text:
LKGLOBAL | Imprint - Legal Notes
 Impressum Rechtliche Hinweise Datenschutzerklärung Imprint Legal Notes Privacy Policy
 Rechtliche Informationen gemäß Telemediengesetz (TMG) und Dienstleistungs-Informationspflichten-Verordnung (DL-InfoV)
 Im folgenden finden sich die vorgeschriebenen Angaben nach §5 Telemediengesetz (TMG) und §2 der Dienstleistungs-Informationspflichten-Verordnung (DL-InfoV). Für Rückfragen kontaktieren Sie bitte unsere DE-Kanzlei (Kopf & Partner PartG mbB Patentanwälte) oder schreiben eine e-Mail: info@lkglobal.com
 Diensteanbieter: Kopf & Partner PartG mbB Patentanwälte (Rechtsform: Partnerschaftsgesellschaft mit beschränkter Berufshaftung; Partnerschaftsregister des Amtsgerichts München: PR 1528, Partner: Korbinian Kopf; Brienner Strasse 11, 80333 München, Deutschland; USt.-ID: DE304850827)
 LKGLOBAL ist der im geschäftlichen Verkehr als Bezeichnung verwendete Markenname der internationalen US-Europäischen Kanzlei auf dem Gebiet des gewerblichen Rechtsschutzes, die derzeit operiert als:
 in den USA: als Limited Liability Partnership (LLP):
 7010 East Cochise Road, Scottsdale, Arizona 85253, USA;
 registriert in Arizona, Nr. 4004092, Partner: Timothy Lorenz, Korbinian Kopf;
 Büros in: Phoenix, Detroit und San Diego; und
 in Deutschland: als Partnerschaftsgesellschaft mit beschränkter Berufshaftung (PartG mbB):
 Kopf & Partner PartG mbB Patentanwälte
 Brienner Strasse 11, 80333 München, Deutschland
 Partnerschaftsregister des Amtsgerichts München: PR 1528, Partner: Korbinian Kopf (Antrag auf Umfirmierung in "Lorenz & Kopf PartG mbB Patentanwälte", mit den Partnern: Korbinian Kopf und Timothy Lorenz ist in Arbeit / anhängig); USt.-ID: DE304850827; Büros in: München und Hamburg.
 Sie erreichen die deutschen (DE-) Büros von LKGLOBAL (Kopf & Partner PartG mbB Patentanwälte) unter folgenden Adressen:
 Büro München: Brienner Strasse 11, 80333 München, Deutschland, t +49 (0)89 262 09-7170, f +49 (0)89 550 568 610; und
 Büro Hamburg: Ballindamm 39, 20095 Hamburg, Deutschland, t +49 (0)40 822 16-9070, f +49 (0)89 550 568 610.
 Kopf & Partner PartG mbB Patentanwälte ist auch per e-Mail erreichbar: info@lkglobal.com
 Sie erreichen die US-Büros von LKGLOBAL (Lorenz & Kopf, LLP) unter folgenden Adressen:
 Büro Detroit: 1050 Wilshire Drive, Suite 230, Troy, Michigan 48084, USA, t +1 480 385 5060, f +1 480 385 5061;
 Büro Phoenix: 7010 East Cochise Road, Scottsdale, Arizona 85253, USA, t +1 480 385 5060, f +1 480 385 5061; und
 Büro San Diego: 12520 High Bluff Drive, Suite 260, California 92130, USA, t +1 (858) 461 7000, f +1 (858) 461 7001.
 Lorenz & Kopf, LLP ist auch per e-Mail erreichbar: info@lkglobal.com
 Informationen zu den Berufsträgern
 Die Anwälte (Attorneys at Law, Patent Attorneys, Patent Agents) der Bürostandorte in den USA und im Vereinigten Königreich sind für Lorenz & Kopf, LLP tätig.
 Die Patentanwälte der Bürostandorte in Deutschland sind für Kopf & Partner PartG mbB Patentanwälte tätig.
 Bei den Anwälten (Patentanwälte, Attorneys at Law, Patent Attorneys, Patent Agents) sind deren Qualifikationen und Zulassungen durch Abkürzungen unterhalb der Namen angegeben.
 “US” bezieht sich auf US Attorney at Law,
 “PA” bezieht sich auf eine Zulassung beim USPTO;
 “DE” bezieht sich auf Patentanwalt, Deutschland;
 “EP” bezieht sich auf zugelassene Vertreter vor dem Europäischen Patentamt;
 “OE” bezieht sich auf die Tätigkeit als Vertreter vor dem Österreichischen Patentamt im Sinne des §16a des österreichischen Patentanwaltsgesetzes; und
 “UK” bezieht sich auf UK Patent Attorney.
 Für die US Attorneys at Law weist ein Zusatz auf den(die) Bundesstaat(en) der Zulassung hin.
 Im Rahmen dieses Webauftritts bezieht sich LKGLOBAL auf Lorenz & Kopf, LLP und auf Kopf & Partner PartG mbB Patentanwälte, es sei denn, es wird auf US-spezifische Tätigkeiten verwiesen oder auf europäische/deutsche Tätigkeiten. LKGLOBAL und Lorenz & Kopf sind eingetragene Marken von Timothy J. Lorenz und Korbinian P. Kopf.
 Kopf & Partner PartG mbB Patentanwälte: Aufsichtsbehörden
 Die Patentanwälte von Kopf & Partner PartG mbB Patentanwälte sind in Deutschland zugelassen und Mitglieder der Patentanwaltskammer (Tal 29, 80331 München, Deutschland, tel. +49 89 242278-0, www.patentanwaltskammer.de).
 Die europäischen Patentanwälte ("European Patent Attorneys", d.h. die zugelassenen Vertreter vor dem EPA) von Kopf & Partner PartG mbB Patentanwälte und von Lorenz & Kopf, LLP sind beim Europäischen Patentamt eingetragen und Mitglieder des Instituts der beim EPA zugelassenen Vertreter (epi: Tal 29, 80331 München, Deutschland, tel. +49 89 242052-0, www.patentepi.com).
 Die Tätigkeit als Vertreter vor dem Österreichischen Patentamt bezieht sich auf die Tätigkeit im Sinne des §16a des österreichischen Patentanwaltsgesetzes (PatAnwG). Die gekennzeichneten Person/en ist/sind in das Verzeichnis gemäß §16a (4) PatAnwG eingetragen, das von der Österreichischen Patentanwaltskammer geführt wird. Die Österreichische Patentanwaltskammer ist die zuständige Aufsichtsbehörde (Österreichische Patentanwaltskammer, Linke Wienzeile 4/1/9, A-1060 Wien, Österreich, tel. +43 (1) 523 43 82, www.oepak.at).
 Die deutschen Patentanwälte unterliegen der Patentanwaltsordnung, der Berufsordnung der Patentanwälte und den Standesregeln der FICPI (Internationale Föderation von Patentfachleuten, www.ficpi.org). Europäische Patentanwälte (European Patent Attorneys) unterliegen dem Code of Professional Conduct des epi. Fundstellen dieser Vorschriften finden sich auf der Webseite der Patentanwaltskammer bzw. des epi und der FICPI.
 Kopf & Partner PartG mbB Patentanwälte: Berufshaftpflichtversicherung
 Berufshaftpflichtversicherung von Kopf & Partner PartG mbB Patentanwälte: ERGO Versicherungs AG Düsseldorf, ohne Beschränkung des räumlichen Geltungsbereichs, gemäß den Anforderungen der §§45, 45a Patentanwaltsordnung (PAO).
 Inhaltlich verantwortlich für journalistisch-redaktionell gestaltete Angebote im Sinne von §55 Rundfunkstaatsvertrag (RStV):
 Korbinian Kopf, Kopf & Partner PartG mbB Patentanwälte, Brienner Strasse 11, 80333 München, Deutschland.
 Als Diensteanbieter im Sinne des Telemedienrechts sind wir (Kopf & Partner PartG mbB Patentanwälte) für eigene Informationen, die wir in unserem Internet-Angebot zur Nutzung bereithalten, nach den allgemeinen Gesetzen verantwortlich.
 Diese Website wurde mit größter Sorgfalt erstellt. Dennoch besteht keine Gewähr für Aktualität, Genauigkeit und Fehlerfreiheit der bereitgestellten Informationen. Jegliche Haftung für Schäden, die aus der Benutzung dieses Internetauftritts entstehen, sei es direkt oder indirekt, wird ausgeschlossen, soweit nicht Vorsatz oder grobe Fahrlässigkeit vorliegen. Sämtliche Angaben sind als unverbindliche allgemeine Information zur Verfügung gestellt und ersetzen keine eingehende Beratung. Auch für die Internetseiten von Dritten, auf die verwiesen wird, kann weder für deren Inhalte noch für deren Aktualität, Richtigkeit und Vollständigkeit die Verantwortung übernommen werden.
 Alle Rechte bleiben vorbehalten. © Copyright 2017 Kopf & Partner PartG mbB Patentanwälte, zuletzt geändert: 24. Mai 2018
 Wir freuen uns sehr über Ihr Interesse an unserer Kanzlei. Datenschutz hat einen besonders hohen Stellenwert bei uns. Unsere Internetseiten können grundsätzlich ohne jede Angabe personenbezogener Daten genutzt werden.
 Sofern eine betroffene Person besondere Dienstleistungen unserer Kanzlei über unsere Internetseite in Anspruch nehmen möchte, könnte jedoch eine Verarbeitung personenbezogener Daten erforderlich werden. Ist die Verarbeitung personenbezogener Daten erforderlich und besteht für eine solche Verarbeitung keine gesetzliche Grundlage, holen wir generell eine Einwilligung der betroffenen Person ein.
 Die Verarbeitung personenbezogener Daten, beispielsweise Namen, Anschrift, e-Mail-Adresse oder Telefonnummer einer betroffenen Person, erfolgt stets im Einklang mit der Datenschutz-Grundverordnung und in Übereinstimmung mit den für Kopf & Partner PartG mbB Patentanwälte geltenden deutschen Datenschutzbestimmungen. Mittels dieser Datenschutzerklärung möchte unsere Kanzlei die Öffentlichkeit über Art, Umfang und Zweck der von uns erhobenen, genutzten und verarbeiteten personenbezogenen Daten informieren. Ferner werden betroffene Personen mittels dieser Datenschutzerklärung über die ihnen zustehenden Rechte aufgeklärt. Die folgende Datenschutzerklärung beruht auf Begriffen, die durch den Europäischen Richtlinien- und Verordnungsgeber beim Erlass der Datenschutz-Grundverordnung verwendet wurden.
 Diese Datenschutz-Information gilt für die Datenverarbeitung durch: Kopf & Partner PartG mbB Patentanwälte, Brienner Straße 11, 80333 München, Deutschland, e-Mail: info@lkglobal.com, Telefon: +49 (0)89 262 09-7170, Telefax +49 (0)89 550 568 610.
 Der Datenschutzbeauftragte von Kopf & Partner PartG mbB Patentanwälte ist unter der Anschrift: K&K Kommunikationssysteme GmbH, z.Hd. Herrn Oliver Kaufmann, Haunstetter Straße 19, 86161 Augsburg, zu erreichen, oder unter per e-Mail unter datenschutz@exklusiv.de.
 Die Internetseite der Kanzlei enthält aufgrund gesetzlicher Vorschriften Angaben, die eine schnelle elektronische Kontaktaufnahme und eine unmittelbare Kommunikation mit uns ermöglichen, zum Beispiel eine allgemeine e-Mail-Adresse. Sofern eine betroffene Person per e-Mail den Kontakt mit dem für die Verarbeitung Verantwortlichen aufnimmt, werden die von der betroffenen Person übermittelten personenbezogenen Daten automatisch gespeichert. Solche auf freiwilliger Basis von einer betroffenen Person an den für die Verarbeitung Verantwortlichen übermittelten personenbezogenen Daten werden für Zwecke der Bearbeitung oder der Kontaktaufnahme zur betroffenen Person gespeichert. Es erfolgt keine Weitergabe dieser personenbezogenen Daten an Dritte.
 a) Besuch der Internetseiten
 Beim Aufrufen unserer Internetseiten www.lkglobal.com werden durch den auf Ihrem Endgerät zum Einsatz kommenden Browser automatisch Informationen an den Server unserer Internetseiten gesendet.
 Diese Informationen können temporär in einem sog. Logfile gespeichert werden. Folgende Informationen können dabei ohne Ihr Zutun erfasst und bis zur automatisierten Löschung gespeichert werden:
 • Gewährleistung einer komfortablen Nutzung unserer Internetseiten,
 Derzeit werden beim Besuch unserer Internetseiten aber keine Cookies und keine Analysedienste eingesetzt. Lediglich die Anzahl der Aufrufe der Seiten wird gezählt.
 Wir setzen derzeit auf unserer Internetseite keine Cookies ein.
 5. Analyse Werkzeuge
 Wir setzen derzeit auf unserer Internetseite keine Tracking-Tools ein, wie beispielsweise den Webanalysedienst Google Analytics (der Firma Google Inc.).
 Wir setzen derzeit auf unserer Internetseite keine sogenannten Social Plug-Ins der sozialen Netzwerke wie Facebook, Twitter oder Instagram ein.
 7. Routine bei Löschung und Sperrung von personenbezogenen Daten
 Wir verarbeiten und speichern personenbezogene Daten der betroffenen Person nur für den Zeitraum, der zur Erreichung des Speicherungszwecks erforderlich ist oder sofern dies durch den Europäischen Richtlinien- und Verordnungsgeber oder einen anderen Gesetzgeber in Gesetzen oder Vorschriften, welchen wir unterliegen, vorgesehen wurde. Wenn der Speicherungszweck entfällt oder eine vom Europäischen Richtlinien- und Verordnungsgeber oder einem anderen zuständigen Gesetzgeber vorgeschriebene Speicherfrist abläuft, werden die personenbezogenen Daten routinemäßig und entsprechend den gesetzlichen Vorschriften gesperrt oder gelöscht.
 Betroffenen Person steht außerdem ein Auskunftsrecht zu, ob personenbezogene Daten an ein Drittland oder an eine internationale Organisation übermittelt wurden. Wenn dies der Fall ist, so steht der betroffenen Person im Übrigen das Recht zu, Auskunft über die geeigneten Garantien im Zusammenhang mit der Übermittlung zu erhalten.
 Möchten Sie von Ihrem Widerrufs- oder Widerspruchsrecht Gebrauch machen, genügt eine E-Mail an info@lkglobal.com.
 Diese Datenschutzerklärung ist aktuell gültig und hat den Stand vom Mai 2018. Durch die Weiterentwicklung unserer Internetseiten und Angebote oder aufgrund geänderter gesetzlicher bzw. behördlicher Vorgaben kann es notwendig werden, diese Datenschutzerklärung zu ändern. Die jeweils aktuelle Datenschutzerklärung kann jederzeit dieser Internetseite entnommen werden.
 Legal Notes according to German Telemediengesetz (TMG) and Dienstleistungs-Informationspflichten-Verordnung (DL-InfoV)
 In the following, the required indications according to §5 German Telemedia Act (Telemediengesetz, TMG) and §2 Duties Regarding Services (Dienstleistungs-Informationspflichten-Verordnung, DL-InfoV) are provided. For questions, please contact our DE-firm (Kopf & Partner PartG mbB Patentanwaelte) or send us an e-mail: info@lkglobal.com
 Service provider: Kopf & Partner PartG mbB Patentanwaelte (legal form: Partnerschaftsgesellschaft mit beschränkter Berufshaftung (partnership with limited professional liability)) partnership register, Munich local court: PR 1528, partner: Korbinian Kopf; Brienner Strasse 11, 80333 Muenchen, Germany; USt.(VAT)-ID: DE304850827)
 LKGLOBAL is the brandname used as business name for the international US-European intellectual property law firm currently operating as:
 in the USA: as Limited Liability Partnership (LLP):
 registered in Arizona, no. 4004092, partners: Timothy Lorenz, Korbinian Kopf;
 offices in: Detroit, Phoenix and San Diego; and
 in Germany: as Partnerschaftsgesellschaft mit beschraenkter Berufshaftung (PartG mbB – partnership with limited professional liability):
 Kopf & Partner PartG mbB Patentanwaelte
 partnership register, Munich local court: PR 1528, partner: Korbinian Kopf (request for name change to "Lorenz & Kopf PartG mbB Patentanwälte", with the partners: Korbinian Kopf and Timothy Lorenz, is in preparation / pending); USt.(VAT)-ID: DE304850827; offices in: Munich and Hamburg.
 You can reach the German (DE-) offices of LKGLOBAL (Kopf & Partner PartG mbB Patentanwaelte) at the following addresses:
 Munich office: Brienner Strasse 11, 80333 Muenchen, Deutschland, t +49 (0)89 262 09-7170, f +49 (0)89 550 568 610; and
 Hamburg office: Ballindamm 39, 20095 Hamburg, Deutschland, t +49 (0)40 822 16-9070, f +49 (0)89 550 568 610.
 Kopf & Partner PartG mbB Patentanwaelte can also be reached by e-mail: info@lkglobal.com
 You can reach the US-offices of LKGLOBAL (Lorenz & Kopf, LLP) at the following addresses:
 Detroit office: 1050 Wilshire Drive, Suite 230, Troy, Michigan 48084, USA, t +1 480 385 5060, f +1 480 385 5061;
 Phoenix office: 7010 East Cochise Road, Scottsdale, Arizona 85253, USA, t +1 480 385 5060, f +1 480 385 5061; and
 San Diego office: 12520 High Bluff Drive, Suite 260, California 92130, USA, t +1 (858) 461 7000, f +1 (858) 461 7001.
 Lorenz & Kopf, LLP can also be reached by e-mail: info@lkglobal.com
 Information on our professionals
 The attorneys (Attorneys at Law, Patent Attorneys, Patent Agents) located and based in the office locations in the USA and in the United Kingdom are acting for Lorenz & Kopf, LLP.
 The patent attorneys (Patentanwaelte) located and based in the office locations in Germany are acting for Kopf & Partner PartG mbB Patentanwaelte.
 The attorneys (Patentanwaelte, Attorneys at Law, Patent Attorneys, Patent Agents) are indicated with their qualification, registration and license to practice below their names with abbreviations.
 “US” refers to US Attorney at Law,
 “PA” refers to being registered before the USPTO;
 “DE” refers to Patentanwalt (patent attorney in Germany);
 “EP” refers to European Patent Attorney;
 “OE” refers to activities as representative before the Austrian Patent Office (Oesterreichisches Patentamt) according to §16a of the Austrian patent attorney law (Oesterreichisches Patentanwaltsgesetz); and
 “UK” refers to UK Patent Attorney.
 For the US Attorneys at Law, an abbreviation (in parenthesis) indicates the state(s) they are licensed to practice.
 As used on this website, LKGLOBAL refers to both entities, Lorenz & Kopf, LLP and Kopf & Partner PartG mbB Patentanwaelte, unless referring to US specific activities or European/German specific activities. LKGLOBAL and Lorenz & Kopf are registered trademarks of Timothy J. Lorenz and Korbinian P. Kopf.
 Kopf & Partner PartG mbB Patentanwaelte: Regulating Authorities
 The German patent attorneys (Patentanwaelte) of Kopf & Partner PartG mbB Patentanwaelte are admitted under German law and are members of the German Chamber of patent attorneys (Patentanwaltskammer: Tal 29, 80331 Munich, Germany, tel. +49 89 242278-0, www.patentanwaltskammer.de).
 The European Patent Attorneys of Kopf & Partner PartG mbB Patentanwaelte and of Lorenz & Kopf, LLP are registered at the European Patent Office and are members of the European Patent Institute (epi: Tal 29, 80331 Munich, Germany, tel. +49 89 242052-0, www.patentepi.com).
 The activity as representative before the Austrian Patent Office refers to activities according to §16a of the Austrian Patent Attorney Law (Oesterreichisches Patentanwaltsgesetz, PatAnwG). The indicated attorney/s is/are registered in the list according §16a (4) PatAnwG of the Austrian Bar (Oesterreichische Patentanwaltskammer). The Austrian Bar (Oesterreichische Patentanwaltskammer) is the responsible authority (Oesterreichische Patentanwaltskammer, Linke Wienzeile 4/1/9, A-1060 Wien, Österreich, tel. +43 (1) 523 43 82, www.oepak.at).
 The German patent attorneys are subject to the professional rules in the German patent attorneys act (Patentanwaltsordnung), and the German patent attorneys’ code of conduct (Berufsordnung der Patentanwaelte) and the rules of professional conduct of FICPI (International Federation of Intellectual Property Attorneys, www.ficpi.org). European Patent Attorneys are subject to the Code of Conduct of epi. Links for these provisions can be found at the websites of the Patentanwaltskammer, epi and FICPI.
 Kopf & Partner PartG mbB Patentanwaelte: Professional liability insurance
 Professional liability insurance of Kopf & Partner PartG mbB Patentanwaelte: ERGO Versicherungs AG Duesseldorf, with no territorial restriction, according to the requirements of der §§45, 45a Patentanwaltsordnung (PAO).
 Responsible for editorial content / journalistically edited services according to §55 RStV (Rundfunkstaatsvertrag, Interstate Broadcasting Treaty):
 Korbinian Kopf, c/o Kopf & Partner PartG mbB Patentanwaelte, Brienner Strasse 11, 80333 Muenchen, Germany.
 As service provider in the sense of the German Telemedia Act, we (Kopf & Partner PartG mbB Patentanwaelte) are responsible for information, which we provide on our website for use according to general regulations.
 This website has been provided with largest carefulness. However, no warranty can be given for the website being up-to-date, precision and accuracy of the provided information. Any liability for damages that arise from the use of the web presence, may it be directly or indirectly, is excluded except in cases of intent or gross negligence. All information is provided as non-binding general information and is not replacing consultation in detail. Responsibility can also not be given for internet presences of third parties, to which a link is give, neither for their content nor for their being up-to-date, correctness and completeness.
 According to statutory requirements, our responsibility is limited for external information, in particular according to the general principles for liability for interference and §§7 following of the German Telemedia Act (TMG). In case any external information are a cause for objection, we ask for your notification. You can use the e-mail address listed in our imprint.
 Links to information provided by external service providers must be differentiated from our own information provided on our website. The responsibility such external information is only with the service provider that provides the information as own information. Information on such websites can be changed without our knowledge at any time. Should we provide a link to websites whose content is a cause for objection, we ask for your notification. You can use the e-mail address listed in our imprint.
 Our website is protected as a whole and also in parts. In particular, content and files on our website are protected by the German Copyright Act (Urhebergesetz) and international treaties. Same applies for selection and arrangement of information, texts, news, tables, graphics, maps, image material and video sequences.
 As far as we are proprietor of copy rights and rights of use, we agree that you can print content of our website for personal use. Same applies for downloading and storage of content, as long as this takes place for your personal use.
 Any exploitation, in particular multiplication, editing, distribution and/or making publicly available of content protected by law – as long as not permitted by law – requires prior consent. In particular, we do not agree that a website or file that is part of our internet presence is embedded via a link in a window (frame) or is presented via inline-links in such a way that the impression results that the website or file of our internet presence is part of another internet presence.
 All rights reserved. © Copyright 2017 Kopf & Partner PartG mbB Patentanwaelte, lastly amended: 24. May 2018
 site designed and made by:
 ediundsepp Gestaltungsgesellschaft, Munich


type: other

jurisdiction: US

text: b' Report No. D-2011-082 July 11, 2011\n\n\n\n\nAmerican Recovery and Reinvestment Act Project to\n Construct Military Family Housing at Eielson\n Air Force Base, Alaska\n\x0cAdditional Copies\nTo obtain additional copies of this report, visit the Web site of the Department of Defense\nInspector General at http://www.dodig.mil/audit/reports or contact the Secondary Reports\nDistribution Unit at (703) 604-8937 (DSN 664-8937) or fax (703) 604-8932.\n\nSuggestions for Audits\nTo suggest or request audits, contact the Office of the Deputy Inspector General for\nAuditing by phone (703) 604-9142 (DSN 664-9142), by fax (703) 604-8932, or by mail:\n\n ODIG-AUD (ATTN: Audit Suggestions)\n Department of Defense Inspector General\n 400 Army Navy Drive (Room 801)\n Arlington, VA 22202-4704\n\n\n\n\nAcronyms and Abbreviations\nAFB Air Force Base\nAFCEE Air Force Center for Engineering and the Environment\nDFAS Defense Finance and Accounting Service\nFAR Federal Acquisition Regulation\nFBO Federal Business Opportunities\nFPDS Federal Procurement Data System\nIAPS Integrated Accounts Payable System\nMFH Military Family Housing\nMILCON Military Construction\nOMB Office of Management and Budget\nQMAD Quantitative Methods and Analysis Division\nUSAF/ Air Force Office of the Civil Engineer, Programs Division\nA7CPA\n\x0c INSPECTOR GENERAL \n\n DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE \n\n 400 ARMY NAVY DRIVE \n\n ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA 22202- 4704 \n\n\n\n Julyll, 2011\n\nMEMORANDUM FOR UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE (COMPTROLLER)/\n CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER\n ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE\n (FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT AND COMPTROLLER)\n DIRECTOR, DEFENSE FfNANCE AND ACCOUNTING\n SERVICE\n COMMANDER, AIR FORCE OFFICE OF THE CIVIL\n ENGINEER\n DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE CENTER FOR ENGfNEERING\n AND THE ENVIRONMENT\n\nSUBJECT: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Project to Construct Military Family\n Housing at Eielson Air Force Base (Report No . D-20 11-082)\n\nWe are providing this report for review and eOlllment. The Air Force could have improved\nplanning, funding, and initial project execution of the Military Family Housing project, valued at\n$53 .9 million, at Eielson Air Force Base. The Air Force did not respond to the draft report;\nhowever, we considcred comments from the Director, Defense Finance and Accounting Service,\nwhen preparing the final report.\n\nDoD Directive 7650.3 requires that all recommendations be resolved promptly. We\nrequest comments from the Commander, Air Force Office of the Civil Engineer, on\nRecolllmendations A.I, A.2, and A.3; and II\'om the Director, Air Force Center for Engineering\nand the Environment, on Recommendations B.I and B.2 by August 10,20 II.\n\nIf possible, please send a .pdf file containing your comments to audaem@dodig.mil. Copies of\nthe management comments must contain the actual signature of the authorizing official. We are\nunable to accept the /Signed/ symbol in place of the actual signature. If you arrange to send\nclassified eomlllents electronically, YOUlllust send them over the SECRET Tnternet Protocol\nRouter Network (SIPRNET).\n\nWe appreciate the courtesies extended to the staff. Please direct questions to me at\n(703) 604-9071 (DSN 664-9071).\n\n\n 1R. -0, .1fL~\n Ust;;:;:. Burto"n:7\'\n Deputy Assistant Inspector General\n Acquisition and Contract Management\n\x0c\x0cReport No. D-2011-082 (Project No. D2009-D000AB-0169.008) July 11, 2011\n\n Results in Brief: American Recovery and\n Reinvestment Act Project to Construct\n Military Family Housing at Eielson\n Air Force Base, Alaska\n Recovery Act work and $44,080 in interest on\nWhat We Did 28 invoices for non-Recovery Act work to the\nWe reviewed an Eielson Air Force Base (AFB) same contractor. Before passage of the\nMilitary Family Housing (MFH) project, valued Recovery Act, DFAS incorrectly paid $41,045\nat $53.9 million, to determine whether the in interest on 50 contractor invoices. This\nefforts of the Air Force complied with Recovery occurred because DFAS personnel miscoded\nAct requirements, Office of Management and contract payment terms as \xe2\x80\x9cnet 14 days\xe2\x80\x9d instead\nBudget (OMB) guidance, the Federal of \xe2\x80\x9cnet 30 days.\xe2\x80\x9d As a result of these errors,\nAcquisition Regulation (FAR), and DoD and DFAS may continue to overpay contractors.\nAir Force implementing guidance.\n What We Recommend\nWhat We Found Air Force officials should develop a definition\nAir Force personnel did not comply with of an urgent MFH requirement to ensure a\nRecovery Act requirements; they could have minimum number of days to prepare and submit\nimproved planning, funding, and initial project DD 1391 estimates and require supporting\nexecution. The Air Force did not adequately documentation; identify and manage\nplan the project with respect to the number of requirements to properly scope the number of\nMFH units required or the initial programmed units needed for each housing project; and\nfunding amount, because the Air Force allowed document the need for project continuation if\nonly a 48-hour time frame to prepare the total base unit requirements are significantly\nDD 1391 and lacked personnel to implement reduced during the award process. AFCEE\nmandated Recovery Act contracting officials should strengthen procedures for\nrequirements. As a result, the project risk approving contractor Buy American Act\nincreased due to DD 1391 data accuracy. exception requests. DFAS officials should\n improve procedures for including payment\nThe Air Force Center for Engineering and the terms in payment records for AFCEE contracts\nEnvironment (AFCEE) allowed the contractor and train technicians accordingly.\nto use foreign construction materials without\napproving an exception to the Buy American Management Comments and\nAct. This occurred because AFCEE relied on Our Response\nprior determinations from other projects without The Air Force did not comment on the draft of this\ndoing a formal exception analysis for the current report issued on May 5, 2011. We request that the\nproject. As a result, AFCEE technically Air Force provide comments by August 10, 2011.\nviolated the Buy American Act for 13 Comments from the Director, Standards and\nconstruction materials. Compliance, DFAS Headquarters, were\n responsive. Please see the recommendations table\nIn addition, the Defense Finance and on page ii.\nAccounting Service (DFAS) incorrectly paid\n$4,910 in interest on 4 contractor invoices for\n i\n\x0cReport No. D-2011-082 (Project No. D2009-D000AB-0169.008) July 11, 2011\n\nRecommendations Table\n\n Management Recommendations No Additional Comments\n Requiring Comment Required\nDirector, Defense Finance and C.1, C.2, C.3\nAccounting Service\nCommander, Air Force Office of A.1, A.2, A.3\nthe Civil Engineer\nDirector, Air Force Center for B.1, B.2\nEngineering and the\nEnvironment\n\nPlease provide comments by August 10, 2011.\n\n\n\n\n ii\n\x0cTable of Contents\n\nIntroduction 1\n\n\n Audit Objectives 1\n\n Recovery Act Background 1\n\n Eielson Air Force Base 3\n\n Air Force Center for Engineering and the Environment 4\n\n Defense Finance and Accounting Service 4\n\n Internal Controls at Eielson AFB, AFCEE, and DFAS 4\n\n\nFinding A. Air Force Personnel Did Not Comply With Recovery Act\n\nRequirements 5\n\n\n Planning 5\n\n Funding 8\n\n Initial Execution 9\n\n Conclusion 10 \n\n Recommendations 10 \n\n Management Comments Required 11 \n\n\nFinding B. AFCEE Allowed Contractor to Use Foreign Construction\n\nMaterials Without an Exception to the Buy American Act 12 \n\n\n Buy American Act Criteria 12 \n\n Eielson AFB MFH Foreign Items 13 \n\n Lack of AFCEE Contracting Officer Determination 13 \n\n Conclusion 14 \n\n Recommendations 14 \n\n Management Comments Required 15 \n\n\nFinding C. DFAS Incorrectly Paid Interest on Contractor Invoices 16 \n\n\n Guidance on Improper Payments 16 \n\n DFAS Prompt Payment Act Process 17 \n\n DFAS Prompt Payment Act Interest 17 \n\n DFAS Actions to Collect Incorrectly Paid Interest 19 \n\n Conclusion 19 \n\n Recommendations, Management Comments, and Our Response 19 \n\n\x0cTable of Contents (cont\xe2\x80\x99d)\nAppendices\n\n A. \tScope and Methodology 21 \n\n Scope 21 \n\n Methodology 21 \n\n Use of Computer-Processed Data 22 \n\n Use of Technical Assistance 22 \n\n Prior Audit Coverage 22 \n\n B. Recovery Act Criteria and Guidance\t 23 \n\n\nManagement Comments\n\n Defense Finance and Accounting Service\t 25 \n\n\x0cIntroduction\nAudit Objectives\nThe primary objective of the audit was to determine whether DoD and its Components\nwere planning and implementing the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009\n(Recovery Act) by meeting the requirements in the Recovery Act, Office of Management\nand Budget (OMB) Memorandum M-09-10, \xe2\x80\x9cInitial Implementing Guidance for the\nAmerican Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009,\xe2\x80\x9d February 18, 2009, and subsequent\nrelated guidance. For this audit, we reviewed the planning, funding, and initial project\nexecution (contracting) of a Military Family Housing (MFH) project at Eielson Air Force\nBase (AFB), Alaska, to determine whether the efforts of the Air Force and the Air Force\nCenter for Engineering and the Environment (AFCEE) complied with Recovery Act\nrequirements, OMB guidance, the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), and DoD\nimplementing guidance. See Appendix A for a discussion of our scope and methodology.\n\nRecovery Act Background\nThe President signed the Recovery Act into law on February 17, 2009. It is an\nunprecedented effort to jump-start the economy and create or save jobs.\n\n The purposes of this Act include the following:\n (1) To preserve and create jobs and promote economic recovery.\n (2) To assist those most impacted by the recession.\n (3) To provide investments needed to increase economic efficiency by\n spurring technological advances in science and health.\n (4) To invest\t in transportation, environmental protection, and other\n infrastructure that will provide long-term economic benefits.\n (5) To stabilize State and local government budgets, in order to minimize\n and avoid reductions in essential services and counterproductive state\n and local tax increases.\n . . . . . . .\n . . . The heads of Federal departments and agencies shall manage and expend the\n funds made available in this Act so as to achieve the purposes specified . . .\n including commencing expenditures and activities as quickly as possible\n consistent with prudent management.\n\nRecovery Act Requirements\nThe Recovery Act and implementing OMB guidance require projects to be monitored and\nreviewed. We grouped these requirements into the following four phases: (1) planning,\n(2) funding, (3) execution, and (4) tracking and reporting. The Recovery Act requires\nthat projects be properly planned to ensure the appropriate use of funds. Review of the\nfunding phase is to ensure the funds were distributed in a prompt, fair, and reasonable\nmanner. Review of the project execution phase is to ensure that contracts awarded with\nRecovery Act funds were transparent, competed, and contain specific FAR clauses; that\nRecovery Act funds were used for authorized purposes; and that instances of fraud,\nwaste, error, and abuse were mitigated. Review of the execution phase also ensures that\nprogram goals were achieved, including specific program outcomes and improved results\n\n\n 1\n\n\x0con broader economic indicators; that projects funded avoided unnecessary delays and\ncost overruns; and that contractors or recipients of funds reported results. Review of the\ntracking and reporting phase ensures that the recipients\xe2\x80\x99 use of funds was transparent to\nthe public and that benefits of the funds were clearly, accurately, and timely reported.\n\nRecovery Act Contracting Requirements\nThe Recovery Act establishes transparency and accountability requirements. Federal\nAcquisition Circular 2005-32, March 31, 2009, provides policies and procedures for the\nGovernment-wide implementation of the Recovery Act and guidance on special contract\nprovisions. Federal Acquisition Circular 2005-32 amended the FAR and provided\ninterim rules that made FAR solicitation provisions and contract clauses immediately\navailable for inclusion in contracts for Recovery Act work.\n\nThe specific FAR Recovery Act requirements are for:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t buying American construction material,\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t protecting contractor whistleblowers,\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t publicizing contract actions,\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t reporting, and\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t giving the Government Accountability Office and agency Inspectors General\n access to contracting records.\n\nFederal Government organizations meet requirements for Recovery Act contract actions\nby posting information on the Federal Business Opportunities (FBO) and Federal\nProcurement Data System (FPDS) Web sites. FAR Subpart 5.7, \xe2\x80\x9cPublicizing\nRequirements Under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009,\xe2\x80\x9d directs\ncontracting officers to use the Government-wide FBO Web site (http://www.fbo.gov) to:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t identify the action as funded by the Recovery Act,\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t post pre-award notices for orders exceeding $25,000,\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t describe supplies in a clear narrative to the general public, and\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t provide the rationale for awarding any contracting actions that were not both\n fixed-price and competitive.\n\nFBO is the Federal Government\xe2\x80\x99s central source of Federal procurement opportunities.\nFBO is a Web-based portal that allows agency officials to post Federal procurement\nopportunities and contractors to search and review those opportunities. Agencies also\npost contract award notices on FBO. In addition, to provide transparency, FBO has a\nseparate section identifying Recovery Act opportunities and awards.\n\nFPDS is the Federal Government\xe2\x80\x99s central source of procurement information.\nContracting officers enter information, to include the Treasury Account Symbol, in the\nFPDS for all Recovery Act contract actions. The Treasury Account Symbol enables\nFPDS to provide transparency by generating and posting a report containing all Recovery\nAct contract actions.\n\n\n\n 2\n\n\x0cOMB Recovery Act Guidance\nCriteria for planning and implementing the Recovery Act continue to change as OMB\nissues additional guidance, and DoD and the Components issue their implementation\nguidance. OMB has issued 11 memoranda and 1 bulletin to address the implementation\nof the Recovery Act. See Appendix B for Recovery Act criteria and guidance.\n\nDoD Recovery Act Program Plans\nUnder the Recovery Act, Congress appropriated approximately $12 billion to DoD for\nthe following programs: Energy Conservation Investment; Facilities Sustainment,\nRestoration, and Modernization; Homeowners Assistance; Military Construction\n(MILCON); Near Term Energy-Efficient Technologies; and U.S. Army Corps of\nEngineers Civil Works.\n\n Table 1. DoD Agency-Wide and Program-Specific Recovery Act Programs\n Program Amount\n (in millions)\n Energy Conservation Investment $120\n Facilities Sustainment, Restoration, and Modernization 4,260*\n Homeowners Assistance 555\n Military Construction 2,185\n Near Term Energy-Efficient Technologies 300\n U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works 4,600\n Total $12,020*\n *On August 10, 2010, Public Law 111-226, Title III, \xe2\x80\x9cRescissions,\xe2\x80\x9d rescinded $260.5 million of\n funds from DoD Operations and Maintenance Accounts supporting the Recovery Act. This\n reduced the DoD Recovery Act Facilities Sustainment, Restoration, and Modernization amounts\n to approximately $4 billion and total DoD Agency-wide and Program-Specific Recovery Act\n program funding to approximately $11.76 billion.\n\nThe Recovery Act divides the approximately $12 billion among 33 DoD and U.S. Army\nCorps of Engineers line items of appropriations.\n\nEielson Air Force Base\nEielson AFB, Alaska, is home to the 354th Fighter Wing of the 11th Air Force. The wing\nsupports operations, maintenance, mission support, and medical group functions and is\nhost to 10 on-base tenant organizations. The 11th Air Force, headquartered at Elmendorf\nAFB, Alaska, falls under the major command of the Pacific Air Forces, Hickam AFB,\nHawaii.\n\n\n\n\n 3\n\n\x0cEielson AFB has 28 Recovery Act projects, including 1 MILCON project and\n27 Facilities Sustainment, Restoration, and Modernization projects. 1 We reviewed the\nMILCON project, an MFH project funded at $53.9 million, to demolish 72 inadequate\nhousing units and build 76 units of single-family housing at the current building standard.\nThis project represents the fourth phase of an ongoing MFH effort at Eielson AFB.\n\nAir Force Center for Engineering and the Environment\nThe AFCEE, headquartered at Lackland AFB, Texas, is a field operating agency of the\nAir Force Civil Engineer. AFCEE provides integrated engineering and environmental\nmanagement, execution, and technical services with a goal to optimize Air Force and\njoint force capabilities through sustainable installations. For Eielson AFB, AFCEE\nserved as the construction agent and managed the contracting and surveillance of the\nMFH project.\n\nDefense Finance and Accounting Service\nDefense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) provides accounts payable services to\nDoD Components such as Eielson AFB. The DFAS Accounts Payable (formerly\nContract Pay and Vendor Pay) functional area is responsible for entitlement\ndetermination and payment to all businesses that have provided goods or services to\nthe DoD.\n\nInternal Controls at Eielson AFB, AFCEE, and DFAS\nWe determined that Air Force internal control weaknesses existed regarding the\nEielson AFB and AFCEE planning and initial execution of the Recovery Act MFH\nproject as defined by DoD Instruction 5010.40, \xe2\x80\x9cManagers\xe2\x80\x99 Internal Control Program\n(MICP) Procedures,\xe2\x80\x9d July 29, 2010. Inadequate internal controls included lack of\nEielson AFB supporting documentation for planning and cost estimation of MFH project\nbase unit requirements and neglect by AFCEE of reviewing, pricing, and determining\ncontractor requests for exceptions to FAR Buy American Act requirements. DFAS\nlacked internal controls to identify payment term contract requirements for Eielson AFB\nMFH contracts and properly code those requirements for automatic payments to the\ncontractor. We will provide a copy of this report to the senior officials responsible for\ninternal controls at Eielson AFB, AFCEE, and DFAS.\n\n\n\n\n1\n See Air Force Audit Agency report F2010-0027-FBN000, \xe2\x80\x9cARRA of 2009 Program Requirements 354\nFighter Wing Eielson AFB AK,\xe2\x80\x9d December 11, 2009, for results of the audit of the 27 Eielson Recovery\nAct FSRM projects reviewed.\n\n\n 4\n\n\x0cFinding A. Air Force Personnel Did Not\nComply With Recovery Act Requirements\nAFCEE and Eielson AFB officials did not comply with Recovery Act requirements for\nplanning, funding, and initially executing the MFH construction project. The Air Force\ndid not adequately plan the project in regard to several aspects of the DD 1391, \xe2\x80\x9cMilitary\nConstruction Project Data.\xe2\x80\x9d Specifically, project management officials did not\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t have a predetermined rationale for the number of units needed,\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t include supporting documentation for cost estimate calculations,\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t adequately develop the initial programmed amount for the form, and\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t reconsider or rejustify the need for 76 housing units after the total base MFH\n requirement was reduced by 10 percent (108 units) 1 month before contract\n award.\n\nIn addition, the Air Force inadvertently left out required Recovery Act Treasury Account\nfunding codes in the FPDS. The DD 1391 project planning errors occurred because\nAir Force Office of the Civil Engineer officials allowed only a 48-hour time frame for\npreparation of the form. In addition, the Air Force did not reconsider the need for the\nEielson 76 MFH unit requirement because Congress already had approved the\nprogramming for the Recovery Act project. The FPDS coding error occurred because the\nAir Force did not follow procedures to implement Recovery Act contracting action\nreporting requirements. As a result, the Recovery Act MFH project experienced\nincreased program risk related to DD 1391 data accuracy and whether Recovery Act\nfunds were spent on a needed requirement and included transparency on funding\nclassification.\n\nPlanning\nOverview of Project Justification\nThe Air Force justified the funding authorization for this project through preparation\nof the DD 1391. We reviewed the adequacy of the DD 1391 and supporting\ndocumentation, including the economic analysis and analysis of alternatives. DoD\nRegulation 7000.14-R, \xe2\x80\x9cDoD Financial Management Regulation,\xe2\x80\x9d volume 2B, chapter 6,\nrequires DoD Components to prepare a DD 1391 when requesting authorization of both\nnew construction and urgent unforeseen projects using an emergency or contingency\nauthorization. Two sections of the DD 1391 detail the requirements for proposed projects\nand how the proposed projects would benefit the mission. Specifically, the \xe2\x80\x9cDescription\nof Proposed Construction\xe2\x80\x9d section, according to the Financial Management Regulation,\nrequires the DD 1391 to have a clear and concise description of the proposed\nconstruction, including a complete outline of all principal features of the project. The\nFinancial Management Regulation also requires the \xe2\x80\x9cRequirement\xe2\x80\x9d section of the\nDD 1391 to provide a detailed, informative statement concerning why the project was\nneeded, how and under what conditions the requirements are presently being met, and the\nmanner and extent to which mission accomplishment would be affected if the project\nwere not approved.\n\n\n 5\n\n\x0cThe \xe2\x80\x9cDescription of Proposed Construction\xe2\x80\x9d and \xe2\x80\x9cRequirement\xe2\x80\x9d sections provided an\nadequate description of the proposed Recovery Act MFH construction and an adequate\noutline of all principal features of the project, including the rationale for the project. The\nDD 1391 stated that \xe2\x80\x9cthis project replaces housing that was constructed in 1962. They\nrequire major renovation and repair to correct deterioration resulting from age and heavy\nuse.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\nThe \xe2\x80\x9cHousing Community Profile Report, Eielson AFB, Alaska,\xe2\x80\x9d October 10, 2008,\ndocumented the final condition assessment matrix scores for demolished MFH units to be\nreplaced by the Recovery Act MFH construction project. 2 According to the report,\n\xe2\x80\x9cadequate units have a matrix score of 3.75 or greater.\xe2\x80\x9d The report defined color coding\nof \xe2\x80\x9cRED\xe2\x80\x9d as \xe2\x80\x9cdeteriorated,\xe2\x80\x9d for matrix scores in the range from zero to 2.24, the lowest\nrating. The report showed that 72 units built in 1962 scored a rating of 1.40 to 1.45 with\na color code of RED and should be demolished. The Air Force subsequently contracted\nto demolish all 72 units. Figure 1 depicts the housing units that were demolished.\n\n Figure 1. Eielson AFB Housing Units Before Demolition\n\n\n\n\nMFH Requirement Determination\nThe Air Force Office of the Civil Engineer, Programs Division (USAF/A7CPA) oversees\nAir Force MILCON. On February 24, 2009, the USAF/A7CPA directed that the Eielson\nAFB 354th Civil Engineering Squadron prepare and submit within 48 hours a new\nRecovery Act MFH DD 1391, which included a programmed amount of $53.9 million.\nThe USAF/A7CPA also directed that the scope of the project include \xe2\x80\x9cas many units as\npossible to achieve or continue to approach the existing Family Housing Master Plan.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\nThe Air Force relied on the \xe2\x80\x9cHousing Requirements and Market Analysis for Eielson\nAFB, 2005-2010,\xe2\x80\x9d 3 December 9, 2005, to justify the number of units needed for the\n\n\n2\n The Housing Community Profiles are developed to assist in planning and programming of the MFH\nconstruction and to ensure current Air Force standards are met and maintained. The Housing Community\nProfile identifies specific deficiencies and needs of the MFH at each installation based on the requirements\nidentified by the current, approved Housing Requirements and Market Analysis.\n3\n The Housing Requirements and Market Analysis determined the total MFH Eielson AFB requirement.\nThe Housing Requirements and Market Analysis is a formalized method used to estimate current and\n\n\n 6\n\n\x0cRecovery Act project. The purpose of the family housing market analysis was to\nevaluate the availability of housing in the Eielson AFB area that could meet Air Force\nstandards for affordability, location, quality, and number of bedrooms. The family\nhousing market analysis projected a family housing requirement of 1,082 units for active-\nduty military personnel stationed at Eielson AFB.\n\nThe Air Force scoped the 76-unit Recovery Act project to build as many units needed to\nsatisfy the 2005-2010 Eielson AFB total projected housing requirement of 1,082 units. In\nderiving the 76 units, Eielson AFB officials used MFH units originally planned but not\nfunded for construction in two previous MFH project phases:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t 16 MFH units proposed for Phase 3 (non-Recovery Act MFH construction \n\n project) but unfunded due to Phase 3 contract cost limitations and \n\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t 60 MFH units proposed from Phase 2 (non-Recovery Act MFH construction\n project) but unfunded due to Phase 2 appropriation cost limitations.4\n\nEielson AFB officials provided detailed supporting justification for how the Air Force\nderived the Phase 4 Recovery Act DD 1391 primary cost estimates, including the unit\ncost. We verified that the primary cost figures traced to appropriate Air Force criteria\nand other MILCON supporting documents.\n\nDD 1391 Supporting Cost Estimates\nAccording to the Recovery Act DD 1391, the construction project included supporting\ncost estimates for site improvements, landscaping, utility maintenance, streets, recreation,\ndemolition, environmental concerns, and design/build-design. The Air Force calculated\neach supporting cost estimate based on a unique variable percentage factor. Eielson AFB\nCivil Engineering officials were unable to provide a documented rationale for each of the\nabove mentioned supporting cost percentages. An assessment by our Technical\nAssessment Directorate of the DD 1391 cost estimates concluded that the percentages the\nAir Force used to derive the supporting costs needed further supporting documentation.\n\nReduction in Family Housing Requirements\nOn July 14, 2009, after the Eielson AFB submission of the DD 1391 to Air Force\nheadquarters on February 26, 2009, but before the AFCEE contract award on August 28,\n2009, the Air Force reduced the Eielson AFB total MFH requirement by 10-percent from\n1,082 units to 974 units.\n\n\n\n\nprojected housing deficits or surpluses at any given installation. Professional economists trained in social\nsciences and familiar with principal data sources and analysis techniques conduct these analyses working as\nindependent consultants. The economists justify the need for the Air Force to acquire or construct new\nMFH units, replace existing MFH units, or undertake whole-house or whole-neighborhood improvement\nprojects.\n4\n The Eielson AFB Recovery Act MFH project is also referred to as the Phase 4 project.\n\n\n 7\n\x0cThe AFCEE project management plan, for the Eielson MFH project at section 2.1.5,\nstated that AFCEE, in coordination with Pacific Air Forces, is responsible for authorizing\nthe project scope and approving all Air Force changes in project scope. We believe that\nthe 10-percent reduction of the total base requirement represents a possible change in\nscope.\n\nAccording to section 3.4.2 of Air Force Instruction 32-6002, \xe2\x80\x9cFamily Housing Planning,\nProgramming, Design, and Construction,\xe2\x80\x9d January 15, 2008, major Air Force commands\nmust review, validate, and update programming, design, and construction information.\nSection 3.4.2 also requires the Air Force to identify projects under design that exceed the\nprogrammed amount and increase or decrease the scope within the programmed amount\nor revise military rank and bedroom mix to USAF/A7CPA for review of programming\noptions. Therefore, Pacific Air Forces, as the major command for Eielson AFB, and the\nUSAF/A7CPA was responsible for reviewing, validating, and updating Eielson MFH\ninformation made available before the contract award.\n\n The Air Force did not produce an approved and\n The Air Force should have signed justification for continuing the project after\n either delayed the award or the 10-percent reduction in the Eielson AFB housing\n formally determined that the requirement derived from the Housing Requirements\n 76 units were still needed and Market Analysis. 5 The lack of a justification\n before the August 28, 2009, effectively left in place information that contradicted\n task order award. the DD 1391 as the basis for the project. As a result,\n the Air Force committed to construction of the\n76 replacement units, valued at $53.9 million, without a documented and approved\naffirmation of the need to continue with the project after the reduction in the overall\nhousing requirement. The Air Force should have either delayed the award or formally\ndetermined that the 76 units were still needed before the August 28, 2009, task order\naward.\n\nFunding\nThe Air Force distributed Recovery Act funds to the Phase 4 military family housing\nproject in a timely manner but did not adequately plan for the initial development of the\nprogrammed funding amount (and the associated units needed) for the project. On\nJuly 17, 2009, the Air Force issued an approved budget authorization and allocation for\n$53.9 million in MILCON Recovery Act funding. The Air Force included the\nappropriate Recovery Act Air Force MILCON funding designations in the approved\nfunding authorization in the Air Force Automated Civil Engineering System and in the\nfunding lines of accounting contained in the Recovery Act contracting actions. On\nMarch 9, 2009, AFCEE prepared an independent Government cost estimate for\n$49.2 million.\n\n\n\n\n5\n On December 29, 2009, Pacific Air Forces formally recommended in the housing community profile that\nthe Air Force continue with the awarded Phase 4 replacement project.\n\n\n 8\n\n\x0cAccording to Air Force headquarters officials, the initial Air Force plan (before actual\npassage of the Recovery Act) was to obtain the $54 million for this MFH construction\nproject through reprogramming of existing MILCON funding from two other Air Force\nMFH projects, including $10.2 million from an FY 2006 project and $43.7 million from\nan FY 2007 project. However, passage of the Recovery Act authorized separate and\ndistinct funding for all Air Force MILCON projects covered by the Act, including\n$53.9 million for the Eielson MFH project. Associated implementing OMB Recovery\nAct guidance required that Recovery Act funds not be co-mingled with non-Recovery\nAct funds. As a result, the Air Force could not reprogram existing MILCON funding\nfrom the two projects. Air Force headquarters officials stated that the Air Force revised\nits plan to use the Recovery Act funding.\n\nInitial Execution\nAFCEE officials generally performed initial project execution properly, except they did\nnot include a Treasury Account funding code in the FPDS as required for Recovery Act\ntransparency. We reviewed whether the contracting actions were competitively solicited,\nawarded with full transparency, and whether AFCEE included the required FAR clauses\nrelated to the Recovery Act.\n\nThe Eielson MFH Recovery Act project presolicitation was properly posted to the FBO\nwebsite on March 13, 2009. On June 9, 2009, AFCEE officials issued a competitive\nrequest for proposals limited to four incumbent 8(a) small business contractors under the\nAir Force\xe2\x80\x99s Heavy Engineering Repair and Construction multi-award contract. Each of\nthe four 8(a) bidders acknowledged solicitation receipt; however, only one solicited\nbidder submitted a proposal. The bidder, Lakeshore Engineering, was the incumbent\ncontractor for the previous three phases of Eielson MFH work. AFCEE personnel\ndetermined that the Lakeshore Engineering proposal provided the best value to the\nGovernment and determined it acceptable based on a proposal technical evaluation and a\nprice reasonableness review. Lakeshore Engineering is registered on the Central\nContractor Registration Web page, and the Excluded Parties List System did not include\nLakeshore as a debarred contractor.\n\nOn August 28, 2009, AFCEE awarded contract FA8903-06-8505-0019 as a firm-fixed\xc2\xad\nprice task order for $49.4 million. The contract award met the target month of award as\nstated in the \xe2\x80\x9cAmerican Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 Department of Defense\nMilitary Construction Program Plan,\xe2\x80\x9d May 15, 2009. In addition, the awarded task order\nwas $4.5 million less than the Recovery Act $53.9 million programmed amount and was\ncategorized by the Air Force as bid savings. Under provisions of the DoD Comptroller\nmemorandum, \xe2\x80\x9cProject Cost Variations During Execution of American Recovery and\nReinvestment Act Expenditure Plans for Infrastructure Investments,\xe2\x80\x9d May 7, 2009, the\nAir Force can use the bid savings (after project completion) to offset cost growth on this\nor other Recovery Act-funded projects.\n\nThe Recovery Act task order was subsequently modified on April 29 and May 11, 2010.\nModification 01 incorporated a revised statement of work and provided an additional\n$505,280 for construction efforts. Modification 02 incorporated a second revised\n\n\n 9\n\n\x0cstatement of work and provided an additional $149,264 for construction efforts. The\nmodifications brought the total amount of Recovery Act funds obligated to $50.0 million.\nHowever, AFCEE contracting personnel did not include in the FPDS system a required\nTreasury Account Symbol for modification 01 to identify the modification as a Recovery\nAct action. This occurred because AFCEE officials did not follow the procedures in the\nAugust 19, 2009, Director, Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy Memorandum,\n\xe2\x80\x9cPosting and Reporting Requirements for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act\nof 2009.\xe2\x80\x9d As a result, modification 01 was not transparently represented as a Recovery\nAct contracting action. On June 24, 2010, in response to our inquiries, AFCEE officials\ntook corrective action by adding the missing Treasury Account Symbol to the FPDS\nentry for modification 01.\n\nConclusion\nThe Eielson AFB Recovery Act MFH project planning lacked supporting documentation\nfor percentages used to derive some DD 1391 costs. Air Force officials did not\nadequately plan for the initial development of the programmed funding amount (and the\nassociated units needed) for the project. In addition, Eielson and AFCEE officials\ninitially planned the Recovery Act contract without reconsidering or rejustifying the need\nfor the 76 MFH unit requirements in lieu of a 10-percent (108-unit) reduction in the total\nEielson MFH requirement made 1 month before the contract award.\n\nRecommendations\nA. We recommend that the Commander, Air Force Office of the Civil Engineer:\n\n 1. Develop a definition of an urgent military family housing requirement\nto include a minimum number of days needed for preparing and submitting a DD\n1391, \xe2\x80\x9cMilitary Construction Project Data,\xe2\x80\x9d and require a review to ensure all cost\nelements in the DD 1391 have a documented supporting rationale.\n\n 2. Issue a memorandum for Air Force personnel involved with developing\nmilitary housing requirements, emphasizing the importance of having written\njustification for any changes to Military Family Housing requirements that could\nimpact the total housing requirements.\n\n 3. Perform an administrative review within 90 days to determine\naccountability within Pacific Air Forces regarding Eielson Air Force Base Recovery\nAct Military Family Housing project planning including predetermined rationale\nfor the number of Military Family Housing units needed. The review should\ninclude accountability for identifying and managing requirements to properly scope\nthe number of units needed for each housing project; and document the need for\nEielson Military Family Housing project continuation if total base unit\nrequirements were significantly reduced during the award process.\n\n\n\n\n 10 \n\n\x0cManagement Comments Required\nThe Air Force did not comment on a draft of this report. We request that the Air Force\nprovide comments on the final report.\n\n\n\n\n 11 \n\n\x0cFinding B. AFCEE Allowed Contractor to Use\nForeign Construction Materials Without an\nException to the Buy American Act\nAFCEE allowed the Eielson AFB MFH contractor to use foreign construction materials\nwithout approving an exception to the Buy American Act. The lack of compliance\noccurred because AFCEE relied on prior determinations from other projects without\ndoing a formal exception analysis for the current project. As a result, AFCEE may have\nviolated the Buy American Act for 13 construction items in the Eielson MFH contract.\n\nBuy American Act Criteria\n The Recovery Act states that appropriated funds\n AFCEE may have violated must comply with the Buy American Act.\n the Buy American Act for 13 Therefore, award recipients must comply with the\n construction items in the Buy American Act in performing their work, and\n Eielson MFH contract. contracts must include a clause mandated by FAR\n Subpart 25.6, \xe2\x80\x9cAmerican Recovery and\nReinvestment Act\xe2\x80\x94Buy American Act\xe2\x80\x94Construction Materials.\xe2\x80\x9d However, FAR\nsubpart 25.6 grants Buy American Act exception authority to the contracting officer for\nuse during both pre-award (contract negotiation) and post-award (contract\nadministration).\n\nFAR subpart 25.6 states if a Buy American Act exception applies, then the contracting\nofficer may allow the contractor to incorporate foreign construction materials without\nregard to the restrictions of section 1605 of the Recovery Act or the Buy American Act.\nFAR subpart 25.6 allows the contracting officer, before award, to evaluate all exception\nrequests based on information provided and supplement this information with other\nreadily available information. In such cases, FAR subpart 25.6 requires the contracting\nofficer to perform a price comparison between foreign manufactured goods and domestic\nmanufactured goods using a 25-percent differential to determine if the domestic goods\nare too expensive.\n\nFAR 25.604, \xe2\x80\x9cPreaward Determination Concerning the Inapplicability of Section 1605 of\nthe Recovery Act or the Buy American Act,\xe2\x80\x9d discusses pre-award determination\nconcerning the inapplicability of section 1605 of the Recovery Act or the Buy American\nAct. Specifically, FAR 25.604(a) states the following:\n\n For any acquisition, an offeror may request from the contracting officer\n a determination concerning the inapplicability of section 1605 of the\n Recovery Act or the Buy American Act for specifically identified\n construction materials. The time for submitting the request is specified\n in the solicitation.\n\nFAR subpart 25.6 also allows for a contracting officer Buy American Act exception\ndetermination after contract award. In such cases, the contracting officer must negotiate\n\n\n\n 12\n\n\x0cadequate consideration and modify the contract to allow use of the foreign construction\nmaterial. FAR 25.603(b) states the following:\n\n When a determination is made, for any of the reasons stated in this\n section, that certain foreign construction material may be used: (1) the\n contracting officer shall list the excepted material in the contact; and,\n (2) the head of the agency shall publish a notice in the Federal Register\n within two weeks after a determination is made.\n\nThe FAR requirement for listing the excepted materials in the contract is also\nunderscored by FAR 25.605, "Evaluating Offers of Foreign Construction Material.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\nEielson AFB MFH Foreign Items\nOn July 17, 2009, the eventual Eielson MFH project contractor (Lakeshore Engineering)\nproposed to use 13 material items, valued at $111,014, obtained by the contractor from\nnondomestic item suppliers in execution of the Recovery Act MFH project. These items\nincluded ceiling fans, exterior wall mount lights, air scoops for heating systems, collated\nscrews, thread screws, hand rail brackets, door hinge pin stops, spool insulators, a clamp,\nan attachment, and ground fault circuit interrupt receptacles.\n\nThe Lakeshore Engineering proposal requested that the AFCEE contracting officer make\na determination of Buy American Act inapplicability. The Lakeshore Engineering\nrequest for determination was consistent with FAR clause 52.225-24, which states:\n An offeror requesting a determination regarding the inapplicability of\n section 1605 of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009\n (Pub. L. 111-5) (Recovery Act) or the Buy American Act should\n submit the request to the Contracting Officer in time to allow a\n determination before submission of offers. The offeror shall include\n the information and applicable supporting data required by paragraphs\n (c) and (d) of FAR clause 52.225-23 in the request.\n\nLack of AFCEE Contracting Officer Determination\nThe purchase of construction materials for Recovery Act projects must comply with the\nBuy American Act unless the head of the Federal department or agency grants a waiver.\nTo meet FAR requirements, AFCEE should have published a Federal Register notice\nwithin 2 weeks of making a Buy American Act exception determination and modified the\nRecovery Act contract action to note that a Buy American Act exception had been made.\nWe concluded, based on review of the contracting file, that the AFCEE contracting\nofficer did not act on Lakeshore Engineering\xe2\x80\x99s request to make a Buy American Act\ninapplicability determination regarding the Recovery Act MFH proposal. The AFCEE\ncontracting officer also inserted language within contract clause 52.225-23 in Recovery\nAct task order FA8903-06-D-8505-0019 to erroneously state that there were no excepted\nBuy American Act materials in the task order. The inserted contract clause required the\ncontracting officer to list applicable excepted materials or indicate \xe2\x80\x9cnone.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\nThe AFCEE contracting officer agreed that no formal Buy American Act inapplicability\ndetermination was made. The contracting officer stated that a Buy American Act\n\n\n 13\n\n\x0cdetermination was not issued because the Lakeshore Engineering request showed\n\xe2\x80\x9ccontinuity\xe2\x80\x9d of similar requests made for each of three previous Eielson MFH\nconstruction phases performed by the offeror as incumbent contractor.\n\nThe contracting officer stated that Lakeshore Engineering had documented to the\ncontracting officer\xe2\x80\x99s satisfaction its inability to comply with Buy American Act\nrequirements in the MFH phases performed before the Recovery Act project. For\nexample, on October 19, 2009, Lakeshore Engineering notified the AFCEE contracting\nofficer that it was unable to locate acceptable domestic manufacturing sources for seven\nbathroom fixtures connected to work performed on Phase 1 Eielson MFH task order\nFA8903-06-D-8505-0015. In an undated AFCEE Determination and Finding response to\nthe contractor request, the contracting officer stated the following:\n\n The undersigned cognizant Contracting Officer hereby determines that\n an exception to the \xe2\x80\x9cBuy American Act\xe2\x80\x9d is appropriate... The subject\n task order FA8903-06-D-8505-0015 shall be modified to identify that\n the Government has determined an exception to the Buy American Act\n applies and the Contracting Officer accepts [contractor\xe2\x80\x99s] proposed\n consideration for the exception.\n\nOn January 7, 2010, AFCEE issued modification 05 for task order FA8903-06-8505\xc2\xad\n0015. We concluded that the contracting officer response on task order FA8903-06-D\xc2\xad\n8505-0015 was in compliance with FAR subpart 25.6. However, the contracting officer\nrelied on unrelated determinations and failed to issue a similar exception relating to\nseparate items for Recovery Act task order FA8093-06-8505-0019.\n\nConclusion\nThe Air Force did not adequately comply with the FAR requirement for granting an\nexception to the Buy American Act for the Recovery Act MFH project at Eielson AFB.\nAFCEE still needs to address the offeror request for a Buy American Act exception\ndetermination as it applies to Recovery Act work on task order FA8903-06-D-8505-0019\nand, if approved, properly modify the contract as required by the FAR.\n\nRecommendations\nB.1. We recommend that the Director, Air Force Center for Engineering and the\nEnvironment, either:\n\n a. Modify task order FA8903-06-D-8505-0019 to replace the 13 foreign\nmaterial items with American-made equivalents and compensate the contractor\naccordingly through Federal Acquisition Regulation requirements or\n\n b. Issue a Determination and Finding response to the contractor request\nto approve an exception to the Buy American Act for 13 foreign material line items;\nissue an administrative modification to task order FA8903-06-D-8505-0019 noting\nBuy American Act excepted items, in accordance with Federal Acquisition\nRegulation 25.605(d); and publish the excepted item list in the Federal Register, in\naccordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation requirements.\n\n\n 14\n\n\x0cB.2. We recommend that Director, Air Force Center for Engineering and the\nEnvironment, issue a memorandum re-emphasizing Federal Acquisition Regulation\nrequirements and procedures regarding consideration, and determinations and\nfindings regarding Buy American Act requirements.\n\nManagement Comments Required\nThe Air Force did not comment on a draft of this report. We request that the Air Force\nprovide comments on the final report.\n\n\n\n\n 15\n\n\x0cFinding C. DFAS Incorrectly Paid Interest\non Contractor Invoices\nDFAS incorrectly paid $4,910 in interest on four contractor invoices from\nNovember 2009 through October 2010 for Eielson AFB MFH Recovery Act work.\nDFAS incorrectly paid the same contractor $44,080 in interest on 28 invoices for non-\nRecovery Act work from July 2009 through November 2010. Prior to passage of the\nRecovery Act, DFAS incorrectly paid $41,045 in interest on 50 invoices to eight AFCEE\ncontractors from February 2007 through February 2009. The incorrect payments\noccurred because DFAS technicians miscoded contract payment terms as \xe2\x80\x9cnet 14 days,\xe2\x80\x9d\nas noted in a FAR clause in the basic contract, instead of \xe2\x80\x9cnet 30 days,\xe2\x80\x9d as included in the\nrelevant task order. DFAS technicians did not input the correct payment terms because\nthey did not identify task order payment terms as being different from contract payment\nterms. Because of these errors, DFAS may continue to overpay contractors.\n\nGuidance on Improper Payments\nDoD Financial Management Regulation, volume 10, chapter 7, \xe2\x80\x9cPrompt Payment Act,\xe2\x80\x9d\nstates that DoD Components may make progress payments under construction contracts\nat intervals determined by the contract. In the case of task order FA8903-06-D-8505\xc2\xad\n0019, payments were required 30 days after the date on which the designated activity\nreceived an invoice. According to the Financial Management Regulation, when DoD\ncomponents fail to make payment by the payment due date, interest accrues from the day\nafter the payment due date through the payment date and is automatically paid.\n\nCongress has mandated detection and prevention of improper payments in the Federal\nGovernment. Public Law 107-300, \xe2\x80\x9cImproper Payments Information Act of 2002,\xe2\x80\x9d states\nthe following:\n\n The head of each agency shall, in accordance with guidance prescribed\n by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, annually\n review all programs and activities that it administers and identify all\n such programs and activities that may be susceptible to significant\n improper payments.\n\nPublic Law 107-300 defines improper payment as \xe2\x80\x9cany payment that should not have\nbeen made or that was made with an incorrect amount (including overpayments).\xe2\x80\x9d More\nrecently, Exec. Order No. 13520, 74 Fed. Reg. 62201 (2009) created policies to increase\ntransparency of significant payment errors throughout the Federal Government, identify\nand eliminate the highest improper payments, and increase accountability for reducing\nimproper payment among Executive Branch agencies and officials.\n\nThe Prompt Payment Act, sections 3901 through 3904, title 31, United States Code\n(31 U.S.C. \xc2\xa73903 [2007]) codifies prompt payment of obligations to the contractor. The\nPrompt Payment Act requires that the Government pay invoices 30 days after it receives\nthem or by the payment date established in the contract.\n\n\n\n\n 16\n\n\x0cDFAS Prompt Payment Act Process\nDFAS uses the Integrated Accounts Payable System (IAPS) to process invoice payments.\nIAPS is an interactive menu-driven system, which provides automatic processing for\naccounting and payment functions related to commercial vendor disbursements. IAPS\nperforms automatic reconciliation of contract, invoice, and receipt data by line item or by\nappropriation. IAPS schedules and processes payments in accordance with the Prompt\nPayment Act and cash management requirements. For purposes of Eielson MFH project\ninvoice payments, both DFAS and AFCEE use the IAPS. The DFAS IAPS training\nmanual includes procedures to process invoice payments.\n\nDFAS Prompt Payment Act Interest\nFor task order FA8903-06-D-8505-0019, payments are required 30 days after the date on\nwhich the designated activity receives an invoice. 6 However, DFAS miscoded the\ncontract payment terms as net 14 days instead of net 30 days, resulting in incorrect\npayment of interest of $4,910, to the contractor on the task order (see Table 3).\n Table 3. Incorrect Payments Related to Eielson MFH Recovery Act Project\n\n Date of\n DFAS\n Contractor Overpayment Contractor\n Invoice Interest Paid Notification Refunded\n Number Payment Date to Contractor to Contractor Overpayment?\n 0002 Nov. 24, 2009 $2,417 July 9, 2010 Yes\n 0003 Dec. 3, 2009 1,830 July 8, 2010 Yes\n 0005 Feb. 16, 2010 441 Nov. 10, 2010 Yes\n 0014 Oct. 27, 2010 222 Nov. 3, 2010 Yes\n Total $4,910\n\nDFAS officials stated that the payment errors occurred because DFAS technicians\nentered \xe2\x80\x9cnet 14 days\xe2\x80\x9d as the payment terms based on clause 52.232-27 information in the\nbasic contract. DFAS officials further stated that DFAS technicians obtained this clause\nfrom DFAS\xe2\x80\x99s Electronic Document Access system. The Web-based Electronic\nDocument Access system provides secure online access, storage, and retrieval of\ncontracts and other documents. DFAS officials noted that in some instances, the\nStandard Procurement System may use \xe2\x80\x9cnet 14 days\xe2\x80\x9d as a default, but they could not\nconfirm this because such payment details were not available beyond 12 months after\n\n\n\n\n6\n The indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract FA8903-06-D-8505, awarded April 12, 2006, in\n\xe2\x80\x9cSection I - ADDENDUM,\xe2\x80\x9d included FAR contract clause 52.232-27, "Prompt Payment for Construction\nContracts (Oct 2003)," which stated, "The due date for making such payments is 30 days after the\ndesignated billing office receives a proper payment request."\n\n\n 17\n\n\x0cpayment. The Standard Procurement System 7 comprises procurement applications that\nDoD contracting professionals use, and the system captures all the elements necessary for\nthe creation and administration of DoD contracts and related documents. The Standard\nProcurement System enables accurate tracking and reporting of financial data through the\nbudgeting, requisition, contracting, contract administration, payment and, contract\ncloseout processes. The Standard Procurement System standardizes procurement\nbusiness processes and automates contract writing and administration of all the Military\nDepartments and Defense agencies.\n\nWe found that the DFAS miscoding also affected a number of other AFCEE Heavy\nEngineering and Construction task orders issued under eight indefinite-delivery,\nindefinite-quantity contracts, prior to the Recovery Act, in addition to the contract\ndiscussed in this report. From February 22, 2007, through February 6, 2009, DFAS\nincorrectly paid $41,045 in interest on 50 invoices from eight contractors. DFAS\nrequested and received refunds from the contractors for the $41,045.\n\nDFAS provided us additional data showing that they had incorrectly paid interest to\nLakeshore Engineering Services for six additional task orders on 28 invoices from\nJuly 2009 through November 2010 not funded by the Recovery Act, totaling $44,080.\nDFAS requested and received refunds from Lakeshore Engineering Services for the\n$44,080.\n\n Table 4. Other Incorrect Payments to the Recovery Act Contractor\n Contractor Contractor\n Task Order Number of Total Interest Payments Refunded\n 1\n Number Invoices to Contractor Payments?\n 0015 2 $10,803 Yes\n 0016 21 29,630 Yes\n 0020 1 1,202 Yes\n 0022 1 1,632 Yes\n 0024 1 561 Yes\n 0025 2 253 Yes\n Total 28 $44,0802\n 1\n These are indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract FA8903-06-D-8505 task orders not\n funded by Recovery Act.\n 2\n Because of rounding, column does not sum.\n\n\n\n\n7\n Technically, the Standard Procurement System is the name of the joint DoD program, and Procurement\nDesktop Squared is the name of the currently deployed procurement software system.\n\n\n 18\n\x0cDFAS Actions to Collect Incorrectly Paid Interest\nDFAS provided collection evidence showing that all of the contract overpayments we\nidentified have been paid back. In July and November 2010, DFAS Limestone issued\ndemand letters to the Recovery Act contractor to recover interest payments. In August\nand December 2010, DFAS Limestone collected the four interest payments totaling\n$4,910 from the Recovery Act contractor. DFAS also collected the 28 interest payments\ntotaling $44,080 from the Recovery Act contractor for non-Recovery Act work. DFAS\nalso collected the 50 interest payments totaling $41,045 from eight indefinite-quantity,\nindefinite-delivery contractors for non-Recovery Act work.\n\nConclusion\nDFAS did not identify that the Government was making improper overpayments of\ninterest to the contractors. Therefore, Eielson MFH project payments are subject to\nincreased risk of improper payments on the Recovery Act and non-Recovery Act work.\n\nRecommendations, Management Comments, and Our\nResponse\nC. We recommend that the Director, Defense Finance and Accounting Service,\nestablish the following internal control procedures to identify and implement proper\npayment terms and prevent miscoding related to the Air Force Center for\nEngineering and the Environment contracts:\n\n 1. Within 90 days, conduct a review of progress payments for task order\nFA8903-06-D-8505-0019 invoices from August 28, 2009, to date to identify all\nincorrect interest payments due to miscoding of contract terms and take action to\ncollect all incorrectly paid interest.\n\nManagement Comments\nThe Director, Standards and Compliance, Defense Finance and Accounting Service,\nagreed and stated that DFAS is reviewing 17 payments made to the Recovery Act\ncontractor for task order FA8903-06-D-8505-0019. The Director stated that DFAS will\ncomplete the review within 90 days and will take immediate corrective action on any\nadditional improper overpayments of interest identified during this review.\n\n 2. Within 90 days, conduct internal control reviews of progress payments for\nimpacted AFCEE contracting actions from August 28, 2009, forward, and annually\nthereafter, to ensure compliance with Public Law 107-300.\n\nManagement Comments\nThe Director, Standards and Compliance, Defense Finance and Accounting Service,\nagreed and stated that DFAS will begin a comprehensive review on the accuracy of\naccrued interest on payments to all AFCEE-related contractors, starting from\nAugust 2008 on through to the latest payments. The Director indicated that DFAS will\n\n\n\n 19\n\n\x0ccomplete the review within 90 days and will use the results when performing statistical\nsampling reviews.\n\n 3. Within 90 days, provide training to accounting technicians on proper\ncoding of payment terms.\n\nManagement Comments\nThe Director, Standards and Compliance, Defense Finance and Accounting Service,\nagreed and stated that DFAS held training in March 2011 on the proper coding of the\npayment terms for technicians at DFAS Limestone and DFAS Columbus in their\nrespective Funds Requirement and Entitlement Branches. The Director stated that DFAS\nupdated each area\xe2\x80\x99s standard operating procedures to ensure that the technicians properly\nidentify and code payment terms into the appropriate entitlement system.\n\nOur Response\nComments from the Director, Standards and Compliance, Defense Finance and\nAccounting Service, were responsive, and we require no additional comments.\n\n\n\n\n 20\n\n\x0cAppendix A. Scope and Methodology\nWe conducted this performance audit from May 2010 through March 2011 in accordance\nwith generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we\nplan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a\nreasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We\nbelieve that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and\nconclusions based on our audit objectives.\n\nScope\nWe selected the only Recovery Act Military Construction project at Eielson AFB for\nreview. It was one of 83 DoD-wide high-risk Recovery Act projects identified through\nuse of the modified Delphi technique as noted below. Specifically, the construction\nproject is for MFH and was estimated and funded for $53.9 million. The Recovery Act\nproject is Phase 4 of four construction project phases and was awarded as task order 0019\nof existing multi-award contract FA8903-06-D-8505.\n\nWe visited Eielson AFB, Alaska, and AFCEE at Lackland AFB, Texas, for the MFH\nproject. Our review at Eielson AFB included interviewing personnel of the 354th Civil\nEngineering Squadron, along with AFCEE on-site personnel. Our review of AFCEE at\nLackland AFB, Texas, included interviewing contract and program personnel from\nAFCEE. We used this supporting documentation to determine whether contract\nsolicitations and awards met OMB, FAR, and DoD Recovery Act implementation and\ntransparency requirements. At both locations, we reviewed requirements, contracting and\nfinancial documentation from March 2005 through February 2011. We also contacted,\ninterviewed, and obtained financial documentation from DFAS Columbus and DFAS\nLimestone officials regarding progress payment data on the Eielson MFH contract from\nJuly 2010 through March 2011.\n\nMethodology\nOur overall audit objective was to evaluate DoD\xe2\x80\x99s implementation of plans for the\nRecovery Act of 2009. To accomplish our objective, we audited the planning, funding,\nand execution of one Recovery Act project to determine whether efforts of the 354th\nFighter Wing at Eielson AFB, Alaska, and AFCEE complied with Recovery Act\nrequirements, OMB guidance, the FAR, and DoD implementing guidance. Specifically,\nwe determined whether:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t the selected projects were adequately planned to ensure the appropriate use of\n Recovery Act funds (Planning);\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t funds were awarded and distributed in a prompt, fair, and reasonable manner\n (Funding); and\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t contracts contained required Recovery Act FAR clauses and codes (initial Project\n Execution).\n\n\n\n\n 21\n\n\x0cBefore selecting DoD Recovery Act projects for audit, the Quantitative Methods and\nAnalysis Division (QMAD) of the DoD Office of Inspector General analyzed all DoD\nagency-funded projects, locations, and contracting oversight organizations to assess the\nrisk of waste, fraud, and abuse associated with each. QMAD selected most audit projects\nand locations using a modified Delphi technique, which allowed us to quantify the risk\nbased on expert auditor judgment, and other quantitatively developed risk indicators.\nQMAD used information collected from all projects to update and improve the risk\nassessment model. QMAD selected 83 projects with the highest risk rankings; auditors\nchose some additional projects at the selected locations.\n\nWe did not use classical statistical sampling techniques that would permit generalizing\nresults to the total population because there were too many potential variables with\nunknown parameters at the beginning of this analysis. The predictive analytic techniques\nemployed provided a basis for logical coverage not only of Recovery Act dollars being\nexpended, but also of types of projects and types of locations across the Military\nDepartments, Defense agencies, State National Guard units, and public works projects\nmanaged by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.\n\nUse of Computer-Processed Data\nWe used notices posted on the FBO Web site, data reported in FPDS, the Air Force\nRecovery Act Financial and Activity Report, and contract documentation from the\nElectronic Document Access System posted from May 2009 through July 2010. We\ntested the accuracy of this data by comparing the project data reported on different\nsystems for consistency and by meeting with program officials responsible for reporting\non the applicable Recovery Act requirements. For Finding C, we used computer-\nprocessed data obtained from the Electronic Document Access system. We determined\ndata reliability by comparing data of invalid AFCEE Heavy Engineering Repair and\nConstruction indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract interest payments from the\nElectronic Document Access system with source documents such as Demand Letters and\ncollection vouchers. Our results were not affected by not performing a complete\nreliability assessment of the Electronic Document Access System. Our audit was focused\non the reporting of contract actions for a specific Air Force project. From these\nprocedures, we concluded that the DoD data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of\nour analysis and findings.\n\nUse of Technical Assistance\nAn engineer from the DoD IG Technical Assessment Directorate assisted with the audit.\nThe engineer supported the team in evaluating the need for the MFH project selected for\nreview.\n\nPrior Audit Coverage\nThe Government Accountability Office, the Department of Defense Inspector General,\nand the Military Departments have issued reports and memoranda discussing DoD\nprojects funded by the Recovery Act. You can access unrestricted reports at\nhttp://www.recovery.gov/accountability.\n\n\n 22\n\n\x0cAppendix B. Recovery Act Criteria and\nGuidance\nThe following list includes the primary Recovery Act criteria and guidance (notes appear\nat the end of the list):\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t U.S. House of Representatives Conference Committee Report 111-16, \xe2\x80\x9cMaking\n Supplemental Appropriations for Job Preservation and Creation, Infrastructure\n Investment, Energy Efficiency and Science, Assistance to the Unemployed, and\n State and Local Fiscal Stabilization, for the Fiscal Year Ending September 30,\n 2009, and for Other Purposes,\xe2\x80\x9d February 12, 2009\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t Public Law 111-5, \xe2\x80\x9cAmerican Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009,\xe2\x80\x9d\n February 17, 2009\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t OMB Memorandum M-09-10, \xe2\x80\x9cInitial Implementing Guidance for the American\n Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009,\xe2\x80\x9d February 18, 2009\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t OMB Bulletin No. 09-02, \xe2\x80\x9cBudget Execution of the American Recovery and\n Investment Act of 2009 Appropriations,\xe2\x80\x9d February 25, 2009\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t White House Memorandum, \xe2\x80\x9cGovernment Contracting,\xe2\x80\x9d March 4, 2009\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t White House Memorandum, \xe2\x80\x9cEnsuring Responsible Spending of Recovery Act\n Funds,\xe2\x80\x9d March 20, 2009\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t OMB Memorandum M-09-15, \xe2\x80\x9cUpdated Implementing Guidance for the\n American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009,\xe2\x80\x9d April 3, 20091\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t OMB Memorandum M-09-16, \xe2\x80\x9cInterim Guidance Regarding Communications\n With Registered Lobbyists About Recovery Act Funds,\xe2\x80\x9d April 7, 2009\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t OMB Memorandum M-09-19, \xe2\x80\x9cGuidance on Data Submission under the Federal\n Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA),\xe2\x80\x9d June 1, 2009\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t OMB Memorandum M-09-21, \xe2\x80\x9cImplementing Guidance for the Reports on Use\n of Funds Pursuant to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009,\xe2\x80\x9d\n June 22, 20092\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t OMB Memorandum M-09-24, \xe2\x80\x9cUpdated Guidance Regarding Communications\n with Registered Lobbyists About Recovery Act Funds,\xe2\x80\x9d July 24, 2009\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t OMB Memorandum M-09-30, \xe2\x80\x9cImproving Recovery Act Recipient Reporting,\xe2\x80\x9d\n September 11, 2009\n\n\n 23\n\n\x0c \xe2\x80\xa2\t OMB Office of Federal Procurement Policy, \xe2\x80\x9cInterim Guidance on Reviewing\n Contractor Reports on the Use of Recovery Act Funds in Accordance with FAR\n Clause 52.204-11,\xe2\x80\x9d September 30, 20092\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t OMB Memorandum M-10-08, \xe2\x80\x9cUpdated Guidance on the American Recovery\n and Reinvestment Act \xe2\x80\x93 Data Quality, Non-Reporting Recipients, Reporting of\n Job Estimates,\xe2\x80\x9d December 18, 20092\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t OMB Memorandum M-10-14, \xe2\x80\x9cUpdated Guidance on the American Recovery\n and Reinvestment Act,\xe2\x80\x9d March 22, 20102\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t White House Memorandum, \xe2\x80\x9cCombating Noncompliance With Recovery Act\n Reporting Requirements,\xe2\x80\x9d April 6, 20102\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t OMB Memorandum M-10-17, \xe2\x80\x9cHolding Recipients Accountable for Reporting\n Compliance under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act,\xe2\x80\x9d May 4, 20102\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t OMB Memorandum M-10-34, \xe2\x80\x9cUpdated Guidance on the American Recovery\n and Reinvestment Act,\xe2\x80\x9d September 24, 20102\n\n\n\n\nNotes\n1\n Document provides Government-wide guidance for carrying out programs and activities enacted in the\nAmerican Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. The guidance states that the President\xe2\x80\x99s commitment\nis to ensure that public funds are expended responsibly and in a transparent manner to further job creation,\neconomic recovery, and other purposes of the Recovery Act.\n2\n Document provides Government-wide guidance for carrying out the reporting requirements included in\nsection 1512 of the Recovery Act. The reports will be submitted by recipients beginning in October 2009\nand will contain detailed information on the projects and activities funded by the Recovery Act.\n\n\n\n\n 24\n\n\x0cDefense Finance and Accounting Service Comments\n\n\n\n\n\n\n DEFENSE FINANCE AND ACCOUNTING SERVICE\n ARL.INGTON\n t 815 t SOUTH BELL. S TREET\n ARL.INGT ON , VA 22240-S2a l\n\n\n\n\n JUt! 06 2011\n DFAS -JJ\n\n\n MEMORANDUM FOR DIRECTOR, AUDIT FOLLOW-UP AND GAO AFFAIRS, OFFICE\n OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE\n\n SUBJECT: Management Comments to Draft Report, Project No. D2009-DOOOAB-O I69.008,\n "American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Project to Construct Military Family\n Housing at Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska" Dated May 5, 2011 ,\n\n\n Attached are the management comments to recommendations Ct-3 of the subject report.\n\n\n ~ __ ~_\' m.. __ mk)~~=;~\n Click to add JPEG file\n David E. McDennott\n Director, Standards & Compliance\n\n\n Attachment:\n As stated\n\n\n\n\n www.dod .mil/dfas\n Your Financial PlIrtner @ Work\n\n\n\n\n 25\n\x0cManagement Comments to Draft Report, Project No. D2009-DOOOAB-OI69.008, "American\n Recovery and Reinvestment Act Project to Construct Military Family Housiog at Eielson\n Air Force Base, Alaska" Dated May S, 2011\n\nWe recommend tbe Director, Defense Finance and Accounting Service:\nRecommendation C: Establish the following internal control procedures to identify and\nimplement proper payment terms and prevent miscoding related to the Air Force Center for\nEngineering and the Environment contracts:\n\nRecommendation Cl: Within 90 days, conduct a review of progress payments for task: order\nFA8903-06-D-8505-oo19 invoices from August 28, 2009, to date to identify all incorrect interest\npayments due to miscoding of contract tenns and take action to collect all incorrectly paid\ninterest.\n\nManagement Comment: Concur. Review of 17 payments on task ordcr FA8903-06-D-8505\xc2\xad\n0019 is in process and will be complete prior to the 90 day mark. If additional erroneous interest\npayments are identified collection action will commence on each payment immediately.\n\nEstimated Completion Date: August 31, 2011\n\nRecommendation C2: Within 90 days, conduct internal control reviews of progress payments\n Click to add JPEG file\nfor impacted AFeEE contracting actions from August 28, 2009, fotward, and annually\nthereafter. to ensure compliance with Public Law 107-300.\n\nManagement Comment: Concur. DFAS will conduct a review of all AFCEE related payments\nfrom August 2008 and fotward within 90 days to ensure interest is being charged and paid\ncorrectly and wiU provide the results to our established post payment commercial pay\norganization for future use in perfonning statistical sampling reviews.\n\nEstimated Completion Date: August 31 , 2011\n\nRecommendation C3: Within 90 days, provide training to accounting technicians on proper\ncoding of payment tenns.\n\nManagement Comment: Concur. DFAS Limestone and Columbus technicians residing in both\nFunds Requirement and Entitlement Branches received training on the proper coding of payment\nterms in March 2011. Updates to each area\'s Standard Operating Procedure occurred to reflect\nthe proper identification and coding of payment tenns into the appropriate ~ntitlement system.\n\nEstimated Completion Date: Complete\n\n\n\n\n 26\n\x0c\x0c'


type: caselaw

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 14.8.2017
 SK
 Úradný vestník Európskej únie
 C 269/13
 Návrh na začatie prejudiciálneho konania, ktorý podal Administrativen săd Varna (Bulharsko) 13. júna 2017 – „Varna Holideis“ EOOD/Direktor na Direkcija „Obžalvane i danačno-osiguritelna praktika“ Varna pri Centralno upravlenie na Nacionalnata agencija za prichodite
 (Vec C-364/17)
 (2017/C 269/18)
 Jazyk konania: bulharčina
 Vnútroštátny súd, ktorý podal návrh na začatie prejudiciálneho konania
 Administrativen săd Varna
 Účastníci konania pred vnútroštátnym súdom
 Žalobkyňa:„Varna Holideis“ EOOD
 Žalovaný: Direktor na Direkcija „Obžalvane i danačno-osiguritelna praktika“ Varna pri Centralno upravlenie na Nacionalnata agencija za prichodite
 Prejudiciálne otázky
 1.
 Majú sa článok 90 ods. 1 a článok 185 ods. 1 smernice 2006/112 (1) vykladať v tom zmysle, že oprava odpočítania dane, ktoré bolo uplatnené na dodanie, je podľa nich nutná aj v takom prípade, o aký ide v konaní vo veci samej, kedy bol právny úkon, na ktorý sa uplatnilo právo na odpočítanie dane, vyhlásený právoplatným rozsudkom zrušený, alebo treba v súvislosti s definíciou v článku 14 ods. 1 smernice 2006/112 v takom prípade vychádzať z toho, že k dodaniu nedošlo a daňová povinnosť od začiatku nevznikla?
 2.
 Má sa článok 185 ods. 1 a ods. 2 smernice 2006/112 vykladať v tom zmysle, že v prípade absencie vnútroštátnej úpravy pre opravu uplatneného odpočítania dane v prípade, že právny úkon bol rozsudkom zrušený, možno opravu uskutočniť priamo uplatnením článku 90 ods. 1 smernice?
 (1) Smernica Rady 2006/112/ES z 28. novembra 2006 o spoločnom systéme dane z pridanej hodnoty (Ú. v. EÚ L 347, 2006, s. 1).