasonable number of hours,
(2) if work was completed within established time frames, and (3)
whether a sufficient number of TDDs were issued.
As described below, the DPO did not adhere to the prescribed
guidance for monitoring the contractor's performance.
Inaccurate Management Reports
The DPO did not ensure that the required project management
reports were accurate or useful. The contractor is required
by Section F of the contract to submit several project management
16
-------
reports to EPA on a monthly basis. Included in this reporting are
the Financial Management Report (FMR) and the Monthly Status Report
{MSR). The FMR relates costs incurred to projected expenditures
and compares total hours expended with total hours authorized. '
The Users' Manual states that DPOs should review this report to
make sure that actual dollars and hours expended are on target
with those authorized. The MSR describes the status of all tasks
performed during the month. The Users' Manual states that the DPO
should review these reports for accuracy and refer any inconsistencies
to the PO and the contractor.
As stipulated by the Users' Manual, these reports should be
used by the DPO as management tools to assist in the monitoring of
project performance. We were informed by contractor personnel
responsible for the reports that during 1987, the DPO never con-
tacted them concerning any problems with the reports. In our
discussion with the DPO, we were advised that he only spends a few
minutes each month reviewing these reports and does not use them
to assist in monitoring the contractor.
Our review of the FMR and MSR for August 1987 disclosed
discrepancies in the reporting of complete, accurate, and uniform
information. We found that the cumulative costs as shown on the
FMR exceeded the final costs as shown on the MSR in 97 of the 207
TDDs (47 percent) reviewed. For example, on TDD number 0323, the
FMR showed costs of $96,622 incurred while the MSR showed costs of
$82,097, for a difference of $14,525. On TDD number 0601, the FMR
showed $15,937 while the MSR showed $1,797 for a difference of
$14,140. We could find no reconciliation of the. differences.
Further review of the MSR for August showed that other infor-
mation presented was inaccurate or incomplete. For example, our
review of this report which listed 355 regular TDDs showed the
following deficiencies: (1) the column for "Final Actual Hours"
reported "N/A" for each of the TDDs, (2) the column for "Estimated
Costs" reported these costs for only 48 or 14% of the TDDs, while
"N/A" was shown for the remaining TDDs, (3) the column for "Final
Actual Costs" reported costs for only 207 or 58% of the TDDs while
the remaining TDDs showed "N/A", (4) the columns for "Interim and
Final Acknowledgement of Completion" (AOC) which signifies completion
of the project, was left blank for all 355 TDDs.
We also sampled 50 of the 355 TDDs to review other information
presented on the MSR. Our review disclosed that:
o The column labeled "Approximate Hours to Date"
only had 4 TDDs with the correct hours.
17
-------
o The column labeled "Status" showed 14 TDDs
as being closed, while the individual records
showed these TDDs as being open. M
We were informed by contractor personnel that the estimated
monthly cost for preparation of the FMR and the MSR is $2,800.
Since the management reports did not provide clear and accurate
information, they cannot be used as intended, to assist the DPO in
managing the TAT contractor.
Incomplete TDD Status Tracking Log
Region III did not maintain a complete and accurate log showing
the status of TDDs as required by the Users' Manual. A sample
of a TDD Status Tracking Log is provided in Exhibit VI-2 of the
Users' Manual. The log should contain such information as costs,
hours, completion dates, and the date the AOC was received.
We reviewed Region Ill's TDD log for the period of January 1,
1987 through September 10, 1987, and found that essential information
was missing from the log including TDD costs, hours and completion
dates. Furthermore, the log listed 381 TDDs of which only 34 (9%)
showed that AOCs were issued and the task was completed. The
remaining 347 showed only a question mark next to the TDD.
We compared the first 100 TDDs on the log to the contractor's
records and found 38 instances where the records differed. In these-
cases the Region's status log showed a question mark while the
contractor's records showed an AOC was issued. We also obtained 4
a recent log dated May" 9, 1988, to determine if any improvement had
occurred. Our review of the first 100 TDDs disclosed 35 cases
where the log showed a question mark while the contractor's records
showed that an AOC had been issued. In most cases, the AOC was
issued as far back as August 1987.
Inadequate Contractor Office Reviews
The DPO did not perform required reviews of the contractor's
records. Appendix B of the Users' Manual provides a checklist
for the DPO to use in reviewing the contractor's office. The
purpose of the checklist is to aid the DPO in conducting periodic
spot checks. This will help to ensure that adequate mechanisms
are in place for effective assignment management, document control,
procurement, expense reporting, government property maintenance
and health and safety concerns. Official audits, conducted by
the Office of the Inspector General, may be recommended by the
DPO as a result of suspected inadequacies uncovered during these
spot checks. Ensuring that required EPA procedures are followed
is important in facilitating and supporting potential cost recovery
18
-------
actions against responsible parties. Regular monitoring is also
important to ensure that government property is being properly
maintained.
In our discussions with the current and former DPO, we were
informed that Region III does not use the review checklist and
does not conduct contractor office reviews. The current DPO did
not believe that his duties encompassed this type of detailed
review of the contractor's records.
Both our audit of the contractor and quality assurance reviews
by the contractor's own personnel disclosed recordkeeping discre-
pancies. The discrepancies found included: (!) inaccurate records,
(2) incomplete files, and (3) excessive travel expense charges.
We believe that if the DPO had properly conducted periodic contractor
office reviews, the inaccuracies noted may not have occurred or
could have been prevented.
The Quality Assurance (QA) Manager for the TAT contractor
performed two administrative audits of the Region III contractor's
office in 1987. >In the first audit performed in March 1987 the
QA Manager found that the TDD files were not up-to-date and a duty
roster was not established. In the second audit performed in
November 1987 the QA Manager reported: (1) 46 TDDs were missing
information or in some cases TDDs were missing, (2) 15 projects
were charged with nonapproved overtime, (3) log books and the filing?,.
system did not conform to standards, and (4) special project files
had improper information.
We also found many cases of inadequate documentation as identi-
fied in our findings of deficiencies regarding technical direction,
evaluation procedures, and special projects. In addition, we
found that excessive travel expenses were being claimed by TAT
personnel. The TAT contract provides that the contractor will be
reimbursed in accordance with the Federal Travel Regulations (FTR).
The FTR provides that mileage shall be reimbursed at a rate of 21
cents a mile for privately owned vehicles (POVs). Further, a per
diem allowance shall not be allowed within the local limits of the
official station. The FTR also provides that Agencies may define
a radius or commuting area that is broader than the limits of the
official station within which per diem will not be allowed for
travel in one calendar "day. EPA Comptroller Policy Announcement
No. 87-05, dated December 15, 1986, defines local transportation.
This provides that lodgings plus per diem will not be paid for a
locality that is within approximately a 50 mile radius of the
employee's official duty station.
We performed a cursory review of the contractor's travel
records and found that: (1) the contractor was charging 22.5 cents
a mile for POVs, and (2) the contractor was charging per diem for
destinations well within a 50 mile radius of the official duty
station. For example, our review of contractor expense reports
19
-------
for a three month period ending March 31, 1988, showed that 2,870
miles were claimed at 22,5 cents a mile for a total of $645.
However, if the 2,870 miles were claimed at the authorized rate of
21 cents a mile the total should have been $602. or a difference of
$43, We also found that $3,519 was claimed for per diem even
though destinations were well within the 50 mile radius (local) of
the official station. In most of the instances, the destination
was within approximately ten miles of the official station.
The claiming of excessive travel expenses represents an example
of a discrepancy which should have been discovered by the DPO when
conducting the office review. Personnel from the Headquarters
Financial Management Division agreed that EPA contractors must
abide by EPA travel policy and no per diem should be allowed
within 50 miles of an employee's official station. We believe
that a detailed review must be conducted of all the contractor's
travel expenses to determine the extent of excessive charges.
These overcharges should then be recovered from the contractor.
Contractor's Invoices Not Verified
We found that the contractor's invoices for TAT services were
not verified before payment. The DPO in Region III stated that he
was unable to substantiate the contractor's invoices because the
costs are presented in lump sum figures without details. The DPO
informed us that the Headquarters PO performs a certification of
the costs. However, our discussions with EPA, ERD officials,
including the PO revealed that Headquarters personnel rely on the
Regional DPOs to review and determine the accuracy of the contractor'
monthly invoices. Consequently, it appears that the contractor is
being paid millions of dollars by EPA without an adequate review
of the invoices for propriety by the DPO or the PO.
Section G of the contract provides specific instructions
for the payment of TAT services. The contractor must submit
an invoice to EPA which contains site specific billing information.
Site specific invoices are distributed to both the PO and the DPO.
This is not adequate because both officials told us that it is
difficult to verify the costs because invoices are summarized in
lump sum figures with little supporting information. Our review
also showed that the invoices did not agree with the costs presented
in the FMR. Therefore, EPA personnel were not able to determine
the validity of the invoices.
The lack of financial control over the contractor's invoices
has been a recurring problem in Region III. For example, a mem-
orandum from the contractor to the PO discussed the problem of
DPOs having a difficult time verifying costs and requiring additional
backup information for the monthly site invoices. This memo was
20
-------
dated September 8, 1987, and in our follow-up discussions with the
DPO in early 1988, we were informed that he still was unable to
verify the costs claimed in the invoices.
Also, in the "Workgroup" report, (see prior discussion on page
12), the workgroup found (1) OSCs and Regional program managers
placed little reliance on the Agency's Financial Management System
for support in site financial control, (2) many OSCs and Regional
program managers used other sources for tracking costs and some
simply do not keep track of certain type costs, (3) intramural
removal site costs were often not tracked in a timely fashion, and
(4) there were backlogs in reconciliations of contractor invoices.
The contractor office reviews, if conducted by the DPO, require
a review of expense reports and time sheets. This would assist in
determining the accuracy of contractor's invoices.
It is important for the DPO to utilize all available means
to ensure that the TAT contractor is performing efficiently. As
described previously, various management tools which should assist
the DPO in this process are not being employed. As discussed in
the finding entitled "Technical Direction Needs Improvement",
inadequate preparation and use of TDDs also helped impede efficient
management of the contractor. As stated in the finding, we attribute
this situation to the fact that the DPO is not available on a full-
time basis to properly manage the contractor. Without adequate
direction exercised by the DPO, there is no assurance that EPA
will obtain the services for which it contracted.
Agency Comments
The Region concurred with all five recommendations and
indicated that:
o The management reports are difficult to inter-
pret; however, monitoring of the performance
of the contractor is essential. To ensure
proper cost/performance monitoring, the DPO
is upgrading the computerized TDD tracking
system. Under the revised system, each OSC
receives a weekly or bi-weekly summary of
costs and hours on TDDs. The OSCs are
encouraged to review these carefully and
advise the DPO and TATL of any discrepancies.
o The TDD log has been improved, providing
a more accurate report.
21
-------
that:
The DPO visits the TAT office frequently to
review the status and progress of projects.
Even with a full-time DPO, the number of TATs
would preclude performing the type of detailed
review believed to be necessary by the IG.
The Region has requested clarification of.the
guidance from ERD and PCMD. OERR points out
that contractor office reviews are suggested,
but are not required.
A general review of TAT practices regarding
travel is appropriate. However, it is not
agreed that actual auditing of invoices and
a review of all travel expenses charged under
the contract are a function of the DPO.
Rather, these are IG functions. Regarding
overall compliance with the FTR, it is the
Region's understanding that PCMD is in the
process of resolving discrepancies with the
TAT contractors. It is the responsibility
of PCMD to address possible overcharges.
The issue regarding TAT invoices needs to be
resolved and in the past this issue has been
raised with PCMD. The Contracts Management
Review Staff of PCMD is presently reviewing
the TAT invoice procedures with a view toward
identifying a better mechanism for DPOs to
verify contractor costs. Appropriate action
will be taken when this review is completed.
OERR concurred with all three recommendations and indicated
The discrepancy cited between the Monthly Status
Report and the Financial Management Report have
been brought to the attention of the contractor.
ERD will discuss this discrepancy with the DPO
and the contractor to enable greater accuracy
and consistency between the reports.
The Financial Analysis Section of PCMD recently
completed an on-site review of the contract.
The report indicates that in some instances,
the contractor is not billing the Government
for travel expenses in accordance with the
terms and conditions of the contract. Head-
quarters is presently in the process of
requiring the contractor to make adjustments
to the amounts billed to the Government for
travel expenses.
22
-------
o The Contracts Management Review Staff of
EPA is presently reviewing the invoice
procedures on the TAT and other contracts.
Their goal is to identify some better
mechanism for DPOs to verify reason-
ableness of contractor vouchered costs.
Auditor's Comments
Although the Region concurred in principle with all five
recommendations, we take exception to the anticipated corrective
action on recommendation numbers three and four.
Regarding recommendation number three, we believe that formal
contractor office reviews are essential especially in view of the
numerous problems and deficiencies noted during both our review
and reviews by ERD and the contractor. The use of the checklist
would assist the DPO to ensure more efficient utilization of con-
tractor resources and ensure that government property is properly
maintained.
Regarding recommendation number four, we disagree with the
Region's statement that the OIG should audit the contractor's
travel vouchers. While it is true that the OIG is responsible for
performing audits of contract costs, it is not the OIG's responsi-
bility to perform individual reviews of costs such as those identi-
fied in the finding. Since there are provisions to review travel
costs in the Users' Manual, it would be more appropriate that a
detailed review be performed by the DPO. The Users' Manual states
that it is very important that the DPO or other regional represen-
tatives conduct periodic spot check visits to the contractor's
office to examine various documentation including expense records.
The checklist in the Users' Manual provides guidance for reviewing
travel expenses.
The Contracting Officer has overall responsibility for ensur-
ing that the TAT contractors comply with the terms and specifica-
tions of the contract. PCMD recently conducted a review of the
contractor which included a review of travel expenses. However,
based on a discussion with PCMD, we learned that they did not
address the travel issues raised in our report. We believe the
Region should coordinate a review with PCMD of the travel expenses
and any overcharges should be recovered from the contractor.
OERR concurred with all three recommendations; however, we
take exception to the anticipated corrective action on recommenda-
tion number two. In its response, OERR contends that based on
PCMD's recent onsite review of the contractor's travel, the con-
tractor is being required to make adjustments to amounts billed
for travel expenses. Our discussion with PCMD disclosed that the
issues addressed in our report were not reviewed by PCMD. There-
fore, we believe an in-depth review of all regions is still
required.
23
-------
Reconunenda t ion s
We recommend that the Regional Administrator of EPA Region
III take corrective action to aggressively monitor and track
project performance of the TAT contractor. This action should
include directing the DPO tos
1. Ensure that the required management reports
are accurate and are used to monitor the
performance of the contractor.
2. Maintain a complete and accurate log showing
the status of TDDs.
3. Conduct Regional contractor office reviews
as required by EPA guidance. Reviews should
be conducted periodically and the checklist
for the reviews provided in the Users' Manual
should be followed.
4. Conduct a review of the contractor's travel
expenses to ensure they comply with the
requirements of the Federal Travel Regula-
tions . Action should be taken to recover
any overcharges from the contractor.
5. Ensure that sufficient documentation is
available to enable the DPO to verify the
accuracy of the contractor's invoices.
We recommend that the Director, OERR:
1. Direct the ERD Project Officer to require
the contractor to provide accurate manage-
ment reports.
2. Review the contractor's travel expenses
for all Regions to ensure they comply
with the requirements of the Federal
Travel Regulations, Action should be
taken to recover any overcharges from
the contractor.
3. Ensure that sufficient documentation
ia available for all Regions to enable
the DPO to verify the accuracy of the
contractor's invoices. Consider modifying
Section G of the contract to require
additional supporting documentation to
enable the DPO to verify invoice costs.
24
-------
3. IMPROPER USE OF CONTRACTOR STAFF FOR PERSONAL SERVICES
Region III did not comply with the Federal Acquisition Regula-
tions (FAR) and the provisions of the Users' Manual by improperly
using contractor staff for personal services. According to the
FAR, personal services occur when contractor personnel appear, in
effect, to be Government employees. We found that Region III
directed professional level contractor personnel to work in the
RRC, under EPA supervision, doing routine administrative tasks,
which makes them appear to be EPA employees. Region III officials
informed us that due to a shortage of EPA administrative support
personnel, they used contractor staff to assist in the operations
of the Response Center. We believe that the use of contractor
personnel to work in the Response Center performing administrative
tasks under the direct supervision of EPA, constituted prohibited
personal services.
The FAR, Part 37 characterizes a personal services contract
by the employer-employee relationship it creates between the
Government and the contractor. EPA is normally required to obtain
its employees by direct hire under competitive appointment pro-
cedures required by civil service laws. Obtaining personal
services by contract, rather than by direct hire, circumvents
these laws.
The FAR also states that Agencies shall not award personal
services contracts unless specifically authorized by statue to do
so. Furthermore, the FAR provides in part that an employer-employee
relationship under a service contract occurs when, as a result of
(1) the contract's terms or (2) the manner of its administration
during performance, contractor personnel are subject to the relatively
continuous supervision and control of a Government officer or
employee. Each contract arrangement must be judged in the light
of its own facts and circumstances, the key question always being:
Will the Government exercise relatively continuous supervision and
control over the contractor personnel performing the contract?
The sporatic unauthorized supervision of only one of a large number
of contractor employees might reasonably be considered not relevant,
while relatively continuous Governmental supervision of a substantial
number of contractor employees would have to be taken strongly
into account. In determining whether or not services are personal
in nature the FAR provides six specific descriptive elements which
should be used as a guide.
These six alements are:
1. Performance is on site.
2. Equipment is furnished by the Government.
25
-------
3. Services are directly applied to the integral
effort of the Agency or an organizational
subpart in furtherance of the assigned function
or mission. '
4. Comparable services are performed by civil
service personnel.
5. The need for the service can be expected to
last beyond one year.
6. The service .requires, direct or indirect,
Government supervision.
The Users' Manual states that the TAT contracts provide
for nonpersonal services. With a nonpersonal services contract,
the TAT contractor would provide an approved resource for EPA in
the accomplishment of their programs while avoiding an actual
employee-employer relationship. Conversely, personal services
contracts are those where the contractor seemingly acts as an
employee of EPA, and EPA maintains the right to direct, supervise,
or define the work to be performed or the manner of performance
on a day-to-day basis. Personal services are not allowed under
the TAT contract. An example of a contract for personal services
would be the furnishing of ordinary, day-to-day administrative
services in an EPA office under EPA supervision, even if only for
a peak work period of two weeks.
Based on our analysis of the available documentation and
discussions with the DPO and contractor personnel, we believe that
when contractor personnel work in the RRC performing adminis-
trative tasks, it is for personal services. The administrative
tasks performed by the TAT contractor personnel in.the RRC meet
all of the six FAR descriptive elements of personal services.
We identified ten TDDs issued during .calendar year 1987
which authorized contractor personnel to perform administrative
tasks in the RRC. During our review of these ten TDDs, we observed
contractor personnel furnishing routine, -administrative services
in an EPA office under EPA supervision, while using EPA equipment
and working alongside EPA staff.
In our discussions with both the former and current DPO, we
were advised that although these administrative services could be
provided by civil service personnel, it was necessary for Region
III to use contractor personnel in the RRC due to a shortage of
SPA staff. We were also informed that the administrative services
provided by the contractor were necessary to the emergency response
cleanup function and directly related to EPA's mission. In addi-
tion, the need for these services can be expected to last for
many years.
26
-------
The following schedule lists the ten TDDs with the descrip-
tion of the services provided along with the estimated hours and
actual hours as of December 31, 1987.
TDD No. Date Description of Services Provided
0138 01/08 Organize and review files
0140 01/08 Develop fact sheet
0146 01/08 Input data and generate reports
0211 02/01 TDD/AOC preparation and tracking
0517 05/13 Develop fact sheets
0604 06/02 Input data and organize files
0633 06/18 Input data
0917 09/15 Organize and review files
1004 10/01 Update charts
1005 10/02 Two week training in response
center
Estimated
1 Hours
6,000
1,300
520
900
100
200
120
100
1,040
2,080
12,360
Actual
Hours
3,129
780
268
1,139
178
12
68
41
384
231
6,230
These ten administrative TDDs,-required a total of 12,360
estimated hours or approximately 6.5 full-time TAT contractor
personnel needed to provide these services (12,360 hours - 1,900
hours/year = 6.5 personnel). Estimated hours were used because
work is still on going and we could not determine final actual
hours at the time of our review.
Although TAT personnel spent a substantial portion of the
above hours working at the RRC, we were informed that duties were ;.
also performed elsewhere under these TDDs. Neither EPA nor contrac-
tor personnel could specifically identify the number of hours
worked in the RRC. Examples of some of the duties performed by
TAT personnel at the RRC are shown below.
Under TDD number 0138, the DPO authorized contractor personnel
to provide services in the RRC which included such vague task
descriptions as organizing and reviewing files, providing logis-
tics support and administrative assistance. Based on the contrac-
tor's financial records, we were able to identify 20 contractor
personnel who charged hours to this TDD. We interviewed eight of
these 20 contractor personnel. Of the eight contractor personnel
interviewed, five (62.5%) informed us that they were supervised
by EPA staff while providing administrative services in the RRC.
One of the contractor personnel, a PL-1 geologist, who charged
676 hours of his time to this TDD/ informed us that he worked at
the RRC for approximately nine months under both the previous and
current contracts. As discussed in the finding entitled "Improvement'
Needed In The Utilization of Contractor Personnel", this individual
27
-------
performed numerous administrative duties under this TDD. The
geologist acknowledged that he was supervised by both the DPO and
the DPO's assistant while working at the RRC.
In some cases TDD number 0138 was used to train new contractor
personnel for a two week period in the RRC learning the response
program. Based on our interviews with five contractor personnel,
we found that there was very little training being done and an
extensive amount of administrative services being performed. We
were also informed of the EPA direction and supervision needed
for the completion of these services. The five contractor personnel
thought that the two weeks was too long a period for professional
level personnel to perform clerical work. In completing this
work, both EPA and the contractor reported that this work was
administrative and routine.
On October 20, 1987, the DPO authorized TDD number 1005
having an estimated 2,080 hours to continue this two week training
program. The TATL acknowledged that because of a shortage of EPA
staff, TAT personnel were being utilized to perform administrative
duties including answering the phone and functioning as an EPA
employee. The TATL believed that EPA needs to hire three full-
time administrative staff to work in the RRC.
TDD number 0146 authorized TAT personnel to provide computer
services at the RRC. The task descriptions on the TDD were very
general and included statements such as "prepare computer program
as further defined by the OSC, input data, generate reports and
prepare report." In our discussions with the assistant TATL, we
were informed that he and his staff were sometimes supervised
while working in the RRC. We were also informed of the problems
with contractor personnel trying to provide computer support to
EPA. The main problem identified was a lack of knowledgeable EPA
staff available to support the RRC and develop programs for
computerized systems. Because of a lack of EPA computer support,
the DPO became increasingly dependent on contractor personnel to
work in the RRC.
In several other cases it was evident by the description of
work performed on the POR that the TATs were being utilized for
personal services. TDD number 0140 authorized TAT personnel to
be used for data compilation and to provide and update statistics
and summaries for the RRC. The task descriptions on the TDD were
very general and included statements such as "research information
on subject as requested by the OSC, and prepare report." The POR
for the period ending May 22, 1987, stated that the TAT assisted
the ERS Chief in compiling weekly, monthly and semiannual fact
sheets for all past and on going CERCLA sites in a timely and well
organized fashion. A total of 20 different contractor personnel
charged 780 hours to this TDD as of December 31, 1987. On another
28
-------
TDD, number 0633, the task description was very vague citing only
"input data." The FOR stated that the TAT was asked to "input and
edit backlogged spill reports to free EPA personnel."
As noted in the examples, we found that in most cases the
statement of work on the TDDs was vague. For the ten TDDs cited
previously, we noted task descriptions which included: (1) update
charts, (2) prepare report, (3) organize and review files, and (4)
develop fact sheet. As noted in the finding entitled "Technical
Direction Needs Improvement", this condition was prevalent in a
substantial number of TDDs. In order to prevent the use of contractor
personnel for personal services, it is imperative that work statements
be clearly defined setting forth exactly what the Government wants
done. These statements must provide all the specifications or
instructions the contractor needs, both to undertake and to complete
the assignment so that further continuous direction is unnecessary.
We understand and agree that there is a permissible range of
allowable dialogue between EPA and contractor personnel. For
example, it is important to determine whether the assigned task
will be performed on time. This discussion is proper as long as
it does not involve the exercise of supervision and control over
the individual employee. However, we believe that the circumstances
in the RRC resulted in personal services. TAT personnel worked on
a continuous basis in the RRC, working side-by-side with EPA
personnel using EPA equipment. Because of the vague task descrip-
tions, EPA would have to exercise continuous supervision and control
to properly ensure that the work was accomplished to its satisfac-
tion. This was confirmed through our discussions with the TAT
personnel. The geologist who worked in the RRC for nine months
stated that he performed various projects and maintained charts
and lists as directed by the DPO.
It is important that the contract be administered in such a
way that control and supervision over the work and discretion of
the techniques which will be used remain solely with the contractor.
Thus, it is essential that EPA provide the contractor with clearly
defined work statements. The greater the technical direction to
the contractor, the greater the responsibility for successful
performance is assumed by the Government.
Agency Comments
The Region does not agree that the contract is improperly
being used to procure personal services. The ten TDOs discussed
in the audit finding support the OSC and his overall effort to
ensure effective site management. With a constant demand for
information contained in site and program files, technical and
administrative support: to keep files orderly and accessible
29
-------
increases the Region's ability to manage and respond to these
demands. Interaction between EPA and TAT personnel does not
constitute direct supervision. Also, professional administra-
tive support is provided for in the contract. Attachment A
of the contract provides for a "Computer Programmer/Administra-
tive Assistant" to be part of the TAT.
The Region maintains that programing and reviewing files
is a critical function requiring specific knowledge of EPA rules
and is a technical function supported by formal and informal file
maintenance procedures. Also, the audit finding contains several
statements attributed to contractor personnel concluding they were
supervised by EPA staff. The Region believes the TATs, may not
have understood the context of the IG questions. Specifically,
the Region was advised by the TATL that the statement about the
RRC staffing needs attributed to him was taken out of context and
not accurate.
The Region further maintains that although the TAT contract
was not used for personal services, there is a concern that any-
one including the.IG would form an impression that personal ser-
vices are being performed. Consequently, for a number of months
the Region has been working to eliminate the long-term stationing
of TATs in the RRC by recruiting other personnel to perform these
necessary functions. The Region can now report that as of June
30, 1988, the TATs have been removed from stationing within the
RRC on a routine basis. Duties being performed in the Region
will, whenever practical be done on site-or at the TAT office.
In addition, the Region will enhance the TDD statements of work
and provide more details.
OERR agrees that if personal services were performed by
the TAT, they should be discontinued since personal services
are not allowed under the contract. In the emergency response
program, there is a need for close continuous communication
and interaction between all emergency response personnel for
effective communication and oversight. This does not constitute
direct supervision.
Audi tor's Comments
We disagree with the Region and believe that contractor
personnel were used for personal services. The ten TDDs authorized
administrative tasks in the RRC. The conditions cited in the
finding met all of the descriptive elements for personal services
as presented in the FAR. The TATs assigned to the RRC acknowledged
that they were supervised by EPA staff. Both the former and cur-
rent DPOs confirmed that TATs were utilized in the RRC due to a
shortage of EPA personnel.
30
-------
We also do not believe the statement attributed to the TATL
that EPA should hire administrative staff to work in the RRC was
taken "out of context. Two members of the OIG were present when
the TATL expressed dissatisfaction with the use of TATs in the
RRC.
Most of the work in the RRC was not affiliated with organiz-
ing and reviewing files, but related to miscellaneous administra-
tive duties as described in the finding. We do not question the
fact that computer programmers, as well as scientists, geologists
or technicians are allowed by the contract. However, we take
exception to the use of these personnel on a continued basis in
the RRC for personal services. The fact that the task descrip-
tions were vague along with the other factors described in the
finding contributed to this situation.
We believe that the Region's action to eliminate the long-
term stationing of TATs in the RRC should correct the conditions
cited in our report. Regional personnel stated that clerical
personnel recruited from the American Association of Retired
Persons will be used to replace the TATs in the RRC. The
Region's action to provide more details on the TDDs should also
help correct the conditions cited in the report.
Recommendations
We recommend that the Regional Administrator of EPA Region
III:
1. Discontinue the use of TAT contractor
personnel for personal services.
2. Establish procedures to preclude the future
use of contractor personnel to provide
personal services. This includes ensuring
that TDDs contain clearly defined work
statements so that the contractor can
undertake and complete the assignment
without continuous direction.
31
-------
4. TECHNICAL DIRECTION NEEDS IMPROVEMENT
Region III needs to improve its technical direction of the
contractor. The principal mechanism for directing the contrac-
tor is by issuance of a TDD. The TDD should provide the contractor
with a clear understanding of the services that are required. In
our review of the administration of TDDs we found several problems
which included: (1) inadequate preparation, (2) delayed processing,
and (3) insufficient direction. We believe that these deficiencies
stem from the fact that the DPO is not available on a full-time
basis to properly issue and manage technical direction. Similar
deficiencies were cited in both an OIG survey report dated April
18, 1984, and the results of a review of Region III by Headquarters
ERD dated October 29, 1984. The absence of clear, complete work
authorizations, impedes efficient management of the contractor by
the Region. Also, EPA may not be in a position to hold the contractor
accountable or establish a record of the tasks it directed the
contractor to perform. A future consequence of incomplete TDDs is
that the Agency may not have complete records to recover cleanup
costs under Superfund.
Both the contrac.t and the Users' Manual provide detailed
procedures for initiating and completing work under TAT contracts.
The procedures provide that the DPO is the only person authorized
to prepare and issue TDDs in the Region. The TDD should include
background data, the scope of work, a schedule of deliverables, an
estimate of time and costs required to perform the work, and 'other
related information.
During calendar year 1987, Region III processed 480 TDDs.
Of these, we reviewed the 323 TDDs issued during the seven month
period ending July 31, 1987. Our review disclosed several critical
deficiencies as detailed below.
Unauthorized Preparation and Delayed Processing of TDDs
Region III did not always comply with the requirements in the
contract and related guidance concerning technical'direction.
The contract requires that technical direction be issued by the
DPO. Any verbal instructions are to be confirmed in writing by
the DPO within five days to ensure that the contractor understands
the direction and work authorized.
Our review of the 323 TDDs revealed the following:
o The contractor rather than the DPO is
printing and issuing all TDDs. This is
contrary to both the contract and the
Users' Manual, Chapter 5, which provides
that only the DPO can issue TDDs.
32
-------
o Region III developed and is issuing a Tasking
Assignment Record (TAR) as a prerequisite to
all TDDs. Although the DPO is using the TAR,
which is a checklist used to initiate technical
direction, this process was not approved by
Headquarters. The TAR is not part of the
contract and, adds another form to the process.
Also, contractor personnel stated that other
regions are now contemplating using the TAR.
Both contractor and EPA personnel stated that
they were concerned over use of the TAR from
a legal standpoint.
o The DPO did not authorize TDDs within five
days of directing the contractor to proceed
with the task as required by the contract
and the Users' Manual. All 323 TDDs were
authorized by the DPO after the five day
requirement. In 112 cases it took at least
two months for the DPO to sign and authorize
work which had already started. In another
39 cases the work was actually completed when
the DPO finally authorized the work by signing
the TDD.
Insufficient Direction and Documentation
Region III did not provide sufficient detail in the TDD to
accurately reflect the direction given or the work authorized.
The need for complete and well documented TDDs is essential so
that there is a clear understanding by the contractor of the work
authorized. The Users' Manual identifies three important points
for the DPO to keep in mind when preparing a TDD. First, the DPO
must be as specific as possible in describing the scope of work to
be performed by the contractor. Second, the DPO must clearly
indicate contractor reporting requirements. Finally, it is ex-
tremely important that the DPO include in the TDD realistic esti-
mates for technical hours and costs needed to accomplish the
assignment.
Our examination of the 323 TDDs disclosed the following:
o The DPO did not specifically describe
the scope of work to be performed. In
our review of the general task description
(box 9) and the specific task elements (box
10), we found that the tasks described
were not detailed. We noted descriptions
that were only one or two words, providing
only a vague outline of the work. For
33
-------
example, some descriptions were: "trip
report", "prepare report", "organize files",
and "draft issue paper". The Users' Manual
identifies the need to elaborate on task
descriptions to provide the contractor with
a clear understanding of the objectives,
expected results, and required deliverab'les.
The DPO did not: (1) indicate the desired
contractor reporting requirements, (2)
establish interim deadlines, and (3) establish
realistic priorities. We found that the DPO
failed to identify the needed reporting require-
ments (box 12). The Users' Manual provides
that the DPO should indicate the type of end
product desired for each TDD and that ad-
ditional information can be provided in the
comments section (box 13). We found that
there was little use of the comments section.
In addition, we found that the DPO did not
establish or review interim deadlines (box 11)
for any of the 323 TDDs. The TDD reporting re-
quirements and interim deadlines must be spell-
ed out so that the degree of detail provided
facilitates accomplishment of the work. Final-
ly, we noted that high priority (box 3) was
checked on most of the TDDs. High priority
should be checked only when immediate action
is required.
The DPO did not develop realistic estimates
of costs needed to accomplish the work. In
our review of the estimated costs (box 9A),
we found that the DPO failed to estimate the
costs for any of the TDDs reviewed. The
Users' Manual states that the DPO is respon-
sible for ensuring that realistic estimates
of technical hours and costs be included in
the TDD. These estimates should be used in
several important ways to ensure that the
contractor performs efficiently. The
estimates can serve as the standard for
individual TDDs. The actual costs and hours
can then be compared with the estimates.
Any large differences may be indicative of
problems and should be reviewed by the DPO.
Next, the estimates used in combination with
completion dates can help to identify the
need.for overtime to complete the task.
Since the contract limits the overtime which
34
-------
may be charged, overtime must be monitored
and controlled. Finally, use of the estimates
provides the basis for comparison of total
estimated hours for all TDDs with the
total technical hours available. The dif-
ference between the two figures will indicate
whether the DPO is optimizing available con-
tractor resources.
Subsequent to our audit, we did note some improvement in the
completion of the TDD forms. The estimated costs and interim
deadlines are now being completed.
The OIG, in a survey report dated April 18, 1984, of EPA's
management of the previous TAT contract, cited many of the same
discrepancies. As a result of this survey, Headquarters ERD reviewed
Region III. Their report dated October 29, 1984, cited many of
the same deficiencies as were noted during this audit including:
o The contractor, rather than the DPO, was
preparing the TDDs.
o TDDs were not confirmed within five days
and in some cases, TDDs were not signed
until after work was completed.
o Many TDDs consistently lacked certain
information, including estimated costs.
o Task descriptions on many TDDs were
vague.
In Region III, the DPO for the TAT contract also functions
as the DPO for the Emergency Response Cleanup Services (ERGS)
contract. As DPO for these two contracts, he is responsible for
millions of dollars of contracted work each year. Also, the DPO
has additional responsibilities including functioning as the
Regional Safety Officer and as an OSC. The DPO informed us that
these additional responsibilities take him away from his office
and use up a substantial portion of his time. Because the DPO was
required to work at removal sites as an OSC for extensive periods,
he could not properly function as the DPO for the TAT contract.
For example, we found groups of TDDs that were delayed because the
DPO was not available to process them. These TDDs were reviewed
and approved all at one time (batch processing). Examples of
batch processing include:
o The DPO signed and authorized 71 different TDDs
on May 4, 1987.
35
-------
o The DPO signed and authorized 53 different TDDs
on May 13, 1987.
Instead of signing and authorizing the work on a daily or weekly
basis, these TDDs were delayed for weeks until the DPO was avail-
able to process groups of them in one day. In response to our
concern regarding the unavailability of the DPO to authorize and
monitor work, the DPO in December 1987, requested that designators
be appointed to sign TDDs in his absence. This is a requirement
of the Users' Manual, Chapter 5.
We believe that a full-time DPO is needed to provide proper
technical direction to the contractor. The fact that the DPO is
not available on a full-time basis may result in the contractor
not receiving the technical direction required to ensure effective
utilization of personnel and completion of the most essential
tasks. In addition, emergency response cleanup projects need to
be properly documented with a complete TDD in order to enable EPA
to better support cost recovery actions against .responsible parties.
To recover such expenditures, the Agency must have evidence that
the work was ordered and performed. Also, the TDD should be used
as a tool to evaluate whether the contractor is performing effi-
ciently and is providing the maximum amount of services possible
for the funds expended.
Agency Comments
The Region disagreed with recommendation number one and
agreed with recommendation numbers two and three. Subsequently,
the Region agreed to take corrective action on recommendation
number one.
The Region did not concur with recommendation number one
that a full-time DPO was needed at this time. Although improve-
ment is needed, much of the delay in the timeliness of TDDs and
AOCs was caused by a significant expansion in TAT and an increase
in workload during the first year of the contract. Improvements
in contract administration are being made and when complete, the
overall technical direction given to the contract will be enhanced
and more efficient. The Region stated that a full-time DPO would
be reconsidered in approximately six months.
Subsequently, the Region agreed to implement the recommenda-
tion. In an ERD report dated July 8, 1988, resulting from a
management review of Region III a full-time DPO was also recom-
mended. The Region's response to the ERD report dated September
7, 1988, stated that a full-time person will be dedicated solely to
DPO responsibilities in the Removal Program. The Region antici-
pates recruiting and filling this position during the first quarter
of FY 89.
36
-------
The Region concurred with recommendation numbers two and
three and agreed that the'DPO should follow technical direction
guidelines. However, the Region stated that the contractor does
not prepare TDDs. TDDs are sometimes verbally issued by the DPO
and the contractor will type the information on the''TDD forms.
The TAR, which is an internal management tool, is used to assist
the DPO in tracking TDDs and also provides documentation for
verbal TDDs. The Region is not aware of any prohibition regarding
the use of the TAR. OERR has advised that the DPO can develop
other internal management tools and systems to assist in managing
the requirements of the contract. The Region agrees that some
TDDs have vague descriptions; however, it is not always possible
to be more specific. The nature of the program requires quick
action and the task descriptions are commonly used and understood
by all parties.
OERR in its response agreed that a full-time DPO was required.
With regard to following the technical direction guidelines, OERR
stated that the TAT Users' Manual is guidance to help the DPO and
not mandatory procedures which must be followed.
Auditor's Comments
We believe the proposed action regarding recommendation number
one should correct the conditions cited in the report. Although
the Region has agreed to implement the recommendation, we are
leaving it in the report until the action has been taken.
Although the Region agreed with recommendation,numbers two
and three,'we partially disagree with the anticipated corrective
action. The Region agrees that the DPO should follow technical
direction guidelines. However, the Regional response states (1)
that the contractor does not prepare the TDDs, (2) the use of the
TAR is justified, and (3) task descriptions are not always vague.
As detailed in the finding, we found that the Region did not
comply with the requirements of the contract and the Users' Manual
regarding the above issues. In fact, ERD in its report, dated
July 8, 1988, commented on these same issues. The report stated:
(1) the TAT contractor is still completing TDDs, which is contrary
to the procedures specified in the Users' Manual; (2) the Region
uses a TAR form in lieu of the TDD which needs to be examined
further by ERD to ensure that it is not inconsistent with the
intent of the contract; and (3) the task descriptions on many
TDDs are too vague. We believe that the three issues identified
above must be fully addressed and necessary corrective action
taken to ensure compliance with the contract and Users' Manual.
37
-------
We also take exception to OERR's comment that the Users'
Manual is guidance and not mandatory procedures which must be
followed. We believe that the Users' Manual provides a good
reference in describing the roles and responsibilities of all
parties and the necessary procedures and requirements that should
be adhered to in managing the contract. The procedures and require-
ments in the Manual basically mirror those in the contract. Also,
SRD, in conducting the reviews of the various regions, uses the
Manual as guidance in recommending corrective action.
Recommenda t ions_
We recommend that the Regional Administrator of EPA Region
III take corrective action to improve the overall technical
direction provided to the contractor. This action should include:
1. Appointing a full-time DPO to properly
administer the contract.
2. Directing the DPO to follow the technical
direction guidelines stipulated in the
contract and the Users' Manual. This
would assist in determining if work is
properly directed, fully documented, and
whether the contractor is performing
efficiently.
3. Requesting Headquarters approval regarding
the use of the contractor to prepare TDDs-
and the use of the TAR.
38
-------
5. IMPROVED EVALUATION PROCEDURES NEEDED
Evaluation procedures need to be followed to ensure that the
award fees paid to the contractor are justified. For the
first two rating periods ending September 30, 1987, the contractor
received over 80 percent of the maximum award fee available
($59,152 of $73,480) for demonstrated performance in Region III.
Our review disclosed that Region III did not: (1) substantiate
evaluations as to how and why a rating was meritorious or deficient,
and (2} ensure that Acknowledgement of Completion/Performance
Observation Reports (AOC/PQRs) were submitted within ten days of
the task being completed. We believe these conditions occurred
because the Region did not place a high priority on" these evalua-
tions. Lack of sufficient support for contractor ratings and
late submission of AOCs were also noted in a management - review
performed by ERD in 1984. We believe that these problems demon-
strated that Region III did not adequately perform the evaluation
process in order to justify the award fee paid.
The AOC/POR is the basis by which the contractor earns an
award fee. The AOC serves as the document which signifies comple-
tion of the assignment. The POR provides for the contractor's
assessment of performance on the assignment. The contract provides
for a base fee plus a variable award fee. The award fee is two
percent of the total estimated cost of the contract. For the
first two fating periods ending May 22, 1987 and September 30,
1987", the contractor received $195,890 of the $282,614 available
in award fees for all regions in Zone I. The contractor has the
potential to earn $2..4 million in award fees in Zone 1 based on
the evaluations of work performed over the life of the contract.
The Users' Manual and the contract provide guidance to be
followed by both EPA and TAT personnel in preparing these evaluations
using an AOC/POR two part form. Part I, which is initiated by the
TATL should be completed within ten days of task completion, and
provides for a summary of the work performed by the contractor and
a rating of the contractor's performance. Part II, "Evaluation
Criteria Rating Worksheet" is completed by the performance monitor
(DPO or OSC). The individual criteria by which the contractor's
performance is evaluated is listed on this form. Each criteria is
rated from one (unsatisfactory) to five (exceptional) with an
average overall rating given for the entire assignment. Guidelines
are provided to assist the rater in evaluating the cor.-.ractor's
performance. Included are examples of completed PORs, criteria
and rating guidelines for evaluating performance. For each criteria
rated, the performance monitor should provide comments that justify
the rating given and the tone of the comments should be consistent
with the numerical rating.
39
-------
The guidance provides that the evaluation should document
how and why a performance was meritorious or deficient. The
documentation should provide the reader with a clear understanding
of the significance of the observation and its impact. At a
minimum, EPA personnel responsible for preparing PORs should
complete the evaluation as soon as work requested by a TDD is
completed in order to aid in the recall of the contractor's
performance. The guidance also requires each Region to designate
a FOR Coordinator who has prime responsibility for assessing and
validating the reports to ensure that they have been completed
accurately. All PORs completed during a rating period' are then
sent to a Headquarters Evaluation Coordinator who should review
the information submitted by the Region. The information is then
sent to the Performance Evaluation Board (PEB) in Headquarters,
where the PORs are assigned an overall rating based on an in-depth
review of the information contained in the performance evaluation
package.
The amount of award fee is determined using a weighted
average calculated by multiplying the Headquarters rating by the
number of hours expended by the contractor to complete the work
covered by the POR.
Evaluations Do Not Document Performance
We found that Region Ill's evaluations did not provide
substantive comments for the numerical ratings given. We reviewed
all 123 PORs that were submitted to the PEB at the second rating
period ending September 30, 1987. In general, we found that the
evaluations were not performed in accordance with both the guide-
lines and examples as contained in both the contract and Users'
Manual. Comments provided by Region III performance monitors did
not substantiate the numerical rating given. Despite the lack of
substantive comments, the overall ratings given by Region III were
well above average as shown below.
Region ^
Rating
5
4
3
2
Number
of
POR's
22
66
33
2
Number of
Hours
Rated
6,925
18,310
4,677
56
Overall
Rating
Exceptional
Exceeds Expectations
Satisfactory
Marginal
We also noted that the Region III ratings for the prior
rating period ending May 22, 1987, were well above average. In
fact, none of the 128 PORs received a rating of less than
satisfactory. Despite the lack of detailed support for ratings,
the PEB generally concurred with the rating given by the Region
40
-------
and the contractor was awarded the fee accordingly. In addition,
we found the Region generally concurred with the self appraisals
given by the contractor.
We performed an in-depth review of the AOC/PORs for the 20
site assessments included as part of Region Ill's evaluation
package submitted to the PEB for the period ending September 30,
1987. We found that in all cases, the comments did not substantiate
the rating given. The following is an example of an evaluation
performed on a site assessment at Pennzoil Refinery that received
an overall rating of five with little justification for the highest
rating achieved.
EVALUATION CRITERIA RATING WORKSHEET
PERFORMANCE CRITERIA
Project Planning
Technical Competence
and Innovation
Schedule and Cost
Controls
Reporting
Resource Utilization
Effort
RATING
5
5
5
5
5
5
SUPPORTING COMMENTS
good planning
effective analysis and
technical competence
good
reports on time
good
good and effective
response
As shown, the supporting comments on Part II of the AOC/POR
were vague and lacked any specifics as to why an exceptional rating
was given. For example according to applicable guidelines, a
rating of five for project planning should detail exactly how the
contractor's planning minimized costs. To receive a five for
schedule and cost controls, the original schedule must be met in
spite of major operational impediments. To earn a five for reporting,
the reports should provide such insight into key problems and
potential solutions as to serve as a master plan for corrective
action, and no. rewriting of the report is required by EPA.
In other examples, ratings of five were given, supported by
such comments as "good, excellent and reports on time." In addition,
we found that the DPO's observations as provided on Part I of AOC/
POR were also vague and were not descriptive.
We also noted that a rating of four (exceeds expectations)
was given on several overhead and administrative support PORs. A
total of 13,304 hours were expended during the two rating periods
41
-------
on tasks which included among other things, attendance at meetings,
preparing timesheets, typing and filing. We do not believe that
the comments on the PORs adequately supported the ratings given
especially in view of the significant number of hours rated for
which the contractor received his award fee.
Compounding rating problems, is the practice of OSCs batch
evaluating all their tasks on the same day. For example, our
review of the site assessments evaluated during the second rating
period showed one OSC who evaluated all seven of his tasks on the
same day, September 29, 1987. Most of these evaluations contained
only the word, "good", in the supporting comments column. Evalua-
tions that are prepared by OSCs within a specified time frame would
better reflect the performance of the contractor.
We believe that the inadequacies of the Region III evalua-
tions should have been noted by the Regional FOR Coordinator when
validating the reports for accuracy. These discrepancies were
also apparently not noted by the Headquarters Evaluation Coordinator
when reviewing the package prior to submittal to the FEB. We
noted that the Headquarters' review group generally agreed with
the Region's FOR submissions.
An ERD Management Review Report dated October 29, 1984, also
noted that the narrative evaluations on some PORs lacked sufficient
support.
Untimely Submittal of AOC/PORs
Region III did not ensure that the contractor closed out
and evaluated TDDs in a timely manner. Our review of the evaluation
process showed that the contractor did not complete the AOC/PORs
within ten working days of task completion as required by the
contract and Users' Manual. Discussions with Regional personnel
revealed that the determination of when a project is complete
differs with each individual. For example, this may occur when a
final sample has been taken or a report issued. This determination
is usually left up to the contractor.
We reviewed 36 TDDs that were issued in January 1987. Of
these, only one had a corresponding AOC/POR that was signed and
dated by the TATL within the required time of ten working days of
completing the task. Twenty of the remaining TDDs averaged 85
workdays from the completion of work under the TDDs to the AOC/POR
being signed. Of the remaining 15 TDDs, 14 had not been signed by
the TATL at the time of our review for an average delay of three
months, and one was signed 10 days before the project was completed.
We reviewed an additional 31 TDDs issued in June 1987. We
found that for 26, the AOC/POR was not signed by the TATL until
an average of 44 days after the project was completed. For the
42
-------
remaining 5 TDDs, the AOC/POR had still not been signed as of
April 21, 1988, an average of 213 days from completion of the
assignment. The ERD Management Review Report dated October 29,
1984, cited late processing of AOCs.
Our review has also shown that EPA did not prepare its
evaluation of the contractor's work when they received the completed
AOC/POR from the contractor. Part II of the POR should be completed
by the OSCs as soon as work requested by a TDD is finished. Per-
forming the review immediately upon completion aids the OSCs
recall of the contractor's performance. Our review of the 36 TDDs
issued in January showed that 20 (55%) were signed by the DPO one
month after the TATL had signed the AOC, an average of 85 days
late. Based on these time frames, Region III personnel had to
have a minimum four month recall of performance after the work was
completed. During the second review, we found that this condition
improved since the DPO signed the AOC/POR within an average of
seven days after the TATL. Trying to recall contractor performance
on one project is difficult. Multiplying this by the many projects
makes the task much more difficult and unrealistic.
Conclusion
Region III did not adequately perform the evaluation process
to ensure that the award fee received by the contractor was
warranted. The award fee should be based on demonstrated perfor-
mance. Our review has shown that evaluations did not provide
adequate justification for the numerical ratings given. Also, we
found that AOC/PORs were not processed on a timely basis. These
problems raise the question as to how realistic and adequate the
evaluations were performed and the manner in which the process
was administered. Similar conditions were noted in an ERD Manage-
ment Review in 1984. Evaluation procedures need to be followed
to ensure that the award fee granted to the contractor is justified.
Agency Comments
The Region agreed with both recommendations.
The Region agrees that additional comments are necessary to
support the numerical rating and this is being reiterated to all
OSCs. The Region believes the award fees were fairly distributed
and that a high priority was placed on the evaluations as evidenced
by the high percentage of hours rated.
Regarding recommendation number two, the DPO has reminded the
TATL of his responsibility to submit timely AOC/PORs. All OSCs
will be advised of their responsibility for prompt evaluations.
The Region believed that delayed receipt did not adversely affect
the evaluations since all AOC/PORs were completed by the end of
the rating period.
43
-------
OERR agreed with both recommendations.
ERD's Contract Management Review report on Region III, dated
July 8, 1988, also recommends that Part II of the FOR be more
detailed to explain and justify the ratings given. Also', a cover
memorandum is submitted with the ratings delineating highlights,
significant events or problems, and provides overall evaluation of
contract performance. This is used in arriving at the final
score and should be considered by the IG.
Regarding recommendation number two, the ERD review of the
Region addressed the preparation of AOC/PORs within the ten day
turnaround time. The Regions have been reminded to ensure that
AOC/PORs are prepared promptly.
Auditors Comments
The actions proposed by the Region should correct the condi-
tions cited in our report.
Regarding recommendation number one to OERR, there was no
indication in the response of the specific action taken to direct
the DPO or OSC for all Regions to provide substantive comments
which support the numerical ratings given. However, the Director,
ERD, at the exit conference held on September 15, 1988, stated
that all Regions will be directed to provide substantive comments.
OERR's response to the recommendations should correct the
conditions cited in the report.
Rec ommenda t i on s
We recommend that the Regional Administrator of EPA Region III
1. Ensure that evaluations are properly
supported to provide substantive comments
which substantiate the ratings given.
2. Direct the DPO to ensure .that AOC/PORs
are prepared within ten days of task
completion. This will aid in expediting
the close out and evaluation process
and provide a timely and realistic
evaluation to ensure that the fee awarded
is warranted.
44
-------
We recommend that the Director, OERR:
1. Direct the DPO or OSC for all Regions
to provide substantive comments which
support the numerical ratings given.
2. Instruct the DPO for all Regions- to
follow-up with the contractor when
AOC/PORs are not received after ten
days'of task completion. This will
aid in expediting the close out and
evaluation process and provide a timely
and realistic evaluation to ensure
that the fee awarded is warranted.
45
-------
6. UNQUALIFIED TAT PERSONNEL ASSIGNED TO EPA •
The contractor did not always provide personnel who possessed I
the necessary education and experience as required by the contract.
We examined the resumes of all 40 contractor personnel who were
assigned to Region III. Our review identified four employees who
did not possess the required qualifications. Consequently, EPA
was overbilled approximately $14,414 for these unqualified contrac-
tor personnel and did not receive the experienced technical as-
sistance needed to respond to removal and prevention activities.
The contract provides that all professional and technical
personnel hired as TAT members are required to have the correspond-
ing education and experience requirements for their particular
professional level. Specifically, Section H-15 of the contract
requires a minimum of a BS degree with zero to three years exper-
ience for a PL-1 and a BS degree and three to eight years experience
for a PL-2. For Technical Level (TL) personnel, there is no formal
educational requirement, but the required experience increases
with each level. According to the Users' Manual, Exhibit II-l, the
experience must be relevant in nature.
The four instances where contractor personnel did not possess
the required qualifications for their positions are listed-below.
PL-2 Environmental Geologist/Scientist
This person possesses a BS Degree in
Industrial Safety, rather than in the
required technical area and approx-
imately three years of work experience.
However, only one year was relevant to
the technical area, relating to the EPA
contract. The other two years work
experience was gained as a claims service
representative for an insurance company.
PL-1 Biologist/Hvdrologist
This person possesses a degree in
Business Administration, but she is
listed as a biologist on the personnel
roster. Her past employment history
consisted primarily of general office/
administrative related work. Her
present position with the contractor
entails maintaining the TDD log and
other duties which are entirely
clerical. However, Section H-13 of
the contract states that administrative
46
-------
support personnel should not be included
as TAT members. Consequently, she is
performing non-technical administra-
tive duties and she is mis-classified
as a Biologist.
PL-1 Computer Programmer
This person possesses an Associate Degree
in Data Processing, although a BS degree
is required for a PL-1. There is no
evidence that he is currently pursuing
a four year BS degree.
TL-2 Environmental Technician
This person has approximately five
years work experience. However, none
of the experience is related to an
environmental field. It includes
positions as a nurse's aide and
salesperson. A TL-2 is required to
have a minimum of two years relevant
experience.
The contractor has failed to adhere to the contract require-
ments pertaining to the qualifications necessary for employment
as a TAT member. We have estimated that EPA has been overbilled
approximately $14,414 (5,040 hours x average excess cost of $2.86
per hour) as a result of the contractor using personnel who fail
to meet the necessary criteria.
It is the responsibility of the PO in ERD to assure that the
contractor provides qualified personnel. The Users' Manual provides
that among the responsibilities of the PO is to assess the adequacy
of contract resources including personnel. We believe that ERD
should provide guidance relative to the DPO reviewing the education
and experience of contractor personnel to ensure that they are
qualified. The Region in its response to the preliminary finding
stated that they will work with Headquarters to determine the
appropriate procedures and responsibilities to perform this review.
Agency Comments
OERR did not concur with recommendation number one. Accord-
ing to the TAT contract, the PO is only required to review resumes
for key personnel. The key personnel are the members of the Zone
Program Management Office, and TAT Leader positions for each
Region. The people specified in the report are not key personnel.
47
-------
OERR concurred with recommendation number two. Based on
discussions with the DPO and the contractor, it seems that the
cited examples are instances where positions were reclassified and
paperwork was not yet issued. Therefore, OERR will discuss the
instances noted in the OIG report with the DPO and the contractor
and take appropriate action.
Auditor's Continents
The response does not address the fact that the contractor is
not providing personnel with the education and experience stipulated
in the contract. We believe it is important that all resumes be
reviewed to ensure that the requirements of the contract are met.
If necessary, we believe this requirement should be incorporated
into the contract and Users' Manual.
ERD in response to the preliminary finding concurred that
more attention should be given to the experience and education of
contractor personnel. ERD suggested that the recommendation be
directed to Headquarters since the contracting officer and project
officer have responsibility for overseeing aspects of the contrac-
tor's performance. The Director, ERD at- the exit conference held
on September 15, 1988, agreed that the resumes of other than key
personnel should be reviewed. We have revised our recommendation
to include the requirement for review of the qualifications of
all TAT personnel.
Regarding recommendation number two, we believe that OERR
should ensure that any excess billing resulting from misclassified
personnel be recovered from the contractor.
Recommendation
We recommend that the Director, OERR:
1. Emphasize to the PO that resumes must
be obtained from the contractor and
reviewed. This will ensure that the
contractor employs personnel on EPA
projects whose experience and education
are in accordance with contract requirements.
If necessary, the contract and Users'
Manual should be amended to include the
requirement to review the resumes of all
professional contractor personnel.
2. Determine whether any overcharges resulted
from the contractor billing for services
performed by unqualified contractor personnel.
Take necessary action to recover any overcharges.
48
-------
7- PROCEDURES FOR SPECIAL PROJECTS SHOULD BE FOLLOWED
Region III did not follow procedures to properly administer
and manage the issuance of TDDs for special projects. These TDDs-
should be utilized to provide EPA, during.emergency removal activi-
ties, with specialized resources not routinely available from the
contractor. Our review for the nine month period ending September
30, 1987, encompassed 22 TDDs with estimated costs of $130,461.
This review disclosed the following: (1) the procurement of services
not allowed by the contract, and (2) a lack of proper review and
authorization. We believe that this condition resulted because of
the lack of adequate oversight and control by the DPO. Improvement
in the areas cited above is essential to ensure that only authorized
purchases are made and proper approval is obtained in accordance
with prescribed procedures.
The contract provides for a pool of funds to be used for
special projects. The estimated cost of special projects for all
regions within Zone 1 was $3.2 million throughout the life of the
contract. The contract specifies that this pool of funds shall
not be expended for anything other than special projects as
defined by the Statement of Work.
Both the contract and the Users' Manual state that the
objective of special projects shall be to provide EPA with any
specialized equipment, personnel and services not routinely avail-
able from the contractor. This specialized equipment and personnel
should be used to technically support the EPA project monitors,
i.e., the OSC.
The guidance further provides that for special projects
estimated to cost under $10,000, approval authority is granted to
the DPO or PO. In instances where multiple special projects are
issued for the same site, the DPO's authority is extended to a
ceiling of $15,000 per site. For special projects estimated to
cost $10,000 or more or where the total of all special projects at
a site exceeds $15,000, approval authority must be obtained from
both the Contracting Officer (CO) and the PO. In no event, will
the contractor proceed with the effort until a TDD is issued by
the DPO.
Procurement of Services Not Allowed by the Contract
We identified eight TDDs having estimated costs of $40,436
issued for services which do not appear to meet the criteria for
special projects as contained in both the contract and the Users'
Manual. The guidance provides examples of the type of specialized
equipment, personnel or services to be utilized to support OSCs.
Examples include such services as (1) renting of all-terrain
vehicles, (2) drilling or sampling of extraction wells, and (3)
retaining expert witnesses as may be required.
49
-------
We believe that the services provided on the eight TDDs were
outside the scope of the special projects clause of the contract.
For example on one TDD, EPA decals were printed by the contractor
for $6,000. Three other TDDs totaling $21,300 were expended by
the contractor for Title III requirements under SARA which estab-
lished requirements for right-to-know reporting on.hazardous and
toxic chemicals. These TDDs were for a trip report and speech, a
citizens fact sheet and a pilot study to develop a model program
and were issued in April, May and August 1987. We also noted that
work relative to Title III was performed by contractor personnel
under a regular TDD in February and March 1987. We could not
determine the reason for also performing this work as a special
project. In another case, a TDD authorized $6,000 for the con-
tractor to complete a cost analysis for an anticipated monthly
bill to local residents for a proposed newly formed municipal
water supply system. Finally, another TDD authorized $5,000 for
the completion of an OSC report from the previous contract. We
believe that the above cited instances are clearly beyond the
scope of special projects as specified in the contract. The
improper use of special project funding depletes the pool earmarked
specifically to assist and support OSCs with specialized resources
during emergency removal activities.
Lack of Proper Review and Authorization
We found that Region III did not adhere to procedures when
issuing TDDs for special projects. . Both the contract and
Users' Manual provide that in no event will the contractor proceed
with the effort until a TDD is issued by the DPO. Also, higher
level approval is required, depending on the amount of the special
project.
Our review of the 22 TDDs disclosed that in all cases the
DPO or PO signed the TDD subsequent to initiation of the project.
The number of days ranged from four to 180 with the average being
74 days after the project was initiated. For 13 of the 22, the
TDD was signed an average of 60 days subsequent to completion of
the work. We also noted that for three TDDs, each exceeding
$15,000, the CO did not sign the TDD as required.
We attribute the weaknesses described throughout this finding
to the lack of proper oversight by the DPO. The DPO at Region III
also functions as an OSC which necessitates performing a substantial
portion of his duties away from the office. The Region maintains
that special project TDDs cannot be delayed because of the need
for the DPO to sign the TDD. We believe these factors contributed
to this situation.
50
-------
Agency Comments
The Region disagreed with recommendation numbers one and
three and agreed with recommendation number two. Subsequently,
the Region agreed with recommendation number three.
The Region did not concur with recommendation'number one
that the TDDs which were cited in the finding are improper
special projects. The Region calls attention to the fact that
the language in both the contract and Users' Manual allows the
DPO considerable discretion in obtaining items not routinely
available in a specific TAT. The Users' Manual provides a list
of special support services, but also states that services are
not limited to these items. The Region does acknowledge that
under certain circumstances the use of special projects may
appear inappropriate. There is currently an informal delibera-
tion process in which the OSC and DPO discuss the selection of
special projects. The Region further stated that a future
practice will be to provide additional documentation and rational
to support the use of special projects.
OERR supported the Region's position and also stated that
the PO will provide explanations to the DPOs concerning special
project services as intended under the TAT contract.
The Region concurred with recommendation number two and agreed
that the written TDD should be prepared and executed expeditiously.
The Region did state that the contract does allow for verbal TDDs
with a subsequent written TDD. However, to remedy"the situation,
the Region has recently made provisions for alternates to approve
the TDDs in the event the DPO is absent. Additionally, other
measures are being considered which will allow the DPO more time
to devote in monitoring the contractor.
The Region in its response did not concur with recommendation
number three that a full-time DPO is needed to manage the contract.
Subsequently, the Region agreed to take corrective action. See
Region's response to finding four, recommendation number one.
Auditor's Comments
We do not agree that the TDDs described in the finding are
appropriate special projects. We believe that the special projects
specified in our report did not meet the intent of both the contract
and the Users' Manual in view of the examples cited in this guidance.
The language, in our opinion, affords the DPO excessive discretion
regarding the use of special projects. We believe that such language
has introduced a degree of subjectively to this area which has
compromised the original intent of special projects.
51
-------
During an exit conference on September 15, 1988, the Director,
ERD agreed that the language in both the contract and Users'
Manual allows for varying interpretation regarding the type of
work allowed under special projects. ERD expressed the need to
modify the language because the subjectivity of present guidance
has led to problems and inconsistencies within the. other Regions.
We agree that the language must be clarified to provide
greater uniformity in the utilization of special projects. Accord-
ingly, we have included a recommendation to OERR to clarify the
language in the contract and Users' Manual.
We concur with the Region's response to recommendation number
two. We believe that the corrective actions proposed by the Region
will help to remedy the problems and conditions identified in the
report.
We concur with the Region's response to recommendation number
three for the same reasons as stipulated in our comments to finding
four, recommendation number one.
Recommendations
III:
We recommend that the Regional Administrator of EPA, Region
1. Direct the DPO to issue TDDs for special
projects which satisfy the criteria as
defined by the contract and Users' Manual.
2. Ensure that the contractor does not proceed
with work under a special project until a TDD
is issued and all required approvals are
obtained.
3. Appoint a full-time DPO to properly manage
the contract.
We recommend that the Director, OERR take action to clarify
the language in the contract and the Users' Manual to ensure that
special projects are utilized only to obtain specialized resources
which support the OSCs.
52
-------
AT?L:\LJix A
Pace 1 of 13
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION III
841 Chestnut Building
Philadelphia. Pennsylvania 19107
Audit Report Number E5eH7-03-0290
SUBJECT: Response to Draft Report of Audit on the Management DATE- AllG ?
of TAT Services Supplied by Roy F. Weston, inc. '• MUU "
FROM: ./ames M. Sei. ,_ , _
/^Regional Admirjistirator*~(l5RA00)
4r ~^-^^^
TO: ' P. Ronald <^ndolfo
Divisional Inspector General for Audit (3AI00)
1988
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the subject draft
audit and the cooperation showi to our staff in the preparation of
our response. I have attached the Region's response to the specific
findings/reconrnendations. If your staff needs further information/
clarification, please have them contact Bill Hoffman at 7-8229.
Attachment
53
-------
APPENDIX A
Page 2 of 13
1. improvement Needed in the Utilization of Contractor Personnel
Findings
Recommendation 1.
Recommendation 2.
Discontinue the use of professional level contract
personnel to perform administrative duties.
Take appropriate action to utilize these personnel to
perform essential tasks requiring the expertise of
the professional level staff in accordance with the
contract requirements.
Management Response
Recommendation 1.
Do not concur. The support provided by the TAT for
the TDDs discussed herein requires technical
expertise. EPA files have specific formats and
require an understanding of the complex programs or
specific projects to be organized properly. Of
critical importance is the future use of these files.
They may be ultimately needed in legal proceedings or
negotiations. They also serve as a basis for
obtaining important information for all levels of
management. We do'not believe this need should be
minimized and for the most part requires knowledgeable
technical people to adequately perform these duties.
Region III places strong emphasis on maintaining good ,
records which will document and support our actions to '
any inquiring person or organization. The omission or
misplacing of a document could result in the loss of a
cost recovery action or perhaps a potential legal action.
The TAT contract Scope-of-Work (SOW) does provide for
maintenance of records (pg. 6 of 18 in SCW, "General
Effort", Sections C-3, C-8, C-13, C-15), as does the
Users' Manual (appendix A, pg. A-l). The users'
Manual includes "managerial support" in the
description of technical assistance. The IG report
illustrates the need for review of files by technical
personnel. Finally, Section H-13 of the TAT contract
refers to the TAT internal administrative support
staff. However, if the hours are allocable to a
specific site and TAT administrative personnel have
charged hours against that site then this is proper for
cost-recovery. Also, this serves to minimize the Regional
administrative multiplier.
OERR supports the Region's position and offers the
following comments:
TAT professional staff are not being asked or expected
to do administrative/clerical work. Many tasks which
were construed by the auditors to be "administrative/ I
clerical" require professional, technical skills and
background to complete. The preparation of fact sheets,
54
-------
APPENDIX A
Page 3 ot 13
Recoranendation 2.
for example, requires the technical expertise in analysis
of removal data. In addition, these kinds of activities
are often directly linked to technical work performed
by TAT, such as preparation of chain-of-custody paperwork
and onsite documentation, which must be completed
immediately and currently with the technical work.
Do not concur. It is frequently cost-effective and
efficient to use personnel to perform tasks outside
their particular educational expertise. This approach
is used daily in governmental agencies. It is
infrequent that a given task will require the full-time
daily participation of, say, a Geologist. It is
therefore practical to make full use of that person's
time rather than use another partial person to perform
whatever other tasks are needed. The determination of
what work is essential and the prioritization of that
work is the prerogative of the Program manager. The
use of TAT as suggested by the IG is not always
practical, especially in the Emergency Response
Program. The IG report states approximately 6,000
hours, representing an estimated $187,000 were
expended on administrative tasks in calendar year
1987. We note these figures selected-from a bias
sample represent approximately 6.4% of LOE and dollars
expended during this same period. Consequently, the
data does not support the IG contention that TAT personnel
were diverted from more important tasks to do administrative
functions.
OERR supports and agrees with the Region and offers
the following comments:
We believe TAT professional level staff are generally
being used to the best advantage by the Region. The
fact that OSC reports are not being completed in a
timely fashion does not necessarily mean TAT staff are
being inappropriately assigned. Usually the OSC
report must be put.together by a senior TAT involved in
the response. This TAT person may be assigned to
other high priority responses which could cause the
delay in the report. Also, OSC reports are not always
the highest priority action. For example, organizing
files and establishing the administrative record,
which both take technical expertise, may take
precedence over closing out a completed removal action
and actually be prerequisite to finalizing the OSC's
after action report. OERR takes issue with the
statement attributed to the Headquarters PO that duties
55
-------
APPENDIX :
Page 4 of
13
such as file organizing are outside the scope of the
contract and that time should be devoted to preparing
OSC reports or similar essential tasks where there is a
lack of removal activity. OERR advises that the
Project Officer's statement was misunderstood.
Administrative duties such as file organizing are an
integral part of helping the OSC manage the removal
and an essential component of managing the
administrative record. The PO did not mean to imply
that after on-scene support of removal actions, the
OSC report is necessarily the highest priority action.
Many of the activities cited in the audit could, under
certain circumstances, be more important at that time
than finishing an OSC report.
2. Contractor Monitoring Needs Improvement
Findings; We reconinend that the Regional Administrator of EPA
Region III take corrective action to aggressively
monitor and track project performance of the TAT
contractor. This action should include directing the
DPO to:
Recommendation 1. Bisure that the required management reports are accurate ,
and are used to monitor the performance of the contractor.
Recommendation 2. Maintain a complete and accurate log showing the
status of TDDs.
Recommendation 3. Conduct Regional contractor office reviews as required
by EPA guidance. Reviews should be conducted periodically
and the checklist for the reviews provided in the
Users' manual should be followed.
Recommendation 4. Conduct a review of the contractor's travel expenses
to ensure they comply with the requirements of the
Federal Travel Regulations. Action should be taken to
recover any overcharges from the contractor.
Recommendation 5. Ensure that sufficient documentation is available to
enable the DPO to verify the accuracy of the contractor's
. invoices.
Management Response
Reconmendation 1. Concur. While we believe the existing reports reviewed
56
-------
APPENDIX A
Page 5 of 13
Recommendation 2
Recommendation 3
Recommendation 4
are difficult to interpret and use we agree that
monitoring the performance of the contractor is
essential. in particular we note'that there are
several different methods of estimating TAT costs,
which yield slightly different numbers, it is
difficult to compare these estimates with the
Financial Management Report. To ensure proper
cost/performance monitoring, the DPO is upgrading the
computerized TDD tracking system. We believe this
should help in making the appropriate review and cost
comparison. In particular under the revised system
each OSC receives a weekly or bi-weekly summary of the
costs and hours on his or her TDDS. They are
encouraged to review these carefully, and advise the
DPO and TATL of any discrepancies. The Monthly Status
Report is simply a re-cap of TDDS and projects. The
DPO, with the assistance of the QSCs is aware of any
problems well in advance of this report.
Concur. The IG audit revealed flaws in the tracking
system that was used for the TDD log. This has since
been improved, providing a nore accurate report.
Concur. The DPO visits the TAT office frequently to
review the status and progress of projects. Even witi
a full-time DPO, the number of TATs would preclude
performing the type of detailed review believed to be
necessary by the IG. We have raised this issue with
ERD and PCMD and they have agreed that they could
consider clarifying their guidance on this
topic. OERR points out that contractor office review;
are not required and the TAT Osers1 manual suggests
such reviews are helpful and describes one approach fc:
conducting them.
Concur. We agree that a,general review of TAT
practices regarding travel is appropriate. We do not
agree that actual auditing of invoices and a review c;
all travel expenses charged under the contract are a
function of the DPO. Rather we maintain that those a:-
IG functions. As a part of our general review
responsibilities we note that as the DPO learns of
discrepancies in TAT travel expenses, these issues are
immediately raised with both the TAT contractor and
PCMD. Regarding overall compliance with FTR, we
understand that PCMD is in the process of resolving
discrepancies with the TAT contractor, it is the
responsibility of PCMD to address possible overcharges
57
-------
APPENDIX A
Page 6 o£ 13
Reconmendation 5.
Findings;
Concur. We believe the issue regarding TAT invoices
needs to be resolved and we have, in the past raised
this to PCMD. We have been advised (See OERR
response to reconmendation 3) that the Contracts
Management Review staff of PCMD is presently
reviewing the TAT invoice procedures with a view
toward identifying a better rnechanisn for DPOs to
verify contractor costs. Appropriate action will be
taken when this review is completed.
We recommend that the Director, OERR:
a. Direct the ERD Project Officer to require the
contractor to provide accurate management reports.
b. Review the contractor's travel expenses for all
Regions to ensure they comply with the
requirements of the Federal Travel Regulations.
Action should be taken to recover any overcharges
from the contractor.
c. Ensure that sufficient documentation is available
for ail Regions to enable the DPO to verify the
accuracy of the contractor's invoices. Consider
modifying Section G of the contract to require
additional supporting documentation to enable the
DPO to verify invoice costs.
Management Response (Offered by OERR)
Recommendation 1.
Reconmendation 2,
Concur. The discrepancy cited in the OIG's report
between the Monthly Status Report (MSR) and the
Financial Management Report (FMR) have been brought to
the attention of the Contractor. ERD will discuss
this discrepancy with the DPO and the contractor to
enable greater accuracy and consistency between the
MSR and FMR.
Concur. The Financial Analysis Section of PCMD
recently completed an on-site review of Weston's
Contract Number 63-01-7367. The review included
various contractor accounting and financial records,
expense reports, timesheets, purchasing system
procedures, job cost ledgers, general travel
policies, subcontract policies and procedures and the
billing system procedures. The report indicates that
in some instances, the contractor is not billing the
Government for travel expenses in accordance with the
terms and conditions of the contract. EPA-HQ is
58
-------
APPENDIX A
Page 7 of 13
presently in the process of requiring the contractor
to make adjustments to the amounts billed to the
Government for travel expenses.
Recommendation 3. The contracts Management Review Staff of EPA is
presently reviewing the invoice procedures on the TAT
and other Contracts. Their goal is to identify some
better mechanism for DPOs to verify reasonableness of
contractor vouchered costs.
3. improper Use of Contractor Staff For Personal Services
Findings;
Recommendation 1.
Recommendation 2.
We recommend that the Regional Administrator of EPA
Region III:
Discontinue the use
personal services.
of TAT contractor personnel for
Establish procedures to preclude the future use of
contractor personnel to provide personal services.
This includes ensuring that TDDS contain clearly define
work statements so that the contractor can undertake
and complete the assignment without continuous
direction.
Management Response
Recommendation 1 & 2.
Do not concur. We do not agree the TAT Contrac-t
is improperly being used to procure personal
service. The ten TDDS discussed in the audit
finding support the OSC and his overall effort to
ensure effective site management. Files, fact
sheets, charts etc. are all necessary documents
needed to convey, retain and otherwise assist in
the evaluation and conduct of site response actions
As there is a constant demand for information
contained in site and. program files, technical and
administrative support to keep files orderly and
accessible, increases our ability to manage and
respond to these demands. Interaction between EPA
and TAT personnel does not constitute direct
supervision. Also, professional administrative
support is provided for in the contract.
Attachment A of the contract provides for a
"Computer Programmer/Administrative Assistant" to
be part of the TAT. Overall, we believe the TDDS
discussed in the finding are allowable services
under the TAT contract.
59
-------
APPENDIX A
Page 8 of 13
Organizing and reviewing files is a critical function
requiring specific knowledge of EPA rules and
procedures. This task is not vague but in fact is
very specific. The HWMD is responsible for numerous
site files, each must "be organized in a prescribed
manner and certain documents roust be available and in
a specific place. These files are used by OSCs, EPA
staff, external agencies as well as various segments
of the public. The organizing and reviewing of files
is a technical function which is supported by formal
and informal file maintenance procedures.
Computer programmers are provided for in the TAT and
computer services are necessary technical support.
Also, preparation of fact sheets involves analysis
and compilation of technical data on related sites and
response actions.
The audit finding contains several statements attributed
to contractor personnel concluding they were supervised
by EPA staff. We believe the TATs may not have understo
the context of the IG questions. Specifically,.we have
been advised by the TATL that the statement about the
RCC staffing needs attributed to him was taken out of
context and not accurate.
While we do not believe that the TAT contract has
been used for obtaining personal services, we are
concerned that anyone, including the IG would form an
impression that personal services are being performed.
Consequently, for a number of months we have been
working to eliminate the long-term stationing of TATs
in the RRC by recruiting other personnel to perform
these necessary functions. We can now report
that as of June 30, 1988, the TATs have been removed
from stationing within the RRC on a routine basis.
Duties being performed in the Region will, whenever
practical be done on site or at the TAT office. In
addition, we will enhance the TDD statements of work
and provide more details.
Also, OERR offers the following:
We agree that if personal services were performed by the
TAT, they should be discontinued since personal services
are not allowed under the TAT. In the emergency
response program, there is a need for close continuous
communication and interaction between all emergency
response personnel, e.g., EPA, contractors, and other
60
-------
"APPENDIX A
Page 9 of 13
Federal, State and local agencies, interaction between
EPA and TAT personnel is necessary for effective
communication and oversight and does riot constitute
direct supervision.
4- Technical Direction Needs Improvement
Findings:
Recommendation 1.
Recommendation 2.
Recommendation 3.
We recommend that the Regional Administrator of EPA
Region III take corrective action to improve the overall
technical direction provided to the contractor. This
action should include:
Appointing a full-time DPO to properly administer the
contract.
Directing the DPO to follow the technical direction
guideline stipulated in the contract and the TAT Users'
manual. This would assist in determining if work is
properly directed, fully documented, and whether the
contractor is performing efficiently.
Request Headquarters approval regarding the use of the
contractor to prepare TDDs and the use of the TAR.
Management Response
Recomnendation 1. Do not concur. We agree improvement is needed in the
timeliness to TDDS and AOCs. However, we believe much
of the delay is caused by the significant expansion in
TAT and consequent increase in workload during the first
year of the contract, improvements in contract administration
are being made and when complete, the overall technical
direction given to the contract will be enhanced and
more efficient. The predesignated alternates to approve
TDDs,mentioned elsewhere in our response is one such
modification recently implemented. We are not convinced
at this time, that a full time DPO is necessary to bring
about these improvements. We will reconsider this conclusion
in approximately six months.
Recommendation 2 & 3. Concur. We agree the DPO should follow the technical
direction guidelines, but it should be noted the
contractor does not prepare TDDs. TDDs are sometimes
verbally issued by the DPO and the TAT will type the
information on the TDD forms. The TAR, which is an
internal management tool, is used to assist the DPO
in tracking TDDs and also provides docunentation for
verbal TDDs. We are not aware of any prohibition
regarding the use of TARs. OERR has advised the DPO
61
-------
A? Pi NT) IX A
Page 10 of 13
can develop other internal management tools and
systens to assist in managing the requirements of
the contract. Also, we agree there are TDDs with
vague descriptions, however it is not always possible
to be more specific. The nature of the program
requires quick action and failure to do so could
result in substantial harm to the environment. Terms
such as "trip report" and "organize files" are commonly
used and understood by all OSCs and TATs involved
with the task.
We note your comments on improvenents made in cost
estimating. Estimating TDD costs is especially
difficult because the skill mix needed at the time
of issuance is not known, we believe a better way
to monitor and control is by estimating IDE and
developing cost estimates on an average basis per
LOE. LOE monitoring enables us-to compare estimates
and actuals and identify problsns, control overtime
and improve oversight of total hours available.
5. Improved EvaluationProcedures Needed
Findings:
Recommendation 1.
Recommendation 2.
We recommend that the Regional Administrator of EPA
Region III:
Ensure that evaluations are properly supported to provide
substantive comments which substantiate the ratings given,
Direct the DPO to ensure that AOC/PORs are prepared
within ten days of task completion, itsis will aid in
expediting the close out and evaluation process and
provide a timely and realistic evaluation to ensure that
the fee awarded is warranted.
Management Response
Recommendation 1.
Concur. We agree that additional connents are necessary
to support the numerical rating and we are reiterating
this requirement to all OSCs. We believe however, award
fees were fairly distributed despite an absence of
written documentation. Tne Region does place a high
priority on these evaluations as evidenced by the high
percentage of hours rated by the DPO and OSCs. ifte
contract requires that we evaluate 60% of the TOD hours and
we have consistently evaluated about 80% of these hours.
We believe this provides a broader base for which to
make judgements and tends to give a better perspective
of contractor performance. We believe, the award fees
were fairly distributed.
62
-------
APPENDIX A
Page 11 of 13
Recommendation 2.
Findings;
Recommendation 1.
Recorrrnendation 2.
10
Concur. The DPO has reminded the TATL of his
responsibility to submit timely AOC/PORs. Also, all
OSCs will be advised of their responsibility to evaluate
AOQ/PORs upon receipt. We do not believe delayed
receipt has an adverse effect on evaluation since all
AOQ/PORs are completed by the end of the rating period.
We recoiroend that the Director, OERR:
Direct the DPO or OSC for all Regions to provide substantive
ccranents which support the numerical ratings given.
Instruct the DPO for all Regions to follow-up with the
contractor when AOC/PORs are not received after ten days
of task completion, rhis will aid in expediting the
close out and evaluation process and provide a timely
and realistic evaluation to ensure that the fee awarded
is warranted.
Management Response (Offered by OERR)
Recommendation 1.
Recommendation 2.
Concur. We agree that evaluations should be properly
supported and provide comments to support the ratings.
ERD's Contract Management Review report dated July 8,
1988, also recommends that Part II of the FOR should be
more detailed to explain and justify ratings given. In
addition to the FOR rating a cover memorandum is
submitted, delineating highlights, significant events or
problems during the performance period and gives overall
evaluation of contract performance. These are used by
the PEB in arriving at the final score for the Region.
This cover memorandum should be considered by the IG as
a part of the documentation.
Concur. ERD conducts Contract Management Reviews of the
TAT office and submits a report of findings to the
Region based on the review. The preparation of AOC/PORs
within the ten day turnaround is one of the elements that
has been addressed in these reviews. The Regions have
been reminded through memoranda to the Regional Division
Directors to ensure that the AOC/PORs are prepared
within ten days of task completion. This was also cited
in the July 8, 1988 Management Review where the DPO was
reminded to ensure that AOC/PORs are submitted within
ten days of project completion.
6. unqualified TAT Personnel
Findings; We recommend that the Director, OERR:
63
-------
APPENDIX A
Page 12 of 13
11
Recommendation 1.
Reemphasize to the PO that resumes must be obtained
from the contractor and reviewed. This will ensure
that the contractor employs personnel on EPA projects
whose experience and education are in accordance with
contract requirements.
Recommendation 2. Determine whether any overcharges resulted from the
contractor billing for services performed by unqualified
contractor personnel. Take necessary action to recover
any overcharges.
Management Response (Offered by OERR)
Reconroendation 1.
Recommendation 2.
Do not concur. According to the TAT contract, the PO is
only required to review resumes for key personnel. The
key personnel are the members of the Zone Program
Management Office (ZPMO), and TAT Leader positions for
each Region. The people specified in the OIG report are
not key personnel.
Concur. Based on discussions with the DPO and the
Contractor, it seems that the cited examples are
instances where 'positions were reclassified and
paperwork was not yet issued. Therefore we will discuss
the instances noted in the OIG report with the DPO and
the contractor and take appropriate action
Special Projects
Reconjuendation l.
We recommend that the Regional Administrator of EPA,
Region III:
Direct the DPO to issue TDDs for special projects which
satisfy the criteria as defined by the contract and
Users1 Manual.
Recommendation 2. Ensure that the contractor does not proceed with
work under a special project until a TDD is used and all
required approvals are obtained.
Recommendation 3. Appoint a full-time DPO to properly manage the contract.
Management Response
Recommendation 1. Do not concur. While we agree special projects should
meet the criteria defined in the contract, we believe
the TDDs discussed in the finding are proper special
projects. Please note that the language in the contract and
Users Manual permits the DPO to exercise considerable
-------
APPENDIX A
Page 13 of 13
12
Recommendation 2.
Recommendation 3.
discretion and obtain items not routinely available in a
specific TAT. AS mentioned in the finding, the Users
Manual does provide a list of special 'support services,
but also states the services are not limited to these
itans. With regard to the use of Special Projects for
Title III activities, the available Headquarters guidance
on the use of TAT was unclear. Consequently, it
appeared these services were not routinely available
from TAT and therefore appropriate under special
projects. Subsequently, Headquarters clarified this to
the extent that no ETEs are available within TAT for
Title ill. Also, EPA decals were required on TAT
deliverables and were purchased to comply with this
requirement. Decal printing was not a routine TAT
service. In certain instances and under varying
circumstances, the use of a special project TDD might
seem inappropriate. However, we currently have an
informal deliberation process during which the OSC and
DPO discuss contracting options before selecting special
projects. We intend however, to provide additional
documentation and rational to support the future use of
special project TDDs.
Concur. The contract does provide for verbal TDDs with
a subsequent written TDD. We agree the written TDD
should be prepared and executed expeditiously. To
correct this condition, we have recently predesignated
alternates to approve TDDs for the DPO in his absence.
Also, we are considering functional and workload
assignment changes which would enable the TAT DPO to
have a reduced site load and devote more time to DPO
functions. In addition, we are considering the use of
other personnel and the enhanced use of computer
management tools to reduce the DPO's involvement in pure
administrative functions.
See our response to the same recommendation contained in
Finding 4, Recamendation 1.
65
-------
APPENDIX B
Page 1 of 7
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AOENCY
WASH1NOTON, O.C. 10410
AUG 22
OFFlCi O*
•OUD WAJTt AND IMEHCtNCV
SUBJECT: Audit Report Number E5eH7-03-0290; Draft Report of Audit
on the Management of the Technical Assistance Team (TAT)
Services Supplied by Roy r. Weston, Inc.
TO: P. Ronald Gandplfo
Divisional Inspector General for Aud
FROM: Henry L. Longest II, Director
Office of Emergency and Remedial
Attached are OERR's comments on the draft audit report. We
agree with many of your conclusions and recommendations. In fact,
many of these findings were identified in a 1987 Headquarters
review of Region Ill's management of the TAT contract. A copy of
the report, dated July 8, 1988, resulting from that review is
attached. The report contains suggested areas for improvement in
Region Ill's management of the TAT contract.
There is still an area where we have a major disagreement
with your finding. We do not believe that TAT professional level
staff are doing inappropriate administrative-type worX. We
believe the administrative support provided by the TAT for the
Removal Program requires professional, technical skills to
perform. Our detailed comments are attached.
If there are any questions regarding any of the attached
comments, please contact Patricia Hawkins of my staff at
FTS 382-2458.
Attachments
cc: Steve Wassersug, Region ill
Sallyanne Harper, PM-214F
John Comstock, OS-200
Tim Fields, OS-210
66
-------
APPENDIX B
Page 2 of 7
ATION Ol
Page 12 — 'Headquarters PO verified that duties such as file
organizing are outside the scope of the contract. The PO further
explained that time should be devoted to preparing OSC reports or
similar essential tasks where there is a lack of removal
activity."
OERR RESPONSE:
The Project Officer's statement was misunderstood. Administrative
duties such as file management are an integral part of helping the
OSC manage the removal and an essential component of managing the ~
administrative record. The PO did not mean to imply that after '•'"
on-scene support of the removal action, the OSC report is ,
necessarily the highest priority action. Many of the activities.
cited in the audit could, under certain circumstances, be more
important at that time than finishing an OSC report.
OIG COMMENT:
Page 13 — "The RA should: (1) Discontinue the use of
professional level contractor personnel to perform administrative
duties.*
OERR RESPONSE:
TAT professional staff are not being asked or expected to do
administrative/clerical work. Many tasks which were construed by
your auditors to be "administrative/clerical" tasks require
professional, technical skills and background to complete. The
preparation of fact sheets, for example, requires technical
expertise in analysis of removal data. In addition, these kinds
of activities are often directly linked to technical work
performed by TAT, such as preparation of chain-of-custody
paperwork and on-site documentation, which must be completed
immediately and concurrently with the technical work.
OIG COMMENT:
Page 13 — »The HA should: (2) Take appropriate action to
utilize these personnel to perform essential tasks requiring the
expertise of the professional level staff in accordance with the
contract requirements."
67
-------
•£ 1C= AT r=_
APPENDIX B
Page 3 of 7
OERR RESPONSE:
We believe TXT professional level staff are generally beino used
to the best advantage by the Region. The fait that OSC rSportl
*?,COI'plSt!d i]? a timely fa«M°n does not necessarily
rhl^r JI%b?in9 inWr°Prl*«ly assigned, in the first
the OSC report usually must be put together by a senior TAT
i^olved in the response. This TAT person may be aSsigned
to other high priority responses which could cause a delay in the
IS?™' f^01*1*' °sc "Ports are not always the highest priority
action. For example, organizing files and establishing the
administrative record, which both take technical expertise, may
taJce precedence over closing out a completed removal actioA and
actually be prerequisite to finalising the OSC's after action
2- CONTRACTOR MONITOR TNG NEEDS
01 G COMMENT:
Page 19 — »3. Conduct Regional contractor office reviews as
required by EPA guidance."
OERR RESPONSE:
No contractor office reviews are required. The TAT Users' Manual
suggests thai such reviews may be helpful and describes one
approach for conducting them, However, as the disclaimer in the
Manual states, the Manual is guidance and not procedures which are
mandatory.
01 G COMMENT:
Page 20 ~ -i. Direct the ERD Project Officer to require the
contractor to provide accurate management reports."
OERR RESPOSSE:
The discrepancy cited in the OlG's report between the Monthly
Status Report (MSR) and the Financial Management Report (FMR) has
been brought to the attention of the contractor. ERD win discuss
this discrepancy with the DPO and the contractor to enable Greater
accuracy and consistency between the MSR and FMR.
DIG COMMENT:
Page 20 — "2. Review the contractor's travel expenses for all
Regions to ensure they comply with the requirements of the Federal
Travel Regulations. Action should be taken to recover any over
charges fro* the contractor."
- 2 -
68
-------
APPENDIX B
Page 4 of 7
OERfi COMMENT:
The Financial Analysis Section of PCMD recently completed an on-
site review of weston's Contract Number 68-01-7367. The reviev
included various contractor accounting and financial records,
expense reports, timesheets, purchasing system procedures, job
cost ledgers, general travel policies, subcontract policies and
procedures and the billing system procedures. The report
indicates that in some instances, the contractor is not billing
the Government for travel expenses in accordance with the terms
and conditions of the contract, we are presently in the process
of requiring the contractor to make adjustments to the amounts
billed to the Government for travel expenses.
OIG COMMENT:
Page 20 — '3. Ensure that sufficient documentation is available
for all Regions to enable the DPO to verify the accuracy of the
contractor's invoices. Consider modifying Section G of the
contract to require additional supporting documentation to enable
the DPO to verify invoice costs."
OERR RESPONSE:
OERR's Contracts Operations, Review, and Assessment Staff is
presently reviewing the invoice procedures of the TAT and other
contracts. Their goal is to identify some better mechanism for
DPOa to verify reasonableness of contractor vouchered costs.
OIG COMMENT:
OIG COMMENT:
Page 25 — •
-------
APPENDIX B
Page 5 of i
1
4. TECHNICAL DIRECTION NEEDS IMPROVEMENT
OIG Comment:
Page 31 — •!. Appointing a full-time DPO to properly administer
the contract. "
OERR RESPONSE;
We agree.
OIG COMMENT
Page 31 — "2, Directing the DPO to follow the technical direction
guidelines stipulated in the contract and the Users' Manual, This
would assist in determining if work is properly directed, fully
documented, and whether the contractor is performing efficiently."
OERR RESPONSE:
As stated in earlier parts of these comments, the TAT Users*
Manual is guidance to help the DPO, not mandatory procedures which
must be followed.
OIG COMMENT:
Page 31 — "3. Requesting Headquarters approval regardino the use
of contractor to prepare TDDs and the use of the TAR."
OERR RESPONSE:
The DPO can develop other internal management tools and systems
to assist in managing the requirements of the contract.
5. IMPROVED EVALUATION PROCEDURES NEEDED
OIG COMMENT:
Page 36 — •!. Ensure that evaluations are properly supported to
provide substantive comments which substantiate the ratings
given."
OERR RESPONSE:
Again, as stated in our previous comments to the OIG report, we
agree that evaluations should bo properly supported and provide
comments to support the ratings. ERD's Contract Management Review
report dated July 6. 1988, also recommends that Part II of the FOR
should be more detailed to explain and justify ratings given, in M
- 4 -
70
-------
APPEN'DIX B
Page 6 of 7
addition to the FOR
ov*r
OIG COMMENT!
a
OERR
contractor
,„
OERR
based on
to
review
the
*
- 5 -
71
-------
,-vr -';_., J 1 .\ o
Page 7 of 7
7- PRQCSDURES FOR SPECIAL ppn.Tf[rT,g SHOULD BE
DIG COMMENT:
Page 43 -- »1. Direct the DPO to issue TDDs for special projects
which satisfy the criteria as defined by the contract and User"
OERR RESPONSE:
AS mentioned in the finding, the Users' Manual does ..provide a list
Sot'?l3iS II !SCiaJ pro'ects' but *180 8tat«* thePservI«t Ire
not limited to these items, with regard to the use of special
projects for Title III, Headquarters has issued guidance to the
Region in a- memo dated April l, 1988, stating that the TAT could
no longer provide Title in. support. Prior to this guidance the
Region interpreted that these services were not routinely
available from TAT and therefore appropriate under special
projects. The Project Officer win provide explanations to the
DPOS concerning special project services as intended under the TAT
OIG COMMENT:
Page 43 — "2. Ensure that the contractor does not proceed with
work under a special project until a TDD is issued and all
required approvals are obtained."
OERR RESPONSE:
Based on discussions with the DPO, the proper approvals have been
obtained and this has been communicated by Region III to the
auditors. In addition, the DPO has informal deliberations during
which the OSC and DPO discuss contracting options before selecting
special projects. " *
6 -
72
-------
APPENDIX C
REPORT DISTRIBUTION
Recipient
Office of the Inspector General
Inspector General (A-109)
Region III
Regional Administrator (3RAOO)
Director, Hazardous Waste Management Division (3HWOO)
Audit Followup Coordinator (3PM62)
Office of Public Affairs (3PAOO)
Headquarters
Office
Director
of Emergency and Remedial Response (WH-548)
Director, Financial Management Division (PM-226)
Comptroller (PM-225)
Agency Followup Official (PM-225)
Attention: Director, Resource Management Division
Associate Administrator for Regional Operations (A-101)
Office of Congressional Liaison (A-103)
Office of Public Affairs (A-107)
73
-------
------- |