£
<

f
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
At a Glance
10-P-0047
December 16, 2009
Catalyst for Improving the Environment
Why We Did This Review
The Office of Inspector
General (OIG) sought to
determine whether the U.S.
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) had the
controls and processes in place
during its responses to
Hurricanes Gustav and Ike to
timely obtain goods and
services it needed at
reasonable prices. We also
followed up on actions EPA
committed to take after
Hurricane Katrina.
Background
In 2006, the OIG issued a
report titled Existing
Contracts Enabled EPA to
Quickly Respond to Hurricane
Katrina: Future Improvement
Opportunities Exist.
Hurricanes Gustav and Ike
made landfall in Louisiana and
Texas in September 2008 and
caused significant damage.
For further information,
contact our Office of
Congressional, Public Affairs
and Management at
(202) 566-2391.
To view the full report,
click on the following link:
www.epa.qov/oiq/reports/2010/
20091216-10-P-0047.pdf
EPA Needs to Improve Cost Controls for
Equipment Used during Emergencies
What We Found
EPA did not monitor costs paid for equipment used during its responses to
Hurricanes Gustav and Ike against average purchase prices. In our sample of 97
equipment items, with usage charges of $4,399, EPA may have paid a total of
$2,048 more than the average purchase price for 22 items. EPA did not require
the contractor to submit average purchase price information as required in the
contract. While EPA had controls to monitor equipment charges, it did not use the
tools effectively. EPA could have mitigated the risk of excessive charges for
equipment rentals by using the Removal Cost Management System for all
emergency response contracts, and tracking equipment rental costs by contract.
Improvements are needed so that EPA can better control equipment costs.
Using lessons learned from Hurricane Katrina, EPA established additional
emergency response contracting mechanisms to meet the Agency's needs during
future emergencies. EPA implemented the corrective actions it agreed to take in
response to recommendations in our 2006 report on Katrina contracting issues.
However, EPA never established a review board for Hurricanes Gustav and Ike;
review boards can help improve future emergency contracting procedures.
EPA did not notify the OIG as required that several corrective actions were going
to be delayed by more than 6 months. This can impact the completeness and
accuracy of reports to Congress.
What We Recommend
We recommend that EPA review equipment charges for Hurricanes Gustav and
Ike for usage fees that exceeded average purchase price, negotiate new rates, and
amend contract language. We also recommend that EPA develop a system or
process to identify and prevent overcharges for all emergency response contracts,
and notify the OIG when corrective actions are delayed more than 6 months. EPA
agreed with our recommendations or proposed acceptable alternative corrective
actions that, when implemented, should adequately address the findings.

-------