United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Inspector General (2441)
Washington, DC 20460
May 1995
x>EPA
Office of Inspector General
Semiannual Report
to the Congress
October 1,1994 through
March 31,1995
-------
Foreword
Uuring this semiannual reporting period, the Office of
Inspector General continued to perform analyses of EPA
programs and operations and make constructive
recommendations necessary to help the Agency with its
reinvention process. As part of its strategic plan, EPA has
committed itself to streamlining and a "Common Sense
Initiative" for finding cleaner, cheaper and smarter strategies for
tackling environmental problems. The real challenge of
reinvention and change is a rigorous examination of ways to
reduce costs, assess risks, identify customer needs and
measure performance. Thus, never have the needs and focus of
EPA management been more closely aligned with the objectives
and mission of the Office of Inspector General. EPA managers
are seeking our assistance, more than ever, as evaluators and
management consultants in a partnership for change to help
implement EPA's strategic plan.
As exemplified in this report, we are identifying areas where there are vulnerabilities, changes
needed, and opportunities for savings. We have also reported on areas where EPA has taken
corrective actions, where additional corrective action is needed, and where the Agency is
successfully initiating changes to further environmental goals. We in the Office of Inspector
General have also embraced the concept of streamlining and reinvention with decisive action for
greater staff empowerment, operational efficiency, and improved work processes.
This is a unique time of change throughout government. I believe that the role of the Inspector
General in identifying opportunities for change, along with the Agency's own initiatives for
promoting needed changes is a potent formula for meaningful reinvention. This cooperative
approach and shared commitment is necessary to protect the environment as efficiently and
effectively as possible.
r
\
John C Martin
Inspector General
-------
Contents
Executive Summary . . . .
Major Laws Administered by EPA . ...
Profile of Activities and Results ...
Establishment of the OIG in EPA-lts Role and Authority
Purpose and Requirements of the Office of Inspector General
Semiannual Report ... .
Who's Who in the Office of Inspector General
Section 1-Significant Findings and Recommendations
Costs and Benefits . . .
Agency and Financial Management
Construction Grants
Superfund
Section 2-Report Resolution
Status Report on Perpetual Inventory of Reports in Resolution Process
for the Semiannual Period Ending March 31, 1995
Audit Followup
Status of Management Decisions on IG Reports
Resolution of Significant Reports
Section 3--Prosecutive Actions
Summary of Investigative Activity
Description of Selected Prosecutive and Administrative Actions
Civil and Administrative Actions to Recover EPA Funds
Section 4-Fraud Prevention and Management Improvements
Review of Legislation and Regulations
Suspension and Debarment Activities
OIG Personnel Security Program
OIG Management Initiatives
President's Council on Integrity and Efficiency
Committee on Integrity and Management Improvement
Hotline Activities
Appendices
Appendix 1-Reports Issued
Appendix 2-Reports Issued Without Management Decisions
1
3
4
5
5
6
7
8
19
22
27
27
30
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
42
42
43
44
54
-------
Executive Summary
Section 1--
Significant Findings
and
Recommendations
1. EPA $126 Million Short
of Congressional User Fee
Targets
EPA has not aggressively
pursued user fee
opportunities, and has
collected only $22 million of
the congressionally directed
$148 million in new user fees
through fiscal 1994 (page 8).
2. Millions in Savings
Possible Through
Improved Subcontract
Competition and Oversight
Prime contractor actions in
selecting, negotiating, and
awarding subcontracts, and
the Agency's review of these
actions, were not sufficient to
ensure technically competent
subcontracts, reasonable
prices, and effective
subcontract competition.
Through improved
subcontract competition and
oversight, contract costs
could be potentially reduced
by $55 million (page 9).
3. Interagency Agreements
Used Without Adequate
Cost Consideration
EPA often executed
Economy Act Interagency
Agreements (lAGs) without
considering the
reasonableness of their
costs. In addition, EPA did
not recover its full costs of
performing work for other
agencies (page 10).
4. Region 7 Disregarded
Approved Allocations in
Implementing Their Budget
Region 7 funded
management and support
activities with resources
meant to operate
environmental programs,
disregarded reprogramming
rules, routinely overobligated
program elements, and did
not provide program
managers with sufficient
budget and financial
information (page 11).
5. Improved Controls
Needed OverIPA
Assignments
While EPA's
Intergovernmental Personnel
Act (IPA) program has
generally met the intent of
the Act, more than half of the
IPA assignments we
reviewed had inadequate
management controls
resulting in excessive costs
and insufficient benefit to
EPA (page 12).
6. Further Actions Needed
to Improve Region 7 Public
Water Systems
Two Region 7 States,
Kansas and Missouri,
brought some small public
water systems into
compliance with drinking
water regulations by using
innovative preventive
measures. However,
ineffective data management
systems impeded the States'
abilities to effectively monitor
compliance and enforcement
actions (page 13).
7. Tribal Program in
Region 8 Inadequately
Planned
Region 8 had not clearly
identified Tribal
environmental needs,
established a Regional
workplan and performance
measures, or efficiently
organized its Tribal staff
(page 14).
8. Application Software
Maintenance Needs Further
Improvements
Although EPA has taken
significant steps to
strengthen its management
of application software
maintenance, more needs to
be done to improve system
and software reliability, cost
effectiveness, and decisions
about operational changes
(page 15).
9. Cultural Diversity Goals
Exceeded in Laboratory
Contractor Conversion
The Health Effects Research
Laboratory's (HERL)
contractor conversion hires
exceeded established
cultural diversity goals for
women and minorities, while
complying with applicable
Federal and Agency
guidelines for open and
competitive recruitment
(page 16).
10. Further Improvements
in Financial Reporting
Needed
During fiscal 1994, EPA
continued to make
improvements in its financial
systems and processes. As
a result of these
improvements and certain
OIG assistance projects, we
issued unqualified or
qualified opinions on several
financial statements for
which we disclaimed an
opinion last year. However,
additional improvements are
needed to resolve several
material internal control
weaknesses before
unqualified opinions can be
rendered on some of the
Agency's financial
statements (page 16).
11. Los Angeles,
California, Claimed Over
$30 Million of Ineligible
Costs
The City of Los Angeles,
California, claimed
$30,487,741 of ineligible
construction, claim
settlement, and indirect costs
for the Hyperion wastewater
treatment facility (page 20).
12. Over $19 Million of
Questioned Costs Claimed
for Orangeburg, New York,
Project
The Rockland County Sewer
District, New York, claimed
$1,721,208 of ineligible
construction, administrative,
and architectural engineering
costs for the construction of
a wastewater treatment
facility. An additional
$17,629,638 of unsupported
project costs were
questioned (page 20).
13. Over $5 Million of
Questioned Costs Claimed
for Bristol, Connecticut,
Project
The City of Bristol,
Connecticut, claimed
$2,462,057 of ineligible
architectural engineering,
construction, inspection, and
administrative costs for the
design and construction of a
wastewater treatment facility.
An additional $2,873,709 of
unsupported costs were
questioned (page 21).
14. Nearly $2 Million of
Ineligible Costs Claimed
for Vernal, Utah, Project
The Ashley Valley Sewer
Management Board, Vernal,
Utah, claimed $1,940,493 of
OCTOBER 1, 1994 THROUGH MARCH 31, 1995
-------
ineligible engineering and
construction costs for a
wastewater treatment facility
(page 21).
15. Higher Priority Needed
for Reviews of Superfund
Site Remedies
The Agency gave low priority
to five-year reviews of
Superfund site remedial
actions needed to assure the
continued environmental
protection of the remedy or
additional timely corrective
action. As a result, there
was an increasing backlog of
unreviewed sites (page 23).
16. Better Controls
Needed Over Region 8's
Superfund Field Sampling
Activities
Region 8 needed better
sampling controls and quality
assurance training of
remedial project managers
(RPMs), and more consistent
RPM oversight at Superfund
sites (page 23).
17. Region 9 Pilot Projects
Speed Up Site
Assessments
Region 9 pilots integrating
Superfund site assessment
activities significantly
improved the timeliness and
cost effectiveness of the site
assessment process (page
24).
Section 2--Report
Resolution
This section, required by the
IG Act, reports on the status
and results of Agency
management actions to
resolve audit reports. At the
beginning of the semiannual
period, there were 230
reports for which no
management decision had
been made. During the first
half of fiscal 1995, the Office
of Inspector General issued
448 new reports and closed
378. At the end of the
reporting period, 300 reports
remained in the Agency
followup system for which no
management decision had
been made. Of the 300
reports, 119 reports
remained in the Agency
followup system for which no
management decision was
made within 6 months of
issuance (page 26).
For the 146 reports closed
that required Agency action,
EPA management disallowed
$45.5 million of questioned
costs for recovery and
agreed with our
recommendations that $0.2
million be put to better use
(page 27). In addition, cost
recoveries in current and
prior periods included $4
million in cash collections,
and at least $27.2 million in
offsets against billings
(page 4).
Section 3-
Prosecutive Actions
During this semiannual
reporting period, our
investigative efforts resulted
in 9 convictions and 12
indictments. Also, during this
semiannual period, our
investigative work led to $4.2
million in fines and
recoveries (page 34).
Section 4--Fraud
Prevention and
Management
Improvements
During this semiannual
period, we reviewed 2
legislative and 69 regulatory
items. The most significant
comments were on draft
documents impacting the
responsibilities of the
Inspector General, Federal
Acquisition Regulation cases,
and Agency information
resources management
policy (page 37).
The Office of Grants and
Debarment completed action
on 26 OIG-generated
suspension and debarment
cases during this reporting
period, resulting in 23
debarments, one suspension,
and two compliance
agreements (page 38).
The EPA Committee on
Integrity and Management
Improvement (CIMI), chaired
by the Inspector General,
developed and distributed
bulletins to EPA personnel
discussing the use of the
American Express program,
Conferences and Meetings,
and Management and
Disposition of Federal
records (page 42).
Eighteen Hotline cases were
opened and 31 were closed
during the reporting period.
Of the closed cases, 7
resulted in environmental,
prosecutive, or administrative
corrective action (page 43).
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
-------
Major Laws Administered by EPA
Statute
Pollution Prevention Act
Toxic Substances Control Act
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,
and Rodenticide Act
Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
and Solid Waste Disposal Act
Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act
Clean Air Act
Clean Water Act
Safe Drinking Water Act
Marine Protection, Research and
Sanctuaries Act
Asbestos School Hazard Abatement Act
and Asbestos Hazard Emergency
Response Act
Emergency Planning and Community Right-
to-Know Act
Oil Pollution Act of 1990
Environmental Research, Development, and
Demonstration Authorization Act
National Environmental Education Act
Provisions
Provides that pollution should be prevented or reduced at the source,
recycled safely when not preventable, treated safely when not
preventable or recyclable, and as a last resort, disposed of or
otherwise released into the environment in a safe manner.
Requires EPA notification of any new chemical prior to its
manufacture and authorizes EPA to regulate production, use, or
disposal of a chemical.
Authorizes EPA to register all pesticides, specify the terms and
conditions of their use, and remove unreasonably hazardous
pesticides from the marketplace.
Authorizes EPA in cooperation with FDA to establish tolerance levels
for pesticide residues on food.
Authorizes EPA to identify hazardous wastes and regulate their
generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal.
Requires EPA to designate hazardous substances that can present
substantial danger and authorizes the cleanup of sites contaminated
with such substances.
Authorizes EPA to set emission standards to limit the release of
criteria pollutants and hazardous air pollutants.
Requires EPA to establish a list of toxic water pollutants and set
standards.
Requires EPA to set drinking water standards to protect public health
from hazardous substances.
Regulates ocean dumping of toxic contaminants.
Authorizes EPA to provide loans and grants to schools for abatement
of asbestos hazards and to establish a comprehensive regulatory
framework for controlling asbestos hazards in schools.
Requires States to develop programs for responding to hazardous
chemical releases and requires industries to report on the presence
and release of certain hazardous substances.
Makes EPA responsible for oil spill prevention, preparedness,
response, and enforcement activities associated with non-
transportation-related onshore oil facilities.
Authorizes all EPA research and development programs.
Provide for a program of education on the environment through
activities in schools, institutions of higher education and related
educational activities, and to encourage students to pursue careers
related to the environment.
OCTOBER 1, 1994 THROUGH MARCH 31, 1995
-------
Profife of ActiMties and Results
Office of Inspector General
October 1, 1994, to
March 31, 1995
Audit Operations
OIG Managed Reviews:
Reviews Performed by EPA, Independent
Public Accountants and State Auditors
Questioned Costs
Total $97.5 Million
Federal Share * $61.5 Million
Recommended Efficiencies
(Funds be Put to Better Use)
Total Efficiencies" $0.7 Million
Federal Share Efficiencies* $0.7 Million
Costs Disallowed to be Recovered
Federal Share (cosfs which EPA
management agrees are unallowable
and is committed to recover or
offset against future payments) $44.7 Million
Costs Disallowed as Cost Efficiency
Federal Share (funds made available
by EPA management's commitment to
implement recommendations in OIG
performance and preaward audits) $0.1 Million
Other Reviews:
- Reviews Performed by another
Federal Agency or Single Audit Act Auditors
Questioned Costs
Total $1.1 Million
Federal Share * $1.1 Million
Recommended Efficiencies
Total Efficiencies* $35.7 Million
Federal Share Efficiencies* $35.5 Million
Costs Disallowed to be Recovered
Federal Share $0.7 Million
Costs Disallowed as Cost Efficiency
Federal Share $0.1 Million
October 1, 1994, to
March 31, 1995
Agency Recoveries:
Recoveries from Audit Resolutions of
Current and Prior Periods (cash collections
or offsets to future payments)** $ 31.3 Million
Reports Issued:
OIG Managed Reviews:
EPA Reviews Performed by the OIG 82
EPA Reviews Performed by Independent Public
Accountants 12
EPA Reviews Performed by State Auditors 1
- Other Reviews:
EPA Reviews Performed by
another Federal Agency 231
Single Audit Act Reviews 122
Total Reports Issued 448
Reports Resolved (agreement by Agency officials 146
to take satisfactory corrective action)***
investigative Operations
$4.2 Million
89
75
12
9
13
Fines and Recoveries (including civil)
Investigations Opened
Investigations Closed
Indictments of Persons or Firms
Convictions of Persons or Firms
Administrative Actions Against EPA Employees
Fraud Detection and Prevention Operations
Debarments, Suspensions, and Compliance
Agreements 26
Hotline Cases Opened 18
Hotline Cases Processed and Closed 31
Personnel Security Investigations Adjudicated 320
*Questioned Costs (Ineligible, Unsupported, and Unnecessary/Unreasonable) and Recommended Efficiencies (Funds be Put to
Better Use) are subject to change pending further review in the audit resolution process.
**Information on recoveries from audit resolution is provided from the EPA Financial Management Division and is unaudited.
***Reports resolved are subject to change pending further review.
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
-------
Establishment of the OIG in EPA-lts Role And Authority
The Inspector General Act of
1978 (Public Law 95-452), as
amended, created Offices of
Inspector General to
consolidate existing
investigative and audit
resources in independent
organizations headed by
Inspectors General.
EPA established its Office of
Inspector General (OIG) in
January 1980. As an agency
with a massive public works
budget, EPA is vulnerable to
various kinds of financial
abuses. The OIG's role is to
review EPA's financial
transactions, program
operations, contracts, and
administrative activities;
investigate allegations or
evidence of possible criminal
and civil violations; and
promote economic, efficient,
and effective Agency
operations. The OIG is also
responsible for reviewing EPA
regulations and legislation.
The EPA Inspector General
reports directly to the
Administrator and the
Congress and has the
authority to:
• Initiate and carry out
independent and objective
audits and investigations,
• Issue subpoenas for
evidence and information,
• Obtain access to any
materials in the Agency,
• Report serious or flagrant
problems to Congress,
• Select and appoint OIG
employees,
• Fill Senior Executive Service
positions,
• Administer oaths, and
• Enter into contracts.
The Inspector General is
appointed by, and can be
removed only by, the
President. This independence
protects the OIG from
interference by Agency
management and
allows it to function as
the Agency's fiscal and
operational watchdog.
Organization and
Resources
The Office of Inspector
General functions through
three major offices, each
headed by an Assistant
Inspector General: Office of
Audit, Office of Investigations,
and Office of Management.
Nationally, there are eight
Divisional Inspectors General
for Audit and three Divisional
Inspectors General for
Investigations who direct staffs
of auditors and investigators
and who report to the
appropriate Assistant
Inspector General in
Headquarters.
For fiscal 1995, the Agency
was appropriated $7,240,887
and authorized 19,069 full
time equivalent (FTE)
positions to conduct the
environmental programs
authorized by Congress to
restore and protect the
environment. As a separate
appropriation account, the
Office of Inspector General
(OIG) received $44.5 million to
carry out the provisions of the
Inspector General Act of 1978,
as amended. Nearly $15.4
million of the OIG's
appropriation was derived
from the Hazardous
Substance Superfund trust
fund and $669,000 was
derived from the Leaking
Underground Storage Tank
trust fund. The OIG has a
funded staffing level of 447
FTE positions.
Purpose and
Requirements of the
Office of Inspector
General Semiannual
Report
The Inspector General Act of
1978 (Public Law 95-452), as
amended, requires the
Inspector General to keep the
Administrator and Congress
fully and currently informed of
problems and deficiencies in
the Agency's operations and
to recommend corrective
action.
The IG Act further specifies
that semiannual reports will be
provided to the Administrator
by each April 30 and October
31, and to Congress 30 days
later. The Administrator may
transmit comments to
Congress along with the
report, but may not change
any part of it.
The specific reporting
requirements prescribed in the
Inspector General Act of 1978,
as amended, are listed below.
Source Section/Page
Inspector General Act, as amended.
Section 4(a)(2)
Section 5(a)(1)
Section 5(a)(2)
Section 5(a){3)
Section 5(a)(4)
Section 5(a)(5)
Section 5(a)(6)
Section 5(a)(7)
Section 5(a)(8)
Section 5(a)(9)
Review of Legislation and Regulations 4 37
Significant Problems, Abuses, and
Deficiencies 1 7
Recommendations with Respect to
Significant Problems, Abuses, and
Deficiencies 1 7
Prior Significant Recommendations on
Which Corrective Action Has Not
Been Completed Appendix 2 54
Matters Referred to Prosecutive
Authorities 3 34
Summary of Instances
Where Information Was Refused ' *
List of Audit Reports Appendix 1 44
Summary of Significant Reports 1 1
Statistical Table 1-Reports With
Questioned Costs
Statistical Table 2-Reports With
Recommendations That Funds Be Put
To Better Use
31
32
Section 5(a)(10) Summary of Previous Audit
Reports Without Management
Decisions
Appendix 2 54
Section 5(a)(11) Description and Explanation of Revised
Management Decisions Appendix 2 54
Section 5(a)(12) Management Decisions with Which the
Inspector General Is in Disagreement **
* There were no instances where information or assistance
requested by the Inspector General was refused during this
reporting period.
" There were no instances of management decisions with which the
Inspector General was in disagreement.
OCTOBER 1, 1994 THROUGH MARCH 31, 1995
-------
Headquarters
Office of Inspector General-Who's Who
Inspector General
John C. Martin
Deputy Inspector General (Acting)
Kenneth A. Konz
Office of Audit
Kenneth A. Konz
Assistant Inspector General
James 0. Rauch
Principal Deputy
Office of Management
John C. Jones
Assistant Inspector General
Office of Investigations
Michael J. Fitzsinroons
Assistant Inspector General
Policy and Resources
Management
Kenneth Hockman
Engineering and Scientific
Assistance
Robert Eagen
ADP Audits and Assistance
Gordon Mil bourn (Acting)
Special Projects and Reviews
Gordon Mil bourn
Acquisition and Assistance
Elissa R. Karpf
Internal and Performance Audits
Michael D. Si unions
Program Management Division
John T. Walsh
Resources Management Division
Michael J. Binder
Divisional Inspectors General for Audit
Divisional Inspectors General for Investigations
Regions 1 & 2
Paul McKechnie
Region 3
Paul R. Gandolfo
Regions 4 & 6
Mary Boyer
Region 5
Anthony C. Carrollo
Regions 7 & 8
Nikki Tinsley
Regions 9 & 10
Truman R Beeler
Headquarters:
HQS Audit Division
Edward Gekosky
Financial Audit Division
Melissa M Heist
Regions 1, 2, & 3
Thomas Papineau
Regions 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, & 10
Allen P. Fallin
Procurement Fraud Division
Emmett D. Dashiell
WV
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
-------
Section 1 -- Significant Findings and Recommendations
As required by sections 5(a)(1)
and (2) of the Inspector General
Act of 1978, as amended, this
section identifies significant
problems, abuses, and
deficiencies relating to the
Agency's programs and
operations along with
recommendations for the current
period. The findings described
in this section resulted from
audits and reviews performed by
or for the Office of Audit. Audit
findings are open to further
review but are the final position
of the Office of Inspector
General. This section is divided
into three areas: Agency and
Financial Management,
Construction Grants, and
Super-fund.
COST BENEFITS OF TOTAL AUDIT EFFORTS
OCTOBER 1, 1994 THROUGH MARCH 31, 1995
(IG AUDIT BUDGET, AUDIT RESULTS, AND EPA MANAGEMENT DECISIONS)
FEDERAL COSTS
QUESTIONED
EPA DECISIONS TO
RECOVER FUNDS
FY 95 AUDIT BUDGET
(Six Months)
OCTOBER 1, 1994 THROUGH MARCH 31, 1995
-------
Agency and Financial
Management
The Inspector General Act
requires the OIG to initiate
reviews and other activities to
promote economy and efficiency
and to detect and prevent fraud,
waste, and mismanagement in
EPA programs and operations.
Internal and performance audits
and reviews are conducted to
accomplish these objectives
largely by evaluating the
economy, efficiency, and
effectiveness of operations.
During this semiannual reporting
period, the OIG conducted a
number of major reviews of EPA
programs, including oversight of
subcontractors, use of
Interagency Agreements and
Intergovernmental Personnel Act
assignments, management of
application software
maintenance, one Region's
budget execution practices,
contractor conversion at an
Agency laboratory, and one
Region's oversight of Tribal
environmental programs. The
OIG also reported on its audit of
the Agency's fiscal 1994 financial
statements. The following are
the most significant internal
audit, performance audit, and
special review findings and
recommendations pertaining to
Agency management resulting
from our efforts during this
semiannual reporting period.
EPA $126 Million Short of
Congressional User Fee
Targets
Findings in Brief
EPA has not aggressively
pursued user fee opportunities,
and has collected only $22
million of the congressionally
directed $148 million in new user
fees through fiscal 1994.
Background
User fees are charges the Federal
government assesses individuals or
organizations for services or things
of value provided by Federal
agencies. Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) guidance
requires Federal agencies to
identify all potential fee programs,
either charge fees or request
exceptions, and maintain adequate
documentation supporting
established charges. The Omnibus
Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990
(OBRA '90) directed EPA to collect
$187.5 million in new user fees for
fiscal years 1991 through 1995.
We Found That
EPA had not inventoried its
activities to identify all potential new
user fees because Agency
personnel were not aware of
requirements in updated OMB
guidance. Officials did not believe
studying new fees was worthwhile
since the Agency cannot keep the
fees they collect, and the Agency
was slow in charging fees already
identified. Further, EPA was
reluctant to use its existing
statutory authority to charge fees
and was $126 million short of its
OBRA '90 targets for fiscal 1991
through 1994 which we estimate
added $88 million to the national
debt. If new fees already identified
and potential new fees identified
during the audit are charged, EPA
could fulfill its new user fee
obligations.
Because EPA has not sought to
update statutory caps on Pre-
Manufacture Notice (PMN) fees set
in 1976, 18 years of inflation (as of
1994) have effectively lowered the
value of the maximum fees EPA
can charge for PMN processing by
61 percent. If EPA had requested
a timely adjustment for inflation to
fee caps, it could have collected
$4 million more in fiscal 1994
alone. EPA missed more revenue
opportunities by not charging
administrative processing fees for
incomplete PMN applications, and
by not updating its 1977 policy to
grant blanket fee waivers for
biological pesticide tolerances.
Program offices had either
insufficient or outdated information
to support fees charged. They had
not kept adequate supporting data
because they believed fee
management did not merit
resources and because they felt
that updated support for fees with
rates set by law was unnecessary.
As a result, an April 1994 court
decision concluded that EPA did
not use reasonable care in
developing support for the Motor
Vehicle and Engine Compliance
Program fee. In addition, the
Agency has no assurance that
Pesticide Tolerance fees cover
program costs.
We Recommended That
The Chief Financial Officer (CFO):
• Review EPA's activities, list all
potential fees, and institute charges
or request exceptions from OMB.
• Develop an action plan to
implement Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA) fees and
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System fees.
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENFRAI
-------
• Encourage using EPA's existing
statutory authority to charge fees,
and make sure all user fees have
adequate supporting
documentation.
The Assistant Administrator for Air
and Radiation evaluate two
potential new fees: certification of
chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) testing
centers and the Acid Rain Emission
Credits Program.
The Assistant Administrator for
Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic
Substances:
• Initiate a legal review for a
Toxic Release Inventory form
processing fee, and request a
legislative update to PMN fee caps
to include a provision to charge
administrative fees.
• Revise the Agency's policy for
biological pesticide tolerances to
grant waivers only based on
economic tests, and make sure fee
rates are in line with costs.
What Action Was Taken
The CFO and the Offices of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response
(OSWER), and Water generally
agreed with our conclusions and
recommendations, except that the
OSWER does not plan to dedicate
resources to further develop RCRA
fees. The Office of Air and
Radiation agreed to implement our
recommendations, but stated that
the report could better present the
adverse programmatic
consequences that can result from
the imposition of fees. The Office
of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic
Substances did not agree with our
recommendations and stated that:
(1) increasing fee collection efforts
would divert resources; (2) EPA
would not see the benefits since
fees go directly to the Treasury or
offset appropriated funds; and
(3) since EPA grants waivers as a
way of providing incentives for
registering "safer" pesticides (which
biological pesticides generally are),
changing the waiver policy for them
would send the wrong message to
industry and the public. We issued
our final report (5100209) on
March 27, 1995. An Agency
response to the final report is due
by June 26, 1995.
Millions in Savings
Possible Through Improved
Subcontract Competition
and Oversight
Findings In Brief
Prime contractor actions in
selecting, negotiating, and
awarding subcontracts, and the
Agency's review of these
actions, were not sufficient to
ensure technically competent
subcontracts, reasonable prices,
and effective subcontract
competition. Through improved
subcontract competition and
oversight, contract costs could
be potentially reduced by $55
million.
Background
The Federal Acquisition Regulation
(FAR) requires the use of
competition for Federal contract
and subcontract awards with few
exceptions. The FAR also provides
guidelines for subcontract awards
and governs the Agency's oversight
and the prime contractor's
management and use of
subcontracts. In prior years, EPA
has reported that up to 99 percent
of its prime contract dollars were
awarded through full and open
competition. However, prior OIG
reports related to certain prime
contracts indicated that the vast
majority of subcontracts were
awarded sole source or through
other noncompetitive procedures.
We Found That
Over 78 percent of the subcontracts
we reviewed were awarded
noncompetitively, and 93 percent of
these were not properly justified.
Contracting officers routinely
approved prime contractor requests
for consent to award a subcontract
sole source without supporting
documentation. For the five prime
contracts reviewed, we estimated
that EPA could reduce contract
costs between $15.0 and $54.9
million (based on the maximum
potential value of the
noncompetitive subcontracts in our
sample) by requiring competitive
subcontract awards. Extensive use
of noncompetitive subcontract
awards (67 percent of the value of
prime contracts in our sample)
undermine any benefits obtained
from competitive prime contract
awards.
The broad scope of work of EPA's
large, cost-reimbursable prime
contracts encouraged extensive
and costly subcontracting. For the
five prime contracts reviewed,
subcontracts increased the prime
contractors' costs an estimated
27.9 percent, or $86.5 million,
without any identifiable substantial
value. Further, certain
subcontractors performed services
for such prolonged periods and to
such an extent that separate prime
contracts were justified.
EPA managers interfered with the
prime contractors' responsibility to
manage and competitively award
subcontracts by directing prime
contractors to use specific
subcontractors or to subcontract
specific tasks. Sixty-five of the 126
OCTOBER 1, 1994 THROUGH MARCH 31, 1995
-------
subcontracts proposed after prime
contract award exhibited evidence
of EPA involvement in the
subcontract award. EPA program
managers used prime contractors
as subcontract brokers, avoided
competition requirements for direct
Federal procurements, and
noncompetitiveiy obtained the
services of desired contractors
through directed subcontract
awards.
EPA oversight of prime contractor
management, use and award of
subcontracts did not: (1) ensure
contracted services were procured
at the lowest cost; (2) ensure
subcontractors proposed by prime
contractors were needed or were
the most technically qualified; (3)
identify or question EPA
involvement in prime contractors'
decisions to subcontract; or, (4)
monitor the degree of
noncompetitive subcontract awards
and prolonged use of certain
subcontractors.
EPA intends to reduce the scope of
selected prime contracts and award
more prime contracts to increase
competition which could reduce the
need for extensive, costly
subcontracts to address broad
contract requirements. Also, EPA
plans to pilot the award of
performance based, fixed price
contracts to potentially reduce and
better control contract costs.
We Recommended That
The Assistant Administrator for
Administration and Resources
Management:
• Extend current initiatives to
increase prime contract competition
to include subcontracting and
realize economies from competitive
subcontract awards.
• Reduce the use of subcontracts
to those actually needed.
• Limit contractors' indirect and
direct actual cost rates, negotiate
fixed labor rates, and reduce the
use of cost reimbursable contracts
when possible.
• Preclude inappropriate EPA
involvement in prime contractor
selection and management of
subcontractors.
• Strengthen controls over
subcontracts and consistently and
properly apply Federal
requirements for subcontract
awards.
What Action Was Taken
The final report (5100247) was
issued to the Assistant
Administrator for Administration and
Resources Management on March
31, 1995. In response to our draft
report, Agency officials agreed with
many of the recommendations and
initiated or planned corrective
actions. Some of the findings and
recommendations still need to be
resolved. A response to the final
report is due by June 30, 1995.
Interagency Agreements
Used Without Adequate
Cost Consideration
Findings in Brief
EPA often executed Economy
Act Interagency Agreements
(lAGs) without considering the
reasonableness of their costs. In
addition, EPA did not recover its
full costs of performing work for
other agencies.
Background
lAGs are written agreements
between Federal agencies under
which goods and services are
provided in exchange for monetary
reimbursement. The Economy Act
of 1932, as amended, is the
authority most often cited for EPA
to enter into lAGs with other
Federal agencies.
We Found That
EPA had not adequately considered
cost in determining to use Economy
Act lAGs rather than its own
procurement process. Although
program offices varied in the
measures taken to ensure cost
reasonableness, the reason cited
most often for using lAGs was the
ease with which transactions could
be completed in comparison to the
contracting process. Independent
Government Cost Estimates
(IGCEs), cost comparisons, and
better justification in the Decision
Memorandum would ensure that
program offices focus on cost
reasonableness, not just
convenience.
The Economy Act, U.S. Comptroller
General Decisions, and Agency
policy, all require full cost recovery
when performing work or furnishing
materials for another agency.
Despite these requirements, EPA
did not bill other agencies for EPA's
indirect costs related to performing
work or furnishing materials. Other
Federal agencies, when providing
goods and services to EPA, charge
indirect cost rates between 3.2
percent and 15 percent. If EPA
charged other agencies at these
rates, EPA could have recouped
between $5 million and $23.4
million.
For disbursement (funds-out) lAGs,
project officers were generally not
obtaining and reviewing cost
information before approving
invoices for payment. Most project
officers interviewed acknowledged
that they did not know the basis for
the amounts invoiced by the
performing agencies, but approved
the invoices anyway. Also, the
Agency paid contractors with whom
it had no contractual relationship.
10
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
-------
For certain lAGs, EPA made
payments directly to the contractor
rather than to the agency providing
the goods or services. The other
agencies' indirect costs cover
services such as processing and
paying invoices, and there is no
indication that they have reduced
their rates. Therefore, EPA could
be paying twice for these services.
We Recommended That
The Assistant Administrator for
Administration and Resources
Management:
• Require that IAG packages
explain the benefit to EPA of
purchasing through other agencies
instead of using EPA's own
procurement process, and
document cost comparisons.
• Require IGCEs for lAGs
consistent with the Agency's current
requirement for EPA contracts, and
refuse to pay any invoices which
lack supporting cost detail.
• Develop a standard clause for
inclusion in all disbursement lAGs
stating that EPA will not pay
invoices without supporting cost
detail, including a breakout of direct
and indirect costs, and instruct
project officers to notify the
payment office to withhold/retract
payments when the performing
agency does not adhere to this
clause.
• When performing work for other
agencies, establish EPA indirect
cost rates, amend existing lAGs to
include the rate established or
cancel the IAG, and not enter into
any new lAGs until indirect cost
rates are established.
What Action Was Taken
The final report (5400051) was
issued to the Assistant
Administrator on March 31, 1995.
Although formal written comments
were not received in response to
the draft report, Agency officials
indicated that they were in general
agreement with requiring IGCEs,
but would not cease accepting or
cancel existing reimbursable lAGs
until indirect costs rates could be
established and put in place. A
response to the final report is due
by June 30, 1995.
Region 7 Disregarded
Approved Allocations in
Implementing Their Budget
Findings in Brief
Region 7 funded management and
support activities with resources
meant to operate environmental
programs, disregarded
reprogramming rules, routinely
overobligated program elements,
and did not provide program
managers with sufficient budget
and financial information.
Background
Congress annually gives EPA a
budget to protect human health and
the environment, and provides
funds within EPA's appropriations
to operate environmental programs
and for management and support
activities. The Headquarters
Budget Division, in consultation with
the National Program Managers,
provides the Regional Administrator
with a budget for regional
operations. EPA must obtain
congressional approval to
reprogram funds in excess of
$500,000, and the Region must
obtain Headquarters approval to
reprogram funds in excess of
$250,000.
We Found That
Region 7 used funds allocated for
environmental programs on
management and support activities.
The Region did not use workyears
and personnel funds as EPA
represented in its budget request to
Congress and did not reprogram
them to reflect planned and actual
use. In fiscal 1994, the Region
supplemented its management and
support budget by $1.1 million in
personnel costs.
The Region exceeded
reprogramming limitations contrary
to EPA policy. The Region
exceeded planned expenditures in
25 of 113 program elements
(allocations for specific purposes) in
fiscal 1993 (including $567,739 in
the Hazardous Substance Financial
Management program element),
and 24 of 145 program elements in
fiscal 1994. While the Region did
not exceed appropriation
limitations, it disregarded
reprogramming requirements.
Funds certifying officers verified
that funds were available in the
appropriation, but did not determine
if funds in the program elements
would cover proposed
expenditures. Region 7's budget
monitoring procedures were not
designed to manage available
funds within the limits of program
elements to prevent
overobligations.
Region 7 did not have an inclusive
process for allocating and
disseminating budget and financial
information to program managers.
Program managers did not know
the personnel budgets available
through the operating plan to
support their environmental
programs. Region 7 budget staff
provided program managers with
information on travel, overtime,
and other operating expenses (13
percent of the Region's internal
operation budget). Regional
financial reports were not provided
timely or often enough to manage
program operations. For example,
two program managers had to
develop their own financial tracking
OCTOBER 1, 1994 THROUGH MARCH 31, 1995
11
-------
systems to monitor their budgets.
However, recognizing this need, in
fiscal 1995, the Region's budget
staff provided program managers
with complete operating plan
information.
We Recommended That
The Regional Administrator, Region
7:
• Follow EPA budget guidelines
and reprogram funds to accurately
reflect Regional activities.
• Develop required Regional
budget execution procedures.
• Provide managers with complete
and timely budget and financial
information.
What Action Was Taken
The final report (5100250) was
issued to the Regional
Administrator on March 31, 1995.
A response to the final report is due
by June 29, 1995.
Improved Controls Needed
Over IPA Assignments
Findings in Brief
While EPA's Intergovernmental
Personne! Act (IPA) program has
generally met the intent of the
Act, more than half of the UFA
assignments we reviewed had
inadequate management controls
resulting in excessive costs and
insufficient benefit to EPA.
Background
The Intergovernmental Personnel
Act authorizes Federal agency
heads to approve temporary
assignments of their personnel to
eligible non-Federal organizations
and vice versa. IPA assignments
are to be of mutual benefit to the
organizations involved, and
participating Federal employees are
required to return to Federal
service upon completion of the
assignments. Chapter 1 of EPA's
IPA Manual indicates that the
organization benefiting more from
the assignment should absorb the
larger share of the cost.
We Found That
Generally, EPA's IPA program has
benefitted EPA and the
environmental community as a
whole. Payments were accurate
and supported for almost all of the
IPA assignments reviewed, most
assignees met the eligibility criteria,
and the majority of Federal
assignees returned to Federal
service.
However, weak management
controls over individual
assignments resulted in at least
one problem with 96 of 160 IPA
assignments (totaling $5.5 million)
which we reviewed. For 43 of the
assignments, EPA paid all of the
costs, even though the benefits
were mutual or predominantly
accrued to the non-Federal
organization. Also, 23 of the
assignees did not, or do not plan
to, return to their home
organizations after their IPAs.
Consequently, EPA may never
receive any benefit from the
expertise presumably acquired on
those IPA assignments.
Several IPA assignments had
multiple problems which were
indicative of program abuse. The
intent and cost of some
assignments were questionable, as
were the benefits to the Agency
and the eligibility of the assignee.
These multiple abuses most
frequently involved IPAs of senior
Agency officials (SES and GM-15
employees) authorized primarily at
the Assistant Administrator level or
higher. In our opinion, the IPA
mechanism was being used in
these cases specifically for the
convenience and benefit of the
employees or to "farm out"
unwanted employees.
Serious problems existed with
Region 9's IPA program, largely
due to blanket IPAs which were
incomplete and did not contain valid
certifications. In several cases,
EPA employees assigned through
blanket IPAs were performing some
of their EPA duties and functions
while being paid salaries and/or
travel expenses with grant funds,
thus allowing Region 9 to preserve
its own travel funds for other uses.
Conflict of interest situations were
created on some blanket IPAs
because project officers (POs)
charged with grant oversight
responsibilities subsequently acted,
while on IPAs, as employees of the
grantee for which they were POs.
Region 9 also augmented State
staff on a long-term basis at
significant costs using IPA
agreements. At any time over the
last five years, from 7 to 11 full-
time EPA employees were serving
on IPA assignments to the State of
Hawaii. In our opinion, easy
access to IPA assignees has
contributed to Hawaii's lack of
urgency in replacing them with its
own staff.
Overall, the problems which we
found were primarily due to
inadequate internal controls or not
adhering to controls in place. We
believe that the cause for
assignments with multiple problems
and excessive costs was the
hesitancy of IPA program officials
to say "no" to EPA's most senior
managers. In addition, the blanket
agreements used by Region 9 were
not reviewed for legality or
completeness, and neither
Headquarters nor the Region
performed effective oversight
reviews.
12
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
-------
We Recommended That
The Assistant Administrator for
Administration and Resources
Management:
• Review the decision to centralize
the IPA program function under a
national coordinator.
• Develop and apply management
controls which will justify costs and
maximize benefits to EPA,
especially for agreements involving
senior managers, and ensure that
assignments meet the intent, cost,
eligibility, and service obligations
required by the Act.
• Prohibit project officers from
participating in IPA assignments
funded by grants they oversee and
monitor.
What Action Was Taken
The final report (5400052) was
issued to the Assistant
Administrator for Administration and
Resources Management on March
30, 1995. While formal written
comments were not received in
response to our draft report, EPA
officials indicated that they
generally agreed with the report
and that management controls can
be improved. A response to the
final report is due by June 30,
1995.
Further Actions Needed to
Improve Region 7 Public
Water Systems
Findings in Brief
Two Region 7 States, Kansas
and Missouri, brought some
small public water systems into
compliance with drinking water
regulations by using innovative
preventive measures. However,
ineffective data management
systems impeded the States'
abilities to effectively monitor
compliance and enforcement
actions.
Background
Congress enacted the Safe
Drinking Water Act (SDWA) in 1974
to protect the nation's water from
various harmful contaminants.
Congress amended the SDWA in
1986 to significantly increase the
number of regulated contaminants
and strengthen enforcement
authority. EPA relies on the
integrity of data received from
States. In 1992, EPA formulated
its plan to automate public water
system information and began
developing the Safe Drinking Water
Information System (SDWIS).
Unlike the Federal Reporting Data
System (FRDS) which is an
enforcement tracking system,
SDWIS will provide a
comprehensive automated data
system for EPA and States to
manage public drinking water
programs.
We Found That
Region 7 encouraged State
emphasis on innovative, preventive
measures to help small,
underfunded public water systems
improve drinking water quality, and
allowed States to be flexible in
selecting enforcement actions.
Region 7 agreed with the States
that escalation of enforcement
actions against small systems was
not productive, and worked with
States to help the smaller systems
achieve compliance rather than
penalize them for noncompliance.
For instance, Missouri developed a
State waiver program through a
university grant of $350,000 that
reduced small system monitoring
burdens and saved Missouri about
$12.3 million. Missouri successfully
assisted small communities in
identifying financing sources to
enable them to consolidate small
systems to reduce compliance
problems and costs. Missouri,
Kansas, and Iowa consolidated
some small systems to reduce
overall compliance problems and
monitoring, and to provide a larger
customer base to absorb the high
cost of testing and water treatment.
These cooperative approaches
resulted in improvements which
brought some systems back into
compliance.
However, we found that the States
needed to develop written
corrective action plans with
milestones to assist chronic non-
compliers in returning to
compliance. These action plans
would help the States and Regions
monitor progress and establish a
more effective, results-oriented
process. Additionally, these plans
could help resolve deficiencies
Region 7 identified in State
programs that had remained
uncorrected since the 1992
program evaluation.
Kansas and Missouri did not have
data management systems
designed to facilitate effective
enforcement and program
improvement decisions. Ineffective
systems have impacted both
States' abilities to provide Region 7
with accurate enforcement data and
to obtain small systems' timely
compliance. Neither State's system
has provided the cost and historical
data to enable the State to make
decisions for managing its safe
drinking water program more
effectively and efficiently. Kansas
and Missouri are not moving as
quickly toward more
comprehensive, automated data
management systems because of
current systems' incompatibility with
SDWIS. States may have adopted
automated technology more quickly
if Region 7 had provided
information about currently
available technology in other
regions and States.
OCTOBER 1, 1994 THROUGH MARCH 31, 1995
13
-------
We Recommended That
The Regional Administrator, Region
7:
• Continue to stress to States the
use of preventive measures and
reasonable alternatives to reduce
small systems' monitoring costs.
• Continue to work with the States
to design enforcement actions with
achievable, enforceable milestones.
• Help States develop corrective
action plans with milestone dates
for problems identified in annual
program evaluations.
• Help States update data
management systems, while
Headquarters completes SDWIS;
help States determine and acquire
the most cost beneficial information
and tracking systems; and
emphasize States adopt SDWIS
modules as they become available.
What Action Was Taken
The final report (5100226) was
issued to the Regional
Administrator on March 24, 1995.
In response to the draft report,
Region 7's Director, Water,
Wetlands, Pesticides Division
concurred with the findings and
recommendations, and initiated
corrective actions. For example,
the Region issued detailed and
specific guidance to the States,
encouraging the use of waivers to
reduce the costs of monitoring, and
asked States to include remedies to
problems identified in program
evaluations during negotiations for
the next year's workplan. Also, the
Director indicated that two states
(Iowa and Nebraska) are fully
committed to adopting SDWIS
modules as they become available;
Missouri is seriously considering
dropping work on their system and
using SDWIS; and the Region will
continue to work with Kansas and
encourage them to consider using
SDWIS. As a result, we closed out
the audit report in our tracking
system.
Triba! Program in Region 8
inadequately Planned
Findings in Brief
Region 8 had not clearly
identified Tribal environmental
needs, established a Regional
workplan and performance
measures, or efficiently
organized its Tribal staff.
Background
In 1984, EPA adopted a formal
Indian Policy to enhance
environmental protection for over
500 Tribes in the United States.
The Agency made a commitment to
incorporate Indian Policy goals into
its planning and management
activities, including its budget,
operating guidance, legislative
initiatives, management
accountability system, and ongoing
policy and regulation development
processes. In August 1994, the
Regional Administrator established
the Tribal program as one of the
Region's top three program
priorities.
We Found That
Region 8 made significant efforts to
implement a Tribal program that
supported EPA's policy. For
example, the Region appointed a
Tribal Coordinator, established a
Tribal Work Group, and initiated
Tribal policy papers. However,
Region 8 did not have an accurate
assessment of Tribal environmental
needs since prior assessments
were not complete, objective, up-to-
date, or comprehensive.
In addition, the Region had not
developed a workplan to establish
strategies for addressing Tribal
environmental problems and
achieving goals. Regional staff
lacked needed direction to establish
quantifiable goals and develop
meaningful performance measures
to evaluate progress.
Region 8 could not fulfill its goal of
a meaningful presence on all
reservations. Although resources
were limited, the Region did not
allocate all available funds for some
Tribes' grant requests. Also, the
Region did not adequately support
EPA or Regional priorities for
building Tribal expertise.
Region 8's organizational structure
did not focus adequate attention on
Tribal environmental needs or
permit effective and efficient
oversight of Tribal program
development by clearly designating
who had responsibility for
implementation of EPA's Indian
Policy. The Region did not have a
focal point that was familiar with
Tribal political structures and
environmental needs, or a central
point of management accountability
for the Region's Tribal expen-
ditures. Tribal representatives were
frustrated with the Region's
organization and the limited amount
of time the Regional staff had to
provide technical assistance.
We Recommended That
The Regional Administrator, Region
8:
• Conduct a comprehensive
assessment of Tribal environmental
needs, develop a Regional
workplan, and establish time-
specific and quantifiable
performance measures.
• Evaluate grant funding options
and allocate travel funds to provide
adequate technical assistance.
14
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
-------
• Assign a single Tribal program
manager the responsibility to
implement and monitor the
program, and identify primary Tribal
coordinators within each Regional
program division.
What Action Was Taken
The final report (5100141) was
issued to the Regional
Administrator on January 23, 1995.
In responding to the draft report,
the Regional Administrator agreed
with our recommendations and
provided an acceptable action plan
with milestone dates to correct the
identified weaknesses. Based on
our audit report, EPA declared, as
an Agency level Federal Managers'
Financial Integrity Act weakness, its
administration of environmental
issues on Indian reservations,
particularly due to EPA's not
providing appropriate technical
support to the Tribes. We closed
this audit in our tracking system
and all corrective actions will now
be tracked in the Agency's
Management Audit Tracking
System.
Application Software
Maintenance Needs Further
Improvements
Findings in Brief
Although EPA has taken
significant steps to strengthen
its management of application
software maintenance, more
needs to be done to improve
system and software reliability,
cost effectiveness, and decisions
about operational changes.
Background
EPA has over 500 information
systems as well as computer
models to support its mission.
Each year, EPA spends almost
$100 million operating and
maintaining its information systems,
and at least $1 billion over their life
cycles. This audit is part of a
Government-wide review of
application software maintenance
being conducted under the
auspices of the President's Council
on Integrity and Efficiency.
We Found That
EPA has taken steps in recent
years to improve its management of
application software maintenance,
including establishing a Systems
Development Center and guidance
outlining the requirements for
system life cycle management.
However, application software
maintenance is still not adequately
managed in areas such as
recording and analyzing system
failures, tracking changes dictated
by new legislation or evolving user
needs, or monitoring resource
utilization. As a result, managers
do not have information they need
to make critical decisions about
system maintenance priorities,
resource utilization, removal of
software defects, or whether to
replace or maintain a major
information system.
A working capital fund, which
includes Automated Data
Processing and telecommunications
services, is being created to
administer services in a cost-
effective manner. However, it is
questionable whether the fund will
be able to track maintenance costs
separately from operations costs.
The Agency has not developed,
reviewed, or updated software
maintenance costs by individual
system throughout the life cycles of
its information systems.
Consequently, EPA officials do not
have the necessary cost
information to make informed
system and budget decisions
regarding the operation and
maintenance of its systems. In
addition, EPA's financial statements
did not accurately reflect
capitalization of application
software maintenance costs and
some system costs were not
accurately reported to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB).
Although EPA has initiated efforts
to better manage software
modifications, we found that
management did not use adequate
performance measurement
indicators, tracking techniques,
quality assurance procedures, or
supplemental software tools. In
most cases, management
involvement was focused on the
initial stages of review and
approval, with the Agency
relinquishing control over the final
test and review stages to contractor
personnel. As a result, changes to
major national systems were not
performed in a structured and
controlled manner.
We Recommended That
The Assistant Administrator for
Administration and Resources
Management:
• Promote a more consistent and
structured approach to managing
application software maintenance.
• Identify appropriate metrics for
use in managing application
software maintenance, and
incorporate them into the existing
management and periodic ADP
review processes.
• Enhance EPA's ability to identify
and capture all costs, including
application software maintenance,
at the information system level, and
report these costs to OMB.
• Improve controls over the
process of changing and modifying
application software, including
identifying measurable performance
indicators.
OCTOBER 1, 1994 THROUGH MARCH 31, 1995
15
-------
What Action Was Taken
The final report (5100240) was
issued on March 31, 1995. In
response to the draft report, the
Assistant Administrator for
Administration and Resources
Management generally agreed with
the findings and recommendations.
A response to the final report is due
by June 29, 1995.
Cultural Diversity Goals
Exceeded in Laboratory
Contractor Conversion
Findings in Brief
The Health Effects Research
Laboratory's (HERL) contractor
conversion hires exceeded
established cultural diversity
goals for women and minorities,
while complying with applicable
Federal and Agency guidelines
for open and competitive
recruitment.
Background
The Office of Management and
Budget approved EPA's 1995
request to convert contractor
activities into new permanent
Government positions, and HERL
was allocated 151 of the initial
contract conversion vacancies. The
OIG received an anonymous
complaint alleging that the job
vacancies created by the contractor
conversion at HERL were filled by
predominantly white male
contractor support personnel,
without regard for established
cultural diversity goals.
We Found That
The distribution of HERL's
contractor conversion hires
exceeded the minimum goals
established by the Raleigh Area
Office of Civil Rights (AOCR) for
women and minorities. At the time
of our review, women and minority
hires totaled 81 of 137 (59 percent)
positions filled under HERL's
contractor conversion effort,
exceeding the established goal by
almost one-third. The remaining 56
(41 percent) conversion hires were
white males. With the exception of
Hispanics, minority hires exceeded
or fell within 3 percentage points of
their representation in the relevant
civilian labor force.
Although granted direct hire
authority by OPM, HERL officials
relied upon an open and
competitive recruitment process to
fill contractor conversion vacancies.
The HERL initiative consisted of an
extensive nationwide recruitment
effort both within (merit promotion)
and outside Government. A
detailed evaluation of candidates
followed, which scored and ranked
applicants, to produce the final
certificate of candidates. All normal
recruitment procedures were
followed.
We Recommended That
No recommendations were
necessary as we believe that this is
a successful example of affirmative
action for application throughout
EPA.
What Action Was Taken
Since no written response was
required from Agency officials, we
closed our report (5400046) upon
issuance to the Assistant
Administrator for Research and
Development on March 8, 1995.
Further Improvements in
Financial Reporting Needed
Findings in Brief
During fiscal 1994, EPA
continued to make improvements
in its financial systems and
processes. As a result of these
improvements and certain OIG
assistance projects, we issued
unqualified or qualified opinions
on several financial statements
for which we disclaimed an
opinion last year. However,
additional improvements are
needed to resolve several
material internal control
weaknesses before unqualified
opinions can be rendered on
some of the Agency's financial
statements.
Background
The Chief Financial Officers Act
requires EPA to prepare financial
statements for the Superfund,
Leaking Underground Storage Tank
(LUST), and Oil Spill Trust Funds,
the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,
and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and
Tolerance Revolving Funds, and
the Asbestos Loan Program. The
Act also requires the Inspector
General, or an independent public
accounting firm selected by the
Inspector General, to audit the
financial statements.
We Found That
Following are the results of our
audit of the fiscal 1994 financial
statements for these funds.
Superfund Trust Fund. We
disclaimed an opinion on the
financial statements primarily
because of weaknesses in
accounting for property, accounts
payable, and accrued liabilities,
grants funded from multiple
appropriations, and Superfund
State cost share credits.
LUST Trust Fund. We qualified
our opinion on the LUST Trust
Fund primarily because of
weaknesses in the recording of
accounts payable and accrued
liabilities.
16
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
-------
Oil Spill Trust Fund. We
disclaimed an opinion on the
financial statements for this fund
primarily because of weaknesses in
the accounting for grants funded
from multiple appropriations.
Asbestos Loan Program. The
Statements of Financial Position
and Cash Flow for this fund were
fairly presented. We qualified our
opinion on the Statements of
Operation and Changes in Net
Position and Budget and Actual
Expenses, solely because we
chose not to audit costs allocated
from other Agency appropriations to
the loan program due to the
substantial audit effort that would
have been required.
FIFRA Fund. We qualified our
opinion on the Statements of
Financial Position and Cash Flows
because of weaknesses in
accounting for property. We
disclaimed an opinion on the
Statements of Operation and
Changes in Net Position and
Budget and Actual Expenses
because of these weaknesses and
because we also chose not to audit
the costs allocated from other
appropriations to the FIFRA Fund
due to the substantial audit effort
that would have been required.
Tolerance Fund. The Statements
of Financial Position and Cash Flow
for this fund were fairly presented.
We disclaimed an opinion on the
Statements of Operation and
Changes in Net Position, and
Budget and Actual Expenses
because we chose not to audit the
costs allocated from other
appropriations to the Tolerance
Fund due to the substantial audit
effort that would have been
required.
Material Internal Control
Weaknesses
Financial Reporting. The
Agency's financial activities could
be more effectively managed if
additional information was
available, provided in more useful
formats, and better used to analyze
the Agency's financial activities.
Lack of adequate information and
reports resulted in Agency officials
being unable to effectively monitor
some asset and liability accounts.
In some cases, to obtain timely
information, Agency officials
operated systems that duplicated
the Agency's Integrated Financial
Management System (IFMS). The
lack of financial information and
reports has the greatest impact on
those general ledger accounts
containing dollar amounts that
carried forward from one year to
the next.
Property. The procedures used to
capitalize property did not identify
all property that should have been
capitalized, and when property was
taken out of service it was not
deleted from the accounting
records. Therefore, we were
unable to determine if the Agency's
property balances reported in the
financial statements ($11.7 million
for Superfund and $353,000 for
FIFRA) were fairly stated. The
same condition was also noted in
audit reports on the fiscal 1992 and
1993 financial statements.
Accounts Payable and Accrued
Liabilities. We identified a net
understatement of $833,000 in
accounts payable and accrued
liabilities that affected the
Superfund, LUST, Oil Spill, and
FIFRA Funds. This misstatement
was caused in part by problems
with the accuracy and timeliness of
data from a tracking system used
by two of the Agency's finance
offices. In addition, for the six
audited funds, we found that 34 out
of 336 liability accounts
payable/accrued had a debit
balance when they should have had
a credit or zero balance.
Grant Payments. Due to a lack of
accounting information from grant
recipients, the Agency processed
disbursements for multi-funded
grants using a first-in/first-out
method, i.e., the oldest available
funding was used first. This could
result in some appropriations being
improperly charged since it does
not take into consideration which
appropriation benefitted from the
work performed.
Accounts Receivable. Emphasis
by Agency management on
recording receivables, and work
performed by our contract
independent public accounting firm,
succeeded in reducing the number
of unrecorded accounts receivable.
However, we did identify: (1) five
receivables that were not recorded
in a timely manner, including two
receivables totaling $4.7 million that
were not initially included in the
fiscal 1994 financial statements, (2)
an understatement of $346,701 in
the allowance for doubtful accounts,
and (3) $4.7 million of marketable
securities accepted in settlement of
approximately $19 million of
existing accounts receivable that
had not been recorded resulting in
an overstatement of receivables.
Superfund State Cost Share
Credits. When EPA takes the lead
in cleaning up a Superfund site, it
enters into a contract with the State
for the State to share in the cost of
the cleanup. Rather than make
payments to EPA for their share of
cleanup costs, States can receive
credits for amounts they incurred
for remedial actions prior to
entering into a contract with EPA.
Although Agency guidance requires
that the credits be recorded in
IFMS, no instructions or procedures
were provided to finance offices
OCTOBER 1, 1994 THROUGH MARCH 31, 1995
17
-------
and, consequently, the credits were
not being recorded. One State
contract we identified disclosed
$1.4 million in unrecorded credits,
and others may exist.
We Recommended That
The Chief Financial Officer:
• Provide financial management
offices with general ledger reports
and hold them accountable for the
accuracy of their account balances.
• Revise the Agency's
capitalization policies and
procedures to assure that
disbursements necessitating
capitalization are being identified
and properly capitalized.
• Determine why liability accounts
have debit balances and make any
necessary adjustments to the
account balances.
• Require a clause in grants
funded from more than one
appropriation that specifies how the
payments should be charged to the
various appropriations.
• Provide guidance to finance
offices on (1) notifying
Headquarters if unrecorded
receivables are identified after the
close of the year; and (2)
identifying potentially
uncollectible receivables for
inclusion in the allowance for
doubtful accounts.
• Develop guidance for recording
Superfund State cost share credits
and assure that credits are properly
recorded.
What Action Was Taken
The final report (5100192) was
issued on February 28, 1995. In
response to the draft report, the
Chief Financial Officer concurred
with most of our recommendations
or identified alternative corrective
actions that would be taken to
resolve the issues discussed in the
report. A response to the final
report is due by May 30, 1995.
18
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
-------
Construction Grants
EPA's wastewater treatment
works construction grants and
State Revolving Fund (SRF)
programs are the largest
programs the Agency
administers. Under the
provisions of Public Law 92-500,
as amended, the Agency was
authorized to make construction
grants covering 55 percent and,
in some instances, up to 85
percent of the eligible costs of
constructing wastewater
treatment facilities. During this
semiannual period, $67 million
was obligated on one new
construction grant award and 58
increases to existing grants. As
of March 31, 1995, there was
$11.2 billion in grants that were
potentially subject to audit. Of
this total, there were 271 active
construction grants, representing
$2.5 billion in Federal
obligations.
Amendments to the construction
grants program are covered in
Title II of the Water Quality Act of
1987. Section 212 created a new
Title VI in the Clean Water Act,
which addresses the process of
phasing out the construction
grants program by providing
incentives for development of
alternative funding mechanisms
by the States. The new Title VI
charges EPA with developing
and implementing a program to
provide grants to capitalize State
revolving funds for financing
wastewater projects. During this
semiannual period, $989 million
was awarded for 38 continuation
SRF grants.
As of March 31, 1995, EPA had
obligated $10.8 billion to 50
States and Puerto Rico under the
State Revolving Fund program.
One of the Agency's goals is to
substantially close out the
construction grant program by
September 30, 1997. To assist
the Agency in this effort, the OIG
implemented a revised strategy
in October 1994 that focuses
effort on the most vulnerable
grants, based on a
risk analysis of each remaining
grant subject to audit. This
identified 400 grants valued at
$6.5 billion which are expected to
receive OIG review during the
next three years. Summaries of
several audits of construction
grants with significant issues
follow.
OCTOBER 1, 1994 THROUGH MARCH 31, 1995
19
-------
Los Angeles, California,
Claimed Over $30 Million of
Ineligible Costs
Findings in Brief
The City of Los Angeles,
California, claimed $30,487,741 of
ineligible construction, claim
settlement, and indirect costs for
the Hyperion wastewater
treatment facility.
We Found That
EPA awarded four grants totaling
$104.3 million for site work, design,
and construction of the Hyperion
Energy Recovery System, including
the Carver-Greenfield sludge drying
process and associated facilities.
The grantee claimed $30,487,741
of ineligible costs under the grant,
including:
• $27,063,311 of construction costs
previously declared ineligible by the
California State Water Resources
Control Board (SWRCB) because
they included understated
deductions for change orders,
claims, and settlement costs; and
• $3,424,430 for costs claimed in
excess of the approved grant
amount; and indirect costs that
exceeded the City's actual indirect
cost rates.
The Carver-Greenfield sludge
drying process, funded under one
of the grants, has been declared a
failure by the SWRCB and EPA.
The process was funded as an
innovative technology that was to
remove almost all of the water from
sewage sludge. The system was
designed to treat 265 tons of dried
sludge per day, but has only been
able to process about 37 tons per
day. The City is eligible to receive
a 100 percent grant to replace the
failed innovative process. Despite
the lack of additional available
grant funding, the City has
expended its own funds for a
sludge truck loading facility so the
sludge which was to be dried by
the Carver-Greenfield process
could be loaded on trucks for land
disposal.
We Recommended That
The Regional Administrator, Region
9, not participate in the Federal
share of ineligible costs
($25,580,260), and recover the
applicable amount from the
grantee.
What Action Was Taken
The audit report (5200012) was
issued to the Regional
Administrator, Region 9, on March
27, 1995. A response to the audit
report is due by June 26, 1995.
Over $19 Million of
Questioned Costs Claimed
for Orangeburg, New York,
Project
Findings in Brief
The Rockland County Sewer
District, New York, claimed
$1,721,208 of ineligible
construction, administrative, and
architectural engineering costs
for the construction of a
wastewater treatment facility. An
additional $17,629,638 of
unsupported project costs were
questioned.
We Found That
EPA awarded a grant of
$61,831,824 to the Rockland
County Sewer District, New York,
for the construction of a wastewater
treatment facility. The grantee
claimed $1,721,208 of ineligible
costs under the grant, including:
• $1,360,171 of construction costs
disallowed by New York State
Department of Environmental
Conservation (NYSDEC) based on
its final payment review, and
understatement of the ineligible
portion of an eight-bay garage;
• $192,870 of administrative costs
declared ineligible by NYSDEC
based on its final payment review,
legal services related to review of
the grant application, grant
conditions which are ineligible for
Federal participation, and incorrect
application of the construction
eligibility factor; and
• $168,167 of engineering costs
related to overbilling by the
consulting engineer, costs
disallowed by NYSDEC based on
its final payment review, and
incorrect application of the
construction eligibility factor.
We also questioned $1,840,701 of
unsupported costs, including
administrative expenses for indirect
costs, costs attributed to cleaning
digesters, and costs related to
litigation settlements. Additionally,
we questioned $15,788,937 of
innovative/alternative technology
costs pending EPA's evaluation.
We Recommended That
The Regional Administrator, Region
2, not participate in the Federal
share of ineligible costs
($1,290,906), determine the
eligibility of the Federal share of
unsupported costs ($2,959,420),
and recover the applicable amount
from the grantee.
What Action Was Taken
The audit report (5100190) was
issued to the Regional
Administrator, Region 2, on
February 21, 1995. A response to
the audit report is due by May 22
1995.
20
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
-------
Over $5 Million of
Questioned Costs Claimed
for Bristol, Connecticut,
Project
Findings in Brief
The City of Bristol, Connecticut,
claimed $2,462,057 of ineligible
architectural engineering,
construction, inspection, and
administrative costs for the
design and construction of a
wastewater treatment facility. An
additional $2,873,709 of
unsupported costs were
questioned.
We Found That
EPA awarded a grant of
$19,071,076 to the City of Bristol,
Connecticut, for the design and
construction of a wastewater
treatment facility. The grantee
claimed $2,462,057 of ineligible
costs under the grant, including:
• $1,365,596 of preliminary design
costs which exceeded the
allowance awarded in the grant
agreement;
• $823,451 of construction costs
related to bid items and change
orders which exceeded the State
agency approved costs, and costs
representing abandonment of the
previous sewage treatment plant
which were not included in the
grant agreement;
• $259,320 of inspection costs
incurred after the State-approved
project completion date, costs not
related to the approved project, and
costs allocable to the ineligible
portion of the construction project;
and
• $13,690 of equipment,
engineering, and administrative
costs deemed ineligible due to
unallowable ordinary operating
expenses and an improper
proration factor.
We also questioned $2,873,709 of
unsupported costs that exceeded
the maximum basic funding
amount.
We Recommended That
The Regional Administrator, Region
1, not participate in the Federal
share of ineligible costs
($1,841,540), determine the
eligibility of the Federal share of
unsupported costs ($2,155,282),
and recover the applicable amount
from the grantee.
What Action Was Taken
The report (5100230) was issued to
the Regional Administrator, Region
1, on March 27, 1995. A response
to the report is due by June 26,
1995.
Nearly $2 Million of
Ineligible Costs Claimed for
Vernal, Utah, Project
Findings in Brief
The Ashley Valley Sewer
Management Board, Vernal, Utah,
claimed $1,940,493 of ineligible
engineering and construction
costs for a wastewater treatment
facility.
We Found That
EPA awarded two grants totaling
$13,284,409 to the Ashley Valley
Sewer Management Board, Vernal,
Utah. The grants provided for
construction of a wastewater
treatment facility including collection
and interceptor sewers, pump
station, lagoons, storage reservoir,
and a pivot irrigation system for
disposal of the treated effluent.
The grantee claimed $1,940,493 of
ineligible costs under the grant,
including:
• $887,950 of acquisition costs for
land that was not used for the
intended purpose of effluent
disposal;
• $434,528 of construction costs
for an unused pump station and
force main intended to transport the
wastewater from the treatment
facility to the land disposal site;
• $314,186 of alternative funding
provided for unused land disposal;
• $150,432 of engineering project
inspection costs that were incurred
beyond the scheduled completion
of construction; and
• $153,397 of construction costs
related to unallowable change
orders and design engineering
costs that exceeded the approved
engineering agreement or related to
the unused pump station and force
main.
We Recommended That
The Regional Administrator, Region
8, not participate in the Federal
share of ineligible costs
($1,533,914), and recover the
applicable amount from the
grantee.
What Action Was Taken
The audit report (5100107) was
issued to the Regional
Administrator, Region 8, on
December 1, 1994. A response to
the audit report was due by
March 1, 1995, but has not been
received.
OCTOBER 1, 1994 THROUGH MARCH 31, 1995
21
-------
Superfund
The Superfund program was
created by the Comprehensive
Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act
of 1980 (CERCLA). The Act
provided a $1.6 billion trust fund
to pay for the costs associated
with the cleanup of sites
contaminated with hazardous
waste. Taxing authority for the
trust fund expired on September
30, 1985. For more than a year,
the Superfund program operated
at a reduced level from carryover
funds and temporary funds
provided by Congress.
On October 17, 1986, the
Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1986
(SARA) was enacted. It provided
$8.5 billion to continue the
program for 5 more years and
made many programmatic
changes. On November 5, 1990,
the Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1990 was
enacted, authorizing
appropriations for 3 additional
years and extension of the taxing
authority for 4 years. The
authorization expired September
30, 1994, and the taxing authority
will expire on December 31, 1995,
unless extended.
The parties responsible for the
hazardous substances are liable
for cleaning up the site or
reimbursing the Government for
doing so. States in which there
is a release of hazardous
materials are required to pay 10
percent of the costs of Fund-
financed remedial actions, or 50
percent if the source of the
hazard was operated by the State
or local government.
The enactment of SARA
increased the audit requirements
for the Inspector General. In
addition to providing a much
larger and more complex
program for which the OIG needs
to provide audit coverage, SARA
gave the Inspector General a
number of specific
responsibilities. Mandatory
annual audit areas include:
• Audit of all payments,
obligations, reimbursements, or
other uses of the Fund;
• Audit of Superfund claims;
• Examination of a sample of
agreements with States carrying
out response actions; and
• Examination of remedial
investigations and feasibility
studies.
The Inspector General is required
to submit an annual report to the
Congress regarding the required
Superfund audit work, containing
such recommendations as the
Inspector General deems
appropriate. The eighth annual
report, covering fiscal 1994, will
be issued no later than
September 1995.
22
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
-------
Higher Priority Needed for
Reviews of Super-fund Site
Remedies
Findings in Brief
The Agency gave low priority to
five-year reviews of Superfund
site remedial actions needed to
assure the continued
environmental protection of the
remedy or additional timely
corrective action. As a result,
there was an increasing backlog
of unreviewed sites.
Background
In order to protect human health
and the environment, the
Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (CERCLA) requires the
Agency to review, at least every
five years, any post-Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization
Act site where pollutants remain
after the completion of remedial
action.
We Found That
The required five-year reviews that
were completed effectively
identified successes or failures of
remedies at Superfund hazardous
waste sites. However, a substantial
increasing backlog exists of such
reviews due to the low priority
placed by Agency management.
Additionally, the completion of five-
year reviews is not a target in the
Superfund Comprehensive
Accomplishments Plan nor is it a
goal agreed to by regional and
Headquarters officials.
Agency guidance did not include a
requirement that the reviews result
in a final determination about the
protectiveness of remedies. Some
of the reports did not contain any
information regarding the need for
timely corrective action. Without
this assurance, EPA is unable to
provide adequate assurance
regarding the continued
protectiveness of remedies.
The Agency developed an
abbreviated form of review, called
the 1a review, for use at certain
types of sites. However, there
appeared to be considerable
confusion regarding when and how
to perform the 1a reviews and what
to document in the reports. The
review guidance did not require the
reviewer to describe the conditions
found at the site or provide
adequate technical data. During
our site visits, we found potential
hazards or problems with the
remedies which were not discussed
adequately in the 1a report. The
1a reports often lacked vital
information to support their
conclusions regarding the
protectiveness of remedies.
We Recommended That
The Assistant Administrator for
Solid Waste and Emergency
Response:
• Increase the priority for
performing the reviews by making
them a target in the Superfund
Comprehensive Accomplishments
Plan.
• Clarify the guidance for the use
of 1a five-year reviews and require
sufficient information to support
conclusions.
What Action Was Taken
The final report (5100229) was
issued to the Assistant
Administrator for Solid Waste and
Emergency Response on March 24,
1995. In response to the draft
report, the Assistant Administrator
agreed to give increased attention
to the five-year reviews, and
generally agreed to make
appropriate changes to the
guidance. A response to the final
report is due by June 24, 1995.
Better Controls Needed
Over Region 8's Superfund
Field Sampling Activities
Findings in Brief
Region 8 needed better sampling
contrails and quality assurance
training of remedial project
managers (RPMs), and more
consistent RPM oversight at
Superfund sites.
Background
Federal regulations require EPA to
review and approve sampling and
analysis plans (SAPs) which consist
of a field sampling plan and a
quality assurance project plan
(QAPP). A QAPP describes policy,
organization, and functional
activities necessary to develop
adequate data for planning and
documenting a removal action, site
evaluation, and hazard ranking
system activities. Region 8 requires
a contractor's SAP to be submitted
30 days prior to collecting samples.
We Found That
Region 8 experienced continued
problems with untimely contractor
submissions and undocumented
approvals of contractor prepared
SAPs. Contractors sometimes
submitted SAPs close to the
sampling event which did not give
RPMs enough time to properly
review them and ask for technical
expertise if needed. Inadequately
reviewed SAPs could result in
inappropriate or incomplete
sampling results. In some
instances, this could cause a need
for rework, a loss of valuable
samples that cannot be duplicated,
and unnecessary costs.
OCTOBER 1, 1994 THROUGH MARCH 31, 1995
23
-------
The majority of plans we reviewed
were not signed by RPMs to
indicate review, modification as
needed, and approval necessary to
prevent the collection of unreliable
data. Also, RPMs had not always
received timely technical assistance
from other Regional staff, thus
delaying sample collection or
hindering the RPM's ability to
incorporate comments in modified
plans.
Some RPMs did not adequately
oversee contractor activities at
Superfund sites to help achieve
Regional quality assurance goals.
Also, some RPMs relied on
contractors' expertise and did not
routinely observe field sampling
activities or take advantage of
independent field audits in
evaluating contractors'
performance. Without appropriate
oversight, RPMs could not ensure
proper contractor performance or
enhance their own experience
levels.
The majority of RPMs did not
attend all mandatory training
courses offered in July 1994 and, in
our opinion, did not recognize the
importance of quality assurance
training. They did not fully
understand quality assurance
procedures required for all
individuals involved in sampling
activities. Also, RPM training in
quality assurance methods did not
include sufficient examples to help
RPMs effectively and consistently
apply quality assurance principles,
and training records were
inaccurately compiled.
The Region demonstrated certain
good oversight practices that
resulted in cost savings.
Specifically, an RPM recognized
that a sampling program proposed
by a contractor was excessive.
She worked with the Regional
Quality Assurance Officer to
develop and implement a sampling
strategy and methodology that
followed Superfund Accelerated
Cleanup Model guidance and saved
about $200,000 in cleanup costs.
We Recommended That
The Regional Administrator, Region
8, require the Hazardous Waste
Management Division Director to:
• Ensure RPMs request and
receive draft plans in time to allow
thorough reviews and appropriate
approvals.
• Ensure RPMs periodically
observe contractor field sampling
activities and consider using field
audits as a part of their oversight
strategy and work plans.
• Provide adequate staff with
quality assurance expertise to
assist in RPM's reviews.
• Require RPMs to take mandatory
training, strengthen training by
including examples and good
practices, and ensure the accuracy
of training records.
What Action Was Taken
The final review report (5400034)
was issued to the Regional
Administrator, Region 8, on
January 27, 1995. In discussions
held before issuance of the report,
the Region agreed with the findings
and recommendations. It began
corrective actions and established a
management system review work
group to address the
recommendations. A response to
the final report is due by April 27,
1995.
Region 9 Pilot Projects
Speed Up Site
Assessments
Findings in Brief
Region 9 pilots integrating
Superfund site assessment
activities significantly improved
the timeliness and cost
effectiveness of the site
assessment process.
Background
Region 9 initiated a Superfund pilot
program, termed SWIFT, which
integrated Superfund preliminary
assessments (PA) and site
inspections (SI) to speed up the
site assessment process and
eliminate duplicate activities.
Under the SWIFT pilot, each site
had only one contractor and one
project manager during the site
assessment process. In addition,
Region 9 participated in the
Superfund Accelerated Cleanup
Model (SACM) with the SWIFT-ER
pilot program. This program added
to the SWIFT process an expanded
PA for earlier decision-making on
potential site listings, and an
Integrated Assessment (IA) which is
an expanded SI with multi-program
data gathering.
We Found That
SWIFT site assessments were
completed in an average of 8.5
months as compared to 31.7
months under the previous
methodology, and the average cost
of a SWIFT PA/SI was $11,856 as
compared to $38,710 for pre-
SWIFT site assessments. These
savings were primarily attributable
to continuous site assessment
activities and combining the PA and
SI into a single publication.
SWIFT-ER pilot projects were more
costly than SWIFT projects due to
additional sampling and analyses.
24
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
-------
However, they were still less
expensive than pre-SWIFT PA/Sls.
Early involvement of Regional
Decision Teams in the site
assessment process could prevent
some sites from proceeding to the
more expensive IA phase, thus
avoiding expenditure of limited
Superfund resources. Also,
quarterly reports submitted by
Region 9 to the Superfund
Revitalization Office (SRO) could
be improved to better inform the
SRO of the effectiveness of SACM
pilots. This would provide
opportunities for program
improvements to be implemented
at other program offices.
We Recommended That
Since the pilot projects were
meeting their goals and objectives,
we made no formal
recommendations.
What Action Was Taken
The final report (5400018) was
issued to the Regional
Administrator, Region 9, on
November 28, 1994.
^^ fa
OCTOBER 1, 1994 THROUGH MARCH 31, 1995
25
-------
As required by the Inspector
General Act, as amended, this
section contains information on
reports in the resolution process
for the semiannual period. This
section also summarizes OIG
reviews of the Agency's follow-
up actions on selected
reports completed in prior
periods. In addition, information
is presented on the resolution of
significant reports issued by the
OIG involving monetary
recommendations.
Current Period
As of March 31, 1995, EPA had
300 OIG reports requiring
resolution which was 30 percent
more than the beginning balance of
230 reports six months ago. The
number of past due responses
(over six months from report issue
date) rose 63 percent from 73 to
119 during this six-month reporting
period. At the end of September
1994, the number of past due
responses was 32 percent of the
reports to be resolved compared to
40 percent of the reports in the
follow-up system as of the end of
this reporting period. Over the past
six years, with one exception, the
number of past due responses
have been higher in the March
semiannual report.
The costs questioned on the OIG
reports for which management
decisions were past due as of
March 31, 1995, represented 80
percent of total questioned costs to
be resolved.
These reports need to be resolved
and the funds recovered more
expeditiously. While the OIG
recognizes that it takes time to
reach a management decision on
some reports, swift, appropriate
resolution makes the government
run better and saves taxpayers the
added cost of financing Agency
operations through borrowing.
During this reporting period six EPA
Action Officials-Region 9; Region
10; the Office of Acquisition
Management's (OAM) Contracts
Management Division, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina; and
three OAM's Cost Advisory and
Financial Analysis Division
branches-had 77 percent (92) of
the 119 unresolved OIG reports
exceeding 180 days.
EPA is one of the few agencies that
reports on resolution of audits
conducted on pre-award contract
proposals. There may be multiple
pre-award audits for any particular
EPA contract solicitation.
Resolution of these audits occurs
when the contracting officer makes
the contract award. Where there
are lengthy negotiations required or
when there are a series of
proposals required from the
contractor, it is common for these
audits to remain in the "unresolved"
pre-award stage for longer than 180
days. It is therefore crucial that
EPA takes every step possible to
ensure that pre-award audits are
resolved quickly.
Region 9 and Region 10 have not
been timely in resolving reports
with large dollar issues. Together
these two regions account for 21.8
percent (26) of all the unresolved
reports exceeding 180 days which
amounts to 48 percent ($117.2
million) of $243.3 million of the total
questioned costs needing
resolution.
Region 9 believes that the six-
month timeframe set forth in EPA
Directive 2750 is not sufficient to
assure quality decisions necessary
to protect auditees, avoid legal
challenges, and avoid appeals.
Therefore, Region 9 has
disregarded this timeframe for audit
resolution. After meetings with the
OIG, Region 9 indicated that it
plans to issue 11 of the 14 overdue
reports awaiting resolution by June
30, 1995, and two more of the
overdue reports by September 30,
1995. The remaining report is
dependent on the California State
Water Resources Control Board
completing its research for EPA.
During this reporting period, the
Region 10 Audit Follow-up
Coordinator position was vacant.
The position was filled in April 1995
and the Region plans to provide
draft resolutions to the OIG on all
past due reports by July 1, 1995.
Trends
Timely action on OIG reports-
resolving issues raised by auditors
within six months of report
issuance-continues to be a
problem.
From March 31, 1992, through
March 31, 1995, the number of
reports with past due management
decisions increased from 34
percent to 40 percent. During this
period the number of reports
requiring resolution averaged about
300 each year.
The overall trends show
that more action is needed at all
management levels to (1) make
audit follow-up a top priority, (2)
ensure that report resolution is
timely, and (3) reduce the growing
backlog of past due reports.
26
OFFICE OF
-------
Status Report On Perpetual Inventory of Reports in Resolution Process For The Semiannual Period Ending
March 31, 1995 (Dollar Values in Thousands)
Report Issuance
Number
A. For which no management decision
has been made by the commencement
of the reporting period* 230
B. Which were issued during the
reporting period 448
C. Which were issued during the reporting
period that required no resolution 232
Subtotals (A + B - C) 446
D. For which a management decision was
made during the reporting period 146
E. For which no management decision has
been made by the end of the reporting
period 300
Reports for which no management
decision was made within six months of
issuance 119
Questioned
Costs
363,519
62,559
231
425,847
121,211
304,636
243,256
Recommended
Efficiencies
27,005
36,205
0
63,210
4,648
58,562
22,393
Report Resolution
Costs Sustained
To Be As
Recovered Efficiencies
45,496
190
* Any difference in number of reports and amounts of questioned costs or recommended efficiencies between this report and
our previous semiannual report results from corrections made to data in our audit tracking system.
Audit Followup
The Inspector General Act
Amendments of 1988 requires
Agency management to rep'ort
semiannually, in a separate report
to Congress, the corrective actions
taken in response to the OIG's
reviews. The Office of Inspector
General reviews the Agency's
followup actions on selected
reviews. Through other means, the
OIG also learns of Agency actions
taken in response to IG work which
go beyond implementing those
specific recommendations made in
review reports.
Despite Over $570 Million in
EPA Grants for 30 Years,
PRASA's Poor Operations
Continue
Previous Problems and Findings
Our followup of a January 1992
report concluded that the Puerto
Rico Aqueduct and Sewer
Authority (PRASA) was still
experiencing major difficulties in
administering a wastewater
management program capable of
achieving a consistently
acceptable level of water
pollution control. We reported
that PRASA's (1) financial
condition was worsening, (2)
management of its wastewater
program operations was
unstable, and (3) plant
operations and maintenance had
major deficiencies. We have
reported these same conditions
with little improvement since
1986.
Followup Findings
Region 2 had followed a strategy of
providing financial assistance to
PRASA to deal with its
administrative, technical, and
operational problems together with
increased enforcement actions
against noncompliance. However,
corrective actions promised by the
prior Executive Director of PRASA
were not always implemented,
progress was slow, and the positive
OCTOBER 1, 1994 THROUGH MARCH 31, 1995
27
-------
steps taken by PRASA to correct
many of the prior findings achieved
only minimal improvement.
Therefore, we are again reporting
on the same longstanding
problems.
PRASA's financial condition
continued to worsen and it has
been unable to generate sufficient
revenue to adequately run its
operations. Difficulties with
collections, rising operating
expenses, and the absence of a
realistic capital improvement plan
have made PRASA heavily
dependent on outside financial
infusions. PRASA has received
over $1.5 billion worth of assistance
from various sources, including
over $570 million from EPA. The
current Executive Director has not
formalized PRASA's corrective
action plan with specific steps and
milestone dates, and PRASA is
continuing to struggle to provide
minimal service to its customers,
while incurring ever-increasing
operating losses.
Management of PRASA's
wastewater treatment program
remained unstable. PRASA did not
implement the reorganization plan
which it promised in response to
our prior audit, and it experienced a
70 percent turnover of upper
management in 1993. In our
opinion, the primary cause of
PRASA's historically unstable
management is the change in key
positions every time a new
Executive Director is appointed.
Failure to address longstanding
operations and maintenance
deficiencies prevented PRASA from
achieving continuous compliance
with National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System permit
requirements, and from providing
dependable protection of public
health and water quality. PRASA
did not provide sufficient training for
wastewater treatment facility
operators in activated sludge
process control, and did not have a
comprehensive sludge
management plan. Continuing
inability to implement an effective
preventive maintenance program
kept PRASA in a catch-up mode of
maintenance. We found major
deficiencies at pump stations and
bypasses resulting in a high
potential for raw sewage overflows.
Critical units typically were run until
they failed, rather than being
carefully evaluated and
reconditioned on a schedule.
For years, Region 2 has approved
grant funds despite PRASA's
inability to function as a responsible
grantee, and the Region's
enforcement actions to date, while
numerous, have not resulted in the
corrections expected. In our
opinion, Region 2 must continue its
involvement, but assume a stronger
role in monitoring PRASA's
operation to assure meaningful
change is brought about. This is
especially important in view of the
possible award of 27 new
construction grants to PRASA and
the awarding of State Revolving
Funds. The Region advised that
they have further addressed our
concerns by prompting the
Governor to create the position of
Comptroller to independently
oversee PRASA's operations. The
Region and PRASA's Board of
Directors finalized a Memorandum
of Agreement which included the
details of the Comptroller's
responsibilities.
Followup Recommendations
We recommended that Regional
Administrator, Region 2:
• Classify PRASA as a "high risk"
grantee and offer expertise to
PRASA during its effort to formulate
a recovery plan.
• Obtain from PRASA a detailed
corrective action plan with specific
steps and milestone dates, and
closely monitor progress towards
implementation.
• Work with senior PRASA and
Puerto Rico government officials to
ensure that PRASA will operate
with continuity.
• Perform monitoring to determine if
PRASA's promised corrective
actions were implemented and
effective.
• Encourage PRASA to address
structural problems causing
noncompliance, and use
enforcement actions if PRASA
continues in noncompliance.
What Action Was Taken
The final report (5400060) was
issued to the Regional
Administrator, Region 2, on March
30, 1995. In responding to the
draft report, the Regional
Administrator stated that PRASA
will be encouraged to make
improvements, but that the extent
of recommended EPA involvement
is not their role. In addition to the
actions surrounding the
Comptroller's position, we were
informed that Region 2 plans to
increase the size and responsibility
of the Caribbean Field Office during
the next four years. A response to
the final report is due by June 30,
1995.
Improvement Still Needed
In Region 7's Potentially
Responsible Party Search
Program
Previous Problems and Findings
Our March 1992 report concluded
that searches for potentially
responsible parties (PRP) in
Region 7 were not timely,
28
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
-------
complete, or well documented,
resulting in unnecessary costs
and delays in getting polluters to
accept responsibility for cleaning
up their hazardous waste sites.
We reported that searches for 3
of 5 National Priorities List (NPL)
sites reviewed exceeded the
Superfund program standard by
more than four years, and
searches for 3 of 4 non-NPL sites
reviewed exceeded the program
standard by 8 times. Also, many
of the work assignments,
statements of work, work plans,
documentation of completed
tasks, and search reports could
not be found.
Followup Findings
The Region attempted to address
the intent of the audit report
recommendations by improving the
PRP search acquisition practices,
management controls, and by
specializing and focusing contractor
work assignments on essential
search activities. However, the
Region did not accomplish all the
actions in its implementation plan
and response to the audit
recommendations.
The Region was unable to
demonstrate effective monitoring or
improved timeliness of PRP
searches and could not provide a
complete list of searches conducted
and in progress. Our analysis of a
PRP search report indicated that
non-NPL searches were averaging
22 months to complete even though
the EPA standards are for such
searches to take no more than 6
months. In addition, the Region
had not performed any full baseline
searches since fiscal 1992.
Although the Region developed
new procedures, the staff did not
always implement them and had
not improved search file
documentation. The eight PRP
search files we reviewed did not
contain adequate documentation to
support search decisions.
Followup Recommendations
We recommended that the
Regional Administrator, Region 7
direct the Acting Superfund Division
Director to:
• Establish effective procedures to
monitor PRP search timeliness and
documentation.
• Improve the cost effectiveness of
PRP searches through better
contracting methods, conducting
searches in-house, and developing
procedures to monitor contractor
efforts.
What Action Was Taken
The final report (5400032) was
issued to the Regional
Administrator, Region 7, on January
17, 1995. In responding to the
draft report, the Acting Assistant
Regional Administrator generally
agreed with our findings and
recommendations. Corrective
actions by the Region include
evaluating PRP search timeliness
and documentation on a quarterly
basis, using its civil investigators to
conduct searches, and providing
contract training to work
assignment managers.
Accordingly, no further response
was required and the report was
closed upon issuance.
CERCLIS Internal Controls
Strengthened
Previous Problems and Findings
For fiscal 1992 and fiscal 1993,
we performed detailed reviews of
accomplishments claimed by the
Superfund Program in the
Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and
Liability Information System
(CERCLIS). Our audit of fiscal
1992 CERCLIS data showed that
the data used to support
Superfund accomplishments was
not always accurate. These
inaccuracies were attributable to
weak internal controls including
a failure to: (1) adequately train
personnel; (2) provide written
policies and procedures; (3)
adequately document events; (4)
correctly record and properly
classify events; and (5) authorize
and approve transactions at the
appropriate level of authority.
Also, definitions of
accomplishments were unclear
and thus open to interpretation.
Our fiscal 1993 report indicated
that the Agency was in the
process of implementing the
recommendations from our fiscal
1992 review, but had not
developed guidance for
estimating and documenting
response settlement amounts.
Followup Findings
We found that the corrective
actions recommended in our fiscal
1992 and 1993 reports had either
been completed or were nearing
completion. Specifically, a
definition Reform Workgroup
developed clarifying language for
each accomplishment for inclusion
in the Superfund Program
Management Manual. An Office of
Solid Waste and Emergency
Response (OSWER) Directive was
issued in June 1994 on the
required standard elements for
CERCLIS data entry and
accomplishment reporting. Also,
OSWER Headquarters officials
conducted training sessions in the
regional offices on CERCLIS
reporting and developed quick
reference guides on
accomplishment reporting and
documentation requirements. Data
fields were added and definitions
were automated to provide users
with information on the proper
OCTOBER 1, 1994 THROUGH MARCH 31, 1995
29
-------
methods for coding and entering
CERCLIS data. In addition,
supplemental guidance was issued
in April 1994 which outlined the
methodology for developing and
documenting estimated settlement
amounts.
Followup Recommendations
Since we considered the actions
taken and underway sufficient to
address the recommendations from
the fiscal 1992 and fiscal 1993
reports, we did not make any
further recommendations.
What Action Was Taken
On November 15, 1994, the final
report (5400014) was issued to the
Assistant Administrator for Solid
Waste and Emergency Response.
Agency Actions In
Response To Other OIG
Work
The OIG's reports and cooperative
efforts with program officials
frequently have positive impacts
that reach beyond the
implementation of specific report
recommendations. These impacts
are not normally verified by formal
OIG followup reviews. For
example:
• During this reporting period the
OIG's efforts were instrumental in
EPA's development of performance
measurement information for
inclusion in the Agency's fiscal
1994 financial statements. In
particular, the OIG assisted the
Office of Prevention, Pesticides and
Toxic Substances in revising its
measures for the Asbestos Loan
and Grant Program. In addition,
the Agency used the results of the
OIG's audits of the Leaking
Underground Storage Tank
Program as a mechanism to
evaluate the program's
performance, as required by the
Government Performance and
Results Act.
• In response to the OIG's inquiry
into allegations of improper
Interagency Agreement (IAG)
oversight and management at a
Superfund site, Region 8 officials
reviewed their IAG financial and
management controls. They
confirmed the OIG's concerns
about inadequate IAG monitoring,
identified additional IAG
management problems, and
developed corrective actions to
eliminate the vulnerabilities.
Status of Management
Decisions on IG Reports
This section presents statistical
information as required by the
Inspector General Act Amendments
of 1988 on the status of EPA
management decisions on reports
issued by the OIG involving
monetary recommendations. In
order to provide uniformity in
reporting between the various
agencies, the President's Council
on Integrity and Efficiency issued
guidance on reporting the costs
under required statistical tables of
sections 5(a)(8) and (9) of the Act,
as amended.
As presented, information
contained in Tables 1 and 2 cannot
be used to assess results of
reviews performed or controlled by
this office. Many of the reports
counted were performed by other
Federal auditors or independent
public accountants under the
Single Audit Act. EPA OIG staff
does not manage or control such
assignments. In addition, amounts
shown as costs questioned or
recommended to be put to better
use contain amounts which were at
the time of the review unsupported
by adequate documentation or
records. Since auditees frequently
provide additional documentation to
support the allowability of such
costs subsequent to report
issuance, we expect that a high
proportion of unsupported costs
will not be sustained. EPA OIG
controlled reports resolved during
this period resulted in $33.1 million
being sustained out of $46.3 million
considered ineligible in reports
under OIG control. This is 71
percent sustained rate.
30
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
-------
Table 1 -- Inspector General Issued Reports With Questioned Costs
Semiannual Period Ending: March 31, 1995
Dollar Vaiues(thousands)
Questioned*
Number Costs
A.
B.
C.
D.
For which no management decision has been made by
the commencement of the reporting period**
New reports issued during period
Subtotals (A + B)
For which a management decision was made during
the reporting period
(i) Dollar value of disallowed costs
(ii) Dollar value of costs not disallowed
For which no management decision has been
made by the end of the reporting period
Reports for which no management decision was
made within six months of issuance
124
49
173
62
48
39***
111
74
363,519
62,328
425,847
121,211
45,496
75,715
304,636
243,256
Unsupported
Costs
100,796
23,210
124,006
22,888
8,438
14,450
101,118
77,976
Questioned costs include unsupported costs.
Any difference in number of reports and amounts of questioned costs or recommended efficiencies between this
report and our previous semiannual report results from corrections made to data in our audit tracking system.
14 audit reports totaling $3,630 were not agreed to by management.
OCTOBER 1, 1994 THROUGH MARCH 31, 1995 31
-------
Table 2 -- Inspector General Issued Reports With Recommendations That Funds Be Put To Better Use
Semiannual Period Ending: March 31, 1995
Number Dollar Value
(in thousands)
A. For which no management decision has been made by
the commencement of the reporting period* 34 27,005
B. Which were issued during the reporting period 35 36,205
Subtotals (A + B) 69 63,210
C. For which a management decision was made during
the reporting period 16 4,648
(i) Dollar value of recommendations that
were agreed to by management
based on proposed management action
based on proposed legislative action
(ii) Dollar value of recommendations that were
not agreed to by management
(iii) Dollar value of non-awards or unsuccessful
bidders
D. For which no management decision has been made by
the end of the reporting period
Reports for which no management decision was
made within six months of issuance
5
n/a
n/a
9**
4
53
19
190
n/a
n/a
1,590
2,868***
58,562
22,393
Any difference in number of reports and amounts of questioned costs or recommended efficiencies between this
report and our previous semiannual report results from corrections made to data in our audit tracking system.
Two reports were included in C(i) and C(ii). Only the related dollars disallowed were included in C(i), whereas the
dollars which were not disallowed were included in C(ii).
This amount represents the dollar value of recommendations that funds be put to better use.
32 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
-------
Resolution of Significant Reports
Report Resolution
Report Number
Report Date
E2CWL2-
4100431
REPORT
6/27/94
P2CWLO-
4100330
REPORT
5/27/94
P2CWL1-
4100414
REPORT
6/21/94
P2CWL1-
3100118
REPORT
3/ 2/93
P2CWL1-
3100169
REPORT
4/29/93
P2CWL3-
41C0412
REPORT
6/21/94
E2CWM1-
4200017
REPORT
7/11/94
P2CWM2-
4200012
REPORT
4/ 5/94
P2CWN1-
4300044
REPORT
8/24/94
E2BWL3-
02-0115
DATE
02-0232
DATE
02-0019
DATE
02-0104
DATE
02-0104
DATE
02-0177
DATE
03-0169
DATE
03-0293
DATE
03-0098
DATE
09-0190
3300072
REPORT
9/29/93
E2CWM2-
DATE
09-0202
4200020
REPORT
9/26/94
S2CWN2-
4300023
REPORT
1/13/94
S2CWN9-
1300118
REPORT
DATE
09-0126
DATE
09-0032
DATE
Grantee/
Contractor
NASSAU
COUNTY NY
CARTERET
NJ
CAPE MAY
COUNTY NJ
NYCDEP
NY
NYCDEP
NY
ONONDAGA
COUNTY NY
CHALFONT
TUP PA
ANNE
ARUNDEL
COUNTY MD
FAIRFAX
COUNTY VA
SAN DIEGO
OUTFALL CA
CENTRAL
MARIN CA
MODESTO
CA
MONTEREY
CA
9/30/91
S2CWN9-
1300117
REPORT
9/30/91
E9BHP2-
3400095
REPORT
9/29/93
09-0039
DATE
10-0024
DATE
LOS ANGELES
CA
RES -SELF
INSURANCE
OR
Report
. Issuance
FS Questioned/ t
Recommended
Efficiency
INEL
UNSP
UNUR
RCOM
INEL
UNSP
UNUR
RCOM
INEL
UNSP
UNUR
RCOM
INEL
UNSP
UNUR
RCOM
INEL
UNSP
UNUR
RCOM
INEL
UNSP
UNUR
RCOM
INEL
UNSP
UNUR
RCOM
INEL
UNSP
UNUR
RCOM
INEL
UNSP
UNUR
RCOM
INEL
UNSP
UNUR
RCOM
INEL
UNSP
UNUR
RCOM
INEL
UNSP
UNUR
RCOM
INEL
UNSP
UNUR
RCOM
INEL
UNSP
UNUR
RCOM
INEL
UNSP
UNUR
RCOM
1 ,
1
6
12
10
2
1
2
2
4
1,
5,
38,
6,
7,
294 ,
562,
517,
820,
, 337,
, 380,
, 895,
, 014,
, 160,
, 038,
, 125,
838,
11,
497,
321,
,650,
564,
, 996,
67,
698,
184,
,161,
621,
348,
098,
460,
966
0
0
0
082
0
0
0
747
808
0
0
198
330
0
0
788
698
202
0
675
053
0
0
177
936
0
0
541
029
0
0
367
072
0
0
690
546
0
0
753
0
0
0
079
015
0
0
855
0
260
0
282
0
741
0
3, 709, 794
0
0
0
Federal Share
o be Recovered/
Sustained
Łf f : ciency
INEL
UNSP
UNUR
SUST
INEL
UNSP
UNUR
SUST
INEL
UNSP
UNUR
SUST
INEL
UNSP
UNUR
SUST
INEL
UNSP
UNUR
SUST
INEL
UNSP
UNUR
SUST
INEL
UNSP
UNUR
SUST
INEL
UNSP
UNUR
SUST
INEL
UNSP
UNUR
SUST
INEL
UNSP
UNUR
SUST
INEL
UNSP
UNUR
SUST
INEL
UNSP
UNUR
SUST
INEL
UNSP
UNUR
SUST
INEL
UNSP
UNUR
SUST
INEL
UNSP
UNUR
SUST
1, 294 ,
562,
511,
1,
1, 115,
2, 242,
9, 049,
4,429,
712,
1, 038,
838 ,
11,
481,
2, 610,
544 ,
4, 996,
67,
698,
184,
995,
3, 755,
2, 381,
1,425,
2, 800,
966
0
0
0
082
0
0
0
461
300
0
0
819
271
0
0
323
590
124
0
175
0
0
0
177
936
0
0
448
0
0
0
617
973
0
0
690
546
0
0
753
0
0
0
079
272
0
0
605
0
277
0
256
0
0
0
000
0
0
0
NOTE: INEL INELIGIBLE COST
UNSP UNSUPPORTED COST
UNUR UNNECESSARY/UNREASONABLE COST
RCOM RECOMMENDED EFFICIENCIES
SUST RECOMMENDED EFFICIENCIES SUSTAINED
OCTOBER 1, 1994 THROUGH MARCH 31, 1995
33
-------
^
The following is a summary of
investigative activities during this
reporting period. These include
investigations of alleged criminal
violations which may result in
prosecution and conviction,
investigations of alleged
violations of Agency regulations
and policies, and 0!G personnel
security investigations. The
Office of Investigations tracks
investigations in the following
categories: preliminary inquiries
and investigations, joint
investigations with other
agencies, and OIG background
investigations.
Summary Of Investigative
Activities
Pending Investigations as
of September 30, 1994 157
New Investigations
Opened This Period 89
Investigations Closed
This Period 75
Pending Investigations as
of March 31, 1995 171
Prosecutive and
Administrative Actions
In this period, investigative efforts
resulted in 9 convictions and 12*
indictments. Fines and recoveries,
including those associated with civil
actions, amounted to $4.2 million.
Thirteen administrative actions**
were taken as a result of
investigations:
Reprimands 5
Resignations/Removals 1
Restitutions 6
Other 1
TOTAL
13
* Does not include indictments obtained in
cases in which we provided investigative
assistance.
** Does not include suspensions and
debarments resulting from Office of
Investigations activities or actions resulting
from reviews of personnel security
investigations.
Profiles of Pending Investigations by Type
(Tota!»171)
General EPA Programs
Superfund and Lust
Program Integrity
38
Procurement Fraud
33
Procurement Fraud
34
Employee Integrity
1,9
Construction
15.
Employee Integrity
2
Other
4
Total Cases: 116
Program Integrity
16
Total Cases: 55
34
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
-------
Description of Selected
Prosecutive and
Administrative Actions
Below is a brief description of some
of the prosecutive actions which
occurred during the reporting period.
Some of these actions resulted from
investigations initiated before
October 1, 1994.
Former Maryland Chief
Fiscal Officer Ordered to
Repay $1.2 Million
As reported in our Semiannual
Report for the period ending
September 30, 1994, Rufus O.
Ukaegbu, former chief fiscal officer
for the State of Maryland
Department of the Environment,
Water Quality Financing
Administration (WQFA), pleaded
guilty to Federal charges of money
laundering and State of Maryland
charges of theft.
In October 1994 Ukaegbu was
sentenced on the Federal charges to
41 months imprisonment and repaid
the State $100,000 in addition to
$1,000 that was seized during a
search. In November 1994,
Ukaegbu was sentenced on the
State charges to 20 years
imprisonment (10 years suspended),
5 years probation, and was ordered
to pay the remaining restitution of
$1,105,901.
Using a combination of State and
Federal grants as well as revenues
from bonds maintained in various
bank accounts, WQFA finances the
construction of sewage treatment
plants and other water quality
projects by local governments.
Ukaegbu, who had the authority to
approve disbursements to
contractors, used his position to
cause the WQFA's bank to generate
fraudulent payment authorizations in
names similar to legitimate
contractors, but with addresses of
bank accounts that he controlled.
Through the use of wire transfers
and monetary instruments, the
stolen funds were used to purchase
numerous automobiles and other
items of value which were shipped to
Nigeria for resale, home remodeling,
and to reduce personal debt.
Additionally, in January 1995,
Ukaegbu was debarred for five years
as result of the Federal and State
charges.
Conspirator Pleads Guilty
on State Charges
Keith Westbrook pleaded guilty to
felony theft charges by the State of
Maryland as a conspirator with
Rufus O. Ukaegbu, relative to the
$1.2 million embezzlement described
in the above case. Westbrook was
sentenced to 3 years imprisonment
(suspended), 5 years probation, with
the first six months as home
detention, and ordered to pay
$12,000 restitution.
Both cases, Ukaegbu and
Westbrook, were investigated jointly
by the EPA OIG, FBI, and the
Maryland State Police.
Project Manager Convicted
of Writing Checks to Himself
James Speer, project manager with
Olympic View Environmental Review
Council (OVER-C), Kitsap County,
Washington, was convicted
on March 30, 1995, for embezzling
over $46,500 from OVER-C.
OVER-C, a nonprofit organization,
was awarded an EPA technical
assistance grant (TAG) involving
three Superfund sites in Kitsap
County. Speer gained control of the
organization's finances including
records, checkbooks, incoming bills,
and outgoing payments and
subsequently was able to write
checks in excess of $86,000 to
himself. Speer would write the
OVER-C checks and take them to
two board members for authorization
signatures. He then replaced the
names of the legitimate payees on
the check with his own name to
remove cash from the OVER-C bank
account. The cash was traced to his
girlfriend's account and her mother's
account. Speer paid portions of
legitimate expenses while holding
back funds for himself, allowing him
time to continue obtaining and using
additional Federal, State and private
grants funds to "lap" expenses,
staying ahead of the creditors.
Speer's "lapping" scheme collapsed
when some of the technical advisors
on the projects complained that they
had not been paid completely for
their work.
Firm and President
Sentenced
T. Head and Company, Inc., known
as THI, and Toney Head, Jr., the
firm's owner, president, and chief
executive officer, were sentenced in
October 1994, after being convicted
of filing 41 false claims. Head was
sentenced to 4 months prison in a
work release program, 4 months
home confinement, 2 years
probation, and ordered to pay
restitution of $18,515 and a $2,000
special assessment. THI was fined
$10,000 and ordered to pay an
$8,000 special assessment.
As reported in our previous
semiannual report, THI, of Herndon,
Virginia, a subcontractor on a prime
contract between the Small Business
Administration and EPA, was to
establish and monitor national
accounts for shipping laboratory
samples of hazardous waste and
other materials to certain contract
OCTOBER 1, 1994 THROUGH MARCH 31, 1995
35
-------
laboratories for analysis. However,
our investigation revealed that Head
directed four former THI employees
to falsify records which showed the
number of hours these employees
worked on the EPA contract. Head
used the false information to inflate
numerous THI invoices submitted to
EPA.
Three Public Health Officers
Guilty of Hiding Interest In
EPA Contractor
William Burkhardt III, Scott R.
Rippey and William D. Watkins,
Commissioned Officers of the U.S.
Public Health Service assigned to
the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration, North Kingstown, Rl,
plead guilty to knowingly filing false
confidential statements of
employment and financial interest.
All three willfully failed to disclose
their controlling ownership and
employment interest in Biosearch
Limited, New England Scientific, and
Biological Analytical Laboratories
(BAL). BAL received contracts and
funds from EPA for work on the
Narragansett Bay Project through
one of the defendants and used
equipment and supplies from the
FDA. Each defendant was fined
$500 plus a $25 assessment. This
case was investigated jointly by the
EPA OIG, HHS DIG and the Postal
Inspection Service.
Office Equipment Pawned
A former Region 4 Stay-in-School
participant pleaded guilty in
December 1994 to misdemeanor
theft of government property. The
former employee was sentenced to 5
years probation, the first year to be
supervised, and ordered to pay
restitution of $2,922. While
employed with EPA, he had
removed several pieces of EPA
electronic and photographic
equipment including portable
computers, video cameras, and
transceivers, and pawned them in
various Atlanta area pawn shops.
Civil and Administrative
Actions to Recover EPA
Funds
Investigations and audits conducted
by the Office of Inspector General
provide the basis for civil and
administrative actions to recover
funds fraudulently obtained from
EPA. Through the Inspector
General Division (IGD) of the Office
of General Counsel (OGC), the OIG
uses a variety of tools to obtain
restitution. These include
cooperative efforts with the
Department of Justice in filing civil
suits under the False Claims Act,
the Program Fraud Civil Remedies
Act, and other authorities: working
with grantees using their own civil
litigation authorities: invoking the
restitution provisions of the Victim
and Witness Protection Act during
criminal sentencing: using the
Agency's authority to
administratively offset future
payments and to collect debts: and
negotiating voluntary settlements
providing for restitution in the
context of suspension and
debarment actions. Civil and
administrative actions to recover
funds usually extend over several
semiannual reporting periods.
Riedel Environmental
Services, Inc. to Repay More
Than $2.8 Million
The Department of Justice's Civil
Division, working with attorneys from
EPA's OGC, negotiated a civil
settlement agreement with Riedel
Environmental Services, Inc (RES)
and its new owner, Canonie
Environmental Services, Inc. Under
the agreement, RES and Canonie
agreed to pay the Government
$2,800,000 over a 3 year period,
plus interest accruing on the unpaid
principal balance, to resolve a case
the Government brought under the
False Claims Act. The $2,800,000
settlement includes repayment of the
full contract price of approximately
$2,500,000 plus OIG audit,
investigative, and prosecutive costs.
The OIG audit and investigation
revealed that RES had failed to
disclose the existence of a quotation
for pollution liability insurance during
the negotiation and award of a multi-
year EPA Superfund contract. In
addition, the OIG audit and
investigation revealed that RES
continued to receive payments from
EPA for pollution self-insurance even
after RES purchased pollution
liability insurance.
Subcontractor Enters Civil
Settlement
EPS Analytical Services, of Canton
Mississippi, an EPA subcontractor,
paid $5,000 in a civil settlement on
charges of submitting false claims
for payment to EPA. EPS Analytical
Services, a subcontractor for OHM,
the prime contractor on the
Southeast Wood Processing
Superfund Site, was charged with
making false claims for payment
from EPA through OHM, for soil
sample analysis that did not comply
with EPA specifications.
36
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
-------
Section 4 -- Fraud Prevention And Management Improvements
This section describes several
activities of the Office of
Inspector General to promote
economy and efficiency and to
prevent and detect fraud, waste,
and abuse in the administration
of EPA programs and operations.
This section includes information
required by statute,
recommended by Senate report,
or deemed appropriate by the
Inspector General.
Review of Legislation and
Regulations
Section 4(a)(2) of the Inspector
General Act of 1978, as amended,
directs the Office of Inspector
General to review existing and
proposed legislation and regulations
relating to Agency programs and
operations to determine their effect
on economy and efficiency and the
prevention and detection of fraud
and abuse. During this semiannual
period, we reviewed 2 legislative
and 69 regulatory items. The most
significant items reviewed are
summarized below.
Regulations Implementing
the Federal Acquisition
Streamlining Act
Section 6006 of the Federal
Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994
(Act), Public Law 103-355, provides
whistleblower protection for
contractor employees of civilian
agencies. The Inspectors General of
executive agencies must review
allegations of reprisals against
contractor employees, and, if
warranted, issue a report
We reviewed the proposed rule
published in the December 1, 1994,
Federal Register, for implementing
the whistleblower protection
provisions of the Act. Section
3.905(c) of the proposed rule stated
that "Upon completion of the
investigation, the head of the
Agency shall ensure that the
Inspector General provides a report
of findings to..." We commented
that such language was
unnecessary and appeared to
infringe upon the independent status
of the Inspector General. We
recommended that the section be
revised to eliminate reference to the
Agency head in relation to the
distribution of the IG's report.
Proposed Executive Order
on Classified National
Security Information
We reviewed the subject document
at OMB's request, and objected to
the section requiring an Inspector
General to conduct periodic
evaluations of his/her agency's
classified national security
information program. With the
exception of audits required by
statute, we believe audits should
result from a planning process
which involves risk assessments of
agency programs and activities.
Interim Rule Governing
Entertainment, Gift, and
Recreation Costs for
Contractor Employees
We reviewed the interim rule under
Federal Acquisition Regulation
(FAR) case 94-750. Among other
things, the interim rule would revise
the FAR to indicate that the costs of
wellness/fitness centers are
allowable and that other recreation
costs, with the exception of
employee sports teams, are
unallowable. We agreed that the
costs of wellness/fitness centers
should be allowable as a means of
improving employee morale,
performance, and fitness, but do not
believe that the Government should
pay the additional expense of
subsidizing a contractor's employee
sports teams. We recommended
that all recreation costs, with the
exception of wellness/fitness
centers, should be unallowable.
OCTOBER 1, 1994 THROUGH MARCH 31, 1995
37
-------
Information Resources
Policy Manual Directive
2100 - Information and Data
Management Policy
We reviewed the Agency's draft
policy and did not concur primarily
because the document did not
reflect the Agency's commitment to
implementing a strong and effective
data management program. Many
of the recommendations which the
Assistant Administrator for
Administration and Resources
Management agreed to implement
following a congressionally
requested Inspector General review
were not implemented. We were
particularly concerned that the
document failed to define the
responsibilities of the Information
and Data Management Officer as
they relate to establishing a
"structure" to effectively share data
Agency-wide. We believe that this
position should be afforded the
authority necessary to effectively
centralize control over the Agency's
decentralized systems development
activities. Accordingly, we
recommended that the document be
revised to reflect several
responsibilities of this position.
We also recommended clarification
of various terms; identification of the
ultimate goal or purpose of
information and data management;
and inclusion of several additional
responsibilities for certain officials.
At the end of the reporting period,
the Office of Information Resources
Management was addressing our
concerns.
Information Resources
Policy Manual Directive
2100 - Records Management
Policy
We reviewed the Agency's draft
policy and recommended that it be
revised to reflect the unique storage
and retirement considerations of
electronic records. We also
recommended that the document be
revised to (1) better describe the
roles and responsibilities of systems
managers and ADP managers
concerning the management of
electronic records and (2) specify
that electronic records which are not
copied to standard tapes must be
maintained according to general
records schedules.
Amendment to EPA Order
3120.1, Conduct and
Discipline
We did not concur with the
proposed revision because not all
penalties appeared to be
commensurate with the offense and
not all prohibited actions were
addressed. At the end of the
reporting period, the Office of
Human Resources Management
was addressing our comments.
FAR Case 94-721
We recommended clarification of
certain provisions implementing the
Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act
of 1994 and revising the Truth in
Negotiations Act. Our primary
recommendation related to a
provision which could result in
numerous instances where certified
cost or pricing data would not be
required, despite inadequate
competition. We recommended
that, in those cases, the offeror be
required to submit such data so that
the Government could perform cost
or price analysis and ultimately
negotiate a fair and reasonable
price.
Suspension and
Debarment Activities
EPA's policy is to do business only
with contractors and assistance
recipients who are honest and
responsible. EPA enforces this
policy by suspending or debarring
contractors, assistance recipients,
or individuals within those
organizations, from further EPA
contracts or assistance if there has
been a conviction of, or civil
judgment for:
• commission of a fraud or a
criminal offense in connection with
obtaining, attempting to obtain, or
performing a public contract or
subcontract;
• violation of Federal or State
antitrust statutes relating to the
submission of offers:
• commission of embezzlement,
theft, forgery, bribery, falsification or
destruction of records, making a
false statement, or receiving stolen
property; or
• commission of any other offense
indicating a lack of business
integrity or business honesty that
seriously and directly affects the
present responsibility of a
Government contractor or
subcontractor.
A contractor may also be debarred
for violating the terms of a
Government contract or
subcontract, such as willful failure
to perform in accordance with the
terms of one or more contracts, or
a history of failure to perform, or of
unsatisfactory performance on one
or more contracts. A contractor
may also be debarred for any other
cause of so serious or compelling a
nature that it affects the present
responsibility of the contractor.
Thus, a contractor need not have
38
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
-------
committed fraud or been convicted
of an offense to warrant being
debarred. Debarments are to be
for a period commensurate with the
seriousness of the cause, but
generally do not exceed 3 years.
The effectiveness of the suspension
and debarment (S&D) program has
been enhanced by regulations that
provide all Federal agencies a
uniform system for debarring
contractors from receiving work
funded by Federal grants, loans, or
cooperative agreements. The
system, required by Executive
Order 12549, provides that a non-
procurement debarment or
suspension by one agency is
effective in all agencies and
requires the General Services
Administration to publish monthly
"Lists of Parties Excluded from
Federal Procurement or Non-
procurement Programs." Formerly,
a non-procurement debarment was
effective only in the programs
administered by the debarring
agency, and each agency
maintained its own list. The EPA
Suspension and Debarment
Division in the Office of Grants and
Debarment operates the S&D
program at EPA. The OIG assists
the EPA S&D program by providing
information from audits,
investigations, and engineering
studies: and obtaining documents
and evidence used in determining
whether there is a cause for
suspension or debarment. During
this period, cases with direct OIG
involvement led to 23 debarments,
one suspension, and two
compliance agreements, a total of
26 actions.
The following are examples:
• On February 2, 1995, EPA
suspended Brian Burns, the former
head of the Northeast Rural Water
Association (NERWA), a recipient of
EPA grant funds through the
National Rural Water Association.
EPA based this action on a criminal
indictment resulting from an OIG
investigation. According to the
indictment, Mr. Burns attended
Trinity College and Harvard
University as a full-time student,
while he allegedly claimed his EPA-
funded salary from NERWA and his
educational expenses as NERWA-
related.
• On March 7, 1995, EPA approved
a compliance agreement with PRC
Environmental Management, Inc.
(PRC EMI), in which PRC EMI
agreed to reimburse EPA $300,000
for damages resulting from its
submittal of premature bills for
subcontractor costs. PRC EMI also
agreed to implement several
remedial measures designed to
ensure that its future performance
and administration of Federal
contracts and assistance
agreements fully comply with all
applicable laws and regulations.
• On November 21, 1994, EPA
debarred Stanley L. Peters and
Stanley L. Peters and Associates,
Inc. for 3 years. On January 31,
1995, AET Collaborative, Inc. of
which Mr. Peters was president,
was debarred for 3 years. The
debarment arose from a joint OIG
and FBI investigation which resulted
in criminal charges alleging that Mr.
Peters had received kickbacks from
Nebraska schools for his assistance
in obtaining Asbestos School
Hazardous Abatement Act
grants/loans from EPA. He was
convicted of conspiracy to defraud
by submitting false and fraudulent
claims, and theft of Government
funds. Dean Curtis, a co-
conspirator, was debarred effective
October 31, 1994.
• EPA debarred EKOTEC, Inc., its
President, Steven Self, and
company officials, Sharon Self and
Steven Miller, for a period of five
years, effective October 4, 1994.
Mr. Self was convicted of improper
disposal of hazardous waste by
dumping waste in diesel automobile
tanks and ordering the falsification
of documents regarding its disposal.
In addition, he was responsible for
illegal discharge of oil, grease, and
industrial wastewater into the Salt
Lake City sewer system in violation
of the Clean Water, Clean Air, and
Resource and Conservation
Recovery Acts.
OIG Personnel Security
Program
This program is one of the first-line
defenses against fraud by using
background investigations and
National Agency Checks and
Inquiries to review the integrity of
EPA employees and contractors.
During this reporting period,
reviewed 320 investigations.
• One employee was allowed to
resign pending administrative
removal for falsification of
the SF-171 used to gain
employment, by claiming a degree
not earned. The degree was
required for the position.
• One employee received a 14-day
suspension for a felony conviction.
• One employee was terminated
during probationary period for
falsification of the SF-171 by failing
to list a previous termination, and
for unprofessional conduct.
• One employee was reassigned to
a low-risk position after an arrest
report disclosed a conviction for
theft.
OCTOBER 1, 1994 THROUGH MARCH 31, 1995
39
-------
OIG Management
Initiatives
Reinventing Offices of
Inspector General
The EPA OIG has continued the
process of reinvention, in
accordance with the following vision
statement adopted by the Inspectors
General: "We are agents of positive
change striving for continuous
improvement in our agencies'
management and program
operations and in our own offices."
In fulfilling this vision and carrying
out the mission responsibilities set
forth in the Inspector General Act,
the IGs have pledged to:
• work with management and the
Congress to improve program
management.
• use our investigative and program
compliance reviews to improve the
effectiveness of program operations,
increase Government integrity, and
recommend improved systems to
prevent fraud, waste, and abuse.
• be innovative and question
existing procedures and suggest
improvements.
• build relationships with program
managers based on a shared
commitment to improve program
operations.
• continue to improve the quality
and usefulness of our products.
• work together to identify and
address Government-wide issues.
We believe that the OIG has always
taken a cooperative approach with
EPA management in resolving and
implementing results of our audits
and investigations. In this regard,
the OIG has begun to place even
greater emphasis on building
partnerships with Agency program
managers based on a shared
commitment to improving
operations. The OIG has taken or
planned a number of other initiatives
to enhance this cooperation. More
OIG resources are being directed to
conducting performance audits to
analyze how well programs are
meeting their goals and
recommending changes in program
design and management techniques
to increase efficiency and improve
program results.
We are focusing more on causes of
problems and provide more
balanced reporting by identifying
effective corrective actions taken by
Agency management and examples
of good management practices,
when possible.
We have begun a streamlining
process within OIG that has three
themes:
• Increased Delegation and
Decentralization of Authority
The OIG is working to delegate to
the lowest practical level the
responsibility and authority to make
managerial decisions and increase
autonomy over its audits,
investigations, and administrative
support activities.
• Increased Empowerment of
Employees with Appropriate
Accountability
We will continue empowering the
field divisions with more authority
and autonomy in personnel matters,
and by empowering Divisional IGs
and Headquarters Directors to sign
major audits, investigations, and
management reports..
• Improvement of Work Processes
and Systems
The OIG has devoted considerable
time soliciting ideas from our staff at
all levels to improve work
processes. Several major theme
areas have emerged from these
discussions. First, as stated above,
we are focusing more attention on
assisting EPA managers to achieve
their program objectives. While we
will continue to conduct compliance
reviews as part of our audits, we
are working more cooperatively with
our customers to ensure that our
products meet their needs.
Internally, we are comprehensively
reviewing our policies and
procedures to ensure that each
requirement in the audit process
adds value to our products.
Relative to the three themes, we
have completed or currently have
in process several streamlining
initiatives. Examples of these
initiatives follow.
Organizational Structure, Size,
and Composition
• The OIG has streamlined its
organization through consolidation
of field offices, transferring and
realigning positions and by
eliminating supervisory positions.
All three components of the OIG
have either achieved or are in the
process of achieving the supervisory
ratio of 1:11 as mandated by the
Administrator.
• Office of Investigations
consolidated seven investigations
field divisions into three divisions,
eliminating a supervisory level and
has already achieved a 1:11
supervisory ratio.
• Office of Audit has flattened its
organization by reassigning
Headquarters administrative and
management staff to audit field
offices and by eliminating ,
supervisory positions and levels of
review. This office now has a
supervisory ratio of 1:8 and will
achieve a 1:11 ratio during 1996.
40
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
-------
• Office of Management has
streamlined its structure by
eliminating supervisory positions to
reduce supervisory levels by 50
percent thus achieving the 1:11
ratio.
• We made liberal use of early-out
and buy-out opportunities to reduce
staff size.
• The OIG has made great strides
in diversifying its workforce and is
taking steps to maintain and
strengthen diversity while meeting
its streamlining requirements.
• The OIG has implemented a
policy supporting our Affirmative
Action Plan resulting in minorities
and women accounting for 75
percent of all new hires and
promotions during fiscal 1994,
including new hires and promotions
at grades 13 to 15.
Management and Administration
• The OIG has taken the greatest
initiative in EPA to streamline its
employee performance appraisal
system. This is being done by
reducing the number of rating levels
and using generic summary Critical
Job Elements focusing on outcomes
and standards at only the Fully
Successful level. We are requiring
summary appraisal justifications
only for Outstanding and
Unsatisfactory ratings. This will
reduce the time devoted to this
activity by at least fifty percent while
improving its effectiveness.
• The OIG is in the process of
increasing delegation and
decentralizing authority to the lowest
practical level to make managerial
decisions and increasing the
empowerment of employees.
Work Processes
• The OIG is improving its work
processes and systems by working
with our customers to ensure that
our products meet their needs and
provide consultative services to
promote more economic, efficient,
and effective Agency management.
• OIG has included EPA
management directly in our audit
planning process.
• We are developing performance
measures which include customer
surveys and other external
feedback. The most recent issue of
our IG HIGHLIGHTS publication
contains a customer survey. Since
this publication is distributed nation-
wide to all EPA employees, we will
receive valuable feedback.
• The OIG is implementing the use
of electronic data exchange to
facilitate reporting between the field
offices and Headquarters in order to
reduce the use of paper.
• We are reviewing OIG policy
manuals to identify and eliminate
policies in preference to existing
Agency or Federal policy.
• OIG revised its reporting format to
provide more concise and better
balanced presentations to Agency
management and Congress.
• The OIG, by invitation, has
worked on cooperative projects with
Agency managers to improve the
integrity of scientific and financial
information and Superfund
accounting.
Remaining Steps Toward
Continuing Reinvention
The OIG recognizes that reinvention
is a dynamic process. We are
extremely satisfied with the results
of our reinvention efforts so far.
However, we recognize that
constant monitoring is necessary to
identify both potential problems and
opportunities for improvements.
The areas that we believe need
additional assistance in bringing our
reinvention efforts to fruition remain
in team building, development of
performance indicators within our
offices, reduction of internal policy
guidance, and conversion of a
number of our auditors to
management analyst positions.
Training
OIG Developed Courses
• Statistical Sampling Training
This course was designed to
provide skills necessary to perform
statistical sampling in connection
with EPA contract audits. The
emphasis is on elementary sampling
procedures with some additional
direction for those who encounter
more difficult sampling problems
and need references to more
complete sources. This course was
presented in Washington, DC.
• Internal Controls and Fraud
Prevention
At the request of the Agency, the
OIG presented a unit called a
"Prescription for Prevention" as part
of continuing professional education
for Senior Executives. This
presentation was designed to help
EPA Senior Executives understand
the nature and need for internal
controls in preventing and detecting
vulnerability to loss of resources
and raise their consciousness to the
elements and indicators of fraud.
During this reporting period the unit
was presented at five Senior
Executive Workshops.
This presentation is an example of
how the OIG is working with EPA
and providing assistance to promote
economy and efficiency.
OCTOBER 1, 1994 THROUGH MARCH 31, 1995
41
-------
Peter Rosenberg, Assistant Director,
Communications, Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance (CECA), speaks at
Brown Bag gathering (photo by Dana
Sharon)
OIG Staff members engaged in lively
discussions with Peter Rosenberg (photo by
Dana Sharon)
The Brown Bag Institute of
Learning
As part of our effort to do more in-
house training, we continued a
lunchtime training program called
the Brown Bag Institute of Learning.
This program, hosted by various
OIG managers, features videotapes,
case studies, discussions, and
presentations by experts on
subjects pertinent to OIG work.
During this reporting period,
presented reorganization of EPA's
Office of Enforcement. Peter
Rosenberg, Assistant Director of
Communication, OECA, and Mark
Charles, Branch Chief, Water
Enforcement, OECA, were the
instructors/facilitators.
OIG Contracted Courses
• Accounting and Auditing
Update
This course was designed to
provide EPA OIG personnel with an
update and review of Generally
Accepted Accounting Principles with
FAR and CAS cost principles as
thqy relate specifically to EPA
leases, pensions, mergers,
acquisitions, compensated
absences and post retirement
benefits. This course was
presented in Memphis, TN.
President's Council on
Integrity and Efficiency
• PCIE Performance Measures
Task Force
We participated on a special PCIE
working group to develop draft
standard performance measures for
Federal Offices of Inspector
General. The purpose of this
ongoing project is to define output
and outcome measures of OIG
efficiency and effectiveness in
relation to the recently published
OIG Vision Statement and
Strategies to Apply Reinvention
Principles. OIGs also must develop
and report on performance in
relation to budgetary requests and
strategic plans in compliance with
the requirements of the Chief
Financial Officers Act of 1990 and
the Government Performance and
Results Act of 1993.
Committee on Integrity
and Management
Improvement
The Committee on Integrity and
Management Improvement (CIMI)
was established in 1984 by EPA
Order 1130.1. Composed of senior
EPA program officials and chaired
by the Inspector General, CIMI
strives to continually increase
employee awareness and
understanding of various Agency
policies and procedures and to
improve the economy, efficiency,
and effectiveness of Agency
operations.
AWARENESS BULLETINS
American Express
Government Program
The American Express Government
Program was implemented at EPA
on November 30, 1993, and
provides eligible EPA employees
with an American Express
Government credit card (Amex card)
to pay for expenses related to
official Government travel, such as
common passenger carrier tickets,
lodging, meals, and automobile
rentals. Because of known and
potential abuses, CIMI prepared this
awareness bulletin to inform EPA
employees of the requirements, and
benefits of the program.
Employees may not use the
Government Amex card to pay for
42
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
-------
personal travel expenses or for any
purchase that is not related to
official Government travel. In
addition to using the card only for
authorized purposes and paying the
bill in full upon receipt, employees
are responsible for securing the
card, reporting a lost or stolen card,
returning the card upon cancellation
or suspension of cardholder
privileges or leaving Agency
employment, and contacting
American Express to resolve any
disputed charges.
Conferences and Meetings
In an effort to reduce administrative
expenses, President Clinton
targeted Government meetings and
conferences for close scrutiny. As a
result, the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) issued OMB
Bulletin 93-11, instructing agencies
to keep conference costs to a
minimum and to document
alternatives considered and the
rationale used in selecting
conference sites. On September
14, 1994. the Agency issued Office
of the Comptroller Policy
Announcement 94-10 to provide
implementing guidance. Agency
policy dictates that a conference or
meeting, and related travel, can be
authorized only if it will provide a
direct benefit to achieving EPA's
mission. In addition, a written cost
comparison must be prepared for all
conferences and meetings involving
travel by 30 employees or more and
the final site selection must be
approved by the Assistant or
Regional Administrator. CIMI
prepared an awareness bulletin to
highlight EPA's policy and to stress
the importance of avoiding even the
appearance of improprieties in this
area.
Management and
Disposition of Federal
Records
Federal records are Government
property and may not be disposed
of except in accordance with
approved disposition schedules.
EPA employees have three specific
records management
responsibilities. They must create
records sufficient to document
activities; maintain official Agency
records separately from their
personal files and other nonrecord
materials; and follow the retention
and disposition guidance specified
in the records disposition schedules
and the recordkeeping requirements
documented for their organization
within EPA. Managers or
supervisors should ensure that
recordkeeping requirements exist for
all records and that the records are
maintained according to Federal
regulations and Agency policy.
CIMI developed this bulletin to
inform Agency employees of the
requirements associated with the
maintenance and disposition of
official Agency records and their
responsibilities in this regard.
Hotline Activities
The OIG Hotline opened 18 new
cases and closed 31 cases during
the reporting period. Of the cases
closed, 7 resulted in environmental,
prosecutive, or administrative
corrective action, while 24 did not
require action. Cases that did not
have immediate validity because of
insufficient information may be used
to identify trends or patterns of
potentially vulnerable areas for
future review. The Hotline also
referred 2,533 telephone callers to
the appropriate program office,
State agency, or other Federal
agency for assistance.
The following are examples of
action taken as a result of
information provided by the OIG
Hotline.
• A complainant alleged that an
EPA employee obtained travel
advance funds without authorization
by forging a supervisor's signature.
An inquiry determined that the
employee had obtained such funds
without authorization on four
separate occasions. Three of the
four advances were repaid to the
Imprest Fund before the employee
became aware of the inquiry. The
fourth repayment was made by the
employee after being confronted by
management. The employee
received a 60-day suspension.
• A complainant alleged that an oil
company in Ford, Virginia, was
operating in violation of EPA
regulations. Inspections of the
company's facilities disclosed that
the company had failed to prepare,
certify, and implement Spill
Prevention, Control, and
Countermeasures (SPCC) plans.
The company was issued a notice
of non-compliance and given a
grace period of 120 days to achieve
compliance.
OCTOBER 1, 1994 THROUGH MARCH 31, 1995
43
-------
Appendix 1 ^Rspoits Issued
APPENDIX 1 REPORTS ISSUED
THE INSPECTOR GENERAL ACT REQUIRES A LISTING, SUBDIVIDED ACCORDING TO SUBJECT MATTER, OF EACH REPORT
ISSUED BY THE OFFICE DURING THE REPORTING PERIOD AND FOR EACH REPORT, WHERE APPLICABLE, THE DOLLAR VALUE
OF QUESTIONED COSTS AND THE DOLLAR VALUE OF RECOMMENDATIONS THAT FUNDS BE PUT TO BETTER USE.
Questioned Costs
Recommended
Efficiencies
Assignment Control Number
Title
Final Report
Issued
Ineligible Unsupported Unreasonable (Funds Be Put
Costs Costs Costs To Better Use)
1. INTERNAL & MANAGEMENT ASSIGNMENTS
Grants Administration Division
E1XMG5-11-0003-5400028 COMPLIANCE WITH RESTRICTIONS
ON LOBBYING
1/ 6/95
Assistant Administrator for Administration and Resources Management
E1KAG4-03-0068-5400037
E1BMF2-04-0373-5100247
E1FMG4-13-0061-5400051
E1MMG4-13-0064-5400052
E1SFL4-20-8001-5100192
E1AMF4-20-7002-5100209
E1NMF3-15-0072-5100240
REVIEW OF ETS RISK ASSESSMENTS 2/ 2/95
IMPROVEMENTS NEEDED IN SUBCON-
TRACTOR COMPETITION & OVERSIGHT 3/31/95
IAGS: OFF-LOADING AT EPA HQ 3/31/95
ADMINISTRATION OF IPA ASSIGNMENTS 3/30/95
FY 94 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 2/28/95
EPA'S COLLECTION OF USER FEES 3/27/95
EPA'S MANAGEMENT OF APPLICATION
SOFTWARE MAINTENANCE 3/31/95
Assistant Administrator for Research and Development
E1SKF4-02-0059-5400029 CONTRACT MONITORING ACTIVITIES
AT RREL-EDISON 1/12/95
E6ABG5-11-0009-5400046 ORD CONTRACTOR CONVERSION EFFORTS 3/ 8/95
Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste & Emergency Response
E1SFF4-11-0029-5100229 EPA'S MANAGEMENT OF 5 YR REVIEWS 3/27/95
E1SFG5-11-5005-5400014 FOLLOW UP ON FY 92/93 SUPERFUND
PERFORMANCE MEASURES 11/15/94
Regional Administrator - Region 1
E1SGG4-14-0010-5400042 LINEMASTER RI/FS REVIEW CT 2/16/95
Regional Administrator - Region 2
E1HWR5-02-0015-5400030 DRINKING WATER DATA INTEGRITY--
REGION 2 1/12/95
E1SGG4-14-0011-5400040 CIRCUITRON RI/FS REVIEW NY 2/ 7/95
Director Air & Hazardous Wastes - Region 4
E1SGG4-14-0008-5400022 FCX SITES RI/FS REVIEW
12/ 6/94
44
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
-------
Questioned Costs
Recommended
Efficiencies
Assignment Control Number
Title
Final Report Ineligible Unsupported Unreasonable (Funds Be Put
Issued Costs Costs Costs To Better Use)
Regional Administrator - Region 5
E1SFL4-05-8000-5100216 CFO ACT FY 94 REGION 5
E1SFG4-05-0250-5400024 SFAI BASE CLOSURES — REGION 5
3/17/95
E1KAB4-05-0212-5400013 AIR STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
REGION 5 11/10/94
12/16/94
Regional Administrator - Region 7
E1HWF4-07-0036-5100226 REGION 7'S PUBLIC WATER SYSTEM
SUPERVISION PROGRAM 3/24/95
E1SFF4-07-0066-5100250 BUDGET EXECUTION — REGION 7 3/31/95
E1SJG4-07-0050-5400032 FOLLOWUP PRP SEARCH PROGRAM 1/17/95
Regional Administrator - Region 8
E1XMF4-08-0036-5100141 BETTER PLANNING & ORGANIZATIONAL
CHANGES COULD IMPROVE REGION 8'S
TRIBAL PROGRAM 1/23/95
E1SKG4-08-0045-5400034 SUPERFUND FIELD SAMPLING
ACTIVITIES
1/27/95
Regional Administrator - Region 9
E1SFG4-09-0028-5400018 SFAI SWIFT PILOT
Regional Administrator - Region 10
E1SFG4-10-0078-5400035 REVIEW OF SFAI IN REGION
TOTAL INTERNAL AND MANAGEMENT ASSIGNMENTS
2. CONSTRUCTION GRANT ASSIGNMENTS
E2CWL2-01-0170-5100233 MWRA
P2CWL2-01-0353-5100230 BRISTOL
TOTAL OF REGION 01 2
E2CWL2-02-0130-5100123 PERTH AMBOY
E2FWP3-02-6000-5400060 PRASA FOLLOW-UP
P2CWL1-02-0128-5100190 ROCKLAND COUNTY SD1
P2CWL3-02-0083-5100191 FLORHAM PARK SEWERAGE
P2CWL4-02-0060-5100217 MIDDLETOWN
P2CWL3-02-0128-5100231 HUDSON COUNTY UA
TOTAL OF REGION 02 6
E2CWM4-04-0245-5200001 MOULTON
E2CUM5-04-0050-5200005 FLORENCE
E2CWM5-04-0042-5200006 STARKE
TOTAL OF REGION 04 3
E2CWL3-08-0038-5100124 LONGMONT
E2CWM2-08-0092-5200003 BOULDER
P2CWL3-08-0039-5100107 ASHLEY VALLEY
10
MA
CT
NJ
PR
NY
NJ
NY
NJ
AL
AL
FL
CO
CO
UT
11/28/94
1/31/95
26
3/29/95
3/27/95
12/27/94
3/30/95
2/21/95
2/21/95
3/21/95
3/28/95
11/ 3/94
1/11/95
1/20/95
12/28/94
12/ 9/94
12/ 1/94
0
343,947
1,841,540
2,185,487
166,123
0
1,290,906
1,211,660
699,268
0
3,367,957
22,387
15,562
1,029,423
1,067,372
16,229
64,848
1,533,914
0
0
2,155,282
2,155,282
309,423
0
2,959,420
0
0
13,064,288
16,333,131
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
TOTAL OF REGION 08
1,614,991
OCTOBER 1, 1994 THROUGH MARCH 31, 1995
45
-------
Assignment Control Number
Title
Final Report
Issued
Questioned Costs
Ineligible
Costs
Unsupported
Costs
Unreasonable
Costs
Recommended
Efficiencies
(Funds Be Put
To Better Use]
E2CWM3-09-
E2CWM3-09-
E2CWM2-09-
E2CWM3-09-
E2CWM3-09-
E2CWM2-09-
E2CWN2-09-
S2CWN1-09-
0072-5200002
0116-5200007
0093-5200008
0136-5200009
0189-5200011
0244-5200012
0266-5300002
0174-5300011
FRESNO, CITY OF
SANTA BARBARA, COUNTY OF
SOUTH TAHOE PUD
FRESNO, COUNTY OF
OAKLAND, CITY OF
LOS ANGELES, CITY OF
MAUI, COUNTY OF
CRESCENTA VALLEY CWD
TOTAL OF REGION 09
E2CWM4-10-0079-5200004
P2CWN4-10-0015-5300006
SPOKANE, CITY OF
JUNEAU, CITY & BOROUGH OF
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
HI
CA
WA
AK
11/22/94
1/24/95
2/ 9/95
3/ 7/95
3/21/95
3/27/95
11/ 9/94
3/30/95
M 3/95
1/10/95
TOTAL OF REGION 10
15,825
457,325
731,772
185,427
206,803
25,580,260
1,094,241
46,806
28,318,459
171,131
130,298
301,429
0
0
0
0
38,861
0
0
0
38,861
0
0
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION GRANT ASSIGNMENTS
24
36,855,695
18,527,274
3. OTHER GRANT ASSIGNMENTS
C3HVK4-01-0182-5500006
G3HVK4-01-0188-5500014
G3HVK4-01-0197-5500015
G3HVK3-01-0184-5500041
G3HVK5-01-0031-5500051
G3HUK5-01-0027-5500060
G3HVK5-01 -0065-5500079
G3HVK5-01 -0075-5500103
G3HVK5-01 -0082-5500104
N3HUK4-01-0172-5500016
N3HUK4-01-0171-5500017
N3HMK1-01-0128-5500020
N3HVK4-01 -0073-5500021
N3HVK3-01-0130-5500022
N3HMKO-01 -0259-5500023
N3HVK1-01-0187-5500024
N3HMK1-01-0120-5500025
N3HVK2-01-0119-5500026
N3HVK2-01-0056-5500027
N3HVK5-01-0030-5500040
N3HVK5-01-0034-5500042
N3HVK5-01 -0033-5500043
N3HVK5-01 -0049-5500061
N3HVK5-01-0041-5500072
N3HUK4-01-0170-5500077
N3HVJ4-01-0158-5500078
N3HVK5-01 -0070-5500105
TOTAL OF
G3HVK5-02-0024-5500012
G3HUK4-02-0204-5500019
G3HVK5-02-0070-5500038
G3HVK5-02-0084-5500068
G3HVK5-02-0098-5500074
G3HVK5-02-0112-5500101
G3HUK5-02-0117-5500117
N3HVK5-02-0012-5500001
N3HVK5-02-0013-5500002
N3HVK4-02-0177-5500011
N3HUK4-02-0171-5500013
N3HUK5-02-0059-5500018
N3HVK5-02-0068-5500029
N3HVK5-02-0061 -5500030
N3HUK5-02-0065-5500031
N3HUK5-02-0074-5500036
N3HUK5-02-0072-5500037
N3HVK5-02-0062-5500044
N3HVK5-02-0030-5500045
N3HVK5-02-0079-5500052
N3HVK5-02-0081-5500054
N3HEK4-02-0138-5500058
N3HVK4-02-0178-5500062
PITTSFIELD, CITY OF
YORK SEWER DISTRICT
PIONEER VALLEY PLAN COMM
EXETER, TOWN OF
MAINE MUNICIPAL BOND BANK
HEALTH EFFECTS INSTITUTE
MATTABASSETT DISTRICT
BENNINGTON
PIONEER VALLEY PLAN COMM
UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT
DARTMOUTH COLLEGE
ARLINGTON
ARLINGTON, TOWN OF
ARLINGTON, TOWN OF
ATHOL
CAMBRIDGE
BURLINGTON
ARLINGTON
DALTON
RUTLAND REGIONAL PLAN COMM
SOUTHEASTERN REG PLAN & DEV
MA
ME
MA
NH
ME
MA
CT
VT
MA
VT
NH
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
NH
VT
MA
CENTRAL CONNECTICUT REG PLANCT
BERKSHIRE COUNTY REG PLAN,
MASHANTUCKET PEQUOT TRIBE
BOSTON UNIVERSITY
CONNECTICUT, STATE OF
BARNSTABLE
REGION 01 27
EFC
NJIT FDN
LOVE CANAL AREA REV. AGCY.
HUDSON REGL HLTH COMM
DELAWARE RVR. BSN. COMM.
ALEXANDRIA
RENSSELAERVILLE INST
BROOME COUNTY
RENSSELAER COUNTY
NEW YORK CITY
RUTGERS ST UNIV
RPI
ESSEX COUNTY
ESSEX COUNTY
ROCKEFELLER UNIVERSITY
NEW YORK BOT GARDEN
STEVENS INST OF TECH
WESTCHESTER COUNTY
ERIE COUNTY
MONROE COUNTY
MADISON COUNTY
NATL AUDUBON SOC
ONONDAGA COUNTY
MA
CT
MA
CT
MA
NY
NJ
NY
NJ
NJ
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NJ
NY
NJ
NJ
NY
NY
NJ
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
10/ 6/94
10/31/94
11/ 2/94
11/29/94
12/ 5/94
12/27/94
2/ 8/95
3/10/95
3/10/95
11/ 2/94
11/ 2/94
11/ 4/94
IV 4/94
1V 4/94
1V 4/94
1V 4/94
1V 4/94
1V 4/94
1V 4/94
11/28/94
11/29/94
11/29/94
12/27/94
2/ 6/95
2/ 8/95
2/ 8/95
3/10/95
10/31/94
11/ 3/94
11/22/94
V 4/95
2/ 7/95
3/ 3/95
3/21/95
10/ 5/94
107 5/94
10/27/94
10/31/94
1V 2/94
1V 7/94
1V 7/94
IV 7/94
11/22/94
11/22/94
11/30/94
11/30/94
12/ 5/94
12/12/94
12/20/94
V 3/95
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
46
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
-------
Questioned Costs
Assignment Control Number Title
N3HUK4-02-0068-5500063
N3HVK4-02-0063-5500064
N3HVK4-02-0044-5500065
N3HUK4-02-0190-5500066
N3HUK4-02-0162-5500067
N3HUK5-02-0089-5500069
N3HVK4-02-0135-5500070
N3HUK5-02-0100-5500080
N3HVK5-02-0101-5500081
N3HVK5-02-0102-5500082
N3HVK5-02-0088-5500083
N3HVK5-02-0097-5500084
N3HUK4-02-0179-5500086
N3HVK5-02-0106-5500092
N3HUK5-02-0071 -5500093
N3HVK5-02-001 1-5500099
N3HVK4-02-0188-5500100
N3HVK5-02-0116-5500106
N3HVK4-02-0205-5500107
N3HUK4-02-0196-5500108
N3HUK5-02-0113-5500109
N3HUK4-02-0194-5500110
N3HUK4-02-0187-5500111
N3HVK5-02-0083-5500112
N3HVK5-02-0108-5500113
N3HUK5-02-0076-5500114
N3HUK5-02-0077-5500115
N3HUK5-02-0063-5500116
TOTAL OF
C3HVK5-03-01 18-5500075
C3HVK5-03-0119-5500076
C3HVK5-03-0192-5500120
C3HVK5-03-0193-5500121
C3HVK5-03-0194-5500122
G3HVK5-03-0155-5500096
N3HVK5-03-0055-5500032
N3HVK5-03-0056-5500085
N3HVJ5-03-0154-5500095
N3HVK5-03-0156-5500097
N3HVJ5-03-0157-5500098
TOTAL OF
C3HVK4-04-0272-5500033
C3HVK5-04-0064-5500071
C3HVK5-04-0045-5500118
G3HVK5-04-0046-5500046
G3HVK4-04-0060-5500053
G3HVK5-04-0057-5500056
G3HVK5-04-0058-5500057
N3HVJ4-04-0228-5500034
N3HUK4-04-0257-5500035
N3HVK5-04-0043-5500039
N3HVJ5-04-0019-5500047
N3HVJ4-04-0226-5500048
TOTAL OF
C3HVJ5-05-0017-5500003
G3HVK5-05-0018-5500004
G3HVJ5-05-0034-5500010
N3HUK4-05-0283-5500005
TOTAL OF
C3HVJ5-06-0010-5500009
C3HVK5-06-0016-5500028
G3HVK5-06-0012-5500007
G3HVK5-06-001 1-5500008
N3HVK5-06-0021 -5500055
SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY
NASSAU COUNTY
CHAUTAUQUA
PUERTO RICO UNIV
RPI
ALBANY MEDICAL COLLEGE
SOUTH TIER CENT PLN & OEV
ROCHESTER INST OF TECH
PUERTO RICO DEPT OF AGR
CHAUTAUQUA COUNTY
SARATOGA COUNTY
BURLINGTON COUNTY
MANHATTAN COLLEGE
NASSAU COUNTY
SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY
ROCKLAND COUNTY
ONONDAGA COUNTY
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
SALEM
BOYCE THOMPSON INST
NEW YORK UNIVERSITY
CUNY RES FDN.
HEALTH RESEARCH INC
MIDDLESEX COUNTY
CLINTON COUNTY
ROCHESTER UNIVERSITY
ROCHESTER UNIVERSITY
NYU MEDICAL CENTER
REGION 02 51
PRINCE UILLIAN COUNTY
FAIRFAX COUNTY
ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY
SUSSEX COUNTY
CARROLL COUNTY
VA RESOURCES AUTHORITY
MARYLAND STATE OF
PA COMMONWEALTH OF
VA COMMONWEALTH OF
WEST VIRGINIA STATE
DELAWARE STATE
REGION 03 11
PENSACOLA
DEICALB COUNTY
ATLANTA
MICRO
MICRO
METTER
METTER
FLORIDA STATE OF
VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY OF
BROWARD COUNTY
ALABAMA STATE OF
SOUTH CAROLINA STATE OF
REGION 04 12
FT WAYNE FY 93
NORTH SHORE SD FY 94
SMITH-GREEN CSC FY 92/93
MICHIGAN U OF FY 93
REGION 05 4
NY
NY
NY
PR
NY
NY
NY
NY
PR
NY
NY
NJ
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NJ
NJ
NY
NY
NY
NY
NJ
NY
NY
NY
NY
VA
VA
MD
DE
MD
VA
MD
PA
VA
WV
DC
FL
GA
GA
NC
NC
GA
GA
FL
TN
FL
AL
SC
IN
IL
IN
MI
ARK. DEPT OF POLLUTION CONTRAR
PSB EL PASO WATER UTILITIES
RIO HONDO
SUNSET VALLEY
TX
TX
TX
TERREBONNE PARISH CONSOLIDATLA
Final Report
Issued
I/ 3/95
M 3/95
M 3/95
1/ 3/95
1/ 3/95
1/ 9/95
1/11/95
2/10/95
2/10/95
2/10/95
2/16/95
2/16/95
2/22/95
2/23/95
2/23/95
3/ 3/95
3/ 3/95
3/13/95
3/14/95
3/14/95
3/14/95
3/16/95
3/16/95
3/16/95
3/16/95
3/16/95
3/16/95
3/16/95
2/ 7/95
21 7/95
3/30/95
3/30/95
3/30/95
2/27/95
11/14/94
2/21/95
2/27/95
2/27/95
2/27/95
11/14/94
1/23/95
3/21/95
12/ 1/94
12/ 6/94
12/16/94
12/16/94
11/14/94
11/16/94
11/25/94
12/ 1/94
12/ 1/94
10/ 6/94
10/ 6/94
10/18/94
10/ 6/94
10/12/94
1V 7/94
10/12/94
10/12/94
12/14/94
Recommended
Efficiencies
Ineligible Unsupported Unreasonable (Funds Be Put
Costs Costs Costs To Better Use)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
980
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
980
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
161,977
0
0
161,977
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
36,592
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
36,592
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
TOTAL OF REGION 06 =
OCTOBER 1, 1994 THROUGH MARCH 31, 1995
47
-------
Questioned Costs
Assignment Control Number
Title
Final Report
Issued
Ineligible
Costs
Unsupported
Costs
Unreasonable
rnsts
Recommended
Efficiencies
(Funds Be Put
To Better Use^
N3HVJ4-07-0074-5500087 MISSOURI
N3HVJ4-07-0075-5500094 STATE OF IOWA
TOTAL OF REGION 07
N3WK4-08-0066-5500088
N3HVJ4-08-0065-5500089
N3HVJ4-08-0056-5500119
NORTHERN CHEYENNE TRIBE
STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA
MONTANA
MO
IA
MT
SD
MT
TOTAL OF REGION 08
C3HVK5-09-0053-5500090 LAS VEGAS, CITY OF NV
C3HVK5-09-0054-5500091 HONOLULU, CITY & COUNTY OF HI
N3HVK3-09-0228-5500049 COMMONWEALTH UTILITIES CORP MP
N3HVK4-09-0189-5500050 COMMONWEALTH UTILITIES CORP MP
N3HVK5-09-0039-5500073 PYRAMID LAKE PAIUTE TRIBE NV
TOTAL OF REGION 09
G3HVJ5-10-0023-5500059
G3HVJ5-10-0036-5500102
P3LLL3-10-0097-5100120
BLACK DIAMOND, CITY OF
SPOKANE COUNTY
OREGON DEQ-LUST
WA
WA
OR
2/22/95
2/23/95
2/22/95
2/22/95
3/24/95
2/22/95
2/22/95
12/ 1/94
12/ 1/94
2/ 6/95
12/23/94
3/ 9/95
12/22/94
TOTAL OF REGION 10
0
0
17,179
130,749
1,442
149,370
14,419
0
12,747
27,166
TOTAL OTHER GRANT ASSIGNMENTS
123
339,493
36,592
5. SUPERFUND GRANT ASSIGNMENTS
E5FGL4-01-0132-5100220 REGION 1 SF AGREEMENTS MA
TOTAL OF REGION 01 1
E5CKL4-02-0134-5100198 COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY NY
TOTAL OF REGION 02 = 1
E5FGF4-05-0261-5100144 CA'S ILLINOIS R5
TOTAL OF REGION 05 = 1
E5BGN4-06-0075-5300012 LA. SF CO-OP AGREEMENTS LA
TOTAL OF REGION 06 = 1
E5BGG4-11-0035-5400044 UV SF COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS
M5BFL5-11-0011-5100136 SF IAG-FY93 BUREAU OF REC
M5BFL5-11-0012-5100137 SF IAG-FY93 ENRD
M5BFL4-11-0037-5100138 SF IAG FY92 USGS
M5BFL5-11-0013-5100140 SF IAG FY93 ARMY AUDIT
TOTAL OF HDQ HAD REPORTS = 5
3/22/95
3/ 6/95
1/31/95
3/30/95
3/23/95
1/11/95
1/11/95
1/11/95
1/18/95
0
0
47
47
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
37,232
37,232
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
TOTAL SUPERFUND GRANT ASSIGNMENTS
47
37,232
8. OTHER CONTRACT ASSIGNMENTS
D8AML4-01-0193-5100042 TASHMOO TECHNOLOGIES INC. MA
D8DML4-01-0205-5100044 ABT ASSOCIATES INC. MA
D8DML5-01-0021-5100046 CAMP DRESSER & MCKEE INC. MA
D8CML5-01-0020-5100048 ABB ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES ME
D8DML5-01-0025-5100052 ARTHUR D. LITTLE INC. MA
D8AML4-01-0165-5100054 ABT ASSOCIATES MA
D8DML3-01-0038-5100055 ABB ENVIRONMENT SERVICES ME
D8AML4-01-0185-5100056 SYRACUSE RESEARCH CORP NY
D8DML3-01-0223-5100057 COMBUSTION ENGINEERING ME
D8DML5-01-0022-5100092 METCALF & EDDY INC MA
D8AML5-01-0048-5100235 NEW ENGLAND ELECTRIC RESOUR MA
D8APL5-01-0060-5100243 EASTERN RESEARCH GROUP MA
D8DML5-01-0023-5100246 ABB POWER LABORATORIES CT
10/31/94 * The dollar value of contract audits have not been shown.
11/ 2/94 Public disclosure of the dollar value of financial
11/ 2/94 recommendations could prematurely reveal the
11/ 2/94 Government's negotiating positions or release of this
11/ 2/94 information is not routinely available under the Freedom
11/ 3/94 of Information Act. The number of these reports and
11/ 3/94 dollar value of the findings have been included in the
11/ 3/94 aggregate data displayed below. Such data individually
11/ 3/94 excluded in this listing will be provided to the
11/29/94 Congress under separate memorandum within 30 days of the
3/30/95 transmittal of the semiannual report to the Agency head.
3/30/95 The transmitted data will contain appropriate cautions
3/30/95 regarding disclosure.
48
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
-------
Assignment Control Number
E8EMN3-01 -0282-5300008 TRC
E8AXP5-01 -0602-5400017 TRC
Title
FY 94 FLOORCHECK
ENVIRONMENTAL CORP
Final Report
Issued
CT 2/24/95
MA 11/28/94
I ne I i g i b I e
Costs
Questioned Costs
Unsupported Unreasonable
Costs Costs
Recommended
Efficiencies
(Funds Be Put
To Better Use)
TOTAL OF REGION 01
15
D8DML5-02-0019-5100045
D8DML4-02-0170-5100053
D8AML4-02-0202-5100105
D8DHL3-02-0149-5100134
D8BML5-02-0073-5100215
D8CHL5-02-0018-5100237
D8DHL4-02-0108-5100249
D8EMP5-02-0069-5400059
E8AXP5-02-0401 -5400019
E8AXP5-02-0507-5400023
E8AXP5-02-0404-5400026
TOTAL OF
D8AML4-03- 0478-51 00004
D8BML5-03-0049-51 00029
D8BML2-03-0156-5100031
D8CML4-03-0468- 5 100032
D8EML5-03-0048-5100033
D8EML5-03-0068- 51 00084
D8EHL5-03-0046-5100086
D8AML5-03-0028-5100087
D8EML5-03-0045-5100088
D8AML4-03-0532-5100089
D8CML4-03-0400-5100108
D8AML5-03-0026-5100109
D8AML4-03-0506-5100110
D8AML4-03-0531-5100111
D8AML4-03-0527-5100114
D8AHL5-03-0025-5100116
D8AML5-03-0024-5100121
D8EML5-03-0083-5100126
D8EHL5-03-0110-5100157
D8BML5-03-0112-5100158
D8BML5-03-0114-5100159
D8EHL5-03-0111-5100161
D8AAL5-03-0079-5100164
D8BML4-03-0071-5100165
D8CHL4-03-0112-5100166
D8BHL2-03-0155-5100167
D8CML4-03-0144-5100168
D8AAL5-03-0081 -5100169
D8BML4-03-0288-5100170
D8AML4-03-0533-5100171
D8CML4-03-0422-5100172
D8AML5-03-0029-5100173
D8EML5-03-0059-5100174
D8AML5-03-0077-5100176
D8AML5-03-0060-5100177
D8AML5-03-0041 -5100178
D8CML3-03-0215-5100179
D8CML4-03-0098-5100180
D8EML5-03-0163-5100196
D8APL5-03-0091 -5100197
D8AML5-03-0027-5100224
D8EMP2-03-0313-5400006
P8BML2-03-0507-5100022
CORNELL UNIVERSITY NY
GERAGHTY & MILLER NY
MARTIN MARIETTA SERVICES NJ
EBASCO NY
MARTIN MARIETTA TECH. SERVICNJ
MATHTECH INC. NJ
TAMS CONSULTANTS INC NY
ENSERCH ENVIRONMENTAL CORP NY
MALCOLM PIRNIE NY
ECOLOGY & ENVIR NY
MALCOLM PIRNIE INC NY
REGION 02 11
NCI INFORMATION SYSTEMS INC VA
WESTAT, INC. MD
ROW SCIENCES MD
GENERAL SCIENCE CORPORATION
AMERICAN MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS VA
QUALITY TECHNOLOGY, INC. MD
MANTECH TECHNOLOGY VA
INFORMATION MANAGEMENT VA
MANTECH ALM JOINT VENTURE VA
QUALITY TECHNOLOGY INC. MD
WESTAT, INC. MD
PERFORMANCE ENGINEERING CORPVA
HUGHES STX CORPORATION MD
COMPUTER DATA SYSTEMS, INC. MD
DYNCORP INC. VA
I -NET INCORPORATED MD
OGDEN GOVERNMENT SERVICES VA
COMPUTER SCIENCE CORP VA
LABAT SERVICES SEGMENT VA
EG&G WASHINGTON ANALYTICAL MD
SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTER. VA
TASCON, INC. MD
ALTERNATIVE ENERGY DEVELOP MD
JACA CORPORATION PA
THE BIONETICS CORPORATION VA
DIVERSIFIED TECHNOLOGY VA
DYNAMAC MD
ENERGY SYSTEMS ASSOCIATES PA
HYDROGEOLOGIC, INC. VA
INFORMATION DYNAMICS INC. MD
JACA CORPORATION PA
LABAT ANDERSON, INC. VA
LABAT ANDERSON, INC. VA
METROPOLITAN ARCHITECTS VA
PLEXUS SCIENTIFIC CORP. MD
TASCON INC. MD
TECHNICAL RESOURCES, INC. MD
TECHNICAL RESOURCES MD
BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON VA
DYNAMAC MD
PLANNING ANALYSIS CORP VA
COMPUTER SCIENCE CORP VA
ASCI CORPORATION VA
11/ 2/94
IV 2/94
12/ 1/94
M 9/95
3/16/95
3/30/95
3/30/95
3/30/95
11/30/94
12/ 9/94
12/20/94
10/ 6/94
10/24/94
10/24/94
10/24/94
10/24/94
11/28/94
11/28/94
11/28/94
11/28/94
11/28/94
12/ 6/94
12/ 9/94
12/ 9/94
12/ 9/94
12/19/94
12/19/94
12/23/94
12/29/94
2/ 9/95
2/ 9/95
2/ 9/95
2/ 9/95
2/10/95
2/10/95
2/10/95
2/10/95
2/10/95
2/10/95
2/10/95
2/10/95
2/10/95
2/10/95
2/10/95
2/10/95
2/10/95
2/10/95
2/10/95
2/10/95
3/ 1/95
3/ 1/95
3/24/95
10/ 6/94
10/19/94
TOTAL OF REGION 03 = 43
E8ANX5-22-0058-5300004 ICF-DOE PROPOSAL
TOTAL OF REGION 22 =
1
D8EML4-04-0270-5100006
D8BML3-04-0045-5100007
D8BML4-04-0031-5100008
D8AHL4-04-0211-5100017
ADVANCED SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY GA
ADVANCED SYSTEMS GA
ADVANCED SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY GA
TECHNOLOGY PLANNING & MGMT. NC
V 5/95
10/ 6/94
10/ 6/94
10/ 7/94
10/18/94
OCTOBER 1, 1994 THROUGH MARCH 31, 1995
49
-------
Assignment Control Number Title
D8BML5-04-0022-5100018 RESEARCH & EVALUATION ASSOC NC
D8BML5-04-0023-5100019 RESEARCH & EVALUATION ASSOC NC
D8AML4-04-0254-5100038 TWM SERVICE INC NC
D8AML4-04-0264-5100066 MANTECH TECHNOLOGY NC
D8EML4-04-0249-5100068 EQUITY ASSOCIATES INC TN
D8CML4-04-0250-5100070 MANTECH TECHNOLOGY NC
D8AML5-04-0025-5100074 INTEGRATED LABORATORY SYSTEMNC
D8BML5-04-0044-5100103 ADVANCED SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY GA
D8AML4-04-0273-5100106 TECHNOLOGY PLANNING NC
D8AML5-04-0060-5100143 TRIPLE P SERVICES INC. NC
D8BML3-04-0318-5100150 EC/R INCORPORATED NC
D8CML4-04-0262-5100207 KILKELLY ENVIRONMENTAL ASSOCNC
D8BML5-04-0093-5100210 MANTECH ENVIRONMENTAL NC
D8BML3-04-0196-5100214 MANTECH TECHNOLOGY NC
D8AML5-04-0072-5100222 DYNAMIC RESOURCES INC. GA
D8EML5-04-0095-5100223 DYNAMIC RESOURCES GA
D8BML3-04-0063-5100241 INTEGRATED LABORATORY SYSTEMNC
D8BML5-04-0021-5100244 INTEGRATED LABS NC
TOTAL OF REGION 04 = 22
D8CML3-05-0336-5100021 FEV ENG TECH FY 93 MI
D8CML3-05-0220-5100051 ESE FY 90/91 IL
D8AML5-05-0020-5100100 AUTO TESTING LAB OH
D8AML5-05-0042-5100118 ALPHA-OMEGA CHEM OH
D8CML4-05-0202-5100131 BATTELLE OH
D8CML5-05-0040-5100152 TRIAD ENG 68-W1-0041 UI
D8CML4-05-0307-5100251 COLEJON MECH OH
D8AAP4-05-0309-5400011 AUTO TESTING LAB FY 94P IL
D8AWP5-05-0081 -5400058 GRACE ANALYTICAL LAB IL
E8ABP4-05-0314-5400010 PRC EMI (EPA-AIRMS) IL
E8AXP5- 05 -0089- 5400048 PRC EMI (INDIAN HEAD) IL
E8AXP5- 05 -0067- 5400049 EARTH TECH (FT MCCOY) MI
E8AXP5-05-0077-5400050 PRC EMI (SAVANNAH RIVER) IL
E8AXP5- 05 -0078- 5400054 PRC EM! (TECH SUPPORT-CHI) IL
TOTAL OF REGION 05 14
E8CMP2-23-0178-5400001 PEI ASSOC OH
E8CMP3-23-0208-5400007 PEI ASSOC OH
E8CMP3-23-0006-5400008 PEI ASSOC OH
E8CMP3-23-0014-5400009 PEI ASSOC OH
TOTAL OF REGION 23 = 4
D8AML4-06-0171 -5100012 LOCKHEED ENVIRONMENTAL TX
D8EML5-06-0013-5100035 LOCKHEED ENGINEERING TX
D8EML5-06-0017-5100069 LOCKHEED ENVIRONMENTAL TX
D8AML4-06-0173-5100101 IBM TX
D8CML5-06-0018-5100104 RADIAN CORPORATION TX
D8CML4-06-0116-5100142 RADIAN CORPORATION TX
D8AML5-06-0023-5100147 SOUTHWEST RESEARCH TX
D8AML5-06-0022-5100148 LOCKHEED ENVIRONMENTAL TX
D8CML4-06-011 1-5100149 RADIAN CORPORATION TX
D8EML5-06-0031 -5100204 LEE WILSON & ASSOCIATES NM
TOTAL OF REGION 06 = 10
D8DML4-07-0046-5100003 MRI MO
D8AML5-07-0018-5100187 MIDWEST RESEARCH MO
D8AAL5-07-0022-5100202 MIDWEST RESEARCH MO
TOTAL OF REGION 07 3
D8CML5-08-0020-5100119 KAMAN SCIENCES CORPORATION CO
D8AAL5-08-0023-5100153 RESOURCE ENTERPRISES, INC. UT
D8AAL5-08-0023-5100154 RESOURCE ENTERPRISES, INC. UT
D8AAL5-08-0022-5100199 RAVEN RIDGE RESOURCES CO
TOTAL OF REGION 08 = 4
D8CML4-09-0231 -5100002 RI ROCKETDYNE DIV FC CA
D8AML4-09-0237-5100016 SAIC PA CA
D8BML2-09-0347-5100020 ECOS CI 1992 CA
Final Report
Issued
10/18/94
10/18/94
10/26/94
11/10/94
11/10/94
11/10/94
11/14/94
11/30/94
12/ 1/94
1/26/95
2/ 2/95
3/10/95
3/16/95
3/16/95
3/22/95
3/22/95
3/30/95
3/30/95
10/18/94
1V 2/94
11/30/94
12/20/94
V 4/95
21 3/95
3/31/95
1V 4/94
3/29/95
10/31/94
3/ 9/95
3/21/95
3/21/95
3/24/95
10/ 3/94
10/ 7/94
10/ 7/94
10/18/94
10/14/94
10/26/94
11/10/94
11/30/94
11/30/94
1/26/95
2/ 2/95
2/ 2/95
2/ 2/95
3/ 8/95
10/ 5/94
2/17/95
3/ 7/95
12/22/94
2/ 3/95
2/ 3/95
3/ 7/95
10/ 3/94
10/17/94
10/18/94
Recommended
Questioned Costs _ Efficiencies
Ineligible Unsupported Unreasonable (Funds Be Put
Costs Costs Costs To Better Use]
&
50
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
-------
Questioned Costs
Recommended
Assignment Control Number Title
D8BML5-09-0027-5100034
08AML5-09-0029-5100059
D8AML5-09-0022-5100060
D8AHL4-09-0239-5100064
D8CPL3-09-0089-5100076
D8CWL4-09-0095 -51 00077
D8AML4-09-0238-5100083
D8BML5-09-0040-5100132
D8BML3-09-0241-5100133
D8BML5-09-0046-5100182
D8BML5-09-0051-5100183
D8CML4-09-0236-5100208
D8AMN5-09-0024-5300001
D8FMN5-09-0028-5300007
D8FMP4-09-0241 -5400033
TOTAL OF
D8BML4-10-0038-5100010
D8AML5-10-0027-5100203
D8EMP5-10-0028-5400041
IT CORP CI 1990-1991
IT CORP PA
ENVIR SYS RESEARCH PA
GEO INSIGHT INTL PA
SAIC FC
SAIC FC
STERLING SOFTWARE PA
JACOBS CI FY 1990
J & S CI 1992
GEO/R CI 1987
GEO/R CI 1989
EERC FC
SAIC PA
EERC FL
SAIC MS
REGION 09 18
PTI CI FY 90 & 91
COLUMBIA ENV SCI PA
CH2M 1C
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
WA
WA
OR
Final Report Ineligible Unsupported Unreasonable (Funds Be Put
Issued Costs Costs Costs To Rpttpr lisp)
10/25/94
1V 4/94
1V 8/94
1V 9/94
11/16/94
11/16/94
11/18/94
V 4/95
V 4/95
2/14/95
2/14/95
3/14/95
10/28/94
1/18/95
1/23/95
10/ 7/94
3/ 7/95
2/ 9/95
TOTAL OF REGION 10 =
TOTAL OTHER CONTRACT ASSIGNMENTS
148
638,592
502,906
16,410,387
9. SUPERFUND CONTRACT ASSIGNMENTS
D9CKL4-01 -0189-5100043
D9BFL4-01-0175-5100078
D9AKL5-01-0061-5100239
D9AGL5-01-0058-5100245
D9AFL5-01 -0063-5100248
P9DGL2-01-0237-5100135
TOTAL OF
D9BFL5-02-0038-5100047
D9EGL5-02-0037-5100050
D9AGL5-02-0092-5100236
D9AFL5-02-0093-5100238
D9AGL5-02-0091-5100242
E9AGP4-02-0180-5400012
E9AGP5-02-0504-5400016
E9AFP5-02-0511-5400039
E9AFP5-02-0512-5400043
E9AFP5-02-0518-5400056
E9AFP5-02-0517-5400061
P9BGL1-02-0155-5100122
P9DGL1-02-0154-5100125
TOTAL OF
D9BFL5-03-0031-5100005
D9BFL2-03-0403-5100030
D9AFL5-03-0030-5100085
D9BFL4-03-0225-5100090
D9EFL5-03-0069-5100102
D9EFL5-03-0084-5100127
09AFL5-03-0042-5100128
D9BFL3-03-0168-5100129
D9BFL2-03-0583-5100139
D9CFL5-03-0113-5100160
D9EFL5-03-0108-5100162
D9EFL5-03-0109-5100163
D9EFL5-03-0072-5100175
D9BFL3-03-0316-5100184
D9AGL5-03-0085-5100185
D9AGL5-03-0082-5100186
D9AFL5-03-0093-5100205
D9AFL5-03-0095-5100206
MITRE CORPORATION
LOCKHEED
STONE & WEBSTER ENV TECH
ARTHUR D. LITTLE
MA
TX
MA
MA
LEGGETTE, BRASHEARS & GRAHAMCT
TRC ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULT.
REGION 01 6
EBASCO SERVICES
EBASCO SERVICES
LOUIS BERGER & ASSOCIATES
EDER ASSOCIATES
URS CONSULTANT CORP.
ECOLOGY & ENVIR
ECOLOGY & ENVIR
ECOLOGY & ENVIR
ECOLOGY & ENVIR
ECOLOGY & ENVIR
ECOLOGY & ENVIR
ECOLOGY & ENVIR
ECOLOGY & ENVIRONMENT
REGION 02 13
VIAR
ROY F. WESTON
SANFORD COHEN & ASSOCIATES
BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON
ROY f. WESTON
ROY F. WESTON
DYNAMAC
DYNAMAC
UNISYS GOVERNMENT SYSTEMS
THE WASHINGTON CONSULTING
NUS
NUS
MARASCO NEWTON GROUP LTD.
VIAR
C.C. JOHNSON & HALHOTRA
COM FEDERAL PROGRAMS
S. COHEN & ASSOCIATES
GROUNDWATER TECHNOLOGY GOVT
CT
NY
NY
NJ
NY
NJ
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
VA
PA
VA
VA
PA
PA
MD
MD
VA
DC
MD
MD
VA
VA
CO
VA
VA
.PA
1V 2/94
11/17/94
3/30/95
3/30/95
3/30/95
V 9/95
11/ 2/94
11/ 2/94
3/30/95
3/30/95
3/30/95
11/ 4/94
11/22/94
2/ 6/95
2/22/95
3/27/95
3/30/95
12/23/94
12/28/94
10/ 6/94
10/24/94
11/28/94
11/28/94
11/30/94
12/29/94
12/29/94
12/29/94
1/13/95
21 9/95
2/ 9/95
2/ 9/95
2/10/95
2/17/95
2/17/95
2/17/95
3/10/95
3/10/95
OCTOBER 1, 1994 THROUGH MARCH 31, 1995
51
-------
Questioned Costs
Assignment Control Number
Title
Final Report
Issued
Ineligible
Costs
Unsupported
Costs
Unreasonable
Costs
Recommended
Efficiencies
(Funds Be Put
To Better Use]
D9AGL5-03-0086-5100219
D9AFL5-03-0094-5100221
D9AFL5-03-0044-5100225
TECHLAU, INC.
AEPCO, INC.
SCIENTEX CORP.
VA
VA
TOTAL OF REGION 03
21
E9EFN4-22-0179-5300005
E9BFP3-22-0314-5400045
ICF-FY 1994 LABOR FLOORCHECK
ICF ESTIMATING SYS.VULNERA.
TOTAL OF REGION 22
3/22/95
3/22/95
3/24/95
1/10/95
2/27/95
D9BKL3-04-0348-5100009
D9BKL5-04-0028-5100036
D9BKL3- 04 -0349- 5 100037
D9BKL5-04-0035-5100067
D9AKL5-04-0052-5100098
D9AKL5-04-0051-5100099
D9BKL3-04-0022-5100146
D9BKL5-04-0077-5100193
D9BKL5-04-0078-5100194
D9AGL5-04-0066-5100211
D9EGL5-04-0092-5100212
D9BKL4-04-0116-5100213
D9EGL5-04-0094-5100218
TOTAL OF
D9AGL4-05-0295-5100049
D9AKL4-05-0316-5100072
D9AJL5-05-0019-5100073
D9EHL5-05-0052-5100151
D9AKP5-05-0070-5400062
E9DKL4-05-0064-5100079
E9EKN4-05-0272-5300003
E9AKP5-05-0051-5400038
E9AKP5-05-0090-5400053
TOTAL OF
E9EFP4-23-0018-5400005
E9BHP4-23-0002-5400015
E9BHP4-23-0003-5400020
E9BHP4-23-0004-5400025
E9BHP4-23-0005-5400027
E9BHP4-23-0006-5400031
E9AHP5-23-0005-5400047
TOTAL OF
D9AKL3-06-0187-5100097
D9AKL5-06-0019-5100130
TOTAL OF
D9BJL4-07-0061-5100011
D9AGL4-07-0081-5100013
09AGL4-07-0082-5100014
D9AGL4-07-0081 -5100023
D9AGL4-07-0081-5100024
D9AGL4-07-0081-5100025
D9AGL4-07-0082-5100026
D9AGL4-07-0082-5100027
D9AGL4-07-0082-5100028
D9AGL4-07-0082-5100039
D9AGL4-07-0082-5100040
D9AGL4-07-0082-5100041
D9AGL4-07-0082-5100071
D9AGL5-07-0019-5100188
D9AKL5-07-0025-5100227
EQUITY ASSOCIATES
EQUITY ASSOCIATES, INC.
EQUITY ASSOCIATES
PC ENGINEERING
PRECISION ENVIRONMENTAL
PRECISION ENVIRONMENTAL
EC/R
MANTECH TECHNOLOGY
MANTECH TECHNOLOGY
ENTECH, INC.
ENTECH, INC.
MANTECH RESEARCH
COMMUNITY RELATIONS PLUS
REGION 04 = 13
OHM REM 68-W9-0053
LIFE SYSTEMS INC
AT KEARNEY
SUPERIOR HAZ WASTE
BATTELLE
PRC EMI FY 92
PRC EMI CAS 409
PRC EMI (PCHEM TECH)
PRC EMI (R10)
REGION 05 9
OHM REM EQUIP USE
OHM REM FY 87
OHM REM FY 88
OHM REM FY 89
OHM REM FY 90
OHM REM FY 91
EQMI
REGION 23 = 7
VERTEC INC.
HALFF ASSOCIATES
REGION 06 2
DPRA
B & V WASTE SCIENCE & TECH
SVERDRUP ENVIRONMENTAL INC.
B & V WASTE SCIENCE & TECH
B & V WASTE SCIENCE & TECH
B & V WASTE SCIENCE & TECH
SVERDRUP ENVIRONMENTAL INC.
SVERDRUP ENVIRONMENTAL INC.
SVERDRUP ENVIRONMENTAL INC.
SVERDRUP ENVIRONMENTAL INC.
SVERDRUP ENVIRONMENTAL INC.
SVERDRUP ENVIRONMENTAL INC.
SVERDRUP ENVIRONMENTAL INC.
SVERDRUP ENVIRONMENTAL
BRAL ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
TN
TN
TN
TN
GA
GA
NC
NC
NC
GA
GA
NC
GA
OH
OH
IL
WI
OH
IL
IL
IL
IL
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
AK
TX
KS
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
10/ 7/94
10/26/94
10/26/94
11/10/94
11/29/94
11/29/94
2/ 2/95
2/24/95
2/24/95
3/16/95
3/16/95
3/16/95
3/21/95
11/ 2/94
11/14/94
11/14/94
2/ 3/95
3/31/95
11/17/94
11/17/94
2/ 3/95
3/24/95
10/ 5/94
11/18/94
12/ 6/94
12/14/94
12/22/94
1/13/95
3/ 9/95
11/29/94
M 4/95
10/11/94
10/17/94
10/17/94
10/20/94
10/20/94
10/20/94
10/20/94
10/20/94
10/20/94
10/26/94
10/26/94
10/26/94
11/14/94
2/17/95
3/24/95
TOTAL OF REGION 07
15
52
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
-------
Assignment Control Number
Title
Final Report
Issued
Recommended
Efficiencies
Ineligible Unsupported Unreasonable (Funds Be Put
Questioned Costs
Costs
Costs
Costs T_p_B e 11 e r
D9AKL5-08-0015-5100080 HARRIS GROUP, INC. 11/17/94
D9AKL5-08-0016-5100081 WATKINS JOHNSON ENVIRONMENT CO 11/17/94
D9AKL5-08-0017-5100082 AGUIRRE ENGINEERS CO 11/17/94
D9AKL5-08-0014-5100093 JAMES GRANT & ASSOC., INC. CO 11/29/94
D9AKL5-08-0014-5100094 JAMES GRANT & ASSOC., INC. CO 11/29/94
D9AKL4-08-0073-5100095 TOEROEK ASSOCIATES, INC. CO 11/29/94
D9AKL5-08-0015-5100096 HARRIS GROUP, INC. 11/29/94
D9AGL5-08-0027-5100181 PACIFIC WESTERN TECHNOLOGIESCO 2/13/95
D9AGL5-08-0025-5100201 AQUIRRE ENGINEERING INC. CO 3/ 7/95
D9AGL5-08-0029-5100252 MSE, INC MT 3/31/95
TOTAL OF REGION 08
10
D9BGL2-09-0142-5100001
D9BGL3-09-0111-5100015
D9AJL5-09-0033-5100112
D9BGL5-09-0034-5100113
D9CGL5-09-0032-5100117
D9AGL5-09-0036-5100145
D9BGL2-09-0154-5100189
D9AGL5-09-0041 -5100195
D9BGL5-09-0048-5100228
D9FGP5-09-0019-5400003
D9FGP5-09-0020-5400004
TOTAL OF
D9AGL5-10-0008-5100058
D9AGL5-10-0012-5100061
D9AJL5-10-0010-5100062
09AJL5-10-0009-5100063
D9AJL5-10-0007-5100075
D9AKL5-10-0030-5100234
D9FGN5-10-0037-5300009
D9AKN5-10-0032-5300010
E9BGL3-10-0110-5100232
JACOBS CI FY '91
BECHTEL CI 1991
SCS ENGINEERS PA
CET CI 1991
GEO/R FC
SAIC PA
S-CUBED CI 1990 AND 1991
RESEARCH MGMT PA
SAIC CO. 6 MS
CET MS
CET FL
REGION 09 11
ESA CONSULTANTS PA
EVS CONSULTANTS PA
ENVIROS PA
ENV. ISSUES MGMT. PA
OLYMPUS ENVIRONMTL. PA
CHUGACH DEVELOPMENT PA
CH2M 1C
HERRERA ENVIRO CONSULT-PA
CH2M CI 1985-86
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
MT
WA
WA
WA
WA
AK
OR
WA
OR
10/ 3/94
10/17/94
12/ 9/94
12/ 9/94
12/20/94
1/31/95
2/17/95
2/28/95
3/24/95
107 4/94
107 4/94
117 4/94
117 9/94
117 9/94
117 9/94
11/16/94
3/29/95
3/15/95
3/29/95
3/28/95
TOTAL OF REGION 10 =
TOTAL SUPERFUND CONTRACT ASSIGNMENTS
= 118
1,434,688
4,182,512
3,667
19,794,175
TOTAL REPORTS
448
39,268,515 23,286,516
3,667
36,204,562
OCTOBER 1, 1994 THROUGH MARCH 31, 1995
53
-------
Appendix 2 - Reports Issued Without Management Decision
THE INSPECTOR GENERAL ACT REQUIRES A SUMMARY OF EACH REPORT ISSUED BEFORE THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE REPORTING
PERIOD FOR WHICH NO MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS BEEN MADE BY THE END OF THE REPORTING PERIOD (INCLUDING THE DATE AND
TITLE OF EACH SUCH REPORT), AN EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS SUCH MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE, AND A
STATEMENT CONCERNING THE DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION ON EACH SUCH REPORT. (The IG
provides the summary, the date and title of each such report. The Agency provides the explanation of the reasons why such management decision
has not been made, and a statement concerning the desired timetable for achieving a management decision on each such report.)
IG Followup Status Codes of Agency's Response at 3/31/95:
1. No Response
2. Incomplete Response Received
3. Proposed Response Received Awaiting Final Determination
4. Proposed Response Received in Review Process
5. Final Response Received in Review Process
6. Resolution Under Negotiation in Headquarters
ASSIGNMENT CONTROL
NUMBER
TITLE
FINAL REPORT
ISSUED
ASSIGNMENT CONTROL
NUMBER
TITLE
FINAL REPORT
ISSUED
Assistant Administrator for Administration & Resources Management IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/95 [1]
E3CML3-03-0201-4100523 TEMPLE UNIVERSITY PA 9/15/94
Summary: EPA ERRONEOUSLY AWARDED A COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT TO
TEMPLE UNIVERSITY AND MISMANAGED THE AGREEMENT BY NOT CONTROLLING
EXPENDITURES AND ALLOWING UNAUTHORIZED TRAVEL.
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: THE DIG REQUESTED A COMPTROLLER GENERAL OPINION REGARDING
THE USE OF NON-FEDERAL TRAVEL UNDER COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS. EPA
MANAGEMENT, THE DIG AND THE OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL ARE WORKING
TOGETHER TO DEVELOP A REQUEST FOR GAO TO PROVIDE ITS OPINION ON
THIS AND OTHER OUTSTANDING ISSUES. EPA WILL DELAY FINAL ACTION
ON THIS AUDIT UNTIL RECEIPT OF THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL OPINION.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT THIS TIME.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/95 [1]
E1FMF4-19-0618-4100407 UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS KS 6/17/94
*Summary: EPA CIRCUMVENTED ASSISTANCE REGULATIONS AND MISUSED
FEDERAL FUNDS BY AWARDING A COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT TO THE
UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS WHICH INCLUDED INELIGIBLE AND UNNECESSARY
COSTS SUCH AS TRAVEL, ALCOHOL, AND ENTERTAINMENT. *
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: THE OIG REQUESTED A COMPTROLLER GENERAL OPINION REGARDING
THE USE OF NON-FEDERAL TRAVEL UNDER COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS. EPA
MANAGEMENT, THE OIG AND THE OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL ARE WORKING
TOGETHER TO DEVELOP A REQUEST FOR GAO TO PROVIDE ITS OPINION ON
THIS AND OTHER OUTSTANDING ISSUES. EPA WILL DELAY FINAL ACTION
ON THIS AUDIT UNTIL RECEIPT OF THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL OPINION.
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT THIS TIME.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/95 [1]
D8AML4-01-0129-4100429 ARTHUR D. LITTLE
*Sumniary: (PREAWARD AUDIT UNDER NEGOTIATION)
MA 6/27/94
Contracts Management Division - RTP
D8AML4-01-0085-4100247 EASTERN RESEARCH GROUP
*Sunmary: (PREAWARD AUDIT UNDER NEGOTIATION)
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
A.D. LITTLE IS A SUBCONTRACTOR TO VERSAR. VERSAR SUBMITTED A BID
WHICH WAS UNSUCCESSFUL. AN AWARD WAS MADE ON THIS RFP ON 9/30/94
TO RADIAN CORP, CONTRACT 68D40092. THE CONTRACT SPECIALIST DID NOT
PROVIDE A COPY OF THE RECORD OF PROCUREMENT ACTION (ROPA) AND
TRANSMITTAL LETTER TO COST ADVISORY. THE CONTRACT FILE HAS BEEN
TRANSFERRED TO HEADQUARTERS.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT THIS TIME.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/95 [1]
D8AML4-02-0139-4100430 ENSERCH ENVIRONMENTAL CORP. NJ 6/27/94
*Summary: (PREAWARD AUDIT UNDER NEGOTIATION)
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
NO AWARD HAS BEEN MADE.
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: THE
CONTRACT SPECIALIST PROJECTS TO MAKE AN AWARD ON THIS RFP BY
5/31/95.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/95 [1]
D8CPL2-03-0432-2100620 MIRANDA ASSOCIATES INC DC 9/16/92
Summary: DCAA QUESTIONED $278,979 DUE TO (1) THE LIMITATIONS OF
FUNDS CLAUSE, (2) OVERSTATED OVERHEAD COSTS, AND (3) A
COMPUTATIONAL ERROR.
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
THE CONTRACTING OFFICER'S DECISION HAS BEEN COMPLETED. QUESTIONED
COST HAS BEEN SUSTAINED.
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: FINAL
REVIEW BY THE OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL EXPECTED BY 4/15/95.
MA 4/13/94 IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/95 [1]
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: NO AWARD HAS BEEN MADE.
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: THE
CONTRACT SPECIALIST PROJECTS TO AWARD A CONTRACT ON THIS RFP BY
4/15/95.
D8CPL2-03-0441-4100108 KENDRICK & COMPANY DC 12/6/93
Summary: COSTS OF $202,352 WERE QUESTIONED DUE TO LIMITATIONS OF
FUNDS CLAUSE AND OVERSTATED INCURRED COSTS.
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
EPA CONTRACTING OFFICER IS TRYING TO LOCATE THE BUSINESS TO
INITIATE THE CLOSE OUT PROCESS. KENDRICK & COMPANY HAS EITHER
MOVED, GONE OUT OF BUSINESS, OR HAS BEEN PURCHASED.
54
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
-------
ASSIGNMENT CONTROL
NUMBER
TITLE
FINAL REPORT
ISSUED
ASSIGNMENT CONTROL
NUMBER
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT THIS TIME.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/95 [1]
D8AML4-03-0213-4100274 VERSAR VA 5/10/94
*Sunnary: (PREAWARD AUDIT UNDER NEGOTIATION)
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: NO AWARD HAS BEEN MADE.
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: THE
CONTRACT SPECIALIST PROJECTS TO AWARD A CONTRACT ON THIS RFP BY
4/15/95.
TITLE
FINAL REPORT
ISSUED
IG FOLLOUUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/95 [1]
D8AML4-03-0215-4100275 ENERGETICS INC.
Summary: (PREAWARD AUDIT UNDER NEGOTIATION)
MD 5/10/94
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: NO AWARD HAS BEEN MADE.
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: THE
CONTRACT SPECIALIST PROJECTS TO AWARD A CONTRACT ON THIS RFP BY
4/15/95.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/95 [1]
D8AML4-03-0211-4100290 AVANTI CORPORATION
Summary: (PREAWARD AUDIT UNDER NEGOTIATION)
VA 5/16/94
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: NO AWARD HAS BEEN MADE.
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: THE
CONTRACT SPECIALIST PROJECTS TO AWARD A CONTRACT ON THIS RFP BY
4/15/95.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/95 [1]
D8AML4-03-0280-4100355 COASTAL ENVIRONMENTAL MD 6/1/94
*Summary: (PREAWARD AUDIT UNDER NEGOTIATION)
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: NO AWARD HAS BEEN MADE.
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: THE
CONTRACT SPECIALIST PROJECTS TO MAKE AN AWARD ON THIS RFP BY
5/31/95.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/95 [1]
D8AML4-03-0278-4100360 GANNETT FLEMING PA 6/7/94
*Summary: (PREAWARD AUDIT UNDER NEGOTIATION)
EXPLANATION Of THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
HADE: NO AWARD HAS BEEN MADE.
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: THE
CONTRACT SPECIALIST PROJECTS TO MAKE AN AWARD ON THIS RFP BY
5/31/95.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/95 [1]
D9AFL4-03-0273-4100364 DYNCORP VIAR
Summary: (PREAWARD AUDIT UNDER NEGOTIATION)
VA 6/7/94
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: THE CONTRACTING OFFICER NEGOTIATED A MODIFICATION TO
CONTRACT NO. 68D90135 ON MAY 31, 1994. NO TRANSMITTAL LETTER
EXPLAINING ACTION TAKEN ON THE AUDIT REPORT WAS PREPARED AT
THAT TIME.
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: THE
APPROPRIATE TRANSMITTAL LETTER WAS GIVEN TO COST ADVISORY AND
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS DIVISION AND MAILED TO DCAA AND THE DIG ON APRIL
13, 1995.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/95 [1]
D8AML4-03-0296-4100405 WASTE POLICY INSTITUTE VA 6/14/94
Sunmary: (PREAWARD AUDIT UNDER NEGOTIATION)
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
THE CONTRACT SPECIALIST EXPECTS NO AWARD TO BE MADE.
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: THE
CONTRACT SPECIALIST EXPECTS THIS RFP TO BE CANCELLED BY 5/31/95.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/95 [1]
D8AML4-03-0282-4100434 RMC ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICE PA 6/28/94
*Summary: (PREAWARD AUDIT UNDER NEGOTIATION)
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
NO AWARD HAS BEEN MADE.
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: THE
CONTRACT SPECIALIST PROJECTS TO MAKE AN AWARD ON THIS RFP BY
5/31/95.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/95 [1]
D8AML4-03-0281-4100438 GREELEY-POLHEMUS GROUP PA 6/30/94
Summary: (PREAWARD AUDIT UNDER NEGOTIATION)
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
NO AWARD HAS BEEN MADE.
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: THE
CONTRACT SPECIALIST PROJECTS TO MAKE AN AWARD ON THIS RFP BY
5/31/95.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/95 [1]
D8ABL4-03-0301-4100446 UNIVERSAL SYSTEMS VA 7/14/94
*Sunnary: (PREAWARD AUDIT UNDER NEGOTIATION)
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
THE CONTRACT SPECIALIST EXPECTS NO AWARD TO BE MADE.
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: THE
CONTRACT SPECIALIST EXPECTS THIS RFP TO BE CANCELLED BY 5/31/95.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/95 [1]
D8AML4-03-0371-4100485 INFORMATION VENTURES, INC. PA 8/12/94
*Summary: (PREAWARD AUDIT UNDER NEGOTIATION)
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
COMPETITIVE RANGE HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED.
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: THE
CONTRACT SPECIALIST EXPECTS AWARD BY 6/30/95.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/95 [1]
D8AML4-03-0279-4100487 COM FEDERAL PROGRAMS VA 8/12/94
*Summary: (PREAWARD AUDIT UNDER NEGOTIATION)
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
NO AWARD HAS BEEN MADE.
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: THE
CONTRACT SPECIALIST PROJECTS TO MAKE AN AWARD ON THIS RFP BY
5/31/95.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/95 [1]
D8EML4-03-0498-4100557 QUANTECH, INC. VA 9/23/94
*Summary: SOME OF THE CONTRACTOR'S ESTIMATING PRACTICES REQUIRE
OCTOBER 1, 1994 THROUGH MARCH 31, 1995
55
-------
ASSIGNMENT CONTROL
NUMBER
TITLE
FINAL REPORT
ISSUED
CORRECTIVE ACTION TO IMPROVE THE RELIABILITY OF THEIR FUTURE COST
ESTIMATES.
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: THE MANAGEMENT DECISION WAS MADE ON THIS AUDIT ON
FEBRUARY 3, 1995. CONTRACT NO. 68D50008 WAS AWARDED TO BATTELLE.
QUANTECH, INC. IS A SUBCONTRACTOR ON THIS CONTRACT. THIS IS AN
OPPTS CONTRACT WHICH WAS AWARDED AT RTP THEN TRANSFERRED TO EPA
HEADQUARTERS IN WASHINGTON, DC.
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION IS EXPECTED SHORTLY.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/95 [1]
D8BML3-04-0272-3100202 INTEGRATED LABORATORY SYS
*Summary:
NC 6/2/93
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: CONTRACTOR HAS AGREED WITH COST QUESTIONED.
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT THIS TIME.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/95 [1]
D8BML3-04-0282-3100207 SYSTEMS RESEARCH & DEV.
*Summary:
NC 6/4/93
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: THE REPORT COVERS DIRECT AND INDIRECT COSTS FOR CALENDAR
YEAR 1988. COST QUESTIONED ON TWO CONTRACTS. CONTRACTOR HAS
AN APPROVED BANKRUPTCY PLAN. ANY RECOVERY MUST BE ESTABLISHED
THROUGH THE COURT.
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: FINAL
ACTION EXPECTED BY JUNE 1, 1995.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/95 [2]
D8AML4-04-0219-4100478 TWM SERVICES INC.
Summary: (PREAWARD AUDIT UNDER NEGOTIATION)
NC 8/11/94
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: CONTRACTOR WAS NOT FINANCIALLY CAPABLE OF PERFORMING
JANITORIAL SERVICES WORK AT THE HUMAN STUDIES BUILDING IN CHAPEL
HILL, NC. AWARD WAS MADE TO ANOTHER CONTRACTOR, TRIPLE P
SERVICES, INC. ON FEBRUARY 10, 1995. THE CONTRACT SPECIALIST
FAILED TO SEND DCAA, DIG, OR COST ADVISORY STAFF A COPY OF THE
TRANSMITTAL LETTER STATING RESULTS OF AUDIT.
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION IS EXPECTED SHORTLY.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/95 [1]
D8AML4-05-0265-4100467 GREAT LAKES ENVIRO CENTER MI
Suirroary: (PREAWARD AUDIT UNDER NEGOTIATION)
7/27/94
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: COMPETITIVE RANGE HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
CONTRACT SPECIALIST EXPECTS AWARD BY 6/30/95.
THE
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/95 [1]
D9AKL4-08-0048-4100279 RESOURCE TECHNOLOGY CORP
*Summary: (PREAWARD AUDIT UNDER NEGOTIATION)
WY 5/10/94
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: RESOURCE TECHNOLOGY CORP. WAS A SUBCONTRACTOR ON THE SAIC
(PRIME CONTRACTOR) PROPOSAL SUBMISSION. SAIC PROPOSAL SUBMISSION
WAS UNSUCCESSFUL. SAIC, DCAA, OIG AND COST ADVISORY STAFF WERE
NOTIFIED THAT SAIC WAS UNSUCCESSFUL. HOWEVER THE DCAA OFFICE,
OIG AND COST ADVISORY STAFF WERE NOT SENT A TRANSMITTAL LETTER
ASSIGNMENT CONTROL
NUMBER
TITLE
FINAL REPORT
ISSUED
REGARDING THE UNSUCCESSFUL RESOURCE TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION
SUBCONTRACT BID.
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION IS EXPECTED SHORTLY.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/95 [1]
D8BBL4-09-0053-4100510 EARTH METRICS, INC FC CA 8/26/94
Summary: QUESTIONED DIRECT COSTS OF $259,919 REPRESENT
SUBCONTRACTS AWARDED TO COMPANIES NOT SPECIFIED IN THE CONTRACT AND
FOR AMOUNTS IN EXCESS OF CONTRACT LIMITS. SOME INTERNAL CONTROL
WEAKNESSES ARE ALSO IDENTIFIED IN THE REPORT.
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
THE CONTRACTING OFFICER DECISION IS PENDING ADDRESSING QUESTIONED
COSTS. THE CONTRACTING OFFICER'S DECISION IS EXPECTED BY MAY 31,
1995.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: CONTRACT
CLOSEOUT IS EXPECTED BY JULY 31, 1995.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/95 [1]
D8CAN3-09-0259-4300037 IT FC CA 6/13/94
Summary: THE QUESTIONED AMOUNT REPRESENTS COSTS BILLED AFTER THE
SPECIFIED CONTRACT DATE, PLUS ADJUSTMENTS FOR INDIRECT RATE
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE BILLED AND THE LOWER OF THE NEGOTIATED OR
CEILING RATE.
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
IT, INC. PURCHASED HYDRA-SCIENCE, INC. THE ENTIRE PERFORMANCE
PERIOD OF THE CONTRACT WAS WITH HYDRA-SCIENCE. INC. IT, INC. HAS
LIMITED INFORMATION RELATIVE TO THE QUESTIONED COSTS.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION IS EXPECTED BY SEPTEMBER 15, 1995.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/95 [1]
D8AMN4-09-0230-4300048 SAIC PA
*Summary: (PREAWARD AUDIT UNDER NEGOTIATION)
CA 9/19/94
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
AN AWARD HAS BEEN MADE ON THIS RFP TO ANOTHER OFFEROR -- SYRACUSE
RESEARCH -- ON 1/30/95. CONTRACT SPECIALIST ERRONEOUSLY DID NOT
PROVIDE DCAA, OIG OR COST ADVISORY STAFF A COPY OF TRANSMITTAL
LETTER. THE CONTRACT IS AN OPPTS AWARD AND HAS BEEN TRANSFERRED
TO EPA HEADQUARTERS IN WASHINGTON, DC.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION IS EXPECTED SHORTLY.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/95 [1]
E1P8CMP2-23-0180-3400071 PEI ASSOC OH 8/25/93
Summary: UNSUPPORTED LABOR AND TRAVEL COSTS OF $332,746 WERE
QUESTIONED DUE TO INADEQUATE DOCUMENTATION. WE ALSO QUESTIONED AS
INELIGIBLE $513 BECAUSE OF LACK OF SUPPORT FOR INTER-COMPANY
TRANSACTIONS.
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
AN EPA LETTER DATED 3/1/94 ADVISED THE CONTRACTOR OF COSTS
QUESTIONED AND REQUESTED A REFUND OR SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION. THE
CONTRACTOR RESPONDED ON 3/29/94 THAT THE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
WAS AVAILABLE. ON 4/12/94, EPA SENT A LETTER TO THE OIG ASKING
THAT IT REVIEW THE NEW DATA AND PROVIDE A REVISED AUDIT REPORT.
EPA IS CURRENTLY AWAITING OIG RESPONSE.
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT THIS TIME.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/95 [3]
P8CMP2-23-0176-3400072 PEI ASSOC QH 8/26/93
Summary: QUESTIONED $839,416 OF UNSUPPORTED LABOR AND TRAVEL
COSTS THAT COULD NOT BE SUPPORTED BY ADEQUATE DOCUMENTATION.
56
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
-------
ASSIGNMENT CONTROL
NUMBER
TITLE
FINAL REPORT
ISSUED
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: AN EPA LETTER DATED 3/1/94 ADVISED THE CONTRACTOR OF
COSTS QUESTIONED AND REQUESTED A REFUND OR SUPPORTING
DOCUMENTATION. THE CONTRACTOR RESPONDED ON 3/29/94 THAT THE
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION WAS AVAILABLE. ON 4/12/94, EPA SENT
A LETTER TO THE DIG ASKING ASSIGNMENT CONTROL
THAT IT REVIEW THE NEW DATA AND PROVIDE A REVISED AUDIT REPORT.
EPA IS CURRENTLY AWAITING DIG RESPONSE.
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT THIS TIME.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/95 [3]
P8CMP2-23-0181-3400074 PEI ASSOC OH 8/27/93
*Suim\ary: QUESTIONED UNSUPPORTED LABOR AND TRAVEL OF $40,498
DUE TO MISSING DOCUMENTATION. WE ALSO QUESTIONED AS INELIGIBLE
$254 DUE TO LACK OF SUPPORT FOR INTERCOMPANY TRANSACTIONS.
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: AN EPA LETTER DATED 3/1/94 ADVISED THE CONTRACTOR OF
COSTS QUESTIONED AND REQUESTED A REFUND OR SUPPORTING
DOCUMENTATION. THE CONTRACTOR RESPONDED ON 3/29/94 THAT THE
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION WAS AVAILABLE. ON 4/12/94, EPA SENT A
LETTER TO THE DIG ASKING THAT IT REVIEW THE NEW DATA AND PROVIDE
A REVISED AUDIT REPORT. EPA IS CURRENTLY AWAITING OIG RESPONSE.
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT THIS TIME.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/95 [3]
P8CMP2-23-0177-3400077 PEI ASSOC OH 9/1/93
Summary: INADEQUATE ACCOUNTING SYSTEM RESULTED IN COST
QUESTIONED INELIGIBLE OF $20,359. MISSING DOCUMENTATION
RESULTED IN $1,863,579 OF QUESTIONED UNSUPPORTED COSTS. WE
ALSO QUESTIONED $1,992 AS INELIGIBLE DUE TO LACK OF SUPPORT FOR
INTERCOMPANY TRANSACTIONS.
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: AN EPA LETTER DATED 3/1/94 ADVISED THE CONTRACTOR OF
COSTS QUESTIONED AND REQUESTED A REFUND OR SUPPORTING
DOCUMENTATION. THE CONTRACTOR RESPONDED ON 3/29/94 THAT THE
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION WAS AVAILABLE. ON 4/12/94, EPA SENT A
LETTER TO THE OIG ASKING THAT IT REVIEW THE NEW DATA AND PROVIDE
A REVISED AUDIT REPORT. EPA IS CURRENTLY AWAITING OIG RESPONSE.
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT THIS TIME.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS Of 3/31/95 [3]
P8CMP2-23-0179-3400082 PEI ASSOC OH 9/3/93
Summary: INADEQUATE ACCOUNTING SYSTEM RESULTED IN COST
QUESTIONED INELIGIBLE OF $35,443. MISSING DOCUMENTATION
RESULTED IN UNSUPPORTED COSTS OF $512,794.
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: AN EPA LETTER DATED 3/1/94 ADVISED THE CONTRACTOR OF
COSTS QUESTIONED AND REQUESTED A REFUND OR SUPPORTING
DOCUMENTATION. THE CONTRACTOR RESPONDED ON 3/29/94 THAT THE
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION WAS AVAILABLE. ON 4/12/94, EPA SENT A
LETTER TO THE OIG ASKING THAT IT REVIEW THE NEW DATA AND PROVIDE
A REVISED AUDIT REPORT. EPA IS CURRENTLY AWAITING OIG RESPONSE.
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT THIS TIME.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/95 [3]
Grants Administration Division
E3CBP4-04-0252-4400116 REVIEW OF CA WITH NELHA- HI 9/29/94
*Summary:
ASSIGNMENT CONTROL
NUMBER
TITLE
FINAL REPORT
ISSUED
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
THE PROGRAM OFFICE DID NOT RECEIVE A COPY OF THE AUDIT REPORT
TIMELY. THE OFFICE IS CURRENTLY REVIEWING AUDIT REPORT.
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
ANTICIPATES RESOLUTION BY 6/30/95.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/95 [1]
E6EML4-07-0023-4100581 FAIRBURY NE 9/30/94
Summary: THE GRANT/LOAN WAS AWARDED FOR ASBESTOS ABATEMENT IN TWO
FAIRBURY SCHOOLS. WE DETERMINED THAT THE GRANTEE CLAIMED AN
UNREASONABLE AMOUNT FOR ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS. THE GRANTEE CLAIMED
INELIGIBLE ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION COSTS.
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
AUDIT INVOLVES SEVERAL COMPLEX ISSUES AS A RESULT OF CRIMINAL
PROCEEDINGS TAKEN AGAINST A CONTRACTOR UNDER THE PROJECT. THE
PROGRAM IS CURRENTLY REVIEWING THE AUDIT FINDINGS.
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
ANTICIPATES RESOLUTION BY 07/31/95.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/95 [1]
E6EML4-07-0022-4100582 OGALALLA
*Summary:
NE 9/30/94
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
AUDIT INVOLVES SEVERAL COMPLEX ISSUES AS A RESULT OF CRIMINAL
PROCEEDINGS TAKEN AGAINST A CONTRACTOR UNDER THE PROJECT. THE
PROGRAM IS CURRENTLY REVIEWING THE AUDIT FINDINGS.
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
ANTICIPATES RESOLUTION BY 07/31/95.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/95 [1]
E3CBL3-08-0088-4100497 MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY MT 8/23/94
Surmary: THE COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS WERE USED TO FUND AN EPA
EMPLOYEE'S ADVANCED EDUCATION CONTRARY TO THE PURPOSE OF THE
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL PERSONNEL ACT
AGREEMENT.
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
OIG INVESTIGATION IS ON-GOING.
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT THIS TIME.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/95 [1]
E1FBF3-10-0069-4100214 AUDIT OF CO-OPS/IAGS ERL-C OR 3/21/94
Sumnary: ERL-C DIDN'T ALWAYS COMPLY WITH FGCA ACT & EPA GUIDANCE.
SEVEN OF 18 GRANTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONTRACTS AND 2 GRANTS WERE
INAPPROPRIATELY USED. THREE OF 6 IAGS WERE FOR MULTIPLE INSTEAD OF
DISTINCT PROJECTS. SOME IAG COSTS WERE OVERPAID OR UNRECOVERED.
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
THE GRANTS DIVISION WAS FORMALLY ASSIGNED AS THE ACTION OFFICE IN
SEPTEMBER 1994. THE DIVISION FORWARDED MANAGEMENT'S FINAL DECISION
TO THE OIG ON 3/20/95 AND IS AWAITING THE OIG'S RESPONSE.
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT THIS TIME.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/95 [1]
Grants Financial Management - Region 5
P2CWP6-05-0298-2400004 W LAKE SUPERIOR MN 12/12/91
Sutrmary: THE GRANTEE CLAIMED $8,595,588 OF INELIGIBLE
CONSTRUCTION, ENGINEERING AND ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS, AND $166,834 OF
UNSUPPORTED COSTS.
OCTOBER 1, 1994 THROUGH MARCH 31, 1995
57
-------
ASSIGNMENT CONTROL
NUMBER
TITLE
FINAL REPORT
ISSUED
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: DIG DID NOT ACCEPT PROPOSED FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER
OF 1/7/92. AUDIT ELEVATED TO HQ DIG AND PROGRAM OFFICE ON
7/24/92 TO RESOLVE ISSUES. DIG AND OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL
MET AND DETERMINED THAT ISSUES ARE REGULATORY. 01G IS
RESEARCHING THE REGULATIONS AT THE TIME OF AWARD.
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT THIS TIME.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/95 [3]
E2CWL9-05-0262-3100397 FLINT MI 9/30/93
Summary: FLINT CLAIMED $2.8 MILLION UNNECESSARY/UNREASONABLE
COSTS INCURRED TO RENEGOTIATE A CONTRACT. FLINT CLAIMED
$10,416,828 UNSUPPORTED COSTS FOR ADMINISTRATION, ENGINEERING
AND CONSTRUCTION. WE QUESTIONED $415,339 INELIGIBLE ENGINEERING
COSTS INCURRED AFTER CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION DATE.
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: SINCE OVER $13 MILLION OF COSTS WERE QUESTIONED, EPA
PROVIDED THE CITY WITH ADDITIONAL TIME TO PROVIDE SUPPORTING
DOCUMENTATION. ALSO, DUE TO RELATED LEGAL ISSUES, ASSISTANCE
WAS NECESSARY FROM THE OFFICE OF REGIONAL COUNSEL.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT THIS TIME.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/95 [3]
E2BWL5-05-0136-7000980 SAUGET IL 3/31/87
Sumnary: WE QUESTIONED OVER $7 MILLION FOR INELIGIBLE AND
UNNECESSARY PROJECT COSTS.
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: THE REGIONAL OFFICE ISSUED A PROPOSED FINAL DETERMINATION
TO THE DIG ON 3/22/94. ON 4/6/94, THE DIG AGREED WITH THE
PROPOSED ACTIONS ON ALL MATTERS EXCEPT DECISION TO ACCEPT THE
COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE TRANSFER SEWERAGE. THE LOCAL DIG HAS
ELEVATED DISAGREEMENT TO HEADQUARTERS DIG.
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT THIS TIME.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/95 [1]
E2CUL2-23-0299-4100539 ALLOUEZ TWP
WI 9/22/94
CONSTRUCTION AND LAND ACQUISITION COSTS AND $127,798 INELIGIBLE
ARCHITECT/ENGINEERING (A/E) COSTS. THE GRANTEE DID NOT ADJUST
ITS CLAIMS FOR $34,655 PRIOR AUDITED INELIGIBLE COST AND
UNSUPPORTED A/E COSTS OF $272,489.
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: RESOLUTION IS DELAYED PENDING PROGRAM RESPONSE BASED ON
PROJECT FILE INFORMATION.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT THIS TIME.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/95 [1]
0AM Cost Advisory and Financial Analysis Division
Cost Review and Rate Negotiation Branch
D9BFL4-03-0338-4100352
•Summary:
C.C. JOHNSON & MALHOTRA
MD 6/1/94
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: CONTRACTOR HAS OUTSTANDING BID AND PROPOSAL, AND STATE
TAX ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED BEFORE FINAL RATES CAN BE NEGOTIATED.
RESOLUTION TRANSFERRED TO EPA BY COGNIZANT AGENCY ON 3/8/95.
PRIOR COGNIZANT AGENCY USED QUICK CLOSEOUT PROCEDURES TO CLOSE
THEIR CONTRACT(S) AND DID NOT RESOLVE OUTSTANDING AUDIT ISSUES.
ASSIGNMENT CONTROL
NUMBER
TITLE
FINAL REPORT
ISSUED
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT THIS TIME.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/95 [1]
D9BKL3-04-0034-3100010 EHRT
•Summary:
KY 10/9/92
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
NEGOTIATIONS WERE SUSPENDED DUE TO OTHER MATTERS CONCERNING THE
CONTRACTOR. NEGOTIATIONS HAVE RESUMED. THERE ARE MANY COMPLEX
ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED BUT A NEGOTIATED SETTLEMENT CAN BE REACHED.
IT IS DIFFICULT TO CONTACT AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES.
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION ANTICIPATED BY MAY 1, 1995.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/95 [1]
E8DML3-04-0260-4100357
•Summary:
EHRT
KY 6/2/94
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
NEGOTIATIONS WERE SUSPENDED DUE TO OTHER MATTERS CONCERNING THE
CONTRACTOR. NEGOTIATIONS HAVE RESUMED. THERE ARE MANY COMPLEX
ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED BUT A NEGOTIATED SETTLEMENT CAN BE REACHED.
IT IS DIFFICULT TO CONTACT AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION ANTICIPATED BY MAY 1, 1995.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/95 [1]
S5DGN2-09-0047-4300033 CA DEPT OF HLTH ICRP
•Summary:
CA 3/31/94
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
THERE ARE COMPLEX ISSUES WHICH WILL TAKE MUCH DISCUSSION. HOWEVER,
A NEGOTIATED SETTLEMENT IS POSSIBLE.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: EXPECT
RESOLUTION BY 8/31/95.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/95 [1]
P8BMPO-23-0422-2400046 PEI ASSOC FY 90 OH 6/2/92
•Summary: WE QUESTIONED AS INELIGIBLE $91,483 OF COSTS BILLED IN
EXCESS OF COSTS INCURRED UNDER VARIOUS EPA CONTRACTS.
ADDITIONALLY, THE 1990 INDIRECT RATES HAVE NOT BEEN NEGOTIATED AND
FINALIZED.
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
QUESTIONED DIRECT COSTS HAVE BEEN REFERRED TO THE APPROPRIATE
CONTRACTING OFFICER. HOWEVER, THE QUESTIONED DIRECT COSTS WILL NOT
BE RESOLVED UNTIL CLOSE OUT AUDITS ARE COMPLETE. PER DIG, CLOSE
OUT AUDITS ARE IN PROGRESS.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT THIS TIME.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/95 [1]
P8BMP1-23-0335-2400073 PEI ASSOC FY 85 OH 9/9/92
Summary: THE REVIEW FOUND $224,781 OF INELIGIBLE AND $195,886 OF
UNSUPPORTED COSTS.
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
QUESTIONED DIRECT COSTS HAVE BEEN REFERRED TO THE APPROPRIATE
CONTRACTING OFFICER. HOWEVER, THE QUESTIONED DIRECT COSTS WILL NOT
BE RESOLVED UNTIL CLOSE OUT AUDITS ARE COMPLETE. PER DIG, CLOSE
OUT AUDITS ARE IN PROGRESS.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT THIS TIME.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/95 [1]
58
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
-------
ASSIGNMENT CONTROL
NUMBER
TITLE
FINAL REPORT
ISSUED
P8BMP1-23-0339-3400050 PEI ASSOC FY 89 OH 5/13/93
Summary: THE QUESTIONED COSTS DO NOT REFLECT AN ADJUSTMENT FOR
INDIRECT COSTS. INELIGIBLE COSTS OF $284,000 ARE DUE TO AN
INADEQUATE BILLING SYSTEM. UNSUPPORTED COSTS OF $530,000 WERE
DUE TO INTER-COMPANY TRANSFERS.
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: QUESTIONED DIRECT COSTS HAVE BEEN REFERRED TO THE
APPROPRIATE CONTRACTING OFFICER. HOWEVER, THE QUESTIONED DIRECT
COSTS WILL NOT BE RESOLVED UNTIL CLOSE OUT AUDITS ARE COMPLETE.
PER OIG, CLOSE OUT AUDITS ARE IN PROGRESS.
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT THIS TIME.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/95 [1]
P8BMPO-23-0175-3400053 PEI ASSOC FY 86 OH 5/14/93
Summary: WE HAVE QUESTIONED INELIGIBLE $940,755, 53 PERCENT
WAS DUE TO COST BILLED IN EXCESS OF WHAT WAS INCURRED. THE
REMAINING 47 PERCENT WAS THE ADJUSTMENT OF INDIRECT RATES TO
ACTUAL.
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: QUESTIONED DIRECT COSTS HAVE BEEN REFERRED TO THE
APPROPRIATE CONTRACTING OFFICER. HOWEVER, THE QUESTIONED DIRECT
COSTS WILL NOT BE RESOLVED UNTIL CLOSE OUT AUDITS ARE COMPLETE.
PER OIG, CLOSE OUT AUDITS ARE IN PROGRESS.
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT THIS TIME.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/95 [1]
P8BMPO-23-0177-3400062 PEI ASSOC FY 87/88 OH 6/14/93
Summary: WE QUESTIONED AS INELIGIBLE $759,941 OF COST BILLED
BUT NOT INCURRED. WE ALSO QUESTIONED AS UNSUPPORTED $1,224,486,
48 PERCENT OF WHICH WAS DUE TO USING CATALOG PRICES. COSTS WERE
NOT ADJUSTED FOR AUDITED INDIRECT RATES.
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: QUESTIONED DIRECT COSTS HAVE BEEN REFERRED TO THE
APPROPRIATE CONTRACTING OFFICER. HOWEVER, THE QUESTIONED DIRECT
COSTS WILL NOT BE RESOLVED UNTIL CLOSE OUT AUDITS ARE COMPLETE.
PER OIG, CLOSE OUT AUDITS ARE IN PROGRESS. UNSUPPORTED COST IN
THE AMOUNT OF $626,555 HAVE BEEN RESOLVED UNDER CONTRACT NO.
68-01-7084.
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT THIS TIME.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/95 [1]
ASSIGNMENT CONTROL
NUMBER
TITLE
FINAL REPORT
ISSUED
0AM Cost Advisory and Financial Analysis Division
Financial Analysis Branch
P9CGL2-02-0283-4100397 ECOLOGY & ENVIR NY 6/9/94
•Summary: THE CONTRACT CLAIMED $2,399,182 AS ALLOWABLE COSTS
OF WHICH WE QUESTIONED $62,711 AS UNALLOWABLE.
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: NEGOTIATION POSITION FOR DIRECT COSTS HAS BEEN
ESTABLISHED AND NEGOTIATIONS ARE CONTINUING. NEGOTIATIONS BY
THE COST POLICY AND RATE NEGOTIATION BRANCH FOR SETTLEMENT OF
THE 89-90 INDIRECT RATES ARE IN PROCESS.
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT THIS TIME.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/95 [1]
P8BMN1-03-0146-2300014 O&R MANAGEMENT CORPORATION MD 11/5/91
Summary: WE QUESTIONED $557,442 OF OTHER DIRECT COSTS. ONE
HUNDRED PERCENT OF THE CONTRACT WAS QUESTIONED BECAUSE O&R DID
NOT MAINTAIN RECORDS.
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
RESOLUTION HAS BEEN DELAYED DUE TO THE COMPANY NO LONGER BEING IN
BUSINESS. THE CONTRACTING OFFICER WROTE A DECISION ON DISALLOWANCE
OF COST CLAIMED BY CONTRACTOR IN AUDIT REPORT. FURTHER ACTION IS
DEPENDENT ON THE OUTCOME OF AN OIG INVESTIGATION WHICH IS IN
PROCESS.
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION EXPECTED BY 4/30/95.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/95 [1]
D9BKL2-03-0599-4100295 KEYDATA SYSTEMS INC VA 5/18/94
Summary: DCAA QUESTIONED 233,278 OF COSTS INCURRED. DCAA ALSO
CONSIDERS $431,395 TO BE EXCESS COSTS BILLED TO EPA.
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
CONTRACTING OFFICER CANNOT RESPOND TO AUDIT REPORT SINCE THE
CONTRACTOR IS UNDER AN OIG INVESTIGATION. CLAIM HAS BEEN FILED
WITH DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS. WE ARE
AWAITING INVESTIGATION RESULTS TO PROCEED WITH INTERIOR BOARD OF
CONTRACT APPEALS CASE AND AUDIT RESOLUTION.
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT THIS TIME.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/95 [1]
D8CML4-05-0019-4100246 TRIAD ENG FY 92/93
*Summary:
WI
4/12/94
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
ORIGINAL ACTION OFFICE DID NOT TRANSMIT REPORT TO CURRENT ACTION
OFFICIAL FOR RESOLUTION UNTIL MARCH 1995. REPORT WAS TRANSMITTED
TO THE APPROPRIATE CONTRACTING OFFICER FOR RESOLUTION ON 3/15/95
WHO IS CURRENTLY NEGOTIATING WITH CONTRACTOR.
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION EXPECTED BY 4/30/95.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/95 [1]
P9BGL4-10-0083-4100309 CH2M REM IV 87-89 C.I. OR 5/19/94
Summary: INELIGIBLE/UNSUPPORTED COSTS CONSIST OF: $408,618 IN
DIRECT LABOR, $3,254,566 IN TRAVEL, $3,458,995 IN OTHER DIRECT
COSTS, $2,292,817 IN OVERHEAD AND $3,333 IN LABORATORY SERVICES.
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
OIG IS REVIEWING CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSE TO THE AUDIT AND ADDITIONAL
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION PROVIDED BY THE CONTRACTOR. NEGOTIATIONS
WILL COMMENCE WHEN SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT IS ISSUED.
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT THIS TIME.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/95 [1]
P9BGL4-10-0107-4100398 CH2M REM/FIT 87-89 C.I. CA 6/10/94
Sumnary: NET COSTS QUESTIONED OF $173,335 CONSIST OF INELIGIBLE
OVERTIME COSTS OF $20,178, INELIGIBLE MOVING COSTS OF $8,323,
INELIGIBLE PUBLICATIONS COSTS OF $128, INELIGIBLE OVERHEAD CREDIT
OF $3,045, UNSUPPORTED TRAVEL COSTS OF $16,027, AND UNSUPPORTED
COMPUTER COSTS OF $131,724.
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
OIG IS REVIEWING CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSE TO THE AUDIT AND ADDITIONAL
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION PROVIDED BY THE CONTRACTOR. NEGOTIATIONS
WILL COMMENCE WHEN SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT IS ISSUED.
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT THIS TIME.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/95 [1]
P9BGL4-10-0117-4100417 CH2M TECH 1 C. I . 1987-88 OR 6/22/94
Summary: NET COSTS QUESTIONED OF $212,587 CONSIST OF INELIGIBLE
OVERTIME LABOR OF $7,754, UNSUPPORTED TRAVEL COSTS OF $108,035,
OCTOBER 1, 1994 THROUGH MARCH 31, 1995
59
-------
ASSIGNMENT CONTROL
NUMBER
TITLE
FINAL REPORT
ISSUED
UNSUPPORTED COMPUTER COSTS OF $115,975, AND INELIGIBLE OVERHEAD
CREDIT OF $19,177.
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: DIG IS REVIEWING CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSE TO THE AUDIT AND
ADDITIONAL SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION PROVIDED BY THE CONTRACTOR.
NEGOTIATIONS WILL COMMENCE WHEN SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT IS ISSUED.
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT THIS TIME.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/95 [1]
P9BGL4-10-0124-4100436 CH2M ARCS V C.I. 1988 & 89 OR 6/29/94
Summary: NET COSTS QUESTIONED OF $322,262 CONSIST OF INELIGIBLE
OVERTIME LABOR OF $5,417, INELIGIBLE OVERHEAD CREDIT OF $32,857,
UNSUPPORTED TRAVEL COSTS OF $144,373, AND UNSUPPORTED COMPUTER
COSTS OF $205,329.
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: DIG IS REVIEWING CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSE TO THE AUDIT AND
ADDITIONAL SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION PROVIDED BY THE CONTRACTOR.
NEGOTIATIONS WILL COMMENCE WHEN SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT IS ISSUED.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT THIS TIME.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/95 [1]
D9BGL3-10-0088-4100471 URS FY 1989 AC WA 8/2/94
•Summary: THE AUDITOR QUESTIONED $15,725 OF DIRECT COSTS ON
EPA CONTRACT NOS. 68-W9-0053 AND 68-W9-0054. THE QUESTIONED
COSTS ARE DUE TO AUDIT EXCEPTIONS TO THE ALLOCATION OF INTERNAL
SERVICES COSTS.
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: SETTLEMENT OF INDIRECT COST ISSUES WILL BE HANDLED BY THE
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ADMINISTRATIVE CONTRACTING OFFICER. THE
EPA CONTRACTING OFFICER WILL RESOLVE THE DIRECT COST ISSUES BY
OBTAINING CREDITS ON THE CONTRACTS. THE CREDIT ON ONE OF THE
TWO CONTRACTS HAS BEEN NEGOTIATED.
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT THIS TIME.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/95 [2]
P9BGL4-10-0129-4100489 CH2M TECH II C.I. 1988-89 OR 8/16/94
Summary: NET COSTS QUESTIONED OF $92,160 CONSIST OF INELIGIBLE
OVERTIME LABOR OF $2,507, UNSUPPORTED TRAVEL COSTS OF $40,650,
UNSUPPORTED COMPUTER COSTS OF $69,820, AND INELIGIBLE OVERHEAD
CREDIT OF $20,817.
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: DIG IS REVIEWING CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSE TO THE AUDIT AND
ADDITIONAL SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION PROVIDED BY THE CONTRACTOR.
NEGOTIATIONS WILL COMMENCE WHEN SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT IS ISSUED.
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT THIS TIME.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/95 [1]
P9BGL4-10-0132-4100512 CH2M ARCS WEST 1989 COSTS OR 8/30/94
•Summary:
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: DIG IS REVIEWING CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSE TO THE AUDIT AND
ADDITIONAL SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION PROVIDED BY THE CONTRACTOR.
NEGOTIATIONS WILL COMMENCE WHEN SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT IS ISSUED.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT THIS TIME.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/95 [1]
ASSIGNMENT CONTROL
NUMBER
TITLE
FINAL REPORT
ISSUED
P9BGL4-10-0149-4100560 CH2M ARCS VI 1988 & 89 COSTS OR 9/26/94
Summary: UNSUPPORTED COSTS OF $157,000 CONSIST OF TRAVEL COSTS OF
$76,000 AND COMPUTER COSTS OF $81,000.
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
DIG IS REVIEWING CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSE TO THE AUDIT AND ADDITIONAL
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION PROVIDED BY THE CONTRACTOR. NEGOTIATIONS
WILL COMMENCE WHEN SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT IS ISSUED.
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT THIS TIME.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/95 [1]
P9BGL4-10-0147-4100566 CH2M ARCS III 1988-89 COSTS OR 9/28/94
Summary: UNSUPPORTED COSTS OF $115,000 CONSIST OF TRAVEL COSTS OF
$42,000 AND COMPUTER COSTS OF $73,000. INELIGIBLE COSTS OF $4,000
CONSIST OF OVERHEAD COSTS.
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
DIG IS REVIEWING CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSE TO THE AUDIT AND ADDITIONAL
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION PROVIDED BY THE CONTRACTOR. NEGOTIATIONS
WILL COMMENCE WHEN SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT IS ISSUED.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT THIS TIME.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/95 [1]
P9AHN9-23-0347-0300036 OH MATERIALS (PR EQ RATES)
Summary: (PREAWARD AUDIT UNDER NEGOTIATION)
OH 3/27/90
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
NEGOTIATIONS ARE CONTINUING. CONTRACTOR HAS SUBMITTED A COUNTER
OFFER.
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION SCHEDULED TO BE COMPLETED BY 9/30/95.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/95 [1]
P9AHN1-23-0143-2300024 OHM REM ERCS2 Z1 FY 89
•Summary: (PREAWARD AUDIT UNDER NEGOTIATION)
OH 12/27/91
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
NEGOTIATIONS ARE CONTINUING.
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION EXPECTED BY 9/30/95.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/95 [1]
P9AHP2-23-0021-4400002 OHM REM ERCS2 Z1 FY 90 EQ OH 10/7/93
•Summary: (PREAWARD AUDIT UNDER NEGOTIATION)
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
NEGOTIATIONS ARE CONTINUING ON CONTRACT NO. 68-01-7445.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: EXPECTED
TO BE CONCLUDED BY 9/30/95.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/95 [1]
0AM Cost Advisory & Financial Analysis Division
Washington Cost Advisory Branch
D8AMN3-01-0266-4300007 ABT ASSOCIATES MA 11/15/93
•Summary: (PREAWARD AUDIT UNDER NEGOTIATION)
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
AWARD OF THIS CONTRACT WAS PLANNED FOR EARLY NOVEMBER 1994
CONTRACTOR WAS UNSUCCESSFUL BIDDER. CONTRACT IS CURRENTLY~UNDER
PROTEST BY THE CONTRACTOR.
60
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
-------
ASSIGNMENT CONTROL
NUMBER
TITLE
FINAL REPORT
ISSUED
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT THIS TIME.
ASSIGNMENT CONTROL
NUMBER
TITLE
FINAL REPORT
ISSUED
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/95 [1]
D9AFL4-02-0173-4100515 FOSTER WHEELER USA CORP
*Summary: (PREAWARD AUDIT UNDER NEGOTIATION)
NJ 9/8/94
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: CONTRACT STILL IN THE NEGOTIATION PROCESS. A SUMMARY OF
NEGOTIATIONS WILL BE PROVIDED TO THE DIG IF THE OFFEROR IS THE
SUCCESSFUL BIDDER.
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
PROJECTED AWARD AND NEGOTIATIONS ARE EXPECTED TO BE COMPLETED BY
JUNE 1995.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/95 [1]
D8BML4-03-0345-4100343 PRC, INC. VA 6/ 1/94
*Summary: DCAA QUESTIONED ($45.71) FOR 1991 AND ($3,322.96)
FOR 1992.
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: THE SUBJECT AUDIT IS STILL BEING NEGOTIATED. A SUMMARY
OF NEGOTIATIONS WILL BE FORWARDED TO THE DIG IF THE OFFEROR IS
THE SUCCESSFUL BIDDER.
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION EXPECTED TO BE COMPLETED BY NOVEMBER 1995.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/95 [1]
D9AFL4-03-0453-4100506 AE ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
Summary: (PREAWARD AUDIT UNDER NEGOTIATION)
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: NEGOTIATIONS ON THE SUBJECT AUDIT ARE CONTINUING. A
SUMMARY OF NEGOTIATIONS WILL BE PROVIDED TO THE DIG IF THE
OFFEROR IS THE SUCCESSFUL BIDDER.
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: THE
PROJECTED CONTRACT DEFINITIZATION DATE IS JUNE 1995.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/95 [1]
D9AKL4-03-0450-4100536 ROY F. WESTON
*Summary: (PREAWARD AUDIT UNDER NEGOTIATION)
PA 9/22/94
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: THE RESULTS OF THE SUBJECT AUDIT ARE STILL BEING
NEGOTIATED. THE DIG WILL BE PROVIDED WITH A SUMMARY OF
NEGOTIATIONS IF THE OFFEROR IS THE SUCCESSFUL BIDDER.
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION EXPECTED BY JUNE 1995.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/95 [1]
E9AKP4-05-0291-4400117 PRC EMI (R3 SATA)
*Summary: (PREAWARD AUDIT UNDER NEGOTIATION)
IL 9/30/94
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: NEGOTIATIONS ARE CONTINUING ON THE SUBJECT AUDIT.
PROGRAM WILL PROVIDE THE DIG WITH SUMMARY OF NEGOTIATIONS IF THE
OFFEROR IS THE SUCCESSFUL BIDDER.
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: THE
CONCLUSION OF NEGOTIATIONS AND CONTRACT AWARD IS ANTICIPATED FOR
JUNE 1995.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/95 [1]
D8AML4-06-0039-4100101 FTN ASSOCIATES LTD
Summary: (PREAWARD AUDIT UNDER NEGOTIATION)
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
THIS AUDIT REPORT IS CURRENTLY UNDER NEGOTIATIONS. A COPY OF THE
SUMMARY OF NEGOTIATIONS WILL BE SENT TO THE DIG IF FTN IS THE
SUCCESSFUL OFFEROR.
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: AN AWARD
OF THIS COMPETITIVE PROCUREMENT WILL NOT TAKE PLACE UNTIL JUNE
1995.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/95 [1]
D8AML4-07-0077-4100499 DPRA INCORPORATED
*Summary: (PREAWARD AUDIT UNDER NEGOTIATION)
KS 8/24/94
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
CONTRACTOR WAS UNSUCCESSFUL OFFEROR. CONTRACT WAS AWARDED TO ABT
ASSOCIATES ON 9/30/94.
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION IS EXPECTED SHORTLY.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/95 [1]
P9AGL2-10-0089-4100225 CH2M ARCS IV TERM STLMT
Summary: (PREAWARD AUDIT UNDER NEGOTIATION)
OR 3/28/94
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
RESPONSE FAXED AND MAILED TO OIG ON 9/15/94. THE AUDIT WILL NOT BE
NEGOTIATED UNTIL MAY 15, 1995.
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT THIS TIME.
WV 8/25/94 IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/95 [1]
P9CGL2-10-0127-4100226 CH2M REGION IV ARCS OR 3/29/94
Summary: CH2M CLAIMED $73,895 OF UNSUPPORTED COMPUTER COSTS.
$69,559 OF UNSUPPORTED COSTS RELATED TO THE RED-PENN WORK
ASSIGNMENT, AND $6,199 OF INELIGIBLE INDIRECT COSTS.
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
THE PROGRAM RESPONDED TO THE OIG ON 9/15/94 VIA FAX AND A COPY WAS
SENT TO THE OIG. NEGOTIATIONS WILL NOT BE COMPLETE UNTIL MAY 15,
1995.
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT THIS TIME.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/95 [1]
Office of the Administrator
E1SFE3-07-0101-4100522 FMFIA CAPPING, OSWER, WATER 9/16/94
•Summary: THE AGENCY DID NOT ADEQUATELY IMPLEMENT THE INTEGRITY
ACT. THE AGENCY CHANGED ITS PROCESS TO ELIMINATE UNNECESSARY
PAPERWORK TO MAKE THE PROCESS MORE USEFUL. MANAGERS' TRAINING AND
KNOWLEDGE OF CONTROLS ARE STILL A CONCERN.
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
THE PROGRAM OFFICE IS REVIEWING THE OIG'S 2/13/95 COMMENTS ON EPA
MANAGEMENT'S RESPONSE OF 12/28/94. THE PROGRAM IS PREPARING A
FORMAL WRITTEN REPLY, EXPECTED TO BE ISSUED BY 4/30/95, TO CLARIFY
EPA MANAGEMENT'S POSITION AND PROVIDE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON
THOSE SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS CITED BY OIG TO SUPPORT ORIGINAL
RESPONSE.
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT THIS TIME.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/95 [2]
TX 12/2/93 Regional Administrator - Region 1
S2CWL1-01-0024-4100179 SPRINGFIELD MA 1/31/94
Surtinary: THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, MA CLAIMED UNALLOWABLE PROJECT
OCTOBER 1, 1994 THROUGH MARCH 31, 1995
61
-------
ASSIGNMENT CONTROL
NUMBER
TITLE
FINAL REPORT
ISSUED
COSTS OF $4,059,671 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SECONDARY SEWAGE
TREATMENT PLANT, INCLUDING NEW INTERCEPTER SEWERS, PUMPING
STATIONS, FORCE MAIN SIPHON, AND OUTFALL SEWER.
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: THE REGION IS MEETING WITH THE CITY'S CONSULTANT ON A
BIWEEKLY BASIS TO REVIEW $4,060,000 IN QUESTIONED COSTS. THE
PROPOSED FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER WAS SENT TO THE OIG ON
MARCH 3, 1995.
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT THIS TIME.
ASSIGNMENT CONTROL
NUMBER
TITLE
FINAL REPORT
ISSUED
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/95 [2]
E2CWL1-01-0136-4100576 MWRA
*Summary:
MA 9/29/94
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: EPA IS WAITING ON THE STATE AGENCY TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION IN ORDER TO COMPLETE THE REVIEW OF THIS AUDIT.
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: THE
FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER IS EXPECTED TO BE COMPLETED BY
APRIL 30, 1995.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/95 [1]
E2CWL2-01-0029-4100578 MASS WATER RESOURCES AUTH MA 9/29/94
Summary: TOTAL INELIGIBLE COSTS OF $199,984 QUESTIONED FOR
GRANT FUNDS USED FOR OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE WORK; WORK
PERFORMED BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THE PROJECT AND OTHER INELIGIBLE
ITEMS.
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: THE FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER WAS SENT TO THE GRANTEE
ON MARCH 30, 1995.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: THE
OIG CLOSED THIS AUDIT ON APRIL 5, 1995.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/95 [3]
Regional Administrator - Region 2
P2CWL1-02-0104-3100374 NYCDEP ' NY 9/14/93
Summary: THE CITY OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK CLAIMED UNALLOWABLE
PROJECT COSTS OF $65,169,354 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE NORTH
RIVER SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT AND A RECREATIONAL PARK.
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: THIS MEGA-AUDIT INCLUDED 6 EPA GRANTS WITH TOTAL GRANTEE
CLAIMED COSTS OF $683 MILLION AND AUDITOR QUESTIONED COSTS OF
$50 MILLION. BECAUSE OF THE MAGNITUDE OF THIS OVERALL
CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, WHICH COVERED 16 YEARS (1977-1992), VERY
EXTENSIVE STAFF TIME AND EFFORT ARE REQUIRED TO RESOLVE THESE
ISSUES.
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
FINAL RESOLUTION IS JUNE 1995.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/95 [3]
P2CWN1-02-0028-4300034 OCEAN COUNTY UA NJ 5/4/94
Summary: THE GRANTEE CLAIMED UNALLOWABLE COSTS OF $4,513,658
CONSISTING OF INELIGIBLE COSTS OF $3,057,931 (FEDERAL SHARE
$2,144,016) AND UNSUPPORTED COSTS OF $1,455,727 (FEDERAL SHARE
$883,541) FOR CONSTRUCTION OF SECONDARY WASTEWATER TREATMENT
FACILITIES AND APPEARANCES.
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: THIS AUDIT ENCOMPASSED 5 EPA GRANTS WITH TOTAL GRANTEE
CLAIMED COSTS OF $247 MILLION AND AUDITOR QUESTIONED COSTS OF
$4.5 MILLION. THE ONGOING REGIONAL REVIEW IS ENSURING THAT ALL
ISSUES HAVE BEEN FULLY EVALUATED, ANALYZED, AND THAT THE GRANTEE
IS GIVEN FULL OPPORTUNITY TO SUBMIT ADDITIONAL SUPPORTING
DOCUMENTATION.
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: TARGET
FINAL RESOLUTION IS MAY 1995.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/95 [1]
Regional Administrator - Region 3
P2BWN3-03-0077-4300032 PHILADELPHIA CITY OF PA 3/30/94
Surmary: THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA CLAIMED $10,959,010 OF
INELIGIBLE FORCE ACCOUNT, ENGINEERING, CONSTRUCTION AND INDIRECT
COSTS. AN ADDITIONAL $32,663,495 OF UNSUPPORTED AND $794,684 OF
UNNECESSARY COSTS WERE ALSO QUESTIONED.
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
THE SIZE AND COMPLEXITY OF THIS MEGA-AUDIT (WHICH INCLUDES SEVERAL
GRANTS) WILL REQUIRE SIGNIFICANT TIME TO RESOLVE.
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT-DECISION: THE
TARGET DATE FOR ISSUANCE OF A MANAGEMENT DECISION IS 9/30/95.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/95 [1]
P2CWN2-03-0456-4300043 HOWARD COUNTY DPW MD 8/23/94
Summary: COSTS OF $1.5 MILLION WERE DETERMINED INELIGIBLE
PRIMARILY BECAUSE THE GRANTEE CLAIMED ARCHITECT/ENGINEERING COSTS
IN EXCESS OF GRANT CEILINGS AND COSTS INCURRED AFTER THE APPROVED
COMPLETION DATES.
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
AT CONGRESSIONAL REQUEST, FINAL MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS BEEN
DELAYED UNTIL A MEETING IS HELD WITH THE GRANTEE AND THE STATE TO
DISCUSS THE AUDIT FINDINGS. THE GRANTEE AND STATE MET ON 4/4/95.
EPA MAY MEET AGAIN AT THE END OF APRIL 1995.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: ESTIMATED
MANAGEMENT DECISION DATE IS 5/30/95.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/95 [1]
P2CWN3-03-0031-4300045 ARLINGTON COUNTY VA 9/1/94
Summary: ARLINGTON COUNTY, VA CLAIMED $1.9 MILLION OF INELIGIBLE
COSTS INCLUDING $360,000 FOR A HEAT RECOVERY SYSTEM THAT WAS NEVER
UTILIZED.
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
THE OIG CHANGED (REDUCED THE DOLLAR AMOUNT) SOME OF THE CONTRACT
AUDITOR'S FINDINGS PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE FINAL AUDIT REPORT,
WHILE NOT SPECIFYING WHICH FINDINGS WERE AFFECTED BY THE CHANGES.
AT A MEETING HELD 3/8/95, THE OIG AGREED TO SPECIFY EXACTLY WHICH
OF THE FINDINGS IN THE AUDIT REPORT WERE AFFECTED.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
MANAGEMENT DECISION DATE IS 4/30/95.
ESTIMATED
TARGET IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/95 [1]
E6FHG4-03-0266-4400110 REGIONAL VEHICLE ASSIGNMENT 9/22/94
*Summary: BASED ON ACTUAL USAGE, THE ASSIGNMENT OF VEHICLES TO
REGION 3 SUPERFUND ON-SCENE COORDINATORS ON A FULL-TIME BASIS WAS
NOT ALWAYS JUSTIFIED.
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
AWAITING RESPONSE FROM REGIONAL PROGRAM OFFICE AS OF 3/31/95.
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT THIS TIME.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/95 [5]
62
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
-------
ASSIGNMENT CONTROL
NUMBER
TITLE
FINAL REPORT
ISSUED
Regional Administrator - Region 4
E2CWM3-04-0062-4200019 KEY WEST FL 9/15/94
Sumrary: WE QUESTIONED THE $1,017,608 DESIGN ALLOWANCE CLAIMED
BY THE GRANTEE BECAUSE IT DUPLICATED THE STEP 2 DESIGN GRANT WHICH
UAS AWARDED FOR THE SAME PURPOSE.
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: STATE OF FLORIDA IS SEARCHING FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
WHICH MAY HELP RESOLVE DISPUTED AMOUNT. THE REGION SHOULD HAVE A
RESPONSE IN 30-60 DAYS.
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT THIS TIME.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/95 [2]
E2CUP3-04-0225-4400096 BRUNSWICK GA 8/10/94
Sumnary: CONSTRUCTION COST WITH FEDERAL SHARE OF $311,250 WAS
QUESTIONED BECAUSE SOME SEWERS WERE NOT BUILT AS PLANNED.
ENGINEERING COST CLAIMED WITH FEDERAL SHARE OF $65,000 WAS
QUESTIONED BECAUSE THE GRANTEE DID NOT PROCURE THESE SERVICES IN
CONFORMITY WITH EPA REGULATIONS.
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: AS OF 3/31/95, GRANTEE HAS ASKED FOR A DELAY OF 30-60 DAYS
TO FILE A GRANT AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE SCOPE OF WORK OUTLINED IN
THE GRANT.
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT THIS TIME.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/95 [2]
ASSIGNMENT CONTROL
NUMBER
TITLE
FINAL REPORT
ISSUED
Regional Administrator - Region 6
E2CWN3-06-0089-4300052 HOUSTON TX 9/29/94
Summary: HOUSTON, TEXAS CLAIMED $6,159,937 OF INELIGIBLE
ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A
WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY. AN ADDITIONAL $991,174 OF
UNSUPPORTED COSTS OF $1,063,235 OF UNNECESSARY AND UNREASONABLE
COSTS WERE QUESTIONED.
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: AUDIT TRANSMITTAL LETTER (ATL) WAS SENT BY TEXAS WATER
DEVELOPMENT BOARD TO CITY ON 02/03/95, ALONG WITH AN ANALYSIS OF
FINAL AUDIT. CITY REQUESTED AN EXTENSION OF 90 DAYS TO RESPOND
TO ATL. THIS WAS GRANTED. AUDIT HAS OVER 90 VERY COMPLEX
FINDINGS WITH CLAIMED COSTS OF $208,720,680, QUESTIONED COSTS OF
$13,417,479, AND $3,562,938 POTENTIALLY DUE EPA.
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT THIS TIME.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/95 [1]
D9AGL4-10-0072-4100269 CFS
Summary: (PREAWARD AUDIT UNDER NEGOTIATION)
ID 5/3/94
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: THE TEXAS NATURAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION COMMISSION (TNRCC)
AND THE CONTRACTOR COMPLETED THEIR PRICE NEGOTIATION IN 12/94 AND
THE CONTRACT UAS SIGNED BY CFS, BUT NOT YET SIGNED BY TNRCC. EPA
IS CURRENTLY AWAITING A COPY OF THE FINAL PRICE NEGOTIATION
MEMORANDUM FROM TNRCC THAT SHOWS THAT ALL RECOMMENDATIONS HAVE
BEEN COMPLETED. ONCE EPA RECEIVES IT AND SENDS A COPY OF
NEGOTIATION MEMO TO DCAA, THE AUDIT WILL BE CLOSED.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT THIS TIME.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/95 [1]
Regional Administrator - Region 8
P5BGL2-08-0089-4100167 STATE OF COLORADO CO 1/4/94
Summary: WE QUESTIONED $276,188 OF INELIGIBLE PERSONNEL COSTS AND
$33,366 OF INELIGIBLE INTERDEPARTMENTAL TRANSFERS.
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
MAP REVIEW WAS COMPLETED ON 6/28/94. THIS WAS A BASIS FOR OUR
PRELIMINARY FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER SENT TO IG 8/10/94.
DIG REJECTED PRELIMINARY DECISION. REGION AGREED TO REDRAFT THE
LETTER. REGION REISSUED PRELIMINARY FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER AND
SENT TO DIG 1/5/95. THE STATE DID NOT RESPOND. FINAL DRAFT OF
DECISION LETTER SENT TO DIG 3/23/95 FOR CONCURRENCE.
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT THIS TIME.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/95 [5]
P2CWN1-08-0063-4300005 SOUTH VALLEY UT 10/25/93
Summary: GRANTEE CLAIMED COSTS PREVIOUSLY DETERMINED INELIGIBLE
FOR GRANT PARTICIPATION AND MATHEMATICAL ERRORS.
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
THE MANAGEMENT DECISION WAS DELAYED BECAUSE OF A LACK OF RESOURCES
TO ADDRESS AUDIT RESOLUTION. RECEIVED COMMENTS FROM WATER
MANAGEMENT AND GRANTEE ON QUESTIONED COSTS ON 9/12/94. OFFICE IS
REVIEWING DOCUMENTATION FOR PRELIMINARY FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER
FOR 10/01/94. THE DIG HAS ASKED FOR CLARIFICATION ON OUR DECISION
LETTER AND REVISION OF ATTACHED SPREADSHEETS -- SENT CHANGES TO THE
DIG 4/01/95.
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT THIS TIME.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/95 [1]
Regional Administrator - Region 9
S2CW*8-09-0157-1300112 LOS ANGELES, CITY OF CA 9/25/91
Summary: INELIGIBLE COSTS OF $723,627 INCLUDED: $650,255 OF
UNALLOWABLE FORCE ACCOUNT COSTS; AND $73,372 FOR UNALLOWABLE
ENGINEERING COSTS. UNREASONABLE COSTS INCLUDE $879,630 OF
UNDOCUMENTED FORCE ACCOUNT AND $1,099,261 ARCHITECT/ENGINEERING
COSTS INCURRED UNDER PROHIBITED CONTRACT METHOD.
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
THE STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD IS FINALIZING PROPOSED
FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER AND WILL SEND IT TO EPA BY 4/15/95.
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: EPA IS
EXPECTED TO ISSUE THE FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER BY 4/30/95.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/95 [1]
S2CW*8-09-0156-1300119 LOS ANGELES, CITY OF CA 9/30/91
Summary: INELIGIBLE COSTS OF $2,483,872 INCLUDED $2,039,554 OF
CONSTRUCTION AND FORCE ACCOUNT COST OUTSIDE SCOPE OF APPROVED
PROJECT; $444,318 OF FORCE ACCOUNT COSTS ALLOCABLE TO INELIGIBLE
CONSTRUCTION. UNREASONABLE COSTS OF $68,150,598 RELATED TO
EXCESSIVE LANDSCAPING, FORCE ACCOUNT COSTS AND UNUSED FACILITIES.
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
THE STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD IS FINALIZING THE PROPOSED
FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER AND WILL SEND IT TO EPA BY 4/15/95.
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: EPA IS
EXPECTED TO ISSUE THE FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER BY 5/15/95.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/95 [1]
S2CWN1-09-0228-2300044 LOS ANGELES, CITY OF CA 3/13/92
Summary: INELIGIBLE COSTS INCLUDED $1,400,564 FOR UNUSED
EQUIPMENT ITEMS; $202,058 FOR UNALLOWABLE ARCHITECT/ENGINEERING
(A/E) FEES; AND $572,354 FOR UNALLOWABLE FORCE ACCOUNT (F/A) COSTS;
AND UNREASONABLE COSTS OF $1,010,586 FOR EXCESSIVE A/E AND F/A. AN
OCTOBER 1, 1994 THROUGH MARCH 31, 1995
63
-------
ASSIGNMENT CONTROL
NUMBER
TITLE
FINAL REPORT
ISSUED
ADDITIONAL $11,188,321 WAS QUESTIONED BECAUSE PLANT WAS NOT
OPERATING IN ACCORDANCE WITH PLANT CONCEPTS.
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: THE STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD AND DIG AGREE ON
PROPOSED FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: EPA
EXPECTS TO ISSUE FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER BY 4/30/95.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/95 [1]
E2CWN1-09-0092-2300082 RUSSIAN RIVER CSD CA 9/25/92
Summary: COSTS OF $8,344,066 HAVE BEEN QUESTIONED AS INELIGIBLE,
INCLUDING INELIGIBLE CONSTRUCTION, ENGINEERING AND FORCE ACCOUNT
COSTS. AN ADDITIONAL $18,297,400 HAVE BEEN QUESTIONED AS
UNNECESSARY BECAUSE THE PLANT WAS NOT FULLY UTILIZED.
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: THE STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD AND DIG REACHED
AGREEMENT ON ALL BUT TWO ISSUES. THE STATE WATER RESOURCES
CONTROL BOARD SENT EPA A LETTER OF DISAGREEMENT FOR THESE TWO
ISSUES ON 3/1/95.
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: EPA TO
ISSUE FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER BY 9/30/95.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/95 [1]
S2CWNO-09-0262-2300089 SAN FRANCISCO, CITY & CO CA 9/30/92
Summary: INELIGIBLE COSTS INCLUDE $50,015 OF UNALLOWABLE
ARCHITECT/ENGINEERING (A/E) COSTS AND $271,092 FOR COSTS ALLOCABLE
TO OTHER FEDERAL FACILITIES RELATED TO UNSUPPORTED CONSTRUCTION
A/E FORCE ACCOUNT COSTS.
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: IN THIS SAN FRANCISCO AUDIT, THE KEY ISSUE IS THE ADEQUACY
OF COMPUTER TAPE DOCUMENTATION FOR TIME CARDS.
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: EPA
EXPECTS TO ISSUE THE FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER BY 5/30/95.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/95 [1]
S2CWM9-09-0192-3200056 SAN FRANCISCO, CITY & CO CA 9/30/93
Summary: THE AUDIT QUESTIONED COSTS OF $137,651 AS INELIGIBLE
AND $257,228 AS UNSUPPORTED.
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: IN THIS SAN FRANCISCO AUDIT, THE KEY ISSUE IS THE ADEQUACY
OF COMPUTER TAPE DOCUMENTATION FOR TIME CARDS.
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: EPA
EXPECTS TO ISSUE THE FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER BY 5/30/95.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/95 [1]
S2CWNO-09-0073-3300036 SAN FRANCISCO, CITY & CO CA 4/26/93
Summary: INELIGIBLE COSTS OF $493,315 INCLUDE $3,112 OUTSIDE THE
SCOPE OF PROJECT AND $490,203 NORMAL COST OF GOVERNMENT.
UNREASONABLE COST OF $2,872,442 FOR RECONSTRUCTED FORCE ACCOUNT
COSTS NOT SUPPORTED BY ACTUAL SOURCE DOCUMENTATION.
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: IN THIS SAN FRANCISCO AUDIT, THE KEY ISSUE IS THE ADEQUACY
OF COMPUTER TAPE DOCUMENTATION FOR TIME CARDS.
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: EPA
EXPECTS TO ISSUE THE FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER BY 5/30/95.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/95 [1]
S2CWNO-09-0050-3300078 SAN FRANCISCO, CITY AND CO CA 9/30/93
Summary: INELIGIBLE COSTS OF $281,859 REPRESENT COSTS IN EXCESS
OF THE APPROVED AMOUNT. UNSUPPORTED COSTS OF $43,598 RELATE TO
FORCE ACCOUNT COSTS NOT SUPPORTED BY ORIGINAL SOURCE
DOCUMENTATION.
ASSIGNMENT CONTROL
NUMBER
TITLE
FINAL REPORT
ISSUED
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
IN THIS SAN FRANCISCO AUDIT, THE KEY ISSUE IS THE ADEQUACY OF
COMPUTER TAPE DOCUMENTATION FOR TIME CARDS.
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: EPA
EXPECTS TO ISSUE THE FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER BY 5/30/95.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/95 [1]
S2CWNO-09-0076-3300080 LAS VIRGENES MWD CA 9/30/93
Summary: INELIGIBLE COSTS OF $5,091,815 INCLUDE: $42,564 FOR
CONSTRUCTION COSTS NOT INCURRED; $192,643 OF INTEREST EARNED;
$647,791 FOR UNALLOWABLE ARCHITECT/ENGINEERING (A/E) AND
ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS; $1,919,244 FOR A/E AND CONSTRUCTION OUTSIDE
SCOPE OF PROJECT; AND $2,289,573 RELATED TO EXCESS CAPACITY. AN
ADDITIONAL $757,976 WERE UNREASONABLE A/E COSTS.
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
THE STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD IS WORKING WITH THE DIG TO
RESOLVE AREAS OF DISAGREEMENT. MEMBERS OF THE SWRCB MAY REFER ONE
ISSUE TO THE FULL STATE BOARD.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: THE STATE
WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD INTENDS TO SEND THE PROPOSED FINAL
DETERMINATION LETTER TO EPA BY 6/30/95.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/95 [1]
E2AWT3-09-0082-3400037 SAN DIEGO, CITY OF CA 3/29/93
Summary: THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO HAS CONSTRUCTED AN $11.8 MILLION
LAND OUTFALL WHICH WILL NOT BE USED BY THE CITY FOR THE INTENDED
PURPOSE OF THE GRANT NOR WILL IT BE USED IN THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE.
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
THE OUTFALL PROJECT IS A JOINT EFFORT WITH THE INTERNATIONAL
BOUNDARY AND WATER COMMISSION. THE AUDIT CANNOT BE RESOLVED UNTIL
A REQUIREMENT FOR SECONDARY TREATMENT IS DETERMINED.
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: AUDIT
RESOLUTION TARGET DATE IS 9/30/95.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/95 [2]
S2CWN2-09-0091-4300051 VALLEJO SAN & FLOOD CONTROL CA 9/29/94
Summary: INELIGIBLE COSTS OF $5,525,458 INCLUDE $712,246 OF
UNALLOWABLE ARCHITECT/ENGINEERING FEES; $3,162,957 OF EARNED
INTEREST NOT CREDITED TO THE GRANT, AND $1,650,255 OF UNALLOWABLE
CONSTRUCTION. UNREASONABLE COSTS OF $3,874,497 REPRESENT UNUSED
FACILITIES.
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
THE STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD IS RESEARCHING THE ISSUES
AND PLANS TO SEND THE PROPOSED FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER TO EPA BY
5/30/95.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT THIS TIME.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/95 [1]
G3HVK4-09-0203-4500703
*Summary:
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UAPC DIST CA 7/28/94
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
THE FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER FOR THIS SINGLE AUDIT WAS ROUTED FOR
SIGNATURE ON 3/28/95.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION IS EXPECTED SHORTLY.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/95 [5]
N3HVK4-09-0157-4500752 HAWAII, DEPT OF AGRICULTURE HI 8/19/94
*Sumtnary:
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN HADE:
THE INITIAL FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER FOR THIS SINGLE AUDIT WAS
64
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
-------
ASSIGNMENT CONTROL
NUMBER,
TITLE
FINAL REPORT
ISSUED
ASSIGNMENT CONTROL
NUMBER
TITLE
FINAL REPORT
ISSUED
ROUTED FOR SIGNATURE IN JANUARY 1995. HOWEVER, SUBSEQUENT
FINANCIAL ISSUES WERE RAISED WHICH REQUIRE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
FROM THE GRANTEE TO RESOLVE. CONSEQUENTLY, A SECOND FINAL
DETERMINATION LETTER WILL BE PREPARED AFTER REVIEW AND RECEIPT OF
THE ADDITIONAL FINANCIAL INFORMATION.
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION IS EXPECTED BY 6/30/95.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/95 [1]
E2AUP9-09-0065-9400025 HOMELAND EARLY WARNING CA 3/31/89
Summary: SPECIAL REVIEW OF CONSTRUCTION GRANT OF WASTEWATER
TREATMENT PLANT FOUND $3,737,139 IN FEDERAL SHARE COSTS
QUESTIONED. AN EARLY WARNING LETTER ADVISED THAT COSTS FOR THE
COLLECTION SYSTEM PORTION OF THE PROJECT DID NOT QUALIFY FOR
FUNDING BECAUSE OF THE "2/3 RULE".
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: EPA OFFICE OF WATER AGREES WITH THE MAJORITY OF THE
REGION'S TWO-THIRDS RULE INTERPRETATION. THE PROGRAM WILL MEET
WITH THE STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD TO RESOLVE THE
REMAINING COSTS DEEMED INELIGIBLE BY THE OFFICE OF WATER.
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: EPA
EXPECTS TO ISSUE ITS FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER BY 6/30/95.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/95 [5]
Regional Administrator - Region 10
P2CWL9-10-0002-2100669 PIERCE COUNTY UTILITIES DEP WA 9/30/92
Summary: THE GRANTEE CLAIMED TOTAL QUESTIONABLE COSTS OF
$4,496,181 FOR REIMBURSEMENT UNDER EPA'S CONSTRUCTION GRANTS
PROGRAM. COST CLAIMED OF $2,179,647 WERE FOUND TO BE INELIGIBLE
AND CLAIMS FOR $2,316,534 WERE UNNECESSARY AND UNREASONABLE.
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: THE REGION OBTAINED ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION FOR REVIEW OF
GRANT "ELIGIBILITY" AND "LACK OF DOCUMENTATION" ISSUES IN AUDIT
REPORT. THIS INVOLVES REVIEWING 16 GRANTS AND 40 LARGE BOXES OF
DOCUMENTATION OBTAINED FROM VARIOUS SOURCES. THE REGION FOUND
RELEVANT DOCUMENTATION AND HAS COMPLETED ITS REVIEW.
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: FINAL
DETERMINATION LETTER ISSUED ON 3/14/95.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/95 [4]
P2CWN9-10-0107-2300091 FED WAY WATER AND SEW WA 9/30/92
Summary: INELIGIBLE COSTS OF $1,304,725 CONSISTED OF: $67,287
FOR UNALLOWABLE CONSTRUCTION COST; $61,048 RELATED TO INELIGIBLE
CONSTRUCTION PERCENTAGE; $21,243 OF UNAPPROVED ARCHITECT/
ENGINEERING; AND $1,155,147 RELATED TO EXCESS CAPACITY. ALSO
QUESTIONED WERE $2,242,049 AS UNSUPPORTED.
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: THE REGION IS OBTAINING ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FROM AUDITEE
AND STATE TO REVIEW AND RESOLVE ISSUE OF GRANT ELIGIBLE COSTS FOR
A 30 YEAR PLAN VS A 20 YEAR PLAN. ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS ARE TIME
CONSUMING TO GET BECAUSE PROJECT IS 15 YRS. OLD. SENT DRAFT FINAL
DETERMINATION LETTER TO OIG 3/2/95. RECEIVED OIG'S COMMENTS
3/29/95. REGION EXPECTS TO ISSUE REVISED DRAFT FINAL
DETERMINATION LETTER TO OIG BY 5/15/95.
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT THIS TIME.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/95 [2]
P2CUN2-10-0016-3300067 PETERSBURG, CITY OF AK 9/21/93
Summary: INELIGIBLE COSTS OF $215,893 INCLUDE: $8,064 OF
UNALLOWABLE ADMINISTRATIVE; $43,473 OF INELIGIBLE ARCHITECT/
ENGINEERING COSTS; AND $164,356 OF INELIGIBLE CONSTRUCTION COSTS.
COSTS OF $21,877 WERE NOT SUPPORTED BY SOURCE DOCUMENTATION.
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
PETERSBURG IS OLDEST CONSTRUCTION SITE IN REGION. REGION HAS BEEN
INVOLVED IN EXTENSIVE LITIGATION. STATE PROJECT FILES AND MUCH OF
CITY'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION WERE MISPLACED BY ATTORNEYS.
REGION SENT DRAFT FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER TO OIG 5/5/94.
ALTHOUGH THE OIG CODED THE RESPONSE INCOMPLETE, THE REGION
DISAGREES. NEW DOCUMENTATION WAS FOUND. THE REGION EXPECTS TO
ISSUE REVISED DRAFT FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER TO OIG BY 5/1/95.
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT THIS TIME.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/95 [4]
P2CWNO-10-0052-3300069 SEATTLE WA 9/29/93
Summary: INELIGIBLE COSTS OF $162,801 INCLUDE: $6,904 ALLOCABLE
TO INELIGIBLE CONSTRUCTION AND $155,897 COSTS OUTSIDE SCOPE OF
APPROVED PROJECT. COSTS OF $290,076 NOT SUPPORTED BY ADEQUATE
SOURCE DOCUMENTATION.
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
REGION IS OBTAINING ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR INCLUSION IN THE
DRAFT FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER. REGION WILL ISSUE DRAFT FINAL
DETERMINATION LETTER TO OIG BY 06/01/95.
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT THIS TIME.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/95 [2]
P2CWN1-10-0049-3300076 SEASIDE, CITY OF OR 9/30/93
Summary: INELIGIBLE COSTS OF $97,155 INCLUDE: $7,889 OF
UNALLOWABLE FORCE ACCOUNT AND $89,266 OF CONSTRUCTION COSTS RELATED
TO SERVICE LATERALS. COSTS OF $188,202 ARE NOT SUPPORTED BY SOURCE
DOCUMENTATION.
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
REGION HAS BEEN OBTAINING INFORMATION, COMMENTS, AND DOCUMENTATION
FROM THE STATE AND PROGRAM OFFICE. REGION SUBMITTED DRAFT FINAL
DETERMINATION LETTER TO OIG ON 12/16/94. RECEIVED OIG'S COMMENTS
01/23/95. WILL ISSUE REVISED DRAFT FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER TO
OIG BY 06/01/95.
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT THIS TIME.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/95 [2]
P2CWN1-10-0041-3300077 METROPOLITAN WASTEWTR. MGT. CA 9/30/93
Summary: INELIGIBLE COSTS OF $2,511,772 INCLUDE: $26,970 OF MISC
COSTS; $107,481 OF INSURANCE PREMIUMS; $181,830 ALLOCABLE TO
INELIGIBLE PERCENT; $2,195,491 OUTSIDE SCOPE OF PROJECT.
ADDITIONALLY, WE QUESTIONED $6,657,189 WHICH WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY
ADEQUATE SOURCE DOCUMENTS.
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
THIS PROJECT HAS VERY COMPLEX ISSUES, E.G., SEGMENTATION OF GRANTS.
REGION IS SEEKING ADDITIONAL COMMENTS AND DOCUMENTATION FROM STATE,
REGION'S PROGRAM AND FROM GRANTEE. REGION WILL ISSUE A DRAFT FINAL
DETERMINATION LETTER TO OIG BY 07/01/95.
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT THIS TIME.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/95 [1]
E3NLB3-10-0151-4100563 LUST-IDAHO ID 9/28/94
*Summary: COSTS IN THE AMOUNT OF $711,906 WERE QUESTIONED AS
UNSUPPORTED BECAUSE IDAHO DID NOT HAVE ADEQUATE DOCUMENTATION TO
SUPPORT THAT THE COSTS WERE ALLOCABLE TO THE LUST PROGRAM. ALSO
IDAHO NEEDED TO IMPROVE SITE OVERSIGHT, COST RECOVERY, AND
REPORTING PROCEDURES.
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
ISSUED DRAFT FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER TO OIG ON 1/13/95. ON-SITE
INVESTIGATION TO BE CONCLUDED MAY 1995. REGION EXPECTS TO ISSUE
DRAFT FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER TO OIG 06/01/95.
OCTOBER 1, 1994 THROUGH MARCH 31, 1995
65
-------
ASSIGNMENT CONTROL
NUMBER
TITLE
FINAL REPORT
ISSUED
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT THIS TIME.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/95 [1]
P2CWN2-10-0068-4300013 WASILLA, CITY OF AK 12/15/93
Summary: INELIGIBLE COSTS OF $306,738 INCLUDED $182,188 OF
COSTS ALLOCABLE TO INELIGIBLE PORTION OF CONSTRUCTION; $122,647
OF UNALLOWABLE ARCHITECT/ ENGINEERING COSTS; AND $1,730 OF COSTS
CLAIMED TWICE. COSTS OF $97,346 WERE NOT SUPPORTED BY SOURCE
DOCUMENTATION.
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: REGION, STATE, AND CITY GATHERING ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
AND DOCUMENTATION TO BE USED. ISSUED DRAFT FINAL DETERMINATION
LETTER TO DIG ON 2/3/95. DIG RESPONDED 2/22/95. REGION TO
RESPOND TO OIG COMMENTS BY 6/01/95.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT THIS TIME.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/95 [2]
P2CWN3-10-0034-4300039 NORTH BEND, CITY OF OR 6/27/94
Summary: INELIGIBLE COSTS OF $56,470 INCLUDE: $3,197 OF
UNREFUNDED P&S DEPOSITS; $9,000 OF UNALLOWABLE CONSTRUCTION;
$15,440 OF OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE RELATED COSTS; $28,833
COST ALLOCABLE TO INELIGIBLE PERCENTAGE. $88,853 OF UNSUPPORTED
ENGINEERING AND ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS WERE ALSO QUESTIONED.
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: REGION EXPECTS TO ISSUE DRAFT FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER
TO OIG BY 6/1/95.
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT THIS TIME.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/95 [1]
P2CWN3-10-0141-4300053 MUNICIPALITY OF ANCHORAGE AK 9/29/94
Summary: INELIGIBLE COSTS OF $2,649,916 INCLUDE: $41,555
ALLOCABLE TO THE INELIGIBLE PERCENTAGE; $126,115 OF UNALLOWABLE
CONSTRUCTION COSTS; AND $2,482,246 OF COSTS ALLOCABLE TO FEDERAL
FACILITIES. COSTS OF $15,602 WERE NOT SUPPORTED BY ADEQUATE
SOURCE DOCUMENTATION. *
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: REGION SENT DRAFT FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER TO OIG ON
2/24/95. OIG RESPONDED 3/9/95. PROGRAM WILL RESPOND TO OIG
COMMENTS BY JUNE 1, 1995.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT THIS TIME.
ASSIGNMENT CONTROL
NUMBER
TITLE
FINAL REPORT
ISSUED
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/95 [1]
G3HVK3-10-0167-4500605 NESKOWIN REG SANITARY AUTH
*Summary:
OR 6/22/94
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: EXPECTS
RESOLUTION BY MAY 1, 1995.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/95 [6]
TOTAL AUDITS ISSUED BEFORE REPORTING PERIOD FOR WHICH NO MANAGEMENT
DECISION WAS MADE DURING THE REPORTING PERIOD: 119
* Agency procedures do not require the IG's approval on Agency's
Management Decision on an audit (other than a preaward or an
internal and management audit) with the Federal share of questioned
costs of less than $100,000. Therefore, we have not provided a
summary of the audit.
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: REGION EXPECTS TO ISSUE DRAFT FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER
TO OIG BY 5/1/95.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT THIS TIME.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 3/31/95 [1]
E3BG*6-10-0066-8100761 MOSES LAKE IRR & REHAB DIST WA 8/31/88
Summary: INTERIM AUDIT OF DEMONSTRATION GRANT TO RESTORE MOSES
LAKE AND TO CONTROL NON-POINT POLLUTION SOURCES FOUND TOTAL COSTS
QUESTIONED OF $2,439,103 (F.S. $1,205,039). GRANTEE USED STANDARD
METHODOLOGY INSTEAD OF DEVELOPING NEW INNOVATIVE TECHNIQUES.
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: EPA'S AUDIT RESOLUTION BOARD (ARB) HAS HEARD THE ISSUES
IN THE AUDIT AND IS PREPARING ITS DECISION FOR THE AGENCY.
66
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
-------
PIG MAILING ADDRESSES and TELEPHONE NUMBERS
PIG HOTLINE (800) 424-4000 or (202) 260-4977
Headquarters
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
401 M Street, S.W. (2441)
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-3137
Atlanta
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
1475 Peachtree Street, NE
Suite 1100
Atlanta, GA 30309-3003
Audit: (404) 347-3623
Investigations' (404) 347-2398
Boston
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
JFK Federal Building (OIG)
(office at 1 Congress St)
Boston, MA 02203
Audit: (617) 565-3160
lnvestigations:(617) 565-3928
Chicago
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
77 West Jackson Boulevard
13th Floor (IA-13J)
Chicago, IL 60604
Audit: (312) 353-2486
Investigations: (312) 353-2507
Cincinnati
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
4411 Montgomery (MS Norwood)
Cincinnati, OH 45268-7001
Audit: (513) 366-4360
Investigations: (312) 353-2507 (Chicago)
Dallas
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General (60IG)
1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
Audit: (214) 655-6621
Investigations: (404) 347-2398 (Atlanta)
Denver
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
999 18th Street, Suite 500
Denver, CO 80202-2405
Audit: (303) 294-7520
Investigations: (312) 353-2507 (Chicago)
Kansas City
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
726 Minnesota Avenue
(office at 630 Minnesota Ave)
Kansas City, KS 66101
Audit: (913) 551-7878
Investigations: (312) 353-2507 (Chicago)
New York
Office of Inspector General
290 Broadway, Room 1520
New York, NY 10007-1866
Audit: (212) 637-3071
Investigations: (212) 637-3041
Philadelphia
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
841 Chestnut Street, 13th Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Audit. (215) 597-0497
Investigations: (215) 597-9421
Research Triangle Park, NC
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
Catawba Building
Highway 54, Mail Drop 53
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Audit: (919) 541-2204
Investigations: (919) 541-1027
Sacramento
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
650 Capitol Mall, Suite 6309
Sacramento, CA 95814
Audit. (916) 551-1076
Investigations: (415) 744-2465 (SF)
San Francisco
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
75 Hawthorne St (1-1)
19th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
Audit: (415) 744-2445
Investigations: (415) 744-2465
Seattle
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
1111 3rd Avenue, Suite 1460
Seattle, WA98101
Audit: (206) 553-4403
Investigations: (415) 744-2465 (SF)
tit
OCTOBER 1, 1994 THROUGH MARCH 31, 1995
67
-------
MAKE A WORLD
OF DIFFERENCE!
REPORT FRAUD, WASTE, OR ABUSE TO THE
INSPECTOR GENERAL
HOTLINE
• INFORMATION IS CONFIDENTIAL
800-424-4000 or 202-260-4977
------- |