62 Matching Results

Search Results

Advanced search parameters have been applied.

Audit of the Department of Energy`s management of field contractor employees assigned to headquarters and other federal agencies

Description: The Department of Energy (Department) has spent at least $76 million annually for field contractor employee support in Headquarters and other Federal agencies. The employees were to provide technical expertise and experience critical to Department operations and programs. Overall, the audit was performed to determine if the Department was managing the use of field contractor employees assigned to Headquarters and other Federal agencies. Specifically, it was to determine whether the Department reviews and evaluates the costs for the use of contractor employees, is reimbursed for contractors working at other Federal agencies, and had implemented corrective actions proposed as the result of a prior audit report on this subject. The Department did not effectively manage the use of field contractor employees assigned to Headquarters and other Federal agencies. Specifically, the Department was unable to identify all contractor employees assigned to the Washington, DC area or determine the total cost of maintaining them; some employees were providing routine support and administrative services rather than unique program expertise; and several of the Department`s contractors had assigned their employees to work in other agencies without receiving full reimbursement for their services. In addition, the Department did not fully implement the corrective actions it agreed to in the prior audit report. Recommendations were made for the Deputy Secretary based on the audit findings. 3 tabs.
Date: December 5, 1997
Partner: UNT Libraries Government Documents Department

Audit of the Union Valley sample preparation facility at Oak Ridge

Description: This audit was initiated to determine if the US DOE`s acquisition of the Union Valley Sample Preparation Facility (UVSPF) was necessary and cost effective. To accomplish the audit objective, four actions were taken: (1) review of applicable laws and regulations, (2) analysis of procurement files for the lease and interviews of Department and contractor officials, (3) evaluation of facility justifications, and (4) assessment of workload and staffing requirements of Lockheed Martin Energy Systems` Analytical Services Organization. The audit found that Energy Systems did not base the acquisition of the UVSPF on valid mission requirements. This occurred because Energy Systems did not follow Department procedures in planning and developing the lease, and the Department approved the lease without adequate justification. It was recommended that the Manager, Oak Ridge Operations Office: (1) direct Energy Systems to follow Department policies and procedures and base acquisitions of property on valid mission requirements and an analysis of all viable alternatives; (2) direct project managers to follow Department orders and require approvals of construction projects and property leases to include (a) verification that projects are essential to meet mission requirements and (b) analysis of all viable alternatives; and (3) direct Energy Systems to give the required 365-day notice and discontinue the lease. The audit also found that Energy Systems restricted the location of the UVSPF without establishing a programmatic need for the restriction. The restriction gave an Energy Systems subcontractor a competitive advantage and may have caused the Department to pay more than necessary for the facility. It was recommended that the Manager, Oak Ridge Operations Office, direct Energy Systems to discontinue the practice of restricting facility locations unless they are justified to meet mission requirements. The audit concluded that the UVSPF was not necessary.
Date: November 7, 1997
Partner: UNT Libraries Government Documents Department

Routine environmental reaudit of the Argonne National Laboratory - West

Description: This report documents the results of the Routine Environmental Reaudit of the Argonne National Laboratory - West (ANL-W), Idaho Falls, Idaho. During this audit, the activities conducted by the audit team included reviews of internal documents and reports from previous audits and assessments; interviews with U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), State of Idaho Department of Health and Welfare (IDHW), and DOE contractor personnel; and inspections and observations of selected facilities and operations. The onsite portion of the audit was conducted from October 11 to October 22, 1993, by the DOE Office of Environmental Audit (EH-24), located within the Office of Environment, Safety and Health (EH). DOE 5482.113, {open_quotes}Environment, Safety, and Health Appraisal Program,{close_quotes} established the mission of EH-24 to provide comprehensive, independent oversight of Department-wide environmental programs on behalf of the Secretary of Energy. The ultimate goal of EH-24 is enhancement of environmental protection and minimization of risk to public health and the environment. EH-24 accomplishes its mission by conducting systematic and periodic evaluations of the Department`s environmental programs within line organizations, and by utilizing supplemental activities that serve to strengthen self-assessment and oversight functions within program, field, and contractor organizations.
Date: April 1, 1996
Partner: UNT Libraries Government Documents Department

Environmental Compliance Audit& Assessment Program Manual

Description: This document describes the elements, schedule, roles, and responsibilities of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) Environmental Compliance Audit & Assessment Program (ECAAP). The ECAAP has been developed to meet the requirements of DOE Order 450.1A,1 and Executive Order 13423.2 These referenced Orders stipulate that government agencies must develop environmental compliance audit programs to monitor and improve compliance with environmental regulations. As stated specifically in the DOE Order, as a part of a DOE facility's Environmental Management System (EMS), 'An environmental compliance audit and review program that identifies compliance deficiencies and root causes of non-compliance' shall be developed and implemented. The ECAAP has also been developed to satisfy LBNL's institutional technical assurance assessment requirements promulgated in the Environment, Safety and Health (ES&H) Self-Assessment Program (LBNL/PUB-5344) and described by the ES&H Technical Assurance Program (TAP) Manual (LBNL/PUB-913E). The ES&H TAP Manual provides the framework for systematic reviews of ES&H programs with the intent to provide assurance that these programs comply with their guiding regulations, are effective, and are properly implemented. As required by the DOE and Executive Orders and by LBNL's TAP, the goal of the ECAAP is to identify environmental regulatory compliance deficiencies and to determine their respective causes. The ECAAP then provides a means of correcting any deficiencies identified, and leads to continually improving environmental compliance performance.
Date: March 13, 2009
Creator: Thorson, Patrick; Baskin, David; Borglin, Ned; Fox, Robert; Wahl, Linnea; Hatayama, Howard et al.
Partner: UNT Libraries Government Documents Department

FY 1996 annual work plan

Description: In April 1994, the Department of Energy (DOE) Strategic Plan was issued. This Plan presents the Department`s strategic outlook in response to a changing world. It discusses the Department`s unique capabilities; its mission, vision, and core values; and key customer and stakeholder considerations. The DOE Strategic Plan lists business strategies and critical success factors which are intended to aid the Department in accomplishing its mission and reaching its vision of itself in the future. The Office of Inspector General (OIG) has an important role in carrying out the goals and objectives of the Secretary`s Strategic Plan. The ultimate goal of the OIG is to facilitate positive change by assisting its customers, responsible Government officials, in taking actions to improve programs and operations. The Inspector General annually issues his own Strategic Plan that contains program guidance for the next fiscal year. As part of its responsibility in carrying out the OIG mission, the Office of the Deputy Inspector General for Audit Services (Office of Audit Services) publishes an Annual Work Plan that sets forth audits that are planned for the next fiscal year. Selection of these audits is based on the overall budget of the Department, analyses of trends in Departmental operations, guidance contained in the agency`s strategic plans, statutory requirements, and the expressed needs and audit suggestions of Departmental program managers and OIG managers and staff. This work plan includes audits that are carried over from FY 1995 and audits scheduled to start during FY 1996. Audits included in the plan will be performed by OIG staff.
Date: September 30, 1995
Partner: UNT Libraries Government Documents Department

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission fiscal year 1997 annual financial statements

Description: This report presents the results of the independent certified public accountants` audit of the Federal Energy Regulatory commission`s statements of financial position, and the related statements of operations and changes in net position. The auditors` work was conducted in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. An independent public accounting firm conducted the audit. The auditors` reports on the Commission`s internal control structure and compliance with laws and regulations disclosed no reportable conditions or instances of noncompliance.
Date: February 24, 1998
Partner: UNT Libraries Government Documents Department

Audit of departmental receipt of final deliverables for grant awards

Description: To help meet legislatively mandated and programmatic mission requirements, the Department of Energy (DOE) awards grants to colleges and universities, state and local governments, individuals, small businesses, and non-profit corporations. As of July 15, 1996, the DOE was responsible for administering over 7,400 grants with purposes ranging from basic research to weatherizing homes. The Government`s share of these grants was about $8 billion. The objective of this audit was to determine whether the DOE received final deliverables, detailing grantee accomplishments and expenditure of funds, in accordance with Federal and Departmental policies and procedures. The Code of Federal Regulations requires that grants benefit the general public. This is demonstrated through technical and/or financial reports that each grantee is usually required to deliver. These reports describe the final results of the grant effort. In spite of this requirement, many grantees did not provide final technical and/or financial reports. For example, at the five procurement offices audited, it is projected that the Department had not received final deliverables on 718 inactive grants valued at about $232 million. In other cases, officials inappropriately extended performance periods so that the grant instrument would continue to be classified as active. This non-reporting occurred because the Department did not effectively implement existing procedures or establish other monitoring procedures that ensured grantees fulfilled their grant obligations. Specifically, the Department did not establish procedures to withhold payment if a grantee failed to comply with grant terms and conditions. In addition, the Department did not defer additional awards to grantees that had not met the tenons and conditions of prior grants and inappropriately extended grant performance periods for excessive periods of time. Further, Departmental personnel waived reporting requirements in order to close out grant awards.
Date: December 4, 1997
Partner: UNT Libraries Government Documents Department

Routine environment audit of the Kansas City Plant, Kansas City, Missouri

Description: This report documents the results of the routine environmental audit of the Kansas City Plant, Kansas City, Missouri. During this audit the activities the audit team conducted included reviews of internal documents and reports from previous audits and assessments; interviews with U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and contractor personnel; and inspections and observations of selected facilities and operations. The onsite portion of the audit was conducted October 24-November 4, 1994, by the DOE Office of Environmental Audit (EH-24), located within the Office of Environment, Safety, and Health (EH). DOE 5482.1 B, {open_quotes}Environment, Safety, and Health Appraisal Program,{close_quotes} establishes the mission of EH-24, which is to provide comprehensive, independent oversight of Department-wide environmental programs on behalf of the Secretary of Energy. The ultimate goal of EH-24 is enhancement of environmental protection and minimization of risk to public health and the environment. EH-24 accomplishes its mission by conducting systematic and periodic evaluations of the Department`s environmental programs within line organizations and by using supplemental activities that strengthen self-assessment and oversight functions within program, field, and contractor organizations. The audit evaluated the status of programs to ensure compliance with Federal, state, and local environmental laws and regulations; compliance with DOE Orders, guidance, and directives; and conformance with accepted industry practices and standards of performance. The audit also evaluated the status and adequacy of the management systems developed to address environmental requirements.
Date: November 1, 1994
Partner: UNT Libraries Government Documents Department

Office of Inspector General audit report on vehicle fleet management at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory

Description: In a prior report, Audit of Light Vehicle Fleet Management at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, WR-B-93-7, September 29, 1993, the Office of Inspector General (OIG) concluded that vehicle fleet operations might be done more cost effectively by the General Services Administration (GSA) than by Idaho Operations Office (Idaho) and its contractor. The report also concluded that a significant number of vehicles were underused and the fleet was too large. Accordingly, the report contained recommendations that a cost comparison study be conducted to ascertain the most economical and efficient method of managing fleet operations and that vehicle usage data be reviewed periodically by the contractor, with prompt reassignment or disposal of significantly underused vehicles. Thus, the purpose of this audit was to determine if action has been taken to implement recommendations in the prior report. Specifically, the objectives of the current audit were to determine whether a cost comparison had been performed and whether the fleet was still too large. In this report, the authors recommend that Idaho annually review individual vehicle use against mileage standards and promptly dispose of or reassign vehicles not meeting the standards. The authors also recommend that the Idaho Deputy Manager be provided a vehicle assignment report for review and approval.
Date: March 1, 1999
Partner: UNT Libraries Government Documents Department

Office of Inspector General audit report on Hanford Site contractors` use of site services

Description: The mission of the Department of Energy (DOE), Richland Operations Office (Richland) is to safely manage legacy wastes, develop and deploy science and technology, and provide stewardship of the Hanford Site (Site). To accomplish its mission, Richland employs five prime contractors: Fluor Daniel Hanford, Inc. (Fluor Daniel); Bechtel Hanford, Inc. (Bechtel); Battelle-Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (Battelle); Hanford Environmental Health Foundation; and BNFL, Inc. Some of these contractors, in turn, have multiple subcontractors. To operate the Site, contractors need to use numerous services, such as telecommunications, copying, and photography. Richland directed certain contractors to provide these and other services, called site services, for the benefit of all contractors and assigned responsibility for optimal utilization of these services to its Site Infrastructure Division (SID). In the past, the Office of Inspector General (OIG) audited several site services, including groundwater monitoring, protective forces, personnel security clearances, railroad services, and fleet management. These audits disclosed that the services were not always efficiently and effectively coordinated. Therefore, the objective of this audit was to examine other site services, principally those provided at least in part by Fluor Daniel, to determine if contractors were acquiring services already available.
Date: March 1, 1999
Partner: UNT Libraries Government Documents Department

Office of Inspector General audit report on Westinghouse Savannah River Company`s withdrawal of fees

Description: As the operator of the Department`s Savannah River Site, Westinghouse Savannah River Company (Westinghouse) receives three types of fees: (1) award fees commensurate with the overall performance rating, (2) Performance Based Incentive (PBI) fees for achieving measurable goals or defined tasks as specified in annual operating plans, and (3) Cost Reduction Incentive Program (CRIP) fees for making improvements in site operations that reduce total contract costs. The Department`s Contracting Officer notifies Westinghouse when fees are earned, and Westinghouse withdraws the authorized amounts from the Department`s letter-of-credit account. The audit objective was to determine whether Westinghouse withdrew the appropriate amount of fees from the letter-of-credit account in Fiscal Years (FY) 1997 an 1998.
Date: April 1, 1999
Partner: UNT Libraries Government Documents Department

Residential building code compliance: Implications for evaluating the performance of utility residential new construction programs

Description: Knowing how well builders comply with (or exceed) energy-related building codes is critical for completing a sound evaluation of utility residential new construction programs and for determining the actual cost-effectiveness of these programs. Obtaining credit from utility regulators for additional energy savings from code compliance in participant houses as a result of the utility program is one of the key options available for utilities for improving the cost-effectiveness of these programs. In this paper, the authors examine residential building energy code compliance and specific code violations in three states (California, Oregon and Washington). They then compare residential building energy code compliance for program participants and nonparticipants as well as estimates of the energy savings impacts from noncompliance. The authors also point out some of the methodological limitations of these studies which limit the ability to generalize from these studies.
Date: May 1996
Creator: Vine, E.
Partner: UNT Libraries Government Documents Department

Year 2000 assessment report, Los Alamos National Laboratory

Description: The purpose of this report is to advise managers on the status of Year 2000 readiness at the Laboratory and provide a summary of critical issues to be addressed in order to ensure that the Year 2000 date rollover will not disrupt Laboratory Operations. The Laboratory`s Year 2000 council members are in the first phase of Year 2000 plans: gathering data and assessing the status of their divisions or programs. This first snapshot of the Laboratory Year 2000 readiness assessment is expected to grow and change over time as more refined assessments, plans, and schedules are developed and as more information becomes available. Here are findings to date: (1) Embedded systems` status not known. (2) Preliminary cost estimates for Year 2000 repairs, testing, and implementation are estimated to be at least $5.9 million, not including embedded systems. (3) The Laboratory is required to make unavoidable purchases of Year 2000-compliant products. (4) The Year 2000 short-term issue forces some long-term transition plans to be set aside. (5) The Laboratory is at risk for the following consequences if they can`t demonstrate an active Year 2000 program: risk of system failures; potential funding freezes by the OMB and DOE; legal liabilities; and risk to the UC contract. (6) The deadline for this project is immutable. (7) DOE is continually increasing reporting requirements, expanding from only DOE mission-essential to all operations. (7) DOE audit criticizes the Laboratory`s mission-essential systems planning.
Date: April 21, 1998
Creator: Weir, D.
Partner: UNT Libraries Government Documents Department

Office of Inspector General audit report on the U.S. Department of Energy`s consolidated financial statements for fiscal year 1998

Description: The Department prepared the Fiscal Year 1998 Accountability Report to combine critical financial and program performance information in a single report. The Department`s consolidated financial statements and the related audit reports are included as major components of the Accountability Report. The Office of Inspector General audited the Department`s consolidated financial statements as of and for the years ended September 30, 1998 and 1997. In the opinion of the Office of Inspector General, except for the environmental liabilities lines items in Fiscal year 1998, these financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the Department as of September 30, 1998 and 1997, and its consolidated net cost, changes in net position, budgetary resources, financing activities, and custodial activities for the years then ended in conformity with Federal accounting standards. In accordance with Government Auditing Standards, the Office of Inspector General issued a separate report on the Department internal controls. This report discusses needed improvements to the environmental liabilities estimating process and the reporting of performance measure information.
Date: February 1, 1999
Partner: UNT Libraries Government Documents Department

Office of Inspector General audit report on the U.S. Department of Energy`s funds distribution and control system at the Federal Energy Technology Center

Description: In Fiscal Year 1998, the Federal Energy Technology Center (FETC) was responsible for managing about $723 million in budgetary resources. The objective of this audit was to determine if FETC had a funds distribution and control system to ensure appropriated funds were managed in accordance with congressional intent and applicable policies and procedures. Improvements are needed in FETC`s administration of budgetary and accounting transactions. FETC did not have a comprehensive system to allocate indirect costs to funding programs and work-for-others projects. In addition, FETC did not completely adhere to Headquarters Clean Coal budget direction. The Office of Inspector General (OIG) reached its conclusions despite a scope impairment. Written documentation was not always available, and the audit team did not have ready access to key personnel who could explain certain transactions and management practices and procedures. In order to strengthen the FETC financial management system, the OIG recommended (1) the development of policies, procedures, and practices to accurately collect and allocate indirect costs and (2) improvements in internal control procedures. The OIG also recommended that the Chief Financial Officer conduct a detailed for cause review of the financial management practices at FETC and work with the Office of Field Management to develop a schedule for reviewing the financial management systems of all Departmental elements.
Date: April 1, 1999
Partner: UNT Libraries Government Documents Department

Routine environmental audit of the Y-12 Plant, Oak Ridge, Tennessee

Description: This report documents the results of the routine environmental audit of the Oak Ridge Y-12 Plant (Y-12 Plant), Anderson County, Tennessee. During this audit, the activities conducted by the audit team included reviews of internal documents and reports from previous audits and assessments; interviews with U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), State of Tennessee regulatory, and contractor personnel; and inspections and observations of selected facilities and operations. The onsite portion of the audit was conducted August 22-September 2, 1994, by the DOE Office of Environmental Audit (EH-24), located within the Office of Environment, Safety and Health (EH). DOE 5482.1 B, {open_quotes}Environment, Safety, and Health Appraisal Program,{close_quotes} establishes the mission of EH-24 to provide comprehensive, independent oversight of DOE environmental programs on behalf of the Secretary of Energy. The ultimate goal of EH-24 is enhancement of environmental protection and minimization of risk to public health and the environment. EH-24 accomplishes its mission by conducting systematic and periodic evaluations of DOE`s environmental programs within line organizations, and by using supplemental activities that strengthen self-assessment and oversight functions within program, field, and contractor organizations. The audit evaluated the status of programs to ensure compliance with Federal, state, and local environmental laws and regulations; compliance with DOE Orders, guidance, and directives; and conformance with accepted industry practices and standards of performance. The audit also evaluated the status and adequacy of the management systems developed to address environmental requirements.
Date: September 1, 1994
Partner: UNT Libraries Government Documents Department

Office of Inspector General audit report on the U.S. Department of Energy`s implementation of the Government Performance and Results Act

Description: The Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (Results Act) was enacted to improve Federal program effectiveness and public accountability by promoting a new focus on results-oriented management. The Results Act requires plans that define the mission, long-term goals, and shorter-term performance measures. Further, the Act envisions that there will be an apparent relationship between this information and specific activities listed in the Department`s budget requests. Taken together, these elements should clearly describe the outputs and outcomes the Department expects to deliver for the resources expended. The objectives of this audit were to determine whether the Department had implemented the requirements of the Results Act by (1) integrating the planning, budgeting, and performance measures for its programs into a unified, Departmentwide strategy; (2) developing specific, measurable, and results-oriented performance standards to which its programs and contractors could be held accountable; and (3) developing the means to collect reliable performance data and to use that data in evaluating whether performance actions produce intended results. The information in the Fiscal Year 1999 budget requests for the Offices of Environmental Management, Defense Programs, Energy Research, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, and Nuclear Energy Science and Technology formed the basis of the review.
Date: February 1, 1999
Partner: UNT Libraries Government Documents Department

Office of Inspector General audit report on Bechtel Jacobs payroll creation

Description: The Oak Ridge Operations Office (Operations Office) awarded a contract to the Bechtel Jacobs Company, LLC (Bechtel Jacobs) in December 1997. The terms of the contract require Bechtel Jacobs to create new jobs in the Oak Ridge area with a cumulative payroll of $427 million through Fiscal year (FY) 2003. In FY 1998, the contract required Bechtel Jacobs to create $11 million in new payroll. The objective of the audit was to determine if Bechtel Jacobs met its commitment to create at least $11 million in new payroll in the Oak Ridge, Tennessee area through September 30, 1998.
Date: April 1, 1999
Partner: UNT Libraries Government Documents Department

Self-assessment program implementation plan. Revision A

Description: This implementation plan identifies and describes the tasks that must be completed in order to successfully implement a Self-Assessment (SA) Program. The purpose of the Self-Assessment Program is to comply with applicable Department of Energy (DOE) directives and orders, Federal, State, and local regulations, operate the Pinellas Plant according to best management practices, and achieve excellence in all operating areas. The Self-Assessment Program will be applied to the Pinellas Plant facility which includes buildings, grounds, equipment, operations, and activities under the control of line management. Furthermore, all applicable disciplines under environmental protection, safety, health and management will be covered by the program. The Self-Assessment Program has been designed to accomplish the following tasks: define the scope of the Self-Assessment Program; assign organizational roles and responsibilities; address EH and S functional elements and management issues; develop a Self-Assessment program charter and policy; identify all applicable EH and S codes, regulations and standards; develop self-assessment procedures and instructions; generate a Self-Assessment Manual; develop a master schedule for facility appraisals and audits; design checklists and report formats for recording appraisal data; implement an assessment tracking and reporting system; implement a root cause analysis and corrective action system; implement a trend analysis and lessons learned system; and establish a formal training program.
Date: October 23, 1991
Creator: Quets, A.L.
Partner: UNT Libraries Government Documents Department

Audit of the deactivation, decontamination, and disposal of surplus facilities at the Savannah River Site

Description: Westinghouse Savannah River Company (Westinghouse) is responsible for managing the Department of Energy`s (Department) surplus facilities at the Savannah River Site (Site). In Fiscal Year (FY) 1996, the Site had 162 surplus facilities and anticipated that 118 more would become surplus within the next 5 years. The objective of this audit was to determine whether the Savannah River Operations Office (Operations Office) and Westinghouse had economically and promptly deactivated, decontaminated, and disposed of surplus facilities at the Site. Departmental regulations require that surplus facilities be deactivated, decontaminated, and disposed of economically and promptly. However, Westinghouse only disposed of one facility and did not completely deactivate or decontaminate any of the 162 facilities identified as surplus at the Site in FY 1996. This occurred because the Operations Office did not compile a Site-wide list, establish priorities, or provide sufficient funding for the deactivation, decontamination, and disposal of surplus facilities. As a result, the Department incurred unnecessary costs for the surveillance and maintenance of surplus facilities. For example, the Department could have avoided annual costs of about $1.3 million in surveillance and maintenance costs by spending $1.2 million to perform a deactivation project on the P-Reactor process-water storage tanks. The Operations Office could have funded the project out of its unobligated FY 1996 operating funds. However, it returned the unobligated funds to the Department`s Headquarters at the end of the fiscal year. The Operations Office concurred with the finding and recommendations and initiated corrective action.
Date: October 23, 1997
Partner: UNT Libraries Government Documents Department

Western Area Power Administration. Combined power system financial statements

Description: This report presents the results of the independent certified public accountants` audit of the Western Area Power Administration`s combined power system statements of assets, Federal investment and liabilities, and the related combined statements of revenues, expenses and accumulated net revenues, and cash flows. The auditors` report on Westerns internal control structure disclosed three new reportable conditions concerning the lack of: (1) a reconciliation of stores inventory from subsidiary ledgers to summary financial information, (2) communication of interest during construction and related adjustments to interest on Federal investment, and (3) a system to prevent and detect power billing errors. None of the conditions were considered to be material weaknesses. Western provided concurrence and corrective action plans. The auditors` report on Western`s compliance with laws and regulations also disclosed two new instances of noncompliance. Western failed to calculate nonreimbursable expenses in accordance with the Grand Canyon Protection Act and had an unexplained difference in gross Federal investment balances used to calculate interest on Federal investment. Western provided concurrence and corrective action plans for the instances.
Date: February 26, 1998
Partner: UNT Libraries Government Documents Department

Office of Inspector General audit report on small disadvantaged business program at the Chicago Operations Office

Description: The Office of Inspector General performed audits of the Small Disadvantaged Business Program at five management and operating contractors in FY 1994. The audits disclosed that none of the contractors fully met the intent of the Act and implementing regulations. The contractors awarded some subcontracts to firms of questionable program eligibility. Also, two of the contractors concentrated awards among a limited number of small disadvantaged businesses, and used procurement practices that precluded opportunities for many small disadvantaged businesses to participate. The objective of this audit was to determine whether Chicago was providing the maximum practicable opportunity for small disadvantaged businesses to participate in contract awards.
Date: January 1, 1999
Partner: UNT Libraries Government Documents Department

Office of Inspector General audit report on Project Hanford management contract costs and performance

Description: On August 6, 1996, the Richland Operations Office (Richland) awarded the Project Hanford Management Contract (Management Contract) to Fluor Daniel Hanford, Inc. (Fluor Daniel). This performance-based, 5-year contract to support cleanup of the Department of Energy`s (DOE) Hanford Site (Hanford) contained performance goals or expectations related to the stabilization, transition, and diversification of the Tri-Cities` economy near Hanford in southeastern Washington. One of these economic goals was that Fluor Daniel and its major subcontractors would help generate 3,000 new, non-Hanford, private sector jobs that would help stabilize and diversify the Tri-Cities` economy. The contract specifically called for Fluor Daniel to help generate 200 jobs, establish an investment fund, and bring 6 new growth-oriented enterprise companies to the Tri-Cities by the end of Fiscal Year (FY) 1997. The objective of the audit was to determine whether Richland was making adequate progress in stabilizing and diversifying the economy of the Tri-Cities by creating 3,000 new, non-Hanford jobs within 5 years. Accordingly, the author examined the progress made in FY 1997, which was the first year of the Management Contract. Richland and Fluor Daniel are at risk of not meeting the Management Contract`s goals of stabilizing and diversifying the economy of the Tri-Cities because most of the new jobs created during FY 1997 were not comparable to Hanford jobs and, thus, may not sustain long-term economic goals. Therefore, Fluor Daniel has not met its expectations in the first year and is not making adequate progress toward meeting the Management Contract`s overall economic goals.
Date: November 1, 1998
Partner: UNT Libraries Government Documents Department

Semiannual report to Congress on Inspector General audit reports, October 1, 1997--March 31, 1998

Description: This is the Secretary of Energy`s eighteenth Semiannual Report to Congress submitted under the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended. Pursuant to the Inspector General Act Amendments of 1988 (Public Law 100-504), agency heads are to report to Congress on the status of final action taken on audit report recommendations. This report complements a report prepared by the Department`s Office of Inspector General that provides information on audit reports issued during the period and on the status of management decisions made on Inspector General audit reports. During the period covered by this report, October 1, 1997, through March 31, 1998, the Department took final action on 20 operational, financial, and preaward audit reports. At the end of the period 80 reports awaited final action. Final action was taken on one contract and financial assistance audit, leaving two reports requiring final action at the end of the period. This report has three sections. The first section outlines significant audit resolution and followup accomplishments achieved by the Department during the reporting period. The second section contains the statistical tables that illustrate the status of final action on Inspector General audit reports. The third lists the audit reports that are one year or more past management decision and have not completed final action. This section also provides the status of corrective actions on each of those reports.
Date: May 1, 1998
Partner: UNT Libraries Government Documents Department