U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Training Contractor
Not Promptly Paid Under
Purchase Order EP07H001074
Report No. 12-P-0160
December 28, 2011

-------
Report Contributors:
Chris Baughman
Ming D. Chang
Eric Lewis
Wendy Wierzbicki
Abbreviations
CFR	Code of Federal Regulations
EPA	U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
HPOD	Headquarters Procurement Operations Division
LSI	Laboratory for Scientific Interrogation, Inc.
OARM	Office of Administration and Resources Management
OIG	Office of Inspector General
Hotline
To report fraud, waste, or abuse, contact us through one of the following methods:
e-mail: OIG Hotline@epa.gov.	write: EPA Inspector General Hotline
phone: 1-888-546-8740	1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
fax:	202-566-2599	Mailcode 2431T
online:
http://www.epa.gov/oiq/hotline.htm.
Washington, DC 20460

-------
*. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency	12-P-0160
I JBL - Office of Inspector General	December 28, 2011
® I
s v\|/v S
At a Glance
Why We Did This Review
In July 2011, a U.S. Senator
asked the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) to
look into a complaint that EPA
had not paid for services
provided in 2007 by Laboratory
for Scientific Interrogation, Inc.
(LSI), of Phoenix, Arizona.
Background
In March 2007, EPA issued
purchase order EP07H001074
to LSI for training seminars for
the Office of Inspector General
(OIG). The price set in the
purchase order was $4,000. LSI
presented a 1-day seminar to
OIG staff on May 9, 2007, and
a second 1-day seminar on
May 10, 2007.
Training Contractor Not Promptly Paid
Under Purchase Order EP07H001074
What We Found
EPA did not pay LSI for services rendered in 2007 because EPA did not receive
an invoice from LSI until after the July 2011 congressional inquiry. Contrary to
regulation, the EPA contracting officer in the Office of Administration and
Resources Management apparently did not provide LSI with a copy of the
purchase order to provide training for the OIG. Because EPA procured the
service through a purchase order, LSI did not have to sign and return it to EPA to
indicate that it had accepted the contract terms. The Federal Acquisition
Regulations state that performance of a purchase order is acceptance. The
purchase order provided instructions for submitting an invoice. However,
because LSI did not receive a copy of the purchase order, LSI did not properly
submit its invoice and did not know who to contact when it was not promptly
paid.
In June 2008, OIG staff realized that LSI had not submitted an invoice. However,
no one in the OIG contacted LSI or the contracting officer to find out why LSI
had not been paid for the services rendered.
After the congressional inquiry, the OIG obtained an invoice from LSI that
exceeded the price in the purchase order. The difference of $ 1,031.90 was the
travel costs of the instructor who provided the training. EPA modified the
purchase order in September 2011 so it could pay LSI for the claimed training
and travel costs. However, we found no evidence that the travel was authorized
by the government. In November 2011, EPA paid LSI $5,031.90.
What We Recommend
For further information, contact
our Office of Congressional and
Public Affairs at (202) 566-2391.
The full report is at:
www.epa.qov/oiq/reports/2012/
20111228-12-P-0160.pdf
We recommend that the Inspector General assure that invoices are obtained,
reviewed, and paid within a reasonable period of time after receiving services.
We also recommend that the Director, Headquarters Procurement Operations
Division, Office of Administration and Resources Management, require that
contracting officers properly document contract actions in contract files. These
officials agreed with these recommendations, although corrective actions are not
yet completed. We further recommend that the Director, Headquarters
Procurement Operations Division, obtain adequate support to pay the travel costs.
The Director disagreed that additional action was needed and offered an alternate
justification to support paying the travel costs. We have accepted the alternate
justification and consider that recommendation closed.

-------
* £% '
< rJK-7 5	UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
| Wl/V ®	WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
OFFICE OF
INSPECTOR GENERAL
December 28, 2011
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Training Contractor Not Promptly Paid Under Purchase Order EP07H001074
Report No. 12-P-0160	——
r /
tlU 7. -
FROM: Wade T. Najjum ' '	-%/
Assistant Inspector General for Program Evaluation
TO:	Arthur A. Elkins, Jr.
Inspector General
Thomas W. Dussault
Director, Headquarters Procurement Operations Division
Office of Acquisition Management
Office of Administration and Resources Management
This is our report on the subject review 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.
Action Required
Although this report contains recommendations, you are not required to respond to it. Your
responses to the draft report identified corrective actions, including milestone dates, acceptable
to us. Therefore, we are closing this report upon issuance. Those corrective actions not yet
completed must be monitored through EPA's management audit tracking system.
However, if you submit a response to this report, it will be posted on the OIG's public website,
along with our memorandum commenting on your response. Your response should be provided
as an Adobe PDF file that complies with the accessibility requirements of Section 508 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended. The final response should not contain data that you do
not want to be released to the public; if your response contains such data, you should identify the

-------
data for redaction or removal. We have no objections to the further release of this report to the
public. We will post this report to our website at http://www.epa.gov/oig.
If you or your staff have any questions regarding this report, please contact Liz Grossman,
Deputy Assistant Inspector General for Program Evaluation, at (202) 566-0838 or
grossman.elizabeth@epa.gov; or Eric Lewis, Director, Special Reviews, at (202) 566-2664 or
lewis.eric@epa.gov.

-------
Training Contractor Not Promptly Paid	12-P-0160
Under Purchase Order EP07H001074
	 Table of C	
Purpose		1
Background 		1
Scope and Methodology		2
Results of Review 		2
EPA Apparently Did Not Send LSI the Purchase Order		2
EPA Did Not Receive an Invoice From LSI 		3
OIG Lacked Controls to Ensure Contractor Was Paid 		3
Purchase Order Did Not Reflect LSI's Price Quote		4
Conclusion		5
Recommendations		5
Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation 		6
Status of Recommendations and Potential Monetary Benefits		7
Appendices
A Response From Inspector General		8
B Response From Director, HPOD		10
C Distribution 		13

-------
Purpose
We reviewed the circumstances surrounding purchase order EP07H001074 to
determine whether the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) promptly
and properly paid Laboratory for Scientific Interrogation, Inc. (LSI), of Phoenix,
Arizona, for services performed for the Office of Inspector General (OIG) in
May 2007. A congressional inquiry to the EPA Associate Administrator for
Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations in July 2011, based on a
constituent's complaint, brought this matter to the attention of the Inspector
General, and the Inspector General requested OIG staff to review the matter.
Background
When the OIG requires the purchase of goods or services, it must submit a
properly approved procurement request that describes the requirements and
provides the needed funds to acquire the goods or services. A contracting officer
signs the resulting contract, in this case a purchase order, which obligates the
government. The contracting officer appoints a project officer to help monitor the
procurement. The project officer must be identified on the purchase order.
During discussions between staff from LSI and the EPA OIG about a conference
the OIG Office of Investigations was planning for May 2007, LSI offered to
conduct a 1-day seminar on advanced interviewing techniques. The OIG Office of
Investigations and OIG Office of Audit each submitted a procurement request in
the amount of $2,000 for a 1-day seminar. The two requests were combined into
one purchase order. In March 2007, an EPA contracting officer signed purchase
order EP07H001074 for LSI to train OIG staff on interviewing techniques on
May 9-10, 2007. The price set in the purchase order was $4,000. Among other
things, the purchase order (1) provided instructions for submitting an invoice,
(2) established the amount that would be paid for the training, and (3) identified
who to contact at EPA with questions about the agreement.
LSI provided its 1-day seminar twice. On May 9, 2007, LSI presented the seminar
to the OIG Office of Investigations in Shepherdstown, West Virginia. On May 10,
2007, LSI presented the seminar to the OIG Office of Audit in Arlington, Virginia.
The contracting officer for this contract was from the Headquarters Procurement
Operations Division (HPOD), Office of Acquisition Management, Office of
Administration and Resources Management (OARM). The project officer was
from the OIG Office of Investigations. The original project officer retired and was
replaced in May 2007. The original contracting officer has also been replaced.
12-P-0160
1

-------
Scope and Methodology
We performed our review from September through December 2011. We
conducted our work in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. Those standards
require that we plan and perform the review to obtain sufficient, appropriate
evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on
our objectives. We believe the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for
our findings and conclusions based on our objectives. We assessed internal
controls only with regard to the subject contract.
As part of the review, we interviewed the current OIG project officer; the current
and former OARM contracting officers; staff in the EPA finance center in
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina; and LSI's office manager. We obtained
and reviewed pertinent documents from those interviewed. We also obtained
information from EPA's accounting system related to purchase order
EP07H001074, and reviewed applicable policies, procedures, and regulations.
Results of Review
Before July 2011, EPA had not paid LSI for the May 2007 seminars LSI provided
the OIG. The contracting officer apparently had not ensured that LSI received a
copy of purchase order EP07H001074; he said he did not have contact
information for the firm. Without the purchase order, LSI did not properly submit
its invoice and did not know who to contact when it was not promptly paid. LSI
also claimed reimbursement for costs that exceeded the amount of the purchase
order by $1,031.90. When OIG staff became aware in 2008 that LSI had not been
paid, it did not take corrective action.
EPA Apparently Did Not Send LSI the Purchase Order
Contrary to Federal Acquisition Regulations, the EPA contracting officer
apparently did not provide LSI with a copy of the purchase order. The Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR), in 48 CFR Section 4.201, requires contracting
officers to distribute copies of contracts or modifications within 10 working days
after execution. This required distribution includes sending one signed copy of the
contract to the contractor. In addition, 48 CFR Section 4.801 states that the
documentation in the contract files shall be sufficient to complete a history of the
transaction for the purpose of:
•	Providing a complete background as a basis for informed decisions in each
step of the acquisition process
•	Supporting actions taken
•	Providing information for reviews and investigations
•	Providing essential facts in the event of litigation and congressional interest
12-P-0160
2

-------
Sending the contract to the contractor is particularly important for purchase orders
like EP07H001074 to ensure that the government and contractor reached a mutual
understanding regarding the terms of the contract. According to 48 CFR 2.101,
the contractor may accept a purchase order without signing it by performing the
services. In this case, LSI conducted the training seminars.
The contracting officer who signed the purchase order had no proof that he sent
LSI a copy of the purchase order. According to him, he usually distributed such
documents via e-mail. He recalled that he had difficulty contacting LSI at the
time. However, LSI's address was on the purchase order and the procurement
request supporting the purchase order, and in the background information on LSI
that was in the contracting officer's file. In addition, two of these three documents
also had a telephone number for LSI. Thus, the contracting officer had sufficient
information to distribute the purchase order to LSI.
According to the LSI office manager, LSI did not receive purchase order
EP07H001074. She said that LSI sometimes does not receive a purchase order,
but usually there is no problem in processing the payment even if it does not have
a purchase order. In those cases, LSI references the contact person's letter or
e-mail in the invoice. However, we believe that performing work without the
purchase order can lead to misunderstandings about the services to be performed
or the amount to be paid, which happened in this case.
EPA Did Not Receive an Invoice From LSI
According to the LSI office manager, LSI promptly sent an invoice after
conducting the seminars. She believed that LSI sent the invoices to OIG staff in
the Office of Investigations with whom LSI had discussed conducting the
training. However, the initial invoice cannot be found, and both Office of
Investigations staff members involved had retired before the training was
conducted. We believe that the EPA finance center would have processed a
properly submitted invoice before July 2011 had an invoice been received.
Neither the contracting officer in OARM nor the project officer in the OIG had a
record of receiving an invoice from LSI for the May 2007 seminars. Without an
invoice, the government will not pay a contractor. Consequently, LSI was not
paid.
OIG Lacked Controls to Ensure Contractor Was Paid
While reviewing its outstanding obligations in 2008, the OIG funds control officer
realized that LSI had not submitted an invoice. However, neither he nor the OIG
project officer contacted LSI or the OARM contracting officer about the matter.
EPA's current policy on reviewing such obligations states that it is the
responsibility of EPA staff to make certain the contractor submits an invoice in a
timely manner. Although the policy does not provide a time frame, we believe an
invoice should be received within 2 months after the service has been provided.
12-P-0160
3

-------
The EPA policy also requires each organization, such as the OIG, to have an up-
to-date internal standard operating procedure (e.g., narrative and flow chart) that
documents its review process. This policy went into effect on October 1, 2010.
The OIG has written standard operating procedures that went into effect in 2009,
after the outstanding obligations review in 2008.
Based on the 2008 outstanding obligations review, on June 25, 2008, the $4,000
for the purchase order was incorrectly deobligated in the accounting system. In
response to an invoice for $5,031.90 (the original $4,000 plus $1,031.90 for travel
costs) from LSI dated July 27, 2011, the OIG arranged to have $4,000 returned to
the purchase order. The contracting officer restored the funding by signing a
modification to purchase order EP07H001074 on August 15, 2011. On
September 28, 2011, the contracting officer signed an additional modification to
pay the entire $5,031.90. EPA paid LSI $5,031.90 in November 2011.
Purchase Order Did Not Reflect LSl's Price Quote
LSI's $5,031.90 invoice dated July 27, 2011, exceeded the amount of the
purchase order by $1,031.90. The difference was because LSI claimed the travel
costs of the instructor who performed the training. LSI provided e-mails dated
before the procurement requests were initiated that showed that LSI had proposed
to the OIG Office of Investigations that the price for the 1-day seminar was
$2,000 plus the actual travel costs of the instructor. The procurement requests the
OIG submitted to the contracting officer contained two seminars for $4,000 with
no travel costs.
After receiving LSI's July 27, 2011, invoice, the current OIG project officer,
acting on advice from the OARM contracting officer, arranged to have $1,031.90
added to the purchase order so that EPA could pay LSI the claimed travel costs.
Because these costs were outside the scope of the original purchase order, the
OIG Assistant Inspector General for Investigations concluded that the change
must be approved by an EPA acquisition supervisor at a higher level than the
contracting officer (i.e., be ratified). The contracting officer determined that it was
in the government's best interest to pay LSI the travel costs because, based on
information from the OIG Office of Investigations, the contracting officer
believed that an OIG staff member had agreed to pay LSI travel costs through an
e-mail exchange with LSI. A service center manager in the Program Contract
Service Center, HPOD, approved the determination and finding. The contracting
officer signed the amendment on September 28, 2011.
We did not find evidence that an OIG staff member who arranged for the training
obligated the government to pay LSI travel costs. In an e-mail dated January 31,
2007, the OIG staff member informed LSI that he wanted the seminar and that the
project officer would "get the contract vehicle moving." On February 2, 2007,
LSI sent the OIG staff member an offer that identified the price of the 1-day
seminar as $2,000 plus instructor's expenses of transportation and per diem.
12-P-0160
4

-------
However, LSI did not show us any response from the OIG staff member showing
acceptance. The other e-mails LSI provided us did not address price. Therefore,
we found no evidence that the travel was authorized by the government.
Conclusion
The EPA contracting office and the OIG failed to follow pertinent procedures.
The contracting officer's contract file had no proof that the contract was ever
distributed to LSI. During its 2008 review of outstanding obligations, the OIG
failed to address why the contract obligation remained outstanding over a year
after the services were performed, and why it deobligated the funds without
contacting either LSI or the contracting officer. Further, LSI performed the
requested services without actually seeing the contract requirements. As a result,
LSI was not paid $4,000 in a timely fashion for services rendered, and
erroneously believed it was owed another $1,031.90 for travel costs that were not
authorized by the original contract.
Recommendations
We recommend that the Inspector General:
1.	Require funds control officers to promptly inform the OIG Chief of Staff
when outstanding obligation or other reviews identify contractors that
have not been paid for services rendered.
2.	Require project officers to contact the contracting officer and the
contractor when no invoice is provided within 2 months after services are
received.
We recommend that the Director, Headquarters Procurement Operations Division,
Office of Acquisition Management, Office of Administration and Resources
Management:
3.	Require contracting officers to properly document distribution of contract
and modification actions in the contract file.
4.	Obtain adequate support to pay the travel costs.
12-P-0160
5

-------
Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation
In response to the draft report, the Inspector General stated that he agreed with the
findings and recommendations 1 and 2, and will ensure that corrective actions are
completed as required. Time frames were provided for the corrective actions. The
Inspector General's response is in appendix A. Since we agree with the corrective
actions and timeframes, no response to the final report is needed from the
Inspector General.
The Director, HPOD, also provided a response to the draft report, which is
included in appendix B. He agreed with recommendation 3, identified the
corrective action he plans to take, and said that the action would be completed by
January 31, 2012. However, he disagreed that additional action was needed
regarding the travel costs. He offered an alternate justification as the basis for
determining that it was in the best interest of the government to pay LSI the travel
costs. The alternate justification was that not including the travel in the original
purchase order may have been an oversight by the OIG that would have been
corrected had all parties received a copy of the order when it was issued. We
accept that justification based on the evidence already provided, and consider
recommendation 4 closed. Thus, no response to the final report is needed from the
Director.
12-P-0160
6

-------
Status of Recommendations and
Potential Monetary Benefits
RECOMMENDATIONS
POTENTIAL MONETARY
BENEFITS (In $000s)
Rec.
No.
Page
No.
Subject
Status1
Planned
Completion
Action Official	Date
5 Require funds control officers to promptly inform
the OIG Chief of Staff when outstanding obligation
or other reviews identify contractors that have not
been paid for services rendered.
5 Require project officers to contact the contracting
officer and the contractor when no invoice is
provided within 2 months after services are
received.
5 Require contracting officers to properly document
distribution of contract and modification actions in
the contract file.
5 Obtain adequate support to pay the travel costs.
Claimed
Amount
Ag reed-To
Amount
Inspector General
Inspector General
Director, Headquarters
Procurement Operations
Division, Office of
Administration and
Resources Management
Director, Headquarters
Procurement Operations
Division, Office of
Administration and
Resources Management
06/30/12
06/30/12
01/31/2012
12/15/2011
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
12-P-0160
7

-------
Appendix A
Response From Inspector General
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C, 20460
THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
December 22, 2011
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Draft Report:
Training Contractor Not Promptly Paid Under Purchase Order EP07H001074
Project No. OPE-FY11-0025
TO:	Wade T. Najjum
Assistant Inspector General for Program Evaluation
This memorandum responds to the recommendations included in the above-referenced
report and includes corrective action plans. We are in general agreement with the findings and
recommendations and we will ensure all corrective actions are completed as required.
Recommendations and Responses:
Recommendation 1: Require funds control officers to inform the OIG Chief of Staff when
outstanding obligations or other reviews identify contractors that have not been paid for services
rendered.
Response: The Office of Inspector General (OIG) concurs with the above recommendation.
Funds control officers conduct reviews of unliquidated obligations annually in accordance with
Agency policy and the Office of Management and Budget Circular A-123, as part of that review,
a report will be sent to the Assistant Inspectors General, Counsel, and Chief of Staff outlining
those obligations that need to be deobligated or remain open. Beginning this fiscal year, Office
of the Chief of Staff (OCOS) will conduct this review semiannually. In instances where we find
unliquidated balances, the OIG funds control officer will initiate communication with the project
officer to facilitate necessary action.
Recommendation 2: Require project officers to contact the contracting officer and the
contractor when no invoice is provided within 2 months after services are received.
Response: The OIG concurs with the above recommendation. The OIG will implement a
timeframe of 30 days for project officers to notify the contracting officer and contractor when no
12-P-0160
8

-------
invoice is received after services are rendered. The OIG OCOS is revising the OCOS acquisition
policies and procedures to reflect this change. We expect to complete this revision by second
quarter 2012.
Should you have any questions regarding this response, please contact
my Chief of Staff, Aracely Nunez-Mattocks, at (202) 566-0840.
/s/
Arthur A. Elkins, Jr.
12-P-0160
9

-------
Appendix B
Response From Director, HPOD
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
OFFICE OF
ACQUISITION
MANAGMENT
December 15, 2011
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Response to the Draft Report "Training Contractor Not Promptly Paid Under
Purchase Order EP07H001074" Project No. OPE-FY11-0025
FROM: Thomas W. Dussault, Director
Headquarters Procurement Operations Division
Office of Acquisition Management
Office of Administration and Resources Management
TO:	Wade T. Najjum
Assistant Inspector General for Program Evaluation
CC:	Christine Baughman
In accordance with EPA Manual 2750, this memorandum provides my response to the subject
report dated December 7, 2011. Overall, I agree with the factual accuracy of the report. There
are two minor revisions that I recommend:
1.	On page three in the first sentence, you state that Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)
4.803 provides a list of required documents for the contracting file, if applicable. For this
particular procurement, under the simplified acquisition threshold, there is no
requirement for a contract award synopsis in accordance with FAR 5.301(a) since the
action is below $25,000.00. Therefore, there is no requirement for an award notice in the
file. I recommend you remove the reference to Title 48 CFR Section 4.803.
2.	On page four, the last sentence of the fourth paragraph should be revised to read "The
contracting officer signed the modification..in lieu of "The contracting officer signed
the amendment..." since amendments are expressly used for changes in solicitations and
W)
pRQlt0
12-P-0160
10

-------
work assignments, while modifications are used for changes to contracts and
task/delivery/purchase orders
Regarding your recommendations for the Headquarters Procurement Operations Division
(HPOD), I concur in part as noted below.
Recommendation #3 — Require contracting officers to properly document distribution of
contract and modification actions in the file.
I will send a written notice to all HPOD employees to remind them to continue to use electronic
means to distribute signed contract documents in portable document format (PDF). Distribution
shall be to the contractor, the program office customer, and the appropriate section of the
Research Triangle Park Finance Center (RTP-FC).
Since the occurrence of this particular isolated event in FY07, safeguards have been instituted
via the transition to the EPA Acquisition System (EAS). Any contract action that is released in
the EAS automatically sends a notice to RTP-FC. If a signed document is not distributed, RTP-
FC contacts the contracting officer requesting a signed copy of the action. This reminder should
be sufficient to remind the contracting officer to ensure appropriate distribution was made to all
parties.
In the spirit of moving to a paperless contracting environment, the requirement to print e-mails
not only uses finite physical filing space, but increases our environmental impact. HPOD
processes thousands of actions each fiscal year and the need to print electronic records would be
unduly burdensome and resource intensive. I will encourage my staff to maintain electronic
archives of file distribution should the need arise to prove document distribution. In the future,
EAS may be used to include document distribution electronically as its capabilities evolve,
lessening our environmental footprint and furthering our support of the Agency's mission.
In this isolated incident, the contractor should not have proceeded with performance without a
written order, nor should the program office have participated in training without a copy of a
signed order.
A notice to HPOD employees will be issued by January 31, 2012 to address the importance of
accurate and complete document distribution.
Recommendation #4 — Obtain adequate support to pay travel costs
Since this incident was brought to the attention of the current cognizant contracting officer
sufficient documentation was provided to support the fact that the Government derived a direct
benefit from the services provided by the training contractor. While neither the initial purchase
request nor the resultant purchase order included reference to travel costs, the Government was
put on notice via the contractor's correspondence that travel costs were a separate line item prior
12-P-0160
11

-------
to order issuance. A determination and findings was reviewed, approved, and executed to ratify
travel costs. Since then, the contractor has been paid for their services in full.
This was an isolated incident and not systemic. Contracting officers and contract specialists
review quotes for conformance to programmatic requirements as a responsibility of their position
and prepare file documentation to support award decisions as a basic function of their position.
The fact that the requisitioner did not identify travel costs on the initial procurement request may
have been an administrative error that would have been corrected had all parties received a copy
of the order when it was issued.
We look forward to strengthening the acquisition process and ensuring effective and efficient
contracting processes. If you have any questions regarding my response, please feel free to
contact me at (202) 564-4705 or via e-mail at dussault.thomas@epa.gov.
12-P-0160
12

-------
Appendix C
Distribution
Office of the Administrator
Agency Follow-Up Official (the CFO)
Agency Follow-Up Coordinator
Inspector General
Director, Headquarters Procurement Operations Division, Office of Acquisition Management,
Office of Administration and Resources Management
General Counsel
Associate Administrator for Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations
Associate Administrator for External Affairs and Environmental Education
Assistant Administrator for Administration and Resources Management
Audit Follow-Up Coordinator, Office of Administration and Resources Management
Chief of Staff, Office of Inspector General
12-P-0160
13

-------