EPA OIG Not Fully Compliant With OIG Policy on Time and Attendance Reporting


# Q
I® | U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
%%PR0^ OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Spending Taxpayer Dollars
EPA OIG Not Fully Compliant
With OIG Policy on Time and
Attendance Reporting
Report No. 15-B-0074
February 4, 2015

-------
Report Contributors:	Leah Nikaidoh
Lei a Wong
Abbreviations
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FMFIA
Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act
FY
Fiscal Year
IGEMS
Inspector General Enterprise Management System
OCOS
Office of Chief of Staff
OIG
Office of Inspector General
OMS
Office of Mission Systems
PPL
PeoplePlus
TAAP
Time and Attendance Approval Processing
Are you aware of fraud, waste or abuse in an
EPA program?
EPA Inspector General Hotline
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (2431T)
Washington, DC 20460
(888) 546-8740
(202) 566-2599 (fax)
OIG Hotline@epa.gov
More information at www.epa.gov/oiq/hotline.html.
EPA Office of Inspector General
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (241OT)
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 566-2391
www.epa.gov/oig
Subscribe to our Email Updates
Follow us on Twitter @EPAoig
Send us your Project Suggestions

-------
^tDSrX U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 15-B-0074
*t> Office of Inspector General February 4,2015
4® I
At a Glance
Why We Did This Review
On August 27, 2013, a member
of the Senate Committee on
Environment and Public Works
requested that the
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), Office of
Inspector General (OIG), initiate
work in connection with fraud
committed by John C. Beale, a
former Senior Policy Advisor
with the EPA's Office of Air and
Radiation. One of the areas that
we reviewed was the EPA's and
OIG's time and attendance
process. This report addresses
the OIG's compliance with its
timekeeping policy regarding
use of the Inspector General
Enterprise Management
System (IGEMS).
This report addresses the
following OIG goal:
• Be responsible stewards of
taxpayer dollars.
EPA OIG Not Fully Compliant With OIG Policy on
Time and Attendance Reporting
Lack of complete and
accurate timesheets
can result in
improper payments.
What We Found
The EPA OIG did not always comply with its policy
for using IGEMS as its official internal system for
recording time and attendance, including approval for
leave and premium pay1 and other compensation.
Some employees did not submit or have approved
planned or actual timesheets in IGEMS when required under OIG Policy 323,
OIG Time and Attendance Reporting Policy.
The instances of noncompliance occurred because the time and attendance
policy needs more clarity, and some OIG employees and managers do not view
IGEMS time reporting as a high priority. Without complete and accurate planned
and actual timesheets in IGEMS, there is no basis for verifying that the data in
the agency's official payroll system (PeoplePlus) is accurate. The lack of planned
timesheets can also result in using leave or increasing government obligation
without proper authorization. In addition, IGEMS management reports may not
always provide accurate and relevant information for time and attendance
monitoring.
Recommendations and Planned Corrective Action
We recommend that the Deputy Inspector General require employees and
management to correct the instances of noncompliance identified and review
future IGEMS records for appropriateness. We also recommend the review and
revision of the OIG time and attendance reporting policy as necessary, and
implementing controls to ensure that OIG employees and management comply
with policy. The Deputy Inspector General agreed with our recommendations and
provided corrective actions and planned completion dates to address all
recommendations.
Send all inquiries to our public
affairs office at (202) 566-2391
or visit www.epa.gov/oiq.
The full report is at:
www.epa.aov/oia/reports/2015/
20150204-15-B-0074.pdf
Noteworthy Achievements
The OIG's Office of Mission Systems corrected agreed-to IGEMS report
programming errors noted by our audit as soon as the errors were brought to
their attention.
1 Premium pay includes overtime and compensatory time. The EPA OIG conducted a separate review of the OIG's compliance with
OIG and EPA overtime policies.

-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C.20460
OFFICE OF
INSPECTOR GENERAL
February 4, 2015
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: EPA OIG Not Fully Compliant With OIG Policy on Time and Attendance Reporting
Report No. 15-B-0074
As part of our continuing work to address the concerns raised as a result of the John C. Beale
investigation, we began preliminary research of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) time
and attendance process. As part of this work, we reviewed the EPA's Office of Inspector General's
(OIG's) compliance with its policy for using the Inspector General Enterprise Management System
(IGEMS)—its official internal system for recording time and attendance. We briefed the Inspector
General of our results, and he requested that we conduct an audit, accordingly. This report provides the
results of that audit of the OIG and identifies issues that impact the OIG and require immediate
attention.
Action Required
During the exit conference, you provided corrective actions that addressed the recommendations and
planned completion dates. The OIG must demonstrate that the proposed corrective actions are resolved
before the report can be closed.
FROM: Kevin Christensen, Assistant Inspector General
Office of Audit

TO:
Charles Sheehan, Deputy Inspector General
We will post this report to our website at http://www.epa.gov/oig.

-------
EPA OIG Not Fully Compliant With OIG Policy
on Time and Attendance Reporting
15-B-0074
Table of C
Chapters
1	Introduction 		1
Purpose		1
Background		1
Scope and Methodology		2
2	Improvements Needed to Comply With
OIG Time and Attendance Policy		4
IGEMS Planned Timesheets Not Submitted or Approved		4
IGEMS Actual Timesheets Not Submitted or Approved		5
OIG Time and Attendance Reporting Policy Needs More Clarity		7
IGEMS Time and Attendance Recording Does Not Appear to Be
Viewed as a High Priority		9
IGEMS Management Reports Need to Be Reevaluated		9
Recommendations		10
Exit Conference and Planned Corrective Action		11
Status of Recommendations and Potential Monetary Benefits		12
Appendix
A EPA OIG Distribution	 13

-------
Chapter 1
Introduction
Purpose
We conducted this audit to determine whether the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) Office of Inspector General (OIG) complied with its timekeeping
policy for using the Inspector General Enterprise Management System (IGEMS)
as its official internal system for recording time and attendance.
Background
On September 27, 2013, John C. Beale, a former Senior Policy Advisor with the
EPA's Office of Air and Radiation, plead guilty to a federal charge stemming
from a long-running scheme in which he defrauded the government in salary
payments and reimbursement for travel and other costs. From January 2000 to
April 2013, Mr. Beale was absent from his duties at the EPA for about 2V2 years
but was drawing a salary and benefits. A 2013 early warning report issued by the
OIG2 disclosed that one of the factors that facilitated Mr. Beale's fraud was the
agency's lack of adequate controls over timekeeping. As a result, we initiated a
review of the EPA's and OIG's internal controls over time and attendance. This is
our report on an audit of the OIG's time and attendance process.
Prior Internal Review
As part of the annual Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act (FMFIA) review
process for fiscal year (FY) 2009, the OIG's Office of Chief of Staff (OCOS)
conducted an internal review of timekeeping within the OIG and issued an
internal memorandum of the results to the acting Inspector General on April 23,
2010. Key IGEMS-related issues and OIG corrective actions were as follows:
1) OIG Timekeeping Policy and Procedures Are Needed. The review found that
while the agency's Resource Management Directive Systems described
timekeeping responsibilities in connection with the agency's payroll system—
PeoplePlus (PPL)—and the OIG had policies for specific purposes—such as
flexible workplace program (telework), alternative work schedule, overtime,
and compensatory time—the OIG did not have a policy for general
timekeeping. As a result, OIG employees and management did not have
documented resources to consult when trying to seek clarification on
timekeeping issues. Consequently, OIG offices adopted varied practices to
2 Early Warning Report: Internal Controls and Management Actions Concerning John C. Beale Pay Issues,
EPA OIG Report No. 14-P-0036, issued December 11, 2013.
15-B-0074
1

-------
complete IGEMS tasks, and request and approval for leave and flexiplace
through IGEMS were not done consistently. The review suggested that the
OIG establish an OIG timekeeping policy to ensure consistency, and that
IGEMS be . .declared an official OIG timekeeping system and its use should
be mandatory."
2) Data Quality Improvements Are Needed. The review identified significant
discrepancies between IGEMS and PPL data. The review suggested that the
OIG issue a timekeeping policy to require timekeepers to compare IGEMS
timesheets to PPL for each pay period and clear up discrepancies with
employees before their supervisors approve timesheets.
In response to the review, the OIG issued Policy 323, OIG Time and Attendance
Reporting, on July 7, 2011. The policy designated IGEMS as the official internal
OIG system for recording time and requires all OIG employees to use the system
to document requests for—and approval of—leave, premium pay,3 travel
compensatory time, credit hours, telework, change in the type of work schedule,
and any material schedule changes. The policy also requires employees to enter
their actual hours worked in IGEMS timesheets every pay period, supervisors to
approve those timesheets, and timekeepers to reconcile those timesheets to PPL.
The OIG also issued Policy 004, OIG Procedures to Ensure Data Quality, on
July 22, 2011. The policy identified IGEMS as a data system subject to the data
quality policy requirements, and requires review and annual certification of the
data quality as part of the FMFIA process. The OIG's FYs 2010 and 2012 FMFIA
assurance letters continued to identify IGEMS data quality and compliance with
OIG and EPA timekeeping policies as areas needing improvement.
Scope and Methodology
We conducted this performance audit from June 14 to October 3, 2014, in
accordance with the generally accepted government auditing standards issued by
the Comptroller General of the United States. Those standards require that we
plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a
reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objective.
We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings
and conclusions based on our audit objective.
To determine the OIG's compliance with its policy requirements for using
IGEMS as the official internal time and attendance recording system, we
performed the following steps:
• Searched the OIG and agency intranets to identify applicable policies and
reviewed those policies.
3 Premium Pay includes overtime and compensatory time. The EPA OIG conducted a separate review of the OIG's
compliance with OIG and EPA overtime policies.
15-B-0074
2

-------
• Reviewed applicable prior audit/review results, including the OIG's
internal timekeeping review completed in April 2010 and FMFIA
assurance letters for FYs 2010 to 2014.
• Reviewed the OIG Management Action Plan Status Report as of the end
of the second quarter of FY 2014.
• Met with OCOS to discuss prior review results.
• Interviewed selected managers and one timekeeper regarding the use of
IGEMS planned timesheets for leave approval and other prior
authorizations.
We judgmentally selected two pay periods (14 and 17) in FY 2014 for compliance
testing. Pay period 14 was from March 23 to April 5, 2014; pay period 17 was
from May 5 to 17, 2014. We reviewed employee documentation that was required
to be submitted, in accordance with OIG Policy 323. We reviewed required
documentation for 303 employees for pay period 14 and 301 employees for pay
period 17 (a total 604 time and attendance records).4 For each of these pay
periods, we:
• Compared the official payroll records (PPL) in the agency's accounting
system—Compass Data Warehouse—to IGEMS records to identify
discrepancies.
• Determined whether the employees submitted planned and actual
timesheets in IGEMS when required, in accordance with OIG policy.
• Reviewed IGEMS Employee Time TAAP (Time and Attendance
Approval Processing) View report to identify planned and actual timesheet
submittal and approval history.
• Reviewed IGEMS management reports to determine whether exceptions
were adequately identified.
We also met with the Inspector General and OIG senior leaders to discuss
timekeeping concerns and obtain their feedback on the issues identified.
4 The total number of employee records on the OIG payroll was 606 (304 for pay period 14 and 302 for pay
period 17). We excluded one employee from our calculations for each pay period because the employee was on
detail outside of the OIG and did not have access to IGEMS. Therefore, we could not compare IGEMS to PPL.
15-B-0074
3

-------
Chapter 2
Improvements Needed to Comply With
OIG Time and Attendance Policy
EPA OIG did not always comply with its policy for using IGEMS as its official
internal system for recording time and attendance in the IGEMS Time Planning
and Timesheet modules. As a result, some employees did not submit or have
approved planned or actual timesheets in IGEMS when required under OIG
Policy 323, OIG Time and Attendance Reporting. This occurred because:
• Policy 323 needs more clarity, especially regarding the purpose and
importance of the Time Planning module as the OIG official mechanism
to approve changes in employees' schedules, such as leave and telework.
• Employees and management sometimes do not appear to view IGEMS
time and attendance recording as a high priority.
Without complete and accurate planned and actual timesheets in IGEMS, there is
no basis for verifying that the data in the agency's official payroll system—PPL—
is accurate. The lack of planned timesheets can also result in using leave without
documenting proper authorization. Since IGEMS actual timesheets are used as the
basis for determining the costs for the OIG's projects and operations, the
noncompliance will also result in inaccurate reporting of the costs for projects and
operations. Further, IGEMS management reports may not always provide
accurate and relevant information for time and attendance monitoring.
IGEMS Planned Timesheets Not Submitted or Approved
Based on the two FY 2014 pay periods tested—pay periods 14 and 17—OIG
employees did not always submit or have approved planned timesheets in IGEMS
as required by OIG Policy 323.
Section 2.1 of the policy, Roles and Responsibilities, requires IGEMS planned
timesheet for all employees unless the employee is on a fixed 8-hour schedule or
compressed work schedule5 and leave is not anticipated. An IGEMS planned
timesheet is required for employees on maxiflex6 schedules and when requesting
advance approval for leave (non-emergency situations), premium pay, travel
5 A compressed work schedule is an 80-hour biweekly basic work requirement that is scheduled for fewer than
10 workdays. The OIG offers employees a choice between a fixed 5-4/9 option (eight 9-hour days and one 8-hour
day per pay period) or a fixed 4-10 option (four 10-hour days per week).
6 Maxiflex is a flexible work schedule under which an employee may work fewer than 10 workdays in the biweekly
period. A full-time employee must work 80 hours in the biweekly pay period, but, within the limits established for
the organization, the employee may vary the number of hours worked on a given workday, as long as the employee
works the core hours on workdays, and may vary the number of hours worked each week.
15-B-0074
4

-------
compensatory time, credit hours, telework, change in the type of work schedule,
and any material schedule changes. Planned timesheets are required to be
completed using the Time Planning module in IGEMS no later than the
Wednesday prior to the start of the pay period being approved. Supervisors or
team leaders with delegated authority are required to approve planned timesheets
in IGEMS no later than the Friday prior to the start of the pay period being
approved.
The two pay periods tested included a total of 604 employee planned timesheets.
We found that 88 of the planned timesheets (14.6 percent) required to be
submitted in accordance with the OIG policy were not approved in IGEMS as of
June 14, 2014. This was more than 70 days after the due dates for pay period 14
and more than 30 days for pay period 17.
Of the 88 planned timesheets, employees never submitted a planned timesheet for
the applicable pay period for 59 (9.8 percent) of the timesheets. The remaining
29 timesheets were not approved either due to employees not submitting a final
version after the earlier approved version was revised, supervisors returning the
planned timesheets, or no action by the supervisor after the employee's submittal.
Table 1 summarizes.
Table 1: Results of IGEMS planned timesheet analysis
FY 2014
pay
period
Total
number of
planned
timesheets
reviewed
No planned
timesheet
submitted
Earlier version
of timesheet
approved and
revised but not
resubmitted or
approved
Planned
timesheet
submitted
but not
approved
Total
planned
timesheets
not
approved
14
303
29
7
6
42
17
301
30
6
10
46
Total
604
59
13
16
88
Source: OIG's analysis of planned timesheet data in IGEMS.
IGEMS Actual Timesheets Not Submitted or Approved
For the two pay periods reviewed, OIG employees did not always submit or have
approved actual timesheets in IGEMS as required under OIG Policy 323. We
found that 35 of the 604 required employee timesheets (or 5.8 percent) were not
approved in IGEMS as of June 14, 2014. Under the policy, timesheets were due
on April 2 and May 14, 2014, for pay periods 14 and 17, respectively.7
7 Exceptions apply for employees receiving Law Enforcement Availability Pay or Administratively Uncontrollable
Overtime, as their timesheets were due on April 30 and June 11, 2014, respectively.
15-B-0074
5

-------
Of the 35 timesheet exceptions, employees for 19 (or 3.1 percent) never submitted
a timesheet for the applicable pay period. The remaining 16 did not have an
approved timesheet for one of the following reasons:
•	A revised timesheet was not submitted and/or approved although an
earlier timesheet was approved.
•	The supervisor returned the submitted timesheet and it was not
resubmitted or approved.
•	The supervisor did not approve the submitted timesheet.
Details are summarized in Table 2.
Table 2: Results of IGEMS actual timesheet analysis
FY 2014
pay
period
Total
number of
actual
timesheets
reviewed
No actual
timesheet
submitted
Earlier version
of timesheet
approved and
revised but not
resubmitted or
approved
Actual
timesheet
submitted
but not
approved
Total
actual
timesheets
not
approved
14
303
5
0
5
10
17
301
14
2
9
25
Total
604
19
2
14
35
Source: OIG's analysis of actual timesheet data in IGEMS.
Section 2.1.a(3) of OIG Policy 323 requires all employees—except those
receiving Law Enforcement Availability Pay or Administratively Uncontrollable
Overtime—to enter their actual hours worked in IGEMS using the Timesheet
module no later than noon on the second Wednesday of the pay period.
Employees receiving Law Enforcement Availability Pay or Administratively
Uncontrollable Overtime are required to enter their time in the IGEMS Timesheet
module generally no later than noon the second Wednesday of the second pay
period after the close of the period for which time is being entered. Employees
must also ensure that the correct number and type of hours are recorded in
IGEMS and PPL.
Section 2.1.b(4) of the policy requires supervisors to confirm that the assigned
timekeeper has verified that each employee's submission of actual hours worked
in the IGEMS timesheet module and PPL are in agreement with that approved in
the time planning module, or that identified discrepancies are resolved, no later
than the end of the following pay period. For employees receiving Law
Enforcement Availability Pay or Administratively Uncontrollable Overtime, the
supervisors are required to ensure that this reconciliation is completed by the end
of the second pay period following the pay period for which time was worked,
and that any necessary corrections are completed.
15-B-0074
6

-------
OIG Time and Attendance Reporting Policy Needs More Clarity
OIG Policy 323 lacks clarity, especially regarding the intent and importance of
the Time Planning module.
According to the OIG policy, the IGEMS Time Planning module is the official
mechanism for requests that require advance approval or denial by a supervisor.
However, the term Time Planning creates a misconception that the planned
timesheet is for planned events only. Some managers believe that unplanned leave
only needs to be reflected in the actual timesheets in IGEMS and it does not make
sense to go back and amend the Time Planning module after the fact. Managers
specifically identified the scenario where an employee would have unplanned and
unscheduled sick leave at the end of the pay period—they believed that only the
actual timesheet needed to be amended.
We do not agree. The Time Planning module is the official mechanism to
document the approval or denial of all leave requests, not just planned leave
requests. Prior to the adoption of IGEMS, if an employee took any type of leave
(either planned or unplanned), the employee was required to submit a leave slip
(either paper form or through the agency's Webforms system). Submitting a
revised IGEMS Time Planning timesheet to reflect the unplanned leave would be
equivalent to submitting a leave slip after the fact; it is necessary to formally
document the request for leave by the employee and the approval of the leave
request by the supervisor.
In addition, Section 2.1.a(l) of OIG Policy 323 requires approval for a major
schedule change. A major schedule change is defined in Section 1.3 (g) as a
change of 1 hour or more to a planned daily work schedule. As a result, taking
unscheduled leave would require the planned timesheet to be updated and
reapproved.
Further, Section 2.1.b(4) of OIG Policy 323 requires supervisors to confirm that
timekeepers verified that each employee's actual hours worked in IGEMS actual
timesheet and PPL are in agreement with the approved IGEMS planned timesheet,
or that identified discrepancies are resolved, no later than the end of the following
pay period. If IGEMS planned timesheet is not revised to reflect the unplanned
leave, it would not be in agreement with the IGEMS actual timesheet and PPL.
Additionally, the planned timesheet is the official document that would be used
for a supervisor to deny requests for leave by employees. This is critical because
if an employee fails to report to work when leave is denied, all or part of the
absence may be charged to Absence Without Leave (AWOL).
The policy should be revised to provide clarification about the intent of the
IGEMS Time Planning module and the procedures for handling unplanned events.
Section 1.3 .n of the policy states that the IGEMS Time Planning module is used
15-B-0074
7

-------
to report the "...planned schedule to supervisor for future pay periods. This
includes planned timesheets, annual/sick leave...." Section 2.1.a(l) states that
advance approval via IGEMS time planning module is required when requesting
for leave (except in emergency situations). However, the policy does not address
how unplanned leave should be requested, approved or reported. The OIG may
also consider renaming the IGEMS Time Planning module to better align with its
true intent.
We also identified other areas in OIG Policy 323 that warrant further clarification
to improve the OIG's time and attendance process:
•	Supervisor approval due date for IGEMS actual timesheet. The policy
does not specifically provide a required supervisor approval date; it only
provides a date to confirm reconciliation (i.e., mathematical exercise to
ensure that there are no discrepancies in amount of time charged, leave
taken, etc.,) between the planned and actual timesheets.
•	Scheduling "use or lose" leave. According to OCOS, OIG employees may
carry over to the next leave year a maximum amount of accrued annual
leave (240 hours for most employees). The leave exceeding that amount is
"use or lose" leave that employees must "use" by the end of a leave year
or they will "lose" (forfeit) it. OIG may consider restoring annual leave
that was forfeited due to an exigency of the public business or sickness of
the employee only if the annual leave was scheduled in writing in
advance. In accordance with Office of Personnel Management
requirements, each year, employees are required to submit in advance
requests for leave related to use or lose three pay periods prior to the end
of the year. To meet this requirement, OIG employees should schedule the
leave through the IGEMS Time Planning module. However, OIG Policy
323 does not address the requesting and approval of use or lose leave or
scheduling through the IGEMS Time Planning module. This is important
because the OIG may consider restoring annual leave only if the annual
leave was scheduled in writing before the deadline date.
•	Timesheet reconciliation. Section 2.1 .b.(4) of the policy requires
supervisors to confirm that timekeepers verified that each employee's
actual hours worked in the IGEMS actual timesheet and PPL are in
agreement with the approved IGEMS planned timesheet. However,
Section 2.1.d, where timekeeper responsibilities are defined, does not list
reconciliation of the actual timesheet and PPL to the planned timesheet—
it only requires a reconciliation between the actual timesheet and PPL.
Consistency must be established throughout the policy. It should be noted
that the reconciliation process does not alleviate a manager's
responsibility to review and approve time; ultimately, the manager needs
15-B-0074
8

-------
to ensure that the actual timesheet and PPL reconcile to the planned
timesheet.
• Alternatives for IGEMS. While the policy requires leave, credit hours,
telework, etc., to be requested and approved in IGEMS, some managers
believe there are alternative methods of approval. One manager stated that,
for his office, it is up to the individual supervisor/approver to set the
expectation for his/her team. His team did not use planned timesheets for
leave or telework approvals. Based on discussions with his colleagues, this
manager believed he could continue to use Webforms for leave approval.
Due to its infrequency, telework approval for his team was generally
granted verbally or through email and no documentation was maintained.
Another manager said that not submitting planned timesheets does not
necessarily run the risk of unapproved leave because approvals can be
accomplished via email. The OIG needs to better ensure that all employees
and management understand and comply with the IGEMS requirements
and that no alternative methods are allowed.
IGEMS Time and Attendance Recording Does Not Appear to Be
Viewed as a High Priority
Employees and management do not appear to view IGEMS time and attendance
recording as a high priority. OIG senior leadership was briefed on the time and
attendance recording concerns on June 19, 2014, and was provided a listing of
employees in their offices who did not comply with the policy. At that time, the
Inspector General emphasized the importance for all OIG employees to comply
with this policy and provide accurate and complete information into IGEMS.
Nonetheless, as of September 23, 2014—or 3 months after the briefing—nine
employees still did not have approved actual timesheets. Our final check on
October 3, 2014, showed five employee remained noncompliant on actual
timesheet approval for the two pay periods tested.
One senior leader commented that the leader's employees always have more work
than people can do; therefore, the office cannot afford to have its staff spend an
inordinate amount of valuable work time trying to keep up with what they
considered to be duplicative—the Time Planning module in IGEMS. This may
reflect the sentiment of other employees. Until everyone in the OIG understands
the requirement for complete IGEMS data, noncompliance may persist.
IGEMS Management Reports Need to Be Reevaluated
The IGEMS management reports may not always provide accurate and relevant
information for time and attendance compliance monitoring. The audit disclosed
programming errors and inconsistencies among IGEMS reports. For example, we
noted seven employees who appeared to have approved their own timesheets
15-B-0074
9

-------
based on IGEMS reports. Upon follow-up, the OIG's OMS found that there was a
programming error in the IGEMS report; the employees had not approved their
own timesheets. OMS corrected the error immediately.
While reviewing IGEMS management reports, we came across a report titled
"advanced leave." This report was more than 100 pages long. We asked OMS
about the large number of employees taking advanced leave. OMS found a
programming error and that the report was reading from an incorrect data field.
OMS subsequently determined that this report was not being used and,
consequently, removed the report from the system.
We also noted some inconsistencies in the various IGEMS reports. For example,
one employee was shown as not having submitted an IGEMS actual timesheet for
the pay period ended April 5, 2014, in the Timesheet TAAP View report and
Employee Timesheet by Pay Period report. However, the Employee Timesheet
Approved in Pay Period report showed that the employee's actual timesheet was
submitted on April 17, 2014, and approved on May 1, 2014. OMS explained that
the employee did not show up in the first two reports because she is no longer
with the OIG. While we agree with the explanation provided by OMS, having
inconsistent information creates confusion.
Another inconsistency was in IGEMS management reports that provide the status
of IGEMS actual timesheets. There are three reports available, each showing a
different timesheet status—not submitted, not resubmitted or not approved. For
pay period 14, we noted three employees who did not submit actual timesheets,
but their names did not appear in any of the three IGEMS management reports
generated by the Product Line Director as an exception. The Product Line
Director was given full access to the IGEMS management report module—the
same access as the Inspector General. When we presented this issued to OMS, it
did not agree this was an issue. When OMS ran the same reports, the three
employees correctly showed up on the OMS-generated reports as not submitted.
No further action was taken by OMS to research this anomaly.
Recommendations
We recommend that the Deputy Inspector General:
1.	Require employees and management to correct the instances of
noncompliance identified during the audit and review their IGEMS
records for April 2014 forward to ensure that all planned and actual
timesheets are submitted, approved and verified to match PPL in
accordance with the policy requirement.
2.	Require OCOS to review and revise OIG policies to improve internal
controls over time and attendance.
15-B-0074
10

-------
3.	Require senior leadership to establish procedures to monitor compliance
with time and attendance policies and procedures.
4.	Require senior leadership to review IGEMS timekeeping reports to ensure
that current reports are accurate (user and/or programming issues) and
relevant, and meet the needs for compliance monitoring. Identify as a high
priority all modifications that need to be made to IGEMS and allocate
resources to have modifications completed.
Exit Conference and Planned Corrective Action
We conducted a preliminary exit conference with the Deputy Inspector General
on July 21, 2014. On July 23, 2014, we issued finding outlines to the Deputy
Inspector General who, in turn, distributed the finding outlines to OIG senior
leadership for feedback.
We received comments and suggestions from senior leadership between July 25
and August 18, 2014. We reviewed the comments and suggestions and made
changes to this report as we considered necessary. We did not issue revised
finding outlines. Instead, the results were incorporated into this final report.
On November 18, 2014, we conducted a final exit conference with the Deputy
Inspector General to discuss our recommendations and his proposed corrective
actions. The Deputy Inspector General agreed with our recommendations and
provided proposed corrective actions and completion dates for all
recommendations. We agree with the proposed actions and consider the
recommendations open with corrective actions ongoing.
15-B-0074
11

-------
Status of Recommendations and
Potential Monetary Benefits
RECOMMENDATIONS
POTENTIAL MONETARY
BENEFITS (In $000s)
Rec.
No.
No.
Subject
Status1
Planned
Completion
Action Official	Date
Claimed
Amount
Ag reed-To
Amount
10 Require employees and management to correct the
instances of noncompliance identified during the
audit and review their IGEMS records for April
2014 forward to ensure that all planned and actual
timesheets are submitted, approved and verified to
match PPL in accordance with the policy
requirement.
10 Require OCOS to review and revise OIG policies to 0
improve internal controls for time and attendance.
0 Deputy Inspector General 3/31/15
Deputy I nspector General 9/30/15
Require senior leadership to establish procedures
to monitor compliance with time and attendance
policies and procedures.
Require senior leadership to review IGEMS
timekeeping reports to ensure that current reports
are accurate (user and/or programming issues) and
relevant, and meet the needs for compliance
monitoring. Identify as a high priority all
modifications that need to be made to IGEMS and
allocate resources to have modifications
completed.
0 Deputy Inspector General 9/30/15
0 Deputy Inspector General 9/30/15
1 O = Recommendation is open with agreed-to corrective actions pending.
C = Recommendation is closed with all agreed-to actions completed.
U = Recommendation is unresolved with resolution efforts in progress.
15-B-0074	12

-------
EPA OIG Distribution
Inspector General
Deputy Inspector General
Counsel to the Inspector General
Chief of Staff, Office of Inspector General
Assistant Inspector General for Investigations
Assistant Inspector General for Mission Systems
Assistant Inspector General for Program Evaluation
Deputy Assistant Inspector General for Congressional and Public Affairs
15-B-0074

-------