,s^
I
^
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
At a Glance
09-P-0233
September 15, 2009
Catalyst for Improving the Environment
Why We Did This Review
We initiated this audit based
on a hotline complaint related
to Homeland Security
Presidential Directive
(HSPD)-12 and the fact that
the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) had
nearly $1 million in such
property. Our objective was
to determine whether property
purchased to support
HSPD-12 was accounted for
in accordance with EPA
policies and procedures.
Background
HSPD-12, Policy for a
Common Identification
Standard for Federal
Employees and Contractors,
established a mandatory,
government-wide standard for
I secure and reliable forms of
identification issued by the
Federal Government to its
employees and contractors.
HSPD-12 requirements
included identity proofing,
registration, card issuance, and
card management.
For further information,
contact our Office of
Congressional, Public Affairs
and Management at
(202)566-2391.
To view the full report,
click on the following link:
www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2009/
20090915-09-P-0233.pdf
EPA Did Not Properly Account for All Property for
Implementing Homeland Security Presidential Directive-12
What We Found
EPA generally recorded HSPD-12 property accurately in EPA's Fixed Assets
Subsystem (FAS). However, we noted the following discrepancies:
• four pieces of property valued at $29,538 were missing and not recorded
in FAS,
• acquisition costs in FAS were incorrect for some equipment, and
• nonfinancial information for several pieces of property was not accurately
recorded.
To meet an Office of Management and Budget deadline, EPA shipped property to
other EPA locations before the property was recorded in FAS. Effective personal
property management requires integration of property and financial management
records. Incorrect information in FAS could have an adverse effect on the
Agency's financial statements.
The contract for implementing HSPD-12 did not include clauses to address
property management responsibilities. Tasks under the contract statement of work
required the contractor to account for the property as if it were government-
furnished property, but because the property was used in government facilities,
EPA did not consider the property to be government-furnished property.
Consequently, the contract did not properly reflect the status of the property.
As a result of the deficiencies noted, there is an increased risk of loss of
government property and inaccurate reporting.
What We Recommend
We recommend that EPA use established procedures to resolve accountability for
the missing property, and review accuracy of HSPD-12 property information in
FAS and update any discrepancies. We also recommend that EPA modify the
HSPD-12 contract to reflect contractor requirements and accountability for using
government property in government facilities.
The Agency concurred with the report recommendations and provided corrective
action plans. EPA established a December 2009 milestone for resolving missing
HSPD-12 property and updating FAS with accurate records. The Agency also
modified the contract on July 22, 2009, to reflect contractor requirements and
accountability for the HSPD-12 property.
------- |