jurisdiction: US

text: b'National Railroad Passenger Corporation\n Office of Inspector General\n\n\n\n\n Semiannual Report Report # 43\n to the October 1, 2010\xe2\x80\x93\n United States Congress\n Amtrak Office of Inspector General I Semiannual Report to Congress I March\n October 31,\n 1, 2010\xe2\x80\x93 2011\n March 31, 2011 1\n\x0c Vision\n The Office of Inspector General (OIG) strives to provide Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s\n employees, its customers, the public, and the Congress with the\n highest quality service and programs through vigilance, timely\n action, accuracy, and an overall commitment to excellence across\n the broad range of OIG responsibilities.\n\n\n\n\n Mission\n The OIG conducts and supervises independent and objective\n audits, inspections, evaluations, and investigations relating\n to Amtrak programs and operations; promotes economy,\n effectiveness, and efficiency within the company; prevents and\n detects fraud, waste, and abuse in company programs and\n operations; reviews security and safety policies and programs,\n and reviews and makes recommendations regarding existing and\n proposed legislation and regulations relating to Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s programs\n and operations.\n\n\n\n\n cover photo: California Zephyr\n\n2 Amtrak Office of Inspector General I Semiannual Report to Congress I October 1, 2010\xe2\x80\x93 March 31, 2011\n\x0cTable of Contents\n\n\nFrom the Inspector General \t 3\n\nOIG Profile \t 9\n\nAmtrak Profile\t 16\n\nSignificant Activities: Actions Underway to Strengthen OIG Operations \t 19\n\nSignificant Activities: Audits \t 23\n\nSignificant Activities: Inspections and Evaluations\t 31\n\nSignificant Activities: Investigations \t 37\n\nPerformance Measures\t 42\n\nAppendixes \t 43\n\nReporting Requirements \t 50\n\n\n\n\n Amtrak Office of Inspector General I Semiannual Report to Congress I October 1, 2010\xe2\x80\x93 March 31, 2011 1\n\x0c Empire Builder at Stephen\xe2\x80\x99s Pass, Montana\n\n\n\n\n2 Amtrak Office of Inspector General I Semiannual Report to Congress I October 1, 2010\xe2\x80\x93 March 31, 2011\n\x0c From the Inspector General\n\n\n\n\n National Railroad Passenger Corporation\n Office of Inspector General\n\n\n\n\nI am pleased to present the Amtrak Office of Inspector General (OIG)\nSemiannual Report to the United States Congress for the six months ending\nMarch 31, 2011. Along with discussing significant OIG accomplishments in\naudits, inspections and evaluations, and investigations during this period,\nthis report highlights ongoing action to strengthen OIG operations and make\nprogress toward becoming a model OIG.\n\nWith a staff that combines years of experience in the railroad industry along\nwith those having an extensive background in auditing and investigative\nwork, the Amtrak OIG is in a unique position to monitor Amtrak programs\nwith an eye toward best practices. This has given us a team with the ability\nto assess Amtrak operations and offer well-reasoned recommendations\nfor improvement.\n\nWe are continuing to enhance our capability to perform effective independent\noversight and to foster mutually beneficial working relationships among OIG,\nAmtrak management, the Congress, and other stakeholders. The quality and\nquantity of our audits, evaluations, and investigations are growing: at present\nwe have several major audits/evaluations in progress, focusing on governance\nand strategic asset management, Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s risk-management framework, its\nprocess for handling employment background investigations, a follow-up\nevaluation of mechanical maintenance operations, and on-time-performance\nincentive payments, among others.\n\n\nSignificant Accomplishments\n\nAs stewards of public funds, we strive to ensure that monies are spent wisely,\nand that appropriate value is received. During this reporting period, our audit\nand evaluation units issued seven reports that identified over $17 million in\n\n\n\n\n 10 G Street, NE, Suite 3W-300, Washington, DC 20002\n 3\n\x0c From the Inspector General\n\n\n\n\n questioned costs. Our investigative work into schemes involving health care\n fraud, theft, contract noncompliance, and employee attendance fraud resulted\n in two convictions and one indictment. In total, our Office of Investigations\n was responsible for bringing in more than $116,000 in fines, restitution, and\n cost savings.\n\n We continued to identify opportunities to reduce costs, improve management\n operations, and institute more efficient and effective business processes.\n For example:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t \tOur March 2011 evaluation of Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s Fiscal Year 2010 Fleet Strategy\n examined the company\xe2\x80\x99s plan to spend $23 billion over the next 30 years to\n replace aging equipment and meet future ridership demand. While Amtrak\n has done a commendable job in creating a comprehensive fleet strategy\n that it has greatly needed, we identified seven areas in which Amtrak can\n improve the strategy by conducting additional, more detailed analyses.\n These areas include:\n\n 1.\t Determining future equipment requirements based on route-specific\n ridership demand projections.\n 2.\t Increasing the use of multi-level cars.\n 3.\t Incorporating equipment-availability improvements.\n 4.\t Using a more sophisticated decision model to determine equipment\xe2\x80\x99s\n optimal economic life.\n 5.\t Identifying a business-plan-based approach for replacing and\n enhancing the Acela Express fleet.\n 6.\t Revising the planned procurement approach to achieve lower unit-\n cost pricing.\n 7.\t Integrating a systematic fleet planning process with other corporate\n plans and activities.\n\n Management agreed with all of these recommendations; the President\n and CEO pointed out that Amtrak has begun addressing some of them\n in its FY 2011 Fleet Strategy update, and plans to address the remaining\n recommendations in future strategy updates. The company also began\n recruiting for a fleet strategy manager.\n\n\n\n\n 10 G Street, NE, Suite 3W-300, Washington, DC 20002\n4\n\x0c From the Inspector General\n\n\n\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\t Our March 2011 evaluation of Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s Operation RedBlock Program\n reviewed the company\xe2\x80\x99s progress in implementing recommendations from\n our 2008 report. RedBlock is a labor-developed drug and alcohol identifica-\n tion and education program. Our prior review found serious deficiencies\n in program leadership and oversight, and questioned whether the program\n should continue counseling services that go beyond the scope of its char-\n ter. The Federal Railroad Administration has also repeatedly expressed\n concerns that RedBlock is not operating effectively and that employees are\n not receiving proper support to deal with substance abuse problems.\n\n Our evaluation found that significant issues remain to ensure that Amtrak,\n its employees, passengers, and the public are protected from accidents due\n to alcohol or drug use.\n\n\t We made five specific recommendations, that the President and CEO work\n with management and involved labor unions to ensure that the RedBlock\n executive steering committee\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t convenes on a regular basis, at least semiannually, to review program\n performance;\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t establishes a process and timeline for the development of meaningful\n performance goals;\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t implements processes to reliably report information related to Red-\n Block activities, while protecting confidential data;\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t establishes guidelines and consequences, and ensure that employees\n are appropriately referred to and properly evaluated by certified, cre-\n dentialed counselors within the Employee Assistance Program; and\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t fifth, we recommended that the Critical Assistance and Response for\n Employees, Peer Counselor, and Union Member Assistance Coordina-\n tor programs be reassigned to the Employee Assistance Program unit.\n\n\t Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s President and CEO agreed with the recommendations and has\n become personally involved in working with labor to implement the\n needed changes.\n\n\n\n\n 10 G Street, NE, Suite 3W-300, Washington, DC 20002\n 5\n\x0c From the Inspector General\n\n\n\n\n Significant Actions Taken to Strengthen OIG Operations\n\n A critical element for ensuring that we can effectively perform the\n independent role mandated by the Inspector General Act of 1978 is a\n professional and effective working relationship between the OIG and Amtrak\n management. We have implemented a relationship policy that meets the letter\n and spirit of the IG Act, withdrawn our office from performing management\n functions, and built a constructive working relationship with Amtrak\n management.\n\n During this reporting period, the OIG has completed or initiated several\n additional actions to strengthen our operations and improve operating\n efficiency and effectiveness. Our goal is to build a culture of continuous\n improvement.\n\n In the Human Resources area, we have, among other items,\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t filled two Deputy Assistant Inspector General for Investigations positions\n (headquarters and field operations);\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t filled a Senior Director for Quality Assurance and Internal Affairs position,\n reporting to the Deputy Inspector General; and\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t created and are in the process of filling two Senior Director positions to\n support a restructuring of the Office of Inspections and Evaluations.\n\n Organizationally, we have\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t begun to review the structure and operational effectiveness and efficiency\n of the Office of Audits;\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t begun the process of hiring new employees in the Office of Inspections\n and Evaluations to replace recent retirees and other departing staff, to\n bring us back to full strength;\n\n\n\n\n 10 G Street, NE, Suite 3W-300, Washington, DC 20002\n6\n\x0c From the Inspector General\n\n\n\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\t begun a restructuring of the Office of Investigations;\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\t conducted an initial assessment and initiated a detailed organizational\n review of the Office of Management and Policy; and\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\t developed implementation plans to address recommendations from the\n National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA), which conducted\n an organizational assessment of our office and made 41 recommendations\n focusing on eight areas in which we can enhance our operations.\n\nIn addition, the U.S. Postal Service\xe2\x80\x99s Office of Inspector General is now\nconducting a review to gauge our independence from Amtrak as required by\nPublic Law 111\xe2\x80\x93117, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010.\n\nI look forward to our continued effective working relationship with the\nChairman, Board members, President and CEO, and executives at Amtrak;\nalong with the House and Senate authorization, oversight, and appropriations\ncommittees, as we work to meet the challenges facing OIG, Amtrak, the train-\nriding public, and taxpayers.\n\n\n\n\nTheodore (Ted) Alves\nInspector General\n\n\n\n\n 10 G Street, NE, Suite 3W-300, Washington, DC 20002\n 7\n\x0c Penn Station Control Center, New York\n\n\n\n\n8 Amtrak Office of Inspector General I Semiannual Report to Congress I October 1, 2010\xe2\x80\x93 March 31, 2011\n\x0c OIG Profile\n\n\n\n\nOIG Profile\nVision, Mission, and Authority\nVision\nThe Office of Inspector General (OIG) strives to provide Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s employees,\nits customers, the public, and the Congress with the highest quality service and\nprograms through vigilance, timely action, accuracy, and an overall commitment\nto excellence across the broad range of OIG responsibilities.\n\nMission\nThe OIG will conduct and supervise independent and objective audits,\ninspections, evaluations, and investigations relating to Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s programs and\noperations; promote economy, effectiveness, and efficiency within Amtrak;\nprevent and detect fraud, waste, and abuse in Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s programs and operations;\nreview security and safety policies and programs; and review and make\nrecommendations regarding existing and proposed legislation and regulations\nrelating to Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s programs and operations.\n\nAuthority\nThe Inspector General Act of 1978 (Public Law 95-452, 5 U.S.C. Appendix 3), as\namended in1988 (P.L. 100-504), established the Office of Inspector General for\nAmtrak to consolidate existing investigative and audit resources into independent\norganizations headed by an Inspector General (IG) to promote economy,\nefficiency, and effectiveness; and detect and prevent fraud, waste, and abuse.\nSubsequently, the Inspector General Reform Act of 2008 (P. L. 110-409) amended\nand strengthened the authority of the Offices of Inspectors General.\n\n\n\n\n Amtrak Office of Inspector General I Semiannual Report to Congress I October 1, 2010\xe2\x80\x93 March 31, 2011 9\n\x0cOIG Profile\n\n\n\n\n Guiding Principles and Values\n OIG principles and values are important because they form the building blocks\n used to accomplish its mission and conduct its day-to-day operations:\n\n\n High Quality,\n Relevance,\n Timeliness\n\n\n\n\n Respecting and\n Innovation Developing People\n\n\n\n\n Independence\n Professionalism and Objectivity Customer Service\n\n\n\n\n Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s Office of Inspector General will:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t High Quality, Relevance, Timeliness\xe2\x80\x94Provide valuable and timely service.\n Work products are high quality, relevant, timely, add value, and are responsive\n to the needs of Amtrak, and its stakeholders.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t Innovation\xe2\x80\x94Be innovative, question existing procedures, and suggest\n improvements. New ideas and creativity are fundamental to continued\n growth, development, and problem solving.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t Respecting and Developing People\xe2\x80\x94Create an environment that supports\n gathering, sharing, and retaining knowledge; fosters treating everyone fairly\n and with mutual respect through words and actions; ensures professional\n growth; and values the diverse backgrounds, skills, and perspectives of\n employees.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t Professionalism\xe2\x80\x94Be committed to our professional standards and foster\n relationships with stakeholders that rely on communication and cooperation.\n Relationships with program managers are based on a shared commitment to\n improving program operations and effectiveness.\n\n\n\n\n10 Amtrak Office of Inspector General I Semiannual Report to Congress I October 1, 2010\xe2\x80\x93 March 31, 2011\n\x0c OIG Profile\n\n\n\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\t Independence and Objectivity\xe2\x80\x94Be committed to carrying out its mission\n with objectivity and independence, both in appearance and fact. Conflicts,\n improper influence, or other impediments do not interfere with our work.\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\t Customer Service\xe2\x80\x94Strive to be aware of the needs of stakeholders and\n work with Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s chairman, the Board of Directors, and the Congress to\n improve program management.\n\n\n\n\n Acela Express at New Haven, Connecticut\n\n\n Amtrak Office of Inspector General I Semiannual Report to Congress I October 1, 2010\xe2\x80\x93 March 31, 2011 11\n\x0c Photo: Jason Berg\n\n\n\n\n Empire Builder at the Flathead Tunnel, Montana\n\n\n\n12 Amtrak Office of Inspector General I Semiannual Report to Congress I October 1, 2010\xe2\x80\x93 March 31, 2011\n\x0cOffice of Inspector General Organization\n\n Theodore (Ted) Alves\n Inspector\n General\n\n\n\n Thomas J. Howard\n Deputy\n Inspector General\n\n\n\n\n David R. Warren Calvin E. Evans Adrienne R. Rish\n Assistant Inspector General Assistant Inspector General Assistant Inspector General\n Audits Inspections & Evaluations Investigations\n\n\n\n\n Colin C. Carriere Vacant E. Bret Coulson\n General Assistant Inspector General Congressional Affairs &\n Counsel Management and Policy Public Relations\n\n\n\nThe OIG headquarters is based in Washington, D.C., with seven field offices\nlocated in Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, New York, Philadelphia, and\nWilmington, Delaware.\n\nThe Inspector General provides policy direction and leadership for Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s\nOffice of Inspector General and serves as an independent voice to the Board\nof Directors and the Congress by identifying opportunities and promoting\nsolutions for improving the company\xe2\x80\x99s performance and economy and efficiency\nof operations, while preventing and detecting fraud, waste, and abuse. The\nDeputy Inspector General assists the Inspector General in development and\nimplementation of the OIG\xe2\x80\x99s diverse audit, inspection, evaluation, investigative,\nlegal, and support operations.\n\n\n\n\n Amtrak Office of Inspector General I Semiannual Report to Congress I October 1, 2010\xe2\x80\x93 March 31, 2011 13\n\x0cOIG Profile\n\n\n\n\n Audits\n The Audit group conducts performance and financial audits across the spectrum\n of Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s support and operational activities. It produces reports on those\n activities that are aimed at improving Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s economy, efficiency, and\n effectiveness, while seeking to detect and prevent fraud, waste, and abuse.\n The audit activities are focused on issues related to governance, to include\n financial management, acquisition and procurement, information technology,\n human capital and American Recovery and Reinvestment Act-related activities.\n The group conducts its work in accordance with generally accepted government\n auditing standards.\n\nThe Audit group conducts Inspections and Evaluations\nperformance and financial The Office of Inspections and Evaluations conducts evaluations of Amtrak\naudits aimed at improving programs and operations to identify opportunities to improve cost efficiency and\nAmtrak\xe2\x80\x99s economy, effi- effectiveness, and the overall quality of service delivery throughout Amtrak.\nciency, and effectiveness;\nInspections and Evaluations\n Investigations\n The Office of Investigations investigates allegations of fraud, waste, abuse,\nalso identifies opportuni-\n and misconduct that could affect Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s programs, operations, assets, and\nties to improve the overall\n other resources. Investigative findings are referred to the Department of Justice\nquality of Amtrak service\n for criminal prosecution or civil litigation, or to Amtrak management for\ndelivery. Investigations administrative action. The office develops recommendations to reduce Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s\nlikewise looks into alleged vulnerability to criminal activity.\nfraud, waste, abuse, and\nmisconduct that could\naffect Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s programs,\nassets, and resources.\n\n\n\n\n Crescent at the James River, Lynchburg, Virginia\n\n\n\n\n14 Amtrak Office of Inspector General I Semiannual Report to Congress I October 1, 2010\xe2\x80\x93 March 31, 2011\n\x0c OIG Profile\n\n\n\n\nEmpire Builder at Glacier National Park, Montana\n\n\n\nManagement and Policy\nThe Office of Management and Policy provides financial management, procurement,\nhuman capital management, administrative, information technology, and communications\nexpertise to support OIG operations.\n\nCongressional Affairs & Public Relations\nThe Office of Congressional Affairs & Public Relations serves as the OIG liaison to\nCongress, other government entities, and the public, and conducts OIG outreach.\n\n\n\n\n Amtrak Office of Inspector General I Semiannual Report to Congress I October 1, 2010\xe2\x80\x93 March 31, 2011 15\n\x0cOIG Profile\n\n\n\n\n Amtrak Profile\n The National Railroad Passenger Corporation\xe2\x80\x94Amtrak\xe2\x80\x94is incorporated\n under the District of Columbia Business Corporation Act (D.C. Code \xc2\xa7 29-301\n et seq.) in accordance with the provisions of the Rail Passenger Service Act of\n 1970 (P. L. 91-518). Under the provisions of the Passenger Rail Investment and\n Improvement Act of 2008 (P. L. 110-432; 49 U.S.C. \xc2\xa7 24302), Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s Board of\n Directors was reorganized and expanded to nine members.\n\n The company is operated and managed as a for-profit corporation providing\n intercity rail passenger transportation as its principal business. Congress\n created Amtrak in 1970 to take over, and independently operate, the nation\xe2\x80\x99s\nSince 2000, ridership intercity rail passenger services. Prior to this, America\xe2\x80\x99s private freight\nhas grown by more than companies ran passenger rail as required by federal law. Those companies\n36 percent. In March reported that they had operated their passenger rail services without profit\n2011, Amtrak recorded for a decade or more. With this in mind, when Amtrak began service on May 1,\nits 17th straight month 1971, more than half of the rail passenger routes then operated by the freight\nof increased passenger railroad companies were eliminated.\ntraffic.\n\n Amtrak Ridership Continues Upward Trend as 40th Anniversary\n Approaches\n\n As Amtrak reaches its 40th anniversary on May 1 of this year, ridership has\n continued to increase steadily: in March 2011, Amtrak recorded its 17th\n straight month of increased passenger traffic (beginning in November 2009).\n Since 2000, ridership has grown by more than 36 percent.\n\n Amtrak has requested some $2.2 billion in federal funding for FY 2012.\n\n\n\n\n16 Amtrak Office of Inspector General I Semiannual Report to Congress I October 1, 2010\xe2\x80\x93 March 31, 2011\n\x0c OIG Profile\n\n\n\n\nHow It Works: Ownership and Contracting\n\nAmtrak owns the right-of-way of more than 363 route miles in the Northeast\nCorridor (NEC, which includes Washington, D.C.\xe2\x80\x93New York City\xe2\x80\x93Boston;\nPhiladelphia\xe2\x80\x93Harrisburg; and New Haven, Conn.\xe2\x80\x93Springfield, Mass.), as well\nas 97 miles in Michigan. Amtrak owns 105 station facilities, and is responsible\nfor the upkeep and maintenance of an additional 181 station facilities and 411\nplatforms. Amtrak owns 17 tunnels and 1,186 bridges.\n\nAmtrak owns most of the maintenance and repair facilities for its fleet of\nabout 2,600 cars and locomotives. Outside of the NEC, Amtrak contracts with\nfreight railroads for the right to operate over their tracks. The host railroads\nare responsible for the condition of their tracks and for the coordination of all\nrailroad traffic.\n\n\n\n\nMaryland Area Regional Commuter (MARC) at Washington, D.C.\n\n Amtrak Office of Inspector General I Semiannual Report to Congress I October 1, 2010\xe2\x80\x93 March 31, 2011 17\n\x0cpage header\n\n\n\n\n Empire Builder at Williston, North Dakota\n\n\n\n\n18 Amtrak Office of Inspector General I Semiannual Report to Congress I October 1, 2010\xe2\x80\x93 March 31, 2011\n\x0c Significant Activities | Actions Underway to Strengthen OIG Operations\n\n\n\n\nSignificant Activities:\nActions Underway to Strengthen OIG Operations\n\nA professional, independent, and effective working relationship between OIG\n\nand Amtrak management is critical to our ability to perform the independent\n\noversight envisioned in the Inspector General Act of 1978. Our relationship\n\npolicy with management meets the letter and the spirit of the IG Act.\n\nAs a consequence, our office no longer performs management functions that\n As part of our quest to\nshould be handled by Amtrak itself, and our independent working relation- become a model OIG,\n we hired several more\nships with Amtrak supervisors and managers continue to be excellent.\n auditing professionals\n with many years of\nDuring this reporting period, we have completed or initiated several actions to experience.\nstrengthen our office and ensure that we operate as efficiently and effectively as\npossible. Among them:\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\t Human Capital Management. As part of our quest to become a model OIG,\n we hired several key professionals with many years of experience:\n\n \xc2\xad Senior Director for Quality Assurance and Internal Affairs. The incumbent\n brings 23 years of management, logistics, staff development, as well as\n auditing experience within the IG community, serving for the past 3 years\n in Baghdad as Deputy Assistant IG for Audit\xe2\x80\x94Iraq, with the Special IG\n for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR). This followed some 20 years with the\n Department of Defense IG.\n\n \xc2\xad Principal Communications Officer. The incumbent\xe2\x80\x99s 37-year federal career\n includes 21 years with the Government Accountability Office (GAO) as\n a communications analyst and, since 2005, similar positions with the\n Offices of Inspector General at the Departments of Transportation and\n Commerce.\n\n \xc2\xad Deputy Assistant Inspector General for Investigations\xe2\x80\x94Headquarters\n Operations. The incumbent has a rich and varied background in law\n enforcement and fraud investigations of all types, including computer and\n\n\n Amtrak Office of Inspector General I Semiannual Report to Congress I October 1, 2010\xe2\x80\x93 March 31, 2011 19\n\x0cSignificant Activities | Actions Underway to Strengthen OIG Operations\n\n\n\n\n financial crimes. He has served with Offices of Inspector General at the\n Departments of Defense, Commerce, Agriculture, and the Special Inspec-\n tor General for Iraq Reconstruction.\n\n \xc2\xad Deputy Assistant Inspector General for Investigations\xe2\x80\x94Field Operations.\n The incumbent brings 20 years of experience in law enforcement from\n Offices of Inspector General at the U.S. Postal Service\xe2\x80\x94where, for the\n past 8 years, he was Deputy Assistant IG for Investigations and Mission\n Support\xe2\x80\x94 and the Department of Transportation. His background\n includes organizational development and leadership, along with procure-\n ment fraud and financial crimes.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t NAPA. As detailed in our last Semiannual Report, the National Academy of\n Public Administration (NAPA) conducted an organizational assessment of\n our office and made 41 recommendations focusing on eight areas in which we\n can enhance our operations. We have developed an implementation plan to\n address recommendations from NAPA\xe2\x80\x99s report.\n\n\n\n\n California Zephyr at Glenwood Springs, Colorado\n\n20 Amtrak Office of Inspector General I Semiannual Report to Congress I October 1, 2010\xe2\x80\x93 March 31, 2011\n\x0c Significant Activities | Actions Underway to Strengthen OIG Operations\n\n\n\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\t Writing Training. All audit and\n inspection & evaluation staff\n attended a 3-day training course\n in developing and writing audit\n reports. Taught by two well-\n respected writing instructors\n in the auditing community with\n decades of experience, along\n with our own newly-hired\n Principal Communications\n Officer, the course explored San Joaquins near Merced, California\n\n in detail how to write reports for busy decision makers using clear and\n persuasive language while effectively marshaling evidence.\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\t Office of Management and Policy. We conducted an initial assessment\n and initiated a detailed organizational review of the Office of Management\n and Policy.\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\t Office of Audits. We have begun discussions to review the structure and\n operational effectiveness and efficiency of the Office of Audits.\n\n\nOngoing Actions All Audit and Inspection &\n Evaluation staff attended\n\xe2\x80\xa2\t Postal IG Review. This review is an evaluation by the USPS Inspector General\n a 3-day training course\n to gauge our independence from Amtrak. The Fiscal Year 2010 Consolidated\n in developing and writing\n Appropriations Act directed that a member of the Council of Inspectors Gen-\n audit reports, exploring\n eral for Integrity and Efficiency (CIGIE) review our March 2010 relationship\n in detail how to write for\n policy with Amtrak management. This was done by the Inspector General of\n the Farm Credit Administration, who determined that it was consistent with busy decision makers\n the letter and spirit of the IG Act of 1978, as amended. The Appropriations using clear and persuasive\n Act further called for another CIGIE member to evaluate\xe2\x80\x94a year later\xe2\x80\x94our language while effectively\n operational independence. This is the review being carried out by the Postal marshaling evidence.\n Service Inspector General.\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\t Recruitment. We are recruiting for several critical positions, among them an\n Analyst/Referencer to support Quality Assurance and Internal Affairs; two\n Senior Directors, two Principal Operations Analysts, and two Lead Evaluators\n for Inspections and Evaluations; and a Special Agent-in-Charge and Criminal\n Investigator for Investigations.\n\n\n\n\n Amtrak Office of Inspector General I Semiannual Report to Congress I October 1, 2010\xe2\x80\x93 March 31, 2011 21\n\x0c Capitol Limited at Mance, Pennsylvania\n\n\n\n\n22 Amtrak Office of Inspector General I Semiannual Report to Congress I October 1, 2010\xe2\x80\x93 March 31, 2011\n\x0c Significant Activities | Audits\n\n\n\n\nSignificant Activities:\nAudits\n\nDuring this reporting period, the Office of Audits issued five reports\xe2\x80\x94three\n\ndealing with incurred costs, one discussing price negotiations on an\n\nacquisition contract, and one reviewing design controls in Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s Strategic\n\nAsset Management program.\n\n\n\nAudits Issued This Reporting Period\n\nThese are summaries of audit reports issued between October 1, 2010 and\nMarch 31, 2011. The full reports may be accessed through our website:\nwww.amtrakoig.gov.\n\nQuestionable Contract Language Related to Interest Payable Under\nKiewit Contract C069-93228 / Sounder Preventive Maintenance Track\nReplacement and Related Improvements, Seattle, WA /\nand Kiewit Contract C069-06834 South End Track and Related\nImprovements, Seattle, WA\n(Audit Report 508-2009, December 2, 2010)\nAmtrak awarded two cost-reimbursable-plus-fee contracts up to a combined\nguaranteed maximum price of over $11 million to perform work related to track\nreplacement and related improvements. Our audit objective was to determine\nthe accuracy and acceptability of costs invoiced by the contractor, Kiewit. Both\ncontracts allow Amtrak to withhold 10 percent of progress payments made to\nKiewit on a cost-incurred basis. This retained amount is to be withheld until the\nwork has been satisfactorily completed and OIG audit findings, if any, have\nbeen resolved.\n\nWe identified questionable \xe2\x80\x9cretainage\xe2\x80\x9d language in both contracts. It states that\nif the retainage is not paid within 90 calendar days following proper invoicing by\nthe contractor and receipt by Amtrak, both parties \xe2\x80\x9cshall agree to seek a mutually\nacceptable means of compensating the contractor for the \xe2\x80\x98time value of money\xe2\x80\x99\nassociated with extended and/or unwarranted withholding of retainage from\nthe contractor without suitable cause.\xe2\x80\x9d One of the mutually acceptable means\n\n\n Amtrak Office of Inspector General I Semiannual Report to Congress I October 1, 2010\xe2\x80\x93 March 31, 2011 23\n\x0cSignificant Activities | Audits\n\n\n\n\n identified in the contract allows the contractor to be paid interest on retainage\n not later reduced by audit findings.\n\n It is a common construction contracting practice for the owner to withhold a\n certain percentage of compensation from the contractor as a means of motivating\n the contractor to complete the work in a timely and satisfactory manner. The\n contract retainage language may offset the benefits of withholding. The 90\n calendar days time frame places a burden on Amtrak that may result in hasty\n management decisions. The unfavorable retainage language may also result in\n unnecessary costs to Amtrak.\n\n The audit also noted that the inclusion of this language in only Kiewit contracts\n presents an appearance that Amtrak accorded preferential treatment to this\nProcurement officials particular contractor. Amtrak procurement officials indicated that the language\n was included only in the two Kiewit contracts to induce the contractor to do\nindicated that the\n business with Amtrak, because the Seattle Facility Infrastructure Improvement\nlanguage was included\n project underwent a number of changes as a result of Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s funding\nonly in the two contracts\n constraints.\nto induce the contractor\nto do business with We further noted that the interest payment clause could impose limits on our\nAmtrak. responsibilities and/or place unreasonable restriction on the time needed\n to complete an audit or issue the report, which could impair the auditor\xe2\x80\x99s\n independence.\n\n We recommended that Amtrak\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t exclude any language that allows paying interest to a contractor on a retain-\n age basis and, if such language is included, formally justify that it is in Am-\n trak\xe2\x80\x99s best interest and does not impair auditor independence;\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t review all existing contracts for similar retainage language; and\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t avoid any contract language that could impair auditor responsibilities.\n\n Amtrak agreed with our recommendations and has already issued guidance to its\n procurement personnel reminding them of the need to avoid contract language\n that could impair the independence and objectivity of the OIG and other external\n auditors.\n\n\n\n\n24 Amtrak Office of Inspector General I Semiannual Report to Congress I October 1, 2010\xe2\x80\x93 March 31, 2011\n\x0c Significant Activities | Audits\n\n\n\n\nIncurred-Cost Audit: Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s Design/Build Improvements Contract Audit\nIdentified a Total of $926,276 in Questioned and Unsupported Costs\n(Audit Report 503-2009, December 13, 2010)\nQuestioned Costs:\t $ 17,694\nUnsupported Costs:\t 908,582\n\nAmtrak awarded a cost-reimbursable-plus-fee contract up to a guaranteed\nmaximum price of over $2 million for work related to design/build improvements.\nOur objective was to determine the accuracy and acceptability of costs invoiced\nby the contractor.\n\nWe found that the questioned costs were primarily the result of the contractor\xe2\x80\x99s\nbilling of relocation, insurance, and general and administrative costs that were\nnot allowed. Further, the contractor did not provide adequate support for salaried\nstaff and staff vehicle costs invoiced to Amtrak.\n\nWe also found, however, that Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s Department of Procurement and Materials\nManagement did not ensure before payment that all costs invoiced by the\ncontractor were in compliance with contract provisions and/or were adequately\nand appropriately supported.\n\nOur draft report recommended that Amtrak take steps to recover overpayments\nand remind staff to ensure that costs are adequately supported before paying\nvendor invoices. Amtrak disagreed with most of the questioned and unsupported\ncosts and with the recommendation. Management\xe2\x80\x99s response did not,\nhowever, contain sufficient facts or rationale to rebut the findings. In our view,\nmanagement\xe2\x80\x99s response indicates a lack of appropriate attention to controls over\npayments.\n\nGiven this lack of attention, our final report recommended that Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s Chief\nFinancial Officer\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\t direct staff to initiate negotiations with the contractor to recover the ques-\n tioned and unsupported costs;\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\t remind staff to ensure that all costs invoiced to Amtrak are in accordance\n with contract provisions and are adequately supported before paying vendor\n invoices; and\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\t review the adequacy of internal controls over the vendor invoice process,\n including the control environment, and implement improvements as needed.\n\n\n\n\n Amtrak Office of Inspector General I Semiannual Report to Congress I October 1, 2010\xe2\x80\x93 March 31, 2011 25\n\x0cSignificant Activities | Audits\n\n\n\n\n As of mid-April, Amtrak was drafting its response and estimated that it would be\n provided to us before May 1.\n\n\n Incurred-Cost Audit: Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s Track Replacement and Related\n Improvements Contracts Audit Identified a Total of $351,205 in\n Questioned and Unsupported Costs\n (Audit Report 504-2009, December 22, 2010)\n Questioned Costs:\t $221,925\n Unsupported Costs: \t 129,280\n\n Amtrak awarded two cost-reimbursable-plus-fee contracts up to a combined\n guaranteed maximum price of over $11 million to for work related to track\n replacement and related improvements. Our objective was to determine the\n accuracy and acceptability of costs invoiced by the contractor.\n\n We found that the questioned costs were primarily the result of overstated\n labor and labor add-ons, such as benefits, equipment costs, and certain other\n subcontractor costs not in accordance with the contract. We found that the\n Contractor did not provide adequate support for business managers\xe2\x80\x99 labor and\n labor add-ons, and for related equipment costs invoiced to Amtrak.\n\n We also found that Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s Department of Procurement and Materials\n Management did not ensure that all invoiced costs were in compliance with\n contract provisions. Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s procurement office and project manager did\n not ensure that the contractor\xe2\x80\x99s invoices were adequately and appropriately\n supported before they were paid.\n\n Our draft report recommended that Amtrak take steps to recover overpayments\n and remind staff to ensure that costs are adequately supported before paying\n vendor invoices. Management\xe2\x80\x99s response disagreed with most of the questioned\n and unsupported costs and with our recommendation. It did not, however,\n contain sufficient facts or rationale to rebut the validity of our findings. In our\n view, management\xe2\x80\x99s response indicates a lack of appropriate attention to controls\n over payments.\n\n Our final report recommended that Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s Chief Financial Officer direct\n staff to initiate negotiations with the contractor to recover the questioned\n and unsupported costs we identified, and to remind staff to ensure that all\n costs invoiced to Amtrak are in accordance with contract provisions and are\n adequately supported before paying vendor invoices.\n\n\n\n\n26 Amtrak Office of Inspector General I Semiannual Report to Congress I October 1, 2010\xe2\x80\x93 March 31, 2011\n\x0c Significant Activities | Audits\n\n\n\n\nAs of mid-April, Amtrak was drafting its response and estimated that it would be\nprovided to us before May 1.\n\n\nPrice-Proposal Audit: Amtrak Should Negotiate a Price Adjustment to a\nMajor Acquisition Contract\n(Audit Report 219-2010, January 12, 2011)\n(Final report contains contractor-proprietary information.)\n\nAmtrak awarded an acquisition contract for a sum not to exceed nearly $500\nmillion. Given this significant amount, we audited the contractor\xe2\x80\x99s price proposal.\nOur objectives were to determine the accuracy and completeness of the data, the We found gaps in the design\naccuracy of the contractor\xe2\x80\x99s internal controls as they affected the price proposal, of the controls that do not\nand whether the contractor\xe2\x80\x99s estimating system was applied in a reasonable fully mitigate the financial\nmanner. and operational risks,\n gaps that put Amtrak at\nWe found that the contractor did not reasonably apply its estimating system and risk of inaccurate financial\nidentified more than $16.6 million in unreasonable costs; further, the contractor reporting, vulnerability\nduplicated profit, misapplied labor and training rates, overstated costs, and to fraud, and inefficient\nincluded warranty and risk costs we found to be unreasonable. business operations.\n\nWe recommended that Amtrak negotiate a price adjustment. Amtrak responded\nthat it will use the information contained in this report to assess any future\nmodifications to the contract.\n\n\nStrategic Asset Management Program Controls Design Is Generally Sound,\nBut Improvements Can Be Made\n(Audit Report 105-2010, January 14, 2011)\n\nAmtrak\xe2\x80\x99s Strategic Asset Management (SAM) program is estimated to cost as\nmuch as $380 million. Its goal is to transform key business operations such as\nfinance and logistics; in so doing, it will replace or enhance many existing manual\nand automated systems. Given SAM\xe2\x80\x99s cost and expected impact on business\noperations, we reviewed its internal controls design to determine whether it\nadequately identified and mitigated risks.\n\nThe design of the automated controls to mitigate financial risk in the first SAM\nsegment to be implemented is generally sound. However, we found gaps in the\ndesign of the controls that do not fully mitigate the financial and operational\nrisks. These gaps put Amtrak at risk of not fully realizing SAM\xe2\x80\x99s potential benefits.\nIn particular, the lack of adequate controls can lead to inaccurate financial\n\n\n Amtrak Office of Inspector General I Semiannual Report to Congress I October 1, 2010\xe2\x80\x93 March 31, 2011 27\n\x0cSignificant Activities | Audits\n\n\n\n\n reporting, vulnerability to fraud, and inefficient business operations.\n\n For example, we found the following areas in which improvements could\n be made:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t Journal entries are to be processed manually, leaving the process vulnerable\n to error and rework.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t Controls were not documented to avoid the risk of unauthorized purchases.\n\nDuring the next 6 months, \xe2\x80\xa2\t Controls over certain physical inventory items were not in place, leaving the\nthe Office of Audits items vulnerable to undetected loss or theft.\nexpects to complete work\non determining whether We also found that the scope of design controls work was limited to automated\nAmtrak\xe2\x80\x99s risk manage- finance and materials management business controls.\nment framework and\nprocesses are effective in We recommended that Amtrak complete certain automated control design tasks\n before the April 2011 implementation, and expand the scope of the control design\nidentifying and controlling\n process. Amtrak agreed with our recommendations, and has been working to\nfinancial, operational, and\n implement them.\nregulatory risks.\n\n\n Ongoing Audits\n During the next 6 months, the Office of Audits expects to complete work on the\n following:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t A review to determine whether Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s risk management framework and\n processes are effective in identifying and controlling financial, operational,\n and regulatory risks, and are consistent with private and public best prac-\n tices.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t An audit of Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s management of employment background investigations,\n including a review of policies, processes, and practices used to conduct new\n employee background investigations, with an emphasis on the use of that\n information in the hiring process; and oversight of contractors performing\n background investigations, with an emphasis on oversight of contractors\xe2\x80\x99\n timeliness in providing investigation reports.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t An audit of Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s planning, implementation approach, and program\n management for the Strategic Asset Management (SAM) program. This is\n Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s most significant information technology program to improve the\n\n\n28 Amtrak Office of Inspector General I Semiannual Report to Congress I October 1, 2010\xe2\x80\x93 March 31, 2011\n\x0c Significant Activities | Audits\n\n\n\n\n Acela Express at Washington, D.C.\n\n economy, effectiveness, and efficiency of its support and business operations,\n and is estimated to have an implementation cost of up to $380 million.\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\t An audit of the adequacy of accounting practices related to financial reporting\n for inventory purchases.\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\t Audits of invoices billed to Amtrak for performance payments to other rail-\n roads. These invoices allowed over $60 million in awards payments. Similar\n past audits have identified significant overpayments.\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\t A review of 40 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA)-\n funded projects expected to cost about $465 million. These projects are being\n implemented by a contractor on behalf of Amtrak. The audit will address the\n adequacy of Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s program management oversight and status of project\n implementation, as well as obstacles encountered in attempting to complete\n the projects by the ARRA deadline of February 17, 2011.\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\t An audit of 35 police and security ARRA-funded projects expected to cost $95\n million. The audit will address the adequacy of Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s program manage-\n ment and the status of project implementation, as well as obstacles to com-\n pleting the projects by the February 2011 ARRA deadline.\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\t A review of Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s progress in complying with the Americans with Disabili-\n ties Act. The audit will address what has been and remains to be done, as well\n as barriers that must be overcome to achieve further progress.\n\n\n Amtrak Office of Inspector General I Semiannual Report to Congress I October 1, 2010\xe2\x80\x93 March 31, 2011 29\n\x0c Crescent in Virginia\n\n\n\n\n30 Amtrak Office of Inspector General I Semiannual Report to Congress I October 1, 2010\xe2\x80\x93 March 31, 2011\n\x0c Significant Activities | Inspections and Evaluations\n\n\n\n\nSignificant Activities:\nInspections and Evaluations\n\nDuring this reporting period, the Office of Inspections and Evaluations issued\n\ntwo reports, a review of Operation RedBlock\xe2\x80\x94Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s drug-and-alcohol\n\npeer-counseling program, and a review of Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s Fleet Strategy.\n\n\nEvaluations Issued This Reporting Period\nThese are summaries of the inspection and evaluation reports issued between\nOctober 1, 2010 and March 31, 2011. The full reports may be accessed through\nour website: www.amtrakoig.gov.\n\nOperation RedBlock: Actions Needed to Improve Program Effectiveness We performed a follow-up\n(Evaluation Report E-11-01, March 15, 2011) evaluation to determine\n whether RedBlock\nOperation RedBlock is a labor-developed, management-supported program to management was using the\npromote the awareness and education of drug use in the workplace through program to bypass federally-\nunion-led volunteer-prevention committees. We initially issued a report in mandated drug and alcohol\nMarch 2008 identifying significant deficiencies in the program and made 14\n requirements and standards.\nrecommendations to improve its operational and organizational efficiency\nand effectiveness. Amtrak disagreed with many of the recommendations,\nand asserted that the program was operating effectively (but did not provide\nadditional information). In July 2009 the Federal Railroad Association (FRA)\nconducted an audit of Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s compliance with its drug and alcohol regulations,\nincluding the RedBlock program, and expressed significant concerns with how\nunion employees are processed through RedBlock, including whether RedBlock\nmanagement was using the program to bypass federally-mandated drug and\nalcohol requirements and standards. We then performed a follow-up evaluation\nto determine the progress made in implementing our previous recommendations,\nand whether concerns raised were addressed.\n\nWe identified five issues surrounding RedBlock\xe2\x80\x99s operational efficiency and\neffectiveness:\n\n\n\n\n Amtrak Office of Inspector General I Semiannual Report to Congress I October 1, 2010\xe2\x80\x93 March 31, 2011 31\n\x0cSignificant Activities | Inspections and Evaluations\n\n\n\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t The RedBlock Executive Steering Committee (ESC) had not met for over a\n year and had failed to formally meet at least twice a year, as previously com-\n mitted in response to our 2008 report.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t The RedBlock ESC had still not established meaningful performance goals for\n program self-measurement and improvement.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t The employee mark-off data were not being tracked or reported to ESC that\n would allow Amtrak and the Committee to identify trends and issues around\n employee absences from work due to drug and alcohol use. FRA also ques-\n tioned the reliability of the RedBlock data.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t RedBlock referral practices did not fully support the long-term rehabilitative\n interest of employees (mark-offs that should have been referred to Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s\n Employee Assistance Program [EAP] for evaluation) and may not have\n satisfied FRA\xe2\x80\x99s requirement that employees with substance abuse problems\n be identified and treated.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t RedBlock continued to inappropriately house important employee\n counseling-type programs that were not organizationally aligned to provide\n the appropriate resources and support to employees.\n\n We recommended that the President and CEO direct the Vice President for\n Human Resources, Labor Administration, and Diversity Initiatives to work with\n management and the involved labor unions to ensure that\n\n 1. \t the RedBlock ESC meets on a regular basis, at least semiannually, to review\n program performance and provide oversight and direction to improve\n program operations;\n\n 2. \t the RedBlock ESC establishes a process and timeline for the development of\n meaningful performance goals that can be used to measure the effectiveness\n of the program and compliance with federal regulations;\n\n 3. \t the RedBlock ESC implement processes to report reliable and detailed\n information related to RedBlock activities, including mark-offs and multiple\n mark-offs , by craft, time period, and location, while also ensuring that\n personal and confidential information is protected from release;\n\n 4. \t the RedBlock ESC establishes mark-off guidelines and consequences, tracks\n peer-counselor interactions with and referrals of employees, and ensures that\n employees are appropriately referred to and properly evaluated by a certified\n\n\n32 Amtrak Office of Inspector General I Semiannual Report to Congress I October 1, 2010\xe2\x80\x93 March 31, 2011\n\x0c Significant Activities | Inspections and Evaluations\n\n\n\n\n Substance Abuse Professional-credentialed counselor within the EAP unit.\n Further, employees with multiple RedBlock mark-offs should be required to\n contact Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s EAP; and,\n\n5.\t the Critical Assistance and Response for Employee, the Peer Counselor, and\n the Union Member Assistance Coordinator programs be reassigned to the\n EAP department.\n\nManagement agreed with our findings and recommendations and committed\nto meet with the RedBlock ESC prior to May 31, 2011, agree to a firm deadline\nfor implementing two of the recommendations, and provide a timeline for full\nimplementation of the other three recommendations by June 7, 2011.\n During the next 6 months,\n the Office of Inspections &\nWe concurred with management\xe2\x80\x99s approach to work with the RedBlock ESC\n Evaluations will continue\nand also commended the company for taking additional actions beyond our\n to work on a follow-up\nrecommendations to further improve the RedBlock program, as well as the\nPresident and CEO\xe2\x80\x99s personal commitment to the RedBlock program and his evaluation of Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s\nproactive engagement with the ESC labor members. mechanical maintenance\n operations, examining\n progress toward the\nEvaluation of Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s FY 2010 Fleet Strategy: A Commendable High-Level adoption of Reliability-\nPlan That Needs Deeper Analysis and Planning Integration Centered Maintenance.\n(Evaluation Report E-11-02, March 31, 2011)\n\nThe FY 2010 Transportation, Housing and Urban Development and Related\nAgencies Appropriation Act mandated that Amtrak prepare a comprehensive\nplan that provides details and time frames for the maintenance, refurbishment,\nreplacement, and expansion of Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s rolling stock fleet. In February 2010,\nas part of its FY 2011 Grant and Legislative Request, Amtrak published a fleet\nstrategy outlining the need to spend $23 billion over the next 30 years to replace\naging equipment and to provide the fleet necessary to meet future ridership\ndemand. In May 2010, the former Ranking Member of the Senate Appropriations\nCommittee, Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development,\nand Related Agencies, requested that we conduct a comprehensive review of the\nstrategy.\n\nOur objective was to assess whether the critical data and assumptions that have\na material impact on the equipment and financial resource estimates contained in\nthe fleet strategy are reasonable and valid. We briefed Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s senior executives\non our findings and recommendations on January 11, 2011.\n\n\n\n\n Amtrak Office of Inspector General I Semiannual Report to Congress I October 1, 2010\xe2\x80\x93 March 31, 2011 33\n\x0cSignificant Activities | Inspections and Evaluations\n\n\n\n\n Amtrak has done a commendable job of using a holistic approach to create\n a comprehensive fleet strategy that it has greatly needed. Its approach is a\n reasonable first step and may be appropriate for determining a high-level estimate\n of future equipment needs. However, our evaluation identified seven areas where\n Amtrak can significantly improve the strategy by conducting additional and more\n detailed analyses.\n\n These areas for improvements include:\n\n 1.\t Determining the future rolling stock requirements based on route-\n specific ridership demand projections: The fleet strategy uses a simplified\n growth assumption of 2 percent per year on its existing car fleet. We have\n recommended that Amtrak follow a route-specific approach that is based\n on future ridership projections and considers current load factors and train\n consist alternatives.\n\n 2.\t Increasing the use of multi-level cars: Multi-level cars provide more space\n at relatively lower procurement and operating costs. Amtrak can reduce its\n capital investments by $174 million to $679 million (depending on the amount\n of luggage space provided in the cars) if it replaced all of its single-level cars\n with a seat-equivalent number of multi-level cars.\n\n 3.\t Incorporating improved equipment availabilities: The fleet strategy\n does not incorporate equipment availability improvements. If Amtrak achieves\n the availability targets presented in its Five-Year Financial Plan, it could\n reduce its capital investments for equipment procurements and overhauls by\n $520 million. This could be nearly doubled if Amtrak could further improve\n the availability of its equipment to the levels achieved by some of the better\n European operators.\n\n 4.\t Determining the equipment\xe2\x80\x99s optimal economic life: Amtrak uses a time-\n based criterion to plan rolling stock retirements. Our benchmarking shows\n that European railroads keep their rolling stock in service considerably longer\n and base their replacement decisions on strategic, operational, and financial\n factors. We recommend that Amtrak develop a more sophisticated decision\n model based on similar criteria. If Amtrak were able to keep its equipment\n in service, for example, 10 years longer than assumed in the Fleet Strategy, it\n could reduce its capital investment requirements by $1.6 billion over the 30-\n year planning period.\n\n 5.\t Developing a business plan-based approach for replacing and\n enhancing the Acela Express fleet: Although the Acela Express service\n\n\n34 Amtrak Office of Inspector General I Semiannual Report to Congress I October 1, 2010\xe2\x80\x93 March 31, 2011\n\x0c Significant Activities | Inspections and Evaluations\n\n\n\n\n is one of Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s main revenue drivers, the fleet strategy does not provide\n a clear and well-supported plan for the replacement and enhancement of\n the Acela fleet. Amtrak should identify a clear strategic focus for this high-\n speed rail service and develop a plan based on an operational and financial\n assessment of the relevant alternatives.\n\n6.\t Using a procurement approach aimed at achieving lower unit prices:\n The fleet strategy\xe2\x80\x99s procurement approach plans for relatively small order\n quantities and annual delivery rates that may result in higher unit costs. We\n recommend that Amtrak use a procurement approach that results in the most\n cost-effective use of its funds. For each percentage that Amtrak could lower\n its equipment procurement prices, the capital funding requirements could be\n reduced by $140 million.\n\n7.\t Implementing a systematic fleet planning process integrated with\n other corporate plans and activities: The fleet strategy was not developed\n as part of a systematic process integrated into a corporate planning process.\n We recommend that for future updates to the Strategy Amtrak use a more\n systemic planning process that is integrated with Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s overall strategy and\n is linked to other strategic plans and activities.\n\nAmtrak\xe2\x80\x99s President and CEO stated that management agreed with all of\nour recommendations. He noted that Amtrak began to address some of our\nrecommendations in the recently published FY 2011 Fleet Strategy Plan and\nwould address the remaining recommendations in future strategy updates.\nManagement\xe2\x80\x99s comments are responsive to our recommendations.\n\n\nOngoing Evaluations\nDuring the next 6 months, the Office of Inspections and Evaluations will continue\nto work on the following:\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\t A follow-up evaluation of Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s mechanical maintenance operations,\n examining progress made since our 2005 review, which recommended the\n adoption of Reliability-Centered Maintenance to improve effectiveness\n and efficiency.\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\t An evaluation, in response to a complaint, ascertaining whether Amtrak is\n following its policy that governs the assignment of individuals to temporary\n management positions. The complaint alleged that failure to follow the policy\n has resulted in disparate pay practices.\n\n\n Amtrak Office of Inspector General I Semiannual Report to Congress I October 1, 2010\xe2\x80\x93 March 31, 2011 35\n\x0cpage header\n\n\n\n\n Capitol Corridor at Niles, California\n\n\n\n\n36 Amtrak Office of Inspector General I Semiannual Report to Congress I October 1, 2010\xe2\x80\x93 March 31, 2011\n\x0c Significant Activities | Investigations\n\n\n\n\nSignificant Activities:\ninvestigations\n\nDuring this reporting period, the Office of Investigations (OI) added two\n\nnew Deputy Inspectors General to assist in its work of combating alleged\n\nfraud, waste, and abuse of Amtrak funds. Investigators opened 18 new\n\ncases while closing 130; our hotline received 151 contacts by email, fax,\n\nletter, telephone, or website. Our work resulted in two convictions and\n\none indictment.\n\n\nProactive Efforts Regarding Medical Leave of Absence\n(08-141, December 8, 2010)\nCost savings of $126,670 realized\nIn conjunction with the Amtrak Health Services Department, OI conducted an\ninitiative involving employees on Medical Leave of Absence. The initiative was\ndesigned to determine if employees were abusing this process and, if so, identify\nthose involved.\n\nThe project resulted in 63 employees returning to work, with a related cost\nsavings of $126,670. Amtrak also terminated the employment of 34 individuals.\n\n\nTrack Inspector Pleads Guilty\n(09-002, December 22, 2010)\nRestitution of $8,000 ordered\nOur last semiannual report noted that a track inspector repeatedly used Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s\nGeneral Services Administration credit card to purchase fuel for his personal\nvehicle. The track inspector also falsely reported that he performed track\ninspections that he had, in fact, not done. At times the inspector was at home or\non personal travel when he claimed to be performing track inspections. He also\nfalsely claimed to have worked overtime in some of these instances.\n\n\n\n\n Amtrak Office of Inspector General I Semiannual Report to Congress I October 1, 2010\xe2\x80\x93 March 31, 2011 37\n\x0cSignificant Activities | Investigations\n\n\n\n\n The track inspector pled guilty to one count of theft of public money. He was\n sentenced to 6 weeks of home detention with electronic monitoring and 2 years\xe2\x80\x99\n probation. He was ordered to make restitution in the amount of $8,000, and he\n resigned his employment with Amtrak.\n\n\n Health Care Facility Operator Indicted\n (07-026, March 3, 2011)\n Forfeiture of property valued at up to $291,255 ordered\n A Pennsylvania federal grand jury indicted the owner of a health care facility\n on 22 counts of health care fraud, 10 counts of mail fraud, and 11 counts of\n aggravated identity theft. The health care provider submitted hundreds of false\n claims to United Health Care Corporation, a medical management service that\n processes and pays claims for Amtrak-covered employees\xe2\x80\x99 health care expenses.\n\n According to the indictment, the health care company owner employed\n unlicensed personnel, including an osteopathic physician and a physical\n therapist. The owner is charged with directing employees to prepare fraudulent\n physical therapy evaluations reflecting procedures that patients did not receive\n and on dates that patients were not at the facility. The owner also allegedly\n directed staff members to submit claims using health insurance identification\n numbers assigned to patients who did not receive the services. The fraudulent\n charges totaled $321,000 and the health care provider received $291,255,\n according to the indictment. A notice was served on the owner ordering\n forfeiture of any property that constitutes or is derived from the proceeds of the\n above actions, to the sum of $291,255.\n\n The case was investigated by Amtrak OIG along with the Department of Labor\n OIG, the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.\n\n\n Closed-Circuit Television System Not Fully Functional\n (10-258, March 3, 2011)\n $20,576 in Upgraded Equipment Received\n OI conducted a proactive inquiry involving a contractual agreement with a\n vendor hired to install a closed-circuit television system at an Amtrak facility.\n OI determined that the vendor installed cameras that were not fully functional.\n OI worked with Amtrak Procurement to rectify the problem: the vendor agreed\n to provide Amtrak with upgraded closed-circuit television equipment valued at\n $20,576 at no additional cost.\n\n\n\n38 Amtrak Office of Inspector General I Semiannual Report to Congress I October 1, 2010\xe2\x80\x93 March 31, 2011\n\x0c Significant Activities | Investigations\n\n\n\n\nBilling from Health Care Provider Found to be Problematic\n(09-888, March 22, 2011)\nAn OI review of invoices submitted by a health care provider revealed serious\nproblems with invoicing and billing practices. OI recommended that management\nconduct regular reviews and reconciliations as well as random audits of invoices\nreceived from the provider. Management concurred and agreed to ensure that\ninvoices are submitted in a manner that allows verification of labor hours\ncharged, that explanations are provided, and that billings are submitted on a\ntimely basis. Management also agreed to take steps to ensure that the provider\xe2\x80\x99s\nadministrative functions are performed by appropriate-level personnel and are\nnot charged to Amtrak at higher principal employee rates.\n\n\nLead Service Attendant Sentenced\n(04-91, March 24, 2011)\nIn 2006 an Amtrak lead service attendant was charged with one count of theft/\ndeception and one count of theft/unauthorized control of more than $300 and less\nthan $10,000. She failed to appear for her initial hearing at that time and a bench\nwarrant was issued for her arrest. She was finally arrested on October 6, 2010,\nand pled guilty on October 10. She was sentenced to 1 year\xe2\x80\x99s probation and time\nserved (67 days). She was also ordered to pay $500 in fines, costs, and fees.\n\n\nFraud Awareness Initiative\nTogether with the OIG Office of Audits, OI has initiated a comprehensive\neffort to deliver fraud awareness briefings to Amtrak management, operations,\nand support personnel. This training is designed to help Amtrak managers,\nemployees, and contractors recognize fraud indicators and report suspicions of\nfraud to the OIG. The briefings are also designed to educate Amtrak management\non the role of the OIG and to foster a partnership between OIG and management.\n\nTo date, three presentations have been given to a total of 48 Amtrak Procurement\nService employees.\n\nOn March 17, 2011, OI presented the fraud awareness briefing to the Amtrak\nBoard of Directors.\n\n\n\n\n Amtrak Office of Inspector General I Semiannual Report to Congress I October 1, 2010\xe2\x80\x93 March 31, 2011 39\n\x0cSignificant Activities | Investigations\n\n\n\n\n Revenue Protection Unit\n\n In conjunction with mostly random on-board train observations of lead service\n attendants (LSAs), the OI Revenue Protection Unit (RPU) analyzed support\n documentation for on-board food and beverage sales for 49 trains. The completed\n reviews resulted in 11 administrative referrals to management for various findings\n including theft, fraud, and failure to follow procedures. Two LSAs have been\n disciplined and other management actions are pending.\n\n RPU has an ongoing program to educate Amtrak personnel on the mission\n of the RPU and the importance of adhering to internal controls to prevent\n loss of revenue from on-board ticket and food and beverage sales. RPU gave\n three presentations to a total of 36 employees, including newly hired assistant\n conductors.\nThe Office of Investigations\xe2\x80\x99\nRevenue Protection Unit\ngave three presentations to\na total of 36 employees on\nthe importance of adhering\nto internal controls to\nprevent loss of revenue\nfrom on-board ticket and\nfood and beverage sales.\n\n\n\n\n MARC at Washington, D.C.\n\n Penn Station Control Center, New York\n\n40 Amtrak Office of Inspector General I Semiannual Report to Congress I October 1, 2010\xe2\x80\x93 March 31, 2011\n\x0c Significant Activities | Investigations\n\n\n\n\nAmtrak Office of Inspector General I Semiannual Report to Congress I October 1, 2010\xe2\x80\x93 March 31, 2011 41\n\x0cPerformance Measures\n\n\n\n\n FY 2010 Performance Measures,\n 10/1/2010\xe2\x80\x943/31/2011\n\n Audit/Evaluation Results\n Congressional Testimony 0\n Reports Issued 7\n Costs Questioned/Unsupported,\n Funds to be Put to Better Use a$36,902,776\n\n Management Decisions to Seek\n Recoveries 0\n\n\n\n Investigative Results\n Financial Impact Investigative Workload\n Fines/Fees $\t 500 Investigations Opened 18\n Restitution $\t 8,000 Investigations Closed b\n 130\n Cost Savings $147,246\n\n\n Cases Opened\n Theft/Embezzlement 4\n Time and Attendance Fraud 2 Hotline Contacts/Referrals\n Procurement Fraud 1 Management 57\n Procurement Irregularity 1 Customer Service 53\n Proactive Reviews 3 Amtrak Police Department 4\n Mismanagement 1 OIG Audit 3\n Kickbacks 1 Other Agency 2\n Health Care Fraud\t 1 Reviewed for Investigation 4\n Employee Misconduct 1 Request for Assistance 7\n Conflict of Interest 1 No Action Warranted 21\n Abuse of Position 1 Total 151\n False Statements 1\n\n\n Judicial and Administrative Actions Advisory Functions\n Indictments 1 FOIA Requests Received 2\n Convictions 2 FOIA Requests Processed 2\n Employee Removal 35 Legislation Reviewed 0\n Employee Suspensions 0 Regulations Reviewed 0\n\n a \tNot included in this amount are the funds to be put to better use identified in Report E-11-02. Implementing the recommendations in this report\n would allow Amtrak to reduce its fleet requirements by 53 cars and 25 locomotives over the 30-year planning period in Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s Fleet Strategy,\n resulting in a potential reduction of over $520 million in procurement and overhaul costs over the lives of these additional pieces of equipment.\n b \tAt the beginning of the last semiannual reporting period, the office had an inventory of over 300 cases, many of which had sat dormant for years.\n Most addressed administrative matters more appropriately handled by Amtrak management.\n\n\n\n\n42 Amtrak Office of Inspector General I Semiannual Report to Congress I October 1, 2010\xe2\x80\x93 March 31, 2011\n\x0c Appendix\n\n\n\n\nAppendixes\n\nAppendix 1\n\nOffice of Inspector General\nAudit/Evaluation Reports Issued with Questioned Costs\n\n Reporting Period: 10/1/10\xe2\x80\x933/31/11\n\n Number Questioned Costs Unsupported Costs\nA.\t For which no management decision has been 2 $21,108,181 $\t 0\n made by the commencement of the reporting\n period.\nB.\t Reports issued during the reporting period. 2 239,619 1,037,862\nSubtotals (A + B) 4 $21,347,800 $1,037,862\n\n\nLess\nC.\t For which a management decision was made 1\n during the reporting period.\n (i)\t dollar value of recommendations that were 1,055,662 0\n agreed to by management.\n (ii)\tdollar value of recommendations that were 0\n not agreed to by management.\nD.\t For which no management decision has been 3 $20,292,138 $1,037,862\n made by the end of the reporting period.\n\n\n\n\n Amtrak Office of Inspector General I Semiannual Report to Congress I October 1, 2010\xe2\x80\x93 March 31, 2011 43\n\x0cAppendix\n\n\n\n\n Appendix 2\n\n Office of Inspector General\n Audit/Evaluation Reports with Funds to be Put to Better Use\n\n Reporting Period: 10/1/10\xe2\x80\x933/31/11\n\n Number Dollar Value\n A.\t For which no management decision has been 0 $\t 0\n made by the commencement of the reporting\n period.\n B.\t Reports issued during the reporting period. 2 a\n 16,610,638\n\n Subtotals (A + B) 2 a\n $16,610,638\n\n\n Less\n C.\t For which a management decision was made\n during the reporting period.\n\n (i)\t dollar value of recommendations that were 2 a\n 16,610,638\n agreed to by management.\n\n (ii)\tdollar value of recommendations that were 0 0\n not agreed to by management.\n D.\t For which no management decision has been 0 $\t 0\n made by the end of the reporting period.\n\n a \tNot included in this amount are the funds to be put to better use identified in Report E-11-02. Implementing the recommendations in that\n report would allow Amtrak to reduce its fleet requirements by 53 cars and 25 locomotives over the 30-year planning period in Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s Fleet\n Strategy, resulting in a potential reduction of over $520 million in procurement and overhaul costs over the lives of these additional pieces\n of equipment.\n\n\n\n\n44 Amtrak Office of Inspector General I Semiannual Report to Congress I October 1, 2010\xe2\x80\x93 March 31, 2011\n\x0c Appendix\n\n\nAPPENDIX 3\n\nOFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL\nDETAILED LISTING OF ALL ISSUED REPORTS\n\n Reporting Period: 10/1/10\xe2\x80\x933/31/11\n\n Date Report Report Title Report Questioned Unsupported Funds to be Put\n Issued Number Category Costs Costs to Better Use\n 12/02/2010 508-2009 Questionable Contract Acquisition & $ 0 $ 0 $ 0\n Language Related to Procurement\n Interest Payable Under\n Kiewit Contract C069-\n 93228 / Sounder Preventive\n Maintenance Track\n Replacement and Related\n Improvements, Seattle, WA\n / and Kiewit Contract C069-\n 06834 South End Track\n and Related Improvements,\n Seattle, WA\n 12/13/2010 503-2009 Incurred-Cost Audit: Acquisition & 17,694 908,582 0\n Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s Design/Build Procurement\n Improvements Contract\n Audit Identified a Total of\n $926,276 in Questioned\n and Unsupported Costs\n 12/22/2010 504-2009 Incurred-Cost Audit: Acquisition & 221,925 129,280 0\n Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s Track Replacement Procurement\n and Related Improvements\n Contracts Audit Identified\n a Total of $351,205\n in Questioned and\n Unsupported Costs\n 01/12/2011 219-2010 Price-Proposal Audit: Amtrak Acquisition & 0 0 16,610,638\n Should Negotiate a Price Procurement\n Adjustment to a Major\n Acquisition Contract\n 01/14/2011 105-2010 Strategic Asset Management Information 0 0 0\n Program Controls Design Technology\n Is Generally Sound, But\n Improvements Can Be Made\n 03/15/2011 E-11-01 Operation RedBlock: Actions Human Capital 0 0 0\n Needed to Improve Program Management\n Effectiveness\n 03/31/2011 E-11-02a Evaluation of Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s FY Train 0 0 0\n 2010 Fleet Strategy: A Operations\n Commendable High-Level & Business\n Plan That Needs Deeper Management\n Analysis and Planning\n Integration\n Total $239,619 $1,037,862 $16,610,638\n (continued)\n\na \tImplementing the recommendations in Report E-11-02 would allow Amtrak to reduce its fleet requirements by 53 cars and 25 locomotives\n over the 30-year planning period in Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s Fleet Strategy, resulting in a potential reduction of over $520 million in procurement and overhaul\n costs over the lives of these additional pieces of equipment.\n\n\n Amtrak Office of Inspector General I Semiannual Report to Congress I October 1, 2010\xe2\x80\x93 March 31, 2011 45\n\x0cAppendix\n\n\n\n\n APPENDIX 3 (continued)\n\n\n OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL\n DETAILED LISTING OF ALL ISSUED REPORTS\n\n Reporting Period: 10/1/10\xe2\x80\x933/31/11\n\n\n Audits/Evaluations\n In process at 10/1/2010: 65\n Postponed or canceled: b\n 40\n Started: 8\n Issued: 7\n In process at 03/31/2011: 26\n\n\n b Audits canceled (40) in response to findings and recommendations in the most recent peer\n review, to ensure that all audits were being conducted in accordance with generally accepted\n government auditing standards.\n\n\n\n\n46 Amtrak Office of Inspector General I Semiannual Report to Congress I October 1, 2010\xe2\x80\x93 March 31, 2011\n\x0c Appendix\n\n\n\n\nAppendix 4\n\nOffice of Inspector General\nEVALUATION REPORTS ISSUED WITH FINAL MANAGEMENT ACTION PENDING CONTAINING ESTIMATED\nYEARLY COST SAVINGS a (FUNDS TO BE PUT TO BETTER USE)\n\n Reporting Period: 10/1/10\xe2\x80\x933/31/11\n\n Recommendations made or carried forward in this reporting period\n\n Source of savingsb Report Number/Date Estimated Annual Estimated Annual\n Savings Savings Already\n Achieved\n Reliability-Centered Maintenance cE-05-04/ $100 million+ $30 million\t\n September 6, 2005\n Increased productivity and utilization of E-06-02/ 28 million+ 4 million\t\n rolling stock fleet April 6, 2006\n Consolidation of mechanical maintenance E-06-03/April 24, 2006 25 million+ 4 million+\n operations into \xe2\x80\x9ccenters of excellence\xe2\x80\x9d at\n fewer locations\n Improved efficiency of human resource E-09-03/May 15, 2009 23 million+\n processes through leveraging of new\n technology\n Achievement of \xe2\x80\x9cState of Good Repair\xe2\x80\x9d E-09-05/ 50 million+\n of Amtrak infrastructure and adoption of September 29, 2009\n European railroads\xe2\x80\x99 infrastructure best\n practices\n Improved efficiency of training E-09-06/October 26, 2009 8 million\t\n Total $234 million+ $38 million+\n\na \tEstimated savings based on benchmarking to other organizations\nb \tAbbreviated description; see report for full explanation\nc \tFollow-up evaluation underway\n\n\n\n\n Amtrak Office of Inspector General I Semiannual Report to Congress I October 1, 2010\xe2\x80\x93 March 31, 2011 47\n\x0cAppendix\n\n\n\n\n Appendix 5\n\n Office of Inspector General\n Review of Legislation and Regulations\n\n Reporting Period: 10/1/10\xe2\x80\x933/31/11\n\n Section 4(a) of the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, provides that the Inspector General shall review\n existing and proposed legislation and regulations relating to programs and operations of such establishment and to\n make recommendations in the semiannual reports\xe2\x80\xa6concerning the impact of such legislation or regulations on the\n economy and efficiency in the administration of such programs and operations administered or financed by such\n establishment or the prevention and detection of fraud and abuse in such programs and operations.\n\n Furthermore, Section 4(a) states that it is \xe2\x80\x9cthe duty and responsibility of the Inspector General \xe2\x80\x9cto recommend\n policies for, and to conduct, supervise, or coordinate relationships between such establishment and other Federal\n agencies, State and local governmental agencies, and nongovernmental entities with respect to (A) all matters\n relating to the promotion of economy and efficiency in the administration of, or the prevention and detection\n of fraud and abuse in, programs and operations administered or financed by such establishment, or (B) the\n identification and prosecution of participants in such fraud or abuse.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\n During this reporting period, we reviewed no legislation or regulations.\n\n\n\n\n48 Amtrak Office of Inspector General I Semiannual Report to Congress I October 1, 2010\xe2\x80\x93 March 31, 2011\n\x0c Glossary\n\n\n\n\nGlossary of Audit Terms and Abbreviations\nThe terms the OIG uses in reporting audit statistics are defined below:\nQuestioned Cost \xe2\x80\x93 Cost or expenditure of funds for an intended purpose that is unnecessary, unreasonable, or an\nalleged violation of Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s corporate policy or procedure.\nUnsupported Cost \xe2\x80\x93 Cost that is not supported by adequate documentation at the time of the audit.\nFunds to Be Put to Better Use \xe2\x80\x93 Funds identified in an audit that could be used more effectively by taking greater\nefficiency measures.\nManagement Decision \xe2\x80\x93 Management\xe2\x80\x99s evaluation of the OIG audit finding and its final decision concerning\nagreement or non-agreement with the OIG recommendation.\n\nAbbreviations/acronyms used in the text are defined below:\n ARRA American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009\n BNSF Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Co.\n CEO chief executive officer\n CFO chief financial officer\n CIGIE Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency\n D.C. District of Columbia\n EAP Employee Assistance Program\n ESC Executive Steering Committee\n FBPTBU funds to be put to better use\n FRA Federal Railroad Administration\n FY fiscal year\n GAGAS generally accepted government auditing standard\n GAO Government Accountability Office\n GSA General Services Administration\n IG Inspector General\n LSA lead service attendant\n NAPA National Academy of Public Administration\n NEC Northeast Corridor\n OI Office of Investigations\n OIG Office of Inspector General\n OMB Office of Management and Budget\n OTP on-time performance\n P.L. Public Law\n PRIIA Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act\n R&R repair and return\n RCM reliability-centered maintenance\n RPU Revenue Protection Unit\n SAM strategic asset management\n SIGIR Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction\n U.S.C. United States Code\n USPS United States Postal Service\n WA Washington\n\n Amtrak Office of Inspector General I Semiannual Report to Congress I October 1, 2010\xe2\x80\x93 March 31, 2011 49\n\x0c Reporting Requirements\n\n\n\n\n Reporting Requirements Index\n\n INDEX OF REPORTING REQUIREMENTS PURSUANT TO THE INSPECTOR GENERAL ACT\n AMENDMENTS OF 1988 (P.L. 100-504)\n\n\n Topic/Section Reporting Requirement Page\n 4(a)(2) Review of Legislation and Regulations 48\n\n 5(a)(1) Significant Problems, Abuses, and Deficiencies 25-28, 31-35, 37-40\n\n Recommendations for Corrective Action to Significant\n 5(a)(2) 24-25, 27-28, 32-35\n Problems\n Previous Reports\xe2\x80\x99 Recommendations for Which Corrective\n 5(a)(3) n/a\n Action Has Not Been Completed\n\n 5(a)(4) Matters Referred to Prosecutive Authorities n/a\n\n 5(a)(5) Information Assistance Refused or Not Provided n/a\n\n 5(a)(6) Audit Reports Issued in This Reporting Period 45\n\n 5(a)(7) Summary of Significant Reports 45\n\n 5(a)(8) Audit Reports with Questioned Costs 25-26, 43, 45-46\n\n Audit Reports with Recommendations That Funds Be Put\n 5(a)(9) 44, 47\n To Better Use\n Previous Audit Reports Issued with No Management\n 5(a)(10) n/a\n Decision Made by End of This Reporting Period\n\n 5(a)(11) Significant Revised Management Decisions n/a\n\n Significant Management Decisions with Which the OIG is\n 5(a)(12) n/a\n in Disagreement\n\n\n\n\n50 Amtrak Office of Inspector General I Semiannual Report to Congress I October 1, 2010\xe2\x80\x93 March 31, 2011\n\x0c Top, Union Station, Washington, D.C.\n\n Bottom, East meets West as staff from Washington confer\n with L.A. staff at Union Station, Los Angeles\n\n\n\n\nAmtrak Office of Inspector General I Semiannual Report to Congress I October 1, 2010\xe2\x80\x93 March 31, 2011 51\n\x0c Stop Waste, Fraud, Abuse,\n and Mismanagement!\n Who pays? You pay.\n Act like it\xe2\x80\x99s your money\xe2\x80\xa6because it is.\n Tell Us About It\n Are you aware of waste, fraud, abuse, or mismanagement at Amtrak? Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s\n Office of Inspector General (OIG) has a toll-free Hotline number that you can call,\n even if you\xe2\x80\x99re not certain that what you suspect falls into one of these categories.\n If you\xe2\x80\x99d prefer to write to us, that\xe2\x80\x99s fine, too.\n\n The OIG will keep your identity confidential. You may remain anonymous if you\n so choose. You are protected by law from reprisal by your employer.\n\n\n\n Call the Amtrak OIG Hotline\n Nationwide: (800) 468-5469\n\n\n Write to us\n Office of Inspector General\n P.O. Box 76654\n Washington, D.C. 20013-6654\n\n Visit us online\n www.amtrakoig.gov\n\n\n\n\n52 Amtrak Office of Inspector General I Semiannual Report to Congress I October 1, 2010\xe2\x80\x93 March 31, 2011\n\x0cwww.amtrakoig.gov\n\x0c National Railroad Passenger Corporation\n Office of Inspector General\n 10 G Street, NE, Suite 3W-300, Washington, DC 20002-4285\n www.amtrakoig.gov\n\n54 Amtrak Office of Inspector General\n AmtrakI isSemiannual\n a registeredReport\n servicetomark\n Congress I October\n of the National 1, 2010\xe2\x80\x93\n Railroad March 31,\n Passenger 2011\n Corporation\n\x0c'