Additional Copies. Suggestions for Audits



Similar documents
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Project Repair and Modernization of Littoral Combat Ship Squadron Building at Naval Base San Diego, California

Report No. D February 25, American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Project- Solar and Lighting at Naval Station Norfolk, Virginia

Report No. D September 29, Financial Management of International Military Education and Training Funds

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New York District Monitoring of a Hurricane Sandy Contract Needs Improvement

Implementation of the DoD Management Control Program for Navy Acquisition Category II and III Programs (D )

a GAO GAO DEFENSE WORKING CAPITAL FUND Military Services Did Not Calculate and Report Carryover Amounts Correctly

Navy s Contract/Vendor Pay Process Was Not Auditable

Office of the Inspector General Department of Defense

Department of Defense

ort Office of the Inspector General Department of Defense YEAR 2000 COMPLIANCE OF THE STANDARD ARMY MAINTENANCE SYSTEM-REHOST Report Number

Information Technology

Supply Inventory Management

Allegations of the Defense Contract Management Agency s Performance in Administrating Selected Weapon Systems Contracts (D )

Navy and Marine Corps Have Weak Procurement Processes for Cost reimbursement Contract Issuance and Management

OAIG-AUD (ATTN: AFTS Audit Suggestions) Inspector General, Department of Defense 400 Army Navy Drive (Room 801) Arlington, VA

Enhanced Army Global Logistics Enterprise Basic Ordering Agreements and Task Orders Were Properly Executed and Awarded

Information Technology

DODIG July 18, Navy Did Not Develop Processes in the Navy Enterprise Resource Planning System to Account for Military Equipment Assets

DEPARTMENT-LEVEL ACCOUNTING ENTRIES FOR FY1999. Report No. D August 18, Office of the Inspector General Department of Defense

Improvements Needed for Awarding Service Contracts at Naval Special Warfare Command

Status of Enterprise Resource Planning Systems Cost, Schedule, and Management Actions Taken to Address Prior Recommendations

Financial Management

Acquisition. Controls for the DoD Aviation Into-Plane Reimbursement Card (D ) October 3, 2002

Department of Defense

Department of Defense

Defense Logistics Agency Effectively Managed Continental U.S. Mission-Critical Batteries

SIGAR. Gereshk Cold and Dry Storage Facility: Quality of Construction Appears To Be Good, but the Facility Has Not Been Used to Date J U L Y

OAIG-AUD (ATTN: AFTS Audit Suggestions) Inspector General of the Department of Defense 400 Army Navy Drive (Room 801) Arlington, VA

DISTRIBUTION: ASSISTANT G-1 FOR CIVILIAN PERSONNEL POLICY, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY DIRECTOR, PLANS, PROGRAMS, AND DIVERSITY, DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

Report No. D February 5, Contingency Planning for DoD Mission-Critical Information Systems

DoD Methodologies to Identify Improper Payments in the Military Health Benefits and Commercial Pay Programs Need Improvement

FACT SHEET. General Information about the Defense Contract Management Agency

FACT SHEET. General Information About the Defense Contract Management Agency

National Guard Military Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Projects

Management of Detail Assignments Follow-Up

Financial Management

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL WHITE HOUSE COMMUNICATIONS AGENCY PHASE II. Department of Defense

Funding Invoices to Expedite the Closure of Contracts Before Transitioning to a New DoD Payment System (D )

Navy Enterprise Resource Planning System Does Not Comply With the Standard Financial Information Structure and U.S. Government Standard General Ledger

Report No. D May 14, Selected Controls for Information Assurance at the Defense Threat Reduction Agency

Internet Access to Information on Office of Inspector General Oversight of Agency Implementation of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009

Department of Defense

Department of Defense

Department of Defense

U.S. Army Contracting Command Rock Island Needs to Improve Contracting Officer s Representative Training and Appointment for Contingency Contracts

Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General

ODIG-AUD (ATTN: Audit Suggestions) Department of Defense Inspector General 400 Army Navy Drive (Room 801) Arlington, VA

ODIG-AUD (ATTN: Audit Suggestions) Department of Defense Inspector General 400 Army Navy Drive (Room 801) Arlington, VA

Report No. D

April 17, Human Capital. Report on the DoD Acquisition Workforce Count (D ) Department of Defense Office of Inspector General

DoD Cloud Computing Strategy Needs Implementation Plan and Detailed Waiver Process

December 4, Environment

MEMORANDUM FOR COMMANDER, U.S. AIR FORCE SYSTEMS COMMAND REGIONAL HOSPITAL EGLIN, EGLIN AIR FORCE BASE, FLORIDA

Acquisition. Army Claims Service Military Interdepartmental Purchase Requests (D ) June 19, 2002

Army Commercial Vendor Services Offices in Iraq Noncompliant with Internal Revenue Service Reporting Requirements

Review of U.S. Coast Guard's FY 2014 Detailed Accounting Submission

Department of Defense

Office of the Inspector General Department of Defense

The U.S. Coast Guard Travel to Obtain Health Care Program Needs Improved Policies and Better Oversight

Department of Defense Office of Inspector General RECOVERY ACT. Preventing & Reporting Fraud, Waste, Abuse, & Corruption

Report No. D June 18, Internal Controls Over Government Property in the Possession of Contractors at Two Army Locations

Evaluation of Defense Contract Management Agency Actions on Reported DoD Contractor Business System Deficiencies

United States Department of Agriculture Office of Inspector General

Inadequate Controls Over the DoD Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business Set-Aside Program Allow Ineligible Contractors to Receive Contracts

Report No. DODIG September 24, DoD Education Activity Needed Better Planning for Military Construction Projects

Base Realignment and Closure 2005 Military Construction Project To Consolidate and Relocate Service Media Activities to Fort Meade, Maryland

Report No. DoDIG April 27, Navy Organic Airborne and Surface Influence Sweep Program Needs Defense Contract Management Agency Support

Small Business Contracting at Marine Corps Systems Command Needs Improvement

Report No. D September 21, Sanitization and Disposal of Excess Information Technology Equipment

April 19, Human Capital. DoD Security Clearance Process at Requesting Activities (D ) Department of Defense Office of Inspector General

Improvement Needed for Inventory Management Practices on the T700 Technical, Engineering, and Logistical Services and Supplies Contract

DoD Needs an Effective Process to Identify Cloud Computing Service Contracts

Air Force Officials Did Not Consistently Comply With Requirements for Assessing Contractor Performance

Hotline Complaint Regarding the Defense Contract Audit Agency Examination of a Contractor s Subcontract Costs

ort FINANCIAL IMPACTS OF DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY ELECTRONIC CATALOG AND OFFICE SUPPLIES INITIATIVES ON RETAIL LEVEL PURCHASING

DoD s Efforts to Consolidate Data Centers Need Improvement

REAL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT: Applying Best Practices Can Improve Real Property Inventory Management Information

INSPECTOR GENERAL DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 400 ARMY NAVY DRIVE ARLINGTON. VIRGINIA

MORE INCURRED-COST AUDITS OF DOT PROCUREMENT CONTRACTS SHOULD BE OBTAINED

SIGIR AGENCIES NEED IMPROVED FINANCIAL DATA REPORTING FOR PRIVATE SECURITY CONTRACTORS. October 30, What SIGIR Found. Why SIGIR Did This Study

Audit of the Transfer of DoD Service Treatment Records to the Department of Veterans Affairs

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY. OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY JAN 3a NAVY PENTAGON WASHINGTON, D.C

2016-AP-0001 Fiscal Year 2016 Annual Risk Assessment and Audit Plan

Acquisition Decision Memorandum for the Defense Integrated Military Human Resources System

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Transatlantic District-North Needs To Improve Oversight of Construction Contractors in Afghanistan

GAO AIR FORCE WORKING CAPITAL FUND. Budgeting and Management of Carryover Work and Funding Could Be Improved

Program Management Office Provided Adequate Oversight of Two Contracts Supporting the Defense Enterprise Accounting and Management System

GAO. DEFENSE INFRASTRUCTURE Funding Risks in Services 1999 Central Training Programs

NAVY WORKING CAPITAL FUND. Budgeting for Carryover at Fleet Readiness Centers Could Be Improved

Gwinnett County, Georgia, Generally Accounted for and Expended FEMA Public Assistance Grant Funds According to Federal Requirements

1 GAO R Equipment Lease versus Purchase Analysis

One Hundred Thirteenth Congress of the United States of America

Classification Appeal Decision Under Section 5112 of Title 5, United States Code

QUALITY CONTROL REVIEW REPORT

Enterprise Resource Planning Systems Schedule Delays and Reengineering Weaknesses Increase Risks to DoD's Auditability Goals

Department of Defense

Enhanced Oversight Needed for Nontactical Vehicle Fleets in the National Capital Region

VA Office of Inspector General

GAO CONTRACT MANAGEMENT. Small Businesses Continue to Win Construction Contracts. Report to Congressional Committees

U.S. Department of Energy Office of Inspector General Office of Audits and Inspections

Transcription:

Additional Copies To obtain additional copies of this report, visit the Web site of the Department of Defense Inspector General at http://www.dodig.mil/audit/reports or contact the Secondary Reports Distribution Unit at (703) 604-8937 (DSN 664-8937) or fax (703) 604-8932. Suggestions for Audits To suggest or request audits, contact the Office of the Deputy Inspector General for Auditing by phone (703) 604-9142 (DSN 664-9142), by fax (703) 604-8932, or by mail: ODIG-AUD (ATTN: Audit Suggestions) Department of Defense Inspector General 400 Army Navy Drive (Room 801) Arlington, VA 22202-4704

INSPECTOR GENERAL DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 400 ARMY NAVY DR IVE ARLINGTON, VIRG INIA 22202-4704 MEMORANDUM FOR NAVAL INSPECTOR GENERAL, COMMANDING OFFICER, NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND, SOUTHEAST MAn 1 a 2010 SUBJECT: Repair Air Traffic Control Building 118, Naval Air Station Jacksonville, FL (Memorandum No. D-2010-RAM-004) We are providing this report for your information and use. We performed this audit in response to the requirements of Public Law 111-5, The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of2009. We considered management comments on a discussion draft of the repoli when preparing the final report. No additional comments are required. We appreciate the courtesies extended to the staff. Please direct questions to Mr. Tim Wimette at (703) 604-8876 (DSN 664-8876). Daniel R. Blair, CPA Principal Assistant Inspector General for Auditing

Memorandum No. D2010-RAM-004 March 10, 2010 Results in Brief: Repair Air Traffic Control Building 118, Naval Air Station Jacksonville, FL What We Did Our overall objective was to evaluate DOD s implementation of plans for Public Law 111-5, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act), February 17, 2009. Specifically, we determined whether the Repair Air Traffic Control Building 118 (ATC Tower) project was adequately planned to ensure the appropriate use of Recovery Act funds. What We Found We concluded that the Repair ATC Tower project was a valid requirement. Although we identified some issues and concerns with required planning documents not adequately supporting the justification of the project, NAVFAC Southeast officials were able to provide additional information supporting repairs for the ATC Tower that provided us reasonable assurance that the project was a valid requirement. As a result, DOD had reasonable assurance that use of Recovery Act funds was appropriate for the project. What We Recommend This report contains no recommendations. Management Comments The Commander, Naval Station Jacksonville and NAVFAC Southeast officials agreed with our results and conclusions in the discussion draft report. We do not require any additional comments. Air Traffic Control Building 118, Naval Air Station Jacksonville, FL

Introduction Objective Our overall objective was to evaluate DOD s implementation of plans for Public Law 111-5, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act), February 17, 2009. To meet our objective, we assessed the planning of a Recovery Act project to ensure accountability and transparency. Specifically, we determined whether the Repair Air Traffic Control Building 118 (ATC Tower) project was adequately planned to ensure the appropriate use of Recovery Act funds. Background In passing the Recovery Act, Congress provided supplemental appropriations to preserve and create jobs; promote economic recovery; assist those most impacted by the recession; provide investments to increase economic efficiency by spurring technological advances in science and health; and invest in transportation, environmental protection, and other infrastructure. The Recovery Act also established unprecedented efforts to ensure the responsible distribution of funds for its purposes and to provide transparency and accountability of expenditures by informing the public how, when, and where tax dollars were being spent. Further, the Recovery Act stated that the President and the heads of Federal departments and agencies were to expend these funds as quickly as possible, consistent with prudent management. DOD received approximately $7.4 billion in Recovery Act funds supporting Recovery Act projects. In March 2009, DOD released its Expenditure Plans for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 which lists DOD projects (except for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers projects and the Homeowners Assistance Fund) that will receive Recovery Act funds. The Department of the Navy received $1.928 billion in Recovery Act funds for Operations and Maintenance; Military Construction; and Research, Development, Test and Evaluation. Table 1 provides specific amounts allocated to each appropriation. Table 1. Department of Navy Program-Specific Recovery Act Appropriations Appropriations Operations & Maintenance Military Construction Research, Development, Test and Evaluation Total Amount (millions) $916 $937 $75 $1,928 Of the $1.928 billion appropriated to the Department of the Navy, $3.2 million (Operation & Maintenance) were appropriated to complete interior and exterior renovations of Building 118 ATC Tower at the Naval Air Station (NAS), Jacksonville, Florida. NAS Jacksonville is a master air and industrial base that provides operational and logistical support for U.S. operating and allied forces worldwide, and for more than 100 tenant activities and other commands. The installation is also home to reconnaissance, 1

maritime, multi-mission, logistics, passenger, and cargo aircraft. ATC Tower facilities are required to provide continuous control over all military and civilian landing, departing, or traversing station air space. Also, the ATC Tower, which houses NAS Jacksonville personnel and equipment, is required to support personnel and cargo flights responding to southeast region emergencies. Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC) Southeast developed the repair requirements for the ATC Tower project. Audit Results Conclusion We concluded that the Repair ATC Tower project was a valid requirement. Although we identified some issues and concerns with required planning documents not adequately supporting the justification of the project, NAVFAC Southeast officials were able to provide additional information supporting repairs for the ATC Tower that provided us reasonable assurance that the project was a valid requirement. As a result, DOD had reasonable assurance that use of Recovery Act funds was appropriate for the project. Therefore, this report contains no recommendations. Summary of Results While NAVFAC Southeast officials adequately justified and supported the Repair ATC Tower project, the DD Form 1391 (planning document for proposed projects) and the economic analysis for the respective project did not provide sufficient justification. However, during our review NAVFAC Southeast officials were able to provide additional information justifying the repair of the ATC Tower as a valid Recovery Act project. DD Form 1391. During our review of the June 26, 2009, DD Form 1391, we noted that the planning document did not fully support the justification for the repair of the ATC Tower. The proposed repairs included structural repairs; such as replacing the heating, ventilation and air conditioning system; repairing the electrical system; refurbishing interior finishes and lighting; and refurbishing exterior finishes. According to the DD Form 1391, the proposed construction would address the deficiencies identified in: 1) the structural inspection conducted in November 2005; 2) the Annual Inspection Summary in March 2007; and 3) a list of necessary upgrades identified by a Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command team site survey in June 2008. However, NAVFAC Southeast officials could not provide these inspections or studies for our review to validate the need for the ATC Tower. While NAVFAC Southeast officials could not provide us with the aforementioned documents, officials were able to provide us with an Architectural/Engineering Study Study Phase for Repairs to Air Traffic Control Building 118, Naval Air Station, Jacksonville, FL April 15, 2009, which officials stated supported the justification for repairing the ATC Tower. The Study addressed work needed to bring the ATC Tower into compliance with applicable codes and regulations. Also, the Study discussed new equipment needed to meet requirements established by the National Airspace System Modernization Program and standards established by Federal Aviation Administration. Based on our review of the Study, we concluded it adequately supported and justified the proposed repairs for the ATC Tower. 2

Economic Analysis. The economic analysis was incomplete and did not fully support the justification for the Repair ATC Tower project. The NAVFAC Economic Analysis Handbook, October 1993, states that the economic analysis is a systematic approach to identify, analyze, and compare costs and benefits of alternative courses of action to achieve a given set of objectives. A six-step approach is used-define the objective, generate alternatives, formulate assumptions, determine costs and benefits, compare costs and benefits and rank alternatives, and perform sensitivity analysis. For the repair of the ATC Tower project, three of the six steps were not fully assessed in determining the most efficient and effective use of resources. A more descriptive narrative for three of these steps determining costs and benefits, comparing costs and benefits and rank alternatives, and performing sensitivity analysis was needed to support the project s justification. Although the economic analysis for the project needed more detailed narrative to identify that repair of the current facilities was the best alternative, NAVFAC Southeast officials clarified the need to repair the ATC Tower as the best option. Specifically, NAVFAC officials stated that there were no viable alternatives, other than new construction, which was more costly, for bringing the current structure up to Federal Aviation Administration standards. Therefore, we concluded that the Repair ATC Tower project was a valid requirement. 3

Appendix. Scope and Methodology Scope and Methodology. The Recovery Act provided the Department of the Navy approximately $1.928 billion in funds (Operations & Maintenance, Military Construction, and Research, Development, Test and Evaluation) for Navy and Marine Corps Projects. Approximately $3.2 million of Operations & Maintenance funds (Facilities, Sustainment, Restoration, and Modernization) was provided to support Recovery Act project Repair ATC Tower located at NAS Jacksonville. This is one in a series* of reports on the DOD s implementation of the Recovery Act. This report addresses the ATC Tower project, valued at $3.2 million. We conducted this audit from June 2009 to January 2010. We generally complied with Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards. However, due to the unique requirements of the Recovery Act, along with time limitations for executing this audit, we did not fully comply with some planning and reporting standards. Specifically, we did not fully comply with the planning standards on the assessment and reduction of fraud risk, and the reporting standards on internal control deficiencies and the scope of work in relation to the total Recovery Act project population. We believe omitting some aspects of these standards did not limit our ability to accurately conclude on our audit objective. We interviewed NAVFAC Southeast officials. We reviewed documentation including DD Form 1391, economic analysis, cost estimates, architectural and engineering studies, and other supporting documentation. We also conducted a site visit to tour the ATC Tower. In addition, we reviewed Federal, DOD, Navy, and NAVFAC Headquarters guidance and compared this guidance to our audit results. Before selecting DOD ARRA projects for audit, the Quantitative Methods and Analysis Division of the DOD Office of Inspector General analyzed all DOD agency-funded projects, locations, and contracting oversight organizations to assess the risk of waste, fraud, and abuse associated with each. We selected most audit projects and locations using a modified Delphi technique, which allowed us to quantify the risk based on expert auditor judgment, and other quantitatively developed risk indicators. Initially, we selected 83 projects with the highest risk rankings; auditors chose some additional projects at the selected locations. We used information collected from all projects to update and improve the risk assessment model. We used additional predictive analytic techniques for 2 other special cases: (1) projects performed jointly with State National Guard units in the 50 States, and (2) public works projects funded directly through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). We factored in workload volume, proposed costs, geographic districts, and USACE districts and regions in evaluating the relative risk of problems with oversight and completion. *The DoD Inspector General will issue a separate report on Recovery Act Project No. 65199, Hospital Alteration, valued at about $27.2 million, at NAS Jacksonville. 4

We did not use classical statistical sampling techniques that would permit generalizing results to the total population because there were too many potential variables with unknown parameters at the beginning of this analysis. The predictive analytic techniques employed provided a basis for logical coverage not only of ARRA dollars being expended, but also of types of projects and types of locations across the Military Services, Defense agencies, State National Guard units, and public works projects managed by USACE. 5