jurisdiction: US

text: b' Amtrak Office of\n Inspector General\n www.amtrakoig.gov\n\n\n\n\nSemiannual Report\nto the United States Congress\n Report No. 44 April 1\xe2\x80\x93September 30, 2011\n\x0c2 Amtrak Office of Inspector General I Semiannual Report to Congress I April 1, 2011\xe2\x80\x93 September 30, 2011\n\x0cTable of Contents\n\n\nFrom the Inspector General \t 3\n\nOIG Profile \t 7\n\nAmtrak Profile\t 11\n\nSignificant Activities: Actions Underway to Strengthen OIG Operations\t 13\n\nSignificant Activities: Audits\t 19\n\nSignificant Activities: Inspections and Evaluations\t 31\n\nSignificant Activities: Investigations \t 35\n\nPerformance Measures\t 39\n\nAppendixes \t 41\n\nReporting Requirements \t 49\n\n\n\n\n Amtrak Office of Inspector General I Semiannual Report to Congress I April 1, 2011\xe2\x80\x93 September 30, 2011 1\n\x0c Illinois Zephyr, Hinsdale, IL\n\n\n\n\n2 Amtrak Office of Inspector General I Semiannual Report to Congress I April 1, 2011\xe2\x80\x93 September 30, 2011\n\x0c From the Inspector General\n\n\n\n\n National Railroad Passenger Corporation\n Office of Inspector General\n\n\n\n\nI am pleased to submit the Amtrak Office of Inspector General (OIG) Semiannual Report to Congress\nfor the six months ending September 30, 2011. It discusses significant OIG accomplishments in audits,\ninspections and evaluations, and investigations during this period, as well as highlighting ongoing\nactions to strengthen OIG operations and progress toward becoming a model OIG.\n\nWe hold a unique vantage point from which to monitor and assess Amtrak programs and operations,\nand provide thoroughly developed findings and well-reasoned recommendations for improvement.\nWe continue to build our capabilities and capacity by adding staff with considerable experience in the\nrailroad industry and extensive background and expertise in auditing, inspections and evaluations, and\ninvestigative work.\n\nWe are consistently performing effective independent oversight and fostering mutually beneficial\nworking relationships among our office, Amtrak management and the Board, the Congress, and other\nstakeholders. The quality and number of our audits, inspections and evaluations, and investigations\ncontinue to grow: we currently have several major efforts underway, including reviewing Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s\napproach to enterprise risk management.\n\n\nSignificant Accomplishments\n\nWe are stewards of public funds, and as such, we must ensure that monies are spent wisely,\nwith appropriate value being received. During this reporting period, our audit and evaluation units\nissued eight reports and one testimony statement; together, they identified over $343 million in\nquestioned costs, including unsupported costs and funds to be put to better use\n(see appendixes).\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\t Our September 2011 testimony before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Trans-\n portation, Subcommittee on Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine Infrastructure, Safety,\n and Security, discussed the significant progress Amtrak has made in implementing provisions of\n the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIIA). It also highlighted opportu-\n nities for further improvements under the Act. Our work showed that\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t restructuring more Amtrak debt could generate savings of over $400 million,\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t implementing long-distance train route improvement plans faces challenges,\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t achieving operational stability in Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s new financial system is key to completing PRIIA\n implementation, and\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t determining whether the use of additional special trains would yield profits could help reduce\n federal subsidies.\n\n\n\n\n 10 G Street, NE, Suite 3W-300, Washington, DC 20002\n 3\n\x0c From the Inspector General\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t We issued a comprehensive audit report assessing Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s performance in meeting the require-\n ments of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The Company has been working to make\n stations ADA-compliant, but has faced serious challenges. Also, we questioned the adequacy of sup-\n port for Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s $175-million FY 2012 ADA budget request. We made several recommendations to\n address the program\xe2\x80\x99s fragmented management, lack of accountability, weaknesses in program cost\n estimates, and gaps in its compliance plans. (See Significant Activities: Audits.)\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t We issued two audit reports involving American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funding,\n assessing the extent to which planned security and infrastructure improvements were achieved.\n The ARRA funding enabled the Amtrak Police Department to make some security improvements,\n and Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s Engineering Department to make some infrastructure improvements, but the\n improvements for both will be fewer than originally planned and budgeted. We identified $41.5\n million in ARRA-funded security projects and $126.9 million in ARRA-funded infrastructure\n projects that could be put to better use. This resulted because Amtrak did not have to take wasteful\n \xe2\x80\x9cextraordinary measures\xe2\x80\x9d to complete projects by the deadline. We made recommendations that\n the Vice President/Chief of Police and Chief Engineer give canceled ARRA projects priority\n when making future security and infrastructure improvements. Amtrak concurred with our\n recommendations. (See Significant Activities: Audits.)\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t We issued an audit report on the accuracy of on-time-performance-incentive payments made by\n Amtrak to host railroads to facilitate the movement of Amtrak trains over host-owned tracks. We\n found that in many cases, Amtrak fully paid invoices that contained errors and were overstated.\n We determine that Metro-North Commuter Railroad inconsistently or inappropriately applied\n provisions of its operating agreement with Amtrak, and these errors caused invoices to be overstated.\n Consequently, Amtrak overpaid Metro-North by almost $520,000 between October 2001 and\n December 2004. Further, Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s invoice-review process suffered from insufficient staff and cursory\n review procedures. We recommended that Amtrak seek to recover the money overpaid to Metro-\n North, and expedite implementation of its plan for addressing long-standing weaknesses in its\n invoice-review process. Amtrak agreed with our recommendations and detailed planned actions to\n address them. Amtrak has made progress in addressing this issue. (See Significant Activities: Audits.)\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t We also issued a significant evaluation report examining Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s progress in the human capital\n management area. This report presented the results of a follow-up review of our 2009 evaluation.\n We found that Amtrak had made only limited progress in implementing the recommendations.\n As a result, Amtrak continues to suffer from outdated human capital management, training, and\n employee development processes that hinder its ability to perform effectively. In addition, Amtrak\n is increasingly at risk of encountering skills shortages as highly experienced, long-time employees\n retire. Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s President and CEO agreed with our recommendations and tasked the new Chief\n Human Capital Officer with developing an action plan to address them. (See Significant Activities:\n Inspections and Evaluations.)\n\n In the investigative area, we have directed our efforts toward working collaboratively and proactively with\n Amtrak management to focus on areas of substantial interest and importance to the company. Working\n with Amtrak Human Resources, we have ensured that suspected fraud in the Amtrak employee health\n care programs is reported directly and in a timely manner to the OIG. We are working with the Amtrak\n Chief Financial Officer to address fraud involving payment cards and credit cards. We are also working\n with Amtrak to ensure that OIG is promptly notified of suspected instances of Amtrak suppliers and\n contractors providing defective or substandard products or workmanship in critical maintenance parts,\n services, and fuel. Finally, we are working to address fraud in the area of injury and illness claims.\n\n\n\n 10 G Street, NE, Suite 3W-300, Washington, DC 20002\n4\n\x0c From the Inspector General\n\nSignificant Actions Taken to Strengthen OIG Operations\n\nWe are continually taking actions to improve our office operations. We completed a number of\nimportant actions during this reporting period, and have others underway. As we discussed in our\nlast Semiannual Report, an organizational assessment of OIG carried out by the National Academy of\nPublic Administration (NAPA) resulted in over three dozen specific recommendations for operational\nimprovement. Actions completed and underway include:\n\nIn the Human Resources area, we have\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\t announced the position of Assistant Inspector General for Administrative Services;\n\xe2\x80\xa2\t hired new staff for audit, evaluations, and investigations;\n\xe2\x80\xa2\t hired two new staff members for the quality assurance function; and\n\xe2\x80\xa2\t completed office renovations that provided improved work space for OIG staff.\n\nIn the Organizational area, we have\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\t completed an outside review of the Administrative Services unit and acted to implement the spe-\n cific recommendations to restructure the activity;\n\xe2\x80\xa2\t completed the organizational assessment and restructuring of the Office of Audits;\n\xe2\x80\xa2\t established an Office of Congressional and Public Affairs;\n\xe2\x80\xa2\t completed restructuring of the Office of Investigations; and\n\xe2\x80\xa2\t completed actions on the initial NAPA recommendations and established Phase II teams to address\n the remaining recommendations. A significant accomplishment from addressing the initial recom-\n mendations was the upgrading of our TeamMate automated working paper software to a more cur-\n rent and capable edition, and providing all audit staff with training on the use of this new tool.\n\nIn addition, the U.S. Postal Service\xe2\x80\x99s Office of Inspector General is completing a review designed\nto gauge our independence from Amtrak, as required by Public Law 111-117, the Consolidated\nAppropriations Act, 2010. (See Significant Activities: Actions Underway to Strengthen OIG\nOperations)\n\nI look forward to our continued effective working relationship with the Chairman, Board members,\nPresident and CEO, and executives at Amtrak; along with the House and Senate authorizing, oversight,\nand appropriations committees, as we work to meet the challenges facing OIG, Amtrak, the train-riding\npublic, and taxpayers.\n\n\n\n\nTed Alves\nInspector General\n\n\n\n\n 10 G Street, NE, Suite 3W-300, Washington, DC 20002\n 5\n\x0c Heartland Flyer south of Ardmore, OK\n\n\n\n\n6 Amtrak Office of Inspector General I Semiannual Report to Congress I April 1, 2011\xe2\x80\x93 September 30, 2011\n\x0c OIG Profile\n\n\n\n\nOIG Profile\nVision, Mission, and Authority\nVision\nThe Office of Inspector General (OIG) strives to provide Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s employees,\nits customers, the public, and the Congress with the highest quality service and\nprograms through vigilance, timely action, accuracy, and an overall commitment\nto excellence across the broad range of OIG responsibilities.\n\nMission\nThe OIG conducts and supervises independent and objective audits, inspections,\nevaluations, and investigations relating to Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s programs and operations;\npromotes economy, effectiveness, and efficiency within Amtrak; prevents and\ndetects fraud, waste, and abuse in Company programs and operations; and\nreviews and makes recommendations regarding existing and proposed legislation\nand regulations relating to Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s programs and operations.\n\nAuthority\nThe Inspector General Act of 1978 (Public Law 95-452, 5 U.S.C. Appendix 3),\nas amended in 1988 (P.L. 100-504), established the Office of Inspector General\nfor Amtrak to consolidate existing investigative and audit resources into an\nindependent organization headed by the Inspector General (IG) to promote\neconomy, efficiency, and effectiveness; and to prevent and detect fraud, waste,\nand abuse. Subsequently, the Inspector General Reform Act of 2008 (P. L. 110-409)\namended and strengthened the authority of the Inspectors General.\n\n\n\n\n Amtrak Office of Inspector General I Semiannual Report to Congress I April 1, 2011\xe2\x80\x93 September 30, 2011 7\n\x0cOIG Profile\n\n\n\n\n Guiding Principles and Values\n Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s Office of Inspector General\xe2\x80\x99s principles and values are important\n because they form the building blocks used to accomplish our mission and\n conduct our day-to-day operations:\n\n\n High Quality,\n Relevance,\n Timeliness\n\n\n\n\n Respecting and\n Innovation Developing People\n\n\n\n\n Independence\n Professionalism and Objectivity Customer Service\n\n\n\n Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s OIG will:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t High Quality, Relevance, Timeliness\xe2\x80\x94Provide valuable and timely service.\n Work products are high quality, relevant, timely, add value, and are responsive\n to the needs of Amtrak and its stakeholders.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t Innovation\xe2\x80\x94Be innovative, question existing procedures, and suggest\n improvements. New ideas and creativity are fundamental to continued\n growth, development, and problem solving.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t Respecting and Developing People\xe2\x80\x94Create an environment that supports\n gathering, sharing, and retaining knowledge; fosters treating everyone fairly\n and with mutual respect through words and actions; ensures professional\n growth; and values the diverse backgrounds, skills, and perspectives of\n employees.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t Professionalism\xe2\x80\x94Be committed to our professional standards and foster\n relationships with stakeholders that rely on communication and cooperation.\n Relationships with program managers are based on a shared commitment to\n improving program operations and effectiveness.\n\n\n\n\n8 Amtrak Office of Inspector General I Semiannual Report to Congress I April 1, 2011\xe2\x80\x93 September 30, 2011\n\x0c OIG Profile\n\n\n\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\t Independence and Objectivity\xe2\x80\x94Be committed to carrying out our mission\n with objectivity and independence, both in appearance and fact.\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\t Customer Service\xe2\x80\x94Strive to be aware of the needs of stakeholders and\n work with Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s chairman, the Board of Directors, and the Congress to\n improve program management.\n\n\n\nOffice of Inspector General Organization\n\n Theodore (Ted) Alves\n Inspector General\n\n Thomas J. Howard Quality Assurance\n Deputy\n Inspector General Communications\n\n\n\n David R. Warren Calvin E. Evans Adrienne R. Rish\n Assistant Inspector General Assistant Inspector General Assistant Inspector General\n Audits Inspections & Evaluations Investigations\n\n\n\n\n Colin C. Carriere Vacant E. Bret Coulson\n General Assistant Inspector General Congressional and\n Counsel Administrative Services Public Affairs\n\n\nThe OIG headquarters is based in Washington, D.C., with five field offices located\nin Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, New York, and Philadelphia.\n\nThe Inspector General provides policy direction and leadership for Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s\nOffice of Inspector General and serves as an independent voice to the Board\nof Directors and the Congress by identifying opportunities and promoting\nsolutions for improving the company\xe2\x80\x99s performance and economy and efficiency\nof operations, while preventing and detecting fraud, waste, and abuse. The\nDeputy Inspector General assists the Inspector General in development and\nimplementation of the OIG\xe2\x80\x99s diverse audit, inspection, evaluation, investigative,\nlegal, and support operations.\n\n\n\n\n Amtrak Office of Inspector General I Semiannual Report to Congress I April 1, 2011\xe2\x80\x93 September 30, 2011 9\n\x0cOIG Profile\n\n\n\n\n Audits\n The Audit group conducts performance and financially-related audits across the\n spectrum of Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s support and operational activities. It produces reports on\n those activities that are aimed at improving Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s economy, efficiency, and\n effectiveness, while seeking to detect and prevent fraud, waste, and abuse.\n The audit activities are focused on issues related to governance, to include\n financial management, acquisition and procurement, information technology,\n human capital and American Recovery and Reinvestment Act-related activities.\n The group conducts its work in accordance with generally accepted government\n auditing standards.\n\nThe Audit group conducts Inspections and Evaluations\nperformance and financial The Office of Inspections and Evaluations conducts evaluations of Amtrak\naudits aimed at improving programs and operations to identify opportunities to improve cost efficiency and\nAmtrak\xe2\x80\x99s economy, effi- effectiveness, and the overall quality of service delivery throughout Amtrak.\nciency, and effectiveness;\nInspections and Evaluations\n Investigations\n The Office of Investigations investigates allegations of fraud, waste, abuse,\nalso identifies opportuni-\n and misconduct that could affect Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s programs, operations, assets, and\nties to improve the overall\n other resources. Investigative findings are referred to the Department of Justice\nquality of Amtrak service\n for criminal prosecution or civil litigation, or to Amtrak management for\ndelivery. Investigations administrative action. The office develops recommendations to reduce Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s\nlikewise looks into alleged vulnerability to criminal activity.\nfraud, waste, abuse, and\nmisconduct that could General Counsel\naffect Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s programs, The General Counsel is responsible for providing legal assistance and advice to\nassets, and resources. OIG senior management and supports audits, evaluations, special reviews, and\n investigations. Counsel coordinates with outside attorneys, including local and\n federal agencies and law enforcement attorneys, and appears in court on behalf\n of the OIG and its employees.\n\n Administrative Services\n The Office of Administrative Services provides financial management,\n procurement, human capital management, administrative, and information\n technology services to support OIG operations.\n\n Congressional and Public Affairs\n The Office of Congressional and Public Affairs serves as the OIG liaison to Con-\n gress and other government entities and the public, and conducts OIG outreach.\n\n\n\n\n10 Amtrak Office of Inspector General I Semiannual Report to Congress I April 1, 2011\xe2\x80\x93 September 30, 2011\n\x0c Amtrak Profile\n\n\n\n\nAmtrak Profile\nThe National Railroad Passenger Corporation\xe2\x80\x94Amtrak\xe2\x80\x94is incorporated\nunder the District of Columbia Business Corporation Act (D.C. Code \xc2\xa7 29-301\net seq.) in accordance with the provisions of the Rail Passenger Service Act of\n1970 (P. L. 91-518). Under the provisions of the Passenger Rail Investment and\nImprovement Act of 2008 (P. L. 110-432; 49 U.S.C. \xc2\xa7 24302), Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s Board of\nDirectors was reorganized and expanded to nine members.\n\nThe company is operated and managed as a for-profit corporation providing\nintercity rail passenger transportation as its principal business, but relies on\nsignificant funding from the federal government to support operations and capital\ninvestments. Congress created Amtrak in 1970 to take over, and independently\noperate, the nation\xe2\x80\x99s intercity rail passenger services. Prior to this, America\xe2\x80\x99s\nprivate freight companies ran passenger rail as required by federal law. Those\ncompanies reported that they had operated their passenger rail services\nwithout profit for a decade or more. With this in mind, when Amtrak began\nservice on May 1, 1971, more than half of the rail passenger routes then\noperated by the freight railroad companies were eliminated.\n\n\nHow It Works: Ownership and Contracting\n\nAmtrak owns the right-of-way of more than 363 route miles in the Northeast\nCorridor (NEC, which includes Washington, D.C.\xe2\x80\x93New York City\xe2\x80\x93Boston;\nPhiladelphia\xe2\x80\x93Harrisburg; and New Haven, Conn.\xe2\x80\x93Springfield, Mass.), as well as 97\nmiles in Michigan. Amtrak owns 105 stations, and is responsible for the upkeep\nand maintenance of an additional 181 stations and 411 platforms. Amtrak owns 17\ntunnels and 1,186 bridges.\n\nAmtrak owns most of the maintenance and repair facilities for its fleet of\nabout 2,000 cars and locomotives. Outside of the NEC, Amtrak contracts with\nfreight railroads for the right to operate over their tracks. The host railroads\nare responsible for the condition of their tracks and for the coordination of all\nrailroad traffic.\n\n\n\n\n Amtrak Office of Inspector General I Semiannual Report to Congress I April 1, 2011\xe2\x80\x93 September 30, 2011 11\n\x0cpage header\n\n\n\n\n Lincoln Service, Logan County, IL\n\n\n\n\n12 Amtrak Office of Inspector General I Semiannual Report to Congress I April 1, 2011\xe2\x80\x93 September 30, 2011\n\x0c Significant Activities | Actions Underway to Strengthen OIG Operations\n\n\n\n\nSignificant Activities:\nActions Underway to Strengthen OIG Operations\n\nDuring this reporting period, we have completed or continued several\n\ninitiatives to strengthen our office and ensure that we operate as efficiently\n\nand effectively as possible. Many of these initiatives follow recommendations\n\nfrom the report of the National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA)\n\n(see page 17).\n In September we\n completed a 6-month\nAudits organizational assessment\n of the structure and\nIn September we completed an organizational assessment of the structure and effectiveness of the Office\neffectiveness of the Office of Audits. This involved discussions with staff, review of Audits\xe2\x80\xa6.[T]his wealth of\nof NAPA\xe2\x80\x99s report An Organizational Assessment of the Office of Inspector information has pointed to\nGeneral (August 2010), our internal assessment, and most recent peer review opportunities to improve\n(September 2009). Taken together, this wealth of information has pointed to the group\xe2\x80\x99s effectiveness\nopportunities to improve the group\xe2\x80\x99s effectiveness and efficiency. As a result, and efficiency.\nwe are taking the following major actions in three areas:\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\t Organizational Location / Structure\n \xc2\xad Closing small offices (Hampden, Conn.; Wilmington, Del.; and Baltimore),\n and relocating staff to Boston, Philadelphia, and Washington, respectively;\n and renaming three regional offices\xe2\x80\x94West (Los Angeles), Central\n (Chicago), and East (Philadelphia)\xe2\x80\x94with suboffice in Boston.\n \xc2\xad\n\xe2\x80\xa2\t Staffing / Career Development\n \xc2\xad Developing a Staffing Model. This involves standardizing audit team\n staffing to reduce the disparity across the office in number and audit\n composition of audit teams by senior director, and enhancing our ability\n to be responsive to issues of job complexity and OIG-wide priorities.\n \xc2\xad\n \xc2\xad Standardizing Job Titles and Career Paths. This includes reducing the\n number of job titles from seven to four, and establishing clear skill sets\n for auditors.\n\n\n\n\n Amtrak Office of Inspector General I Semiannual Report to Congress I April 1, 2011\xe2\x80\x93 September 30, 2011 13\n\x0cSignificant Activities | Actions Underway to Strengthen OIG Operations\n\n\n\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t Operations\n \xc2\xad Tracking audit staff compliance with continuing professional education\n requirements. We have instituted a system to capture training completed\n by the audit staff. This action closes out the remaining open recommenda-\n tions from our 2009 peer review.\n \xc2\xad\n \xc2\xad Continuing to Build Staff Capability. This involves ensuring that all staff\n receive the necessary training, whether new hires, mid-career level, or\n experienced managers.\n \xc2\xad\n Standardizing Processes for Conducting Work. This entails strict adher-\n ence to certain activities, deliverables, documentation, and supervisory\n oversight during the course of all audits.\n \xc2\xad\n \xc2\xad Tracking Audit Recommendation Follow-up. We have instituted tighter\n controls over recommendation-tracking, and have begun briefing\n Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s Board of Directors on a quarterly basis on outstanding\n recommendations.\n \xc2\xad\n \xc2\xad Increasing Use of Data-Analysis Tools. We will develop a plan to utilize\n automated data-analysis tools on a more frequent and uniform basis.\n \xc2\xad\n \xc2\xad Instituting an Annual Work Planning Process. Started in January 2011,\n we will issue an annual work plan covering audits, and inspections and\n evaluations. The new planning process will help ensure that we prioritize\n resources efficiently and effectively.\n\n\n\n\n OIG audit staff on site visit to Chicago\n\n14 Amtrak Office of Inspector General I Semiannual Report to Congress I April 1, 2011\xe2\x80\x93 September 30, 2011\n\x0c Significant Activities | Actions Underway to Strengthen OIG Operations\n\n\n\n\nOffice of Administrative Services\nWe completed a detailed organizational review of the former Office of\nManagement and Policy. Renamed the Office of Administrative Services,\nfunctions were realigned to facilitate effective and efficient support services\nwithin OIG.\n\n\nHuman Capital Management\nAs part of our goal to become a model OIG, we have continued our efforts to\nattract and hire highly qualified personnel. During this reporting period, the\nfollowing positions have been filled:\n As part of our quest to\n \xc2\xad\n become a model OIG, we\n\xe2\x80\xa2\t Special Agent-in-Charge\xe2\x80\x94Philadelphia\n have continued our efforts\n The Philadelphia Special Agent-in-Charge entered on duty July 11. A gradu-\n ate of the Federal Criminal Investigators Training Program, he has more than to attract and hire highly\n 30 years of auditing and law enforcement experience in the federal inspector qualified personnel.\n general community. He served as a Special Agent and an Assistant Special\n Agent-in-Charge with the Department of Defense OIG, Defense Criminal\n Investigative Service. Just prior to joining Amtrak OIG, he returned from his\n second deployment as Regional Director of investigations in Baghdad, Iraq,\n where he was responsible for investigations of contract and procurement\n fraud and other corruption in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Kuwait.\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\t Special Agent-in-Charge\xe2\x80\x94Los Angeles\n The Los Angeles Special Agent-in-Charge entered on duty September 26. She\n brings some 30 years of criminal investigative experience with the Naval\n Criminal Investigative Service and the Postal Service OIG, where she served\n in several field and headquarters special agent-in-charge positions. She has\n extensive expertise in contract and procurement fraud and investigative\n policy.\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\t Senior Director for Inspections and Evaluations\n The incumbent possesses 16+ years\xe2\x80\x99 experience, most recently serving as the\n Principal Deputy Assistant Inspector General\xe2\x80\x93Audits with the Special Inspec-\n tor General for Iraq Reconstruction. He began his career with the Govern-\n ment Accountability Office (GAO), serving as a senior analyst from 2001 to\n 2005. He holds a master\xe2\x80\x99s degree in public and international affairs.\n\n\n\n\n Amtrak Office of Inspector General I Semiannual Report to Congress I April 1, 2011\xe2\x80\x93 September 30, 2011 15\n\x0cSignificant Activities | Actions Underway to Strengthen OIG Operations\n\n\n\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t Principal Operations Analyst.\n The incumbent spent the majority of his career within the passenger rail/\n transportation industry, is a licensed engineer, and possesses a depth of expe-\n rience in operations analysis, financial planning, and project management. He\n brings 32+ years of experience to his position with us, and holds two master\xe2\x80\x99s\n degrees, in civil engineering and business administration.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t L\t ead Evaluator\n The incumbent most recently worked for the NASA OIG as an audit proj-\n ect manager and supervisor. Prior to that, he worked for OIGs at the Postal\n Service, Department of Defense, and the Panama Canal Commission. He also\n worked overseas as an auditor for the Army. He brings 30 years of experience\n to his position.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t Senior Analyst/Independent Referencer\n The incumbent possesses 6 years of audit/evaluation experience. She began\n her career as an analyst with GAO; she has also worked for the Special In-\n spector General for Iraq Reconstruction and the Special Inspector General for\n Afghanistan Reconstruction. She holds dual master\xe2\x80\x99s degrees, in international\n commerce and international business.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t Senior Auditor\n The incumbent brings 8 years of auditing and analytical experience, all in\n the accountability community. Beginning her career with GAO, she has also\n worked for the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction and the\n Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction. She holds a mas-\n ter\xe2\x80\x99s degree cum laude in security and intelligence studies.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t Management Analyst\n The incumbent for this entry-level role completed an internship at GAO,\n working in the Homeland Security and Justice areas. She is a recent graduate\n of Kent State University, with a bachelor\xe2\x80\x99s degree in justice studies.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t Senior IT Officer\n The incumbent brings multiple years of experience to this critical role. Most\n recently, he worked at Amtrak as a consultant through IBM. As a desktop\n support specialist, he provided key technical support to executive and staff\n personnel. He holds an associate\xe2\x80\x99s degree and has specialized training in\n CCNA (Cisco), A+, and Net+.\n\n\n\n\n16 Amtrak Office of Inspector General I Semiannual Report to Congress I April 1, 2011\xe2\x80\x93 September 30, 2011\n\x0c Significant Activities | Actions Underway to Strengthen OIG Operations\n\n\n\n\nRecruitment. At present, the office is recruiting for several other critical positions,\namong them an Assistant Inspector General for Administrative Services, Special\nAgent-in-Charge\xe2\x80\x94Chicago, and criminal investigators for Chicago and Los\nAngeles, plus an evaluator and lead evaluator.\n\n\nNAPA Recommendations\nAs we discussed in our last Semiannual Report, the NAPA organizational\nassessment of OIG resulted in 41 specific recommendations for operational\nimprovement in eight areas. These are:\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\t Internal Communications\n\xe2\x80\xa2\t External Communications\n\xe2\x80\xa2\t Quality & Timely Work Processes\n\xe2\x80\xa2\t Work Planning & Prioritization\n\xe2\x80\xa2\t Performance Measures\n\xe2\x80\xa2\t Policy Management & Updates\n\xe2\x80\xa2\t Independence\n\xe2\x80\xa2\t Human Capital Management\n\n\nWe have developed implementation roadmaps for these areas, designed to help\nus achieve one of our strategic goals: becoming a model OIG. Teams to carry\nout the implementation of the roadmaps have been created for five of these\nareas; two more will follow shortly. Actions identified to improve processes,\npolicies, and management practices for the area of Independence have already\nbeen completed. The teams have been meeting for the past several months, and\nare well on their way toward making the recommended changes a reality. Such\nchanges include developing performance and accountability measures, defining\nannual work priorities, and developing high-quality and timely work processes.\n\n\n\n\n Amtrak Office of Inspector General I Semiannual Report to Congress I April 1, 2011\xe2\x80\x93 September 30, 2011 17\n\x0c Empire Builder\n\n\n\n\n18 Amtrak Office of Inspector General I Semiannual Report to Congress I April 1, 2011\xe2\x80\x93 September 30, 2011\n\x0c Significant Activities | Audits\n\n\n\n\nSignificant Activities:\nAudits\n\nDuring this reporting period, the Office of Audits issued one testimony\n\nstatement and six reports.\n\n\n\nAudits/Testimony Issued This Reporting Period\n\nThis is a summary of testimony and audit reports issued between April 1 and\nSeptember 30, 2011. The complete products may be accessed through our website:\nwww.amtrakoig.gov.\n\n\nProgress and Opportunities in Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s Implementation of the\nPassenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008\n(Testimony TM-11-01, September 14, 2011)\n\nIn testimony before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science,\nand Transportation, Subcommittee on Surface Transportation\nand Merchant Marine Infrastructure, Safety, and Security, Amtrak\nInspector General Ted Alves discusses the progress Amtrak had\nmade in implementing provisions of the Passenger Rail Investment\nand Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIIA). He pointed out that Amtrak Amtrak Inspector General Ted Alves\nhas made good progress in addressing the 29 PRIIA provisions assigned to it. testifying before Congress\nThe IG also highlighted opportunities for further improvements under the Act.\nPreliminary audit results found that\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\t restructuring more Amtrak debt could generate savings;\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\t implementing long-distance improvement plans faces challenges, largely due\n to the need for host railroads\xe2\x80\x99 approval, which has been contingent upon Am-\n trak\xe2\x80\x99s providing millions of dollars for infrastructure improvements\xe2\x80\x94dollars\n that Amtrak does not have;\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\t the use of on-time-performance remedies requires a process and specific\n criteria;\n\n\n\n\n Amtrak Office of Inspector General I Semiannual Report to Congress I April 1, 2011\xe2\x80\x93 September 30, 2011 19\n\x0cSignificant Activities | Audits\n\n\n\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t implementing Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s new financial system (Strategic Asset Management\xe2\x80\x94\n SAM) is key to completing PRIIA implementation; and\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t Amtrak does not know whether the use of additional special trains could help\n reduce federal subsidies. (Special trains are those not on Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s timetable\n and are operated on an as-needed basis via contractual agreement between\n Amtrak and the party requesting service. An example would be an added train\n for a sporting event, such as the Super Bowl.)\n\n We made suggestions in each of these areas.\n\n\n On-Time-Performance Incentives: Inaccurate Invoices Were Paid Due to\n Long-standing Weaknesses in Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s Invoice-Review Process\nMetro-North\xe2\x80\x99s billing error\n (Audit Report 403-2010, April 21, 2011)\nrate of approximately\n26% went undetected\n The Amtrak Office of Inspector General (OIG) conducted this audit because of\nbecause of long-standing\n previously identified control weaknesses and the significant dollars associated\nweaknesses in Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s\n with Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s on-time-performance incentive payments. The objectives of this\ninvoice-review process. audit were to (1) determine whether Metro-North Commuter Railroad complied\nConsequently, Amtrak with operating agreements in calculating on-time-performance incentives\noverpaid Metro-North invoiced to Amtrak from October 2001 through December 2004; and (2)\nby almost $520,000 evaluate the adequacy of Amtrak controls and processes for reviewing on-time\nin on-time-performance performance incentive invoices.\nincentive payments.\n OIG found that Metro-North Commuter Railroad inconsistently or inappropriately\n applied provisions of its operating agreement with Amtrak, and this caused\n invoices to be overstated. Metro-North\xe2\x80\x99s billing error rate of approximately 26\n percent went undetected because of long-standing weaknesses in Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s\n invoice-review process. Consequently, Amtrak overpaid Metro-North by almost\n $520,000 in on-time-performance incentive payments from October 2001 through\n December 2004.\n\n In summary, we recommended that Amtrak (1) recover $519,932 that Amtrak\n overpaid Metro-North in on-time-performance incentives, (2) ensure that Metro-\n North understands that the actual run time is to be used and compared with\n allowed run times in the calculation of on-time-performance incentives, and (3)\n expedite implementation of its plan to improve the capabilities of its invoice-\n review process.\n\n\n\n\n20 Amtrak Office of Inspector General I Semiannual Report to Congress I April 1, 2011\xe2\x80\x93 September 30, 2011\n\x0c Significant Activities | Audits\n\n\n\n\n OIG staff on a site visit to Los Angeles\n\n\nStrategic Asset Management Program: Further Actions Should be Taken to\nReduce Business Disruption Risk\n(Audit Report 001-2011, June 2, 2011)\n\nAmtrak\xe2\x80\x99s Strategic Asset Management (SAM) program is estimated to cost as\nmuch as $401 million. The goal of the program is to transform key business\noperations such as finance and logistics by replacing or enhancing many manual\nand automated systems. We reviewed the program, given its cost and importance\nto business operations. The first segment, referred to as R1a, was scheduled to\nbe implemented in June 2011. Our audit objective was to determine whether the\nR1a\xe2\x80\x99s implementation approach effectively addressed business disruption risks.\n\nThe SAM management team developed and implemented a detailed approach\nto testing and mitigating business disruption risks associated with the\nimplementation of R1a. However, we identified several gaps in the testing and\ncontingency plans. Left unaddressed, these gaps leave Amtrak vulnerable to\nbusiness disruptions that could reduce revenues, increase costs, and negatively\nimpact customer service.\n\n\n\n\n Amtrak Office of Inspector General I Semiannual Report to Congress I April 1, 2011\xe2\x80\x93 September 30, 2011 21\n\x0cSignificant Activities | Audits\n\n\n\n\n The R1a has a large scope that includes 33 separate software applications that\n are linked by 81 separate financial, logistics, and operational data exchange\n interfaces. The implementation time frame is relatively aggressive, compared\n with private-sector best practices. The 2-year schedule is about half the time it\n took a private-sector firm to implement a similar effort. Also, all software systems\n will be deployed at the same time versus incrementally, increasing the complexity\n of the implementation.\n\n The SAM management team has been assessing and testing for risks associated\n with an R1a software deployment failure. It has identified 21 mission-critical\n business process areas as high-risk for business disruption should they fail to\n work. These include risks to the payroll runs, financial data conversion from the\n old to new systems, and existing procurement software properly interfacing with\n the new system.\n\n\n\n\n Inspector General Ted Alves and OIG staff on a site visit to Philadelphia\n\n Our analysis and discussion with system users show that tests do not ensure end-\n to-end system reliability in actual operating conditions with optimized system\n interface performance. Also, the contingency plans do not address worst-case\n scenarios because risk of a failure was determined to be low.\n As a result, the plans do not adequately address user concerns about how certain\n critical processes\xe2\x80\x94such as payroll runs\xe2\x80\x94will be continued if there is a failure.\n\n\n\n\n22 Amtrak Office of Inspector General I Semiannual Report to Congress I April 1, 2011\xe2\x80\x93 September 30, 2011\n\x0c Significant Activities | Audits\n\n\n\n\nWe understand that addressing these issues involves time and resources.\nHowever, given the significance of the potential business disruption, the\nadditional benefits in risk-reduction could represent a prudent investment of\nresources.\n\nWe recommended that Amtrak (1) resolve issues with interfaces, data conversion,\nnetwork infrastructure, and contingency plans for continuity; and (2) involve\nProcess Leadership Team members in making a go/no-go decision to move\nforward with the R1a deployment. We also recommended actions to help improve\nthe effectiveness of the SAM program\xe2\x80\x99s remaining segments. While management\nagreed with most recommendations and added some tests, it decided to deploy ARRA authorized FRA to\nthe system on schedule and correct problems as they arose, rather than delay provide $1.3 billion to\ndeployment to complete the testing. Amtrak: $850 million\n for capital projects, and\n about $450 million for\nAmerican Recovery and Reinvestment Act: Fewer Security Improvements\n capital security projects.\nthan Anticipated Will be Made and Majority of Projects are Not Complete\n(Audit Report 914-2010, June 16, 2011)\n\nThe American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) authorized\nthe Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) to provide $1.3 billion to Amtrak\nthrough a grant agreement. This agreement allocated about $850 million for\ncapital projects (the repair, rehabilitation, or upgrade of railroad assets or\ninfrastructure), and about $450 million for capital security projects, including life\nsafety improvements. FRA retained about $4.2 million for program oversight and\nwe were allocated $5 million for that purpose. The grant agreement required all\nprojects to be completed by February 17, 2011, and originally required Amtrak\nto take \xe2\x80\x9cextraordinary measures\xe2\x80\x9d before requesting a waiver to extend project\ncompletion beyond the deadline.\n\nThe Amtrak Police Department (APD) received funds under the capital security\nportion of the grant agreement to improve security at stations, around bridges\nand tunnels, and for some nationwide security projects. The APD ARRA budget\nwas $95.1 million. Our objective was to review ARRA-funded police and security\nprojects to determine the extent to which planned security improvements were\nachieved. This is one in a series of reports we plan to issue on Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s use of\nRecovery Act funds.\n\nARRA funding enabled APD to make some security improvements, but the\nimprovements will be fewer than originally planned and budgeted. Between April\n2009 and November 2010, ARRA funding for police and security projects was cut\nby more than half, from $196 million to $95 million. This decrease caused 33\n\n\n Amtrak Office of Inspector General I Semiannual Report to Congress I April 1, 2011\xe2\x80\x93 September 30, 2011 23\n\x0cSignificant Activities | Audits\n\n\n\n\n projects to be canceled, and the budget and scope of work for 16 additional\n projects were reduced. Funding was reduced primarily because the grant\n language drove project selection toward those that could be completed by the\n February 2011 deadline, and in some cases bids were significantly higher than\n budgeted amounts. Amtrak spent about $1.7 million on canceled APD projects.\n To the extent that these projects are not funded in the future, these funds are at\n risk of being wasted.\n\n To avoid wasting $1.7 million spent on canceled projects, we recommended\n that the Vice President/Chief of Police give canceled ARRA projects priority\n when making future security improvement project-selection decisions. The Vice\n President and Chief of Police agreed with our recommendation and indicated\n that steps have been taken to utilize the designs from some canceled security\n projects.\n\n\n American Recovery and Reinvestment Act: Infrastructure Improvements\n Achieved but Less than Planned\n (Audit Report 908-2010, June 22, 2011)\n\n Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s Engineering Department received funds under the security and non-\n security portion of the ARRA-authorized FRA grant agreement. It contracted with\n Jacobs Projects Management Company for design and construction management\n services. Jacobs managed 37 projects, with a budget of $483.6 million.\n\n\n\n\n Acela\n\n\n\n24 Amtrak Office of Inspector General I Semiannual Report to Congress I April 1, 2011\xe2\x80\x93 September 30, 2011\n\x0c Significant Activities | Audits\n\n\n\n\n Our objective was to review the ARRA-funded, Jacobs-\n managed projects to determine the extent to which\n planned infrastructure improvements were completed.\n\n Although ARRA funding enabled Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s Engineering\n Department to make some infrastructure improvements,\nthey were fewer in number than originally planned and budgeted. Between March\n2009 and November 2010, ARRA funding was reprogrammed nine times, resulting\nin the Engineering Department removing 34 projects, leaving 37 assigned to\nJacobs. Specifically, 21 projects (with an estimated budget of $55.7 million) were\ncanceled, and 13 (with an estimated budget of $19.5 million) were transferred\nto the capital budget. These changes occurred primarily because the original\ngrant language drove project selection toward projects that could be completed\nby February 17, 2011, and the substitution of higher priority projects by Amtrak\nsenior management and the Engineering Department. Amtrak spent about $1.4\nmillion on canceled Jacobs projects.\n\nWe recommended that the Chief Engineer give canceled ARRA projects priority\nwhen making future infrastructure-improvement project-selection decisions, and\nprovide written justification to support the funding of higher priority projects.\nThe Chief Engineer stated that he intends to give priority to canceled projects.\n\n\nAmericans with Disabilities Act: Leadership Needed to Help Ensure That\nStations Served By Amtrak Are Compliant\n(Audit Report 109-210, September 29, 2011)\n There are 482 Amtrak-served\nThe Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) became law in 1990 and required that stations that are required\nintercity rail stations be made accessible to persons with disabilities by July 2010. to be ADA-compliant. In\nThere are 482 Amtrak-served stations that are required to be ADA-compliant. In February 2009,\xe2\x80\xa6only 48 of\nFebruary 2009, as required by the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement the ADA-required stations it\nAct of 2008, Amtrak provided a plan to Congress that showed only 48 of the ADA- serves were compliant and\nrequired stations it serves were compliant and $1.5 billion was needed to make $1.5 billion was needed to\nthe remaining 434 stations compliant. Amtrak reported it could not meet the make the remaining 434\nlegislative timeframe for achieving compliance and set a goal date of September stations compliant.\n30, 2015. In October 2010 Amtrak issued an updated plan.\n\nOur objectives were to assess (1) Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s progress in achieving ADA\ncompliance at the stations it serves, and (2) whether any gaps exist in Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s\nupdated plan to achieve ADA-compliance by its September 30, 2015, goal.\n\n\n\n\n Amtrak Office of Inspector General I Semiannual Report to Congress I April 1, 2011\xe2\x80\x93 September 30, 2011 25\n\x0cSignificant Activities | Audits\n\n\n\n\n An Amtrak employee assisting a passenger onto a train using a wheelchair lift\n\n\n Since 1990, Amtrak has made limited progress in making the stations it serves\n ADA-compliant, and since its 2009 report to Congress, no additional stations have\n become compliant. The compliant stations served about 34 percent of Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s\n FY 2010 ridership.\n\n Recent Amtrak actions have laid the groundwork to help ensure compliance\n by its goal date. The key steps in laying the foundation include (1) determining\n who has ADA responsibility for Amtrak-served stations; (2) refocusing its\n compliance plan on stations at which Amtrak has ADA responsibility; and\n (3) most importantly, developing a multi-year program, called the Accessible\n Station Development Program, to identify and complete the work required to\n make stations ADA-compliant. While these are important steps, progress in\n implementing the Accessible Station Development program has been limited.\n\n\n26 Amtrak Office of Inspector General I Semiannual Report to Congress I April 1, 2011\xe2\x80\x93 September 30, 2011\n\x0c Significant Activities | Audits\n\n\n\n\nFor example, while facility assessments have been completed for some stations,\nno construction contracts have been awarded.\n\nIn addition, Amtrak developed and piloted a program to provide audio and visual\nmessages for passengers who are hearing or visually impaired, or blind, called\nthe Passenger Information Display System (PIDS); and initiated a program to\nimprove access to stations for persons using wheelchairs, called the Mobility\nFirst program. However, progress in implementing PIDS has been limited and\nMobility First has taken longer than expected to complete. For example, the date\nto install wheelchair lifts at stations currently without wheelchair accessibility\nhas been delayed from February to September 2011. The underlying cause\n of the limited program\nKey gaps also exist in Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s October 2010 updated plan. First, the plan does progress and planning\nnot address how stations that Amtrak serves but that have no ADA responsibility weaknesses is the\nwill achieve compliance. Achieving compliance for those stations is dependent programs\xe2\x80\x99 fragmented\nupon other parties\xe2\x80\x94who are responsible for 225 station structures, 83 platforms, management and\nand 241 parking facilities. Second, the plan does not include the estimated cost of lack of accountability\ncompliance. On a related note, Amtrak does not have adequate support for its FY for results. Currently,\n2012 ADA budget request of $175 million. Therefore, we questioned the need to seven departments\ndedicate $175 million to fund ADA in FY 2012. Instead, the funds would be better are involved in program\nused to support other capital requirements. management, with no\n one office or official held\nThe underlying cause of the limited program progress and planning weaknesses\n accountable\xe2\x80\xa6.\nis the programs\xe2\x80\x99 fragmented management and lack of accountability for results.\nCurrently, seven departments are involved in program management, with no one\noffice or official held accountable for results. Further, the current status of ADA\nefforts leaves the company vulnerable to significant financial liability resulting\nfrom potential legal judgments and detracts from Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s strategic goals of\nimproving safety and customer service.\n\nTo help ensure that ADA-compliance is achieved by Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s goal date, we rec-\nommended that Amtrak address the program\xe2\x80\x99s fragmented management structure\nand lack of accountability for results, weaknesses in program cost estimates, and\ngaps in the ADA-compliance plan. In addition, Congress may wish to question\nAmtrak\xe2\x80\x99s request for $175 million in FY 2012 for ADA projects.\n\n\n\n\n Amtrak Office of Inspector General I Semiannual Report to Congress I April 1, 2011\xe2\x80\x93 September 30, 2011 27\n\x0cSignificant Activities | Audits\n\n\n\n\n Acela Car Purchase Draft Request for Proposal: Additional Requirements\n and Pre-Award Audit Clause Needed to Help Assess Proposed Price\n and Cost\n (Audit Report 009-2011, September 21, 2011)\n\n In August 2011, Amtrak issued a draft request for proposals (RFP) to purchase 40\n Acela coach cars through a firm, fixed-price contract. These cars will be inserted\n into the existing Acela trainsets and must integrate technologically as well as\n cosmetically with the current fleet. Because the original equipment manufacturer\n holds the intellectual property required to produce the cars and maintains the\nThese gaps occurred\n original electronic manufacturing drawings, Amtrak plans to award the Acela\nbecause Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s standard\n coach car contract on a sole-source basis to the original manufacturer. The\ncontracting policies for objective of this audit was to review the draft RFP and determine whether it\nsole-source RFPs do not contained adequate requirements to assess the proposed cost and price.\ncontain specific guidance\non requirements for While the draft RFP required the offeror to submit a price proposal that included\ncertified cost and pricing necessary costs, there are two areas in the draft that, if improved, would enhance\ndata or a pre-award Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s ability to assess the reasonableness of the price proposal. These\naudit clause. Without improvements represent acquisition best practices that are based on the Federal\nthese elements, Amtrak Acquisition Regulation. First, the draft RFP did not require that the offeror\nwill potentially not have provide certified cost and pricing data sufficient for a detailed assessment of the\nsufficient information to reasonableness of the\nassess the reasonableness\n price proposal. Second,\n the draft RFP did not\nof the offeror\xe2\x80\x99s proposal\n include a pre-award\nand negotiate a fair and\n audit and inspection\nreasonable firm, fixed price.\n clause providing Amtrak\n with access to the\n offeror\xe2\x80\x99s supporting\n documentation. These\n gaps occurred because\n Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s standard\n contracting policies for\n sole-source RFPs do not\n contain specific guidance\n on requirements for The Inspector General and OIG staff on a site visit to Philadelphia\n certified cost and pricing\n data or a pre-award audit clause. Without these elements, Amtrak potentially\n would not have had sufficient information to assess the reasonableness of the\n offeror\xe2\x80\x99s proposal and negotiate a fair and reasonable firm, fixed price.\n\n\n\n\n28 Amtrak Office of Inspector General I Semiannual Report to Congress I April 1, 2011\xe2\x80\x93 September 30, 2011\n\x0c Significant Activities | Audits\n\n\n\n\nWe recommended, therefore, that Amtrak make the following revisions to the\nAcela RFP and amend Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s procurement policy to require these revisions in\nall sole-source RFPs in excess of Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s small dollar procurement threshold\n(currently $100,000): (1) require the offeror to submit certified cost and pricing\ndata, and (2) add a pre-award audit and inspection clause. In commenting\non a draft of this report, Amtrak management agreed with both of our\nrecommendations, and subsequently incorporated both provisions into the RFP.\n\n\nOngoing Audits\nDuring the next 6 months, the Office of Audits expects to complete work on the\nfollowing:\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\t A review to determine whether Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s risk management framework and\n processes are effective in identifying and controlling financial, operational,\n and regulatory risks, and are consistent with private and public best prac-\n tices.\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\t An audit of Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s management of employment background investigations,\n including a review of policies, processes, and practices used to conduct new\n employee background investigations, with an emphasis on the use of that\n information in the hiring process; and oversight of contractors performing\n background investigations, with an emphasis on oversight of contractors\xe2\x80\x99\n timeliness in providing investigation reports.\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\t A review of the progress Amtrak management has made in implementing pro-\n visions of The Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008.\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\t An audit to determine if costs paid under selected American Recovery and\n Reinvestment Act-funded contracts are reasonable and allowable.\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\t An audit of progress implementing the Strategic Asset Management Program.\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\t A contract incurred-cost audit on an infrastructure project.\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\t An audit of security issues related to Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s wireless computer program.\n\n\n\n\n Amtrak Office of Inspector General I Semiannual Report to Congress I April 1, 2011\xe2\x80\x93 September 30, 2011 29\n\x0c Dining car on the Auto Train, traveling between Lorton, Virginia, and Sanford, Florida\n\n\n\n\n30 Amtrak Office of Inspector General I Semiannual Report to Congress I April 1, 2011\xe2\x80\x93 September 30, 2011\n\x0c Significant Activities | Inspections and Evaluations\n\n\n\n\nSignificant Activities:\nInspections and Evaluations\n\nDuring this reporting period, OIG issued two evaluation reports, an\n\nexamination into food and beverage service revenue losses, and a review of\n\nAmtrak\xe2\x80\x99s progress in improving its human capital management and training\n\nand development practices.\n\n\n [W]eaknesses allow\n certain employees to\nEvaluations Issued This Reporting Period carry out schemes\nThese are summaries of the inspection and evaluation reports issued between in which they falsify\nApril 1 and September 30, 2011. The complete reports may be accessed through documents to conceal\nour website: www.amtrakoig.gov.\n stolen cash or\n inventory\xe2\x80\xa6. $4 million\nFood and Beverage Service: Further Actions Needed to Address Revenue to $7 million of Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s\nLosses Due to Control Weaknesses and Gaps onboard food and\n(Evaluation Report E-11-03, June 23, 2011) beverage sales could be\n at risk of theft.\nThis report examined the causes of revenue losses associated with Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s\nonboard food and beverage service. While Amtrak has taken some action to\naddress the internal control weaknesses that have led to and continue to make\nthese revenues and inventories vulnerable to fraud, waste, and abuse, such\nweaknesses and gaps remain. These weaknesses allow certain employees to\ncarry out schemes in which they falsify documents to conceal stolen cash or\ninventory. The fraudulent nature of these schemes makes it difficult to measure\nonboard losses. Still, restaurant-industry sources estimate that losses for a typical\nindependent restaurant due to theft range from 4 percent to 7 percent of sales.\nOn the basis of these estimates, $4 million to $7 million of Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s onboard food\nand beverage sales could be at risk of theft. These losses also damage Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s\nreputation as a steward of federal funds and as a provider of high-quality\ncustomer service.\n\n\n\n\n Amtrak Office of Inspector General I Semiannual Report to Congress I April 1, 2011\xe2\x80\x93 September 30, 2011 31\n\x0cSignificant Activities | Inspections and Evaluations\n\n\n\n\n We made the following recommendations, all of which were agreed to by Amtrak\n management:\n\n 1.\t Establish a pilot project of cashless food and beverage sales on selected\n routes and trains to determine the short- and long-term effects on operations\n loss prevention, revenues, costs, customer satisfaction, and the onboard work\n environment.\n\n 2.\t Provide resources needed to establish a loss-prevention unit with dedicated\n staff to manage loss prevention, investigate losses, and provide a visible\n deterrent to fraud, waste, and abuse.\n\n 3.\t Have the loss-prevention unit implement an internal control action plan to\n address weaknesses and gaps in the on-board food and beverage service. The\n plan should include goals, milestones, and procedures to establish\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t a fraud-awareness program for onboard food and beverage employees;\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t internal controls and processes to randomly search lead service atten-\n dants and other service employees to detect possible unauthorized items\n coming on board;\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t internal controls and processes to randomly review lead service atten-\n dants\xe2\x80\x99 inventories of deliveries, en route transfers, and end-of-trip stocks\n to minimize fraud, waste, and abuse; and\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t internal controls and processes to randomly search lead service atten-\n dants and other service employees when departing the train to detect\n possible stolen items.\n\n\n Human Capital Management: Lack of Priority Has Slowed OIG-\n Recommended Actions to Improve Human Capital Management, Training,\n and Employee Development Practices\n (Evaluation Report E-11-04, July 8, 2011)\n\n This report presented the results of a follow-up review of our 2009 evaluations of\n human capital management (E-09-03, May 15, 2009) and training and employee\n development (E-09-06, October 26, 2009). We found that 2 years after we issued\n 24 recommendations for improving Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s human capital management\n practices and 19 months after issuing 27 recommendations to improve training\n and employee development practices, Amtrak made only limited progress in\n\n\n32 Amtrak Office of Inspector General I Semiannual Report to Congress I April 1, 2011\xe2\x80\x93 September 30, 2011\n\x0c Significant Activities | Inspections and Evaluations\n\n\n\n\nimplementing the recommendations. Further, in several cases, the planned\nactions identified to correct significant deficiencies were not responsive to the\nrecommendations and would not address the underlying problems; in some\ncases, progress was exaggerated. As a result, Amtrak continues to suffer from\noutdated human capital management, training, and employee development\nprocesses that hinder its ability to perform effectively. In addition, Amtrak is\nincreasingly at risk of encountering skills shortages as highly experienced, long- Amtrak continues to suffer\ntime employees retire. from outdated human\n capital management,\nTo address this situation, we recommended that the President and CEO (1) make training, and employee\nimproved human capital management, training, and employee development a development processes\nclearly articulated priority for the Chief Human Capital Officer, as well as for that hinder its ability\nall executives and managers at Amtrak; and (2) direct the Chief Human Capital to perform effectively.\nOfficer to revise the Human Capital Action Plan to include actions that are In addition, Amtrak\nresponsive to the recommendations and with reasonable implementation time is increasingly at risk\nframes.\n of encountering skills\n shortages as highly\nAmtrak\xe2\x80\x99s President and CEO agreed with our recommendations and has tasked\n experienced, long-time\nthe new Chief Human Capital Officer with developing an action plan to address\n employees retire.\nour findings and recommendations.\n\n\nOngoing Evaluations\nDuring the next 6 months, the Office of Inspections and Evaluations will continue\nto work on the following:\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\t A follow-up evaluation of Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s mechanical maintenance operations,\n examining progress made since our 2005 review, which recommended the\n adoption of Reliability-Centered Maintenance to improve effectiveness and\n efficiency.\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\t An evaluation, in response to a complaint, ascertaining whether Amtrak is\n following its policy that governs the assignment of individuals to temporary\n management positions. The complaint alleged that failure to follow the policy\n has resulted in disparate pay practices.\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\t An evaluation of Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s plan to increase Acela capacity, and whether it is\n supported by reasonable estimates and assumptions.\n\n\n\n\n Amtrak Office of Inspector General I Semiannual Report to Congress I April 1, 2011\xe2\x80\x93 September 30, 2011 33\n\x0cpage header\n\n\n\n\n Heartland Flyer, Gene Autry, OK\n\n\n\n\n34 Amtrak Office of Inspector General I Semiannual Report to Congress I April 1, 2011\xe2\x80\x93 September 30, 2011\n\x0c Significant Activities | Investigations\n\n\n\n\nSignificant Activities:\ninvestigations\n\nDuring this reporting period, the Office of Investigations (OI) hired two\n\nhighly experienced Special Agents-in-Charge to manage its offices in\n\nPhiladelphia and Los Angeles. The Office also acted to ensure that all OI\n\ncriminal investigators meet the competency requirements of the Council\n\nof the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency (CIGIE). OI opened\n\n22 new cases during this period, while closing 162; our hotline received\n\n161 new contacts.\n\n\n\nHealth Care Fraud Reporting\nFollowing discussions with OIG investigations, Amtrak Human Resources agreed\nto reinstate a contract requirement that the Third Party Administrator for the\nAmtrak Employee Group Medical Plan must report instances of suspected health\ncare fraud to OIG.\n\n\nPayment Card and Credit Card Fraud\nOI is working collaboratively with the Amtrak Chief Financial Officer to address\ninstances of suspected fraud involving payment cards and credit cards.\n\n\nIllness, Injury, and Disability Claims\nOI is addressing the issue of employee illness and injury reporting. This effort\nis intended to increase our understanding of fraud indicators in these claims,\nincrease fraud awareness, and increase the reporting of suspected fraudulent\nclaims to OIG.\n\n\n\n\n Amtrak Office of Inspector General I Semiannual Report to Congress I April 1, 2011\xe2\x80\x93 September 30, 2011 35\n\x0cSignificant Activities | Investigations\n\n\n\n\n Fraud Awareness and Internal Controls Presentations\n In concert with OIG\xe2\x80\x99s Office of Audits, OI has continued a comprehensive effort\n to deliver fraud awareness briefings to Amtrak management, operations, and\n support personnel. This training is designed to help Amtrak\n managers, employees and contractors recognize fraud\n indicators and report suspicions of fraud to OIG. The briefings\n are also designed to educate Amtrak management on OIG\xe2\x80\x99s\n role and to foster a partnership between OIG and management.\n During this reporting period, 37 presentations have been\n given to a total of 442 Amtrak employees and officers,\n including the Board of Directors, Executive Committee, and\n managers and employees in the Engineering, Mechanical, and\n Procurement departments. The program was also presented\n at the Association of American Railroads Internal Audit and\n Accounting Conference.\n\n Additionally, to ensure that Amtrak personnel are aware of the\n importance of adhering to internal controls to prevent revenue\n losses from conductor ticket sales, the Revenue Protection Unit\n conducted four presentations to a total of 56 newly-hired or\n newly-promoted assistant conductors.\n LaVan Griffith, Deputy AIG, Investigations\n \xe2\x80\x94Field Operations, on a site visit to Philadelphia\n\n\n\n Revenue Protection Unit\n In conjunction with mostly random onboard train observations of lead service\n attendants, the Revenue Protection Unit analyzed support documentation\n for onboard food and beverage sales. The 44 completed reviews resulted in\n six administrative referrals. Based on these and prior referrals, Amtrak took\n disciplinary action on nine lead service attendants.\n\n Since 2003, the Revenue Protection Unit has observed and analyzed the\n supporting documentation for numerous lead service attendants. Those findings\n were instrumental in the preparation of the June 2011 OIG Evaluation Report\n entitled Food and Beverage Service: Further Actions Needed to Address Revenue\n Losses Due to Control Weaknesses and Gaps (see Significant Activities:\n Inspections and Evaluations). This report identified internal control\n weaknesses in food and beverage service and included recommendations to\n address them, with which Amtrak management agreed.\n\n\n\n36 Amtrak Office of Inspector General I Semiannual Report to Congress I April 1, 2011\xe2\x80\x93 September 30, 2011\n\x0c Significant Activities | Investigations\n\n\n\n\nOI Retooling\nDuring this reporting period, OIG has focused on and made significant progress in\nrestructuring and retooling the Office of Investigations.\n\nOI streamlined and simplified the position descriptions for criminal investigators\nand ensured that all criminal investigators meet the qualifications, training, and\ncompetency requirements of the Council of Inspectors General for Integrity and\nEfficiency (CIGIE). OI has also closed the Baltimore office, and reassigned its\npersonnel to Washington, D.C.\n\nOIG also signed an agreement with a healthcare contractor to provide annual\nmedical/physical exams to all criminal investigators, to ensure that they meet the\nappropriate medical and physical standards. OI continues to review and revise\npolicy directives to ensure compliance with CIGIE standards.\n\nOI has reviewed and properly disposed of extensive old case files and case\nmaterials in accordance with Amtrak and OIG records retention policies.\n\nOI has also hired two highly qualified, experienced, and accomplished\ninvestigative managers for Special Agent-in-Charge positions in Philadelphia and\nLos Angeles.\n\n\n\n\n Amtrak Office of Inspector General I Semiannual Report to Congress I April 1, 2011\xe2\x80\x93 September 30, 2011 37\n\x0cpage headerActivities | Investigations\nSignificant\n\n\n\n\n Coast Starlight at Pinole, CA\n\n\n\n\n38 Amtrak Office of Inspector General I Semiannual Report to Congress I April 1, 2011\xe2\x80\x93 September 30, 2011\n\x0c Performance Measures\n\n\n\n\nFY 2011 Performance Measures,\n4/1/2011\xe2\x80\x949/30/2011\n\nAudit/Evaluation Results\nCongressional Testimony 1\nReports/Evaluations Issued 8\nCosts Questioned/Unsupported/\nFunds to be Put to Better Use a$343,919,932\n\nManagement Decisions\nto Seek Recoveries 4\n\n\n\nInvestigative Results\nFinancial Impact Hotline Contacts/Referrals\nRecoveries $675 Customer Service 51\n Management 48\nCases Opened Request for Assistance by 4\nProcurement Fraud 6 Law Enforcement Agency\nConflict of Interest 3 Preliminary Investigation Opened 6\nTheft/Embezzlement 2 No Action Warranted 52\nTime and Attendance Fraud 2 Total 161\nCost Mischarging 2\nProcurement Irregularity 2\nProactive Reviews 1\nFalse Statements 1 Advisory Functions\nProduct Substitution 1 FOIA Requests Received b\n 17\nPolicy Violation 1 FOIA Requests Processed b\n 13\nDrug Investigation 1 Referred to Amtrak 3\n Open 1\nJudicial and Administrative Actions\t 0 Legislation Reviewed 0\n Regulations Reviewed 0\nInvestigative Workload\nCases Open on 4/1/2011 202\nInvestigations Opened 22\nInvestigations Closed 162\nCases Open on 9/30/2011 62\n\n\n\n\na \tNot included in this amount are the funds to be put to better use identified in Report E-11-02. Implementing the recommendations in this report\n would allow Amtrak to reduce its fleet requirements by 53 cars and 25 locomotives over the 30-year planning period in Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s Fleet Strategy,\n resulting in a potential reduction of over $520 million in procurement and overhaul costs over the lives of these additional pieces of equipment.\nb \tIncludes one appeal.\n\n\n\n\n Amtrak Office of Inspector General I Semiannual Report to Congress I April 1, 2011\xe2\x80\x93 September 30, 2011 39\n\x0c This is a blank page\n\n\n\n\n40 Amtrak Office of Inspector General I Semiannual Report to Congress I April 1, 2011\xe2\x80\x93 September 30, 2011\n\x0c Appendix\n\n\n\n\nAppendixes\n\n\n\nAppendix 1\n\nOffice of Inspector General\nAudit/Evaluation Reports Issued with Questioned Costs\n\n Reporting Period: 4/1/2011\xe2\x80\x939/30/2011\n\nCategory Number Questioned Costs Unsupported Costs\nA.\t For which no management decision has been 3 $20,292,138 $1,037,862\n made by the commencement of the reporting\n period.\nB.\t Reports issued during the reporting period. 1 0 519,932\nSubtotals (A + B) 4 $20,292,138 $1,557,794\n\n\nLess\nC.\t For which a management decision was made 4 20,292,138 1,557,794\n during the reporting period.\n (i)\t dollar value of recommendations that 2 20,052,519 519,932\n were agreed to by management.\n (ii)\tdollar value of recommendations that 2 239,619 1,037,862\n were not agreed to by management.\nD.\t For which no management decision has been 0 $\t 0 $\t 0\n made by the end of the reporting period.\n\n\n\n\n Amtrak Office of Inspector General I Semiannual Report to Congress I April 1, 2011\xe2\x80\x93 September 30, 2011 41\n\x0cAppendix\n\n\n\n\n Appendix 2\n\n Office of Inspector General\n Audit/Evaluation Reports with Funds to be Put to Better Use\n\n Reporting Period: 4/1/2011\xe2\x80\x939/30/2011\n\n Category Number Dollar Value\n A.\t For which no management decision has been 0 $\t 0\n made by the commencement of the reporting\n period.\n B.\t Reports issued during the reporting period. 3 343,400,000\n Subtotals (A + B) 3 $343,400,000\n Less\n C.\t For which a management decision was made 3 343,400,000\n during the reporting period.\n\n (i)\t dollar value of recommendations that were 3 343,400,000\n agreed to by management.\n\n (ii)\tdollar value of recommendations that were 0 0\n not agreed to by management.\n D.\t For which no management decision has been 0 $\t 0\n made by the end of the reporting period.\n\n\n\n\n42 Amtrak Office of Inspector General I Semiannual Report to Congress I April 1, 2011\xe2\x80\x93 September 30, 2011\n\x0c Appendix\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX 3\n\nOFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL\nDETAILED LISTING OF ALL ISSUED AUDIT/EVALUATION REPORTS AND TESTIMONY\n\n Reporting Period: 4/1/2011\xe2\x80\x939/30/2011\n\nDate Report/ Report Title Report Questioned Unsupported Funds to be Put\nIssued Testimony Category Costs Costs to Better Use\n Number\n04/21/2011 403-2010 On-Time-Performance Incentives: Acquisition & $ 0 $519,932 $ 0\n Inaccurate Invoices Were Paid Due Procurement\n to Long-standing Weaknesses in\n Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s Invoice-Review Process\n06/02/2011 001-2011 Strategic Asset Management Information 0 0 0\n Program: Further Actions Should Technology\n Be Taken to Reduce Business\n Disruption Risk\n06/16/2011 914-2010 American Recovery and Acquisition & 0 0 41,500,000\n Reinvestment Act: Fewer Security Procurement\n Improvements than Anticipated Will\n be Made and Majority of Projects\n Are Not Complete\n06/22/2011 908-2010 American Recovery and Reinvest- Acquisition & 0 0 126,900,000\n ment Act: Infrastructure Improve- Procurement\n ments Achieved but Less than\n Planned\n06/23/2011 E-11-03 Food and Beverage Service: Fur- Train 0 0 0\n ther Actions Needed to Address Operations\n Revenue Losses Due to Control & Business\n Weaknesses and Gaps Management\n07/08/2011 E-11-04 Human Capital Management: Lack Human 0 0 0\n of Priority Has Slowed OIG-Recom- Capital\n mended Actions to Improve Human Management\n Capital Management, Training, and\n Employee Development Practices\n09/14/2011 TM-11-01 Progress and Opportunities in n/a n/a n/a n/a\n Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s Implementation of the\n Passenger Rail Investment and\n Improvement Act of 2008\n09/21/2011 009-2011 Acela Car Purchase Draft Acquisition & 0 0 0\n Request for Proposal: Additional Procurement\n Requirements and Pre-Award Audit\n Clause Needed to Help Assess\n Proposed Cost and Price\n09/29/2011 109-2010 Americans with Disabilities Act: Train 0 0 175,000,000\n Leadership Needed to Help Ensure Operations\n That Stations Served by Amtrak Are & Business\n Compliant Management\nTotal $ 0 $519,932 $343,400,000\n\n (continued)\n\n\n\n Amtrak Office of Inspector General I Semiannual Report to Congress I April 1, 2011\xe2\x80\x93 September 30, 2011 43\n\x0cAppendix\n\n\n\n\n APPENDIX 3 (continued)\n\n\n OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL\n DETAILED LISTING OF ALL ISSUED AUDIT/EVALUATION REPORTS AND TESTIMONY\n\n Reporting Period: 4/1/2011\xe2\x80\x939/30/2011\n\n\n Audits/Evaluations\n In process at 4/1/2011: 26\n Postponed or canceled: 0\n Started: 6\n Issued: 8\n In process at 9/30/2011: 24\n\n\n\n\n44 Amtrak Office of Inspector General I Semiannual Report to Congress I April 1, 2011\xe2\x80\x93 September 30, 2011\n\x0c Appendix\n\n\n\n\nAppendix 4\n\nOffice of Inspector General\nEVALUATION REPORTS ISSUED WITH FINAL MANAGEMENT ACTION PENDING CONTAINING ESTIMATED\nYEARLY COST SAVINGSa (FUNDS TO BE PUT TO BETTER USE)\n\n Reporting Period: 4/1/2011\xe2\x80\x939/30/2011\n\n Recommendations made or carried forward in this reporting period\n\n Source of savingsb Report Number/Date Estimated Annual Estimated Annual\n Savings Savings Already\n Achieved\n Reliability-Centered Maintenance cE-05-04/ $100 million+ $30 million\t\n September 6, 2005\n Increased productivity and utilization dE-06-02/ 28 million+ 4 million\t\n of rolling stock fleet April 6, 2006\n Consolidation of mechanical E-06-03/April 24, 2006 25 million+ 4 million+\n maintenance operations into \xe2\x80\x9ccenters\n of excellence\xe2\x80\x9d at fewer locations\n Improved efficiency of human E-09-03/May 15, 2009 23 million+\n resource processes through leveraging\n of new technology\n Achievement of \xe2\x80\x9cState of Good Repair\xe2\x80\x9d E-09-05/ 50 million+\n of Amtrak infrastructure and adoption September 29, 2009\n of European railroads\xe2\x80\x99 infrastructure\n best practices\n Improved efficiency of training E-09-06/October 26, 2009 8 million\t\n Total $234 million+ $38 million+\n\na \tEstimated savings based on benchmarking to other organizations\nb \tAbbreviated description; see report for full explanation\nc \tFollow-up evaluation underway\nd \tSee also E-11-02, March 31, 2011: Evaluation of Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s FY 2010 Fleet Strategy: A Commendable High-Level Plan That Needs Deeper\n Analysis and Planning Integration.\n\n\n\n\n Amtrak Office of Inspector General I Semiannual Report to Congress I April 1, 2011\xe2\x80\x93 September 30, 2011 45\n\x0cAppendix\n\n\n\n\n Appendix 5\n\n Office of Inspector General\n Review of Legislation and Regulations\n\n Reporting Period: 4/1/2011\xe2\x80\x939/30/2011\n\n Section 4(a) of the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, provides that the Inspector General shall review\n existing and proposed legislation and regulations relating to programs and operations of such establishment and to\n make recommendations in the semiannual reports\xe2\x80\xa6concerning the impact of such legislation or regulations on the\n economy and efficiency in the administration of such programs and operations administered or financed by such\n establishment or the prevention and detection of fraud and abuse in such programs and operations.\n\n During this reporting period, at the request of the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency,\n we reviewed proposed regulations to implement the Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Act.\n\n\n\n\n46 Amtrak Office of Inspector General I Semiannual Report to Congress I April 1, 2011\xe2\x80\x93 September 30, 2011\n\x0c Appendix\n\n\n\n\nAppendix 6\n\nOffice of Inspector General\npeer review results\n\n Reporting Period: 4/1/2011\xe2\x80\x939/30/2011\n\nThe Dodd\xe2\x80\x93Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (P. L. 111-203, July 21, 2010)\nrequires each Office of Inspector General (OIG) to include in its Semiannual Report to Congress the\nresults of any peer review conducted by another OIG during the reporting period, or\xe2\x80\x94if no peer review\nwas conducted\xe2\x80\x94a statement identifying the date of the last peer review. Also required is a list of all peer reviews\nconducted by the OIG of another OIG, and the status of any recommendations made to or by the OIG.\n\nA review of the Amtrak Office of Inspector General\xe2\x80\x99s Office of Audits was conducted by the Inspector General of the\nLegal Services Corporation for the year ended September 30, 2008. All recommendations have been implemented.\n\nWe have not performed a peer review of any other OIG organization.\n\n\n\n\n Amtrak Office of Inspector General I Semiannual Report to Congress I April 1, 2011\xe2\x80\x93 September 30, 2011 47\n\x0cGlossary\n\n\n\n\n Glossary of Audit Terms and Abbreviations\n The terms the OIG uses in reporting audit statistics are defined below:\n Questioned Cost \xe2\x80\x93 Cost or expenditure of funds for an intended purpose that is unnecessary, unreasonable, or an\n alleged violation of Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s corporate policy or procedure.\n Unsupported Cost \xe2\x80\x93 Cost that is not supported by adequate documentation at the time of the audit.\n Funds to Be Put to Better Use \xe2\x80\x93 Funds identified in an audit that could be used more effectively by taking greater\n efficiency measures.\n Management Decision \xe2\x80\x93 Management\xe2\x80\x99s evaluation of the OIG audit finding and its final decision concerning\n agreement or non-agreement with the OIG recommendation.\n\n Abbreviations/acronyms used in the text are defined below:\n\n ADA Americans with Disabilities Act NAPA National Academy of Public\n APD Amtrak Police Department Administration\n ARRA American Recovery and Reinvestment NEC Northeast Corridor\n Act of 2009 OI Office of Investigations\n CEO chief executive officer OIG Office of Inspector General\n CFO chief financial officer OMB Office of Management and Budget\n CIGIE Council of the Inspectors General on OTP on-time performance\n Integrity and Efficiency P.L. Public Law\n D.C. District of Columbia PRIIA Passenger Rail Investment and\n EAP Employee Assistance Program Improvement Act of 2008\n ESC Executive Steering Committee R&R repair and return\n FBPTBU funds to be put to better use RCM reliability-centered maintenance\n FRA Federal Railroad Administration RFP request for proposals\n FY fiscal year RPU Revenue Protection Unit\n GAGAS generally accepted government auditing SAM strategic asset management\n standard SIGIR Special Inspector General for Iraq\n GAO Government Accountability Office Reconstruction\n GSA General Services Administration U.S.C. United States Code\n IG Inspector General USPS United States Postal Service\n LSA lead service attendant\n\n\n\n\n48 Amtrak Office of Inspector General I Semiannual Report to Congress I April 1, 2011\xe2\x80\x93 September 30, 2011\n\x0c Reporting Requirements\n\n\n\n\nReporting Requirements Index\n\nINDEX OF REPORTING REQUIREMENTS PURSUANT TO THE INSPECTOR GENERAL ACT\n\n\n\nTopic/Section Reporting Requirement Page\n4(a)(2) Review of Legislation and Regulations 45\n\n5(a)(1) Significant Problems, Abuses, and Deficiencies 19-29, 31-33, 35-37\n\n Recommendations for Corrective Action to Significant\n5(a)(2) 19-29, 31-33, 35-37\n Problems\n Previous Reports\xe2\x80\x99 Recommendations for Which Corrective\n5(a)(3) n/a\n Action Has Not Been Completed\n\n5(a)(4) Matters Referred to Prosecutive Authorities n/a\n\n5(a)(5) Information Assistance Refused or Not Provided n/a\n\n5(a)(6) Audit Reports Issued in This Reporting Period 42\n\n5(a)(7) Summary of Significant Reports 42\n\n5(a)(8) Audit Reports with Questioned Costs 40\n\n Audit Reports with Recommendations That Funds Be Put\n5(a)(9) 41\n To Better Use\n Previous Audit Reports Issued with No Management\n5(a)(10) n/a\n Decision Made by End of This Reporting Period\n\n5(a)(11) Significant Revised Management Decisions n/a\n\n Significant Management Decisions with Which the OIG is\n5(a)(12) n/a\n in Disagreement\n Federal Financial Management Improvement Act-related\n5(a)(13) n/a\n Reporting\n\n5(a)(14-16) Peer Review Results 47\n\n\n\n\n Amtrak Office of Inspector General I Semiannual Report to Congress I April 1, 2011\xe2\x80\x93 September 30, 2011 49\n\x0c Stop Waste, Fraud, Abuse,\n and Mismanagement!\n Who pays? You pay.\n Act like it\xe2\x80\x99s your money\xe2\x80\xa6because it is.\n Tell Us About It\n Are you aware of waste, fraud, abuse, or mismanagement at Amtrak? Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s\n Office of Inspector General (OIG) has a toll-free Hotline number that you can call,\n even if you\xe2\x80\x99re not certain that what you suspect falls into one of these categories.\n If you\xe2\x80\x99d prefer to write to us, that\xe2\x80\x99s fine, too.\n\n The OIG will keep your identity confidential. You may remain anonymous if you\n so choose. You are protected by law from reprisal by your employer.\n\n\n\n Call the Amtrak OIG Hotline\n Nationwide: (800) 468-5469\n\n\n Write to us\n Office of Inspector General\n P.O. Box 76654\n Washington, D.C. 20013-6654\n\n Visit us online\n www.amtrakoig.gov\n\n\n\n\n50 Amtrak Office of Inspector General I Semiannual Report to Congress I April 1, 2011\xe2\x80\x93 September 30, 2011\n\x0cwww.amtrakoig.gov\n\x0c National Railroad Passenger Corporation\n Office of Inspector General\n10 G Street, NE, Suite 3W-300, Washington, DC 20002-4285\n www.amtrakoig.gov\n\n Amtrak is a registered service mark of the National Railroad Passenger Corporation\n\x0c'


type: caselaw

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 18.9.2017
 DE
 Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union
 C 309/10
 Urteil des Gerichtshofs (Vierte Kammer) vom 26. Juli 2017 (Vorabentscheidungsersuchen des Korkein oikeus — Finnland) — Hannele Hälvä, Sari Naukkarinen, Pirjo Paajanen, Satu Piik/SOS-Lapsikylä ry
 (Rechtssache C-175/16) (1)
 ((Vorlage zur Vorabentscheidung - Richtlinie 2003/88/EG - Art. 17 - Schutz der Sicherheit und der Gesundheit der Arbeitnehmer - Arbeitszeitgestaltung - Zusätzliche Vergütungen - Kinderschutzorganisation - Kinderdorfeltern - Vorübergehende Abwesenheit der Kinderdorfeltern - Als Vertreter der Kinderdorfeltern beschäftigte Arbeitnehmerinnen - Begriff))
 (2017/C 309/12)
 Verfahrenssprache: Finnisch
 Vorlegendes Gericht
 Korkein oikeus
 Parteien des Ausgangsverfahrens
 Klägerinnen: Hannele Hälvä, Sari Naukkarinen, Pirjo Paajanen, Satu Piik
 Beklagter: SOS-Lapsikylä ry
 Tenor
 Art. 17 Abs. 1 der Richtlinie 2003/88/EG des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates vom 4. November 2003 über bestimmte Aspekte der Arbeitszeitgestaltung ist dahin auszulegen, dass er auf eine Beschäftigung wie die im Ausgangsverfahren in Rede stehende, die darin besteht, in Vertretung der in erster Linie damit betrauten Person Kinder unter familienähnlichen Umständen zu betreuen, keine Anwendung findet, wenn nicht erwiesen ist, dass die gesamte Arbeitszeit nicht gemessen oder nicht im Voraus festgelegt wird oder von dem Arbeitnehmer selbst festgelegt werden kann, was zu prüfen Sache des vorlegenden Gerichts ist.
 (1) ABl. C 191 vom 30.5.2016.


text:
 11.5.2015
 CS
 Úřední věstník Evropské unie
 C 155/15
 Žádost o rozhodnutí o předběžné otázce podaná Hof van beroep te Antwerpen (Belgie) dne 25. února 2015 – Sven Mathys v. De Grave Antverpia NV
 (Věc C-92/15)
 (2015/C 155/16)
 Jednací jazyk: nizozemština
 Předkládající soud
 Hof van beroep te Antwerpen
 Účastníci původního řízení
 Navrhovatel: Sven Mathys
 Odpůrkyně: De Grave Antverpia NV
 Předběžné otázky
 Je článek 3 belgického zákona ze dne 5. května 1936 o pronájmech ve vnitrozemské vodní dopravě slučitelný s články 1 a 2 směrnice 96/75/ES (1), pokud osoba, jež není ani vlastníkem, ani provozovatelem plavidla vnitrozemské plavby, uzavře smlouvu o přepravě zboží na vnitrozemských vodních cestách jakožto dopravce, a nikoli jakožto prostředník, tj. „nájemce“ ve smyslu článku 3 zákona ze dne 5. května 1936?
 (1) Směrnice Rady 96/75/ES ze dne 19. listopadu 1996 o systémech pronájmu plavidel a tvorby cen ve vnitrostátní a mezinárodní vnitrozemské vodní dopravě ve Společenství (Úř. věst. L 304, s. 12; Zvl. vyd. 07/02, s. 508).


type: contracts

text:
 31.10.2013
 RO
 Jurnalul Oficial al Uniunii Europene
 L 291/8
 DECIZIA NR. 56/2013 A COMITETULUI MIXT AL SEE
 din 3 mai 2013
 de modificare a anexei I (Chestiuni veterinare și fitosanitare) și a anexei II (Reglementări tehnice, standarde, încercări și certificare) la Acordul privind SEE
 COMITETUL MIXT AL SEE,
 având în vedere Acordul privind Spațiul Economic European („Acordul privind SEE”), în special articolul 98,
 întrucât:
 (1)
 Regulamentul de punere în aplicare (UE) nr. 489/2012 al Comisiei din 8 iunie 2012 de stabilire a normelor de punere în aplicare a articolului 16 din Regulamentul (CE) nr. 1925/2006 al Parlamentului European și al Consiliului privind adaosul de vitamine și minerale, precum și de anumite substanțe de alt tip în produsele alimentare (1) trebuie încorporat în Acordul privind SEE.
 (2)
 Regulamentul (UE) nr. 556/2012 al Comisiei din 26 iunie 2012 de modificare a anexei III la Regulamentul (CE) nr. 396/2005 al Parlamentului European și al Consiliului în ceea ce privește limitele maxime de reziduuri de spinosad din sau de pe zmeură (2) trebuie încorporat în Acordul privind SEE.
 (3)
 Prezenta decizie se referă la legislația privind hrana pentru animale și produsele alimentare. Legislația privind hrana pentru animale și produsele alimentare nu se aplică Liechtensteinului atât timp cât aplicarea Acordului dintre Comunitatea Europeană și Confederația Elvețiană privind schimburile comerciale cu produse agricole se extinde la Liechtenstein, astfel cum se prevede în adaptările sectoriale aduse anexei I și în partea introductivă a capitolului XII din anexa II la Acordul privind SEE. Prin urmare, prezenta decizie nu se aplică Liechtensteinului.
 (4)
 În consecință, anexele I și II la Acordul privind SEE ar trebui modificate în mod corespunzător,
 ADOPTĂ PREZENTA DECIZIE:
 Articolul 1
 În anexa I la Acordul privind SEE capitolul II, la punctul 40 [Regulamentul (CE) nr. 396/2005 al Parlamentului European și al Consiliului] se adaugă următoarea liniuță:
 „—
 32012 R 0556: Regulamentul (UE) nr. 556/2012 al Comisiei din 26 iunie 2012 (JO L 166, 27.6.2012, p. 67)”.
 Articolul 2
 Capitolul XII din anexa II la Acordul privind SEE se modifică după cum urmează:
 1.
 la punctul 54zzy [Regulamentul (CE) nr. 396/2005 al Parlamentului European și al Consiliului] se adaugă următoarea liniuță:
 „—
 32012 R 0556: Regulamentul (UE) nr. 556/2012 al Comisiei din 26 iunie 2012 (JO L 166, 27.6.2012, p. 67).”;
 2.
 după punctul 71 [Regulamentul (UE) nr. 378/2012 al Comisiei] se introduce următorul text:
 „72.
 32012 R 0489: Regulamentul de punere în aplicare (UE) nr. 489/2012 al Comisiei din 8 iunie 2012 de stabilire a normelor de punere în aplicare a articolului 16 din Regulamentul (CE) nr. 1925/2006 al Parlamentului European și al Consiliului privind adaosul de vitamine și minerale, precum și de anumite substanțe de alt tip în produsele alimentare (JO L 150, 9.6.2012, p. 71).”
 Articolul 3
 Textele Regulamentului de punere în aplicare (UE) nr. 489/2012 și ale Regulamentului (UE) nr. 556/2012 în limbile islandeză și norvegiană, care urmează să fie publicate în suplimentul SEE la Jurnalul Oficial al Uniunii Europene, sunt autentice.
 Articolul 4
 Prezenta decizie intră în vigoare la 4 mai 2013, cu condiția să se fi efectuat toate notificările prevăzute la articolul 103 alineatul (1) din Acordul privind SEE (3).
 Articolul 5
 Prezenta decizie se publică în secțiunea SEE și în suplimentul SEE ale Jurnalului Oficial al Uniunii Europene.
 Adoptată la Bruxelles, 3 mai 2013.
 Pentru Comitetul mixt al SEE
 Președintele
 Gianluca GRIPPA
 (1) JO L 150, 9.6.2012, p. 71.
 (2) JO L 166, 27.6.2012, p. 67.
 (3) Nu au fost semnalate obligații constituționale.