£ g% *
V PR0^°
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Spending Taxpayer Dollars
Call Center: Contract
Management Needs
Improvement to Reduce the
Risk of Overbilling
Report No. 15-P-0042
December 23, 2014

-------
Report Contributors:
Janet Kasper
Michael Petscavage
Anthony Grear
Richard Valliere
Abbreviations
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY
Fiscal Year
GSA
General Services Administration
OEI
Office of Environmental Information
OIG
Office of Inspector General
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

-------
^tDSr^ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency	15-P-0042
'ro Office of Inspector General	December 23,2014
I VW j
VPR0^°
At a Glance
Why We Did This Review
The U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) Office
of Inspector General received a
hotline complaint that alleged
possible contractor fraud on an
Office of Environmental
Information (OEI) contract, or
mismanagement by the
contractor and/or OEI. The
contractor billed the EPA
$11,490,228 for call center and
related services through
September 2014. Our objective
was to determine whether the
contractor is incorrectly billing
the EPA, resulting in
overbillings to the government.
This report addresses the
following EPA goal or
cross-agency strategy:
• Embracing EPA as a high-
performing organization.
Call Center: Contract Management Needs
Improvement to Reduce the Risk of Overbilling
Send all inquiries to our public
affairs office at (202) 566-2391
or visit www.epa.gov/oia.
The full report is at:
www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2014/
20141223-15-P-0042.pdf.
The EPA was
overbilled by
$910,776 for
helpdesk services.
What We Found
The EPA does not have assurance that the pricing of the
task order related to a contract was reasonable. In one
contract modification, the number of calls and emails to a
helpdesk (contact volume) was used to justify increasing
the total fixed price amount. In a subsequent modification,
ticket volume, which represents reported issues that may be the result of one or
more calls and emails, was used to justify changes that led to a decrease in
price. Inconsistent application of vague contract methodology increases the risk
that the EPA may be overcharged for call center services.
The contractor was not able to provide the details we requested regarding
contact volume and there is no evidence that the EPA requested or received the
information prior to increasing the task order price. This increases the EPA's risk
of being overcharged for call center services. If the EPA periodically requested
and verified detail data for "contact volume" used to justify increases in billing, it
would be more apt to timely detect potential fraud, waste, abuse and
mismanagement.
Recommendations and Planned Agency Corrective Actions
We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for Administration and
Resources Management:
•	Require, in negotiation with the contractor, modification of the task order to
provide an explicit definition of call volume and explicitly define the basis on
future modifications.
•	Eliminate the conflict between clause 1 and clause 24 in the task order and
require the contracting officer to recover $910,776 of unsupported charges.
•	Require the contracting officer to negotiate with the contractor to modify the
task order to require, as a monthly deliverable from the contractor, detailed
data supporting the call volume used for billing.
We also recommend that the Assistant Administrators for the Office of
Administration and Resources Management and OEI ensure periodic review of
detailed call volume information and information on the number of tickets
received in order to verify the accuracy of the summary information included in
the monthly progress report. The EPA agreed with our recommendations and
provided a corrective action plan with dates for each recommendation.
Noteworthy Achievements
OEI improved communication with program offices about increases in call center
costs. To address unexpected year-end increases in costs, OEI now provides
customers with a Monthly Utilization Report to inform them of actual usage. Also,
beginning in fiscal year 2014, OEI now allocates call center costs and bills
customers monthly based on actual usage, rather than estimated usage.

-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
December 23, 2014
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Call Center: Contract Management Needs Improvement to Reduce
the Risk of Overtoiling
Report No. 15-P-0040
FROM: Arthur A. Elkins Jr.
TO:
Nanci Gelb, Acting Assistant Administrator
Office of Administration and Resources Management
Renee P. Wynn, Acting Assistant Administrator and Chief Information Officer
Office of Environmental Information
This is our report on the subject audit conducted by the Office of Inspector General (OIG) of the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This report contains findings that describe the problems
the OIG has identified and corrective actions the OIG recommends. This report represents the opinion of
the OIG and does not necessarily represent the final EPA position. Final determinations on matters in this
report will be made by EPA managers in accordance with established audit resolution procedures.
The offices responsible for implementing this audit report's recommendations are the Office of
Acquisition Management within the Office of Administration and Resource Management, and the Office
of Technology Operations and Planning within the Office of Environmental Information.
Action Required
In accordance with EPA Manual 2750, the offices provided acceptable and complete planned corrective
actions in response to OIG recommendations. All recommendations are resolved and no final response
to this report is therefore required.
We will post this report to our website at http://www.epa.gov/oig.

-------
Call Center: Contract Management Needs Improvement
to Reduce the Risk of Overtoiling
15-P-0042
Table of C
Chapters
1	Introduction		1
Purpose		1
Background		1
Responsible Offices		1
Noteworthy Achievements 		1
Scope and Methodology		2
2	Task Order Price Not Consistently Determined		3
Inconsistent Methodology Utilized		3
Conclusion		5
Recommendations		5
Agency Response and OIG Evaluation		6
3	Increased Price During FY 2012 Unsupported		7
Contractor Did Not Provide Detailed Support for Increased Billing		7
Conclusion		8
Recommendations		8
Agency Response and OIG Evaluation		9
Status of Recommendations and Potential Monetary Benefits		10
Appendices
A Agency Response to Draft Report	 11
B Distribution	 14

-------
Chapter 1
Introduction
Purpose
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Inspector General
(OIG) received a hotline complaint that alleged possible contractor fraud on an
Office of Environmental Information (OEI) contract, or mismanagement by the
contractor and/or OEI. The EPA Call Center is a one-stop access point for both
internal EPA customers and the general public that provides problem resolution,
referral services, and technical support. The timeframe for the billings in the
hotline were for fiscal years (FYs) 2012 and 2013. Our objective was to determine
whether the contractor was incorrectly billing the EPA resulting in overbillings to
the government.
Background
The EPA issued a task order under a General Services Administration (GSA)
contract for call center services. GSA uses a variety of contracting vehicles to
manage procurement for both its own operations and its government customers.
The task order issued under the GSA contract had a period of performance
beginning on October 1, 2010. The task order contained a one-year base period
with five option periods ending on September 30, 2016.
The EPA Call Center provides problem resolution, referral services, and technical
support. The service includes the management, implementation, and oversight of
all contractual operations needed to deliver these services. The costs to EPA
customers also includes overhead, EPA management, utilities, and space rental.
Responsible Offices
The offices responsible for implementing this audit report's recommendations are
the Office of Acquisition Management within the Office of Administration and
Resource Management, and the Office of Technology Operations and Planning
within the Office of Environmental Information.
Noteworthy Achievements
One of the issues mentioned in the hotline complaint was that the customer did
not receive timely notice that it would be charged more money than was
estimated. Based on our review, the increased charges were not communicated
until the end of the fiscal year. To address this issue, OEI now provides customers
with a Monthly Utilization Report to inform them of their actual usage.
15-P-0042
1

-------
Additionally, beginning in FY 2014, OEI now allocates call center costs and bills
customers monthly based on actual usage.
Scope and Methodology
We conducted this performance audit from May 2014 through September 2014, in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 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 answer the objective, we interviewed OEI staff and managers in headquarters
and Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. We also interviewed staff from the
Office of the Chief Financial Officer, as well as the contracting officer in
Research Triangle Park. Finally we reviewed the following documentation:
•	Contract GS-35F4797H and task order 1669, including modifications to
the task order.
•	Blanket Purchase Agreement No. ITS-EPA II 0001.
•	Working Capital Fund's "Draft Service Evaluation" of the EPA's Call
Center (December 2013).
•	The EPA Call Center Standard Operating Procedures.
We did not identify other relevant prior audit reports related to our objective.
15-P-0042
2

-------
Chapter 2
Task Order Price Not Consistently Determined
The EPA does not have assurance that the pricing of the task order related to a
contract is reasonable. In one contract modification, contact volume was used to
justify increasing the total fixed price amount. In a subsequent modification,
ticket volume was used to justify changes that led to a decrease in price.
According to the task order, if the maximum call volume is exceeded by
30 percent for three consecutive months, the contractor reserves the right to
change the band level. Further, if the minimum call volumes for the selected band
are not met for three consecutive months, the EPA has the right to request a lower
band level appropriate for the call volume. However, the task order did not
explicitly define call volume. This inconsistent application of vague contract
methodology increases the risk that the EPA may be overcharged for call center
services.
Inconsistent Methodology Utilized
Task Order 1669 includes a pricing schedule which establishes pricing based on
minimum and maximum call volume capacity. Under the task order, call volume
capacity is used to establish a fixed price per month to be billed to the
government.
During the base and option periods, clause 24 of the task order establishes
parameters for changing the pricing based on call volume. Task order 1669,
clause 24, states in part, "If the maximum call volume is exceeded by 30 percent
for three (3) consecutive months. The contractor reserves the right to change the
band level. If minimum call volumes for the selected band are not met for three
(3) consecutive months, EPA has the right to request a lower band level
appropriate for the call/contract volume." The band relates to the pricing level of
the task order. Raising and lowering the band increases or decreases the fixed
price per month charged to the government for the call center services.
The EPA used contact volume to change the price of task order 1669 in one
instance and ticket volume to change it in another. Under modification 7, the task
order was changed in March 2012 (retroactively applied to January 2012) to
increase the task order price by using the number of contacts (phone calls and
emails) as the basis. Since the contacts were 30 percent over the maximum
defined in the task order for three months, the contractor requested a modification
to the task order. However, as shown in Table 1 below, while contacts were over
30 percent of the maximum, tickets were not.
15-P-0042
3

-------
Table 1: Comparison of Contacts and Tickets to 30 Percent over Maximum Call
Volume - Oct. 2011- Dec. 2011

Oct. 2011
Nov. 2011
Dec. 2011
Min. Call Vol.
4,200
4,200
4,200
Max. Call Vol.
7,199
7,199
7,199
30% over Max.
9,359
9,359
9,359
Actual Contacts
11,852
13,307
12,418
Actual Tickets
7,206
7,824
7,544
Source: OIG analysis of contact and ticket data, provided by the EPA, for October through
December 2011. The detail of the actual contact data could not be provided, see Chapter 3
for additional information.
For task order modification 22, tickets were used for the basis of decreasing the
task order price, not contacts. Since ticket volume was below the minimum call
volume for October through December 2013, the EPA issued modification 22,
lowering the task order pricing starting February 2014. However, the number of
contacts for those three months were not below the minimum call volume. See
Table 2 below.
Table 2: Comparison of Contacts and Tickets to Minimum Call Volume -
Oct. 2013- Dec. 2013

Oct. 2013
Nov. 2013
Dec. 2013
Min. Call Vol.
6,125
6,125
6,125
Max. Call Vol.
10,499
10,499
10,499
Actual Contacts
6,516
7,795
7,940
Actual Tickets
5,490
5,853
4,669
Source: OIG analysis of contact and ticket data for October through December 2013, provided
by the EPA.
Task Order Does Not Clearly Define Methodology
The task order does not clearly define the criteria and methodology to be used to
increase or decrease the task order price. Specifically, the term "call volume" is not
defined. Prior to task order modification 22, the EPA interpreted call volume as
contacts, and used contact information to raise or lower task order price. However,
in modification 22, the EPA used a basis of ticket volume to lower the task order
price. A contact does not always result in a ticket and so the number of tickets will
always be less than the number of contacts. The lack of clarity in the definition of
call volume allowed the EPA to use different methodology to justify a reduction in
the price. Furthermore, the EPA was experiencing expenditures that exceeded
project revenue on the call center which provided an incentive for the EPA to
interpret call volume as tickets instead of contacts to lower the price. OEI, in
justifying modification 22, provided a general statement to the contracting officer,
requesting that the price be lowered because the call center, for the previous three
15-P-0042
4

-------
months, had incurred a call volume lower than the minimum. OEI provided
detailed numbers which it described as call volume, however, the amounts provided
were tickets and not contacts as had been used earlier to raise the task order price.
Based on the contact level (phone calls and emails), the call center had not incurred
a call volume lower than the minimum in any of the three months. The contracting
officer stated that she nonetheless, processed this modification because of a
different clause in the task order (Clause 1) that says that the government can use
any band at any time. However, this is contrary to the pricing schedule included in
the task order which provides for the band pricing to be based on different call
volumes. The government cannot simply change from one band to another any time
it chooses. In order for the government to change to another band level it must be
based on call volume. Based on the proposal language, the agency intends to
consistently define call volume as the number of contacts in the future.
Clause 1 states that the government can use any band at any time. Clause 24 in the
task order stipulates that the price can change if call volume goes 30 percent
above the maximum or below the minimum, for three consecutive months. These
clauses are at best ambiguous, and perhaps one clause cannot even be interpreted
and implemented as consistent with the other.
Conclusion
As a result of not having clearly defined methodology, the EPA and the contractor
can interpret the task order clauses to their advantage and adjust the task order
price accordingly. Therefore, the EPA does not have assurance the pricing of the
task order is reasonable. The EPA can be overcharged for the call center services
and pass along the overages to the customers.
Recommendations
We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for Administration and
Resources Management require the contracting officer negotiate with the
contractor to modify the task order to:
1.	Provide an explicit definition of call volume and explicitly define the basis
for modification of the task order in the future.
2.	Eliminate the conflict between clause 1 in the task order which states that
the government can change the band whenever it wants and clause 24
which states that the band can be changed based on changes in call
volume.
15-P-0042
5

-------
Agency Response and OIG Evaluation
The agency agreed with Recommendations 1 and 2 and provided a completion
date of November 30, 2014, for both recommendations. To address the
recommendations, the agency will modify the task order to clarify the definition
of call volume. We believe the proposed corrective action, along with the planned
completion date, meets the intent of the recommendations. These
recommendations will remain open pending completion of the proposed
corrective actions. The complete agency response to the draft audit report is in
Appendix A.
15-P-0042
6

-------
Chapter 3
Increased Price During FY 2012 Unsupported
The EPA cannot determine whether the contractor charged the EPA properly for
call center services. The EPA did not request detailed information to support the
contractor's claim that call center contacts increased and therefore an increase in
the task order price was necessary. The contractor was also not able to provide the
information at our request. According to the Federal Acquisition Regulation, the
contracting officer determines whether the contractor has performed the contract
appropriately and may require the contractor to substantiate performance with
evidence. The evidence for the increased task order price was not substantiated.
As a result of not having access to and periodically reviewing detailed data that
supports contact volume, the EPA runs the risk of being overcharged for call
center services in the future.
Contractor Did Not Provide Detailed Support for Increased Billing
Under contract number GS-35F4797H, task order 1669, OEI cannot determine
whether the contractor charged the EPA properly for call center services during
the time period of January 2012 through September 2012. The task order for the
service is a fixed-price contract where the agency purchases a number of seats
based on call volume. The monthly fixed price for option period 1 was established
at the beginning of the option period that began on October 1, 2011, and was
based on estimated call volume. Clause 24 in the task order stated that if the
maximum call volume is exceeded by 30 percent for 3 consecutive months, the
contractor reserves the right to change the band level. After the first three months
of option I were complete, the contractor requested that the fixed price per month
be increased due to increased call volume. As justification for this increase, the
contractor provided an email stating that the contacts (phone calls, emails and fax)
had exceeded the maximum call volume for October through December of 2011.
The contractor also provided an average contact level for that period. However, it
did not provide the details regarding the contact information. There is no evidence
that OEI or the contracting officer requested or received detailed information
prior to increasing the task order price.
We attempted to obtain and review detailed data supporting contact volume for
November 2011, but neither OEI nor the contractor were able to provide the
detailed information. The contractor stated that its subcontractor does not have the
source documentation for the contacts received during November 2011, however,
the contractor does have source documentation for phone calls dating back to
Dec. 2011 and emails dating back to Jan 2013. The contractor did provide
detailed information for a recent month (May 2014). However, based on the
response from the contractor, the information supporting the contacts (phone calls
and emails) for the three months that were the basis for increasing the contract
15-P-0042
7

-------
price (Oct. 2011 through Dec. 2011) cannot be provided. Because neither the
contractor nor the OEI can provide adequate documentation to support the
increased contract price, we question the amount as an unsupported increase. The
calculation of the questioned costs is as follows:
Increase in the monthly fixed price (starting Jan. 2012) $101,197/month x 9
months = $910,776
FAR section 52.232-32(c)(l), Performance-Based Payments states
The contractor shall not be entitled to payment of a request for performance-
based payment prior to successful accomplishment of the event or
performance criterion for which payment is requested. The Contracting
Officer shall determine whether the event or performance criterion for which
payment is requested has been successfully accomplished in accordance with
the terms of the contract. The Contracting Officer may, at any time, require
the contractor to substantiate the successful performance of any event or
performance criterion which has been or is represented as being payable.
There was no verification of contractor data to ensure that significant increases
were legitimate and that corresponding billings were in accordance with the terms
of the contract. The contract does not require the contractor to submit detailed
information on the number of contacts. When asked to provide detailed
information for November of 2011, the contractor was not able to do so. Thus,
OEI is unable to verify that contractor charges are proper because the contractor
cannot provide detailed information on number of contacts.
Conclusion
As a result of not having access to and periodically reviewing detailed data that
supports contact volume, the EPA runs the risk of being overcharged for call
center services. If the EPA periodically requested and verified detailed data for
contact volume used to justify seat increases and billing, it would be more apt to
timely detect potential fraud, waste and abuse.
Recommendations
We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for the Office of Administration
and Resources Management require the contracting officer to:
3.	Recover the $910,776 of unsupported charges.
4.	Negotiate with the contractor to modify the task order to require, as a
monthly deliverable from the contractor, detailed data supporting the call
volume used for billing.
15-P-0042
8

-------
We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for the Office of Administration
and Resources Management and the Assistant Administrator for the Office of
Environmental Information:
5. Ensure periodic review of call volume information and information on
number of tickets received in order to verify the accuracy of the summary
information included in the monthly progress report.
Agency Response and OIG Evaluation
The agency agreed with recommendations 3 through 5. For recommendation 3,
the agency described its plan to give the contactor thirty (30) days from issuance
of a letter to provide supporting documentation for the increased call volume
during the audited period. If the contractor cannot produce the required supporting
documentation demonstrating increased call volume during that period, the
government will recover the $910,776.00 in unsupported charges. A letter will be
issued by November 30, 2014. If the Government determines money is owed,
funds will be recovered by January 31, 2015, according to the corrective action
plan. For recommendation 4, by November 30, 2014 the agency plans to modify
the task order to require a monthly deliverable from the contractor detailing the
data supporting the call volume used for billing. For recommendation 5, the
agency identified steps to review call volume and ticket volume quarterly
beginning December 31, 2014.
We believe the proposed corrective actions, along with the planned completion
dates, meet the intent of the recommendations. The recommendations will remain
open pending completion of the proposed corrective actions. The complete
agency response to the draft audit report is in Appendix A.
15-P-0042
9

-------
Status of Recommendations and
Potential Monetary Benefits
RECOMMENDATIONS
POTENTIAL MONETARY
BENEFITS (In $000s)
Rec. No.
Page
No.
Subject
Status1
Action Official
Planned
Completion
Date
Require the contracting officer negotiate with the
contractor to modify the task order to provide an
explicit definition of call volume and explicitly
define the basis for modification of the task order
in the future.
Assistant Administrator for
Administration and
Resources Management
Claimed
Amount
Ag reed-To
Amount
11/30/14
Require the contracting officer negotiate with the
contractor to modify the task order to eliminate
the conflict between clause 1 in the task order
which states that the government can change the
band whenever it wants and clause 24 which
states that the band can be changed based on
changes in call volume.
Require the contracting officer to recover the
$910,776 of unsupported charges.
Assistant Administrator for 11/30/14
Administration and
Resources Management
Assistant Administrator for 1/31/15
Administration and
Resources Management
$910.E
TBD
8	Require the contracting officer to negotiate with
the contractor to modify the task order to require,
as a monthly deliverable from the contractor,
detailed data supporting the call volume used for
billing.
9	Ensure periodic review of call volume information
and information on number of tickets received in
order to verify the accuracy of the summary
information included in the monthly progress
report.
Assistant Administrator for 11/30/14
Administration and
Resources Management
Assistant Administrator for 12/31/14
Administration and
Resources Management
and Assistant Administrator
for Environmental
Information
0 = 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-P-0042	10

-------
Appendix A
Agency Response to Draft Report
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
NOV 4 2014
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Response to Draft Office of Inspector General Audit Report No. OA-FY14-0201
"Management of Call Center Task Order Needs Improvement to Reduce the Risk
of Overbilling" dated October 7, 2014
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the issues and recommendations raised in Draft
Office of Inspector General Audit Report No. OA-FY14-0201, "Management of Call Center
Task Order Needs Improvement to Reduce the Risk of Overbilling" dated October 7, 2014.
OAM and OEI have reviewed the draft audit and provide the attached discussion and information
in response to audit findings and recommendations.
If you have any questions regarding this response, please contact John Bashista, Director, Office
of Acquisition Management at 202-564-4310, Lisa Maass, OAM Audit Follow-up Coordinator at
202-564-2498, or Anne Mangiafico, OEI/OTOP at 202-564-9483.
Attachment
cc: John Bashista
Lisa Maass
Lauranne Vogel
Harrell Watkins
Anne Mangiafico
Judy Maguire
Brandon McDowell
^ Nanci E. Gelb, Acting Assistant Administrator
Office of Administration and Resources Managemei
FROM:
Renee P. Wynn, Acting Assistant Admini strati
Office of Environmental Information C_
Renee P. Wynn, Acting Assistant Admini strati
Office of Environmental Information C_
TO:
Janet Kasper, Director
Contracts and Assistance Agreement Audits
Internet Address (URL) • http://www.epa.gov
Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Postconsumer. Process Chlorine Free Recycled Paper
15-P-0042
11

-------
Subj: Attachment to Response to Draft Office of Inspector General Audit Report No. OA-
FY14-0201 "Management of Call Center Task Order Needs Improvement to Reduce the
Risk of Overbilling" dated October 7, 2014
We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for the Office of Administration and Resources
Management require the Contracting Officer to:
OIG Recommendation
OARM Corrective Action
1. Provide an explicit definition of call
volume and explicitly define the basis for
modification of the task order in the future.
The Contracting Officer will modify the task
order clarifying the definition of call volume
as contacts and not tickets in a future task
order modification to be completed by
November 30, 2014.
2. Provide an explicit definition of call
volume and explicitly define the basis for
modification of the task order in the future.
The Contracting Officer has determined that
there is no conflict between the two clauses
and they will remain as stated in the
order. Clause #1 explains the purpose and the
uses for the various pricing tables included in
the order, whereas Clause #24 explains how
those pricing tables will be utilized for the
order. As stated above, a contract
modification will clarify the definition of call
volume, which should eliminate any
confusion between the two clauses. A task
order modification will be completed by
November 30, 2014.
3. Recover the $910,776 of unsupported
charges.
The Contactor will be given thirty (30) days
from issuance of a letter to provide supporting
documentation for the increased call volume
during the audited period. If the Contractor
cannot produce the required supporting
documentation demonstrating increased call
volume during that period, the Government
will recover the $910,776.00 in unsupported
charges. A letter will be issued by November
30,2014. If the Government determines
money is owed, funds will be recovered by
January 31, 2015.
4. Modify the task order to require, as a
monthly deliverable from the contractor,
detailed data supporting the call volume used
for billing.
The task order will be modified to require a
monthly deliverable from the contractor,
detailing the data supporting the call volume
used for billing. A task order modification
will be completed by November 30, 2014.
1
15-P-0042
12

-------
Subj: Attachment to Response to Draft Office of Inspector General Audit Report No. OA-
FY14-0201 "Management of Call Center Task Order Needs Improvement to Reduce the
Risk of Overbilling" dated October 7, 2014
We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for the Office of Administration and Resources
Management and the Assistant Administrator for the Office of Environmental Information:
5. Ensure periodic review of call volume
information and information on number of
tickets received in order to verify the accuracy
of the summary information included in the
monthly progress report.
The Task Order Contracting Officer
Representative will review the number of
contacts (not tickets) listed in their monthly
records and compare it with the information
provided in the Monthly Progress Report. To
ensure the accuracy of the reported call
volume and the number of tickets opened
each month, the call center will conduct a
quarterly review of all tickets entered into the
remedy system. The Call Center will generate
a Remedy report detailing each ticket created,
inclusive of the following details; person
placing the call, who received the call (EZ
Tech or the Call Center), incident number,
reason for the call, and the resolution date. A
comparison of the Remedy report against
ticket reports submitted from the contractor
will be analyzed. The analysis will further be
compared to the incidents billed for the
quarter. The first review will take place in
December 31, 2014 with each subsequent
review occurring at the end of each quarter.
This effort will be ongoing for the remainder
of the contract.
2
15-P-0042
13

-------
Distribution
Appendix B
Office of the Administrator
Assistant Administrator for Administration and Resources Management
Assistant Administrator for Environmental Information and Chief Information Officer
Agency Follow-Up Official (the CFO)
Agency Follow-Up Coordinator
General Counsel
Associate Administrator for Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations
Associate Administrator for Public Affairs
Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Administration and Resources Management
Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator for Environmental Information
Director, Office of Acquisition Management, Office of Administration and Resources Management
Director, Office of Policy and Resource Management, Office of Administration and Resources
Management
Deputy Director, Office of Policy and Resource Management, Office of Administration and
Resources Management
Director, Office of Regional Operations
Audit Follow-Up Coordinator, Office of Administration and Resources Management
Audit Follow-Up Coordinator, Office of Environmental Information
15-P-0042
14

-------