$
<
73
\
Ml
C
PRQrt^
o
2
Lll
(3
T
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Catalyst for Improving the Environment
Quality Assessment Review Report
Quality Assessment Review of
Office of Inspector General
Philadelphia Investigations Office
(Redacted)
Report No. 2006-M-00012
August 7, 2006
-------
Report Contributor:
Paul Zammit
Abbreviations
AUSA
Assistant United States Attorney
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ICS
Investigative Control Sheet
IGOR
Inspector General's Operations and Reporting System
MOI
Memorandum of Interview
01
Office of Investigations
OIG
Office of Inspector General
SAC
Special Agent in Charge
-------
<
33
\
^t0SrX
&
V PRO^4-0
o
2
Lll
o
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
At a Glance
2006-M-00012
August 7, 2006
Catalyst for Improving the Environment
Why We Did This Review
We conducted a Quality
Assessment Review of the
Office of Investigation's
Philadelphia office for the
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA's) Office of
Inspector General (OIG).
We conducted our review the
week of March 8, 2006, and
concentrated on case planning,
case documentation, and case
execution.
Background
Quality Assessment Review of Office of Inspector
General Philadelphia Investigations Office (Redacted)
What We Found
The Quality Assessment Review found that the EPA OIG Office of
Investigation's Philadelphia office does a very good job of case management.
Case files were in good order and kept in a locked room. Most of the documents
were properly filed in the case files and the case files were properly labeled.
However, the review disclosed several areas where there could be possible
improvement. There was not a consistent practice regarding the timing and
documentation of initial and subsequent consultations with prosecutors. In some
instances, case predication documentation could have been clearer regarding the
source of the complaint. The timeframe for deciding on the merits of opening an
investigation, which is currently 3 days, could also be increased. Further, case
reviews could sometimes have been conducted in a more timely manner.
The EPA OIG conducts
Quality Assessment Reviews
of its work products. For this
review, we examined 17 open
cases, and looked at 369
Memoranda of Interview.
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/
20060807-2006-M-00012.pdf
What We Recommend
To improve case management in the EPA OIG Office of Investigations, we
recommend that the Office of Investigations:
• Establish a requirement that all cases have an Assistant United States
Attorney (AUSA) consultation within 90 days of case initiation unless
there is a specific investigative reason not to do so. In addition, if the
facts of the case change significantly, the AUSA should be recontacted.
Consultations with AUSAs should be documented in the case file.
• Ensure all case predication documentation is included in the file and
ensure the source of the initial complaint is clear.
• Consider increasing the timeframe that agents and Special Agents in
Charge have to decide on the merits of opening an investigation.
• Use the case plan document to document case reviews. For all cases over
1 year old where the AUSA is not already involved, ensure there is
documentation that the AUSA is interested in the case.
The OIG Office of Investigations agreed to take the recommended corrective
actions.
-------
$ A \
\ Wi
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
OFFICE OF
INSPECTOR GENERAL
August 7, 2006
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:
Quality Assessment Review of Office of Inspector General
Philadelphia Investigations Office (Redacted)
Report No. 2006-M-00012
TO:
Stephen Nesbitt
Assistant Inspector General for Investigations
This is our report on the subject quality assessment review conducted by the Office of Inspector
General (OIG) of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
We conducted our review the week of March 8, 2006. We found that the Philadelphia
Investigations Office did a very good job of case management. However, we found several areas
for possible improvements, and made recommendations accordingly.
This report contains findings that describe the conditions the OIG has identified and corrective
actions the OIG recommends. The OIG Office of Investigations provided a response to our
review on March 31, 2006, and agreed to take the recommended corrective actions. That
response is included as an appendix.
The estimated cost of this report - calculated by multiplying the project's staff days by the
applicable daily full cost billing rates in effect at the time - is $6,252. The report will be
available at http://www.epa.gov/oig.
Sincerely,
{tffrAT~Roderi ck~
Acting Inspector General
-------
Quality Assessment Review of Office of Inspector General
Philadelphia Investigations Office (Redacted)
During the week of March 8, 2006, we conducted a Quality Assessment Review of the
Philadelphia Office of Investigations (01) of the Eastern Resource Center, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Inspector General (OIG). This review concentrated on case
planning, case documentation, and case execution. Accordingly, we reviewed all but one open
case (a case being used by the agent at the time). We used an 01 Data Collection Form to extract
relevant information from the case files. This report outlines observations regarding 01' s case
management and documentation.
We reviewed 17 open cases ranging in age from over 4 years old to under 1 year old. The files
were in good order and kept in a locked room in the Philadelphia office. Most documents were
properly filed in the case files (the few cases where notes were not in the case file are discussed
below), and the case files were properly labeled. In addition, we reviewed 369 Memoranda of
Interview (MOI) to ensure compliance with 01 procedures. This report generally follows the
format of the Data Collection Form for ease of reference.
Area of Review
What We Found
Case Number
All case files were clearly numbered.
Date Complaint
Received
Generally, the "Complaint Received" date was very clear based on
the original complaint in the file. However, in one case, though
there was a MOI of the original complainant, it is not clear how 01
came upon the name of the individual to interview. On another case
that was opened by another agency and which 01 entered into later,
it is unclear how the information was received from the original
agency.
Date Case Opened
The case opening date was documented on all cases.
Date Case Referred to
an Assistant United
States Attorney
(AUSA)
There was a wide discrepancy regarding the date that cases were
referred to the AUSA, with the number of days ranging from 0
(meaning that an AUSA was consulted immediately, or 01 entered
into the investigation with an AUSA already involved), to over 300
days. The average time frame from receipt of complaint to AUSA
contact on all Philadelphia cases was 260 days. (In computing this
average, we used the available data from the case files and also
reported March 20, 2006, the AUSA consultation date for all cases
where there was no record of AUSA contact.) This date was taken
from the available information in the case file and it is possible
AUSA consultations were performed that did not result in an MOI.
1
-------
Area of Review
What We Found
Total IGOR (Inspector
General's Operations
and Reporting System)
Hours
The number of hours charged to IGOR ranged from 78 to 2,020,
with an average of 688 hours per case reviewed. Though it is
difficult to make any determination regarding how much time
should be charged to each case due to the variables for each
investigation, some observations are in order:
• On one case, the case notes state the original AUSA said there
was no harm to the government, and that the case was
re-presented to an AUSA who informed the agents that more
information was necessary. In such cases, a careful analysis
should be done to determine whether the case should be
continued.
• On another case, there was no loss to EPA and some of the
suspects have been deported. Again, a determination must be
made as to whether it is in the best interests of OIG to continue
to pursue this case.
Predicating
Documentation
The predicating document was not included on one case. For
another case, although there is an original predicating interview, it is
unclear how 01 came into contact with this individual.
Timely Evaluation
(3 Days)
Most cases met the 3-day criteria. However, due to the distributed
nature of the workforce, this time constraint may be difficult to
meet. On a number of occasions, the complaint was first received in
headquarters (either Computer Crimes Unit or Financial Fraud
Directorate) and then sent to the field, making it very difficult to
meet the 3-day suspense. In addition, a 3-day suspense makes it
difficult for the agent to do even a cursory review of the complaint,
such as determining if there is any EPA involvement, before
deciding on a Preliminary Inquiry or a Case. This 3-day window
should be reviewed.
Copy of the
Investigative Control
Sheet (ICS) in File
All cases had the ICS in the file.
Case Plan in File
All cases had a case plan in the file.
Case Plan Updated
All but three cases had timely case plan updates.
Interview Notes
Properly Labeled
All notes, with a few exceptions, were properly labeled. There were
a few instances where notes had some items missing, such as the
case number on the notes. On one case being worked with an 01
chemist, 01 should consider placing the chemist's notes in the case
file.
Timely Preparation of
MOIs (7 Days)
Twenty-three MOIs (6.2 percent) were not prepared timely. In most
cases, the 7-day criteria was missed by only a few days. In some
cases, however, the MOIs were prepared up to 3 months after the
interview.
2
-------
Area of Review
What We Found
Timely Special Agent
in Charge (SAC)
Review (2 Weeks)
Very few of the MOIs had the date of the SAC reviews, so it is
impossible to determine if the SAC reviews met the 2-week review
criteria. However, under the current system, where a SAC is not
necessarily co-located with the agent, a 2-week window does not
seem to be plausible. This may be remedied by TIGER (The
Inspector General Enterprise Resource system).
Proper Warnings and
Advice of Rights
In all cases where this was necessary, rights and warnings were
properly given.
Case Review
Conducted in a Timely
Manner (90 Days)
Most reviews were done timely. However, there was a 5-month gap
in case reviews for nine cases.
Followup on Reviews
(Agent and SAC)
When appropriate, agents acted on review comments.
Status Reports
Corroborated by MOIs
Status report information was corroborated by the information in the
MOIs.
Recommendations
01 does a very good job of case management. However, our review disclosed several areas
where there could be improvement.
1. Establish a requirement that all cases have an AUSA consultation within 90 days unless
there is a specific investigative reason not to do so (such as McDade limitations). In
addition, if the case facts change significantly, the SAC should ensure that the agent
re-contacts the AUSA and documents the file (which can be accomplished through
annotating the case plan). This consultation is not designed to determine the merits of the
investigation, or what investigative steps an agent should take, but rather, the consultation
is designed to determine if the case meets the criteria for prosecution in the AUSA's
jurisdiction. (For example, the threshold for prosecutions will be different in the
Southern District of New York than the Western District of New York).
2. Ensure all case initiation documentation is included in the file. In addition to
documenting the initial interviews, it is important to document how 01 came upon the
initial complainant. If the initial complaint came to 01 as a phone call, a tip from a
source, or even a newspaper article, the case agent should document this in the files.
3. Consider increasing the time that agents and SACs have to decide on the merits of
opening an investigation. Giving an agent and SAC more time (10 calendar days) to
review a complaint allows time for determining if the case falls into EPA OIG
jurisdiction or if there is any EPA involvement.
3
-------
4. Use the case plan document to document case reviews (this was effectively done by the
SAC on a number of case reviews), and for all cases over 1 year old where the AUSA is
not already involved, ensure there is documentation that the AUSA is interested in the
case. If the AUSA (Civil and/or Criminal) has declined, the SAC should document that
the case is now being investigated for potential administrative action (such as Suspension
and Debarment or administrative action in the case of an employee investigation). The
SAC should indicate the potential actions which could result from continuing the
investigation.
Corrective Actions
01 provided a response to our review on March 31, 2006, and agreed to take the recommended
corrective actions. That response is included as Appendix A.
4
-------
Status of Recommendations and
Potential Monetary Benefits
RECOMMENDATIONS
POTENTIAL MONETARY
BENEFITS (In $000s)
Rec.
No.
Page
No.
Subject
Status1
Action Official
Planned
Completion
Date
Claimed
Amount
Agreed To
Amount
Establish a requirement that all cases
have an AUSA consultation within
90 days unless there is a specific
investigative reason not to do so (such as
McDade limitations). In addition, if the
case facts change significantly, the SAC
should ensure that the agent re-contacts
the AUSA and documents the file (which
can be accomplished through annotating
the case plan).
Ensure all case initiation documentation is
included in the file. In addition to
documenting the initial interviews, it is
important to document how Ol came upon
the initial complainant. If the initial
complaint came to Ol as a phone call, a
tip from a source, or even a newspaper
article, the case agent should document
this in the files.
Consider increasing the time that agents
and SACs have to decide on the merits of
opening an investigation. Giving an agent
and SAC more time (10 calendar days) to
review a complaint allows time for
determining if the case falls into EPA OIG
jurisdiction or if there is any EPA
involvement.
OIG Office of Investigations 05/03/06
OIG Office of Investigations 04/11/06
OIG Office of Investigations 04/20/06
4 4 Use the case plan document to document C OIG Office of Investigations 04/26/05
case reviews (this was effectively done by
the SAC on a number of case reviews),
and for all cases over 1 year old where
the AUSA is not already involved, ensure
there is documentation that the AUSA is
interested in the case. If the AUSA (Civil
and/or Criminal) has declined, the SAC
should document that the case is now
being investigated for potential
administrative action (such as Suspension
and Debarment or administrative action in
the case of an employee investigation).
The SAC should indicate the potential
actions which could result from continuing
the investigation.
1 O = recommendation is open with agreed-to corrective actions pending;
C = recommendation is closed with all agreed-to actions completed;
U = recommendation is undecided with resolution efforts in progress
5
-------
Appendix A
01 Response to Report on QAR of the Philadelphia
Investigations Office (Redacted) Dated 3/31/2006
01 concurs with the general findings of the QAR at Philadelphia and will utilize the work to
improve our investigative process and products. The specific comments regarding the findings
are listed below for clarity.
RECOMMENDATIONS
01 does a very good job of case management. However, the review revealed a number of
areas where there could be possible improvement.
Recommendation #1 Establish a requirement that all cases have an AUSA consultation within
90 days unless there is a specific investigative reason not to do so (such as McDade limitations).
In addition, if the case facts change significantly the SAC should ensure that the agent
re-contacts the AUSA and documents the file (which can be accomplished through annotating
the case plan). This consultation is not designed to determine the merits of the investigation, or
what investigative steps an agent should take, but rather, the consultation is designed to
determine if the case meets the criteria for prosecution in the AUSA's jurisdiction. (For
example, the threshold for prosecutions will be different in the Southern District of New York
than the Western District of New York).
01 concurs with comment. In accordance with the Attorney General Guidelines for
Offices of Inspector General with Statutory Law Enforcement Authority we are required
to consult with a prosecutor at an early stage of the investigation and we believe that we
are complying with this requirement. However, our requirement for documenting this
consultation/meeting needs to be strengthened. On May 3, 2006, we issued Interim
Guidance 2006 - 007 which states in part:
Initial Prosecutive Coordination. In accordance with the Attorney General
Guidelines for Offices of Inspector General with Statutory Law Enforcement
Authority, a Federal prosecutor must be consulted at an early stage of an
investigation to ensure that the allegations, if proven, would be prosecuted. The
initial meeting with the prosecutor should be conducted within 90 days of the case
opening (or as otherwise appropriate) and documented in the case plan. An agent
note or an EPA Form 2720-15 should also be prepared to document the
coordination and any direction given. . . . Any subsequent meetings will also be
documented accordingly. Prosecutive strategy should not be documented;
however, a summary of the information presented and any direction given should
be included.
6
-------
Recommendation #2 Ensure all case initiation documentation is in the file. In addition to
documenting the initial interviews, it is important to document how 01 came upon the initial
complainant. If the initial complaint came to 01 as a phone call, a tip from a source, or even a
newspaper article, the case agent should document this in the files.
OIG Procedure 206, Sections 10-2d and 1 l-2d, requires the predicating document to be
included in the case file. During the SAC conference on April 11 to 13, we provided
additional clarification and training to the SACs and thus the Special Agents to ensure
this is done in all cases.
Recommendation # 3 Consider increasing the time that agents and SACs have to decide on the
merits of opening an investigation. Giving an agent and SAC more time (10 calendar days) to
review a complaint allows time for determining if the case falls into EPA OIG jurisdiction or if
there is any EPA involvement.
01 concurs. We issued Interim Guidance 2006-003 on April 20, 2006 which changes the
complaint evaluation period to 10 calendar days.
Recommendation #4 Use the case plan document to document case reviews (this was
effectively done by the SAC on a number of case reviews), and for all cases over 1 year old
where the AUSA is not already involved, ensure there is documentation that the AUSA is
interested in the case. If the AUSA (Civil and/or Criminal) has declined, the SAC should
document that the case is now being investigated for potential administrative action (such as
Suspension and Debarment or administrative action in the case of an employee investigation).
The SAC should indicate the potential actions which could result from continuing the
investigation.
In accordance with OIG Procedure 206, issued in April 26, 2005, quarterly case reviews
are documented on the investigative plan. During the case review, the SAC and the
Special Agent discuss the direction of the case as well as the prosecutive/administrative
actions available. As this procedure was adopted over one year ago, there is no further
action needed on this portion of the recommendation.
7
-------
Appendix B
Distribution
Assistant Inspector General for Investigations
Assistant Inspector General for Planning, Analysis, and Results
Deputy Assistant Inspector General for Investigations
Deputy Assistant Inspector General for Planning, Analysis, and Results
8
------- |