$
<
73
\
Ml
C
PRQrt^
o
2
Lll
(3
T
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Catalyst for Improving the Environment
Followup Review
Office of Underground Storage Tanks
Has Improved Contract Administration,
But Further Action Needed
Report No. 2006-P-00012
February 28, 2006

-------
Report Contributors:
Doug LaTessa
John Trefry
Abbreviations
EPA	Environmental Protection Agency
EPM	Environmental Program Management
LUST	Leaking Underground Storage Tank
OIG	Office of Inspector General
OUST	Office of Underground Storage Tanks

-------
tftD $TA}.
s	U.S. Environmental Protection Agency	2006-P-00012
|	\	Hffirp nf Insnprtnr ^pnpral	February 28, 2006
0*	UiOi d IVII Ul 111ICII Id I I lUldslI
Office of Inspector General
* vm rJ I
At a Glance
Why We Did This Review
We conducted this followup
review on a 2004 audit of
contract administration by the
Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA's) Office of
Underground Storage Tanks
(OUST). We sought to
determine whether OUST took
sufficient actions regarding
proper charging to
appropriations, avoiding the
loss of funding due to
expiration of funds, and
obligating funds with
corresponding work
assignments.
Background
On March 31, 2004, we issued
a report, The Office of
Underground Storage Tanks:
Contract Administration and
Performance Measurement
Concerns (2004-P-00014).
This report disclosed OUST
had inappropriately used and
inefficiently managed contract
funds.
For further information,
contact our Office of
Congressional and Public
Liaison at (202) 566-2391.
To view the full report,
click on the following link:
www.epa.aov/oia/reports/2006/
20060228-2006-P-00012.pdf
Catalyst for Improving the Environment
Office of Underground Storage Tanks Has Improved
Contract Administration, But Further Action Needed
What We Found
Of the nine corrective actions OUST proposed as a result of the previous review, it
successfully implemented eight actions. In particular, OUST stopped obligating
funds to contracts without identifying corresponding work. We commend OUST
for successfully implementing these actions. However, while OUST provided
Contract Management Manual training for its staff, as agreed, it did not have all
required people attend the training.
During our followup review, we noted problems regarding properly charging to
appropriations. Our prior report had concluded that $134,000 in Leaking
Underground Storage Tank (LUST) funds had been obligated to a contract but not
expended, and that amount had increased to $395,000 by March 2005. That
amount represented potential missed opportunities for achieving environmental
improvements. As a result of our followup review, OUST initiated a contract
modification in November 2005 to deobligate and recertify these funds.
Also, OUST had not taken sufficient corrective action regarding $140,004 in work
paid for with LUST funds that should have been paid with Environmental
Program Management funds. OUST initiated corrective action in February 2004,
but erroneously used future year funds to pay for prior year services. For
example, OUST paid for Fiscal Year 2002 services with Fiscal Year 2003/2004
funds. OUST initiated a modification in October 2005 to correct this situation.
What We Recommend
We recommend that the OUST Director have staff regularly query EPA's financial
systems to monitor the status of funds obligated, to enable deobligations when
appropriate. We also recommend that the Director direct staff to not use future
year appropriations to pay for services rendered in prior years, and to require that
all appropriate staff attend training in appropriations. OUST concurred with our
recommendations and agreed to monitor the status of its funds obligated to
contracts on a monthly basis and to provide direction and training to its staff.

-------
$ A \
\mli
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
OFFICE OF
INSPECTOR GENERAL
February 28, 2006
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Office of Underground Storage Tanks Has Improved
Contract Administration, But Further Action Needed
Report No. 2006-P-00012
FROM: Carl A. Jannetti
Director, Contract Audits
TO:
Cliff Rothenstein
Director, Office of Underground Storage Tanks
This report is a followup review of the contract administration issues discussed in Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Inspector General (OIG) Report No. 2004-P-00014, The
Office of Underground Storage Tanks: Contract Administration and Performance Measurement
Concerns, issued March 31, 2004.
This followup 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 the
findings contained in the report do 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.
Action Required
Since you concurred with our recommendations and agreed to implement corrective actions, a
report of action is not required. Therefore, we have closed this report in our tracking system as
of the date of issuance. We held an exit conference on February 21, 2006 with the Office of
Underground Storage Tanks (OUST). As a result of that conference, OUST agreed to send
select staff to an Appropriations Law course.
We have no objections to the further release of this report to the public. For your convenience,
this report will be available at http://www.epa.gov/oig/.
Should you have any questions regarding this report, please contact me at (215) 814-5800 or
Jannetti.carl@epa.gov. or John Trefry, Assignment Manager, at (202) 566-2474 or
trefry. i ohn@epa. gov.

-------
Purpose
We conducted this followup review on the contract administration issues discussed in a prior
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Inspector General (OIG) report, The Office of
Underground Storage Tanks: Contract Administration and Performance Measurement Concerns
(2004-P-00014), issued March 31, 2004. In response to the report, EPA's Office of
Underground Storage Tanks (OUST) proposed nine corrective actions to better use and manage
contract funds. Our followup objectives were to determine whether OUST, with respect to the
two contracts previously reviewed, successfully implemented policies and procedures to:
•	Ensure the appropriateness of charges to the Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST)
and Environmental Program Management (EPM) appropriations;
•	Avoid loss of funding due to expiration of funds; and
•	Avoid obligating funds to contracts without identification of corresponding work
assignments.
Scope and Methodology
We performed this followup review from September to November 2005, in accordance with
Government Auditing Standards issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. Our
followup review included a site visit to OUST headquarters offices, where we met with OUST
management and staff.
To determine the extent to which corrective actions had been implemented, we interviewed the
OUST Project Officer, staff from the Office of Acquisition Management, and staff from the
Office of General Counsel, and reviewed supporting documentation. To determine the amount
of expired EPM appropriations and unliquidated LUST funds, we queried EPA's Financial Data
Warehouse and confirmed the results with the Project Officer. We also queried the Financial
Data Warehouse to determine the appropriations used to pay invoices.
To determine whether OUST had continued the practice of obligating funds to contracts without
identifying corresponding work (parking funds), as well as implementing OUST's "pay as you
go" process (fund work assignments and task orders as they are issued), we queried the Financial
Data Warehouse to identify the obligations made to the contracts since the last review. We then
reviewed corresponding contract modifications, work assignments, statements of work, and
independent government cost estimates for each of those work assignments.
Our followup review, including our review of management controls, was limited to evaluating
the proposed corrective actions for OUST's two contracts identified in the prior review. As
such, a complete review of the applicable management controls related to OUST's contract
administration was not relevant to our evaluation.
Results of Review
Of the nine corrective actions OUST proposed as a result of the previous review, OUST
implemented eight actions. In particular, regarding the third objective of this followup review,
1

-------
OUST stopped obligating funds to contracts without identifying corresponding work (parking
funds), and implemented its "pay as you go" process. Also, OUST successfully implemented
new invoicing requirements for contractors and new funding processes for contracts, and
improved its invoice payment process. We commend OUST for successfully implementing
these actions. However, while OUST provided contract administration training for its staff, as
agreed, it did not have all required people attend the training. Contract Management Manual
training was provided to work assignment managers but not Project Officers and senior level
managers within OUST, even though OUST noted in its corrective action plan that all would be
required to take the training.
Regarding our followup objectives on the appropriateness of charges to appropriations and
avoiding the loss of funding due to expiration of funds, we noted that while OUST had taken
corrective actions, some problems remained. The prior OIG report concluded that $134,000 of
LUST money obligated to a contract had not been expended and would be unavailable without
deobligation and recertification. These obligations increased to over $395,000 by March 2005,
because funds remaining on completed work assignments were not used or deobligated. This
amount represents potential missed opportunities for achieving environmental improvements.
As a result of our followup review, OUST initiated a contract modification in November 2005 to
deobligate and recertify these funds. Details on the accumulation of the obligations subsequent
to our prior review are shown in the following table.
Unexpended LUST Funds Obligated to Contract
Month
Obligated
Unexpended
Amount
Cumulative
Amount
Months
Idle*
June 2000
$103,043
$103,043
59
August 2000
36,288
139,331
57
September 2000
140,004
279,335
56
August 2003
3,127
282,462
21
December 2003
89,369
371,831
17
March 2004
1,804
373,635
14
November 2004
410
374,045
6
March 2005
21,045
395,090
2
* Months Idle: The number of months from the month after the obligation was made
through the end of the contract, May 2005.
Additionally, the prior OIG report had identified $140,004 of LUST funds that were
inappropriately used to pay invoices that should have been paid with EPM funds. OUST
initiated a contract modification in February 2004 to reverse these payments. However, OUST
did not have sufficient EPM funds for the fiscal years in which the original invoiced costs were
rendered. Therefore, when OUST attempted to correct the problem previously reported, it
erroneously paid for Fiscal Year 2002 services with Fiscal Year 2003/2004 EPM funds, and
Fiscal Year 2003 services with Fiscal Year 2004/2005 EPM funds. OUST officials did not
realize that, consistent with Title 31, U.S. Code, Section 1552, EPM funds available elsewhere in
2

-------
the Agency should have been identified before using future year appropriations to pay for
services rendered in prior years. OUST initiated a modification in October 2005 to correct this
issue by identifying available EPM funds and then transferring expenses between fiscal years to
enable it to properly pay the invoices.
OUST staff indicated they do not regularly monitor the Agency's financial systems to determine
the status of obligated funds on its contracts. However, OUST queries the Agency's financial
systems for the grants that it manages. OUST staff claimed that no one from EPA's Financial
Management Center told them they could use the Financial Data Warehouse to run such queries
for contracts.
Recommendations
We recommend that the Director, Office of Underground Storage Tanks:
1.	Have staff regularly query EPA's financial systems to monitor the status of funds
obligated to OUST contracts so that they can deobligate and recertify funds when
appropriate.
2.	Direct staff to not use future year appropriations to pay for services rendered in prior
years.
3.	Require the Project Officer to attend training in the proper use of appropriations.
Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation
OUST concurred with our recommendations and agreed to monitor the status of its funds
obligated to contracts on a monthly basis and to provide direction and training to its staff. We
consider the Agency's planned actions to be sufficient. The full text of EPA's response is in
Appendix A.
3

-------
Appendix A
!> £% ¦%
i®\i
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY
RESPONSE
February 14, 2006
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Office of Underground Storage Tanks Follow-up Review of
Contract Administration
FROM: Susan Parker Bodine/s/
Assistant Administrator
TO:	Carl A. Jannetti
Director, Contracts Audits
This is in response to the Draft Followup Report: Office of Underground Storage Tanks
(OUST) Has Improved Contract Administration, But Further Action Needed, Assignment No.
2005-001469, dated January 18, 2006. We appreciate the opportunity to review the Report, and
we concur with the three recommendations contained in the report. Our specific comments can
be found in the attachment.
If you have any questions regarding this response, please contact Cliff Rothenstein at
703-603-7163.
Attachments
cc: Barry Breen, OSWER
Renee Wynn, OSWER
Johnsie Webster, OSWER
Cliff Rothenstein, OUST
Sammy Ng, OUST
Judy Barrows, OUST
Mark Barolo, OUST
Lynn DePont, OUST
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
Mail Code 5401G
4

-------
Attachment
Office of Underground Storage Tanks (OUST)'s Response to the Recommendations:
1.	Have staff regularly query EPA's financial systems to monitor the status of
funds obligated to OUST contracts so that they can deobligate and recertify funds
when appropriate.
OUST concurs. OUST will monitor its obligated contracts' status of funds using the
Agency's Financial Data Warehouse on a monthly basis so that it can be determined
if funds need to be deobligated and recertified as appropriate.
2.	Direct staff to not use future appropriations to pay for services rendered in prior years.
OUST concurs. OUST will direct staff to not use future appropriations to pay for
services rendered in prior years.
3.	Require senior level managers and Project Officers to attend Contracts
Management Manual training, as well as training in the proper use of
appropriations.
OUST concurs. OUST is already following this recommendation. OUST's Deputy
Office Director has oversight responsibility for contracts management. He is a
certified Project Officer and has completed both the three-day Contracts Management
Manual training and the one-day refresher Contracts Management Manual
Recertification training course which is required every three years in order to maintain
his contract management certification. Additionally, OUST's two Division Directors
and OUST's Project Officer have completed similar training. (Please see the attached
spreadsheet.)
It should also be noted that all of OUST's active contracts managers maintain their
contracts certification with the three-year one-day recertification training.
All OUST employees, including its Senior-level managers and Project Officer,
received informal training from EPA's Appropriations expert (from the Office of
General Counsel) in May 2004 on the proper use of appropriations.
5

-------
Appendix B
Distribution
Office of the Administrator
Agency Followup Official
Agency Followup Coordinator
General Counsel
Associate Administrator for Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations
Associate Administrator for Public Affairs
Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Director, Office of Underground Storage Tanks
Director, Financial Management Division
Director, Office of Acquisition Management
Audit Followup Coordinator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Inspector General
6

-------