type: other

jurisdiction: US

text: b' OFFICE OF\n THE INSPECTOR GENERAL\n\nSOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION\n\n\n OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS\n MEGASITE INFORMATION\n MANAGEMENT AND\n BAR-CODING SYSTEMS\n\n August 2005 A-12-05-15085\n\n\n\n\n AUDIT REPORT\n\x0c Mission\nWe improve SSA programs and operations and protect them against fraud, waste,\nand abuse by conducting independent and objective audits, evaluations, and\ninvestigations. We provide timely, useful, and reliable information and advice to\nAdministration officials, the Congress, and the public.\n\n Authority\nThe Inspector General Act created independent audit and investigative units,\ncalled the Office of Inspector General (OIG). The mission of the OIG, as spelled\nout in the Act, is to:\n\n \xc2\x81 Conduct and supervise independent and objective audits and\n investigations relating to agency programs and operations.\n \xc2\x81 Promote economy, effectiveness, and efficiency within the agency.\n \xc2\x81 Prevent and detect fraud, waste, and abuse in agency programs and\n operations.\n \xc2\x81 Review and make recommendations regarding existing and proposed\n legislation and regulations relating to agency programs and operations.\n \xc2\x81 Keep the agency head and the Congress fully and currently informed of\n problems in agency programs and operations.\n\n To ensure objectivity, the IG Act empowers the IG with:\n\n \xc2\x81 Independence to determine what reviews to perform.\n \xc2\x81 Access to all information necessary for the reviews.\n \xc2\x81 Authority to publish findings and recommendations based on the reviews.\n\n Vision\nBy conducting independent and objective audits, investigations, and evaluations,\nwe are agents of positive change striving for continuous improvement in the\nSocial Security Administration\'s programs, operations, and management and in\nour own office.\n\x0c SOCIAL SECURITY\nMEMORANDUM\n\nDate: August 25, 2005 Refer To:\n\nTo: The Commissioner\n\nFrom: Inspector General\n\nSubject: Office of Hearings and Appeals Megasite Information Management and Bar-Coding\n Systems (A-12-05-15085)\n\n\n OBJECTIVE\n\n Our objective is to determine whether the Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA)\n Megasite\xe2\x80\x99s new technology, consisting of an upgraded computer tracking system and\n bar-coding system, effectively tracks folders and provides the technological support to\n better safeguard folders.\n\n BACKGROUND\n The OHA\xe2\x80\x99s Appeals Council (AC) reviews Administrative Law Judge decisions appealed\n by claimants. The Council decides on approximately 100,000 cases per year. The AC\n consists of Administrative Appeals Judges and is supported by the Office of Appellate\n Operations (OAO). Branches within OAO process disability cases and are supervised\n by branch chiefs. Hearing offices send case folders that have been denied or dismissed\n to the Megasite in Springfield, Virginia. OHA estimates 148,000 folders are stored on\n 18,000 shelves in the Megasite.\n\n The Megasite serves as an off-site active claims storage facility and repository for all\n folders processed by the AC. Folders are retained anywhere from 6 months to 2 years,\n depending on whether the claimant files an appeal at the AC or civil court level. Folders\n are moved between the AC and Megasite during different stages of the appellate\n process. Eventually folders are released to permanent Social Security Administration\n (SSA) storage or SSA payment centers (See Appendices B & C for illustrations of the\n folder receipt and retention process). Work performed in the branches is based\n exclusively on documents in the folder. The Megasite\xe2\x80\x99s ability to control, quickly locate,\n retrieve, and route folders is critical to ensuring the timeliness of processing appealed\n claims.\n\x0cPage 2 - The Commissioner\n\nWe audited the Megasite in Fiscal Year (FY) 20031 and reported that the computer\ninventory system, Megasite Case Control System (MSCCS), was losing data and\ncrashing, and, as a result, OHA staff could not find all requested folders. We tested\nboth the Megasite\xe2\x80\x99s physical and computerized inventories and we projected that OHA\ncould not locate as many as 10,100 folders. OHA subsequently installed new computer\nand bar-coding equipment.\n\nAs mentioned in our prior report, the Megasite upgraded from MSCCS to Enhanced\nMegasite Case Control System (eMSCCS) and installed Radio Beacon, a commercial\nwarehouse management system, in July 2003. OHA later found that eMSCCS was\ninadequate for Megasite operations and then implemented Megasite Information\nManagement System (MIMS) in August 2004. MIMS is a web-based, database system\nupdated in real-time using Radio Beacon radio-frequency hand held scanners and bar-\ncode labels. MIMS regularly interfaces with other OHA systems to expedite the folder\nreceipt process.\n\nRESULTS OF REVIEW\nThe implementation of new technology allowed OHA to greatly improve its ability to\naccount for folders stored at the Megasite. Specifically, our audit found:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Inventory accuracy greatly improved and problems discussed in the prior report\n have been addressed.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The inventory tracking system is more technologically advanced and provides\n real-time data, enabling OHA to effectively track and better safeguard folders.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Shelf inventory processes have improved under the new system.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 OAO branch chiefs reported an improvement in Megasite service, which they\n claim has positively affected branch operations.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 While the system automatically sends emails to folder requesters, additional\n individuals may need to be notified about availability of folders.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Written procedures are needed for key Megasite processes for training and\n reference purposes.\n\nSee Table 1 showing an overview in Megasite operations before and after the new\ntechnology was implemented.\n\n\n\n\n1\n SSA Office of the Inspector General, Operations of the Office of Hearings and Appeals Megasite\n(A-12-03-13039), February 2004.\n\x0cPage 3 - The Commissioner\n\n Table 1: Overview of Megasite Operations Before and After\n Implementation of New Technology\n FY 2003 Current\n OIG results from testing Projected as many as 10,100 Inventory accuracy greatly\n inventory samples folders listed in MSCCS but unable improved - error rate immaterial\n to locate on shelves (too low to project)\n Inventory tracking system MSCCS \xe2\x80\x93 not web-based, many MIMS \xe2\x80\x93 web-based, no crashes,\n crashes and downtime no downtime\n\n Access limited to Megasite staff Access available to both\n Megasite and OAO branch staff\n\n Real-time data not available Real-time data available\n Shelf inventory process Results manually recorded on Results automatically captured in\n paper and computerized inventory the system by scanners\n must be manually updated\n\n Results not retained Results retained\n\n No accuracy rate available Accuracy rate of 97% to 99%\n OAO branch satisfaction Branch chiefs noted Megasite Branch chiefs noted great\n with Megasite service needs improvement improvement in\n Megasite service\n\n Notification of availability of Only requestor receives Only requestor receives\n folder from Megasite notification, via email or phone notification, via automatic email\n from Megasite staff from MIMS\n Procedures for key Given orally or by emails Given orally or by emails\n Megasite processes\n\nACCURACY OF FOLDER INVENTORY\n\nWe found that the Megasite\xe2\x80\x99s inventory accuracy has greatly improved and the\nproblems discussed in our prior report have been addressed. To test the Megasite\xe2\x80\x99s\ncomputerized and physical inventories, we selected random samples of 600 folders in\ntotal: 300 folders to test from the system to the shelf and another 300 folders to test\nfrom the shelf to the system.2 We found an immaterial error rate and therefore did not\nproject our results. For example, of 600 folders, we found 2 folders had a Social\nSecurity number (SSN) that was incorrectly entered into MIMS and one folder that had a\nshelf location in MIMS different from the shelf it was pulled from.\n\nINVENTORY TRACKING SYSTEM\n\nMIMS allows OHA to more effectively track and better safeguard folders with the new\nweb-based tracking system. The new technology saves time and effort of Megasite\nstaff, reduces the chance for human error, is accessible to both Megasite and OAO\nbranch staff and provides real-time data. Megasite management stated they are happy\n\n\n2\n See Scope and Methodology, Appendix D, and Testing of Megasite Inventory, Appendix E.\n\x0cPage 4 - The Commissioner\n\nwith the new technology and said it is a big improvement over MSCCS, which was not\nweb-based.\n\nThe new technology saves time and effort of staff because it does not crash or have\ndown time, which was a problem with MSCCS. It also saves time when branches\nrequest folders because branch staff request folders via MIMS rather than by email, fax,\nor phone calls to Megasite staff.\n\n The chance for human error has declined. Scanners transmit folder\n MIMS handles and shelf identification bar-code information, not SSNs or other\n Megasite needs sensitive claimant information. Human error during the receiving\n better than and storing processes was one of the main reasons folders were\n MSCCS inaccurately tracked in FY 2003. Previously, an employee may have\n incorrectly transcribed a claimant\xe2\x80\x99s SSN or name on a sheet of\npaper.3 Now, if an employee misses scanning a folder on a shelf, controls within the\nsystem enable the scanners to display a message asking whether or not a certain folder\nis on a particular shelf.\n\nFurthermore, access to the system is available to OAO branch staff, along with\nMegasite staff. Both staffs can view current folder data in MIMS from their workstations.\n\nMIMS real-time data also improves folder tracking and accountability. MSCCS did not\nprovide real-time data. The new technology provides current information on folder\ninventory and locations and folders requested by a branch. Inventory is immediately\nupdated and recorded as inventories are conducted and results are efficiently retained.\nIn addition, Megasite management run weekly reports with current information extracted\nfrom MIMS. These reports improve Megasite folder accountability and help assess the\noverall inventory of folders (see Appendix F for information included in the reports).\n\nSHELF INVENTORY PROCESS\n\nThe shelf inventory process at the Megasite has improved with the use of scanning\ntechnology, real-time update of the inventory system, and recordation and retention of\nresults.4 The Megasite conducts two types of inventories to ensure accuracy of folder\ninventory: 1) a 100 percent inventory, and 2) cycle counts when a folder is being placed\non a shelf or is being sent to another storage facility (see Appendix G for further details\non both inventories).\n\n\n\n\n3\n See Receipt of Folders at the Megasite Flowchart, Appendix B.\n4\n In our 2004 report, Operations of the Office of Hearings and Appeals Megasite, we found that Megasite\nstaff were not retaining documentation on inventories they conducted.\n\x0cPage 5 - The Commissioner\n\nAnytime a folder is scanned during an inventory, Radio Beacon updates MIMS in real-\ntime, increasing the inventory accuracy. With scanning, Megasite staff complete\n100 percent inventories in 2-4 months, rather than the 6 months that it took in FY 2003.\nEmployees do not have to write anything down on paper (i.e. when any discrepancies\nare noted) nor manually enter reconciliations in the computer systems, as they did in\nFY 2003 because Radio Beacon updates MIMS with correct folder locations. In\naddition, unlike in FY 2003, Megasite management keeps an electronic spreadsheet of\ninventory data and results and updates it as an inventory is conducted. Their results\nshow an inventory accuracy rate of 97 percent to 99 percent.\n\nSERVICE TO OFFICE OF APPELLATE OPERATIONS BRANCHES\n\nMegasite service to OAO has greatly improved and positively affected branch\noperations. As part of our FY 2003 review, we evaluated OAO\xe2\x80\x99s overall satisfaction with\nMegasite service prior to implementation of MIMS and interviewed 8 of the 10 branch\nchiefs that we interviewed from our prior report.5 At that time, the branch chiefs\nsuggested that OHA replace MSCCS and install bar-coding. These changes are now\npart of MIMS.\n\nMIMS streamlines the folder requesting process and tracks folders more effectively and\nefficiently. Therefore, branches receive more folders timelier. Branches also focus\nmore on their workload instead of tracking down requested folders not received. For\nexample, branch staff use MIMS to determine if a folder is in the Megasite and to\nrequest folders. Previously, branch requests were made via fax, email, or telephone\xe2\x80\x94\nnow requests are made via MIMS, which is a more efficient method for both OAO and\nMegasite staff.\n\nNOTIFICATION OF AVAILABILITY OF REQUESTED FOLDERS\n\nOne of the features under MIMS is an email-based interface between MIMS and the\nfolder requester. When a requested folder is not available at the time of the request,\nand the folder later becomes available, MIMS automatically emails a Notification\nAvailability message to only the requestor. During our discussions with branch chiefs, a\nsuggestion was made to improve MIMS in this area because it is important for branches\nto process folders as soon as possible. The branch chiefs suggested MIMS could email\na Notification Availability message to another branch employee, in addition to the\nrequestor, for control purposes and when the requestor may be out of the office. Such\nnotification could eliminate unnecessary downtimes in the folder receipt process.6\n\n\n\n5\n Of the 10 branch chiefs, 1 is no longer a branch chief and 1 has retired. There are a total of 24 branch\nchiefs.\n6\n Other options are also available for ensuring another party is aware of available folders, including\nmodifying each employee\xe2\x80\x99s email system so that these MIMS messages are forwarded to another\nemployee when the requestor is out of the office.\n\x0cPage 6 - The Commissioner\n\nWRITTEN PROCEDURES\n\nWhile the Megasite staff were very knowledgeable about duties, management could not\ncite any written procedures of key Megasite processes used for training and reference\npurposes. During our audit, we found employee instruction on the new technology was\nmostly given orally and sometimes via emails. For example, Megasite management\nprovided us with a written description of how inventories were conducted and how\ndiscrepancies were resolved. However, there are no written procedures on how to\nconduct inventories and instructions are given orally. Written procedures should be\ndocumented for key processes such as receiving, storing, locating, retrieving, and\nrouting folders, and conducting inventories.\n\nCONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS\nThe accuracy of the Megasite\xe2\x80\x99s physical and computerized inventories has greatly\nimproved since our prior review. MIMS has changed Megasite processes for the better,\nallowing the Megasite to better track and safeguard folders through the use of real-time\ndata. Megasite service to the OAO branches has improved and positively affected\nbranch operations. However, the current notification process could be improved so that\nall relevant parties in OAO are notified when a requested file becomes available. In\naddition, the Megasite needs written procedures for training and reference purposes.\n\nTo ensure a smooth flow of cases and a well-documented inventory and tracking\nprocess, we recommend SSA:\n\n1. Modify existing procedures and/or systems within OAO so that another person in the\n branch, in addition to the individual requestor, receives notification of availability of\n folders.\n\n2. Develop a written manual of Megasite procedures that includes receiving, storing,\n locating, retrieving, and routing folders and conducting inventories, for training and\n reference purposes.\n\nAGENCY COMMENTS\n\nThe Agency agreed with both of our recommendations. The full text of SSA\xe2\x80\x99s\ncomments are included in Appendix H.\n\n\n\n\n S\n Patrick P. O\xe2\x80\x99Carroll, Jr.\n\x0c Appendices\nAPPENDIX A \xe2\x80\x93 Acronyms\n\nAPPENDIX B \xe2\x80\x93 Flowchart: Receipt of Folders at the Megasite\n\nAPPENDIX C \xe2\x80\x93 Flowchart: Megasite Folder Retention Periods\n\nAPPENDIX D \xe2\x80\x93 Scope and Methodology\n\nAPPENDIX E \xe2\x80\x93 Testing of Megasite Inventory\n\nAPPENDIX F \xe2\x80\x93 Information Included in Megasite Weekly Reports\n\nAPPENDIX G \xe2\x80\x93 Shelf Inventories Conducted at the Megasite: 100 Percent and Cycle\n Counts\n\nAPPENDIX H \xe2\x80\x93 Agency Comments\n\nAPPENDIX I \xe2\x80\x93 OIG Contacts and Staff Acknowledgements\n\x0c Appendix A\n\nAcronyms\nAC Appeals Council\nCCPRB Court Case Preparation and Review Branch\nCPMS Case Processing and Management System\nDPB Disability Program Branch\neMSCCS Enhanced Megasite Case Control System\nFY Fiscal Year\nMIMS Megasite Information Management System\nMSCCS Megasite Case Control System\nNCC New Court Case\nOAO Office of Appellate Operations\nOHA Office of Hearings and Appeals\nPCC Potential Court Case\nSSA Social Security Administration\nSSN Social Security Number\n\x0c Appendix B\n\nFlowchart: Receipt of Folders at the Megasite\n Start\n\n\n\n\n Hearing held and\n decision is not fully\n or partially\n favorable\n\n\n\n\n Update Case\n Processing and\n Management System\n (CPMS)\n\n\n\n Send folders\n without fully or\n partially favorable\n decisions to\n Megasite\n\n\n\n Affix\n Radio\n Beacon\n barcode\n label to\n folder\n\n\n Automatic,\n nightly,\n Enter Social Security interface\n Number (SSN) into\n Megasite Information\n between\n Management System CPMS &\n (MIMS) MIMS\n\n\n\n\n Once the SSN is Yes Scan folder Scan\n entered, are MIMS barcode label into shelf location End\n fields populated? MIMS barcode label\n\n\n\n No\n\n\n Double check entered\n SSN, type in first 4 letters\n of claimant\xe2\x80\x99s last name\n and date of birth\n\x0c Appendix C\n\nFlowchart: Megasite Folder Retention Periods\n Start\n\n\n Store\n folder on\n Is decision No shelf in\n Send folder to\n Hearing fully or partially Enter folder into Megasite Potential\n favorable?\n Megasite\n Information Management Request\n System for Review\n section\n Yes\n\n Send folder to\n effectuating\n component After 6 months,\n No\n Request for send folder out of\n End\n Review filed? Megasite to\n storage\n\n Yes\n\n\n\n Send folder to Yes Send folder to\n Is the claim Pull folder from\n Administrative Law Disability Program\n remanded? shelf\n Judge Branches\n\n\n No\n\n\n Send folder to Yes Is decision\n effectuating fully or partially\n component favorable?\n\n\n No\n Store\n folder on\n Send folder to shelf in\n Megasite Potential\n Court Case\n section\n\n\n\n\n After 6 months,\n No\n Lawsuit filed in send folder out of\n End\n federal district Megasite to\n court? storage\n\n\n Yes\n\n\n\n Yes Send folder to\n Send folder to Office Case heard in\n Is the claim Court Case Pull folder from\n of Hearings and Federal District\n Appeals\n remanded? Processing and shelf\n Court\n Review Branches\n\n No\n\n Store\n folder on\n Send folder to shelf in\n Megasite Court\n Case\n section\n\n\n\n\n After 2 years, send\n Send folder to Yes No\n Any request for folder out of\n appropriate\n the folder? Megasite to\n requester\n storage\n\n\n\n\n End\n\x0c Appendix D\n\nScope and Methodology\nTo accomplish our objective, we:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Reviewed operations at the Megasite and Office of Appellate Operations (OAO)\n to gain an understanding of how folders are requested, stored and tracked\n between the Megasite and OAO.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Analyzed current policies and procedures for the Megasite and OAO.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Reviewed our prior audit report on the Megasite.1\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Interviewed Megasite personnel regarding Megasite operations.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Gained an understanding of the new systems.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Interviewed OAO branch chiefs to document their experience with the previous\n and current inventory systems.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Tested a sample of cases from the shelves to the computerized inventory and\n also from the computerized inventory to the shelves (see Appendix E).\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Discussed our results with Megasite staff and resolved any discrepancies.\n\nWe performed our field work from October 2004 until March 2005. Our audit included\nan evaluation of existing controls, policies and procedures specifically related to\noperations of the Megasite and folder retrieval from this facility. The entity audited was\nthe Office of Hearings and Appeals Megasite within the Office of the Deputy\nCommissioner for Disability and Income Security Programs. We performed our audit in\nFalls Church and Springfield, Virginia. We conducted our audit in accordance with\ngenerally accepted government auditing standards.\n\n\n\n\n1\n SSA Office of the Inspector General, Operations of the Office of Hearings and Appeals Megasite\n(A-12-03-13039), February 2004.\n\x0c Appendix E\n\nTesting of Megasite Inventory\nTEST OF PHYSICAL INVENTORY\n\nTo test the physical inventory, we traced a randomly selected sample of 300 case\nfolders physically located at the facility on November 3, 2004, to the Megasite\nInformation Management System (MIMS). Since we did not manually count the\ninventory of folders on November 3, 2004, we relied on Office of Hearings and Appeals\xe2\x80\x99\n(OHA) estimate of folders in the Megasite as our universe. Folders are filed on shelves\nthat are empty or partially empty. To select the folders, we randomly selected\n300 shelves from 18,159 shelves available for folder storage at the Megasite. For each\nrandomly selected shelf, we chose the first folder stored on the left side of the shelf.\n\n Sample Selection\n Universe Universe Size Size Selection Date Criteria\n All folders in the 148,000 300 November 3, 2004 Shelving Unit Identification\n Megasite Numbers\n\n\nIn the test of the physical inventory, we found that of the 300 sampled folders:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 three had documents inside the folder that did not agree with the Social Security\n number (SSN) on the front cover;\n \xe2\x80\xa2 one had a shelf location in MIMS that did not match its actual shelf location from\n where it was pulled;\n \xe2\x80\xa2 one had documents inside the folder that did not agree with the claimant\xe2\x80\x99s name\n on the front cover;\n \xe2\x80\xa2 one had an unanticipated error in which the SSN was entered incorrectly into\n MIMS; and\n \xe2\x80\xa2 all had a claimant name in MIMS that agreed with the claimant name on the front\n cover, and all were in MIMS.\n\nDue to the immaterial amount of errors we did not project our results. We shared each\nof these errors with Megasite staff so the folders could be corrected, as appropriate.\n\n\n\n\n E-1\n\x0cTEST OF COMPUTERIZED INVENTORY\nTo test the computerized inventory, we traced a randomly selected statistical sample of\n300 folders recorded in MIMS as located in the Megasite on November 9, 2004, to their\nphysical location within the facility.\n\n Universe Sample Selection\n Universe Size Size Selection Date Criteria\n All folders in MIMS coded 158,239 300 November 9, 2004 SSN\n as in the Megasite\n\n\nIn the test of the computerized inventory, we found that of the 300 sampled folders:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 all folders but one were found (the one folder not found was not counted as an\n error because MIMS indicated that it was pulled from the shelves on\n November 9, 2004 to go to court);\n \xe2\x80\xa2 one had documents inside the folder that did not agree with the SSN on the front\n cover;\n \xe2\x80\xa2 one had documents inside the folder that did not agree with the claimant\xe2\x80\x99s name\n on the front cover; and\n \xe2\x80\xa2 one had an unanticipated error in which Megasite staff may have entered the\n SSN incorrectly into MIMS.\n\nDue to the immaterial amount of errors we did not project our results. We shared each\nof these errors with Megasite staff so the folders could be corrected, as appropriate.\n\n\n\n\n E-2\n\x0c Appendix F\n\nInformation Included in Megasite Weekly\nReports\nThe Megasite Weekly Reports include:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 closing inventory for the week;\n \xe2\x80\xa2 total cases received by percentage of what component sent the case;\n \xe2\x80\xa2 total cases sent by percentage of cases that were sent to Disability Program\n Branches (DPB), Court Case Preparation and Review Branches (CCPRB), other\n components or released to permanent storage;\n \xe2\x80\xa2 number of cases sent to the DPB, by branch and by Special Case Code (such as\n ready to work, or a code that needs interim action, or miscellaneous); and\n \xe2\x80\xa2 current request for review inventory, by DPB Branch and by Special Case Code.\n\nBelow are scanned copies of excerpts from a Megasite Weekly Report. 1\n\n\n\n\n1\n In the scanned page (above left), PCC stands for Potential Court Case and NCC stands for New Court\nCase.\n\x0c Appendix G\n\nShelf Inventories Conducted at the Megasite:\n100 Percent and Cycle Counts\n100 PERCENT INVENTORY\n\nMegasite management aims to conduct a 100 percent inventory at least twice a year.\nTo conduct the inventory, Megasite management instructs employees to scan folders on\ndesignated shelves, starting with the first shelf until all shelves available for folder\nstorage are inventoried. With the Megasite Information Management System (MIMS),\n100 percent inventories are completed in 2-4 months, rather than the 6 months that it\ntook in Fiscal Year (FY) 2003.1 Megasite staff have completed two 100 percent\ninventories since MIMS was installed and a third one is underway. Unlike the process\nin FY 2003, Megasite management keeps a record of results, which currently shows an\naccuracy rate of 97 to 99 percent.\n\nEmployees do not have to write anything down on paper (i.e. when any discrepancies\nare noted) nor manually enter reconciliations in the computer system, as they did in\nFY 2003. Radio Beacon automatically updates MIMS with correct folder locations.\n\nMegasite management provided us with a written description of how the inventories\nwere conducted and how discrepancies were resolved. However, there are no written\nprocedures provided to employees on how to conduct inventories and instructions are\ngiven verbally.\n\nMegasite management provided us with reports that show when the inventories were\nconducted, the start and completion dates, the count of folders inventoried, and any\ndiscrepancies noted. The reports do not show who conducted the inventories.\nHowever, staff with scanning rights have unique scanning identification codes which\nenable management to determine who scanned what folder and when it was scanned.\nMegasite management also keeps a spreadsheet of inventory data and updates it as an\ninventory is conducted.\n\nCYCLE COUNT INVENTORY\n\nThe second type of inventory is a cycle count. This is one of the advantages of using\nthe scanning technology. In our 2004 report, the Megasite conducted \xe2\x80\x9crandom audits\xe2\x80\x9d\nfor shelves, which was a more time consuming and tedious process than a cycle count.\n\n\n1\n SSA Office of the Inspector General, Operations of the Office of Hearings and Appeals Megasite\n(A-12-03-13039), February 2004.\n\n\n\n G-1\n\x0cRandom audits required paper, written notations and manual reconciliation to the former\nsystem, the Megasite Case Control System.\n\nUnder the new process, Megasite staff conduct cycle counts as a folder is placed on a\nshelf or released for permanent storage. MIMS is automatically updated with correct\nfolder locations, increasing the accuracy of the folder inventory. When a shelf\nidentification label is scanned, the scanner displays the number of \xe2\x80\x9cexpected\xe2\x80\x9d folders\nwith their bar-code numbers reading on that shelf, according to MIMS and Radio\nBeacon. As a folder\xe2\x80\x99s bar-code label is scanned, the scanner counts down the number\nof \xe2\x80\x9cexpected\xe2\x80\x9d folders. The scanner verifies what folders are actually on the shelf and\n\xe2\x80\x9cadds\xe2\x80\x9d new folders just placed there or other folders that were physically on that shelf\nbut not \xe2\x80\x9cexpected\xe2\x80\x9d to be there.\n\nThe cycle count process also \xe2\x80\x9cdeletes\xe2\x80\x9d folders from the shelf for folders that were\n\xe2\x80\x9cexpected\xe2\x80\x9d but not physically there. There is a chance an employee will miss scanning\na folder, thereby \xe2\x80\x9cdeleting\xe2\x80\x9d it from the shelf. Megasite management is able to identify\nsituations were cases have been \xe2\x80\x9cdeleted\xe2\x80\x9d off a shelf and later on \xe2\x80\x9cadded\xe2\x80\x9d back to the\nsame shelf. Folders in this situation would not have a location in MIMS or be found in\nMIMS until they are scanned to the shelf again and counted as \xe2\x80\x9cadditions.\xe2\x80\x9d MIMS has a\nprogram that can identify these deletions that turned into additions, allowing Megasite\nmanagement to counsel any employees having trouble with accurately shelving or\nscanning folders.\n\n\n\n\n G-2\n\x0c Appendix H\n\nAgency Comments\n\x0c SOCIAL SECURITY\n\nMEMORANDUM 34238-24-1310\n\n\nDate: August 17, 2005 Refer To: S1J-3\n\nTo: Patrick P. O\'Carroll, Jr.\n Inspector General\n\nFrom: Larry W. Dye /s/\n Chief of Staff\n\nSubject: Office of the Inspector General (OIG) Draft Report "Office of Hearings and Appeals Megasite\n Information Management and Bar-Coding Systems" (A-12-05-15085) -- INFORMATION\n\n\n\n We appreciate OIG\xe2\x80\x99s efforts in conducting this review. Our comments on the report are\n enclosed.\n\n Please let me know if we can be of further assistance. Staff inquiries may be directed to\n Candace Skurnik, Director, Audit Management and Liaison Staff at extension 54636.\n\n Attachment:\n SSA Response\n\n\n\n\n COMMENTS ON THE OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL (OIG) DRAFT\n\n\n H-1\n\x0cREPORT \xe2\x80\x9cOFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS MEGASITE INFORMATION\nMANAGEMENT AND BAR-CODING SYSTEMS" (A-12-05-15085)\n\n\nThank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the draft report. We agree with the\nfindings and conclusions presented in the report. We are pleased that the report recognizes that\nthe Megasite Information Management System (MIMS) has allowed the Office of Hearings and\nAppeals to greatly improve its ability to account for folders stored at the Megasite. We also\nappreciate that the report lists the shortcomings of the prior system, as presented in the prior OIG\nstudy and shows how the new system addresses and improves each.\n\nOur specific responses to the report\'s recommendations are provided below.\n\nRecommendation 1\n\nModify existing procedures and/or systems within the Office of Appellate Operations (OAO) so\nthat another person in the branch, in addition to the individual requestor, receives notification of\navailability of folders.\n\nResponse\n\nWe agree. We intend to accomplish this without programming changes to MIMS by sending\neach branch and component manager instructions on setting up specific local Microsoft Outlook\nrules that will direct the automated MIMS email confirmation to the appropriate branch\ndesignee(s).\n\nRecommendation 2\n\nDevelop a written manual of Megasite procedures that includes receiving, storing, locating,\nretrieving, and routing folders and conducting inventories, for training and reference purposes.\n\nResponse\n\nWe agree. A comprehensive procedures manual has been under development and is in the\nreview and comment stage. The manual should be ready for user distribution in early fiscal year\n2006.\n\n\n\n\n H-2\n\x0c Appendix I\n\nOIG Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments\nOIG Contacts\n Walter Bayer, Director, (215) 597-4080\n\n Michael Maloney, Audit Manager, (703) 578-8844\n\nAcknowledgments\nIn addition to those named above:\n\n Ellen Silvela, Auditor\n\n Brennan Kraje, Statistician\n\n Annette DeRito, Writer/Editor\n\n\nFor additional copies of this report, please visit our web site at\nwww.socialsecurity.gov/oig or contact the Office of the Inspector General\xe2\x80\x99s Public\nAffairs Specialist at (410) 965-3218. Refer to Common Identification Number\nA-12-05-15085.\n\x0c DISTRIBUTION SCHEDULE\n\n\nCommissioner of Social Security\nOffice of Management and Budget, Income Maintenance Branch\nChairman and Ranking Member, Committee on Ways and Means\nChief of Staff, Committee on Ways and Means\nChairman and Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Social Security\nMajority and Minority Staff Director, Subcommittee on Social Security\nChairman and Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Human Resources\nChairman and Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Budget, House of\nRepresentatives\nChairman and Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Government Reform and\nOversight\nChairman and Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Governmental Affairs\nChairman and Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Appropriations, House of\nRepresentatives\nChairman and Ranking Minority, Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services,\nEducation and Related Agencies, Committee on Appropriations,\n House of Representatives\nChairman and Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate\nChairman and Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human\nServices, Education and Related Agencies, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate\nChairman and Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Finance\nChairman and Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Social Security and Family\nPolicy\nChairman and Ranking Minority Member, Senate Special Committee on Aging\nSocial Security Advisory Board\n\x0c Overview of the Office of the Inspector General\nThe Office of the Inspector General (OIG) is comprised of our Office of Investigations (OI),\nOffice of Audit (OA), Office of the Chief Counsel to the Inspector General (OCCIG), and Office\nof Executive Operations (OEO). To ensure compliance with policies and procedures, internal\ncontrols, and professional standards, we also have a comprehensive Professional Responsibility\nand Quality Assurance program.\n Office of Audit\nOA conducts and/or supervises financial and performance audits of the Social Security\nAdministration\xe2\x80\x99s (SSA) programs and operations and makes recommendations to ensure\nprogram objectives are achieved effectively and efficiently. Financial audits assess whether\nSSA\xe2\x80\x99s financial statements fairly present SSA\xe2\x80\x99s financial position, results of operations, and cash\nflow. Performance audits review the economy, efficiency, and effectiveness of SSA\xe2\x80\x99s programs\nand operations. OA also conducts short-term management and program evaluations and projects\non issues of concern to SSA, Congress, and the general public.\n\n\n Office of Investigations\nOI conducts and coordinates investigative activity related to fraud, waste, abuse, and\nmismanagement in SSA programs and operations. This includes wrongdoing by applicants,\nbeneficiaries, contractors, third parties, or SSA employees performing their official duties. This\noffice serves as OIG liaison to the Department of Justice on all matters relating to the\ninvestigations of SSA programs and personnel. OI also conducts joint investigations with other\nFederal, State, and local law enforcement agencies.\n\n\n Office of the Chief Counsel to the Inspector General\nOCCIG provides independent legal advice and counsel to the IG on various matters, including\nstatutes, regulations, legislation, and policy directives. OCCIG also advises the IG on\ninvestigative procedures and techniques, as well as on legal implications and conclusions to be\ndrawn from audit and investigative material. Finally, OCCIG administers the Civil Monetary\nPenalty program.\n Office of Executive Operations\nOEO supports OIG by providing information resource management and systems security. OEO\nalso coordinates OIG\xe2\x80\x99s budget, procurement, telecommunications, facilities, and human\nresources. In addition, OEO is the focal point for OIG\xe2\x80\x99s strategic planning function and the\ndevelopment and implementation of performance measures required by the Government\nPerformance and Results Act of 1993.\n\x0c'


type: caselaw

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 10.1.2009
 PL
 Dziennik Urzędowy Unii Europejskiej
 C 6/45
 Postanowienie Sądu do spraw Służby Publicznej (pierwsza izba) z dnia 4 listopada 2008 r. — Marcuccio przeciwko Komisji
 (Sprawa F-133/06) (1)
 (Służba publiczna - Urzędnicy - Wniosek o zwrot przedmiotów o charakterze osobistym - Decyzja o odrzuceniu zażalenia wydana w języku innym niż język ojczysty urzędnika - Skarga złożona po upływie przewidzianego terminu - Oczywista niedopuszczalność)
 (2009/C 6/90)
 Język postępowania: włoski
 Strony
 Strona skarżąca: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Włochy) (przedstawiciel: adwokat G. Cipressa)
 Strona pozwana: Komisja Wspólnot Europejskich (przedstawiciele: J. Currall i C. Berardis-Kayser, pełnomocnicy wspierani przez adwokata A. Dal Ferro)
 Przedmiot sprawy
 Stwierdzenie nieważności decyzji Komisji odrzucającej wniosek skarżącego o dostarczenie mu do jego aktualnego miejsca zamieszkania przedmiotów pozostawionych uprzednio w służbowym miejscu zakwaterowania, które zostało mu przydzielone w Angoli a także wniosek o przyznanie odszkodowania.
 Sentencja postanowienia
 1)
 Skarga zostaje odrzucona jako oczywiście niedopuszczalna.
 2)
 L. Marcuccio zostaje obciążony kosztami postępowania.
 (1) Dz.U. C 223 z dnia 22.9.2007 r., s 18.