EPA-350-R-07-002
May 2007
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Semiannual Report to Congress
""
October 1. 2006 - March 31, 2007
-------
EPA Inspector General
The Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, requires the Inspector General to
(1) conduct and supervise audits and investigations relating to programs and operations of
the Agency; (2) provide leadership and coordination, and make recommendations designed
to (a) promote economy, efficiency, and effectiveness; and (b) prevent and detect fraud
and abuse in Agency programs and operations; and (3) fully inform the Administrator and
the Congress about problems and deficiencies identified by the Office of Inspector
General relating to Agency programs and operations.
We are catalysts for improving the quality of the environment and Government through
problem prevention and identification, and cooperative solutions.
Add value by promoting economy, efficiency, and effectiveness within EPA and the
delivery of environmental programs. Inspire public confidence by preventing and
detecting fraud, waste, and abuse in Agency operations and protecting the integrity of
EPA programs.
To find out more about the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's
Office of Inspector General and its activities, visit our Website at
http://www.epa.gov/oig
Cover photos: From top: Vehicles on a highway causing air pollution; an interim status carbon regeneration
facility; and the Libby, Montana, mine site (EPAphotos).
. Printed on 100% recycled paper (minimum 50% postconsumer)
-------
Message to Congress
During this semiannual period, in testimony before the House Energy and Commerce
Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials, I discussed the Office of
Inspector General's (OIG's) recommendations on how the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) can better leverage its limited resources. As the available funding for
discretionary programs declines, it will be even more critical to find ways to better
manage and utilize resources. I pointed out during my testimony that during Fiscal Year
2006 my office questioned $87 million in costs; identified nearly $692 million in cost
efficiencies; and recorded almost $31 million from fines, restitutions, and settlements.
This represents a potential return on investment of over $16 for every dollar invested in
the OIG.
I have undertaken a number of initiatives during the semiannual period to make the OIG
more efficient and effective. These initiatives have involved competing commercial
work, closing sites that do not have an EPA presence, reducing overhead, and co-locating
more supervisors with their immediate staffs. We are concluding our first ever EPA-
wide business risk assessment, focused on the high level internal control framework and
past audit coverage of EPA, to help guide our future direction in audits, evaluations, and
investigations. More details on these initiatives, as well as recent OIG budget history,
follow.
I am proud to note that the EPA OIG received an unmodified opinion in a recently
completed peer review covering Fiscal Year 2005. This means that the OIG's system of
internal control for the audit and evaluation function in effect for that year was designed
to meet Federal quality control standards.
Throughout the year, the OIG receives numerous requests to conduct audits, evaluations,
and reviews. During this semiannual period we published several reports that were the
result of specific requests from Congress and EPA officials.
In response to a congressional request, we looked at the various efforts EPA has been
undertaking to clean up the Chesapeake Bay watershed. We found that EPA must
improve its coordination with its Chesapeake Bay partners and the agricultural
community - particularly the U.S. Department of Agriculture - to better reduce nutrients
and sediment entering the watershed. As specifically requested, we also looked at the
impact of air pollution control activities on the watershed. We found that EPA is relying
on existing Clean Air Act regulations to reduce nitrogen depositing from the air into the
watershed.
Our most recent review of asbestos contamination in Libby, Montana, based on another
congressional request, found that EPA has not completed a toxicity assessment of
asbestos in the community. Therefore, EPA cannot be sure that human exposure is at
acceptable levels. As a result of our review, EPA agreed to fund and execute a toxicity
assessment.
-------
We also reviewed grant funding provided to the National Rural Water Association based
on a congressional request and found that the association's method of allocating indirect
costs was contrary to regulations and may have resulted in an over-allocation of more
than $2 million to EPA grants. In other reviews, we questioned $25 million in grants
awarded to America's Clean Water Foundation, as well as $ 1 million awarded to the
International City/County Management Association. Also, we noted that EPA policies
and procedures allowing States to use bonds repaid from the State Revolving Fund to
meet State Revolving Fund match requirements are resulting in fewer dollars being
available for water projects; the Office of Management and Budget agreed with our
position that EPA should no longer allow this practice.
We continued our work in reviewing EPA voluntary programs and examined EPA's
National Environmental Performance Track program to see how it achieves EPA's goals.
Performance Track is a public-private partnership that encourages members to improve
the environment through using environmental management systems, local public outreach,
and public reporting for results. We found that the program did not have clear plans that
connected activities with its goals, and did not have performance measures that show if it
achieved anticipated results.
This semiannual report includes details on these and other issues, including a number of
investigations that resulted in payments to the Federal Government and criminal, civil, or
administrative actions. We will continue to work with the Agency and Congress, serving
as a catalyst for improving the environment.
Bill A. Roderick
Acting Inspector General
-------
Table of Contents
A Catalyst for ResuIts 1
Various Actions Taken as a Result of OIG Work 1
Management Initiatives 2
OIG Taking Needed Budget Actions 3
Significant OIG Activity 5
Air 5
Water 7
Land 8
Cross-Media 10
Grants 12
Contracts 16
Financial Management 18
Information Technology 20
Public Liaison 22
Investigations 24
Congressional Requests 28
Testimony 29
Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board 30
Other Activities 32
Statistical Data 38
Profile of Activities and Results 38
Audit Report Resolution 39
Summary of Investigative Results 42
Scoreboard of Results 43
Appendices 44
1 - Reports Issued 44
2 - Reports Issued Without Management Decisions 48
-------
-------
A Catalyst for Results
Various Actions Taken as a Result of OIG Work
During this reporting period, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) agreed to
take various actions as a result of Office of Inspector General (OIG) work. The
following actions related to the OIG's two external goals.
To contribute to improved human health and environmental quality...
• EPA agreed to execute a new Memorandum of Agreement with the U.S.
Department of Agriculture that specifically identifies tasks and timeframes for
meeting shared goals in the cleanup of the Chesapeake Bay watershed.
• EPA agreed to require regions to obtain and evaluate all required reports related
to vehicle inspection and maintenance programs to ensure that programs are
operating effectively, and to provide more technical assistance and guidance to
States.
• EPA agreed to connect National Environmental Performance Track activities
with goals, and measure and report on performance related to activities and
goals.
• EPA agreed to fund and execute a toxicity assessment of asbestos in Libby,
Montana, so it can be sure human exposure is at acceptable levels.
• EPA agreed to review State National Permitting Goal projections for hazardous
waste facility interim status permits to identify opportunities for prioritizing
facilities based on risk.
To improve EPA's management, accountability, and program operations...
• EPA agreed to deobligate approximately $9.5 million of Superfund cooperative
agreement funds, thus making them available for other purposes.
• EPA agreed to strengthen its procedures for using interagency contracts by
enhancing guidance, procedures, and training.
• EPA agreed it must assess whether to continue the current practice of allowing
States to meet matching requirements by using monies in the State Revolving
Funds. We estimate this practice has reduced the amount of money available for
loans by $937 million. The Office of Management and Budget agreed with our
position that EPA should no longer allow this practice.
• EPA will resolve questioned costs of $25,372,590 from America's Clean Water
Foundation and $ 1,007,858 from the International City/County Management
Association.
• EPA agreed to update guidance for identifying contractor information technology
systems and establish formal procedures for updating contract clauses.
We provide details on these and other issues throughout this semiannual report.
-------
Management Initiatives
During Fiscal Year (FY) 2006, the Acting Inspector General initiated a general
restructuring effort to compete commercial work, close sites without an EPA presence,
reduce overhead, and begin to shift the organization to implement the management
approach of assigning on-site staff to on-site supervisors where possible without undue
hardship on employees.
The first restructure element, a competition action for the financial statement audit of
EPA, is on track to be completed in FY 2007. Most other Cabinet-level departments
contract out the financial statement audits, and the Acting Inspector General initiated a
competitive sourcing study to determine which method would be least expensive. This
effort was actually begun in late FY 2006, but put into abeyance because of funding
uncertainty from November 2006 to February 2007. The funding uncertainty is resolved
and the study is ongoing. If contractors win the competition, no OIG employees will be
affected because the OIG has reduced its end strength enough, largely through attrition,
to accommodate the cost of the financial audit. After the competition, the number of
auditor and evaluator staff working on performance audits or program evaluations should
result in about the same as before the competition. This will be accomplished by
converting the current financial audit staff to performance audit or hiring new staff.
Second, in late FY 2006, the Acting Inspector General closed the Sacramento and Los
Angeles field sites and shifted the staff to the San Francisco office. Two of the staff
elected to separate from the OIG. The Acting Inspector General also elected to move
eight support staff into direct audit and evaluation work, and shifted one audit group to the
Office of Congressional and Public Liaison. This action put a higher percentage of the
OIG staff into production work and added to the quick-reaction capability of the OIG.
The Acting Inspector General also transferred a senior supervisory auditor to the Office
of Investigations to develop and produce audit reports for management issues that come
to the surface during investigations.
To assist in this restructuring, the Acting Inspector General began an effort in early FY
2006 to obtain Voluntary Separation Incentive Payment/Voluntary Early Retirement
Authority (VSIP/VERA) buyout authority. The VSIP/VERA authority was approved in
January 2007 and 10 employees voluntarily left the OIG. These additional vacancies
provide the opportunity for moving five former support staff billets into production. The
Acting Inspector General continues to study the support and management overhead of
the OIG in an effort to find more opportunities to put more Full-Time Equivalents (FTE)
into direct production.
Last on restructuring, the Acting Inspector General will soon be initiating some
reassignments of staff to experiment with the potential improvement in productivity that
could come from assigning staff at a particular site to a supervisor at the same site.
Currently, a typical team would be a supervisor based in Denver with a team member in
Philadelphia and another team member in Atlanta. If this experiment proves the
effectiveness of the concept, the long-term goal will be to gradually adopt this
organizational approach for the existing field sites.
-------
Finally, the OIG is now completing an Agency-wide business risk assessment. This
effort, called a macro-risk assessment, was undertaken to evaluate the high level internal
control framework and past audit coverage of the EPA to determine if the OIG should
refocus on different and more important areas than the current emphasis would allow.
Our initial impressions are that some other functional areas of the Agency need a greater
share of audit and evaluation effort, and a greater emphasis on auditing and investigating
for financial fraud may be timely. These findings, as well as others, will be used to
develop the FY 2008 work plan.
OIG Taking Needed Budget Actions
The FY 2008 President's Budget requests $45.2 million for the OIG. This represents a
reduction of $5.3 million from the FY 2007 Enacted Budget. The OIG's current onboard
staff level as of May 4, 2007, is 302. The Acting Inspector General believes this level
brings the OIG into line with the size of other OIGs of similarly sized departments.
Congress has not made any decisions on the FY 2008 President's Budget, so the OIG
must await the outcome.
The OIG is planning to generate significant FY 2007 carryover funds to help with FY
2008 expenses. The Acting Inspector General has reinitiated the competitive sourcing
study of the EPA financial statement audit, and a portion of these carryover funds will be
used for that purpose should it become necessary to contract out the work as a result of
the study. It is important to note that the OIG carefully manages carryover funds and has
consistently achieved a 99-percent obligation rate. The OIG is prepared to implement
whatever FY 2008 budget is enacted by Congress without undue hardship on employees.
Below is an historical summary of OIG funding and personnel levels since FY 2000:
Historical Budget and Manpower Summary
Enacted Budget
(after rescissions
Year where applicable)
2000 $43,379,700
2001 $45,493,700
2002 $45,886,000
2003 $48,425,200
2004 $50,422,800
2005 $50,542,400
2006 $50,241,000
2007 $50,459,000
* projected through 9/30/07
On-Board FTEs
(as of
October 1)
340
351
354
348
363
365
350
326
Expenditures
(includes
carryover)
$39,384,100 7335.6
$41,050,807 7354.9
$45,238,608 7351.5
$46,023,048 7 347.2
$52,212,862 7360.4
$61,733,781 7358.2
$49,583,584 7337.1
$47,914,000 7311.8*
Carryover to
Next Year
$7,592,558
$11,767,797
$12,163,850
$14,200,799
$12,044,248
$935,460
$3,254,250
$5,697,000*
Historically, the OIG has experienced significant delays in filling vacant positions. When
the OIG received its first 2-year appropriation for FY 1998, carryover amounts occurred
at the end of that fiscal year and continued thereafter due to unused Personnel
Compensation and Benefits funds. In May 2004, the Deputy Inspector General
instructed Assistant Inspectors General to make hiring a top priority in an effort to
-------
accomplish more audits, investigations, and evaluations, and decrease the amount of
carryover funds by the end of FY 2005.
Carryover was reduced by September 30, 2005 when OIG expenditures reached a
record level of nearly $62 million for the fiscal year. However, it became apparent in
early FY 2006 that the OIG could face major budget reductions in FY 2007 and beyond
(proposed $1.8 million reduction from the FY 2006 Enacted Budget for FY 2007).
Therefore, OIG senior management decided to plan for the anticipated funding reductions
by placing a freeze on hiring (there were some exceptions for critical positions) and
reducing other expenses where possible. The Acting Inspector General also intended to
utilize the hiring freeze to provide attrition to free up funds for contracting out the
financial statement audit of EPA, should that have become necessary after a competitive
sourcing study. The lack of hiring resulted in lower spending in areas beyond salaries,
including travel and training. Consequently, OIG spending substantially decreased in FY
2006 to $49.6 million and the FTE utilization rate dropped more than 20 FTE. However,
in February 2007, the continuing resolution passed by Congress provided an increase of
approximately $1.9 million over the previous short-term continuing resolutions passed
earlier in the fiscal year.
As noted earlier, during FY 2006, the Acting Inspector General initiated a competitive
sourcing study for the financial statement audit of EPA. In early FY 2007, funding
uncertainty resulted in the study being put into abeyance. The resources that had been
set aside for the competition and carried over into FY 2007 are being used for other
priority needs and have factored into the projected carryover from FY 2007 to FY 2008.
-------
Significant OIG Activity
Helping to make air safe and healthy to breathe.
EPA Needs to Improve Oversight of Vehicle Inspection and
Maintenance Programs
Review of vehicle inspection and maintenance programs disclosed that while substantial
emissions reductions have been achieved, EPA has not ensured that States have met
their program commitments.
About 237 million cars and other vehicles were registered in the United States in 2004.
Emissions from onroad mobile sources account for a significant amount of three key
pollutants in our Nation's air (51 percent of carbon monoxide, 34 percent of nitrogen
oxides, and 29 percent of hydrocarbons). The
percentages are even higher in major urban areas.
Congress's strategy to deal with emissions from
mobile sources includes a vehicle inspection and
maintenance program. Properly implemented,
inspection and maintenance programs ensure that
poorly performing vehicles are identified and timely
repaired. These programs are a key component of
pollution control strategies for major urban areas.
A detailed review of EPA Region 3 disclosed that
four of the region's five programs reported from
12 to 22 percent of vehicles that failed an inspection
had no known final outcome. We noted it could
take more than a year for a failed vehicle to be
resolved, if ever. The fifth program did not report
this measure to EPA and, since September 2005, had been using a less stringent testing
program than required.
Our nationwide survey of all 10 EPA regions, as well as our work in Region 3,
indicated EPA has not been obtaining sufficient information to ensure that States are
meeting their inspection and maintenance program commitments. Of the 34 programs
nationwide, 14 had either never submitted required reports or the regions were unsure
the reports were submitted over the 5-year period reviewed, 4 had not submitted
reports timely, and 5 had mixed results. Also, EPA regions only audited/evaluated 9 of
the 34 programs, and EPA had reduced resources for overseeing and assisting these
programs.
Vehicle air emissions cause significant air
pollution (EPA photo).
We made recommendations to EPA to, among other things, require that regions obtain
and evaluate all required reports to ensure that programs are operating effectively, and
-------
provide more technical assistance and guidance to States. EPA generally agreed with
our recommendations and is taking corrective actions.
(Report No. 2007-P-00001, EPA's Oversight of the Vehicle Inspection and
Maintenance Program Needs Improvement, October 5, 2006 - Report Cost:
$962,231)
EPA Relying on Existing Regulations to Reduce Atmospheric
Deposition to Chesapeake Bay
In response to a request from U.S. Senator Barbara A. Mikulski of Maryland to look into
EPA efforts to clean up the Bay, we looked at the impact of air pollution control activities.
EPA estimates that nitrogen depositing back to the earth from the atmosphere accounts
for approximately 32 percent of the manmade nitrogen load to the Bay and is a significant
contributor to continuing water quality problems.
EPA estimates that Clean Air Act regulations already issued will reduce nitrogen that falls
directly into the Bay, as well as nitrogen deposited to the Bay watershed, by 19.6 million
pounds annually by 2010. State efforts to meet National Ambient Air Quality Standards
for ozone and fine particulate matter should result in additional reductions. Accordingly,
EPA and State strategies do not include additional air reduction activities specifically
designed to clean up the Bay.
Whether these nitrogen reduction strategies will be successful remains to be seen.
However, EPA acknowledges that its overall goal of cleaning up the Bay by 2010 will not
be met. EPA plans to meet with its Chesapeake Bay Program partners in 2007 to re-visit
the strategy for cleaning up the Bay.
If additional reductions in air emissions are needed to clean up the Bay, one potentially
significant source of deposition not currently controlled is ammonia emissions from animal
feeding operations. We recommended that EPA instruct the Chesapeake Bay Program
Office to use the results of animal feeding operations emissions monitoring studies to
determine what actions and strategies are warranted to address nitrogen deposition to the
Bay from such operations. EPA concurred with our recommendation.
(Report No. 2007-P-00009, EPA Relying on Existing Clean Air Act Regulations to
Reduce Atmospheric Deposition to the Chesapeake Bay and its Watershed,
February 28, 2007 - Report Cost: $360,529)
-------
Better Environmental/Agricultural Coordination Needed to Save
Chesapeake Bay Watershed
Despite significant efforts, excess nutrients and sediment continue to impair the Bay's
water quality. At the current rate of progress, the watershed will remain impaired for
decades, despite a goal to clean up the Bay by 2010. Improving water quality conditions
in the Bay is necessary to support living resources throughout the ecosystem, which in
turn supports commercial and recreational uses such as fishing/shellfishing.
We looked at the impact of the agricultural community on the Bay watershed as a result
of a request from U.S. Senator Barbara A. Mikulski of Maryland. To adequately
consider agricultural issues, we conducted our review through a partnership with the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA).
Few of the agricultural best management practices in tributary strategies have been
implemented because the agricultural community considers many of these practices as
either unprofitable or requiring significant changes in farming techniques. States have
provided substantial funding but acknowledged additional funding is needed. At the
Federal level, applications for USDA's technical and financial assistance went unfunded.
Members of the agricultural community have been reluctant to participate with EPA
because of EPA's regulatory enforcement role, and USDA could significantly assist EPA
with this community. However, USDA has not coordinated a Department-wide strategy
or policy to address its commitment as a Chesapeake Bay partner.
We recommended that EPA execute a new Memorandum of Agreement with USDA that
specifically identifies tasks and timeframes for meeting shared goals in the cleanup of the
Bay. Further, the two agencies should agree to a method to track progress, and should
revisit State tributary strategies. EPA and USDA generally concurred.
(Report No. 2007-P-00004, Saving the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Requires Better
Coordination of Environmental and Agricultural Resources, November 20, 2006 -
Report Cost: $419,374)
-------
Land
Improving waste management and cleanup - includes Superfund.
Interim Status Permitting for Hazardous Waste Facilities Needs
Improvement
Some hazardous waste facility units have had a temporary "interim status" designation for
as many as 25 years without formal issuance or denial of a permit or other regulatory
controls.
Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, when new hazardous waste
statutes or regulations are implemented, units that already exist may continue operating in
interim status by notifying EPA. They may remain in interim status until issuance or
denial of a permit.
EPA includes interim status in its National Permitting
Goals under the Government Performance and Results
Act. As of 2005, EPA had attained the "controls in place"
designation for 89 percent of the applicable hazardous
waste facilities. However, EPA's continued progress may
be compromised because of inadequate baseline
documentation, prioritizing, monitoring new units, and data
system controls.
To better ensure progress, we recommended that EPA
implement a process to document changes to the
Government Performance and Results Act National
Permitting Goal baseline. We further recommended
reviewing State National Permitting Goal projections for
2008 and 2011 to identify opportunities for prioritizing
facilities based on risk, including time in interim status. We also made recommendations
related to data quality. EPA generally concurred with our recommendations.
(Report No. 2007-P-00005, EPA's Management of Interim Status Permitting Needs
Improvement to Ensure Continued Progress, December 4, 2006 - Report Cost:
$480,000)
Five-Year Review Process for Superfund Remedies Improved,
But Further Steps Needed
Since our last review in 1999, EPA has taken actions to improve the five-year review
process for Superfund sites. However, additional steps are needed to support and
communicate conclusions, improve review timeliness, and provide fuller assurance that
cleanup actions protect human health and the environment.
EPA's Superfund five-year review process examines the remedies at hundreds of
Superfund sites where hazardous substances remain at levels that potentially pose an
An interim status carbon regeneration
facility (EPA photo).
-------
unacceptable risk. The purpose is to determine whether remedies protect human health
and the environment.
Since our last review, EPA has issued the Comprehensive Five-Year Review Guidance,
provided training, and reduced the review backlog. Nonetheless, while our examination
of 39 five-year review reports issued between Fiscal Years 2002 and 2004 did not
determine whether remedies were successful at protecting human health and the
environment, we found that:
• 21 percent did not fully support conclusions on protectiveness
• 21 percent did not provide protectiveness conclusions that were complete
• 21 percent did not have sufficient information to implement recommendations
• 23 percent did not meet public notification requirements
We recommended that EPA expand the scope of quality assurance reviews of five-year
review reports, and revise guidance to more clearly define short- and long-term
protectiveness determinations. We also recommended evaluating region workloads, and
using data in a new information system module to measure review effectiveness and
impacts. EPA generally concurred with our recommendations.
(Report No. 2007-P-00006, EPA Has Improved Five-Year Review Process for
Superfund Remedies, But Further Steps Needed, December 5, 2006 - Report Cost:
$530,299)
-------
EPA Could Improve Designing and Managing the Performance Track
Program
Performance Track is a public-private partnership that encourages members to improve
the environment through using environmental management systems, local public outreach,
and public reporting for results. EPA designed Performance Track to recognize and
encourage members that demonstrate strong environmental performance beyond current
requirements.
We examined EPA's National Environmental Performance Track program to see how it
achieves EPA's goals. We found that the program did not have clear plans that
connected activities with its goals, and did not have performance measures that show if it
achieves anticipated results. In our sample of Performance Track members we found
that most members do not achieve all of their environmental commitments. However,
they achieved environmental improvements averaging 16 percent over their baselines
over 3 years. Our analysis also showed that most members demonstrate "top
performance," beyond the average for their peers, for two environmental indicators:
compliance and toxic releases. However, some facilities had more compliance problems
or released more pounds of toxic substances than the average for their peers.
We recommended that EPA connect activities with goals, and that the program measure
and report on performance related to activities and goals. EPA should maintain
centralized databases so that it can readily demonstrate that members meet program
criteria. Also, EPA should encourage members to set and achieve commitments so that
the public has a clear idea of what results members actually produce.
(Report No. 2007-P-00013, Performance Track Could Improve Program Design
and Management to Ensure Value, March 29, 2007 - Report Cost: $228,572)
Partnership Programs Provide Benefits
Over the last few years, EPA has worked to develop new types of environmental
solutions. Now the Agency relies more heavily on partnership programs (formerly called
"voluntary programs") to help protect the environment. These diverse programs provide
a variety of benefits to several different customer groups, including some
nongovernmental organizations and the public.
10
-------
Some partnership programs build on EPA's traditional regulatory efforts, but are not
intended as substitutes for regulations. Other programs work to address environmental
concerns not governed by Federal regulations, such as recycling and climate change. All
54 headquarters partnership program managers interviewed said their programs
contributed to at least one EPA strategic goal; 38 reported that their programs contributed
to more than one goal.
EPA spends more than $350 million per year on partnership programs, but continues to
have difficulty defining, identifying, and characterizing these programs. We will need to
further evaluate whether EPA has sufficient oversight procedures in place to assure the
effective management and implementation of this overall effort.
(Report No. 2007-P-00003, Partnership Programs May Expand EPA's Influence,
November 14, 2006 - Report Cost: $293,349)
Partnership Program Distribution
Office of Air and Radiation 23
Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances 12
Office of Water 8
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response 6
Office of the Administrator 3
Office of Acquisition and Resources Management 1
Office of Research and Development 1
Source: EPA Program Offices
11
-------
Use of Bonds to Meet State Revolving Fund Match Requirements
Reduces Funds Available
Congress created the Clean Water and Drinking Water SRFs to provide States with a
continuous source of funding for needed water projects. The laws require States to
contribute to the SRF from State monies a match of 20 percent of a Federal capitalization
grant.
We found that 20 States have used the Clean Water SRF to repay bonds issued to meet
SRF-required matches, and 16 of those States also did so for the Drinking Water SRF.
EPA has already noted that significant funding gaps exist between the SRF funds needed
and those available, and we found that this practice increases the gap. We estimated that
this practice has resulted in $937 million less being available for loans since the inception
of the SRF programs.
Also, four States used short-term bonds for their State match and then retired those bonds
from SRF funds within a week of issuing them. As a result, essentially no additional funds
were made available for water projects.
We recommended that EPA revise its regulations and policy on State match options to no
longer allow States to use bonds repaid from the SRF to meet State match requirements.
EPA responded that while it supports the State match policy decisions that were made at
the inception of the programs, it also believes it is appropriate to assess the impacts under
current conditions. The Office of Management and Budget, in a letter on management
challenges, indicated it agreed with our position that EPA should revise its regulations and
policy on State match options to no longer allow States to use bonds repaid from the SRF
to meet State match requirements.
State Match Options Allowed by EPA
1. State Appropriation
2. General Obligation Bonds Proceeds
3. General Obligation Debt Repaid by SRF
4. General Obligation Bonds Placed in SRF
5. SRF Match Revenue Bond
6. Pledged Repaymentfrom State Loans Program
7. Local Contribution
(Report No. 2007-P-00012, EPA's
Allowing States to Use Bonds to Meet
Revolving Fund Match Requirements
Reduces Funds Available for Water
Projects, March 29, 2007 - Report
Cost: $402,233)
Source: EPA832-B-97-003, State Match Options for
the State Revolving Fund Program, February 1997
12
-------
America's Clean Water Foundation Claimed Costs of $25,372,590
Questioned
EPA awarded three assistance agreements to the Foundation to perform environmental
risk assessments at agricultural facilities and to assist States, tribes, and territories in
complying with the Clean Water Act. However, we noted that the Foundation's
procurement practices did not comply with grant regulations. We also noted numerous
problems related to documentation, properly recording transactions, and submitting
required reports. Consequently, we recommended that EPA:
• Disallow the Federal share claimed of $25,372,590 and recover payments made
of $25,173,266, unless the Foundation reconstructs its accountings records to
meet Federal requirements.
• Disallow contract costs not authorized under the contract terms.
• Stop work on all active grants.
• Not award any new grants until the Foundation meets minimum financial
management requirements and repays all disallowed costs.
(Report No. 2007-4-00045, America's Clean Water Foundation Incurred Costs for
EPA Assistance Agreements X82835301, X783142301, and X82672301, February
20, 2007 - Report Cost: $221,225)
International City/County Management Association Reported Outlays
of $1,007,858 Questioned
EPA awarded seven cooperative agreements to the Association for multiple tasks. The
agreements totaled $9,916,441. Work included radon and indoor air pollution reduction
and education, establishing the local government environmental assistance network,
maintaining the smartgrowth network, supporting entities affected by hazardous waste
sites, and water security training.
We questioned $1,007,858 of the $9,871,025 in reported outlays because the recipient
claimed unallowable outlays for contractual services, subgrant costs, indirect labor and
facilities costs, and in-kind costs. The Association did not compete contracts, justify sole
source procurements, or perform cost analysis of contracts. Also, we noted deficiencies
related to documentation for subgrants and in-kind costs. Further, the Association
claimed indirect costs prohibited by law.
We recommended that EPA disallow questioned outlays of $78,298 prohibited by law,
and either obtain sufficient documentation to support the remaining questioned outlays of
13
-------
$929,560 or disallow them. We also recommended having the Association establish
needed procedures.
(Report No. 2007-4-00026, International City/County Management Association
Reported Outlays Under Seven Selected Cooperative Agreements, November 28,
2006 - Report Cost: $219,815)
National Rural Water Association Did Not Properly Allocate
Indirect Costs
NRWA is a federation consisting of State associations representing 49 States. NRWA is
a nonprofit organization providing technical assistance, training, and legislative
representation to water providers serving rural communities. Since October 2000, EPA
has provided over $70 million to NRWA to provide assistance to rural water systems.
NRWA did not exclude subcontracts or subawards from its indirect cost allocation base.
As a result, EPA grants incurred a disproportionate amount of indirect costs. For the
5-year period ending February 29, 2004, EPA grants may have been over-allocated
$2,021,821 of indirect costs.
In addition, NRWA's procedures did not identify all unallowable costs. The Association
also did not consistently record costs based on the actual activity performed. As a result,
NRWA's direct and indirect costs may include unallowable costs. Further, NRWA
drawdowns for State associations' costs were based on budget amounts and not actual
expenditures. Accordingly, NRWA may have provided cash advances in excess of the
State associations' immediate needs.
We recommended the Director of EPA's Grants Administration Division obtain final
negotiated indirect cost rates for the Association, and require the Association to develop
written procedures to identify unallowable costs and prepare cash draws.
(Report No. 2007-4-00027, Examination of Financial Management Practices of the
National Rural Water Association, Duncan, Oklahoma, November 30, 2006 -
Report Cost: $228,820)
New Hampshire State Revolving Fund Programs Received
Unqualified Opinions
Congress created these two SRFs to provide States with a continuous source of funding
for needed water projects. Although we rendered an unqualified opinion on both
14
-------
programs, we noted material weaknesses in internal controls that could adversely affect
State recording and reporting. For both programs, we noted problems regarding the State
reconciling cash and investment balances to the general ledger, or reconciling the general
ledger to original source documents. This resulted in numerous unrecorded transactions
and errors going undetected.
We also qualified our opinion on compliance with applicable laws and regulations for both
programs due to problems related to monitoring Single Audits of subrecipients. For the
Drinking Water program, we also noted that the required State match was underfunded
by $228,436, and set-aside costs were not separated and identifiable by the actual costs.
We made various recommendations to correct the internal control weaknesses and
compliance issues noted for both programs. These recommendations included EPA
requiring the State to: obtain up-to-date documentation for cash and investment
transactions, develop and implement procedures for reviewing and reporting accounting
transactions, and develop training on the accounting system. For the Drinking Water
program, we recommended having the State deposit $228,436 to correct the underfunded
State matching funds.
(Report No. 2007-1-00037, State of New Hampshire Clean Water State Revolving
Fund Program Financial Statements for the Year Ended June 30, 2005, issued
February 7, 2007 - Report Cost: $106,798; and Report No. 2007-1-00044, State of
New Hampshire Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Program Financial
Statements for the Year Ended June 30, 2005, issued February 26, 2007 - Report
Cost: $134,635)
15
-------
Contracts
Improving EPA's use of contracts.
New Housing Contract for Katrina Command Post Reduced Costs
but Limited Competition
A contract to provide for office space and housing for EPA personnel working on Hurricane
Katrina response operations contained several improvements over the previous housing
contracts, reducing trailer costs from over $300 to only $95
perday pertrailer. However, EPAstilldid not adequately
compete the contracts.
In October 2005, EPA Region 6 established a command post
in Metairie, Louisiana, for response operations to address the
catastrophic damage caused by Hurricane Katrina. After
the initial contracts used to obtain office space and trailers
expired, EPA competitively awarded a new contract in
March 2006 at an estimated value of $980,765.
Despite improvements, the statement of work for the new
contract contained unnecessary and ambiguous
requirements that limited competition. Specifically, EPA:
Trailers used by EPA(EPAOIG).
• Overstated the need for land
• Sought unneeded kitchen space, refrigerators, and microwaves
• Did not consider multi-story office space
• Unnecessarily required a 6-foot fence
• Did not clearly indicate whether private rooms per person were needed
These requirements made it difficult for hotels and apartment complexes to compete for
EPA's business. EPA largely based its requirements on what it already had rather than
what its future requirements would be.
Because EPA plans to award two national blanket purchasing agreements to provide
emergency technical support and logistical services as a result of one of our prior reports,
no recommendations were made.
(Report No. 2007-P-00015 New Housing Contract for Hurricane Katrina Command
Post Reduced Costs but Limited Competition, March 29, 2007 - Report Cost:
$108,420)
Interagency Agreements to Use Other Agencies' Contracts
Need Additional Oversight
While EPA has improved interagency contracting processes, the Agency entered into
some interagency contracts without meeting all requirements. Awarding the contracts
in-house rather than using an interagency contract has the potential to save money.
16
-------
Interagency contracts are contracts awarded by one Federal agency but available to
others for use, generally for a fee.
EPA often entered into interagency contracts without conducting cost-reasonableness
assessments or identifying alternatives, such as determining whether EPA's in-house
acquisition staff should acquire the services or products for them. EPA project officers
preferred the speed and convenience of interagency contracts. However, awarding
contracts in-house has the potential for saving money.
We recommended that EPA provide guidance to project officers on cost-reasonableness
assessments and identifying alternatives before entering into an interagency contract.
We also recommended that EPA strengthen training in this area, and ensure that the
Grants Administration Division includes an evaluation of cost-reasonableness
assessments in its reviews of interagency agreement management. EPA generally
agreed with our recommendations, but deferred action pending issuance of Government-
wide guidance by the Office of Federal Procurement Policy.
(Report No. 2007-P-00011, Interagency Agreements to Use Other Agencies'
Contracts Need Additional Oversight, March 27, 2007 - Report Cost: $287,000)
17
-------
EPA Earns Unqualified Opinion on Financial Statements
Our unqualified, or clean, opinion means that we found EPA's financial statements to be
fairly presented and free of material misstatements. The reportable conditions represent
significant deficiencies in designing or operating internal controls. The two reportable
conditions were:
• EPA implemented two accounting processes in FY 2006 that led to misstatements
of the Agency's bad debt expense, revenue, contra revenue, advance accounts,
and unearned revenue accounts. The processes included reclassifying
receivables older than 2 years as currently not collectible, and transferring the
receivables and related allowance accounts from regional financial management
offices to financial management centers.
• EPA did not properly account for advance funding agreements with other Federal
Government agencies. EPA recorded advances disbursed under interagency
agreements as expenses instead of assets. As a result, EPA overstated expenses
and understated assets by $55,982,983.
EPA was also in noncompliance with regulations relating to reconciling intragovernmental
transactions. EPA did not reconcile material activity and balances with the Department
of Health and Human Services during the year, and had out-of-balance situations with
many other agencies.
EPA agreed with the issues raised and indicated it will take needed corrective actions.
(Report No. 2007-1-00019, Audit of EPA's Fiscal 2006 and 2005 Consolidated
Financial Statements, November 15, 2006 - Report Cost: $2,561,416)
Pesticide Funds' Statements Earn Unqualified Opinions
The Pesticides Reregistration and Expedited Processing Fund (known as the FIFRA fund)
is used to deposit fees collected to expedite pesticide reregistration. The Pesticide
Registration Fund (known as the PRIA fund) was created in March 2004 to expedite new
registrations for certain pesticides in exchange for registration fees.
In addition to providing a clean opinion for both funds, we did not identify any material
internal control weaknesses. However, we noted one reportable condition, which applied
to both funds. EPA's Washington Finance Center recorded adjusting and correcting
18
-------
entries for both FIFRA and PRIA collections in the Integrated Financial Management
System without adequately documenting the errors, corrections, or modifications. We did
not identify any noncompliances that would result in a material misstatement to the
audited financial statements.
We recommended that the Washington Finance Center adequately document adjusting
and correcting entries entered in the Integrated Financial Management System. Officials
agreed with our recommendation and began corrective action.
(Report No. 2007-1-00001, Fiscal 2005 and 2004 Financial Statements for the
Pesticides Re registration and Expedited Processing Fund, October 10, 2006 -
Report Cost: $208,916; and Report No. 2007-1-00002, Fiscal 2005 and 2004
(restated) Financial Statements for the Pesticide Registration Fund, January 9,
2007 - Report Cost: $191,932)
Deobligations for Superfund Cooperative Agreements with
New York and New Jersey Noted
For New York, $486,744 could have been deobligated. EPA continued to amend and
extend the project period and award amounts for the agreement, even though some sites
were completed. This agreement, awarded in 1987 for an initial period of 18 months,
was amended 21 times.
For New Jersey, EPA identified $9.1 million for deobligation in its FY 2006 deobligation
plan, prepared in November 2005. However, as of September 2006 the deobligations had
not occurred.
For one of three cooperative agreements we reviewed in New York, costs incurred
totaling $3 million were not billed timely. In New Jersey, two multi-site cooperative
agreements totaling about $3.4 million were not billed timely, resulting in unused obligated
funds remaining idle.
(Report No. 2007-2-00003, Information Concerning Superfund Cooperative
Agreements with New York and New Jersey, October 30, 2006 - Report Cost:
$307,000)
19
-------
Processes to Manage Computer Systems and Reporting Incidents
Could Be Improved
EPA uses contractors to operate the Agency's information technology resources. These
contractors annually review their systems' compliance with established information
security requirements and record the results in EPA's security monitoring database.
Although EPA defined the specific requirements for contractor systems, EPA had not
established procedures to ensure offices identify all contractor systems. Also, EPA had
not ensured that information security requirements were accessible to the contractors and
appropriately maintained. As a result, EPA system inventories may not include all
appropriate contractor systems, and contractors may not be implementing adequate
security safeguards.
In addition, although EPA offices were aware of the Agency's computer security incident
response policy, many offices lacked reporting procedures, had not fully implemented
automated monitoring tools, and did not provide sufficient training on local procedures.
EPA offices also lacked network attack trend information necessary to implement
proactive defense measures. As a result, there was no consistency in how, what, and
when EPA offices reported computer security incidents or kept senior Agency officials
informed on network security attacks.
We recommended that EPA assign duties and responsibilities for maintaining and updating
information posted on EPA's Website, update guidance for identifying contractor systems,
and establish formal procedures for updating contract clauses. We also recommended
that EPA update its computer security incident guide, and establish a target date for
configuring anti-virus software. Also, EPA should provide training on new procedures,
and provide Information Security Officers with computer security incident reports. The
Agency generally agreed with our recommendations.
(Report No. 2007-P-00007, EPA Could Improve Processes for Managing
Contractor Systems and Reporting Incidents, January 11, 2007 - Report Cost:
$466,534)
Financial Database Security Oversight Needs Strengthening
EPA's core financial application - the Integrated Financial Management System - shares
data with many financial management system databases. Inadequate security controls
could result in a breach and compromise data integrity.
20
-------
We recommended that EPA update the Memorandum of Understanding process to
include formal security standards that require the program/regional offices to actively
monitor the security status of systems that share data with the Integrated Financial
Management System. We also recommended that EPA improve followup procedures
involving high-level critical system patch alerts. Additionally, we recommended that the
system owners for each reviewed application correct the system weaknesses identified.
The Agency agreed with all of our recommendations.
(Report No. 2007-P-00017, EPA Needs to Strengthen Financial Database Security
Oversight and Monitor Compliance, March 29, 2007 - Report Cost: $356,118)
EPA Could Improve Controls Over Mainframe System Software
The EPA OIG contracted with KPMG, LLP (KPMG) to audit EPA's mainframe system
software. KPMG noted several weaknesses, such as roles and responsibilities not being
clearly assigned; policies, procedures, and guides needing to be strengthened; and
security settings not being effectively configured or implemented.
KPMG recommended that the EPA Office of Environmental Information improve
management oversight and review of primary support contractor activity and clearly
assign roles and responsibilities to ensure personnel are held accountable; ensure
procedures are performed in accordance with existing Federal guidance; strengthen
existing policies, procedures, and guides; and appropriately configure and implement
security settings for sensitive datasets and programs. The Agency agreed with some of
the recommendations but disagreed with others.
(Report No. 2007-P-00008, EPA Could Improve Controls Over Mainframe System
Software, January 29, 2007 - Report Cost: $554,209)
21
-------
Public Liaison
Addressing specific concerns of the public.
EPA Needs to Complete a Toxicity Assessment in Libby, Montana
EPA has not completed a toxicity assessment of asbestos in Libby, Montana, so it cannot
be sure human exposure to Libby asbestos is at acceptable levels.
After 1999 media reports called attention to Libby citizens' health problems, EPA officials
requested that we review EPA's actions in cleaning up asbestos contamination. In
January 2000, due to citizen concerns, EPA started sampling and analyzing lawn and
garden products that contained vermiculite mined at Libby. In March 2001, we reported
that EPA had addressed asbestos contamination at
other sites, but had failed to institute controls that
might have protected Libby's citizens from the health
effects of asbestos contamination. In 2002, EPA
began an emergency response cleanup.
In our most recent review, based on a request by
Montana's two Senators, we found that EPA has
neither planned nor completed a risk and toxicity
assessment of the Libby asbestos to determine an
acceptable level of human exposure. Thus, EPA
cannot be sure that the ongoing Libby cleanup is
sufficient to prevent humans from contracting
asbestos-related diseases. Also, EPA presented
inconsistent positions on safety issues in two public
information documents.
The Libby mine site (EPA photo).
As a result of our review, EPA agreed to fund and execute a toxicity assessment. EPA
also agreed to replace the public information documents on Libby asbestos.
(Report No. 2007-P-00002, EPA Needs to Plan and Complete a Toxicity Assessment
for the Libby Asbestos Cleanup, December 5, 2006 - Report Cost: $254,856)
EPA Did Not Properly Process a Disinfectant's Registration;
$50,000 Fee Not Assessed
EPA's Office of Pesticides Program-Antimicrobials Division did not properly process
registration for an antimicrobial pesticide used primarily as a hospital disinfectant. This
resulted in a $50,000 registration fee not being assessed.
A hotline complaint alleged that EPA improperly registered a pesticide product in 2004,
over staff concerns and without the required fee. The product reviewed is a disinfectant
and sanitizer designed to kill bacteria and viruses on hard, non-porous, inanimate surfaces,
primarily in hospital patient areas.
22
-------
EPA did not properly recognize that the product contained a new active ingredient, which
in the case of this product would result in a $50,000 registration fee. EPA also did not
address staff concerns about a former EPA manager exerting pressure on the staff to
approve the product, nor did EPA resolve all science reviewers' concerns regarding the
product. The product subsequently failed tests and EPA asked the manufacturer to
voluntarily withdraw the product, which it has done.
We recommended that the EPA Office of Pesticides Program establish procedures to
determine the accuracy of active ingredient status, resolve discrepancies between staff
concerns and management decisions, and document the resolution of data deficiencies.
EPA generally agreed to take necessary corrective actions.
(Report No. 2007-P-00018, EPA Did Not Properly Process a Hospital Disinfectant
and Sanitizer Registration, March 29, 2007 - Report Cost: $300,881)
Hotline Activity
The following table provides EPA OIG Hotline activity regarding complaints of fraud,
waste, and abuse in EPA programs and operations that occurred during the past
semiannual period:
Semiannual Period
(October 1,2006-
March 31, 2007)
Inquiries and Complaints Received During Period 352
Issues Handled by EPA OIG 90
Inquiries Addressed Without Opening a Complaint 88
Complaints Opened 2
Complaints Closed 4
Complaints Open - Beginning of Period 12
Complaints Open - End of Period 10
Issues Referred to Others 262
EPA Program Offices 50
EPA Criminal Investigation Division 14
Other Federal Agencies 34
State/Local Agencies 164
23
-------
Additional Guilty Pleas and Sentencings in Software Piracy Case
On November 9, 2006, four defendants each pled guilty in U.S. District Court for the
District of Nevada to a charge of criminal infringement of a copyright. On February 20,
2007, a fifth defendent pled guilty to the same charge. The defendants were members of
a computer software piracy group known as the "Rogue Warriorz," a secretive
underground organization that illegally altered and distributed copyrighted software,
movies, and games over the Internet.
The 5 defendants were among 21 persons indicted in June 2002 and subsequently
convicted as part of "Operation Bandwidth," a 2-year-long, multi-agency undercover
operation to identify and prosecute entities and individuals involved with illegal access to
computer systems and the piracy of proprietary software utilizing storage sites in the
Internet.
At least 18 members of the group were hackers who had illegally accessed EPA
computer systems to further the reproduction and distribution scheme. Four defendants
were each sentenced to 12 months probation with credit for time served and ordered to
pay a $25 special assessment. The fifth defendant was sentenced to 36 months
probation with credit for time served and ordered to pay a $100 special assessment.
This investigation is being conducted jointly with the Federal Bureau of
Investigation and the Defense Criminal Investigative Service. (Case Cost:
$566,483)
Company Supervisor Sentenced for Using Improper
Asbestos Removal Practices
On October 18, 2006, Jason Scardecchio was sentenced in U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania to 1 year and 1 day in prison followed by 36 months of
supervised release. In addition, he was ordered to pay a special assessment of $300 and
restitution in the amount of $11,805. This sentence resulted from Scardecchio's guilty
plea to charges of mail fraud and improperly removing asbestos.
Scardecchio was employed as a supervisor by Indoor Air Quality, Inc., Phoenixville,
Pennsylvania. In July 2006, the company's owner, Wallace Heidelmark, and the
company itself were sentenced for similar charges. On December 18, 2006, as a result
of the convictions, all three defendants were determined to be ineligible to receive
government contracts or benefits at the Phoenixville location until the underlying
conditions that caused the Clean Air Act offense have been corrected.
24
-------
Heidelmark, Scardecchio, and Indoor Air Quality, Inc., removed asbestos from homes
and commercial buildings in the Philadelphia area. The indictment, issued in August 2005,
charged the defendants with mail fraud, false statements, and failure to comply with
Federal requirements for removing and handling asbestos.
The defendants operated a scheme to defraud homeowners by promising to use proper
techniques in removing asbestos from their residences. The defendants routinely failed to
use the promised techniques; instead, they removed asbestos without adequate water and
failed to keep the removed asbestos adequately wet. The defendants also regularly
falsified air testing at the conclusion of asbestos removal jobs by sending blank, unused
air sample canisters to a testing lab instead of an air sample from the residence where
the removal job occurred. The defendants would then tell the homeowners that the
building's air had passed the post-removal air test.
The investigation was conducted jointly with the EPA Criminal Investigation
Division, with cooperation from the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration. (Case Cost: $323,562)
Asbestos and Lead Abatement Contractor and Others Sentenced
On December 8, 2006, Gulf Services Contracting, Inc. (GSC), an asbestos and lead
abatement contractor located in Theodore, Alabama, was sentenced in U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Alabama as a result of a guilty plea to one charge of
major fraud. On the same day, Michael Thomas Burge, president and owner, and
Jonathan Valle, supervising foreman, were also sentenced as a result of their guilty pleas
to submitting false statements to the government.
GSC was placed on probation for 5 years and ordered to pay a fine of $96,451 and a
special assessment of $400. Burge and Valle were both sentenced to home detention for
4 months, placed on probation for 3 years, and ordered to pay a $100 special assessment.
Burge was ordered to pay a $5,000 fine and Valle a $1,000 fine.
GSC lied to the government about the identities and qualifications of employees who
performed asbestos and lead removal on various military installations in Florida, Alabama,
and Mississippi, as well as other abatement work on schools and municipal projects.
GSC was using undocumented aliens with falsified asbestos training certificates to
perform the asbestos abatement work and issued false certificates to individuals whose
true names were not on the certificates and who had no training on asbestos abatement.
GSC also provided false immigration and Social Security identification to its
undocumented alien employees.
This investigation was conducted jointly with the EPA Criminal Investigation
Division; the Federal Bureau of Investigation; the Defense Criminal Investigative
Service; the Naval Criminal Investigative Service; the Air Force Office of Special
Investigations; and the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and
Customs Enforcement. (Case Cost: $189,122)
25
-------
EPA Contract Laboratory Settles Civil Suit for $200,000
On November 16,2006, while admitting no wrongdoing, Liberty Analytical Corporation
entered into a $200,000 Civil Settlement Agreement with the U.S. Attorney's Office for
the Eastern District of North Carolina to settle allegations that the company submitted
false claims to EPA.
Compuchem Environmental, a division of Liberty Analytical, Gary, North Carolina,
provided false analytical data to EPA under the Superfund Analytical Services Contract
Laboratory Program. Specifically, the company failed to properly calibrate gas
chromatograph/mass spectrometer (GC/MS) instruments used in the analysis of samples
from EPA Superfund sites. Each invoice submitted to EPA that contained false analytical
data resulted in a false claim.
The investigation determined that quality control standards were routinely bypassed, in
that improper calibration procedures extended the "run time" of the GC/MS instruments,
therefore producing false analytical data. Some analysts admitted that they had been
following this procedure since as early as 1992. Three Compuchem analysts involved in
the improper calibration practice were criminally charged and entered guilty pleas in U.S.
District Court. All three analysts received probation, fines or restitution, and community
service, and were subsequently debarred. Because of missing data, it was not possible to
determine which samples were affected by improper calibration and, therefore, which
Superfund sites were potentially affected. Compuchem has been a part of the EPA
Contract Laboratory Program since the 1980s.
(Case Cost: $133,869)
Waste Management Facility Contractor Pleads Guilty
On December 20, 2006, Duratek Federal Services (DPS) pled guilty in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, Knoxville, to unlawfully discharging refuse
into a waterway without a permit. DPS was sentenced to a $10,000 fine, $290,000 in
restitution, and a $125 special assessment.
DPS managed a multi-celled, above ground U.S. Department of Energy waste
management facility in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. The disposal facility was constructed as a
series of waste disposal cells. Stormwater was diverted around the disposal cells, but
rainwater that fell on the cells was pumped to one of four contact water ponds. The
contact water ponds were expected to be tested to ensure that the level of both
radioactive contaminants and chemical constituents were within the acceptable levels
before the water could be released into nearby Bear Creek.
During September 2002, the area experienced heavy rains as a result of the remnants of
a hurricane. This resulted in very high levels of water in the contact water ponds.
Additional heavy rainfall was anticipated. To avert a failure of the ponds, the landfill
26
-------
manager, without notification to or consultation with any Duratek management, pumped
the water from one of the contact water ponds into a drainage ditch that ran directly into
Bear Creek. Prior to pumping the water into the drainage ditch, the manager knew the
water in the contact pond exceeded the allowable contaminant amounts for release. As a
result, 350,000 to 400,000 gallons of water containing radionuclides were discharged
directly into Bear Creek.
The investigation was conducted jointly with the Tennessee Environmental Crimes
Joint Task Force. (Case Cost: $10,875)
27
-------
During the semiannual period, the OIG performed several audits and evaluations
specifically requested by Congress.
U.S. Senator Barbara A. Mikulski of Maryland requested us to evaluate progress being
made by the Chesapeake Bay Program in reducing nutrient loadings into the Bay's
watershed. Stakeholders have expressed concerns that the Bay will not meet its 2010
reduction goals, and thus EPA would not be able to remove the Bay from the Agency's
impaired waters list. As part of our response to the request, we issued two reports:
• Our review of the impact of the agricultural community on the Bay's watershed
found that EPA must improve coordination with its Bay partners and the
agricultural community to better reduce nutrients and sediments. The agricultural
community has been reluctant to participate with EPA because of EPA's
regulatory enforcement role, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture could
significantly assist EPA with this community. Further details are on page 7.
• We also looked at the impact of air pollution control activities on the Bay's
watershed. Actions being taken by EPA in response to Clean Air Act regulations
have reduced the deposit of nitrogen into the Bay watershed, although these
actions were being taken to reduce air pollution rather than to clean the
watershed. Further details are on page 6.
Additional reviews, on the impact of urban land and point source pollution on the
Chesapeake Bay watershed, are in progress.
In response to a request by Montana's two U.S. Senators, we found that EPA has neither
planned nor completed a risk and toxicity assessment of asbestos contamination in Libby,
Montana, to determine an acceptable level of human exposure. Thus, EPA cannot be
sure that the ongoing cleanup at the Libby Superfund site is sufficient to prevent humans
from contracting asbestos-related diseases. Further details are on page 22.
Our review of grant funding for the National Rural Water Association as a result of a
request from U.S. Senator James Jeffords of Vermont found that the Association's
method of allocating indirect costs was contrary to requirements. This method may have
resulted in an over-allocation of more than $2 million to EPA grants. Further details are
on page 14.
28
-------
Acting Inspector General Testifies on How EPA Can Leverage
Its Limited Resources
"An issue of primary and current concern in the Superfund program is the sufficiency of
funding for cleanups," Mr. Roderick said. The Superfund Trust Fund has decreased over
the years, to the extent that in FYs 2004 and 2005, all Superfund appropriations came
from general tax revenue rather than the Trust Fund. "Superfund must compete for
revenue along with other discretionary programs, which have received decreased
portions of Federal dollars overtime."
Past OIG work has shown a funding shortfall for non-Federal Superfund sites, as well as
the financial impact of hardrock mining sites on the Trust Fund. The OIG also "noted
several organizational and accounting obstacles have impacted EPA's ability to efficiently
and effectively manage its Superfund resources."
Policy and organizational impediments have also prevented EPA from better managing its
Brownfields resources, said Mr. Roderick. "Because the authority for Brownfields
resources is dispersed, offices with responsibility for program resources are not in
alignment in their efforts to define and track Brownfields costs, and staff resources
cannot be accounted for and efficiently utilized."
Given the particular interests of the Subcommittee, Mr. Roderick also testified on the
OIG's prior and ongoing work on EPA's partnership programs and environmental justice
efforts. OIG annual performance measures were also cited in Mr. Roderick's testimony.
For FY 2006, the OIG questioned $87 million in costs; identified nearly $692 million in
cost efficiencies; and recorded almost $31 million from fines, restitutions, and settlements.
"This represents a potential return on investment of over $16 for every dollar invested
into the OIG," Mr. Roderick said.
"If EPA's overall budget continues to shrink in the future, it will be even more critical that
it find ways to better manage and utilize its resources and improve its operational
efficiencies," said Mr. Roderick. "I believe the OIG has been a positive agent of change
by making significant contributions toward helping EPA in those areas."
29
-------
The U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB) was created by
the Clean Air Act Amendments. The Board's mission is to investigate accidental
chemical releases at facilities, to report to the public on the root causes, and to
recommend measures to prevent future occurrences.
In FY 2004, Congress designated the EPA OIG to serve as the Inspector General
for the CSB. As a result, the EPA OIG has the responsibility to audit, evaluate,
inspect, and investigate CSB's programs, and to review proposed laws and
regulations to determine their potential impact on CSB's programs and operations.
The U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board
Should Track Closed Recommendations
Since it was established in 1998, through 2006, the CSB has issued 379 safety
recommendations. It has closed 164 safety recommendations directed to facilities,
corporations, trade associations, and State and Federal agencies. However, the CSB
does not conduct followup on closed recommendations to track adherence. As a result,
CSB may be unaware of whether report recipients continue to adhere to recommended
safety procedures or return to prior practices. Followup on closed recommendations
would give CSB an opportunity to obtain feedback from its customers that could improve
CSB's practices.
We recommended that CSB revise its guidance to include followup on closed
recommendations, and follow up on a sample of closed recommendations every 3 years,
to analyze whether adherence and/or conditions have changed. CSB concurred with our
recommendations, but did not address the frequency of analyzing closed
recommendations as we suggested.
(Report No. 2007-P-00010, U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board
Should Track Adherence to Closed Recommendations, March 26, 2007 - Report
Cost: $28,670)
Board Earns Unqualified Opinion on Financial Statements
CSB earned an unqualified opinion on its FY 2006 and 2005 financial statements. The
statements were found to be presented fairly, in all material respects, and in conformity
with applicable standards. Further, no material weaknesses involving internal controls
over financial reporting were noted, nor were any instances of noncompliance with
certain provisions of laws and regulations noted.
The audit was performed by an independent accounting firm. We reviewed the firm's
report and related documentation, and found no instances in which the audit did not
comply, in all material respects, with generally accepted auditing standards.
30
-------
For FY 2006, CSB reported a net cost of operations of $9.2 million. For that year, CSB
completed two full investigations, three case studies, and two safety bulletins. In addition,
CSB closed 72 recommendations from previous investigations, significantly more than in
any prior year.
We transmitted the financial statements report to CSB on November 14, 2006. The
financial statements report is incorporated into CSB's FY 2006 Performance and
Accountability Report, which can be found at: http://www.csb.gov/legal_affairs/docs/.
31
-------
EPAOIG Earns Unmodified Opinion in Peer Review
EPA OIG received an unmodified opinion in an external peer review recently completed
covering the fiscal year ended September 30, 2005. This means that the OIG's system of
internal control for the audit and evaluation function in effect for that year was designed
to meet the requirements of the quality control standards established by the Comptroller
General of the United States for a Federal Government audit organization. This review
was a milestone for the OIG since it was the first external peer review that included
work completed by its Office of Evaluation. In response to suggestions in the external
peer review report, the OIG completed or is planning additional improvements to its work.
The U.S. Postal Service OIG conducted the peer review in accordance with guidelines
established by the President's Council on Integrity and Efficiency and the Executive
Council on Integrity and Efficiency, and issued its report on December 11, 2006.
Government Auditing Standards promulgated by the Comptroller General of the United
States require government audit organizations to undergo a periodic external peer review.
New Policy Initiated to Improve Accountability for Actions on OIG
Recommendations
As part of its effort for promoting economy, efficiency, and effectiveness of Agency
programs and operations, and a results oriented culture, the OIG initiated a new policy
and procedure to conduct followup reviews on the status of actions taken by EPA on
OIG recommendations.
EPA currently self-reports on the number of OIG reports for which there are completed
actions. The Agency does so through Audit Followup Coordinators in each EPA
component in Headquarters and the regions. However, these reports are not
independently verified to assess whether the reported actions specifically and
conclusively address what Action Officials agreed to do in the (decision) close-out
process.
The new OIG process will verify and report on the status of Agency actions relating to
specific OIG recommendations as (1) "Agency improvement accomplishments" when
actions are confirmed as complete, (2) "actions in progress" when they are on schedule
as planned, or (3) "unimplemented or incomplete actions" when not verified to be on
schedule or complete in accordance with the agreed-to plan.
The OIG will report the results of its followup reviews to the Deputy Administrator and
the appropriate Assistant Administrator for their attention to actions requiring completion,
or as recognition for successfully implementing needed improvements. We believe that
this process will provide additional accountability and encourage diligence in implementing
management and program improvements.
32
-------
EPA Could Improve the Timeliness of its Followup Actions
According to Office of Management and Budget Circular A-50, Audit Followup is a
shared responsibility of both the OIG and the Agency. Because accountability for
followup is of significant importance, the Inspector General Act requires both the OIG
and the Agency to report on the status and timeliness of action on OIG reports. The OIG
reports on the timeliness of Agency decisions to sustain recommended questioned costs,
along with the dollar amounts involved, and agreement by the OIG with action plans to
resolve management recommendations. Similarly, the Agency is required to report on
timeliness of completed actions taken on reports for which decisions have been
previously made.
Charts A and B demonstrate the status of Agency decisions made on OIG reports for
each semiannual reporting period since March 2003, along with the dollar values
associated with those reports. Charts C and D demonstrate the status of completed
Agency actions claimed on OIG reports for which Agency decisions were made for each
semiannual reporting period since March 2003, along with the dollar values associated
with those reports. Chart E demonstrates the aging of reports closed during the
semiannual period ending March 31,2007.
Chart A: Status of Reports in the Follow-up Process as of
Semiannual Reporting Periods March 2003- 2007
350 -T
in
c
3 300-
'o
0)
Q 250-
0>
c
•- 200-
o-
t
i. 100-
0)
a:
5 50-
.2
104
62
84
_. 1
121 "
71
_
75
148
. — — -
75
85
-
155
__ — — •
101
__ — — •
72
1 •
108
105
59
91 f-
51
54
_. u
51
51
56
_ — • — •
76
_ — — •
46
__
52
— *-
52
__ — - —
51
~~46~
Mar-07 Sep-06 Mar-06 Sep-05 Mar-05 Sep-04 Mar-04 Sep-03 Mar-03
Timeperiod
D Reports Closed With Management Decision
D Reports Without Management Decision at End of Period Less Than 6 Month
D Reports W thout Decision Past 6 Months
33
-------
Chart B: Status of Dollar Value in the Follow-up Process as of
Semiannual Reporting Periods March 2003-2007
Millions
$900
Mar-07 Sep-06 Mar-06 Sep-05 Mar-05 Sep-04 Mar-04 Sep-03 Mar-03
Timeperiod
D $ Value of Reports Closed With Management Decisions
D $ Value of Reports Pending Management Decision Less Than 6 Months
D $ Value of Reports Pending Management Decision Past 6 Months
Chart C: Status of Reports Requiring Resolution as of Annual Reporting
Periods September 2003-2006
p-06
Sep-05
Sep-04
Timeperiod
D Ending Inventory Reports Without Final Action
D Reports Under Appeal
D Reports Without Final Action Past 1 Year of Decision
Sep-03
34
-------
Chart D: $ Value of Reports Requiring Resolution as of Annual Reporting Periods
September 2003-2006
Millions
300-
? 250-
Q.
at 200-
n_
O
01 150-
_3
> 100-
k.
n
0 50-
Q
$157
$108
$82
$73
O1 ' i' 1-r^
Sep-06 Sep-05
$110
$74
$158
$114
_
Sep-04 Sep-03
Timeperiod
D $ Value of Reports Pending Final Action Within 1 Year of Decision
D $ Value of Reports Pending Final Action Past 1 Year of Decision
Over 151 days
O 121 to 150 days
O
91 to 120 days
61 to 90 days
31 to 60 days
1 to 30 days
Chart E: Aging of 104 Reports Closed
October 1, 2006 - March 31, 2007
10 15 20 25 30
Number of Reports
35
40
35
-------
Legislation, Regulations, and Policies Reviewed
Section 4 (a) of the Inspector General Act requires the Inspector General to review
existing and proposed legislation and regulations relating to the program and operation of
EPA and to make recommendations concerning their impact. The primary basis for our
comments are the audit, evaluation, investigation, and legislative experiences of the OIG,
as well as our participation on the President's Council on Integrity and Efficiency.
Additionally, we review and recommend policies to promote improved administration and
to prevent and detect fraud and abuse in EPA programs and operations.
During the reporting period, we reviewed 21 proposed changes to legislation, regulations,
policy, and procedures that could affect EPA, and provided comment on 13 of those
reviewed. We also reviewed drafts of Office of Management and Budget circulars,
program operations manual, directives, and reorganizations. Details on several items
follow.
EPA's FY 2006 Performance and Accountability Draft Report. The EPA OIG
provided comments and suggestions on the draft of the "Management's Discussion and
Analysis" section for EPA's "FY 2006 Performance and Accountability Report,"
including:
Little Mention of EPA's Partners and Collaborators. EPA relies on its
partners, such as States and grantees, to accomplish much of its mission. Other
Federal agencies also have an important role as collaborators, and in some cases
may have conflicting program objectives. We commented that this performance
report did not distinguish the relative roles EPA's partners and collaborators have
in achieving its goals.
Mercatus Center Prescriptive About How EPA's Performance and
Accountability Report Could be Improved. Using the Mercatus criteria for
Public Benefit, Transparency and Leadership, we commented that this report had
most of the elements for being highly effective but it could be better organized.
The report could include more balance in reporting successes and progress, as
well as failures and future implications.
No Perspective About the Relative Effort or Cost Invested in
Performance. The draft report said that the Agency was doing a better job of
aligning costs to results. We suggested that a summary of results and actions in
relation to risks should be associated with an approximate amount of resources
expended. Relative value and return on investment are important attributes of
transparency.
Proposed Reorganization of the Office of Criminal Enforcement, Forensics, and
Training, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. According to the
proposed Functional Statement, Immediate Office, the Professional Integrity and Quality
Assurance Staff conducts investigations concerning allegations of serious misconduct
and/or concerning matters that impact the integrity of Office of Criminal Enforcement,
Forensics, and Training. However, in accordance with EPA Manual 6500, "Functions
and Activities of the Office of Inspector General" the OIG Office of Investigations
36
-------
generally investigates allegations against EPA employees for ethical or other conduct
prejudicial to the Government (violations of the Standards of Ethical Conduct). We
recommended that the Functional Statement, Immediate Office, should be clarified to
state that any type of investigation of EPA employees (criminal, civil, or administrative
involving allegations of fraud, waste, or abuse) has to be sent to the OIG.
Draft EPA Order - EPA Personal Identity Verification and Smart Card Program.
The Federal Information Processing Standards describe the mandatory as well as
optional items for the identification card. In reviewing the Federal Information
Processing Standards regarding the optional items, we noted that two areas of the badge
allowed for Agency-specific information. The examples given were to use this space to
identify "Emergency Responders" and "Law Enforcement." The proposed EPA order
made no provisions for these optional designations. We commented that using these two
areas would be helpful for proper identification of Agency employees, including the OIG's
Special Agents, Special Agents from EPA's Criminal Investigation Division, and other
Agency responders in a time of emergency.
EPA Working Capital Fund Charter. The OIG made specific recommendations for
changes in the EPA Working Capital Fund charter to improve the accountability and
transparency of cost structure, revenue, and transactions; and to establish clear
objectives for improving economy, efficiency, and effectiveness of Working Capital Fund
operations and performance. The changes were adopted and ratified by the Working
Capital Fund Board. Further, the OIG proposed changes requiring annual audits to be
conducted or supervised by the OIG to ensure independent reporting.
37
-------
Statistical Data
Profile of Activities and Results
Audit Operations
Office of Inspector General Reviews
October 1, 2006 to
March 31,2007
(dollars in millions)
Questioned Costs *
• Total
• Federal
Recommended Efficiencies *
• Federal
Costs Disallowed to be Recovered
• Federal
Costs Disallowed as Cost Efficiency
• Federal
Reports Issued - Office of Inspector
General Reviews
Reports Resolved
(Agreement by Agency officials to
take satisfactory corrective actions) **
$26.8
$26.7
$9.3
$3.1
$9.3
31
104
Investigative Operations
October 1 , 2006 to
March 3 1,2007
(dollars in
Fines and Recoveries (including civil) ****
Cases Opened During Period
Cases Closed During Period *****
Indictments/I nformations/Complaints
of Persons or Firms
Convictions of Persons or Firms
Civil Judgments/Settlements/Filings
millions)
$0.71
17
65
2
8
1
Audit Operations
Other Reviews
(Reviews Performed by Another Federal Agency
or Single Audit Act Auditors)
October 1, 2006 to
March 31,2007
(dollars in millions)
Questioned Costs *
• Total
• Federal
Recommended Efficiencies *
• Federal
Costs Disallowed to be Recovered
• Federal
Costs Disallowed as Cost Efficiency
• Federal
Reports Issued - Other Reviews
• EPA Reviews Performed by
Another Federal Agency
• Single Audit Act Reviews
• Total
Agency Recoveries
Recoveries from Audit Resolutions
of Current and Prior Periods
(cash collections or offsets to
future payments) ***
$189.6
$10.6
$13.0
$1.5
$0
116
75
191
$1.0
Questioned Costs and Recommended Efficiencies are
subject to change pending further review in the audit
resolution process. Total Questioned Costs include
contracts of other Federal agencies.
Reports Resolved are subject to change pending further
Information on Recoveries from Audit Resolutions is
provided by EPA's Financial Management Division and is
unaudited.
Total includes actions resulting from joint investigations.
Includes three cases closed in a prior period.
38
-------
Audit Report Resolution
Status Report on Perpetual Inventory of Reports in Resolution
Process for Semiannual Period Ending March 31,2007
Report Category
A. Forwhich no management
decision was made by
October 1 , 2006 *
B. Which were issued during
the reporting period
C. Which were issued during
the reporting period that
required no resolution
Subtotals (A + B - C)
D. Forwhich a management
decision was made during
the reporting period
E Forwhich no management
decision was made by
March 31 , 2007
F Reports for which no
management decision was
made within 6 months
of issuance
No. of
Reports
146
222
118
250
104
146
84
Report Issuance
($ in thousands)
Questioned
Costs
$117,384
37,316
0
154,700
77,165
77,535
42,657
Recommended
Efficiencies
$5,566
22,368
0
27,934
14,866
13,068
0
Report Resolution Costs
Sustained
($ in thousands)
To Be
Recovered
$4,085
597
0
4,682
4,682
0
0
As
Efficiencies
$20
9,300
0
9,320
9,320
0
0
* 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.
Status of Management Decisions on Inspector General Reports
This section presents statistical information as required by the Inspector General Act of
1978, as amended, on the status of EPA management decisions on reports issued by the
OIG involving monetary recommendations. 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 were prepared by other Federal auditors or independent
public accountants. EPA OIG staff do not manage or control such assignments.
Auditees frequently provide additional documentation to support the allowability of
such costs subsequent to report issuance.
39
-------
Table 1 - Inspector General-Issued Reports with Questioned Costs for Semiannual Period
Ending March 31, 2007 (dollar value in thousands)
Report Category
A. For which no management decision was made
by October 1 , 2006 **
B. New reports issued during period
Subtotals (A + B)
C. For which a management decision was made
during the reporting period
(i) Dollar value of disallowed costs
(ii) Dollar value of costs not disallowed
D. For which no management decision was made
by March 31 , 2007
Reports for which no management decision was made
Number of
Reports
73
40
113
46
30
16
67
45
Questioned
Costs *
$117,384
37,316
154,700
77,165
4,682
72,483
77,535
42,657
Unsupported
Costs
$97,115
3,013
100,128
71 ,873
670
71 ,203
28,255
26,845
* Questioned costs include the unsupported costs.
** Any difference in number of reports and amounts of questioned costs between this report and
our previous semiannual report results from corrections made to data in our audit tracking
system.
Table 2 - Inspector General-Issued Reports with Recommendations that Funds Be Put to
Better Use for Semiannual Period Ending March 31, 2007 (dollar value in thousands)
Report Category
A. For which no management decision was made by October 1, 2006*
B. Which were issued during the reporting period
Subtotals (A + B)
C. For which a management decision was made during the
reporting period
(i) Dollar value of recommendations from reports that were
agreed to by management
(ii) Dollar value of recommendations from reports that were not
agreed to by management
(iii) Dollar value of non-awards or unsuccessful bidders
D. For which no management decision was made by March 31 , 2007
Reports for which no management decision was made
within 6 months of issuance
Number of
Reports
7
4
11
8
2
6
3
0
Dollar
Value
$5,566
22,368
27,934
14,866
9,320
5,546
13,068
0
Any difference in number of reports and amounts of funds put to better use between this report
and our previous semiannual report results from corrections made to data in our audit tracking
system.
40
-------
Audits with No Final Action as of March 31, 2007, Which Are Over 365 Days Past the Date of
the Accepted Management Decision (Including Audits in Appeal)
Audits
Program
Assistance Agreements
ContractAudits
Single Audits
Financial Statement Audits
Total
Total
27
0
0
10
0
37
Percentage
73%
0%
0%
27%
0%
100%
41
-------
Summary of Investigative Results
Summary of Investigative Activity During Period
Cases open as of October 1 , 2006
Cases opened during period
Cases closed during period *
Cases pending as of March 31 , 2007
166
17
65
118
Investigations Pending by Type as of March 31, 2007
Results of Prosecutive Actions
Contract
Assistance Agreement
Employee Integrity
Program Integrity
Computer Crime
Laboratory Fraud
Other
Total
Superfund
5
0
1
1
0
6
2
15
Management
12
24
22
11
5
25
4
103
Total
17
24
23
12
5
31
6
118
Criminal Indictments /Informations /Complaints
Convictions
Civil Judgments / Settlements / Filings
Fines and Recoveries (includes Civil)
Prison Time
Prison Time Suspended
Probation
Community Service
EPA OIG Only
1
1
1
$200,345
0 months
0 months
0 months
8 hours
Joint**
1
7
0
$511,582
45 months
0 months
324 months
0 hours
Total
2
8
1
$711,927
45 months
0 months
324 months
8 hours
Administrative Actions
Suspensions
Debarments
Voluntary Exclusions
Other Administrative Actions
Total
EPA OIG Only
3
5
2
9
19
Joint**
0
5
1
7
13
Total
3
10
3
16
32
Includes three cases closed in a prior period.
With another Federal agency.
42
-------
Scoreboard of Results
Scoreboard of Results at Mid-Year (March 31,2007) Com pared to
FY 2007 Annual Performance Goal Targets
All results reported in FY 2007, from current and prior years' work, as reported in the OIG Performance
Measurement and Results System and the Inspector General Operations Reporting system. All data not
verified.
Strategic Goals; With OIG Government Performance
and Results Act Annual Performance Targets
Compared to FY 2007 Results Reported
Supporting Measures
Goal: Contribute to Human Health and Environmental Quality Through Improved Business Practices,
Accountability, and Integrity of Program Operations1
Environmental Improvements/Actions/Changes
Improvements in Business/Systems/Efficiency
Risks Reduced or Eliminated
• Target: 318
• Reported: 257 (80.9%)
5 Legislative/regulatory changes/decisions
3 Best environmental practices implemented
11 Management best practices implemented
12 Environmental policy, process, practice, control
changes
41 Management policy, process, practice, control
changes
180 Certifications/validations/verifications/corrections
5 Environmental risks reduced/eliminated
Environmental and Business Recommendations
Challenges, Best Practices, and Risks Identified
• Target: 925
• Reported: 451 (48.8%)
10 Environmental recommendations (for Agency/
stakeholder action)
388 Management recommendations (for Agency/
stakeholder action)
8 Critical congressional/public management concerns
addressed
5 Best environmental practices identified
27 Best management practices identified
7 Referrals for Agency action
1 New FMFIA/A-123/Management challenge/risk
identified
5 Environmental risks identified
Return on Investment: Potential dollar return
as percentage of OIG budget ($50.4 million)
• Target: $75.6 million
• Reported: $60.3 million Federal (79.8%)
(dollars in millions)
$ 37.3 Questioned costs (Federal)
$ 22.3 Recommended efficiencies, costs saved (Federal)
$ 0.7 Fines, recoveries, settlements
Criminal, Civil, and Administrative Actions
Reducing Risk of Loss/Operational Integrity
• Target: 80
• Reported: 43 (54%)
8 Criminal convictions
2 Indictments/informations/complaints
1 Civil judgments/settlements/filings
32 Administrative actions
Sustained Monetary Recommendations and
Savings Achieved from Current and Prior Periods
• Target: no goal established
• Savings: $14 million
• Recommendations sustained for resolution: 212
(dollars in millions)
$ 4.7 Questioned costs sustained (Total)
$ 9.3 Cost efficiencies sustained or realized
9 Environmental recommendations sustained
203 Management recommendations sustained
1 This Scoreboard, which represents OIG external performance reporting requirements under the Government Performance and
Results Act, consolidates similar measures that were previously presented separately as Goal 1 (environmental) and Goal 2
(business practices). The Office of Management and Budget, seeking to reduce the number of "vital-few" measures
Government-wide, has specifically endorsed this change.
43
-------
Appendices
The Inspector General Act requires a listing, subdivided according to subject matter, of each report issued
by the OIG during the reporting period. For each report, where applicable, the Inspector General Act also
requires a listing of the dollar value of questioned costs and the dollar value of recommendations that funds
be put to better use.
Report Number
Title
Final Report
Issued
Recommended
Questioned Costs Efficiencies
Ineligible Unsupported Unreasonabb (Funds Be Put
Costs Costs Costs To Better Use)
PERFORMANCE REPORTS
2007-P-00001
2007-P-00002
2007-P-00003
2007-P-00004
2007-P-00005
2007-P-00006
2007-P-00007
2007-P-00008
2007-P-00009
2007-P-00010
2007-P-00011
2007-P-00012
2007-P-00013
2007-P-00015
2007-P-00017
2007-P-00018
Effectiveness of Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Programs
Asbestos Cleanup in Libby Montana
Voluntary Program Cost and Measurement Census
Nonpoint Source BMPs in Chesapeake Bay Restoration
Review of RCRA Interim Status Permits
Superfund Five-Year Reviews
Managing Contractor Systems and Reporting Incidents
EPA Could Improve Controls Over Mainframe Software
Air Deposition Reductions Activities in Chesapeake Bay
Facility Adherence to the CSB's Closed Recommendations
Review of Interagency Contracts
Assistance Agreements-State Revolving Fund Policy Review
Evaluation of National Environmental Performance Track Program
Hurricane Katrina New Housing Contract
EPAs Implementation of Database Security
Hospital Disinfectant Registration
TOTAL PERFORMANCE REPORTS = 16
5-Oct-07
5-Dec-06
14-Nov-06
20-Nov-06
30-Nov-06
30-Nov-06
11-Jan-07
29-Jan-07
28-Feb-07
23-Mar-07
27-Mar-07
28-Mar-07
29-Mar-07
29-Mar-07
29-Mar-07
29-Mar-07
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$0
ASSISTANCE AGREEMENT REPORTS
2007-1-00037
2007-1-00044
2007-2-00003
2007-4-00026
2007-4-00027
2007-4-00045
SRF-New Hampshire 2005 Clean Water
SRF-New Hampshire 2005 Drinking Water
Superfund Cooperative Agreement Obligations
AA-lnternational City/County Management Association
AA-National Rural Water Association-Congressional
AA-America's Clean Water Foundation
TOTAL ASSISTANCE AGREEMENT REPORTS = 6
5-Feb-07
26-Feb-07
26-Oct-06
28-Nov-06
30-Nov-06
20-Feb-07
0
$228,486
0
$78,298
0
$25,372,590
$25,679,374
SINGLE AUDIT REPORTS
2007-3-00001
2007-3-00002
2007-3-00003
2007-3-00004
2007-3-00005
2007-3-00006
2007-3-00007
2007-3-00008
2007-3-00009
2007-3-00010
2007-3-00011
2007-3-00012
2007-3-00013
2007-3-00014
2007-3-00015
2007-3-00016
2007-3-00017
2007-3-00018
2007-3-00019
2007-3-00020
2007-3-00021
2007-3-00022
2007-3-00023
2007-3-00024
2007-3-00025
Nebraska, State of -FY 2005
North Carolina, State of - FY 2005
Blackfeet Tribe of the Blackfeet Indian Reservation, FY2004
Wayne, Charter County of - FY 2003
Florida, State of -FY 2005
Hopeland Band of Porno Indians - FY 2004
HavasupaiTribe-FY2003
HavasupaiTribe-FY2004
Arkansas Construction Assist-FY2004
Chitina Traditional Indian Village Council FY2004
Lynchburg, City of- FY 2005
Lummi Indian Business Council FY 2004
Pit River Tribe, FY 2004
Ramona Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians, FY2002
Muckleshoot Indian Tribe FY 2004
Roswell, City of FY 2004
Colorado, State of -FY 2005
Big Valley Rancheria Band of Porno Indians, FY 2004
Ninilchik Traditional Council FY 2004
La Jolla Band of Luiseno Indians, FY 2004
New York University School of Medicine - FY 2005
Rochester, University of -FY 2004
Research Foundation of the State University of NY - FY 2004
Orutsararmuit Native Council FY 2004
Coyote Valley Band of Porno Indians, FY 2003
2-Oct-06
2-Oct-06
2-Oct-06
4-Oct-06
4-Oct-06
10-0ct-06
10-0ct-06
10-0ct-06
11-0ct-06
12-0ct-06
16-0ct-06
17-0ct-06
19-0ct-06
19-0ct-06
20-0ct-06
24-Oct-06
26-Oct-06
2-Nov-06
2-Nov-06
2-Nov-06
3-Nov-06
6-Nov-06
6-Nov-06
7-Nov-06
16-Nov-06
0
0
0
0
$2,637,816
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
$929,560
0
0
$929,560
0
0
0
$931,614
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
$50,000
$50,000
0
0
$9,300,000
0
0
0
$9,300,000
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
44
-------
Report Number
2007-3-00026
2007-3-00027
2007-3-00028
2007-3-00029
2007-3-00030
2007-3-00031
2007-3-00032
2007-3-00033
2007-3-00034
2007-3-00035
2007-3-00036
2007-3-00037
2007-3-00038
2007-3-00039
2007-3-00040
2007-3-00041
2007-3-00042
2007-3-00043
2007-3-00044
2007-3-00045
2007-3-00046
2007-3-00047
2007-3-00048
2007-3-00049
2007-3-00050
2007-3-00051
2007-3-00052
2007-3-00053
2007-3-00054
2007-3-00055
2007-3-00056
2007-3-00057
2007-3-00058
2007-3-00059
2007-3-00060
2007-3-00061
2007-3-00062
2007-3-00063
2007-3-00064
2007-3-00065
2007-3-00066
2007-3-00067
2007-3-00068
2007-3-00069
2007-3-00070
2007-3-00071
2007-3-00072
2007-3-00073
2007-3-00075
2007-3-00076
Title
Coyote Valley Band of Porno Indians, FY 2004
Port Authority of the City of St. Pau I, FY 2004
Three Affiliated Tribes -FY 2004
United States Virgin Islands - FY 2003
United States Virgin Islands - FY 2004
New York University -FY 2005
Clarkson University -FY 2005
Caddo Nation of Oklahoma, FY 2005
New York, State of -FY 2005
National Environmental Health Association - FY2004
Little River Band of Ottawa Indians, Ml, FY 2003
Alfred University -FY 2005
Lake County -FY 2005
Yankton Sioux Tribe -FY 2004
Delaware Nation, FY 2005
University of New Orleans Research and Technology Foundation
Nooksack Indian Tri be, FY 2003
Emeryville, City of FY 2004
Pala Band of Mission Indians, FY 2005
Nevada System of Higher Education, FY 2005
San Diego State University Foundation, FY2004
Cahto Tribe of the Laytonville Rancheria, FY2004
Wake Forest University - FY2004
Laurens County Water & Sewer - FY 2004
GeorgiaTech Research Corp and Georgia Inst. ofTech.-FY 2005
United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians of Oklahoma, FY04
Enlarged Hepzibah Public Service District, FY 2005
Nooksack Indian Tribe FY 2004
Diamond, City of- FY 2006
North East, Town of -FY 2005
Concurrent Technologies Corporation, FY2004
Harbor Branch Oceanograpahic Institution, Inc. - FY2004
Concurrent Technologies Corporation, FY2005
Utah, State of FY 2005
Connecticut, State of FY 2003
Montana, State of FY 2005
Connecticut, State of FY 2004
Illinois Institute of Technology - FY 2005
Auburn University -FY 2005
Stevens Institute ofTechnology- FY 2005
Alabama, University of (Tuscaloosa) - FY 2004
Missouri, University of- FY 2005
Illinois, State of FY 2005
Pueblo of Zia, NM, FY2005
Kashia Band of Pomo Indians FY 2004
Pleasant Point Passamaquoddy Tribal Council, FY 2004
lone Band of Miwok Indians, FY 2003
Michigan Department of Environ mental Quality, State of-2005
Pennsylvania, Commonwealth of FY 2005
Southern Alleghenies Conservancy, FY2004
TOTAL SINGLE AUDIT REPORTS = 75
Final Report
Issued
16-Nov-06
16-Nov-06
20-Nov-06
20-Nov-06
20-Nov-06
21-Nov-06
21-Nov-06
4-Dec-06
4-Dec-06
5-Dec-06
7-Dec-06
11-Dec-06
11-Dec-06
11-Dec-06
12-Dec-06
12-Dec-06
15-Dec-06
19-Dec-06
19-Dec-06
19-Dec-06
21-Dec-06
8-Jan-07
9-Jan-07
9-Jan-07
10-Jan-07
11-Jan-07
11-Jan-07
11-Jan-07
16-Jan-07
16-Jan-07
25-Jan-07
25-Jan-07
25-Jan-07
6-Feb-07
6-Feb-07
8-Feb-07
12-Feb-07
13-Feb-07
21-Feb-07
21-Feb-07
22-Feb-07
22-Feb-07
26-Feb-07
26-Feb-07
6-Mar-07
8-Mar-07
8-Mar-07
19-Mar-07
20-Mar-07
22-Mar-07
OIG-ISSUED CONTRACT REPORTS
2007-4-00019 E&ESubK Admin Noncomp- Cost Impact 2-Nov-06
2007-4-00033 E&E2006Floorcheck 21 Dec-06
2007-4-00052 E&E Report on Examination of Contractor FY 20011/C 30-Mar-07
TOTAL OIG-ISSUED CONTRACT REPORTS = 3
DCAACONTRACT REPORTS
2006-2-00033 COM Federal Programs Corp. -FY 1999 CACS 68-W9-0024 3-Oct-06
2007-1-00003 Stratus Consulting, Inc. - FY 12/31/2004 Incurred Cost 3-Oct-06
2007-1-00004 National Academy of Public Admin - FY 9/30/20041/C 3-Oct-06
2007-1-00005 SCSEngineers-FY03/31/2002lncurredCost 3-Oct-06
2007-1-00006 FEV Engine Technology - FY 12/31/2004 Incurred Cost 19-0ct-06
2007-1-00007 Gannett Fleming Inc.-FY 12/31/2004 Incurred Cost 24-Oct-06
2007-1 -00008 Bionetics Corporation FY 2003 Incurred Cost 24-Oct-06
2007-1 -00009 Syracuse Research Corporation -FY 2005 Incurred Cost 24-Oct-06
2007-1-00010 SRI International-FY 20051/C 24-Oct-06
2007-1-00011 DPRA, Inc.-FY 3/31/2005 Incurred Cost 25-Oct-06
2007-1-00012 ICF Incc/o ICF Consulting Group-FYs 2002-2003 Incurred Cost 27-Oct-06
2007-1-00013 Dynamac Corporation-FY2003 Incurred Cost 30-0ct-06
2007-1-00014 General Sciences Corporation-FY2001 Incurred Cost 1-Nov-06
2007-1-00015 ManTech Environmental Technology, lnc-FY2003 Incurred Cost 7-Nov-06
Questioned Costs
Ineligible Unsupported Unreasonable
Costs Costs Costs
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$6,761
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
$2,644,577
0
0
$71,680
$71,680
$34,559
0
0
0
$60,731
0
0
0
$705
$3,550
$150,601
0
0
$1,336
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$19,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
$28,903
0
0
0
$533,460
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$137,109
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$433,663
0
0
0
$2,083,749
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
$43,919
$43,919
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Recommended
Efficiencies
(Funds Be Put
To Better Use)
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
45
-------
Report Number
2007-1-00016
2007-1-00017
2007-1-00018
2007-1-00021
2007-1-00022
2007-1-00024
2007-1-00025
2007-1-00026
2007-1-00027
2007-1-00028
2007-1-00029
2007-1-00030
2007-1-00031
2007-1-00032
2007-1-00033
2007-1-00034
2007-1-00035
2007-1-00036
2007-1-00038
2007-1-00039
2007-1-00040
2007-1-00041
2007-1-00042
2007-1-00043
2007-1-00045
2007-1-00046
2007-1-00047
2007-1-00048
2007-1-00049
2007-1-00050
2007-1-00051
2007-1-00052
2007-1-00053
2007-1-00054
2007-1-00055
2007-1-00056
2007-2-00002
2007-2-00005
2007-2-00006
2007-2-00007
2007-2-00008
2007-2-00009
2007-2-00010
2007-2-00011
2007-2-00012
2007-2-00013
2007-2-00014
2007-2-00015
2007-2-00016
2007-2-00017
2007-2-00018
2007-2-00019
2007-2-00020
2007-2-00021
2007-2-00022
2007-2-00023
2007-2-00024
2007-4-00001
2007-4-00002
2007-4-00003
2007-4-00004
2007-4-00005
2007-4-00006
2007-4-00007
2007-4-00008
2007-4-00009
2007-4-00010
2007-4-00011
2007-4-00012
2007-4-00013
2007-4-00014
2007-4-00015
Title
URS Corporation (c/o URS Greiner, lnc.)-FY2001 Incurred Cost
Hagler Bailly-FY97 Incurred Cost
Arctic Slope Region Corp. Aerospace- FY 2002 Incurred Cost
Excalibur Associates, Inc. - FY2005 1/C
Booz Allen & Hamilton- FY2002 Incurred Cost
Wilson Environmental - FY2005 1/C
Sonoma Technology, Inc. - FY 1 2/31/2005 Incurred Cost
Welso Federal Services - FY 09/30/2005 Incurred Cost
E2, Inc. - FY 12/31/2004 Incurred Cost
E2, Inc. - FY 12/31/2003 Incurred Cost
TetraTech NUS, lnc.-FY2002 Incurred Cost
Arctic Slope Region Corp. Aerospace- FY 2001 Incurred Cost
Enterprise Technology Management- FY 12/31/2004 1/C
Booz-Allen & Hamilton, Inc. - FYE 3/31/2003 Incurred Cost
Science Applications Int'l Corp. - FY2004 Incurred Cost
Versar, Inc. - FY 6/30/2004 Incurred Cost
Battelle Memorial Institute - Columbus - FY 9/30/2005 1/C
Parsons Infrastructure & Technology - FYE 12/31/2004 1/C
OAO Corporation-FY2001 Incurred Cost
Herrera Environ. Consultants- FY2004 Incurred Cost
TRC Environmental Consultants - FY 06/30/2000 1/C
E2, Inc.- FY 2005 1/C
TRC Environmental Corp. - FY 06/30/2001 1/C
SoBran, Inc.- FY 09/30/2005 1/C
Washington Group InternationalfMorrison Knudsen)-FY2002 1/C
EG&G Automotive Research - FY 12/31/2004 Incurred Cost
URS Corp. c/o URS Greiner, Inc FYE 10/31/2002 Incurred Cost
Environmental Mgt Support - FYE 12/31/2004 Incurred Cost
Indus Corporation - FYE 12/31/2003 Incurred Cost
Integrated Laboratory Systems - FYE 9/30/2004 Incurred Cost
EERGCc/GE Energy & Envl Resrc - FYE 6/30/2004 Incurred Cost
Business Technologies & Solutions, Inc. - FY 12/31/2004 1/C
KBM Group, Inc. - FY 12/31/2005 Incurred Cost
Shaw Environmental, Inc. - FYE 8/31/2004 Incurred Cost
TetraTech EMI - FYE 10/3/2004 Incurred Cost
TetraTech, Inc. - FY 9/30/2004 Incurred Cost
Aqua Terra Consultants - FYE 6/27/2004 Incurred Cost
Legin Group, lnc.-FY2002 Incurred Cost
Arctic Slope Region Corp. Aerospace- FY 2000 Incurred Cost
Legin Group, Inc. - FY2003 Incurred Cost
Advanced Technologies Systems Inc.- 12/31/2004 1/C
D & R International, LTD. - FY 12/31/2004 Incurred Cost
Universe Technologies, Inc. - FYE 12/31/2003 Incurred Cost
MDB, Inc. -Voucher Review
The Johnson Company - Preaward - PR-HQ-06-13341
IBM Business Consulting Services - Preaward - PR-HQ-05-1251
CGI Federal, Inc. - Preaward - PR-HQ-05-12521
Portage Environmental, Inc. - FY2004 Incurred Cost
ABT Associates Inc.-CACS 68-DO-0020
Mabbett & Associates, Inc. - Proposal PR-HQ-06-13341
TetraTech NUS lnc.-FY2002 RAC68-W6-0045
TetraTech FW, Inc. - FY2004 RAC68-W9-8214
TechLaw, Inc. - FY 9/30/2004 Incurred Cost
CH2M Hill, Inc. (INC) - FY2006 General EDP Controls
Limno-Tech, Inc. - FY 3/31/2005 Incurred Cost
Innovar Environ mental, Inc-Pre award Accounting System Survey
PG Environmental, LLC- Preaward - PR-CI-06-1 0850
Stratus Consulting, Inc. - FY 2005 Accounting System Review
National Academy of Sciences - FY2006 CAS 412
Battelle - BCO - FY 2006 Labor Cost Charging QTRs 1 ,2,3&4
Mactec Engineering & Consulting, Inc. - CAS 416
Mactec Engineering & Consulting, Inc. - CAS 412
Battelle - BCO -FY 2006 MAAR 13
DPRA, Inc. - CFY 2006 Floor Checks
CH2M Hill Inc (INC)- FY 2004 CAS 412-Pension Cost
CH2M Hill Inc (LTD) -CAS 41 6
CH2M Hill Inc (INC) - FY 2004 Compensation System Review
National Academy of Sciences-FY06ElectronicTimekeep'g System
Syracuse Research Corporation - FY 2006 MAAR 6
Tetra Tech Corp. - FY 2006 CAS 403
Metcalf & Eddy, Inc - FY 2006 CAS 404
Eastern Research Group - CAS 410 Compliance
Final Report
Issued
13-Nov-06
13-Nov-06
13-Nov-06
21-Nov-06
1-Dec-06
12-Dec-06
22-Dec-06
8-Jan-07
10-Jan-07
10-Jan-07
16-Jan-07
17-Jan-07
17-Jan-07
17-Jan-07
19-Jan-07
23-Jan-07
25-Jan-07
25-Jan-07
5-Feb-07
7-Feb-07
8-Feb-07
8-Feb-07
20-Feb-07
21-Feb-07
22-Feb-07
7-Mar-07
8-Mar-07
19-Mar-07
20-Mar-07
21-Mar-07
21-Mar-07
21-Mar-07
22-Mar-07
22-Mar-07
26-Mar-07
28-Mar-07
24-Oct-06
1-Nov-06
1-Nov-06
2-Nov-06
6-Nov-06
6-Nov-06
22-Nov-06
28-Nov-06
18-Dec-06
21-Decc-06
21-Dec-06
22-Dec-06
9-Jan-07
16-Jan-07
16-Jan-07
23-Jan-07
31-Jan-07
6-Feb-07
8-Feb-07
9-Feb-07
20-Mar-07
3-Oct-06
11-0ct-06
16-0ct-06
17-0ct-06
17-0ct-06
23-Oct-06
24-Oct-06
23-Oct-06
24-Oct-06
24-Oct-06
24-Oct-06
24-Oct-06
24-Oct-06
25-Oct-06
25-Oct-06
Recommended
Questioned Costs Efficiencies
Ineligible Unsupported Unreasonabb (Funds Be Put
Costs Costs Costs To Better Use)
$1,328,189
$24,125
$27,343
0
$246,127
0
0
0
$2,161
0
0
$36,196
$26,972
$196,029
0
$2,055
$63,423
$9,975
$1,324
$399
$306,792
0
$2,942,255
0
$1,893
0
$4,232
0
0
$812
0
0
0
$233,408
$83,224
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$44,149
0
$40,461
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
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
$4,576
$13,013,609
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
-------
Report Number
2007-4-00016
2007-4-00017
2007-4-00018
2007-4-00020
2007-4-00021
2007-4-00022
2007-4-00023
2007-4-00024
2007-4-00025
2007-4-00028
2007-4-00029
2007-4-00030
2007-4-00031
2007-4-00032
2007-4-00035
2007-4-00036
2007-4-00037
2007-4-00038
2007-4-00039
2007-4-00040
2007-4-00041
2007-4-00042
2007-4-00043
2007-4-00044
2007-4-00046
2007-4-00047
2007-4-00048
2007-4-00049
2007-4-00050
2007-4-00051
Title
Foster Wheeler Environmental Corp.-FY2003 MAAR 6-Floorcheck
Systems Research & Applications - FY 2006 CAS 408
FosterWheeler Envtl Corp-FY2003 Contract Over/Underpayments
DPRA, Inc. - Paid Vouchers Review
SAIC- Company 1 - FY2006 CAS 411
Eastern Research Group - FY2005 MAAR 6 FloorCheck
SAIC - Company 6 - FY 2006 Disclosure Statement
Systems Research & Applications-FY 2006 Rev CAS Disc Statem
Alpine Geophysics, LLC - Preaward Accounting System Review
Mabbett and Assocites, Inc. - Preaward - PR-HQ-06-1 3341
EG&G - FY 2006 Labor Floor Checks
Tetra Tech EMI -CAS 410
The Johnson Company - Preaward Accounting Survey
The Johnson Company- Financial Capability
IBM Federal, Inc. -FY 2006 Labor I CAP
EG&G - FY 2006 Billing System Audit
FEV Engine Technology - FY 2006 MAAR 6 Floor Check
Weston Solutions - FY 2006 Floor Checks
IBM Federal, Inc. - FY 12/2006 Paid Voucher Review
Weston Solutions, Inc. - FY2006 Compensation Audit
Weston Solutions, Inc. - FY 2006 Financial Control Risk
Mabbett & Associates, Inc, - Financial Condition Risk Assess
Weston Solutions, Inc. - FY 2006 CAS 41 6
Innovar Environmental, Inc. - Preaward Accounting System
SAIC- Company 9 - FY2006 Financial Cond Risk Assess
PG Environmental, LLC - Preaward Accounting Survey System
Shaw Environmental & Infrastructure, Inc. - CAS 418
SAI C - Company 6 - FY 2006 CAS 4 1 0
Eastern Research Group - FY 2007 MAAR 6 Floor Check
Eastern Research Group - CAS 412-413
TOTAL DCAA CONTRACT REPORTS = 116
Final Report
Issued
30-0ct-06
1-Nov-06
2-Nov-06
2-Nov-06
6-Nov-06
8-Nov-06
9-Nov-06
13-Nov-06
21-Nov-06
30-Nov-06
5-Dec-06
7-Dec-06
7-Dec-06
7-Dec-06
21-Dec-06
22-Dec-06
22-Dec-06
8-Jan-07
8-Jan-07
8-Jan-07
9-Jan-07
16-Jan-07
7-Feb-07
9-Feb-07
26-Feb-07
26-Feb-07
27-Feb-07
2-Mar-07
22-Mar-07
29-Mar-07
Recommended
Questioned Costs Efficiencies
Ineligible Unsupported Unreasonable (Funds Be Put
Costs Costs Costs To Better Use)
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
$5,863,026
FINANCIAL STATEMENT REPORTS
2007-1-00001
2007-1-00002
2007-1-00019
2007-1-00020
2007-1-00023
2007-2-00001
2005 FIFRA Financial Statements
2005 PRIA Financial Statements
2006 Agency Financial Statements - General (Master)
GRRS
2006 CSB Financial Statement Audit
2006 Payroll AUP
TOTAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT REPORTS = 6
10-0ct-06
9-Jan-07
15-Nov-06
17-Nov-06
1-Dec-06
9-Oct-06
0
0
0
0
0
0
$0
SPECIAL REVIEW REPORTS
TOTAL SPECIAL REVIEW REPORTS = 0
TOTAL REPORTS ISSUED = 222
$0
$34,258,657
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
$3,013,309
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
$43,919
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
$13,018,185
0
0
0
0
0
0
$0
$0
$22,318,235
47
-------
The Inspector General Act requires a summary of each audit 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 OIG provides the summary on the status of the report, and the date
and title of each such report. The Agency provides the explanation of the reasons 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 03/31/2007:
[ ] No Response
0 Resolution Pending Receipt of Additional Information
1 Proposed Response Received Awaiting Final Determination
2 Incomplete Response Received
3 Proposed Response Received in Review Process
5 Report Reactivated/Awaiting Response
6 Resolution Under Negotiation in Headquarters
7 Referred to Audit Resolution Board
Office of the Administrator
Report No.: 2006-P-00034
Title: Environmental Justice Survey
Issued: 09/18/2006
We recommended that the Deputy Administrator (1) require the Agency's program and regional offices to
identify which programs, policies, and activities need environmental justice reviews and require these offices
to establish a plan to complete the necessary reviews; (2) ensure that environmental justice reviews
determine whether the programs, policies, and activities may have a disproportionately high and adverse
health or environmental impact on minority and low-income populations; (3) require each program and
regional office to develop, with the assistance of the Office of Environmental Justice (OEJ), specific
environmental justice review guidance, which includes protocols, a framework, or directions for conducting
environmental justice reviews; and (4) designate a responsible office to (a) compile the results of
environmental justice reviews, and (b) recommend appropriate actions to review findings and make
recommendations to the decision-making office's senior leadership. The Agency accepted our
recommendations.
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE
The OIG did not accept the Agency response to this audit because it does not fully respond to three of the
four recommendations. The OIG is currently working with the Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance (OECA) and OEJ to resolve the outstanding issues. OECA and OEJ are preparing the revised
Agency response and expect resolution by April 20, 2007.
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION
Expected resolution by April 20, 2007
IG Followup Status as of: 03/30/2007 [ 2 ]
48
-------
Office of Air and Radiation
Report No.: 2004-P-00033
Title: Effectiveness of Strategies to Reduce Ozone Precursors
Issued: 09/29/2004
The Agency's response generally agreed with the report's findings except for the use of
National Emissions Inventory (NEI) data as an indicator as to whether selected
nonattainment areas had achieved ozone precursor emission reductions required by the
Act. EPA's response indicated that NEI emissions data were not of sufficient quality
and did not contain emission data in the proper units of measure needed to adequately
determine the amount of emission reductions achieved by individual nonattainment
areas. However, EPA has promoted the NEI as the highest quality emissions data
available, has used the data for regulatory planning and support, and continues to use
the data for national, regional, and State emission trends in publicly released reports.
As such, the NEI data are the best available indicator of whether individual
nonattainment areas have met the precursor emission reductions required by the Act;
analysis of the precursor emissions data in NEI will help EPA ensure that permanent
ozone reductions have been achieved, as required by the Act.
EPA provided an action plan to the OIG that provided a partial list of actions planned in
response to our report and we closed 8 of the 25 recommendations (3-1, 3-4, 3-6, 6-2, 6-3,
8-1, 8-2, and 8-4). We sent a memo to EPA in May 2005 explaining that, once the final
Milestone Compliance Demonstration (MCD) rule is promulgated, we may close out 6
additional recommendations (2-2, 3-3, 5-1, 5-2, 5-3, and 5-5), if the MCD rule adequately
addresses these recommendations. Additionally, we explained that we may be able to
close 6 other recommendations (2-1, 5-3, 5-4,6-1, 7-1, and 7-2) that the Agency was
considering in concert with its efforts to address the recommendations of the National
Academy of Sciences/ National Research Council's CAAAC Air Quality Management work
group. We also explained that we needed more specifics about the action(s) being taken
or planned to address other recommendations (3-2, 3-5,4-1, 4-2, 8-3, 8-5). Subsequently,
in May 2006 we met with management and staff of EPA/RTP's State and Local Programs
Group/Air Quality Policy Division of OAQPS, and were told that the Agency had decided
not to issue the MCD rule. Instead, the Agency planned to issue guidance to EPA regions
that they could share with their States. They explained that such guidance would be faster
than a regulatory approach and there were only a limited number of areas at the time that
fell into the serious, severe, or extreme non-attainment category under the new .08 ppm, 8-
hour ozone standard. Staff acknowledged that more areas may come under these
categories in the future. We do not agree that guidance is an acceptable alternative to
following through on the CAA's mandate to promulgate rules requiring that States
demonstrate progress in reducing precursor emissions, including a reliable method to
measure ozone precursor emission reduction efforts. Regarding the recommendations of
the CAAAC Air Quality Management work group, the Agency formed an ongoing quality
management task force. OAQPS officials said they would wait until the Agency task force
report comes out before they develop any other plan to address the OIG's open
recommendations. We will continue to follow up on the Agency's actions regarding our
Ozone Precursor Emissions report.
EXPLANATIpN OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DEplSION HAS NOT BEEN MADE
Seeking Assistant Administrator guidance on whetherto issue an MCD rule orguidance.
Expect resolution by November 2007.
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION
Expect resolution by November 2007.
IG Followup Status as of: 03/30/2007 [2]
49
-------
Report No.: 2005-P-00003
Title: Development of the Proposed MACTfor Utility Units
Issued: 02/02/2005
EPA submitted its response to our final report on Maximum Achievable Control Technology
standards for utilities on May 4, 2005. Based on this response we agreed to close out two
recommendations, hold three recommendations in abeyance pending the outcome of
litigation, and hold four recommendations open pending receipt of a corrective action plan
for implementing those recommendations. After EPA's initial response to our report, the
Agency decided to open the Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR) for reconsideration on
October 28, 2005. On January 25, 2006, the Agency requested an extension for
completing its response to our report for all seven open recommendations until the rule
reconsideration process was completed. On February 2, 2006, we granted the Agency's
request for an extension. The reconsidered CAMR rule was issued May 31, 2006,
essentially unchanged from the earlier rule. On June 19, 2006, about 16 States filed
lawsuits challenging EPA's reconsidered CAMR rule, and on January 12, 2007 these and
other suits were combined into one case which is pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals
- DC Circuit. Since our report raised questions about the data and process EPA used in
developing CAMR, we will hold the recommendations in abeyance until the Court's ruling in
which event they may be applicable if the Agency conducts additional mercury analyses.
We will continue to monitor Agency actions regarding the findings and recommendations in
our February 2005 report.
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE
Resolution continues to be on hold; beyond Agency control
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION
IG Followup Status as of: 03/30/2007 [0]
Report No.: 2006-P-000017
Title: Emissions Factors Management, Use, and Benefits
Issued: 03/22/2006
EPA generally agreed with our report and provided a corrective action plan to the OIG in
August 2006 that enabled the OIG to close 9 of 13 recommendations. We followed up with
the Office of Air and Radiation in March 2007 and confirmed that the Agency issued a
Quality Management Plan in October 2006 calling for data used for the development of
emissions factors to meet data quality requirements; thus, we can now close Rec. 3-2(e).
We will continue to monitor the Agency's actions regarding the findings and
recommendations in our March 2006 Emissions Factors report.
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE
The Office of Air and Radiation continues discussions with the IG to close out the
remaining three items. Expect resolution November 2007.
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION
Expect resolution by November 2007.
IG Followup Status as of: 03/30/2007 [2]
50
-------
Report No.: 2006-P-00025
Title: Mercury Hotspots Analysis Under CAMR
Issued: 05/11/2006
Due to the uncertainties associated with the Agency's analysis of the potential for
mercury hotspots, the OIG recommended that the Acting Assistant Administrator for Air
and Radiation work with the Assistant Administrator for the Office of Research and
Development to develop and implement a mercury monitoring plan, including milestones
and responsible prog ram offices for implementing each component of the plan, to:
(1) assess the impact of CAMR, if adopted, on mercury deposition and fish tissue; and
(2) evaluate and refine, as necessary, mercury estimation tools and models.
EPA generally agreed with our report and provided a corrective action plan to the OIG in
August 2006. After assessing the Agency corrective action plan, the OIG kept the above
recommendation open pending the receipt of additional information from the Agency. The
Agency responded to our request with additional information, but indicated that it was
unsure as to whether fish tissue sampling, specifically, would continue beyond 2008 due to
budget limitations. Because data from fish tissue is necessary to monitor the impact of
CAMR and the potential for mercury hotspots, the OIG replied to the Agency in January
2007 that the recommendation would remain open. We will review the final Agency budget
to determine if a fish tissue sampling plan is a part of the EPAs activities for 2008. Thus, a
resolution to this recommendation is on hold while we await final Agency budget
information.
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE
On hold by OIG beyond Agency control
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION
IG Followup Status as of: 03/30/2007 [0]
Financial Analysis & Rate Negotiation Service Center
Report No.: 1997-2-00006
Title: GET Internal Control Review
Issued: 01/27/1997
Review of the Internal Control structure determined: (1) Davis Bacon Act Billing rates were
not based on the contracted Davis Bacon Act Multiplier; (2) accounting procedures may
not identify fully depreciated equipment; and (3) employees were not complying with
timekeeping policies.
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE
Resolution on hold beyond Agency control
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION
IG Followup Status as of: 03/30/2007 [0]
Report No.: 1999-1-00019
Title: GET Environmental Services Inc. - FY 1992-1993 Incurred Cost
Issued MO/IS/I 998
DCAA questioned $27,410 of the contractor's claimed EPA direct costs.
51
-------
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE
Resolution on hold beyond Agency control
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION
IG Followup Status as of: 03/30/2007 [0]
Report No.: 1999-1-00020
Title: GET Environmental Services Inc. - FY 1994 Incurred Cost
Issued MO/IS/I 998
DCAA questioned $9,160 of the contractor's claimed EPA direct costs.
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE
Resolution on hold beyond Agency control
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION
IG Followup Status as of: 03/30/2007 [0]
Report No.: 1999-1-00018
Title: GET Environmental Services Inc. - FY 1992 Incurred Costs
Issued MO/IS/I 998
DCAA questioned $5,712 of the contractor's claimed EPA direct costs.
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE
Resolution on hold beyond Agency control
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION
IG Followup Status as of: 03/30/2007 [0]
Report No.: 1999-1-00299
Title: GET Environmental Services Inc. - FY 1995 Incurred Costs
Issued: 09/24/1998
DCAA questioned $12,920 of the contractor's claimed EPA direct costs.
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE
Resolution on hold beyond Agency control
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION
IG Followup Status as of: 03/30/2007 [0]
Report No.: 1999-1-00297
Title: GET Environmental Services Inc. - FY 1996 Incurred Costs
Issued: 09/24/1998
DCAA questioned some of the contractor's indirect expenses.
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE
Resolution on hold beyond Agency control
52
-------
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION
IG Followup Status as of: 03/30/2007 [0]
Report No.: 1999-1-00298
Title: GET Environmental Services Inc. - FY 1997 Incurred Costs
Issued: 09/24/1998
DCAA questioned $3,699 of EPAs claimed direct costs because the rates used exceeded
allowable equipment rates.
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE
Resolution on hold beyond Agency control
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION
IG Followup Status as of: 03/30/2007 [0]
Report No.: 2002-1-00158
Title: GET Environmental Services Inc. - FY 1999 Incurred Costs
Issued: 08/29/2002
DCAA questioned $118,846 of EPAs claimed direct costs.
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE
Resolution on hold beyond Agency control
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION
IG Followup Status as of: 03/30/2007 [0]
Report No.: 2002-1-00163
Title: GET Environmental Services Inc. - FY 1998 Incurred Costs
Issued: 09/11/2002
DCAA questioned $19,160 of direct costs under an EPA contract. These costs relate to
equipment usage rates.
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE
Resolution on hold beyond Agency control
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION
IG Followup Status as of: 03/30/2007 [0]
Report No.: 2003-1-00002
Title: GET Environmental Services Inc. - FY 2000 Incurred Costs
Issued: 10/04/2002
DCAA questioned $4,417 of EPAs direct costs due to equipment usage rates.
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE
Resolution on hold beyond Agency control
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION
IG Followup Status as of: 03/30/2007 [0]
53
-------
Report No.: 2004-1 -00099
Title: Lockheed Martin Services Group - FYE 12/31/2002 Incurred Cost
Issued: 08/23/2004
DCAA questioned indirect costs of $3,595,399, of which $2,128 is applicable to EPA
contracts. DCAA qualified the audit results pending receipt of assist audit reports.
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE
Resolution on hold beyond Agency control
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION
IG Followup Status as of: 03/30/2007 [0]
Report No.: 2005-1-00171
Title: Advanced Technologies Systems, Inc. - FY 2003 Incurred Costs
Issued: 09/26/2005
DCAA questioned indirect costs for FYs 2001-2003.
- Applicable to FY 2001: $13,904
- Applicable to FY 2002: $6,891
- Applicable to FY 2003: $13,928
Audit on hold due to other cognizant Federal Agency (DOE).
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE
Resolution on hold beyond Agency control
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION
IG Followup Status as of: 03/30/2007 [0]
Report No.: 2006-4-00016
Title: Shaw Environmental & Infrastructure, Inc. - FY 2005 Billing Sys
Issued: 10/14/2005
The contractor's billing system and related internal control polices and procedures were
considered inadequate in part, resulting in a delay of the contract closeout process.
Audit on hold due to other cognizant Federal Agency (DoD).
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE
Resolution on hold beyond Agency control
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION
IG Followup Status as of: 03/30/2007 [0]
54
-------
Report No.: 2006-1 -00007
Title: AST Associates Inc. - FY 2001 Incurred Cost
Issued: 10/14/2005
DCAA questioned claimed direct costs and some of the contractor's proposed indirect
rates.
Questioned Costs - Direct: $15,585
Questioned Costs - Indirect: $157,383
Total Questioned Costs $172,968
Audit on hold due to other cognizant Federal Agency (AID).
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE
Resolution on hold beyond Agency control
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION
IG Followup Status as of: 03/30/2007 [0]
Report No.: 2006-2-00004
Title: Tetra Tech FW, Inc.- FY 2003 RAC 68-W9-8214
Issued: 10/28/2005
Based on DCAA's analysis, there was a net difference of $474 between the contractor's
RAC claimed amount and incurred costs/ less ceiling rate adjustment. DCAA qualified the
report awaiting the Corporate audit results.
Audit on hold due to other cognizant Federal Agency (DoD).
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE
Resolution on hold beyond Agency control
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION
IG Followup Status as of: 03/30/2007 [0]
Report No.: 2006-4-00046
Title: SAIC - FY 2004 Compensation System Review
Issued: 12/14/2005
In DCAA's opinion, the contractor's compensation system was inadequate. DCAA found
deficiencies that may result in unreasonable costs.
Audit on hold due to other cognizant Federal Agency (DoD).
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE
Resolution on hold beyond Agency control
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION
IG Followup Status as of: 03/30/2007 [0]
55
-------
Report No.: 2006-1-00030
Title: National Academy of Sciences FYE 12/31/2003 Incurred Cost
Issued: 03/13/2006
In DCAA's opinion, the contractor's claimed direct costs are acceptable. However, DCAA
questioned total indirect costs of $130,136, of which $1,172 is applicable to EPA
contracts.
Audit on hold due to other cognizant Federal Agency (ONR).
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE
Resolution on hold beyond Agency control
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION
IG Followup Status as of: 03/30/2007 [0]
Report No.: 2006-1-00031
Title: Computer Sciences Corp. (CSC)-CFYE 3/31/2002 Incurred Cost
Issued: 03/15/2006
DCAA questioned $519,860 of the contractor's claimed direct and indirect costs.
Questioned Costs - Direct $474,083
Questioned Costs-Indirect 45.777
Total Questioned Costs $519,860
Audit on hold due to other cognizant Federal Agency (DoD).
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE
Resolution on hold beyond Agency control
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION
IG Followup Status as of: 03/30/2007 [0]
Report No.: 2006-4-00094
Title: Computer Sciences Corporation - FY 2006 Floor Check
Issued: 04/18/2006
In DCAA's opinion, certain contractor labor practices require corrective action to improve
the reliability of the contractor's labor accounting system.
Audit on hold due to other cognizant Federal Agency (DoD).
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE
Resolution on hold beyond Agency control
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION
IG Followup Status as of: 03/30/2007 [0]
56
-------
Report No.: 2006-1-00043
Title: Black & Veatch Special Projects Corp.-FY2001 Incurred Cost
Issued: 04/20/2006
DCAA accepted the contractor's claimed direct costs but questioned the proposed
indirect rates. Total questioned costs were $27,754 in indirect pools and ($413,064) in
indirect base costs. EPA's share of questioned costs are $5,476 and ($81,498),
respectively.
Audit on hold due to other cognizant Federal Agency (DoD).
() = upward adjustment
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE
Resolution on hold beyond Agency control
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION
IG Followup Status as of: 03/30/2007 [0]
Report No.: 2006-4-00100
Title: Black & Veatch SPC- FY 2005 MAAR 6 (Floor Check)
Issued: 05/08/2006
Based on DCAAs review, certain contractor labor practices require corrective action to
improve the reliabiity of the contractor's labor accounting system. DCAA also noted other
matters involving the timekeeping system and related internal controls which, although not
considered to be significant deficiencies, are detailed in the report.
Audit on hold due to other cognizant Federal Agency (DoD).
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE
Resolution on hold beyond Agency control
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION
IG Followup Status as of: 03/30/2007 [0]
Report No.: 2006-1-00045
Title: Tetra Tech EC, Inc. - FY 10/1/2004 Incurred Cost
Issued: 05/12/2006
DCAA questioned claimed direct costs and proposed indirect rates. DCAA unresolved
$21,016,981 in subcontract costs and $5,482,558 in claimed corporate allocation costs
pending receipt of the assist audits. Total EPA costs questioned are $2,138.
Audit on hold due to other cognizant Federal Agency (DoD).
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE
Resolution on hold beyond Agency control
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION
IG Followup Status as of: 03/30/2007 [0]
57
-------
Report No.: 2006-4-00115
Title: Battelle - ICAPS - FY 2006 EDP System
Issued: 06/29/2006
In DCAA's opinion, the contractor's Information Technology system's general internal
controls were inadequate in part. In DCAA's judgment, these deficiencies could adversely
affect the organization's ability to record, process, summarize and report direct and
indirect costs in a manner that is consistent with applicable Government contract laws
and regulations.
Audit on hold due to other cognizant Federal Agency (DCMA).
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE
Resolution on hold beyond Agency control
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION
IG Followup Status as of: 03/30/2007 [0]
Report No.: 2006-4-00120
Title: National Academy of Sciences - FY 2006 Info Tech System
Issued: 07/20/2006
DCAA determined that the contractor's Information Technology system general internal
controls are inadequate in part.
Audit on hold due to other cognizant Federal Agency (ONR).
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE
Resolution on hold beyond Agency control
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION
IG Followup Status as of: 03/30/2007 [0]
Report No.: 2006-1-90056
Title: Computer Sciences Corp- Applied Tech Div. -CFY 3/31/2003 I/C
Issued: 07/20/2006
DCAA questioned claimed direct costs of $60,066,944 and proposed indirect costs of
$4,921,265. DCAA unresolved $81,021,865 in subcontract costs pending receipt of the
assist audits. EPA questioned direct costs are $187,481.
Audit on hold due to other cognizant Federal Agency (DoD).
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE
Resolution on hold beyond Agency control
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION
IG Followup Status as of: 03/30/2007 [0]
58
-------
Report No.: 2006-1-00057
Title: Black & Veatch Spec. Proj. Corp.-FY2002 Incurred Cost
Issued: 07/27/2006
In DCAA's opinion, the contractor's claimed direct costs are acceptable, however, the
contractor's proposed indirect rates were adjusted. EPA's portion of the questioned costs
is $8,118 out of the total government questioned costs of $11,137.
Audit on hold due to other cognizant Federal Agency (DoD).
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE
Resolution on hold beyond Agency control
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION
IG Followup Status as of: 03/30/2007 [0]
Report No.: 2006-1-00070
Title: CH2M Hill, Inc. - FY 12/31/2004 Incurred Cost
Issued: 09/12/2006
DCAA determined that the contractor's claimed direct costs are acceptable, however,
DCAA questioned $2,775,189 proposed indirect costs. Also, DCAA qualified $8,312,653
in claimed subcontract costs for which the requested assist audits have not been
received.
Audit on hold due to other cognizant Federal Agency (DoD).
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE
Resolution on hold beyond Agency control
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION
IG Followup Status as of: 03/30/2007 [0]
Report No.: 2006-4-00165
Title: National Academy of Sciences - FY 2006 Indirect/ODC System
Issued: 09/27/2006
In DCAA's opinion, the contractor service centers cost system and related internal
control policies and procedures are inadequate in part. DCAA examination noted
certain significant deficiencies in the design or operation of the Indirect/Other Direct
Costs system process.
Audit on hold due to other cognizant Federal Agency.
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE
Resolution on hold beyond Agency control
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION
IG Followup Status as of: 03/30/2007 [0]
59
-------
Report No.: 2006-4-00169
Title: National Academy of Sciences - FY 2006 Labor System
Issued: 09/27/2006
In DCAA's opinion, the contractor's labor system and related internal control policies and
procedures are inadequate in part. DCAA's examination noted certain significant
deficiencies in the design or operation of the internal control structure.
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE
Resolution on hold beyond Agency control
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION
IG Followup Status as of: 03/30/2007 [0]
Grants Administration Division
Report No.: 1995-1-00001
Title: Clark Atlanta University
Issued: 09/30/1995
Clark Atlanta University (a) did not properly establish the Center for Environmental Policy,
Education, and Research; (b) mismanaged the cooperative agreement; and (c) did not
ensure the allowability of costs.
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE
The Grants Administration Division (GAD) has exchanged information with OIG, requested
additional information from Clark Atlanta University, and prepared a draft final determination
letter (FDL) on the audit report. On January 8, 2007, OIG provided additional comments on
GAD's proposed FDL, but agreed that GAD could issue it. GAD is incorporating OIG's
comments and preparing to submit the final determination to OGC for final review priorto
issuance on April 30, 2007.
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION
Expected resolution by May 1, 2007
IG Followup Status as of: 03/30/2007 [2]
Report No.: 2002-2-00008
Title: MBI International Assistance Agreement
Issued: 01/29/2002
MBI did not have adequate justification to support the award of sole source contracts.
Also, MBI's procurement practices did not meet Federal requirements. As a result,
$1,301,365, consisting of $1,201,857 in contract costs and $99,508 in consultant costs,
is not eligible for Federal reimbursement. Further, there were apparent conflicts of interest
between MBI, its subsidiary (CRT), and companies created by CRT.
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE
GAD is working with the recipient regarding some complex issues and expects the FDL
by November 2007.
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION
Expected resolution by November 2007
IG Followup Status as of: 03/30/2007 [5]
60
-------
Report No.: 2003-S-00001
Title: Region 7 Grants Protective
Issued: 05/29/2002
We questioned over $2 million because the Coordinating Committee on Automotive Repair
(CCAR) did not account forthe funds in accordance with Federal rules, regulations, and
terms of the agreement.
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE
EPA has requested additional information to substantiate the costs, but CCAR has not
responded. EPA will follow up with CCAR and issue the final determination disallowing
costs by April 2007.
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION
Expected resolution by April 2007
IG Followup Status as of: 03/30/2007 [2]
Report No.: 2003-3-00113
Title: American Indian Science & Engineering Society 1999-2001
Issued: 04/23/2003
Costs were not approved or were not supported. Questioned costs totaled $104,760.
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE
There are three reports under review forthe years 1999 - 2000. The report includes findings
of inadequate internal controls and questioned costs totaling $163,125. The report has
been reviewed and the recipient's responses to the findings are being reviewed. The
response submitted indicates that procedures have been implemented and the conditions
no longer exist. However, GAD has received the audit report for audit period 2002. Although
the report does not question any costs, it indicates some of the pre-existing internal
control issues still exist. GAD is working on determining appropriate resolution and
recommendations to resolve the findings. Final determination is expected October 2007.
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION
Expected resolution by October 2007
IG Followup Status as of: 03/30/2007 [5]
Report No.: 2003-3-00114
Title: American Indian Science & Engineering Society 1999-2001
Issued: 04/23/2003
Costs were not approved and not supported. Questioned costs totaled $58,365.
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE
There are 3 reports under review forthe years 1999 - 2000. The report includes findings of
inadequate internal controls and questioned coststotaling $163,125. The report has been
reviewed and the recipient's responses to the findings are being reviewed. The response
submitted indicates that procedures have been implemented and the conditions no longer
exist. However, GAD has received the audit report for audit period 2002. Although the
report does not question any costs, it indicates some of the pre-existing internal control
issues still exist. GAD is working on determining appropriate resolution and
recommendations to resolve the findings. Final determination is expected October 2007.
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION
Expected resolution by October 2007
IG Followup Status as of: 03/30/2007 [5]
61
-------
Report No.: 2003-3-00121
Title: Association of State & Interstate Water Pollution Control Agencies FY 2001
Issued: 05/07/2003
Grantee drew down $93,986 in excess of expenditures forthree EPA programs.
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE
Resolution on hold beyond Agency control.
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION
IG Followup Status as of: 03/30/2007 [0]
Report No.: 2003-4-00120
Title: Geothermal Heat Pump Consortium, Inc.-Costs Claimed
Issued: 09/30/2003
Questioned $1,153,472 due to material financial management deficiencies.
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE
The findings included lack of adequate procurement systems, inadequate internal controls,
possible lobbying, and questioned costs of $1,153,472. The recipient has provided
evidence of implementing adequate internal controls and procurement systems. Their
financial records have been submitted and reviewed as of November 2005. GAD needs to
make a determination as to how much of the total expended grant dollars we will accept
as valid grant charges. Final determination is expected June 2007.
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION
Expected resolution by June 2007
IG Followup Status as of: 03/30/2007 [ ]
Report No.: 2004-4-00014
Title: Consumer Federation of America Foundation-Costs Claimed
Issued: 03/01/2004
EPA awarded the cooperative agreements to the Consumer Federation of America
Foundation based on applications that showed labor and other operating costs. The
Foundation did not have any employees, space, or overhead expenses. Instead, the
Consumer Federation of America, an ineligible lobbying organization, performed the work.
Also, the recipient did not manage the funds according to Federal regulations. As a result,
we questioned over $4 million.
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE
The Office of General Counsel resolved the legal issues and GAD has completed the draft
FDL. The Office of General Counsel on January 17,2007, advised GAD to put the FDLon
hold pending resolution of some legal issues regarding sub-award policy. GAD expects
final FDL in April 2007.
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION
Expected resolution by April 2007
IG Followup Status as of: 03/30/2007 [ ]
62
-------
Report No.: 2005-3-00036
Title: National Indian Health Board, FY 2002
Issued: 12/30/2004
The Board was allocating salary costs to grants based on pre-determined formulas. No
support, in the form of time sheets, was located for those allocations. Also, amounts
charged to various grants were not always supported by original documentation. Therefore,
we questioned $31,960 as unsupported.
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE
The report identified inadequate documentation and incorrect allocation of expenditures.
The recipient has submitted its corrective action plan implementing the recommendations.
The recipient needs to provide confirmation that the corrective actions were completed.
GAD needs additional time to allow the recipient to provide the additional information. Final
determination is expected April 2007.
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION
Expected resolution by April 2007
IG Followup Status as of: 03/30/2007 [ ]
Report No.: 2005-3-00069
Title: Water Environment Research Foundation FY 2002
Issued: 01/25/2005
The Foundation did not prepare an indirect cost rate proposal for FY 2002 in accordance
with the conditions of its EPA assistance agreements.
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE
GAD is working with recipient on the additional information requested. GAD expects FDL
in June 2007.
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION
Expected resolution by June 2007
IG Followup Status as of: 03/30/2007 [ ]
Report No.: 2005-3-00071
Title: Water Environment Research Foundation FY 2003
Issued: 01/25/2005
The Foundation did not submit an indirect cost rate proposal according to the conditions
of its EPA assistance agreements.
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE
GAD is working with recipient on the additional information requested. GAD expects FDL
in June 2007.
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION
Expected resolution by June 2007
IG Followup Status as of: 03/30/2007 [ ]
63
-------
Report No.: 2005-3-00123
Title: GAS Technology Institute and GAS Research Institute
Issued: 03/10/2005
For the seven contracts tested, the GAS Technology Institute did not obtain the required
suspension and debarment certifications forsubawards and covered contracts.
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE
Final determination letter is in GAD's signature chain and is expected in April 2007.
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION
Expected resolution by April 2007
IG Followup Status as of: 03/30/2007 [ ]
Report No.: 2005-3-00148
Title: American Registry of Pathology FY 2002
Issued: 04/06/2005
DCAA performed an incurred cost audit of the Research and Development Federal Cluster
and questioned $356,574, which it deemed to be unallowable, relating to direct and
indirect costs. DCAA did not identify the amount applicable to EPA funding. Recipient
did not have specific controls in place to determine that vendors were not suspended or
debarred by the federal government.
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE
The FDL is in the GAD signature chain and should be signed in April 2007.
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION
Expected resolution by April 2007
IG Followup Status as of: 03/30/2007 [ ]
Report No.: 2005-3-00217
Title: American Indian Science and Engineering Society - FY 2002
Issued: 06/30/2005
The Society held $19,289 in deferred revenue for EPA grant, Surveys, Studies,
Investigations, and Special Purpose.
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE
There are three reports under review forthe years 1999 - 2000. The report includes findings
of inadequate internal controls and questioned costs totaling $163,125. The report has
been reviewed and the recipient's responses to the findings are being reviewed. The
response submitted indicates that procedures have been implemented and the conditions
no longer exist. However, GAD has received the audit report for audit period 2002. Although
the report does not question any costs, it indicates some of the pre-existing internal
control issues still exist. GAD is working on determining appropriate resolution and
recommendations to resolve the findings. Final determination is expected October 2007.
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION
Expected resolution by October 2007
IG Followup Status as of: 03/30/2007 [ ]
64
-------
Report No.: 2005-3-00225
Title: Association of State/Interstate Water Pollution Control Adm- FY 2003
Issued: 09/12/2005
1. The Association does not have adequate procedures in place to accurately track and
record grant balances. Significant adjustments after the fiscal-year end were required to
properly report grant balances. 2. The Association's books of accounts are not accurately
maintained on an accrual basis. Significant adjustments were required after year-end to
accrue balances in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. As a
result, the audited financial statements reflected results that were significantly different
from internal management reports. 3. Discrepancies in the net disbursements reported on
the SF-272s for several grants for the reporting periods ended December 31,2002, and
June 30, 2003, were noted. In addition, cumulative disbursements reported forthe same
period did not reconcile to the general ledger for these same periods. 4. Association does
not have adequate procedures to ensure that payments to hourly employees are correct
and are adequately supported. In addition, timesheets forseveral off-site employees were
not signed by either the employee or a supervisor with knowledge of the activities.
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE
Resolution on hold beyond Agency control.
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION
IG Followup Status as of: 03/30/2007 [ 0 ]
Report No.: 2005-3-00226
Title: Association of State/Interstate Water Pollution Control Adm- FY 2002
Issued: 09/12/2005
Recording of grant expenditures was not done accurately or on a timely basis during the
year. The recording of fringe benefits related to direct grant salaries and wages and the
recording of indirect costs associated with total direct grant costs were not done monthly.
In addition, direct salaries and wages were incorrectly recorded to the NPS grant afterthe
grant period expired. An adjustment was made to properly record these costs to the
integrated grant. Because the grants have expired, costs totaling $11,276 are being
questioned due to over-requesting funds in excess of supported costs.
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE
Resolution on hold beyond Agency control.
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION
IG Followup Status as of: 03/30/2007 [ 0 ]
Report No.: 2005-3-00236
Title: Geothermal Heat Pump Consortium, Inc. - FY 2003
Issued: 09/21/2005
Auditeedid not have adequate segregation of duties, due to small size of organization.
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE
The grantee outsourced the segregation of duties and GAD is in the process of writing the
FDL. GAD expects resolution by August 2007.
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION
Expected resolution by August 2007
IG Followup Status as of: 03/30/2007 [ ]
65
-------
Report No.: 2005-3-00247
Title: Civil Engineering Research Foundation FY 2003
Issued: 09/21/2005
The auditee did not have fully supporting records and a well-documented approach for its
bid process forthree subagreements awarded under nine contracts sampled for review.
Additionally, the auditee's policies and procedures did not contain a written code of
conduct for its employees engaged in procurement activities.
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE
Final determination letter is in GAD's signature chain and is expected in April 2007.
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION
Expected resolution by April 2007
IG Followup Status as of: 03/30/2007 [ ]
Report No.: 2006-3-00006
Title: Alfred University, FY 2004
Issued: 10/13/2005
The University's current accounting system provides certified payroll information on an
individual grant basis. However, the payroll distribution system does not provide a
proportionate breakdown of each employee's total time between each sponsored program
he/she may be working on and other non-sponsored activities. The auditor questioned
costs of $649,506, but could not determine the direct impact upon EPA's program.
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE
Separating EPA's funds from the lump sum identified in the findings of the second audit.
Preparing request for supporting documentation to send to Alfred University. The final
determination letter should be ready by April 2007.
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION
Expected resolution by April 2007
IG Followup Status as of: 03/30/2007 [ ]
Report No.: 2006-3-00026
Title: National Association for Equal Opportunity in Higher Education, FY 2004
Issued: 11/09/2005
1. At commencement of audit field work, the auditor noted than many asset and liability
accounts were not properly reconciled. Significant time was spent reconciling accounts
as of June 30, 2004, that should have been reconciled on a monthly basis. 2. During
testing of cash disbursements and compliance with allowable costs/cost principles for
major Federal programs, the auditor found the following: 3 out of 60 (5%) expenditures had
no supporting documentation available; and 5 out of 60 (9%) expenditures were not
properly authorized. Total expenditures selected fortesting totaled $183,526, of which
$5,313 was identified as questioned costs. A portion of these questioned costs pertain to
EPA grant funds. Therefore, EPA needs to either obtain adequate supporting
documentation forthe travel questioned, or recoverthe costs. 3. During testing, the
auditor noted the following: 1 out of 14 (7%) payroll transactions had no supporting
documentation (approved timesheets) available; and 7 out of 7 (100%) employees'
personnel files were not complete with up-to-date information.
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE
GAD has reviewed the report and has prepared a draft final determination letter. The report
included findings regarding inadequate accounting practices. The recipient submitted the
66
-------
requested documentation on November 2006. Closeout of the audit is not being
recommended pending resolution of $108,000 remaining under one of their grants. Final
determination is expected September 2007.
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION
Expected resolution by September 2007
IG Followup Status as of: 03/30/2007 [ ]
Report No.: 2006-3-00077
Title: Rand Corporation, The - FY 2003
Issued: 03/07/2006
The auditor's review of the property taxes indicated that the FY 2002 property taxes were
paid and due in FY 2002 and recorded as prepaid expense. Rand expressed and claimed
the cost in FY 2003.
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE
The recipient is compiling the additional documentation and will provide confirmation that
the corrective actions were completed and send to GAD. GAD expects the FDL in May
2007.
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION
Expected resolution by May 2007
IG Followup Status as of: 03/30/2007 [ ]
Report No.: 2006-3-00076
Title: Rand Corporation, The - FY 2002
Issued: 03/07/2006
An employee did not remain employed with Rand for at least 1 year from the date of
relocation. Rand did not have formally approved written policies and procedures forthe
overall accounting system. Rand did not conduct independent compliance testing of its
internal controls. In addition, Rand needed to establish an internal audit function to
conduct the testing.
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE
The recipient is compiling the additional documentation and will provide confirmation that
the corrective actions were completed and send to GAD. GAD expects the FDL in May
2007.
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION
Expected resolution by May 2007
IG Followup Status as of: 03/30/2007 [ ]
Report No.: 2006-3-00111
Title: National Tribal Environmental Council, Inc. - FY 2003
Issued: 05/15/2006
Quarterly Financial Status Reports (FSR 269) were not prepared or submitted to the
Environmental Protection Agency.
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE
GAD has reviewed the report and has prepared a draft final determination letter. The report
included findings regarding inadequate accounting practices. The recipient submitted the
67
-------
requested documentation in November 2006. However, the documentation was deemed
inadequate and additional documentation has been requested. Perthe recipient, they have
requested the information from archived records and will submit to GAD by the end of
March 2007. The FDL is in signature chain in GAD. GAD expects FDL by end of April
2007.
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION
Expected resolution by April 2007
IG Followup Status as of: 03/30/2007 [ ]
Report No.: 2006-3-00112
Title: AWWA Research Foundation - FY 2004
Issued: 05/15/2006
The Foundation did not fulfill all of its responsibilities as a pass-through entity. The
Foundation did not: (a) monitor the activities of sub-recipients to ensure that Federal
awards are used for authorized purposes; (b) ensure that sub-recipients expending
$500,000 or more in Federal awards during the sub-recipients' fiscal year have met the
audit requirements; (c) issue a management decision on audit findings within 6 months
after receipt of the sub-recipient's audit report and ensure that the sub-recipient took
appropriate and timely corrective action, and (d) consider whether sub-recipient audits
necessitated adjustments of the Foundation's own records.
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE
GAD is currently reviewing the findings and additional documentation is requested from the
recipient. GAD expects the FDL in June 2007.
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION
Expected resolution by June 2007
IG Followup Status as of: 03/30/2007 [ ]
Report No.: 2006-4-00122
Title: AA-ASIWPCA
Issued: 07/31/2006
The Association did not comply with the financial and program management standards and
the procurement standards promulgated in Title 40 CFR, Subchapter B, Part 30. The
Association (1) could not provide support for any of its general journal entries; (2) included
duplicate recorded costs in its accounting system; (3) could not always trace grant draws
to the accounting records; (4) could not always support labor charged to the EPA grants;
(5) could not support the recorded indirect costs; (6) did not record all of its program
income; (7) did not have adequate written procedures for determining reasonable,
allocable, and allowable costs; (8) drew EPA grant funds in excess of the funds needed;
and (9) did not complete the required single audits for fiscal years ended June 30, 2004,
and June 30, 2005. As a result, we questioned as unsupported a total of $1,883,590 in
EPA grant payments for seven grants.
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE
GAD is waiting for finalization of pre-award certification from the recipient and will review all
documentation. GAD expects FDL in September 2007.
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION
Expected resolution by September 2007
IG Followup Status as of: 03/30/2007 [ ]
68
-------
Report No.: 2006-3-00199
Title: Howard University, FY 2005
Issued: 09/07/2006
The University had numerous program noncompliances related to timekeeping, funds
matching, subrecipient monitoring, financial reporting, and equipment disposal.
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE
GAD has requested additional documentation from the recipient. Final determination is
expected in April 2007.
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION
Expected resolution by April 2007
IG Followup Status as of: 03/30/2007 [ ]
Report No.: 2006-3-00201
Title: American Waterworks Association, FY 2004
Issued: 09/13/2006
Association did not comply with its existing procurement policies and procedures. There
were two instances where the Association could not produce adequate procurement
records in accordance with OMB Circular A-110.
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE
GAD is currently reviewing the information provided by the recipient. GAD expects FDL in
June 2007.
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION
Expected resolution by June 2007
IG Followup Status as of: 03/30/2007 [ ]
Office of Environmental Information
Report No.: 2006-P-00036
Title: Evaluation of Drinking Water Laboratory Procedures
Issued: 09/21/2006
Within the drinking water sample analysis process we identified hundreds of vulnerabilities
that are not addressed by EPAs process. These vulnerabilities can compromise the
integrity of the analysis process and the quality of data produced. Many of these
vulnerabilities were identified by the OIG in 1999 and the Agency's own review in 2002,
with no action by the Agency. Moreover, States that have implemented new techniques to
detect laboratory integrity problems have found additional deficiencies, inappropriate
procedures, and even cases of fraud. Their findings and those of our own investigators
show integrity can be, and has been, compromised.
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE
OIG attended a meeting of the Quality and Information Council Steering Committee (QIC
SC) on March 15, 2007. The purpose was for OEI and the QIC SC to obtain a better
understanding of the OIG's concerns and to inform the OIG of the function and processes
of the QICSC in information policy development. At the conclusion of the meeting, the QIC
SC Chair suggested that the OIG attend future QIC SC meetings to provide ongoing
dialogue among the OIG, OEI, and other Agency offices via the QIC SC to resolve this
issue. OEI is attempting to resolve this issue by December 2007.
69
-------
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION
Expected resolution by December 2007
IG Followup Status as of: 03/30/2007 [ 1 ]
Office of Water
Report No.: 2005-P-00025
Title: Challenges/Opportunities to Implement the Watershed Approach
Issued: 09/21/2006
If EPA is committed to the watershed approach, it needs to make improvements in four
key elements: (1) integrating watershed activities into its core water programs,
(2) addressing stakeholder concerns to increase their participation, (3) refining and
improving key aspects of its strategic planning process, and (4) improving the water
performance measurement system.
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE
The Office of Water responded to the OIG with additional information to address the
recommendations forth is audit.
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION
Expected resolution by April 2007
IG Followup Status as of: 03/30/2007 [2]
Report No.: 2006-S-00005
Title: AA - National Rural Water Association - Congressional
Issued: 09/05/2006
Under its grants, NRWA is not required to measure the environmental outcomes of the
technical assistance activities it provides. As a result, the environmental benefits could not
be determined. EPA grants awarded to NRWA, after January 1, 2005, include outputs but
do not link the outputs to environmental outcomes and measures.
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE
Office of Water is working with OIG to firm up corrective actions to be taken on this audit
and expects resolution by April 30, 2007.
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION
Expected resolution by April 2007
IG Followup Status as of: 03/30/2007 [ ]
Report No.: 2006-P-00036
Title: Evaluation of Drinking Water Laboratory Procedures
Issued: 09/21/2006
Within the drinking water sample analysis process we identified hundreds of vulnerabilities
that are not addressed by EPA's process. These vulnerabilities can compromise the
integrity of the analysis process and the quality of data produced. Many of these
vulnerabilities were identified by the OIG in 1999 and the Agency's own review in 2002,
with no action by the Agency. Moreover, States that have implemented new techniques to
detect laboratory integrity problems have found additional deficiencies, inappropriate
procedures, and even cases of fraud. Their findings and those of our own investigators
show integrity can be, and has been, compromised.
70
-------
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE
The Office of Water continues to work with the OIG on corrective actions as related to the
recommendations in this audit. Office of Water expects resolution by June 2007.
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION
Expected resolution by June 2007
IG Followup Status as of: 03/30/2007 [2]
R2 - Office of Policy & Management
Report No.: 2005-3-00153
Title: Puerto Rico Department of Agriculture FY 1999
Issued: 04/19/2005
The internal control structure over Federal program requirements was inadequate. The
accounting system is not in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles.
Prior year reportable conditions remain uncorrected since years 1995-1996. Per Region 2
on 3/21/06, auditee under corrective action plan.
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE
Grantee is now on a Corrective Action Plan. Questioned costs are currently being reviewed
by CPAfirm, and disposition of all costs should be known by April 30, 2007. Audit is
anticipated to be resolved by June 30,2007.
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION
Expected resolution by June 2007
IG Followup Status as of: 03/30/2007 [ ]
Report No.: 2005-3-00154
Title: Puerto Rico Department of Agriculture FY 2000
Issued: 04/19/2005
Department had unresolved prior year audit findings in which documentation was not
available to support costs. Per Region 2 on 3/21/06, auditee under corrective action plan.
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE
Grantee is now on a Corrective Action Plan. Questioned costs are currently being reviewed
by CPAfirm, and disposition of all costs should be known by April 30, 2007. Audit is
anticipated to be resolved by June 30,2007.
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION
Expected resolution by June 2007
IG Followup Status as of: 03/30/2007 [ ]
Report No.: 2005-3-00156
Title: Puerto Rico Environmental Quality Board - FY 1999
Issued: 05/05/2005
Due to costs questioned in specific findings and lack of accounting records, we
questioned all costs. Per Region 2, on 3/15/06, HQ has approved grantee's indirect rates,
so that grantee can submit final payments and FSRs. As of 9/30/06, Region 2 had
conducted an on-site review in August 2006. Region 2 estimates it will take at least
6 months to complete the outstanding Corrective Action Plan items.
71
-------
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE
Grantee is on a Corrective Action Plan. Remaining questioned costs, including indirect
costs, are currently being reviewed by CPAfirm, and disposition of all costs should be
known by August 31, 2007. Audit should be resolved by September 30, 2007.
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION
Expected resolution by September 2007
IG Followup Status as of: 03/30/2007 [ ]
Report No.: 2005-3-00157
Title: Puerto Rico Environmental Quality Board - FY 2000
Issued: 05/05/2005
Due to the costs questioned in specific findings and lack of accounting records, we
questioned all costs. Per Region 2, on 3/15/06, HQ has approved grantee's indirect rates,
so that grantee can submit final payments and FSRs. As of 9/30/06, Region 2 had
conducted an on-site review in August 2006. Region 2 estimates it will take at least
6 months to complete the outstanding Corrective Action Plan items.
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE
Grantee is on a Corrective Action Plan. Remaining questioned costs, including indirect
costs, are currently being reviewed by CPAfirm, and disposition of costs should be known
by August 31, 2007. Resolution of audit should take place by September 30, 2007.
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION
Expected resolution by September 2007
IG Followup Status as of: 03/30/2007 [ ]
Report No.: 2005-3-00158
Title: Puerto Rico Environmental Quality Board - FY 2001
Issued: 05/05/2005
Due to costs questioned in specific findings and lack of accounting records, we
questioned all costs. Per Region 2, on 3/15/06, HQ has approved grantee's indirect rates,
so that grantee can submit final payments and FSRs. As of 9/30/06, Region 2 had
conducted an on-site review in August 2006. Region 2 estimates it will take at least
6 months to complete the outstanding Corrective Action Plan items.
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE
Grantee is on a Corrective Action Plan. Remaining questioned costs, including indirect
costs, are currently being reviewed by CPAfirm, and disposition of costs should be know
by August 31, 2007. Resolution of audit should take place by September 30, 2007.
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION
Expected resolution by September 2007
IG Followup Status as of: 03/30/2007 [ ]
Report No.: 2005-3-00159
Title: Puerto Rico Environmental Quality Board - FY 2002
Issued: 05/05/2005
Due to costs questioned in specific findings and lack of accounting records, we
questioned all costs. Per Region 2, on 3/15/06, HQ has approved grantee's indirect rates,
so that grantee can submit final payments and FSRs. As of 9/30/06, Region 2 had
72
-------
conducted an on-site review in August 2006. Region 2 estimates it will take at least
6 months to complete the outstanding Corrective Action Plan items.
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE
Grantee is on a Corrective Action Plan. Questioned costs have been reviewed with minimal
disallowances. After agreement of indirect cost rates, grantee will request reimbursement
of indirect costs; this is estimated to be completed by June 30, 2007. Disposition of costs
should be known by August 31, 2007. Audit is anticipated to be resolved by September 30,
2007.
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION
Expected resolution by September 2007
IG Followup Status as of: 03/30/2007 [ ]
Report No.: 2005-3-00168
Title: Puerto Rico Environmental Quality Board - FY 2003
Issued: 05/05/2005
Because EQB's accounting records were inadequate, we questioned all expenditures.
Per Region 2, on 3/15/06, HQ has approved grantee's indirect rates, so that grantee can
submit final payments and FSRs. As of 9/30/06, Region 2 had conducted an on-site
review in August 2006. Region 2 estimates it will take at least 6 months to complete the
outstanding Corrective Action Plan items.
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE
Grantee is on a Corrective Action Plan. Questioned costs have been reviewed with minimal
disallowances. After agreement of indirect cost rates, grantee will request reimbursement
of indirect costs; this is estimated to be completed by June 30, 2007. Disposition of costs
should be known by August 31, 2007. Audit is anticipated to be resolved by September 30,
2007.
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION
Expected resolution by September 2007
IG Followup Status as of: 03/30/2007 [ ]
Report No.: 2005-3-00199
Title: Puerto Rico Water Pollution Control Revolving Fund
Issued: 06/27/2005
The Fund's administrative expenses of $184,646 were not reviewed and certified by an
independent public accounting firm recognized by EPA. Per Region 2, grantee indicated
that its corrective action plan would be completed by 4/30/06. Region 2 will then complete
its report resolution. As of 9/30/06, Region 2 had conducted an on-site review in August
2006. Region 2 estimates it will take at least 6 months to complete the outstanding
Corrective Action Plan items.
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE
Grantee is on a Corrective Action Plan. Questioned costs have been reviewed with minimal
disallowances. After agreement of indirect cost rates, grantee will request reimbursement
of indirect costs; this is estimated to be completed by June 30, 2007. Disposition of costs
should be known by August 31, 2007. Audit is anticipated to be resolved by September 30,
2007.
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION
Expected resolution by September 2007
IG Followup Status as of: 03/30/2007 [ ]
73
-------
Report No.: 2006-3-00068
Title: Caribbean Environmental & Development Institute FY 1999
Issued: 02/22/2006
Accounting records did not comply with EPA regulations, property and equipment lists
were not updated, financial information did not agree with general ledgers, left-over cash
from prior grants was used to fund current grants, and monies received from EPA
exceeded amount claimed as expenditures by $152,027.
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE
Grantee submitted financial documentation in August 2006 which has been reviewed, but
additional documentation is needed to determine approval of costs. EPA instruction to
grantee for CPA cost review will be issued by April 30, 2007. Audit is anticipated to be
resolved by December 30,2007.
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION
Expected resolution by December 2007
IG Followup Status as of: 03/30/2007 [ ]
Report No.: 2006-3-00069
Title: Caribbean Environmental & Development Institute FY 2000
Issued: 02/22/2006
Accounting records did not provide information in compliance with EPA regulations,
property and equipment lists were not updated, Financial Status Reports could not be
reconciled to general ledgers, cash from expired grants was used to pay current
expenditures, and the Institute received $68,467 in monies from EPA in excess of their
claimed expenditures.
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE
Grantee submitted detailed cost documentation in August 2006, which has been reviewed;
additional documentation is needed to determine approval of costs. EPA by April 30, 2007
will require grantee CPA review of costs. Audit is anticipated to be resolved by December
30,2007.
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION
Expected resolution by December 2007
IG Followup Status as of: 03/30/2007 [ ]
Report No.: 2006-3-00164
Title: Puerto Rico, Commonwealth of, EQB - FY 2004
Issued: 07/20/2006
The EQB fiscal control and accounting procedures were not adequate to provide the
financial information necessary forthe efficient administration of the entity's operation.
EQB did not: 1) complete the physical inventory of the property and equipment; 2)
maintain an adequate numerical sequence in the subsidiary of property and equipment;
and 3) include certain additions of property and equipment in the property and equipment
listing which were acquired with the Air Pollution Control program funds. The Board did not
submit its: Financial Close-Out Report forthe Air Pollution Control (A00207801) and
Performance Partnership (BG992934-03-0) grants; the Interim Financial Status Reports for
Air Pollution Control (A00207803) and Performance Partnership (BG992934-03) grants;
and the Progress and Inventory Reports forthe Air Pollution Control (A00207803),
Performance Partnership (BG992934-03-0 and BG992934-04-0), and HAZMAT grants in a
timely manner. The auditors noted significant differences between the amounts reported in
the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards, the EQB internal accounting records,
74
-------
and the transactions recorded in the reports issued by the Puerto Rico Treasury
Department.
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE
Grantee is on a Corrective Action Plan. Indirect cost rates applicable to these grants have
recently been approved in final, and grantee will submit final payments and FSRs by
June 30, 2007. Audit is expected to be resolved by September 30,2007.
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION
Expected resolution by September 2007
IG Followup Status as of: 03/30/2007 [ ]
R4- Office of Policy Management
Report No.: 2006-3-00163
Title: Sequatchie County
Issued: 07/10/2006
1. The government-wide financial statements were not presented in accordance with
generally accepted accounting principles. Sequatchie County did not identify and
determine the historical value of its capital assets and the related depreciation amounts of
these assets. 2. Receivables and payables were not determined and recorded on the
accounting records for various funds as required by generally accepted accounting
principles. 3. The County had deficiencies in its purchasing procedures. No formal
purchase order system exists and in several instances invoices were paid without
documentation that goods had been received or services had been rendered. This is a
repeat finding from the prior year. 4. The auditor identified the following payroll deficiencies:
a) payroll deduction amounts were not reconciled monthly; b) supervisors did not sign
employee time sheets to indicate their review and approval; and c) there were no
authorizations for employee gross pay on file. 5. Inventory records were not maintained for
all assets owned by the County. Generally accepted accounting principles require
accountability for all county-owned assets. This is a repeat finding from the prior year.
6. Duties were not segregated adequately among County employees. Officials and
employees responsible for maintaining accounting records were also involved in receipting,
depositing, and/or disbursing funds.
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE
The draft Call Letterto the grantee is currently under review. Resolution is expected by
August 2007.
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION
Expected resolution by August 2007
IG Followup Status as of: 03/30/2007 [ ]
Report No.: 2006-3-00162
Title: Sequatchie County
Issued: 07/10/2006
The auditor noted the following deficiencies in the County's purchasing procedures: a) the
County did not have a formal purchase order system; b) invoices were paid without
documentation that goods had been received or services had been rendered; c) several
invoices were paid without them being marked "paid," thus some invoices were paid more
than once; d) the County paid late charges on several invoices, even though the County's
cash flow was sufficient to pay bills as they became due. The payment of these late
75
-------
charges increased the cost of the goods and services to the County unnecessarily. The
payment of late charges with grant monies is not an appropriate use of grant funds; e) the
auditor noted several expenditures that were not directly related to County business, and
the county had not adopted a policy providing for these types of expenditures. 2. The
auditor noted numerous adjustments that were made to the general ledger that did not
include proper supporting documentation for the adjustments. The auditor disallowed
many of these adjustments in the financial statements of the audit report. 3. Inventory
records were not maintained for all assets owned by the County. Generally accepted
accounting principles require accountability for all County-owned assets. 4. The County
did not inventory, value and record its general fixed assets as required by generally
accepted accounting principles. 5. The County had not adopted a system of central
accounting, budgeting, and purchasing. Establishing a central system would significantly
improve internal controls over the accounting, budgeting and purchasing process.
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE
The draft Call Letterto the grantee is currently under review. Resolution is expected by
August 2007.
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION
Expected resolution by August 2007
IG Followup Status as of: 03/30/2007 [ ]
Report No.: 2006-3-00208
Title: South Carolina, State of - FY 2005
Issued: 09/26/2006
1. The Department of Health and Environmental Control accounting records forthe EPA
Performance Partnership Grant (BG-9841705-3) did not reconcile to the Federal draws
reported on the Federal Cash Transaction Report. 2. The Department of Natural Resources
Schedule of Federal Financial Assistance (SFFA) had several errors such as numerous
incorrect CFDA numbers, grant titles, grant numbers, and fund sources code, and the
beginning fund balances did not agree to the 2004 SFFA ending fund balances. 3. The
Department of Natural Resources did not monitor its subrecipients to ensure compliance
with the Single Audit Act Amendments of 1996, OMB Circulars A-133 and A-102 "Common
Rule," Federal awarding agency program regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
award.
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE
The draft Call Letterto the grantee is currently under review. Resolution is expected by
August 2007.
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION
Expected resolution by August 2007
IG Followup Status as of: 03/30/2007 [ ]
76
-------
R8 - Regional Administrator
Report No.: 2006-3-00190
Title: Rosebud Sioux Tribe, FY 2004
Issued: 08/21/2006
In connection with the administration of several programs, the Tribe utilized primarily
program budgets to record payroll costs to multiple activities. However, no comparisons of
actual costs to budgeted distributions based on monthly reports were made.
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE
We have contacted the Tribe requesting additional information. Awaiting a response. We
anticipate a resolution by December 2007.
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION
Expected resolution by December 2007
IG Followup Status as of: 03/30/2007 [ ]
R9 - Policy & Management Division
Report No.: 2006-3-00169
Title: Cortina Indian Rancheria of CA FY 2001
Issued: 08/02/2006
The Rancheria did not have adequate internal controls over EPA expenditures. Therefore,
we questioned all costs.
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE
Because of the complexity and the large number of repeat findings, Region 9 consulted
with EPA-HQ to contract with a CPA firm to re-examine the tribe's financial management
capabilities. We have recently received the report of an on-site visit and will advise the tribe
of requisite corrective actions to re-establish financial management integrity. We are
currently consulting with EPA-HQ on the questioned costs associated with the findings.
The region is asking the tribe for additional documentation to verify eligible costs. The FDL
is targeted for June 30,2007.
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION
Expected resolution by June 2007
IG Followup Status as of: 03/30/2007 [ ]
Report No.: 2006-3-00170
Title: Cortina Indian Rancheria of CA FY 2002
Issued: 08/02/2006
The Rancheria did not have adequate internal controls over fixed assets, accounting
transactions, draw downs, payroll, and indirect costs. Therefore, we questioned all costs.
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE
Because of the complexity and the large number of repeat findings, Region 9 consulted
with EPA-HQ to contract with a CPA firm to re-examine the tribe's financial management
capabilities. We have recently received the report of an on-site visit and will advise the tribe
of requisite corrective actions to re-establish financial management integrity. We are
currently consulting with EPA-HQ on the questioned costs associated with the findings.
The Region is asking the tribe for additional documentation to verify eligible costs. The
FDL is targeted for June 30,2007.
77
-------
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION
Expected resolution by June 2007
IG Followup Status as of: 03/30/2007 [ ]
Report No.: 2006-3-00171
Title: Cortina Indian Rancheria of CA FY 2003
Issued: 08/02/2006
The Rancheria did not have adequate internal controls over fixed assets, accounting
transactions, bank accounts, cash draw downs, programmatic and financial reporting, and
bank deposits. Therefore, we questioned all expenditures.
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE
Because of the complexity and the large number of repeat findings, Region 9 consulted
with EPA-HQ to contract with a CPA firm to re-examine the tribe's financial management
capabilities. We have recently received the report of an on-site visit and will advise the tribe
of requisite corrective actions to re-establish financial management integrity. We are
currently consulting with EPA-HQ on the questioned costs associated with the findings.
The Region is asking the tribe for additional documentation to verify eligible costs. The
FDL is targeted for June 30,2007.
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION
Expected resolution by June 2007
IG Followup Status as of: 03/30/2007 [ ]
Report No.: 2006-3-00172
Title: Cortina Indian Rancheria of CA FY 2004
Issued: 08/02/2006
The Rancheria did not have adequate internal controls over fixed assets, accounting
transactions, cash flows, bank deposits, employee loans, programmatic and financial
reporting, and indirect costs. Therefore, we questioned all EPA expenditures.
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE
Because of the complexity and the large number of repeat findings, Region 9 consulted
with EPA-HQ to contract with a CPA firm to re-examine the tribe's financial management
capabilities. We have recently received the report of an on-site visit and will advise the tribe
of requisite corrective actions to re-establish financial management integrity. We are
currently consulting with EPA-HQ on the questioned costs associated with the findings.
The region is asking the tribe for additional documentation to verify eligible costs. The FDL
is targeted for June 30,2007.
DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION
Expected resolution by June 2007
IG Followup Status as of: 03/30/2007 [ ]
78
-------
OIG Mailing Addresses and Telephone Numbers
Headquarters
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW (2410T)
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 566-0847
Atlanta
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, GA 30303
Audit: (404) 562-9830
Investigations: (404) 562-9857
Boston
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
One Congress Street, Suite 1100
Boston, MA 02114-2023
Audit: (617) 918-1470
Investigations: (617) 918-1468
Chicago
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
77 West Jackson Boulevard
13th Floor (IA-13 J)
Chicago, IL 60604
Audit: (312) 353-2486
Investigations: (312) 353-2507
Cincinnati
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268-7001
Audit: (513) 487-2360
Investigations: (513)487-2364
Dallas
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General (6OIG)
1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
Audit: (214) 665-6621
Investigations: (214)665-2790
OIG Public Liaison Hotline
Address
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General Hotline
1200 Pennsylvania Ave.,NW(2491T)
Washington, DC 20460
Fax
202-566-2549
Email
OIG_Hotline@epa. gov
Offices
Denver
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
1595 Wynkoop Street - 4th Floor
Denver, CO 80202
Audit: (303) 312-6872
Investigations: (303) 312-6868
Kansas City
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
90IN. 5thStreet
Kansas City, KS 66101
Audit: (913) 551-7878
Investigations: (913) 551-7875
New York
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
290 Broadway, Room 1520
New York, NY 10007
Audit: (212) 637-3080
Investigations: (212)637-3041
Philadelphia
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
1650 Arch Street, 3rd Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029
Audit: (215) 814-5800
Investigations: (215) 814-5820
Research Triangle Park
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
Mail Drop N283-01
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Audit: (919) 541-2204
Investigations: (919) 541-1027
San Francisco
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
75 Hawthorne St. (IGA-1)
7th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
Audit: (415) 947-4521
Investigations: (415) 947-4500
Seattle
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
1200 6th Avenue, 19th Floor
Suite 1920, M/S OIG-195
Seattle, WA 98101
Audit: (206) 553-4033
Investigations: (206) 553-1273
Winchester
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
200 S. Jefferson Street, Room 314
P.O. Box 497
Winchester, TN 37398
Investigations: (423)240-7735
-------
------- |