V
\.
}
Office of Inspector General
Report of Audit
EPA'S ADMINISTRATION OF
INTERGOVERNMENTAL PERSONNEL ACT
ASSIGNMENTS
Audit Report No.
E1MMG4-13-0064-5400052
March 30, 1995
-------
INSPECTOR GENERAL DIVISION
CONDUCTING THE AUDIT: Special Projects and Reviews
Staff
PROGRAM OFFICE INVOLVED: Office of Human Resources
& Organizational Services
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
MAR 30 1996
OFFICE OF
THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
•k
SUBJECT: EPA'» Administration of Intergovernmental
Personnel Act Assignments
Audit Report No. ElMMC4-llr0064-5400052
FROM: Kenneth A. Konz/**1*^ '{$'
Acting Deputy Inspector General (2421)
TO: Jonathan Z. Cannon
Assistant Administrator for Administration
and Resources Management (3101)
Attached is our audit report on "EPA's Administration of
Intergovernmental Personnel Act Assignments.* Generally, we
found that EPA's IPA program has met the intent of the Act and
the program as a whole has been beneficial to the environmental
community. However, this report identifies that management
controls over individual IPA assignments need improvement, and
makes recommendations to correct these problems.
We appreciate the positive response by the Office of Human
Resources and Organizational Services to our report
recommendations and the actions your staff have initiated to
strengthen the IPA program. My staff is available to help in
whatever way we can as you develop and implement corrective
actions to our recommendations.
In accordance with EPA order 2750, you as action official
are required to provide us, within 90 days, a report on the
actions the Agency has taken as a result of our recommendations.
If your proposed actions will not be complete at the time of your
response, we ask that you describe the actions that are ongoing
and provide milestones and completion dates for those actions.
Should you or your staff have questions or desire to further
discuss the issues raised in the report, please contact Gordon
Milbourn, Director, Special Projects and Reviews Staff, on
260-7784.
Attachment
Mi on
HftraepMftar
-------
-------
BFA'S ADKXVXSTRATXOV OF ZFA ABSIOHMBSTS
BMCUT1VB BTOQIART
The objectives of this audit were to determine whether: (a) the
Intergovernmental Personnel Act (IPA) program at EPA met the
intent of the Act; and (b) controls over the program were
sufficient.
BACKQB.OOMD
IPAs are temporary assignments of Federal personnel to eligible
non-Federal organizations (such as Stats and local governments,
institutions of higher education, Indian Tribal governments, and
other nonprofit organizations) and vice versa. ZPA assignments
are implemented via an agreement between the participating
organizations and the employee. ZPA assignments are to be of
mutual concern and benefit to the organizations involved, and
participating Federal employees are to return to Federal service
upon completion of the assignments.
Gould Batluup M*viBi«* T*« BJri
Generally, EPA's ZPA program has met the intent of the Act. Most
assignments were mutually beneficial to the parties involved.
Payments were accurate and supported for almost all of the ZPA
assignments which we reviewed. Most assignees met the
eligibility criteria, and the majority of Federal assignees
returned to Federal service. He concluded that the program has
not only benefited EPA, but the environmental community as a
whole.
However, management controls over individual assignments need
improvement. We found at least one problem with 96 of the 160
ZPA assignments reviewed. For 43 out of 160 agreements, totaling
$5.5 million, the Agency paid all of the costs, even though the
benefits were mutual or predominantly accruing to the non-Federal
organization. Twenty-three of the assignees did not, or do not
plan to, return to their home organizations after their IPAs.
Seven assignees in our sample were not eligible for participation
in the ZPA program.
Several ZPA assignments had multiple problems, which were
indicative of program abuse. For some agreements, we questioned
the intent and cost of the assignment, the benefit to the Agency,
IAudit Report me. 5400052
-------
BFA'f ADMIHISTRATIOM OF IPA
and sometimes even the eligibility of the assignee. These
multiple abuses most frequently involved IPA assignments of
senior Agency officials (SES and GM/GS-15 employees) authorized
primarily at the Assistant Administrator level or higher.
Because the expense to the Agency is greater at the higher grade
levels, we would expect the benefits to be greater. There should
be greater likelihood that the employee will return to the
Agency, not less. Finally, and most importantly, there should be
more scrutiny by Office of Human Resources and Organizational
Services (OHROS) officials to ensure that EPA is getting its
money's worth. The multiple problems that we have cited indicate
that just the opposite may be true. Moreover, in our view, the
IPA mechanism was being used in these cases specifically for the
convenience and benefit of the employees or to "farm out"
unwanted employees.
The problems which we found were primarily due to inadequate
internal controls or not adhering to controls in place. In our
view, the cause for assignments with multiple problems and
excessive costs was the hesitancy of OHRQS officials to say "no*
to EPA's most senior managers.
Region 9 represents what is best and worst about the IPA program.
Its senior managers actively promote the program and are
aggressive in pursuing new IPA assignments and allowing their
employees the opportunity to participate in the program. Many
top.managers and supervisors in the Region have had IPA
assignments themselves. The program is seen as a stepping stone,
enriching the employees' experience and enhancing their promotion
potential in the Region.
However, Region 9 also has some serious problems associated with
its IPA program—problems which we did not find in any other part
of the Agency. Region 9 has developed a blanket IPA agreement,
prepared ate the beginning of the fiscal year, which is later
accompanied by an addendum for each individual employee.
We found blanket agreements and addendums to be incomplete and
certain required certifications invalid, all of which contributed
to the below probli
SPA augmented its travel appropriations using blanket IPA
agreements. We found several cases where EPA employees assigned
through blanket IPAs were performing a portion of their EPA
duties and functions while being paid salaries and/or the
majority of travel expenses with grant funds. This has allowed
Region 9 to preserve its own travel funds for other
Audit Report BO. 5400052
-------
IPA'S ADMIHISTRATIOM OF IPA ABSIOHMEHTS
Region 9 created conflict of interest situations using blanket
IPA agreements. Some project officers (POs) charged with grant
oversight responsibilities subsequently acted, while on IPA
assignments, as employees of the grantee for which they were POs.
Consequently, monitoring and oversight functions could not be
objective or independent, since POs were now in the position of
having to make determinations about the need for and adequacy of
work that they themselves performed.
Region 9 has also augmented State staff on a long-term basis at
significant cost using IPA agreements. At any given time over
the last five years, from 7 to 11 full-time EPA employees have
been serving on IPA assignments to the State of Hawaii. If the
State had hired permanent staff, grant funds totaling over
$250,000 used to support IPA travel could have been redirected to
environmental protection.
We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for Administration
and Resources Management: (a) review the decision to centralize
the IPA program function under a national coordinator;
(b) develop and apply management controls which will justify
costs and maximise benefits especially for those to EPA on
agreements involving senior managers; (c) terminate ongoing
agreements that do not M«t the provisions of the Act;
(d) develop internal controls to ensure assignments meet the
intent, cost, eligibility, service obligations, etc., required by
the Act; (e) update the IPA Policy and Procedure Manual and
Handbook as necessary; (f ) eliminate use of or modify existing
blanket IPA agreements; (9) prohibit project officers from
participating in IPA assignments funded by grants they oversee
and monitor; and (h) receive assurances that the stats* of Hawaii
is making every effort to fill its vacancies before entering into
future IPA assignments.
.tn\vii
Generally, the Agency agreed with the report and that management
controls can be improved. While formal written comments were not
received in response to the draft report, we incorporated oral
comments received at the exit conference in the body of the final
report.
ill Auait Report
-------
•PA'S ADMINISTRATION OF IPA ASSIGNMENTS
Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i
CHAPTERS
1 INTRODUCTION 1
OBJECTIVES . 1
BACKGROUND 1
SCOPS AND METHODOLOGY 2
2 EPA COULD BETTER MAXIMIZE ITS RETURN AND
MINIMIZE ITS INVESTMENT XV THE IPA PROGRAM 3
RECOMMENDATIONS . IS
3 REGION 9 IPA ASSIGNMENTS CREATE UNIQUE PROBLEMS. ... 17
RECOMMENDATIONS 22
APPENDICES
APPENDIX Ii IPA AGREEMENTS REVIEWED 23
APPENDIX II: IPA ASSIGNMENT BY PROBLEM CATEGORY. . . 26
APPENDIX III: IPA QUESTIONED COSTS 31
APPENDIX IV: ACRONYMS 32
APPENDIX V: REPORT DISTRIBUTION 33
Audit Report MO. S40QOS2
-------
EPA'f ADMXVX8TlAffXOM OF IPA ASBIQBMZMT0
IMTRQDUCTIQK
OBJECTIVES
The objectives of this audit were to determine whether: (a) the
Intergovernmental Personnel Act (IPA) program at EPA met the
intent of the Act; and (b) controls over the program were
sufficient.
BACKflROuau
Title IV of the Intergovernmental Personnel Act (P.L. 91-648)
authorizes Federal agency heads to approve the temporary
assignment of their personnel to eligible non-Federal
organizations (such as State and local governments, institutions
of higher education, Indian tribal governments, and other
nonprofit organizations) and vice versa. IPA assignments are
implemented via an agreement between the participating'
organizations and the employee. The Act and its implementing
regulations require: the assignments to be of mutual concern and
benefit to the organizations involved; participation to be
restricted to permanent full-time or part-time employees; and
participating Federal employees to return to Federal service upon
completion of the assignments.
By Executive Order 11589 of April 1971, as amended, the President
delegated authority to the Office of Personnel Management (OPN)
for issuing regulations on the IPA program. 0PM's
Personnel Manual (FPM), Chapter 334, applicable at the time most
assignments in our sample were initiated, provided guidance in
implementing the IPA program. In 1994, Chapter 334 of the FPM
was abolished. However, the Public Law and its legislative
history, United states Code (U.S.C.), Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR), and Agency policy, procedures, and guidance continue to
outline the criteria consistent with the abolished FPM regarding
IPA assignments.
It is Agency policy to utilize the IPA program to the maximum
extent possible. For example, EPA's July 1994 Five-Year
strategic plan seeks to. promote partnership among EPA staff and
other groups by increasing IPA assignment opportunities to foster
and sustain employee learning and growth. Historically, EPA is
among the most active Federal agencies in the use of IPA
assignments. As of September 1994, the EPA IPA universe
l Audit Report me* 5400051
-------
19*'• ADMXIXSTRATXOV OF IPA ABSIOVKEHTS
consisted of 1,029 assignments dating back to 1984, including 134
active assignments.
The IPA program has been delegated from the Assistant
Administrator for Administration and Resources Management to the
Director, Office of Human Resources and Organizational Services
(OHROS). The Director, OHROS has responsibility for developing
policies and procedures and directing assignments of employees
under the Act. These duties have been further delegated to the
OHROS IPA Coordinator. The IPA Coordinator's responsibilities
include: reviewing all assignments for regulatory compliance;
advising and assisting in preparing ZPA assignments; and
maintaining complete IPA file*. Regional Human Resources and
Personnel Offices are responsible for participating in
negotiating and preparing the IPA assignments and ensuring that
the necessary documents are submitted to the IPA Coordinator for
concurrence and approval. In 1989, OHROS issued an IPA Policy
and Procedures Manual (IPA Manual) and an IPA Handbook which
established policies and procedures governing IPA assignments.
8COPI AMD MBTHODOLOOT
The audit was conducted from September 1994 to February 1995, at
EPA Headquarters, Washington DC; Region 9 in San Francisco, CA;
Region 4 in Atlanta, GA; and the Cincinnati Financial Management
Center (CFMC) in Cincinnati, OH. To accomplish our objectives, .
we: (a) examined 160 judgementally selected IPA assignments (see
Appendix I), primarily those having activity in fiscal 1994 and
those which were 100 percent funded by EPA in fiscal 1993 and
1994; (b) reviewed cost information of selected IP As;
(c) reviewed Federal and EPA policies, procedures, and guidance
regarding IPA assignments; and (d) retrieved and analysed payroll
and personnel information. We reviewed OHROS Federal Managers'
Financial Integrity Act (Integrity Act) fiscal 1993 and 1994
internal control documentation* We interviewed personnel,
finance, and program officials and sought guidance and legal
interpretations from the Office of General Counsel (OGC). We
also contacted assignment participants, and Federal and non-
Federal supervisors of IPA assignees, as necessary.
We conducted this audit in accordance with the 1988 govern»ent
Audit incy standard* issued by the Comptroller General of the
United states. Our audit included tests of management and
related internal controls, policies, standards, and procedures
specifically related to the audit objectives.
Audit Report we. S4000S2
-------
BPA'S ADMIWISTRATIOM OF IPA ASSIOMttMTS
COULD Bvran MXXTW.T9* MB Bvnrui um MTI
Generally, EPA's IPA program ha* net the intent of the Act. Most
assignments vere mutually beneficial to the parties involved.
Payments were accurate and supported for almost all of the IPA
assignments which we reviewed. Most assignees met the
eligibility criteria, and the majority of Federal assignees
returned to Federal service. Region 9 has been particularly
supportive of the program, and has encouraged widespread use of
IPA assignments. We, concluded that the program has not only
benefited EPA, but the environmental community as a whole.
Examples of beneficial assignments include:
• a regional environmental engineer assigned to a State to
further the development and implementation of the State
Superfund program.
• a Headquarters attorney assigned to a university to advise
on environmental Just ice/ equity issues and develop an
environmental curriculum for primarily minority institutions
of higher education.
• a regional environmental protection specialist assigned to a
university to develop state-of-the-art procedures and
techniques to directly measure the extent of an organism's
exposure to selected environmental pollutants.
• a regional environmental engineer assigned to a State to
develop a partnership among Federal, State, and local
agencies for environmental management.
• a research professor assigned to EPA to develop scientific
tools and expertise for conducting regional multiple
resources assessments.
• a professor assigned to EPA to conduct statistical
evaluations of automobile emission standards and Superfund
expenditures and transactions costs.
However, while the program as a whole has been beneficial,
management controls over individual assignments need improvement.
we found at least one problem with 96 of the 160 IPA assignments
reviewed. Several assignments had multiple problems, leading us
to conclude in some instances that the IPA mechanism was being
Audit meport MO. 5400052
-------
EPA'S ADMIVX8TRATIOM OF IPA ASSIGNMENTS
used nor* for the convenience and benefit of the employees than
the organizations, or to "farm out" unwanted employees. Appendix
II categorizes the 96 problems which we identified. Each
category is explained below.
QUB8TIOMA1
COSTS
Federal agencies may pay all, some, or none of the assignment
costs. However, FPM section 1-5 and EPA's IPA Manual, Chapter 1
indicate that the organization benefiting the most from the
assignment, which is usually the borrowing organization, should
absorb the largest share of the cost. EPA's IPA Handbook states
"...where benefits are primarily on one side, that organization
can pay all costs.... In most assignments of EPA employees to
other organizations, it is expected that EPA's cost share should
be 50 percent or less." Further, the CFR 334.106 and EPA's IPA
Manual, Chapter 1 state: .
...where EPA pays more than 50 percent of salary costs
involving an EPA employee and the period exceeds 6
months, the Agency must document the rationale for the
cost sharing arrangement in the assignment agreement*
For 43 out of 160 agreements, totaling $5.5 million, the Agency
paid a greater share of the costs than the benefits warranted.
For 30 of those 43 agreements, EPA paid all of the costs, even'
though the Federal employee was assigned to the non-Federal
organization, and the non-Federal organization was either the
principal beneficiary or benefits were mutual. No rationale or
insufficient rationale was provided in the files as to why EPA
paid all salary and fringe benefits. Thirteen of the 43 IPA
assignments were of non-Federal employees to EPA where the Agency
paid 100 percent of the costs, even though the non-Federal
organization received some benefit. Again, there was no
documentation justifying the absence of cost sharing. At the
exit conference, OHROS officials stated that they have requested
further justification for active IPA*, and will require stronger
justification for future IPA assignments.
We reviewed 39 IPA agreements in our sample serviced by CFMC and
Region 9, for receivable and payable accuracy and evidence of
supporting documentation. We found that collections and payments
were being made consistent with the agreements and fiscal policy
Audit Report
>. S400052
-------
EVA'S ADMXBTSTRATIOVOF IPA ASSIOXMEVTS
and procedures for 33 of the 39 IPAs reviewed. However, in »ix
cases we found exceptions totaling $9,070 of unbilled costs, and
$120,187 of costs not supported by documentation (see Appendix
III). When we described these six cases to CFMC officials, they
proaptly took actions which satisfied our concerns.
IPA A88IQMEE8 MOT MTUMI1JO TO
TBBZft "HOME" OROAMXIATXOm
U.S.C. Section 3372(c)(l) and EPA's ZPA Manual Chapter 1, Section
11 state that an employee of the Federal agency may participate
in an IPA assignment only if the employee agrees, as a condition
of accepting the assignment, to serve in the civil service upon
the completion of the assignment for a period equal to the length
of the assignment. In the event that employee fails to carry out
the agreement (except for good and sufficient reason, as
determined by the head of the Federal agency from which assigned)
the employee shall be liable to the United States for payment of
all expenses (excluding salary) of the assignment. EPA's IPA
Manual also indicates that upon request, the Director, OHROS, may
waive these expenses and service requirements, but the -requests
must justify the reason for such a waiver.
EPA's IPA Manual, Chapter 3 Section (1) states EPA officials
should not- attempt to hire, on a permanent basis, employees
assigned to them through an IPA, and that the IPA program is not
intended to be used as a mechanism for career changes.
We found 23 of the assignees did not, or do not plan to, return
to their home organizations after their IPAs. These included
assignees who either retired or planned to retire, or who
resigned. There was no evidence in these files that OHROS asked
for or received requests for waiver of their Federal service
obligation, nor is there any indication that recovery of costs
was pursued or considered. Consequently, the "home" organization
may never receive any benefit of the expertise presumably
acquired on the IPA assignment. During the exit conference.
Agency officials agreed to implement procedures to strengthen
controls over employees failing to meet their service obligation.
Employees Who Retired or Plan to Retire
Eight assignees retired or plan to retire after their IPA
assignments, even though they had agreed to return to Federal
service upon completion of their assignments. For example,
assignment HQ-316-92-94N sent a Senior Executive Service (SES)
employee to George Mason University in Fairfax, VA. The
5Audit Report VO. 5400091
-------
•PA'8 ADMIMISTRATIOM OF IPA MSIOMMEHTS
assignment was fully funded by EPA. The employee accepted a
buyout and retired from government service in December 1994,
after completing more than two years in the ZPA program. Another
two year assignment, HQ-313-93-95H, ended in January 1995, and
the assignee (also an SES employee) accepted a buyout in March
1995 and also retired from Federal service.
Allowing employees to participate in the IPA program when they
are.retirement-eligible at the time the assignment begins, or
will be retirement-eligible upon program completion, increases
the likelihood that the Agency will not receive the full benefit
envisioned under the Act. EPA should minimize this risk by
developing specific controls for employees in this category. For
instance, the Agency could require the gaining organization to
fully fund the assignment, or it could require that participants
be able to fulfill their Federal service obligation before they
become retirement-eligible.
•• Mho
Fifteen employees (seven Federal, eight non-Federal) resigned
from their home organisations at the completion of their ZPA
assignments, even though the Federal employees had agreed to
serve like periods of Federal service after their ZPA
assignments.
For instance, HQ-288-90-94E assigned an EPA employee to the
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) for a four year
period. Although the agreement stated that the assignee would
return to the Agency, other language in the agreement, not
normally included in ZPA agreements, suggested that the assignee
did not intend to return to EPA. The agreement stated, "In the
event that the employee accepts a position with the DBQ, and EPA
seeks reimbursement of travel and relocation costs; DEQ will
reimburse EPA...." After the assignment, the assignee accepted a
position with the DBQ; however, EPA never attempted to recover
the travel and relocation costs.
Assignee* 09-159-92-94E, HQ-322-93-95N, HQ-330-93-94N, 10-082-93-
94M and HQ-187-89-93B were non-Federal employees on ZPAs to EPA.
Most agreements indicated that they would return to their non-
Federal organizations at the end of their assignments. Despite
the ZPA Manual's caution against attempting to hire employees
assigned to them through an IPA, these employees are now EPA
employees and work in the same EPA offices that they were
assigned to when on their ZPAs.
Audit xeport MO. 5400052
-------
EPA'0 ADMIMISTRATIOM OT IPA A8SXOMMB1IT8
EPA puts the program at risk if it does not ensure that it
receives the mutual benefit envisioned by the Act. Without the
Federal employees returning, EPA cannot justify costs totaling
$2.3 million to fund these assignments. Under these
circumstances, the Agency leaves itself open to criticism that it
is wasting government funds. Similarly, the non-Federal
organizations do not receive the mutual benefit envisioned by the
Act, and EPA is weakening the program by hiring assignees into
EPA.
HRLZOIBLI
U.S.C. Section 3372 and EPA's IPA Manual, Chapter 1, Section (7)
exclude certain categories of employees from participation in the
IPA program. This includes Federal employees holding the
following types of appointments: time-limited, temporary, term,
non-career or limited SES, and Schedule C. It also includes
employees that are not full-time permanent employees of non-
Federal organizations. The rationale for the exclusion is that
the home organization is less likely to benefit from the
assignment due to the temporary nature of the person's
employment.
Participants of Questionable Eligibility
Seven assignees in our sample were not eligible for participation
in the ZPA program. In another 26 cases we could not determine
the eligibility status.
For example, to be eligible for assignment HQ-289-92-94E, a non-
career SES employee was converted to an "administratively
determined* (AD) appointment in 1992. The employee was then
allowed to enter the IPA program. To be eligible for assignment
HQ-303-92-93N, an excepted-limited appointment employee was also
converted to an AD appointment in 1992, and then participated in
the IPA program. EPA paid 100 percent of the cost of these
assignments.
OHROS has interpreted language in the Act and enabling
legislation to allow ADs to participate in the IPA program, the
rationale being that these employees are serving on "indefinite,"
rather than time-limited appointments. Me strongly disagree with
this interpretation. ADs serve "at the pleasure* of the
Administrator, and appointment termination may come at any time.
With a change in Administration from Republican to Democratic in
1992, it was virtually assured that the new EPA Administrator
would request the resignation of these AD employees on IPA
7 Audit Beport mo. S4000S2
-------
BfA'S ADNXMZflTRATXO* Of IP* ASSIGNMENTS
assignments. This did, in fact, occur, and thus there was
absolutely no opportunity for the Agency to benefit from these
assignments. Furthermore, one of the assignees accepted a
position at the National Trust for Historic Preservation, where
he had been working on his IFA. The IPA program was not created
to facilitate career changes, as previously discussed.
Given the circumstances, we believe OHROS disregarded the intent
of the Act in order to "game the system." The benefits received
by the non-Federal organization and IPA assignees themselves far
outweighed the benefits to EPA. In effect, these employees
received full compensation from EPA to search for new employment.
we believe that EPA wasted the over $190,000 spent on these IPA
assignments. OHROS officials advised us that they will consider
not allowing employees with AD status to participate in the IPA
program and will improve eligibility screening for participation
in the program.
Other ineligible assignments included HQ-299-92-94N and HQ-279-
91-93H. Assignees were from the National Environmental
Technology Applications Corporation (NETAC) to EPA. These
assignees were not permanent employees of NETAC, and had no
return rights to that organization. In a prior special review
report,1 we recommended, and the Agency agreed, to terminate
these assignments.
We could.not determine the eligibility status of 26 assignees
under blanket IPAs initiated in Region 9. Employment status was
not listed on the agreement or the addendum. Since this
information was not available in official IPA files, the IPA
Coordinator either did not adequately review assignments for
eligibility, or did not require adequate documentation to be
maintained in the files. In January 1995, Region 9 and OHROS
provided documentation to us certifying that all the employees
under the IPA blanket authority were eligible to participate
under the program. OHROS officials stated that their proposed
changes to the blanket agreement process, discussed in the next
Chapter, should eliminate this condition from recurring.
1 "Misuse of Resources in the office of Cooperative
Environmental Management," report no. E6EMG3-13-2055-3400094,
dated September 30, 1993.
8
Audit Report Wo. 540OOS2
-------
EPA'8 ADMINISTRATION OF IP* ASSIGNMENTS
IPA Assignments of Excessive Duration
CFR 334.104 and EPA's IPA Manual, chapter 1, Section (9)(d)
indicate that under no circumstances may an assignment extend
beyond four years. However, assignments HQ-227-91-93N and
HQ-227-90-95E from two universities to EPA covered five or more
consecutive years. In fact, one of the assignment files
indicated that the assignee "will have served four years on the
IPA by 9/91. NO MORE EXTENSIONS WILL BE APPROVED." This
assignee is still active on an IPA scheduled to terminate in
September 1995. OHROS officials agreed to terminate these
assignments.
MULTIPLE PROBLEMS INDICATE
1AM ABU8B
In reviewing IPA files, we found that some files contained
multiple problems. .Examples include the following.
Assignment HQ-316-92-94N was the SES official assigned to George
Mason University. The agreement stated the assignment was to:
... investigate opportunities to establish environmental
financing as a core component for the Institute's
courses in the Environmental Sciences, and to identify
ways to bring the issue of environmental financing to
the forefront of debate within the Academic
community....
information provided by the University indicated that the
assignee taught one course a semester and participated in program
administration and research. EPA paid 100 percent of this
employee's salary and benefits for two years—amounting to over
$200,000. Because the employee did not return to the Agency,
the benefits to the Agency have been reduced, and the Agency's
ability to justify the cost is also reduced.
Assignment HQ-289-92-94E was the previously mentioned AD
appointee (and former non-career SES) assigned to the National
Trust for Historic Preservation. The agreement narrative did not
substantially support EPA's mission. The assignment involved the
surface transportation law and its potential impacts on the built
and natural environments; and the implementation of rural
development studies as it relates to historic preservation. The
primary beneficiaries of this assignment were the employee, the
National Trust, and the Department of Transportation. As
previously discussed, we believe the employee's status made him
9Audit Report NO. 5400052
-------
BPA'S
BISTBJkf XOV OF IP* 1S8ZCDDOMT8
ineligible to participate in the IPA program. EPA paid 100
percent of salary and benefits for over a year, which amounted to
more than $100,000. The employee did not return to the Agency,
and, again, the benefits to EPA did not warrant the costs.
Assignment HQ-335-94-96N involved a former SES employee assigned
to the Association of State and Territorial Public Health
Laboratory Directors (ASTPHLD). The IPA agreement obligated EPA
to pay 100 percent of the assignee's salary and benefits. In
August 1994, six months after the assignment was initiated, the
IPA agreement was amended, placing all payment responsibilities
on ASTPHLD. At the same time ASTPHLD was awarded a cooperative
agreement (CX-823650-01-0) for $211,000, which included payment
for the assignee's salary and benefits. A waiver was granted to
allow ASTPHLD to claim costs incurred prior to the date of the
cooperative agreement. However, the scope and purpose of the IPA
assignment using the cooperative agreement were not altered from
the original IPA agreement scope. While funding IPA assignments
through cooperative agreements is generally permissible,
initiating a cooperative agreement for this sole purpose is
highly questionable and certainly wasteful. Paying this
employee's salary and benefits directly cost the Agency
approximately $130,000. Funding the employee through this
cooperative agreement adds indirect costs, travel, and supplies.
We do not believe the Agency can justify $80,000 in additional
cost for the same service. Moreover, at the end of the IPA
assignment, the employee will be eligible to retire from the
government.
HQ-244-91-93N was the former Director of the Office of
Cooperative Environmental Management (OCEM). His assignment was
developed to relieve a potentially uncomfortable work situation
relating to selecting someone else for the SES position of OCEM
Director. When the initial IPA assignment to a non-profit
organization ended, the assignee contacted another nonprofit
organization and made arrangements for a second IPA assignment.
OCEM fully-funded both assignments, even though OCEM managers did
not expect this individual to return to OCEM (in fact, the
employee is now working at the Department of State). EPA
subsequently terminated this assignment as a result of an OI6
special review report.2
3 "Misuse of Resources in the office of cooperative
Environmental Management," report no. B6EMG-13-2035-3400094,
dated September 30, 1993.
10
Audit Report VO. 5400052
-------
IPA'8 ADMXVXSntATIOV OF IPA ASSIOnfZllTfl
The multiple problems involved with each of these assignment* are
indicative of IPA program abuse. The Agency has paid and
continues to pay for senior officials (the above examples involve
SES and GM/GS-15 employees authorized primarily at the Assistant
Administrator level or higher) to bring back and share nev
experiences and perspectives. This has not consistently
occurred. Because the expense to the Agency is greater at the
higher grade levels, we would expect the benefits to be greater.
There should be greater likelihood that the employee will return
to the Agency, not less. Finally, and most importantly, there
should be more scrutiny by OHROS officials to ensure that EPA is
getting its money's worth. The multiple problems that we have
cited indicate that just the opposite may be true,. Moreover, in
our view, the IPA mechanism was being used in the above cases
specifically for the convenience and benefit of the employees or
to "farm out" unwanted employ*
OHROS is responsible for safeguarding the IPA program from abuse.
Inadequate controls over the program jeopardise the entire
program, when, as we stated at the outset, the majority of the
assignments that we looked at had merit and obvious benefit to
the Agency. At the exit conference, OHROS indicated that they
would design a cost/benefit justification form with specific
tangible and intangible criteria guidelines for agreements and
revise the IPA Manual, as necessary.
Travel Paid Without
Adequate Justification
0PM' s FPM, Chapter 334, Section 1-7 (b) and KPA's IPA Manual,
Chapter 1, Section (11) indicate the Agency may pay for either
relocation expenses to and from the assignment location or a per
diem allowance at the assignment location. The cost to the
government should be a major factor in determining the approach
to be used. Both manuals also state that per diea allowance at
the assignment location is intended for short-term assignments of
less than one year and not for longer assignments. The FPM also
indicates that per die* allowances should not be paid for more
than one year. In our sample, we found two IPA assignees who had
received a total of $86,380 and $82,861, respectively, in per
diem expenses for assignments lasting well beyond the one year
guideline.
Assignment HQ-268-91-93N, a SES employee assigned to Clark
Atlanta University, contained provisions that the assignee
11 Audit Report *o. 5400032
-------
•PA'S ADMXiixsfRAfioM or IP*
receive $90 a day in a negotiated per diem over a two year
period. A cost justification was provided in the file for the
first two years. An extension was granted on the IPA assignment
which included per diem for an additional two years (ending in
August 1995); however, the cost justification was not performed
for the third and fourth year. Per diem received since the
assignment initiation totaled $86,380 as of September 1994, with
one year still to go on the assignment. An OHROS official
indicated this amount was paid because the policy states that it
"should be" less than one year, but did not "have to be."
Assignment HQ-285-91-93H sent a professor from the university of
Kansas to EPA Headquarters and made EPA responsible for all
travel and transportation expenses to, from, and during the one
year assignment. The assignment was subsequently extended for an
additional two years. The assignee received $82,861 over a three
year period and there was no cost justification on file.
In our opinion, the years of per diem paid under both agreements
were excessive. Furthermore, there was insufficient evidence in
the file for OHROS to justify that the method used was the most
cost-effective. If OHROS does not consistently apply per diem
constraints, then EPA not only runs the risk of being criticized
for inequitable treatment of its employees, but the cost of the
IPA assignments could also increase to the point where they can
no longer be justified. At the.exit conference, OHROS officials
agreed to require a cost analysis for all assignments that
involve- Agency funding, either per diem or relocation expenses,
and revise the IPA Manual as necessary.
Tncoiui. •£•
JUBBlicatian at I^calitv Pav
There is no definitive Federal or EPA criteria on how to treat
locality pay for IPA assignments. EPA Headquarters' approach is
to compute locality pay based on the permanent duty station
location. On the other hand, Region 9 policy is to use the
permanent duty station as a basis for short-term assignments, and
the temporary duty station for long-term assignments. Since the
approaches differ, locality pay for IPA assignments was not being
paid in a consistent, equitable manner. At the exit conference,
OHROS agreed to prepare a consistent policy regarding locality
pay.
EPA Directive 1200 formally delegated the IPA program to the
Assistant Administrator for Administration and Resources
12
Audit Report *Q. 5400052
-------
EPA'8 ADMINISTRATE* Of IPX ASSIGMMEHTS
Management. From there it is re-delegated to the Director,
Office of Administration, to other EPA offices and to the
Director, OHROS. The Director, OHROS further delegated the
program to the OHROS IPA Coordinator. The delegation language
includes the authority "to approve IPA agreements pursuant to the
provisions of Chapter 33, 5 U.S.C."
When the IPA Coordinator role was envisioned,3 it vas meant to be
a central control point to monitor the program in an objective
and independent manner and to ensure the purpose of the Act vas
met. We do not believe that the Coordinator function, as it
currently exists, meets this intent.
The IPA Coordinator told us her staff gives advice, strongly
recommends changes on IPA agreements, and makes adjustments in
cases of blatant regulation violations. However, she said she
has never turned down an IPA agreement, and she does not believe
she has this authority. Host funding decisions are based on the
program office's willingness to pay for its employee. For
example, a program office was willing to pay for four years of
per diem while its employee was on IPA assignment; therefore, the
Coordinator approved the arrangement.
Many of the problems which we have detailed in this chapter and
the one that follows were caused either by inadequate internal
controls or not adhering to controls in place. OHROS had not
performed Integrity Act or other reviews of the IPA program,
which could have identified these weaknesses. Some policies and
procedures need clarification, and the IPA Coordinator indicated
that the IPA Manual needed to be updated. OHROS officials
informed us that they are currently in the process of updating
it. In addition, OHROS officials indicated at the exit
conference that the IPA Coordinator role will be further
clarified to include the authority to. take corrective actions as
necessary.
Furthermore, EPA's IPA Manual reguires annual progress reports
from the assignee, final assignment reports from the assignee's
supervisor, and annual written reviews from the program offices.
These reports should contain an assessment of the-assignment,
accomplishments, and mutual benefits achieved or expected, upon
completion of the assignment. These evaluations should be a very
important part of the oversight process and also could be used as
additional support to justify IPA assignment extensions and cost
3 "Management of the Intergovernmental Personnel Act
Program,1* report no. ElhOl-ll-0013-11371, dated July 29, 1981.
13Audit Report Be. S4000S2
-------
•PA'S ADMXVXSTRAfxov or IPA
sharing arrangements. However, 88 percent of the Headquarters
files we reviewed did not contain these annual progress reports,
nor vere the other reports prepared. During the audit, OHROS
issued a memorandum reminding Human Resources Officers and IPA
contact persons to submit these reports to the IPA Coordinator.
OHROS officials plan further controls to monitor these progress
report and evaluation submissions.
More IPA assignments in our sample, 53 of the 160, originated in
Region 9 than in any other region. Yet OHROS had neither visited
the Region to review any assignments (citing lack of travel
funds), nor had they discovered any of the problems when
approving Region 9 assignments which we identified in this
report.
We were told by OHROS officials that they did not have sufficient
resources assigned to the IPA program to perform effective
oversight. The IPA Coordinator duty is one of several major
duties assigned to one individual. One other OHROS employe*
works part-time on the IPA program. Travel funds have not been
available for this function. Without adequate resources,
centralization of the function does not accomplish its goal.
Instead of adding consistency to the program, increasing the
benefits to the Agency, and ensuring that EPA's IPA assignments
meet the intent of the Act, the function as it now exists has
merely added an ineffective layer to the bureaucratic process.
While not establishing or adhering to adequate internal controls
can be the cause for many of the assignments having one, or
sometimes two, of the problems described above, we do not believe
this is the only cause for those assignments having multiple
problems. In our opinion, an additional reason why these
assignments and costs were allowed was the hesitancy of OHROS
officials to say "no" to SPA's most senior managers. The IPA
Coordinator told us that she saw her role as one of facilitating
the actions requested by program offices within the framework of
IPA program requirements. She did not believe she had the
authority to turn down assignments or the EPA share of financing.
For the examples that we detailed above, EPA's costs were high.
The Agency paid 100 percent of the salaries and benefits of these
GM/GS-15 and SES employees. Based on a review of the IPA file or
discussions with the non-Federal organisations, the gaining
organizations and the employees were the principal beneficiaries
of the assignments. EPA did not receive the benefit it could
have expected, because several of these employees did not
returned to the Agency upon completion of their assignments.
These assignments were also authorized by the highest levels of
14
Audit Report Vo. 5400052
-------
EVA'S ADMINISTRATION OF IPA ASSIGNMENTS
EPA management (primarily at the Assistant Administrator level or
higher). We believe that the Delegations Manual gives the IPA
Coordinator the authority to disapprove these type of
assignments; however, we recognize her reluctance to do so after
the Deputy or Assistant Administrator has concurred.
Nevertheless, OHROS is charged with safeguarding the integrity of
the IPA program. Therefore, we suggest that for those few
assignments involving senior Agency officials, OHROS apply all
management controls at its disposal. These could include:
requiring additional justification; participating in cost sharing
negotiations; limiting assignments to one year, with extensions
granted based on written performance evaluations detailing the
benefits accruing to the Agency; and seeking independent review
and concurrence by the Office of General Counsel. OHROS risks
sacrificing the entire IPA program if it authorizes assignments
that do not meet the intent of the Act, or if it cannot justify
the costs of these assignments to Congress and the taxpayers.
>ATIOMS
We recommend the Assistant Administrator for Administration and
Resources Management:
2-1. Review the decision to centralize the IPA program function
under a national coordinator. If management determines that
budgetary and manpower constraints will not permit effective
coordination and oversight, decentralize the function. If
national coordination is determined to be necessary for the
success of the program, clarify the role of the IPA
Coordinator in the. IPA Manual to include the authority to
disapprove assignments, terminate assignments, or take other
corrective actions, as necessary.
2-2. Notify receiving organizations and EPA employees on IPA
assignments that assignments will be terminated if required
progress reports and evaluations are not submitted.
Terminate assignments not meeting this requirement. Do not
extend any assignment without current evaluations in the IPA
file, and use those evaluations to determine and justify the
benefit of the assignment to EPA.
2-3. Develop procedures to eliminate IPA program inequities,
especially the per diem and locality pay issues discussed in
this report.
15Audit Report MO. 5400052
-------
•PA'S
STRATIOW Of XPA
2-4. Enforce provisions of the Federal regulations and the IPA
agreement which allow EPA to seek monetary restitution of
all EPA-paid expenses, such as per diem and relocation, from
employees failing to meet their Federal service obligation.
2-5. For assignments involving senior Agency officials (GM/GS-15
and above), develop and apply additional management controls
which will justify the high costs and maximize benefits to
EPA.
2-6. Carefully review and document that EPA's financial
participation in future IPA assignments is commensurate with
the benefits to be received.
2-7. Develop internal controls, such as an assignment review
checklist or a second level of review, to ensure IPA
assignees are screened for eligibility. Terminate current
IPA assignments having ineligible participants.
2-8. Develop controls which will discourage program officials
from converting non-Federal employees assigned to them on
IPAs into permanent Federal employees holding the same
position.
2-9. Develop controls which will minimise the risk of employees
not fulfilling their Federal service obligation. Give
special consideration to adding additional controls for
those employees who will be retirement-eligible upon
completion of their IPA assignments.
2-10. Adhere to current EPA and Federal regulations which require
that in instances where EPA pays more than 50 percent of
salary costs involving an EPA employee and the period
exceeds 6 months, the Agency must document the rationale
for the cost sharing arrangement in the assignment
agreement.
2-11. Do not grant IPA agreements for more than four consecutive
years. Terminate ongoing assignments where this condition
exists.
2-12. Seek an OGC for an opinion as to the legality of using a
grant for the sole purpose of funding an IPA assignment.
2-13. Once internal controls have been strengthened, update the
IPA Policy and Procedures Manual and Handbook as needed.
16
Audit Report *o. 5400052
-------
•PA'8
STRATIOM OF IPA
CHAPTER 3
RBOIOM 9 TPA AflflT
mrrom
Region 9 represents what is best and worst about the IPA program.
Its senior managers actively promote the program and are
aggressive in pursuing new IPA assignments and allowing their
employees the opportunity to participate in the program. Many
top managers and supervisors in the Region have had IPA
assignments themselves. The program is seen as a stepping stone,
enriching the employees' experience and enhancing their promotion
potential in the Region.
Unfortunately, Region 9 also has some serious problems associated
with its IPA program—problems which we did not find in any other
part of the Agency. For the Region to truly represent the IPA
model, SPA needs to take aggressive and immediate steps to
address the following issues.
BLAMKR
'• QUBSYXOVABL1
An IPA is an agreement which establishes the respective
obligations of the IPA assignee, the receiving organization, and
the home organization. The IPA agreement and its provisions are
set up with a specific assignee already identified prior to the
execution of the agreement. However, Region 9 has developed a
blanket IPA agreement, prepared at the beginning of the fiscal
year, which is later accompanied by an addendum for each
individual employee. Region 9 Policy on Intermittent Blanket
Intergovernmental Personnel Act Assignments, dated
June 13, 1994, was approved by Region 9's Human Resources
Management Branch and Comptroller, but not by EPA's Regional
Counsel or General Counsel. Region 9 personnel have stated that
using blanket agreements saves time for the states or territories
involved, in that they do not have to concur on each, individual
assignment.
We found 1? blanket agreements involving 26 assignments to be
incomplete and certain required certifications .invalid. For
instance, we reviewed IPA blanket agreement 09-179-93-94H (dated
July 1, 1993) and an addendum (dated April 29, 1994). At the
onset of the agreement, the individual listed on the addendum was
not known. Nevertheless, Part 10 on conflict of interest was
checked off in July 1993 and indicated that "applicable federal,
state and local conflict of interest laws have been reviewed with
the employee." This statement could not be accurate, since the
17
Audit Report. MO. 5400052
-------
EPA'8 ADMIMI8T1ATIO* OF IPA ASSIGNMENTS
IPA employe* was not known at the time the blanket agreement was
established. Part 15 on certifications of approving officials
was signed by the EPA and the Republic of Palau in June and July
of 1993. The language stated that "In signing this agreement, we
certify that the description of duties and responsibilities is
current and fully and accurately describes those of the assigned
employee." Again, since the assigned employee had not been
identified at the time the agreement was signed, her specific
duties and responsibilities could not be identified except in the
most general terms, making the certifications invalid. Further,
the blanket IPA agreement and addendum were incomplete and vague
regarding Part 4 on eligibility, Part 7 on position description,
and Part 9 on fiscal obligations and applicable percentages.
Use of blanket IPAs in Region 9 has increased the risk that
employees assigned may not be eligible for the program, and may
be performing inappropriate functions. OBROS and Region 9 have
sacrificed quality control for speed to the detriment of the
program as -a whole. OBROS agreed to implement stricter controls
and procedures over the blanket agreement process.
Use of the blankets agreements probably caused, and certainly
prevented Headquarters reviewers from detecting, the following
two problems.
31 U.S.C. Sections 6301-6308 prohibits the use of grants for the
direct benefit and use of the Federal government. Further,
Region 9 policy on Intermittent Blanket IPA assignments states,
rMPonsibiiitiee such as grant negotiations or program review or
evaluation." We found several cases where EPA employees assigned
through blanket IPAs were performing a portion of their EPA
duties and functions while being paid (salaries and/or the
majority or travel expenses) with grant funds. This has allowed
Region 9 to preserve its own travel funds for other uses, thus
augmenting its travel appropriation.
For example, under blanket agreements 09-186-93-94N to American
Samoa and 09-180-93-94M Guam, one EPA employee performed duties
involving the assessment of.the status of environmental programs
for these outer Pacific Islands. A portion of travel and
salaries were paid by the gaining office through their
consolidated grants from EPA. However, these duties, overlap with
the assignee's EPA function, to assess the performance in
implementing the environmental programs of the Pacific
Territories.
18
Audit Report
. 9400052
-------
EPA'8 ADMINISTRATION OF IPA AflSIOVXENTS
Another assignee under blanket 09-186-93-94N had duties which
included assessing the status of the grant program and performing
on-site evaluations of the program. Salaries and the majority of
travel expenses were paid under the consolidated grant. Again,
these duties are the assignee's EPA functions which are
prohibited from being carried out using an IPA and grant funds.
Assignment 09-19S-94-94N duties included assisting the State in
developing a wellhead protection program. During an interview,
the assignee indicated that the functions performed on the IPA
assignment (i.e., administration of the wellhead protection
program) were Federal duties, and will continue to be until the
State establishes a program. The assignee further mentioned that
she was unaware that these duties could not be performed while on
the IPA assignment.
OHROS agreed to establish procedures to ensure that duties
performed on all IPA assignments are not EPA-mandated functions.
Conflicts of Interest
In 5 CFR Part 2635.101 it states that "an employee shall endeavor
to avoid any actions creating the appearance that they are
violating the law or the ethical standards...." We found four
IPA assignments which have created conflicts of interest.
Specifically, some project officers (PCs) charged with grant
oversight responsibilities subsequently acted, while on IPA
assignments, as employees of the grantee for which they were PCs.
Consequently, monitoring and oversight functions cannot be
objective or independent, since POs are now in the position of
having to make determinations about the need for and adequacy of
work that they themselves performed.
One Region 9 employee's responsibilities included acting as a PO
for the consolidated grant M009063-94-1 to Guam. One of the PO's
duties was to approve the grant and vorkplan, which included
approval of intermittent IPA assignments. During the grant
period, IPA assignment 09-180-93-94N was arranged for the PO to
assist Guam in developing a grant proposal and discussing
progress and problems in meeting grant objectives. The PO's
salary and travel were paid by the grantee, and the assignee
acted as a representative of Guam during the IPA assignment
period. After the IPA assignment, the PO returned to oversee and
monitor the grant.
In another case, a Region 9 employee was the PO for grant
D009384-94-0 to Hawaii. The PO was involved in preparing grant
19
Audit Report MO. 3400032
-------
•FA'I ADimriSTRATIOM OF XPA ASfXOIQinTf
authorizing documents, approving the grant and workplan, and
certifying that IPX fund* were available. During the grant
period, the PO vent on intermittent IPA assignment 09-160-92-942
which included performing State functions paid under the grant*
Subsequent to the IPA, the employee resumed the PO
responsibilities.
We found similar examples involving grant A-009372-94-0 and IPA
assignment 09-192-94-96H, and grant 1-009394-94-0 and assignment
09-195-94-94N.
We believe that the above arrangements put EPA employees in
conflict of interest situations. Assigning POs to work as
employees of the grantee which they are monitoring compromises
their integrity and independence. This in turn compromises the
Agency's ability to provide effective monitoring and oversight of
how its grant monies are being spent.
In our sample of 160 IPA assignments, we found conflict of
interest situations and performance of Federal duties using grant
funds primarily in those assignments involving blanket
agreements. The blanket mechanism has necessitated broad
function statements, rather than a detailed description of a
particular assignee's duties. The conflict of interest
discussion, which the organisations sign before they know the
employees to be. assigned, may or may not occur. Blanket
agreements may have reduced the IPA processing time in Region 9,
but they have also reduced the effectiveness of internal controls
and management oversight. Region 9, through the use of
intermittent assignments under blanket IPAs, has systematically
augmented its travel appropriations, misused grant funds, and
compromised its ability to ensure that grant funds are spent
appropriately.
ZPA AMI
8TAFV O* A
The objective of the IPA is to make it feasible and simple to
move people for short periods of time when this movement can
serve a sound public purpose. However, the program was not
intended to be a means to meet State manpower needs.
Since 1978, EPA has sent IPAs to Hawaii to develop environmental
programs. At any given time over the last five years, from 7 to
11 full-time EPA employees have been serving on IPA assignments
to the State, we estimate that the 9 IPA assignments to Hawaii
in fiscal 1994 have cost $701,800, which includes salaries.
20
Audit Report *o. 5400052
-------
EPA'i ADNXVZSTRATXOV Of IPA ASSIOMTCDrTg
benefits, and cost of living allowances. Travel estimates for
permanent change of station (PCS) and temporary duty (TOY) for
these employees total $255,513. If the State had hired permanent
staff, grant funds totaling over $250,000 used to support IPA
travel could have been redirected to environmental protection.
Region 9 officials have given us a variety of reasons why
continued IPA assignments are necessary. They say that low State
salaries do not encourage qualified personnel to apply for these
positions and that, the hiring process used by the State is
lengthy; consequently, the positions remain vacant for long
periods of time, without IPA support some programs would be
drastically reduced or be ineffective.
While we take no exception to the purpose of the IPA assignments
in Hawaii, we believe that these assignments have allowed the
State to augment its staff on a long-term basis at a significant
cost to EPA. Hawaii needs to obtain competent staff to replace
the continuous IPA assignees. In our opinion, the easy access to
IPA assignees has contributed to the status quo and lack of
urgency on the State's part to replace these individuals with its
own staff. EPA officials indicated that the State recently
obtained the authority to hire new staff, and that they will keep
discussions regarding the intent of the recommendation in the
forefront of State-EPA relations.
COHTROLS OTBR RBOXOHAL XPA
ASSXUMMAlfTf ARB IXADBQOATB
Region 9 officials actively promote the IPA program and are
aggressive in pursuing new IPA assignments. Regional personnel
contended that use of the blanket agreements promotes
streamlining, builds capacity, and encourages State
participation.
However, we believe that the benefits were achieved at the
expense of adequate internal controls over the IPA. program. The
blanket agreements were not reviewed for legality or
completeness* Integrity Act or other oversight reviews were not
performed by Headquarters or the Region and therefore, conflict
of interest situations and the augmentation of EPA travel funds
were not discovered. Region 9 Human Resources officials told us
that they had never turned an IPA assignment down, and none were
ever sent back from Headquarters, further, augmenting Hawaii's
environmental programs through IPAs has been costly and not a
good long-term solution.
Audit Report Mo* 5400052
-------
BPA'8 ADMXVXSTOATXOV OF IPA AsSIOMXIMTfl
All of these problems subject Region 9 and its employees to
unnecessary risk and exposure to criticism, which can ultimately
diminish the effectiveness and credibility of the ZPA program.
If adequate controls vere integrated into the process, many of
these reported problems would have been minimized or avoided.
RBCOMMBMOATIOM8
We recommend the Assistant Administrator for Administration and
Resources Management:
3-1. Eliminate blanket agreements or modify them so that they are
consistent with IPA policies and procedures provisions
including conflict of interest statements, certifications,
position description, financial obligation, etc. If the
choice is to modify, request an OGC review to ensure that
the revised blankets meet IPA requirements.
3-2. Review all current Region 9 IPA assignments. Ensure that
EPA-mandated functions are not performed while on these IPA
assignments.
3-3. Prohibit project officers from participating in IPA
assignments funded by grants they oversee and monitor.
3-4. Receive assurances that the State of Hawaii is making every
effort to fill its vacancies before entering into future IPA
assignments.
22
Audit Report Wo. 3400052
-------
EPA'« ADMIKIflTRATIOW OF IP*
APPENDIX X
Pag* 1 of 3
HQ-336-94-95N
HQ-334-94-95N
HQ-313-93-9SN
HQ-339-94-96K
HQ-241-91-94E
HQ-272-91-94E
HQ-347-94-96N
HQ-123-87-90B
HQ-255-91-93N
HQ-319^93-93N
HQ-329-93-94N
HQ-226-90-92N
HQ-348-94-96K
HQ-311-93-94N
HQ-304-92-93N
HQ-244-91-93N
HQ-325-93-94M
HQ-299-92-94M
HQ-313-92-93M
HQ-315-93-94M
HQ-288-90-94B
HQ-271-91-93M
HQ-302-92-93B
HQ-332-93-95H
HQ-273-91-93N
HQ-227-90-95E
HQ-338-94-96N
LV-070-94-96N
LV-068-92-93M
LV-061-91-95B
KC-116-93-94H
NC-121-94-96JI
NC-120-94-95M
NC-119-94-95M
CI-061-93-93H
HQ-288-92-94E
HQ-292-92-93N
HQ-349-94-95N
HQ-335-94-96N
HQ-303-92-93N
HQ-308-92-94N
HQ-309-92-93E
HQ-268-91-95E
HQ-312-93-94N
HQ-342-94-94M
HQ-285-91-93K
HQ-344-94-95H
HQ-091-&5-86M
HQ-337-94-95N
HQ-345-94-95N
HQ-343-94-95N
HQ-289-92-94B
HQ-330-93-94M
HQ-245-91-94B
HQ-186-89-93B
HQ-187-89-93B
HQ-295-92-94M
HQ-346-94-94M
HQ-279-91-93H
HQ-131-87-93B
HQ-333-94-96M
HQ-316-92-94R
LV-056-90-94B
LV-059-91-95B
NC-086-90-94E
HC-097-91-93B
HC-114-93-93M
CI-071-92-93H
W« r«vi«w«d 151 agr««B«nt« which included 160
Blanket agr««B«nt« cov*r morm than OIM assigne*
23
Audit Kapert Me. 5400052
-------
EPA'8 ADMIMI8TRATIOM Of X*& ASSXOnODRS
APPENDIX X
Pag« 2 Of 3
10-079-93-95E
10-078-91-94E
10-082-93-94N
10-072-91-94B
10-069-91-94B
09-144-92-948
09-176-93-94H
09-201-94-95N
09-159*92-948
09-179-93-94M
09-174-93-93M
09-193-93-94N
09-167-92-93N
09-198-94-94N
09-203-94-95H
09-179-93-951
09-189-93-94M
09-153-92-94B
09-131-91-95B
09-160-92-94B
09-191-94-95N
09-189-93-94N
09-186-93-95MB
09-194-94-94N
09-065-87-90B
09-156-92-92N
09-095-88-92B
08-043-92-94B
08-035-91-93*
07-004-93-95W
06-016-94-95H
06-018-93-94B
05-041-93-94N
05-042-94-95H
05-040-93-94B
10-083-93-94N
10-074-92-95B
10-078-92-94B
10-086-94-95N
09-197-94-94N
09-180-93-94N
09-202-94-96M
09-190-93-94N
09-131-91-94B
09-142-91-94B
09-186-93-94H
09-182-93-94N
09-143-92-94E
09-196-94-94W
09-196-94-95B
09-178-93-94M
09-138-90-94E
09-186-93-93K
09-195-94-94M
09-199-93-94M
09-207-94-94M
09-034-84-86B
09-118-89-93B
09-062-86-901
09-192-94-96K
09-208-94-95M
08-042*92*948
08-032-92-94M
06-014-94-95V
06-015-94-94M
05-038-93-94H
05-043-94-95N
24
Audit
540O052
-------
•PA'S ADHJK8TRATIOM Of XPA
IPX
APPENDIX I
Page 2 of 3
04-071-94-96N
04-060-92-94N
04-074-94-96N
04-061-92-94N
04-067-93-95N
04-062-92-94M
03-047-93-94H
02-040-90-942
01-036-91-95B
04-072-94-94N
04-059-92-94N
04-066-93-95M
04-040-89-93B
04-048-90-94B
04-073-94-96M
02-047-94-96N
Audit B«pOrt VO. 5400091
-------
BPA'8 ADMJHIBTRATI01I OF XV* Afl8I
-------
BPA'S ADMIMISTRATIO* OF IPA AMZCDOH1IT8
APPENDIX ZZ
Page 2 of 5
IPX Aflfll
NO.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
ZPA ASSIGNMENT
10-078-92-94B
HQ-187-89-93E
09-196-94-94N
05-043-94-95N
08-032-92-94M
05-040-93-94B
09-191-94-95H
09-199-93-94N
09-189-93-94H
09-207-94-94*
BQ-333-94-96N
10-086-94*9 5N
09-192-94-96H
HQ-316-92-94N
10-069-91-941
04-066-93-95*
09-180-93-94N
HQ-292-92-93N
04-059-92-94N
09-197-94-94N
08-042-92-94K
09-190-93-94N
A
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
B
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
C
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
E
-
F
1
1
1
1
1
1
6
1
1
1
Problem category legend listed on page 5 of thia Appendix.
27
Audit leper* *o. 540QOS2
-------
EPA'fl ADMIHIflTRATIOM OF IPA
APPENDIX IX
Pag* 3 of 5
HO.
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
ZPA ASSIGNMENT
NC-086-90-94E
09-193-93-94N
09-186-93-94N
HQ-303-92-93N
08-035-91-93E
09-180-93-94N
09-167-92-93N
HQ-268-91-95E
04-04 0-89-9 3E
HQ-3 19-93-9 3N
HQ-329-93-94N
HQ-285-91-93N
HQ-304-92-93M
HQ-344-94-95H
HQ— 091-85-86H
HQ-244-91-93H
HQ-289-92-94E
HQ-313-92-93N
HQ-186-89-93B
HQ-288-90-94E
HQ-271-91-93N
HQ-295-92-94N
A
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
B
1
1
1
1
1
C
1
1
1
1
1 •
1
i
1
D
-
1
1
B
2
1
F
1
1
1
1
6
*
Problra category l«g«nd listed on page 5 of this Appendix.
28
Audit »«por« Mo. 5400052
-------
•PA'S ADNXMISftftYXaV Of XV* A88IOM1CBVT0
APPENDIX IX
4 of 5
NO.
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
IPX ASSIGNMENT
HQ-302-92-92B
09-179-93-95B
09-180-93-94N
09-196-94-95B
09-178-93-94M
09-153-92-94B
09-131-91-958
09*186-93-9511
09-178-93-94*
09-197-94-94M
09-160-92-94B
09-195-94-94H
HQ-332-93-95N
HQ-279-91-93N
HQ-273-91-93N
HQ-262-91-93*
HQ-227-90-95B
09-180-93-94*
09-186-93-95MB
09-186-93-95ME
09-118-89-93B
09-156-92-92N
A
1
1
2
2
1
1
B
1
1
C
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
D
B
F
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
'
1
1
1
6
1
1
1
Problwt category legend listed on page 5 of thl« Appendix.
29
Audit Beport Ve. 5400053
-------
•. •> »
SPA'S ADXXiTSTRATZov OF IPA isszomms
APPENDIX IX
Page 5 of 5
NO.
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
IPA ASSIGNMENT
09-180-93-94N
09-195-94-94N
09-182-93-94H
09-179-93-94M
09-174-93-93N
09-180-93-94N
HQ-272-91-94E
09-065-87-901
09-062-86-901
TOTALS
A
1
49
B
1
1
23
C
,1
1
1
1
1
35
D
4
E
"4
P
1
1
1
1
1
26
6
1
9
and—Pirob 1<
A. Questionable Costs.
B. Assignees Not Returning To Their "Home" Organisation.
C. Ineligible Assignments.
D. Multiple Problems indicate Program Abuse.
S. IPA Program Inequities.
F. Questionable Region 9 Blanket Agreements.
G. Assignments Augmenting State Staff On A Long-Term Basis,
Some agreements are listed more than once because the same
problem arose for different assignees using the same blanket
agreement. Totals for B, D, B, P, 6 related to problem category
titles above. Totals for A and C related to subtitles under the
problem category titles above.
30
Audit
54OQO5Z
-------
BFA'f 1DMIMIITRAIIOM OF IPA
APPENDIX ZZX
T9&
AGREEMENT
AMOUNT
$4,070
DESCRIPTION
HQ-272-91-941
HQ-288-90-94B $5,000
HQ-299-92-94N
HQ-279-91-93H
HQ-271-91-93H
HQ-227-90-94E
$10,841
$8,575
$53,915
$46,856
EPA underbilled for fringe
benefits for 7 Bonths.
EPA did not bill for travel and
relocation costs to the
assignment.
September and October 1994
payments not supported.
August 1992 payment not
supported.
Fiscal 1992 and 1993 payments not
supported*
April and August 1993 and April and May
1994 payments net supported by
invoices. Invoices not detailed to
determine if proper salary percentages
were paid per the IPA agreement.
Total
$129,257
31
Audit Report me. 5400032
-------
f •> Jt
SPA'S ADMINISTRATION OT IPX A88K
ITS
APPENDIX ZV
AD Administratively Determined
ASTPHLD Association of State and Territorial Public Health
Laboratory Directors
CFHC Cincinnati Financial Management Center
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DEQ Department of Environmental Quality
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
PPM Federal Personnel Manual
GM General Manager
63 General schedule
ZPA . Intergovernmental Personnel Act
NETAC National Environmental Technology Applications
Corporation
OARM Office of Administration and Resources Management
OCEM Office of Cooperative Environmental Management
OGC Office of General Counsel
OHROS office of Human Resources and Organizational services
OPM Office of Personnel Management
PCS Permanent Change of Station
PO Project Officer
SES Senior Executive Service
TOY Temporary Duty
U.S.C. United States Code
32
Audit Report MO. 5400052
-------
" 9 *
ADMZ>I0TBlyzQH
APPENDIX VII
Office of the Inspector General
Inspector General (2410)
Deputy Inspector General (2410)
Divisional Inspectors General
Director, Planning and Resources Management Staff,
Office of Audit (2421)
ZPA
Raoianal Offii
Assistant Administrator for Administration and
Resources Management (3101)
Director, Office of Human Resources and
Organisational Support (3610)
Comptroller, Office of the Comptroller (3301)
Director, Financial Management Division (3303?)
Audit Pollowup Coordinator, OARM (3102)
Agency Follovup coordinator (3304)
Attn: Director, Resources Management Division
Associate Administrator for Congressional and
Legislative Affairs (1301)
Associate Administrator for Communications,
Education and Public Affairs (1701)
Regional Administrator, Region 9
Audit Pollowup Coordinator, Region 9
Financial Management Officer, Cincinnati Financial
Management Center
33Attdit Report BO. 5400052
-------
------- |