,V16D Sr/|,
I
5
                  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                  Office of Inspector General

                  At  a   Glance
                                                          08-1-0277
                                                   September 25, 2008
                                                              Catalyst for Improving the Environment
Why We Did This Review

We conducted this
examination to determine
whether the reported incurred
costs for eight U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency
(EPA) cooperative agreements
were reasonable, allocable,
and allowable in accordance
with the terms and conditions
of the agreements and
applicable regulations.
Background
EPA awarded eight
cooperative agreements to the
recipient to administer the
Senior Environmental
Employment (SEE) Program.
The SEE program provides
senior individuals to EPA to
help it carry out its activities
and programs.

For further information,
contact our Office of
Congressional and Public
Liaison at (202) 566-2391.

To view the full report,
click on the following link:
www.epa.qov/oiq/reports/2008/
20080925-08-1-0277.pdf
National Caucus and Center on Black Aged,
Inc.,  Incurred Cost Audit of Eight EPA
Cooperative Agreements
 What We Found
In our opinion, the outlays reported in the recipient's Quarterly Financial Status
Reports as of September 30, 2007, present fairly, in all material respects, the
allowable outlays incurred in accordance with the terms and conditions of the
agreements and applicable laws and regulations.  We found, however, that the
recipient did not clearly disclose its allocation methods in its indirect cost
proposals. The recipient also charged employee leave costs to grants
disproportionately to the amount of time employees spent on each assistance
agreement.
 What We Recommend
We recommend that EPA's Grants and Interagency Agreements Management
Division require the recipient to:

•   Revise its cost policy statement to clearly disclose the basis for allocation of
    costs, the costs being allocated, the intermediate cost pools used, and whether
    the costs are allocated individually or as a pool;

•   have the revised proposals submitted to its cognizant Federal agency; and

•   use a more equitable method for allocating employee paid absences to
    agreements.

In responding to the draft report, the recipient stated that it is working with its
cognizant agency to revise its indirect cost proposals, and agreed to revise its
policy for allocating employee paid absences to agreements. The corrective
actions, when implemented, will address the findings and recommendations.

-------