type: other

jurisdiction: US

text: b"Department of Homeland Security\n 2I\xc3\x80FH\x03RI\x03,QVSHFWRU\x03*HQHUDO\n\n\n FEMA's Sourcing for Disaster Response Goods & Services\n\n\n\n\n\nOIG-09-96 August 2009\n\x0c\x0cTable of Contents/Abbreviations \n\n\nTable of Contents\n\nExecutive Summary .............................................................................................................1\n\n\nBackground ..........................................................................................................................2 \n\n\n Multiple Mechanisms Available for Sourcing................................................................ 3 \n\n Advantages and Disadvantages of Each Sourcing Mechanism ...................................... 8 \n\n\nResults of Audit .................................................................................................................10 \n\n\n FEMA\xe2\x80\x99s Sourcing Process............................................................................................ 10 \n\n Multiple Mechanisms Used to Source Selected Goods and Services........................... 14 \n\n Single-Point Ordering ................................................................................................... 15 \n\n Internal and External Pressure Impacts Sourcing Decisions ........................................ 19 \n\n Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 20 \n\n Recommendations......................................................................................................... 21 \n\n Management Comments and OIG Analysis ................................................................. 21 \n\n\nAppendices\n Appendix A: Purpose, Scope and Methodology\n Appendix B: Management Comments to the Draft Report\n Appendix C: Selected Information Technology Systems Used in the Sourcing Process\n Appendix D: NRF Emergency Support Functions\n Appendix E: List of Related Reports\n Appendix F: Major Contributors to this Report\n Appendix G: Report Distribution\n\x0cTable of Contents/Abbreviations \n\n\nAbbreviations\nARF Action Request Form\nDHS Department of Homeland Security\nDLA Defense Logistics Agency\nEMAC Emergency Management Assistance Compact\nESF Emergency Support Function\nFAR Federal Acquisition Regulation\nFEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency\nGAO Government Accountability Office\nGSA General Services Administration\nIAA Interagency Agreement\nICS Incident Command System\nIFMIS Integrated Financial Management Information System\nIT Information Technology\nJFO Joint Field Office\nLIMS Logistics Information Management System III\nMA Mission Assignment\nMOA Memorandum of Agreement\nMOU Memorandum of Understanding\nNRCC National Response Coordination Center\nNRF National Response Framework\nNIMS National Incident Management System\nOIG Office of Inspector General\nPSMA Pre-Scripted Mission Assignments\nRRCC Regional Response Coordination Center\nUSACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers\nUSDA U.S. Department of Agriculture\n\x0cOIG\n\nDepartment of Homeland Security\nOffice of Inspector General\n\nExecutive Summary\n When disaster strikes, the Federal Emergency Management Agency\n (FEMA) must be prepared to quickly provide goods and services to help\n state and local governments respond to the disaster. These resources can\n range from water and meals to tarps and blankets. Goods and services can\n be provided directly by FEMA, by another federal agency under direction\n from FEMA, or by the private sector through a contract with FEMA or\n another federal agency.\n\n FEMA has four primary sourcing mechanisms available to use in\n responding to a disaster: (1) warehoused goods; (2) mission assignments;\n (3) interagency agreements; and (4) contracts. FEMA needs to develop a\n clear, overarching strategy that guides decision making on which of these\n sourcing mechanisms to use to meet a particular need.\n\n FEMA\xe2\x80\x99s disaster sourcing decisions are process driven and not compliant\n with the National Incident Management System. Decision making follows\n a linear process that is stove-piped within the Joint Field Office and\n among various levels of FEMA. This approach does not allow FEMA to\n centralize disaster sourcing decision making and limits its ability to:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t Implement an overarching sourcing strategy;\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t Minimize unnecessary duplication;\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t Take advantage of resource ordering efficiencies; and\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t Create transparency and maintain visibility over the entire\n resource ordering process.\n\n Operational procedures that guide FEMA\xe2\x80\x99s disaster response call for a\n single-point ordering concept to provide goods and services efficiently and\n effectively, while minimizing the risk of duplication and waste. However,\n implementation of this concept has been limited owing to existing\n stovepipes, overreliance on the existing sourcing process, and poor\n integration of information technology systems.\n\n We recommend that FEMA adopt the single-point ordering concept and\n invest in the necessary information technology systems to make sourcing\n and supply movement transparent.\n\n\n\n\n FEMA\xe2\x80\x99s Sourcing for Disaster Response Goods and Services\n\n\n Page 1\n\n\x0cBackground\n The Federal Emergency Management Agency\xe2\x80\x99s (FEMA) primary mission\n is to reduce the loss of life and property and protect the Nation from all\n hazards, including natural disasters, acts of terrorism, and other manmade\n disasters, by leading and supporting the Nation in a risk-based,\n comprehensive emergency management system of preparedness,\n protection, response, recovery, and mitigation.\n\n When an emergency or disaster occurs, current doctrine dictates that\n government agencies and organizations most local to the situation act as\n first responders. When state and local governments become overwhelmed\n by the size or scope of the disaster, state officials may request assistance\n from the federal government.\n\n\n\n\n A member of the Texas Forest Service moves a batch of meals ready to eat (MRE) in a\n warehouse in Tyler, TX. Photo by Patsy Lynch/FEMA.\n\n In large emergencies or disasters, FEMA can provide goods and services,\n such as food, water, ice, tarps, generators, search and rescue teams,\n sheltering, and evacuation assistance.\n\n When Hurricane Gustav, and later Hurricane Ike, threatened the Gulf\n Coast, FEMA prepared to assist the affected states and to provide goods\n and services necessary to alleviate the impacts of these hurricanes. Table\n 1 illustrates some of the assets that were deployed to Texas in anticipation\n of Hurricane Gustav.\n\n\n\n\n FEMA\xe2\x80\x99s Sourcing for Disaster Response Goods and Services\n\n\n Page 2\n\n\x0c Table 1. Examples of Assets Deployed for Hurricane Gustav\n\n Asset Quantity\n Emergency Meals 855,760\n Comfort / Hygiene Kits 100,000\n Blankets 41,000\n Cots 16,600\n Liters of Water 17,000\n Medical Care Beds Staffed by 12 Teams 3,360\n Specialty Medical Response Teams 10\n Urban Search and Rescue Teams 9\n Source: OIG, based on information provided by FEMA\n\n\n We performed an audit of FEMA\xe2\x80\x99s sourcing for disaster goods and\n services in response to hurricanes Gustav and Ike, which struck the Gulf\n Coast in September 2008. We focused on six common goods and\n services: water, ice, emergency meals, tarps, generators, and pet/animal\n services. We limited our audit to goods and services provided to assist\n Texas in responding to hurricanes Gustav and Ike. We examined FEMA\xe2\x80\x99s\n use of its primary sourcing mechanisms, 1 discussed below, each of which\n has different associated procedures, costs, and risks. Our objective was to\n assess FEMA\xe2\x80\x99s decisionmaking strategy for choosing which sourcing\n mechanism to use for different goods and services. (See Appendix A.)\n\n Multiple Mechanisms Available for Sourcing\n FEMA has four primary sourcing mechanisms available for providing\n disaster response goods and services: (1) warehoused goods; (2) mission\n assignments; (3) interagency agreements; and (4) contracts.\n\n Warehoused Goods\n\n FEMA maintains an inventory of goods that might be needed in a disaster.\n These goods are currently warehoused at nine distribution centers: six in\n the continental United States and an additional three in Guam, Hawaii and\n Puerto Rico. (See Figure 1.)\n\n\n\n\n1\n FEMA also uses government purchase cards for individual purchases. We did not examine purchase cards as a\nsourcing mechanism because they are generally designed for small individual purchases that do not exceed the\nsimplified acquisition threshold of $250,000. We are conducting a separate audit of FEMA\xe2\x80\x99s use of purchase cards\nand plan to issue a report in 2010.\n\n FEMA\xe2\x80\x99s Sourcing for Disaster Response Goods and Services\n\n\n Page 3\n\n\x0cFigure 1. FEMA Distribution Centers\n\n\n\n -\n\n\n\n Disaster Information System\n Clearinghouse (DISC) Frederick\n Moffett Field\n Cumberland\n\n Winchester\n\n\n Atlanta\n Ft. Worth\n\n\n Pacific \xe2\x80\x93 Hawaii\n\n\n\n\n Pacific \xe2\x80\x93 Guam -\n Caribbean \xe2\x80\x93 Puerto Rico\n\n\n\n\nSource: OIG, based on information provided by FEMA\n\n\n Most of the distribution centers store commonly needed disaster resources\n such as cots, blankets, emergency meals, bottled water, emergency\n generators, hygiene kits, plastic sheeting (roofing), and tarps. An\n inventory list dated July 7, 2008, contained thousands of items, including\n many commodities typically needed in the wake of a disaster, from those\n listed above to filing cabinets, desk lamps, pry bars, and jumper cables.\n Table 2 shows additional examples of goods that FEMA had on hand\n during the 2008 hurricane season\n\n Table 2. \tExamples of FEMA\xe2\x80\x99s Warehoused Goods in\n Place During the 2008 Hurricane Season\n\n\n Disposable diapers Ladders\n Earthquake supply kits Lanterns\n First aid kits Pet carriers\n Flashlights Plastic sheeting\n Folding cots Portable commodes\n Gas cans Tents\n Emergency meals Wheelchairs\n Source: OIG, based on information provided by FEMA\n\n\n FEMA\xe2\x80\x99s Sourcing for Disaster Response Goods and Services\n\n\n Page 4\n\n\x0c In anticipation of a disaster, FEMA may begin moving disaster\n commodities from distribution centers to pre-positioning sites, referred to\n as Incident Support Bases or staging areas, near the potentially impacted\n area. By pre-positioning goods for anticipated needs, FEMA can rapidly\n move resources into an affected area post-disaster. Generally, FEMA will\n pre-position enough resources to last for approximately 3 days, thereby\n providing time to assess actual needs and bring in additional resources\n from the distribution centers or by using other sourcing mechanisms.\n\n Mission Assignments\n\n A mission assignment is a work order issued by FEMA to another federal\n agency that directs the completion of a specific task to meet urgent,\n immediate, and short-term needs. The assigned federal agency must\n complete the mission assignment within 60 days after the declaration,\n unless FEMA extends the authorized performance period.\n\n To expedite the delivery of federal assistance, FEMA developed 236 Pre-\n Scripted Mission Assignments (PSMA) with 29 federal agencies prior to\n the 2008 hurricane season. These PSMAs include statements of work and\n cost estimates that are prepared prior to a disaster and can be modified and\n placed in the FEMA mission assignment form to meet event-specific\n needs.\n\n Although FEMA had developed some PSMAs prior to Hurricane Katrina,\n Section 653 of the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of\n 2006 2 (Post-Katrina Reform Act) required the FEMA Administrator, in\n coordination with federal agencies with responsibilities under the National\n Response Plan, 3 to develop PSMAs to address logistics, communications,\n mass care, health services, and public safety activities, in order to expedite\n the delivery of federal disaster assistance. Table 3 provides examples of\n PSMAs that were developed by the time hurricanes Gustav and Ike struck.\n\n\n\n\n2\n Public Law 109-295, Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act of 2007, Title VI \xe2\x80\x93 National \n\nEmergency Management. \n\n3\n The National Response Plan was replaced by the National Response Framework, effective March 22, 2008. \n\n\n FEMA\xe2\x80\x99s Sourcing for Disaster Response Goods and Services\n\n\n Page 5\n\n\x0c Table 3. Examples of PSMAs in Place During the 2008\n Hurricane Season\n\n Agency Description of Work\n Environmental Protection Conduct oil and hazardous materials\n Agency field operations\n Federal Protective Service Contract security officers\n National Geospatial Support FEMA urban search and\n Intelligence Agency rescue operations\n National Park Service Support FEMA search and rescue\n disaster removal operations\n U.S. Army Corps of Oversight of state and/or local\n Engineers entities\xe2\x80\x99 debris operations\n U.S. Army Corps of Planning and preparation for\n Engineers temporary roofing\n U.S. Coast Guard Mobile communication teams\n U.S. Department of Personnel to control the spread of\n Agriculture animal disease agents\n U.S. Department of Aircraft and personnel to support\n Defense medical patient evacuation\n U.S. Department of Medical evacuation of patients\n Health and Human\n Services\n U.S. Forest Service Emergency road clearing\n Source: OIG, based on information provided by FEMA\n\n\n Interagency Agreements\n\n An interagency agreement (IAA) is another mechanism FEMA uses to\n obtain supplies or services from another federal agency. 4 These\n agreements can be used for both emergency response and long-term needs.\n Pre-disaster IAAs are developed before an actual event and then activated\n as needed.\n\n FEMA also uses IAAs to access contracts held by other federal agencies.\n For example, FEMA has IAAs in place with the Defense Logistics Agency\n (DLA) and the General Services Administration (GSA) for a number of\n items, including water and emergency meals. These agreements allow\n FEMA to request certain goods or services from these agencies; then the\n agencies use their own sourcing mechanisms, including contracts they\n have in place, to provide the requested resources. Table 4 provides\n\n4\n IAAs include Memorandums of Understanding (MOU) and Memorandums of Agreement (MOA). An IAA within\nthe same department is known as an intra-agency agreement. For example, FEMA\xe2\x80\x99s agreement with the U.S. Coast\nGuard, another DHS component, to patrol waterways is an intra-agency agreement.\n\n FEMA\xe2\x80\x99s Sourcing for Disaster Response Goods and Services\n\n\n Page 6\n\n\x0c examples of IAAs that FEMA had in place during the 2008 hurricane\n season.\n\n Table 4. \tExamples of IAAs in Place During the 2008 \n\n Hurricane Season \n\n\n Agency Good/Service\n Defense Logistics Agency Emergency meals\n Federal Bureau of Fingerprint processing\n Investigation\n Federal Protective Service Guard services\n General Services Contract support for information\n Administration systems operations\n General Services Water\n Administration\n Immigration and Customs Transportation of the FEMA\n Enforcement Administrator\n U.S. Coast Guard Oversight of debris removal from\n navigable waterways\n U.S. Department of Disaster Housing Assistance\n Housing and Urban Program\n Development\n Source: OIG, based on information provided by FEMA\n\n\n Contracts\n\n A contract is another means available to FEMA for obtaining goods and\n services. FEMA\xe2\x80\x99s contracting is regulated by the Federal Acquisition\n Regulation (FAR), which permits certain exceptions in emergency\n situations, as outlined in FAR Part 18-Emergency Acquisitions.\n\n The DHS OIG, the President\xe2\x80\x99s Council on Integrity and\n Efficiency/Executive Council on Integrity and Efficiency, 5 and the\n Government Accountability Office (GAO) all reported in the wake of\n Hurricane Katrina that FEMA\xe2\x80\x99s contracting suffered from poor pre-\n disaster planning and preparation. 6\n\n In response to this shortcoming, Section 691 of the Post-Katrina Reform\n Act required FEMA to identify \xe2\x80\x9crecurring disaster response requirements,\n\n5\n The Inspector General Reform Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-409) combined these two councils into the Council of \n\nthe Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency. \n\n6\n See, for example, Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General, Hurricane Katrina Temporary\n\nHousing Technical Assistance Contracts (OIG-08-88), August 2008; President\xe2\x80\x99s Council on Integrity and\n\nEfficiency/Executive Council on Integrity and Efficiency, PCIE ECIE Oversight of Gulf Coast Hurricane Recovery:\n\nA Semiannual Report to Congress, October 2006; Government Accountability Office, Hurricane Katrina: \n\nImproving Federal Contracting Practices in Disaster Recovery Operations (GAO-06-714T), May 4, 2006. \n\n\n FEMA\xe2\x80\x99s Sourcing for Disaster Response Goods and Services\n\n\n Page 7\n\n\x0c including specific goods and services, for which the Agency is capable of\n contracting for in advance of a natural disaster or act of terrorism or other\n man-made disaster in a cost effective manner\xe2\x80\x9d and \xe2\x80\x9ca contracting strategy\n that maximizes the use of advance contracts to the extent practical and\n cost-effective.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\n As of July 10, 2008, FEMA reported having 44 advance contracts in place\n for disaster response. FEMA assessed suitability for advanced contracting\n using such factors as inventory carrying costs; length of shelf life; storage\n and handling considerations; and availability of pre-positioned material, as\n well as contracts held by federal partners. Table 5 contains examples of\n services for which FEMA had developed advance contracts prior to the\n 2008 hurricane season.\n\n Table 5. \tExamples of Advance Contracts in Place During \n\n the 2008 Hurricane Season \n\n\n Type of Service\n Ambulance services\n Base camp support\n Disaster legal services\n Evacuation planning and operational support\n Generator maintenance\n Hotel authorization (intake management) for disaster victims\n Housing inspection services\n Maintenance of disaster housing\n Temporary housing support\n Source: OIG, based on information provided by FEMA\n\n\n FEMA stated in its report to Congress that it had identified 13 categories\n of goods and 9 categories of services that would be appropriate for pre-\n disaster contracting. 7 While pre-disaster contracts were in place for the\n services listed above, no contracts were in place for goods as of July 10,\n 2008.\n\n Advantages and Disadvantages of Each Sourcing Mechanism\n Each sourcing mechanism has advantages and disadvantages. For\n example, a primary advantage of maintaining goods in warehouses is that\n these goods are immediately available to FEMA. The disadvantage is that\n most stocked goods have a shelf life and, in quiet disaster seasons, goods\n may expire. FEMA tries to counterbalance this problem by having a\n centralized warehouse disbursement system, so that goods with a limited\n shelf life are sent out to the next disaster, with less regard for physical\n\n7\n This report was required in Section 691 of the Post-Katrina Reform Act.\n\n FEMA\xe2\x80\x99s Sourcing for Disaster Response Goods and Services\n\n\n Page 8\n\n\x0cstorage location. FEMA also performs a feasibility review of goods that\nare within 6 months of their expiration date. If no immediate need is\ndetermined, goods might be disposed of through GSA or donated to a\nfederal, state, or local partner, or to charity.\n\nMission Assignments\n\nMission assignments allow FEMA to quickly task federal partners to\nprovide critical resources, services or expertise. This allows FEMA to\nfocus on its own mission without having to develop expertise in a number\nof fields already available from other federal agencies. However, FEMA\nmust ensure that disaster relief funds are used appropriately and are not\nused by another federal agency to augment its regular appropriations.\nSome FEMA officials told us that mission assigned activities are not\nalways closely monitored by FEMA. As a result, mission assigned\nagencies might inappropriately bill FEMA for activities outside the scope\nof the mission assignment.\n\nInteragency Agreements\n\nIAAs offer important benefits, including access to pre-qualified sources,\nthe ability to leverage resources, and access to a broad range of goods and\nservices using streamlined procedures that permit rapid response. Because\nthe task becomes the responsibility of another federal agency, however,\nthere is some loss of visibility on FEMA\xe2\x80\x99s part. Additionally, when\nFEMA uses IAAs to access contracts let by another agency, that agency\ngenerally charges FEMA a fee. FEMA acquisition officials said that in\nsome cases, they believe it would be more cost effective to use FEMA\ncontracts.\n\nContracts\n\nContracts in place before a disaster might speed the delivery of assistance\nand result in a better negotiated price than would be possible in the midst\nof disaster response. A disadvantage is that advance contracts for services\noften require a guaranteed minimum amount, or standby fee, that must be\npaid to the vendor whether or not the contract is ever used. FEMA\nofficials said they find it difficult to obtain funds for standby fees, and\nthey are sometimes criticized for wasting funds when an advance contract\nis never activated because of a quiet disaster season.\n\n\n\n\n FEMA\xe2\x80\x99s Sourcing for Disaster Response Goods and Services\n\n\n Page 9\n\n\x0cResults of Audit\n FEMA\xe2\x80\x99s Sourcing Process\n FEMA does not have an overarching, agency-wide strategy or policy for\n disaster sourcing. However, as discussed below, each directorate/section\n involved in sourcing does have processes in place.\n\n Emergency management doctrine calls for response to begin at the local\n level. Therefore, local jurisdictions usually attempt to fulfill needs\n themselves, from existing resources, mutual aid agreements, 8 or by\n contracting with the private sector. If the disaster is beyond its\n capabilities, a local jurisdiction may request assistance from the county or\n state government. When the state receives a request for assistance from a\n local government, it attempts to address the request using existing or\n commercial resources, or through the Emergency Management Assistance\n Compact (EMAC) 9 or other mutual aid agreement. If the state cannot\n fulfill the need, the state\xe2\x80\x99s governor can request federal assistance.\n\n Federal assistance is authorized by the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief\n and Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act). Stafford Act assistance is\n available from FEMA if the President determines that an event is of\n sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant an emergency or major\n disaster declaration under this Act and that supplementary federal\n assistance is warranted to alleviate the damages or hardship. When federal\n assistance is approved, FEMA uses its sourcing mechanisms to provide\n requested goods and services.\n\n During disaster response, sourcing decision makers do not always follow\n the same script. Under FEMA\xe2\x80\x99s current approach, the Operations Section\n Chief is the initial primary decision maker. Because of the importance of\n the mission and exigency of operations, Operations Section Chiefs often\n use the sourcing mechanisms with which they are most comfortable and\n that they perceive as having been most successful in their past experience.\n Figure 2 illustrates the general process FEMA uses to decide the sourcing\n mechanism to be used to meet a particular need. This figure represents\n sourcing as it takes place once a Joint Field Office (JFO) has been\n established. 10\n\n\n8\n Mutual aid can be provided locality to locality, such as when one county\xe2\x80\x99s fire department helps another county \n\nrespond to a large fire, or state to state, such as when one state\xe2\x80\x99s National Guard troops assist in another state. \n\n9\n Mutual aid responses are usually facilitated through the EMAC. EMAC provides the legal foundation for one state \n\nproviding assistance to another through a mutual aid agreement and addresses issues such as cost reimbursement, \n\nworkers\xe2\x80\x99 compensation, and liability coverage for responders. \n\n10\n For a no-notice event, such as an earthquake, the National Response Coordination Center (NRCC), located at \n\nFEMA Headquarters, would be the first line in sourcing decisions. \n\n\n FEMA\xe2\x80\x99s Sourcing for Disaster Response Goods and Services\n\n\n Page 10\n\n\x0cFigure 2. FEMA\xe2\x80\x99s Sourcing Process\n\n\n\n\n FEMA logs the ARF into\n the Action Tracking Decision Point 1: Request is\n The state submits an System and forwards it\n Action Request Form onto the Operations FEMA\xe2\x80\x99s Operations Chief\n not eligible,\n (ARF) to FEMA Section Chief to determines eligibility state notified\n determine eligibility\n\n\n\n Request is eligible\n\n\n\n\n No Decision Point 2:\n\n FEMA\xe2\x80\x99s Operations Chief\n determines whether request\n can be met by FEMA\n through warehoused\n goods\n\n Decision Point 3:\n\n Yes Logistics processes\n FEMA\xe2\x80\x99s Operations Chief\n e-Tasker to direct\n evaluates the sourcing\n FEMA assets from\n options or mechanisms\n distribution centers\n\n\n\n\n Mission Assignments (MA)\n Coordinates with ESFs and other federal\n agencies to obtain goods and services via\n mission assignments\n\n\n\n\n Referral made\n Decision Point 4:\n to Logistics\n If a MA is not used, FEMA\xe2\x80\x99s\n Logistic Chief determines the * If the request cannot be met by an\n sourcing methods* interagency agreement or contract, the\n Logistics Section Chief will refer the request\n back to the Operations Section Chief\n\n\n\n\n Interagency Agreements or Contracts\n Coordinates with other federal agencies and/or\n federal contracting officials to obtain needed\n goods and services\n\n\n\n\n Responsible JFO Section Chiefs\n\n\n Operations Section Logistics Section Finance/Administration Section\nSource: OIG, based on information provided by FEMA\n\n\n\n\n FEMA\xe2\x80\x99s Sourcing for Disaster Response Goods and Services\n\n\n Page 11\n\n\x0c The sourcing process begins when a state submits a resource request to\n FEMA via an Action Request Form (ARF). 11 This can occur at multiple\n FEMA coordination response locations, but commonly the Regional\n Response Coordination Center (RRCC) handles requests from the state\n until a JFO is operational.\n\n FEMA enters the ARF information into the Action Tracking System,\n which is intended to track the request to disposition. 12\n\n Decision Point 1: Once the resource request is entered into the Action\n Tracking System, the Operations Section Chief reviews the request to\n determine if the requirement is (1) clearly stated, (2) eligible for federal\n assistance, (3) beyond state and local capability, and (4) not the statutory\n authority of another federal agency. If these criteria are not met, the\n Operations Section Chief will return the ARF to the state.13 If these\n criteria are met, the request will be evaluated to determine if the\n requirement can be filled through FEMA\xe2\x80\x99s warehoused goods.\n\n Decision Point 2: If the request can be met with warehoused goods, the\n FEMA Logistics Section will direct FEMA assets from the distribution\n centers to a location closer to the disaster. Based on distribution center\n inventory information, FEMA can determine whether adequate\n warehoused resources are available. FEMA officials stated that requests\n for commodities such as water and meals are automatically forwarded to\n the Logistics Section to be supplied by FEMA\xe2\x80\x99s distribution centers.\n\n If the need cannot be met through FEMA warehoused goods, then FEMA\n uses other mechanisms to address the request. The Operations Section\n Chief meets with FEMA\xe2\x80\x99s federal partners to ascertain whether the good\n or service would be available by mission assignment.\n\n Decision Point 3: The Operations Section Chief may decide to address the\n requirement by mission assignment and coordinates with the appropriate\n Emergency Support Function (ESF) or other federal agency to develop a\n scope of work and cost estimate. 14 FEMA officials cite three primary\n reasons for using mission assignments:\n\n 1.\t The requirement is time-sensitive and normally involves health\n and safety issues.\n\n11\n Other federal agencies can also make requests to FEMA using the ARF. For illustration purposes we limit our\n\ndiscussion to disaster requests from states. \n\n12\n See Appendix C for descriptions of information technology systems used in the sourcing process. \n\n13\n The Operations Section Chief may also return the ARF to the state if the requested resource or service can be \n\naddressed more effectively by the state and included in the state\xe2\x80\x99s claim for reimbursement under FEMA\xe2\x80\x99s Public\n\nAssistance (PA) Program, if that assistance is available to the state as designated in disaster declaration.\n\n14\n See Appendix D for a description of the Emergency Support Functions.\n\n\n FEMA\xe2\x80\x99s Sourcing for Disaster Response Goods and Services\n\n\n Page 12\n\n\x0c 2.\t FEMA has a history of using mission assignments to address\n certain requirements.\n 3.\t Senior leaders specifically direct the use of a mission\n assignment.\n\nDecision Point 4: If the Operations Section Chief decides to refer the\nrequirement to the Logistics Section instead of addressing the requirement\nby mission assignment, the Logistics Section Chief will determine if the\nrequest can be met by an IAA with another federal agency such as GSA or\nDLA. If the request cannot be met by an IAA, the Logistics Section Chief\nmay submit a request for contract services or refer the request back to the\nOperations Section Chief for further mission assignment consideration.\n\nIf the Logistics Section Chief decides to contract for the required service\nor resource, a contract service request will be forwarded to the\nFinance/Administration Section Chief. If the contract service request is\napproved, the Finance/Administration Section will work with the\nappropriate FEMA program management and acquisition personnel to\nsolicit, evaluate, and negotiate the contract award.\n\nFigure 2 shows the various decision making points within the JFO\xe2\x80\x99s\nunified command structure. This approach:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t Does not comply with the National Incident Management\n System (NIMS);\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t Does not allow FEMA to centralize disaster sourcing\n decision making; and\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t Limits FEMA\xe2\x80\x99s ability to apply an overarching sourcing\n strategy, minimize unnecessary duplication, take advantage\n of resource ordering efficiencies, and maintain visibility\n over the entire resource ordering process.\n\nSourcing options which may be more efficient or cost effective are not\nalways explored. Additionally, the current sourcing process places a\nsignificant amount of resource ordering responsibility in the Operations\nSection, which is not consistent with NIMS. According to NIMS, the\nLogistics Section is responsible for ordering, receiving, processing,\nstoring, inventorying, and distributing all incident-related resources and\nsupplies.\n\n\n\n\n FEMA\xe2\x80\x99s Sourcing for Disaster Response Goods and Services\n\n\n Page 13\n\n\x0c Multiple Mechanisms Used to Source Selected Goods and Services\n We focused on six goods and services that FEMA commonly provides\n during a disaster. Table 6 presents sourcing mechanisms that FEMA used\n to provide the selected goods and services in response to hurricanes\n Gustav and Ike in Texas. The table shows that FEMA sometimes uses\n multiple mechanisms to source a particular good or service. For example,\n FEMA used all four mechanisms to provide water. FEMA also:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t Had a supply of water, emergency meals, generators, and tarps in\n its warehouses and used these resources during the response.\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t Used an IAA with the General Services Administration (GSA) for\n water and one with the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) for\n emergency meals.\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t Used PSMAs with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)\n for water, ice, and generator installation.\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t Used IAAs with GSA and the U.S. Department of Agriculture\n (USDA), as well as a PSMA with USDA for pet and animal\n services.\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t Used private sector contracts for water, emergency meals and\n tarps. 15\n\n Table 6. \tSourcing Mechanisms FEMA Used in Responding to\n Hurricanes Gustav and Ike in Texas\n\n\n Warehoused Interagency Mission\n Contracts\n Goods Agreements Assignments\n Private\n Water FEMA GSA USACE\n Sector\n Ice USACE\n\n Emergency Private\n FEMA DLA\n Meals Sector\n Generators and\n Generator FEMA USACE\n Installation 16\n Private\n Tarps FEMA\n Sector\n Pet/Animal GSA,\n USDA\n Services USDA\n Source: OIG, based on information provided by FEMA\n\n\n\n15\n FEMA did not have contracts for water, emergency meals, or tarps in place prior to the 2008 hurricane season and\n\nhad to award contracts post-disaster for these goods. \n\n16\n FEMA provided generators from its warehoused goods and used mission assignments with USACE for generator \n\ninstallation.\n\n\n FEMA\xe2\x80\x99s Sourcing for Disaster Response Goods and Services\n\n Page 14\n\x0c Multiple sourcing mechanisms increase FEMA\xe2\x80\x99s flexibility to meet needs\n in a timely manner. However, while FEMA does have some sourcing\n mechanisms in place before a disaster, it does not always take advantage\n of this flexibility once a disaster occurs. FEMA officials said that when\n deciding what source to use to fulfill a state\xe2\x80\x99s request for assistance, they\n often rely on what they believe has worked best in the past. The choice is\n based on an individual\xe2\x80\x99s own experiences, which may have been\n influenced by lessons learned from previous disasters, best practices and\n training, but this demonstrates that FEMA does not follow one strategy for\n sourcing. Relying on previous experience may not account for better\n sourcing alternatives.\n\nSingle-Point Ordering\n FEMA needs an overarching disaster sourcing strategy. FEMA\xe2\x80\x99s current\n disaster sourcing process is linear, resulting in fragmented decision\n making. NIMS prescribes single-point ordering under the Incident\n Command System (ICS).\n\n National Incident Management System\n\n Homeland Security Presidential Directive-5, Management of Domestic\n Incidents, directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to develop and\n administer NIMS. This system is intended to provide a comprehensive\n and consistent approach for federal, state, and local governments to work\n together effectively and efficiently to prepare for, respond to, and recover\n from domestic incidents.\n\n NIMS includes a core set of concepts, principles, terminology, and\n technologies covering, among others, the ICS, which is a standardized\n management tool that represents \xe2\x80\x9cbest practices\xe2\x80\x9d in emergency\n management across the country. All federal agencies are directed to use\n NIMS in their domestic incident management and emergency prevention,\n preparedness, response, recovery, and mitigation activities. NIMS creates\n a proactive system to assist those responding to incidents or planned\n events and is built on existing emergency management structures.\n\n According to NIMS, a unified command works best when, among other\n elements, the participating members co-locate and establish a single\n system for ordering/sourcing resources. This co-location usually takes\n place at a JFO. Figure 3 illustrates resource ordering roles and\n responsibilities under the ICS structure. Under this configuration, the\n Logistics Section, specifically the Supply Unit, is responsible for ordering,\n receiving, processing, storing, inventorying, and distributing all incident-\n related resources and supplies.\n\n FEMA\xe2\x80\x99s Sourcing for Disaster Response Goods and Services\n\n\n Page 15\n\n\x0c Figure 3. Resource Ordering Roles and Responsibilities Under ICS\n\n\n\n\n Source: OIG, based on information provided by FEMA\n\n\n According to DHS\xe2\x80\x99 JFO Activation and Operations Interagency Integrated\n Standard Operating Procedure (Interim Approval, April 2006), the JFO\n Logistics Section Chief can fill operational requirements:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t From resources at the JFO logistics base, including private-\n sector resources available to the JFO (warehoused goods);\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t By direct mission assignment or memorandum of agreement to\n another agency (mission assignment or interagency/intra-\n agency agreement); or\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t By preparing a requisition and recommending commercial\n sources for goods and services to the JFO\n Finance/Administration Section (contract or interagency\n agreement).\n\n According to this document, for resources that are still not readily\n available through the options above, the JFO Logistics Section Chief can\n pass the requirement to FEMA\xe2\x80\x99s RRCC or the NRCC for action. This\n approach is further supported by FEMA job aids 17 issued in April 2008 for\n\n\n\n17\n FEMA job aids, or Disaster Workforce Task Books, are written to clarify and review the tasks that make up\nparticular positions at a JFO.\n\n FEMA\xe2\x80\x99s Sourcing for Disaster Response Goods and Services\n\n\n Page 16\n\n\x0cvarious positions within the Operations and Logistics sections. These job\naids indicate that:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t The Operations Section Chief\xe2\x80\x99s responsibilities include\n identifying requirements and forwarding requests for supplies,\n services, equipment, or other support to the Logistics Section.\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t The Logistics Section Chief\xe2\x80\x99s responsibilities include\n monitoring financial activities for logistics operations, supplies,\n and equipment resources through the single-point ordering\n process.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t The ordering unit leader\xe2\x80\x99s responsibilities include\n establishing a single-point ordering system for all\n resources.\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t The ordering manager or specialist\xe2\x80\x99s responsibilities\n include providing resource ordering and tracking\n functions.\n\nThe National Response Framework (NRF), the federal government\xe2\x80\x99s plan\nfor integrating domestic prevention, preparedness, response, and recovery\nplans into one all-discipline, all-hazards plan, also supports the single-\npoint ordering concept. ESF 7 \xe2\x80\x93 Logistics Management and Resource\nSupport Annex (ESF-7) to the NRF states that the logistics management\nstructure is responsible for establishing and executing IAAs,\nMOAs/MOUs with other federal agencies and nongovernmental\norganizations, as well as standby logistics contracts with private sources.\nESF-7 also states that the logistics management structure at the\nregional/field/JFO level is responsible for implementing a single-point\nordering process.\n\nObstacles to FEMA\xe2\x80\x99s Implementation of Single-Point Ordering\n\nThere are obstacles that must be overcome in order to fully implement the\nsingle-point ordering approach called for in operational procedures that\nguide FEMA\xe2\x80\x99s disaster response. One senior FEMA official outlined two\nmajor obstacles. He stated that the current sourcing process is stove-piped\nbetween the Operations and Logistics sections, and it will be difficult to\nbreak down those barriers. Additionally, he said that there is a level of\ncomfort in the way disaster sourcing is currently performed. This is\nconsistent with what other FEMA officials told us, in that they tend to use\nthe sourcing mechanism that has been successful for them in the past.\n\nWe were also told that FEMA directorates (at the headquarters level) and\ndivisions (at the regional level) operate independently instead of\ncollaboratively. During the Gustav response, both FEMA Headquarters\nand the FEMA Region worked on acquiring pet supplies without realizing\n\n FEMA\xe2\x80\x99s Sourcing for Disaster Response Goods and Services\n\n\n Page 17\n\n\x0c that their efforts were duplicative. This lack of coordination led to an\n over-ordering of pet supplies. Operational stove-pipes have created a\n fragmented process for ordering resources such as personnel, 18 supplies\n and commodities. A single-point ordering concept would help bring order\n to the disaster sourcing process and minimize duplication. This concept\n would also allow for a more methodical approach for responding to\n disaster requirements.\n\n One FEMA logistics official stated that a single-point ordering and\n tracking system is needed because currently there are many disaster\n sourcing decision points, resulting in limited visibility over the ordering\n process. This concept would bring together those responsible for\n obtaining goods and services for a disaster under one system. Ordering\n and coordination between the operations, logistics and acquisition groups,\n and other federal ordering agencies such as GSA, USACE, and DLA,\n would occur at a single point. This official also stressed the need to track\n ordered resources from request to disposition, suggesting that the\n responsibility for tracking should be placed in the Logistics Section,\n consistent with FEMA job aids.\n\n An additional obstacle is the multiple, non-integrated systems currently\n used in the ordering process. For example, the JFO\n Finance/Administration Section uses the Automated Deployment Database\n to request and track personnel. Active contracts are kept in ProTrac, the\n software used by contracting officers. The Operations and Logistics\n sections use the Enterprise Coordination and Approval Processing System\n (eCAPS) to process mission assignments and 40-1s (FEMA\xe2\x80\x99s Requisition\n and Commitment for Services and Supplies form), respectively. The\n Logistics Section uses e-Tasker to request commodities, the Logistics\n Information Management System III (LIMS) for property inventory, and\n information technology (IT) equipment is requested through yet a separate\n system. FEMA\xe2\x80\x99s various IT systems do not interface, which creates\n problems in tracking requests and accounting for property. FEMA\n officials stressed that to perform single-point ordering effectively, FEMA\n needs a system, preferably web-based, that will integrate these\n independent systems.\n\n Single-point ordering can contribute to FEMA\xe2\x80\x99s ability to balance\n effectiveness, agility, reliability, speed, visibility, and cost in sourcing.\n Single-point ordering is discussed at FEMA, but it has not yet been\n implemented and will work well only if it is supported by integrated IT\n systems.\n\n\n18\n While this report focuses on goods and services, another resource that would fall under the single point ordering\nsystem is disaster personnel, who are currently deployed through the Finance/Administration Section.\n\n FEMA\xe2\x80\x99s Sourcing for Disaster Response Goods and Services\n\n\n Page 18\n\n\x0c On April 16, 2009, shortly after our fieldwork ended, FEMA\xe2\x80\x99s Acting\n Administrator issued a memorandum directing all regional administrators\n to immediately implement the newly developed operations and logistics\n integration guidance. This guidance is the product of a task force\n established to develop guidance for and to ensure complete transparency\n through communications and coordination between Operations and\n Logistics at all levels during preparedness, response and recovery\n operations. The task force developed guidance documentation that places\n responsibility for establishing single-point ordering in the Logistics\n Section. The single-point ordering process described in the guidance\n appears to be very similar to what we describe above and recommend\n FEMA implement.\n\n We discussed this new guidance with FEMA officials involved in its\n creation, who estimated that single-point ordering is 5 years from full\n implementation. Roles must be better defined, and buy-in from key\n players is critical. Further challenges include obtaining necessary funding,\n training all of the staff in this concept, and developing IT systems that\n integrate effectively.\n\nInternal and External Pressure Impacts Sourcing Decisions\n Some sourcing decisions are made in response to pressure from internal\n and external officials and are not necessarily based on actual need or a\n request from the affected state. While FEMA\xe2\x80\x99s job aids, the NRF and\n other disaster response manuals provide guidance on the sourcing process,\n this guidance is sometimes short-circuited by officials, often political\n appointees or elected representatives of the disaster area, who use their\n influence to ensure that goods and services are provided. While often\n well-meaning, this pressure can result in waste when the goods or services\n are not needed and can be disruptive to the sourcing process. For\n example, during hurricanes Gustav and Ike, FEMA Headquarters pushed\n $30 million of water and ice to Texas even though the state did not request\n this assistance because Texas had its own water and ice contracts in place.\n When power was restored to the hurricane region earlier than had been\n expected, FEMA determined that the prudent decision was to allow the\n unused ice to melt. FEMA would not have ordered the ice if FEMA\xe2\x80\x99s\n appointed leadership had not applied pressure on logistics decision\n makers.\n\n\n\n\n FEMA\xe2\x80\x99s Sourcing for Disaster Response Goods and Services\n\n\n Page 19\n\n\x0c A resident of Galveston Island gets ice, food and water at a distribution site.\n Photo by Patsy Lynch/FEMA.\n\n FEMA will always face a certain level of political pressure. Single-point\n ordering will not stop this type of pressure, but if it is supported by IT\n systems that provide increased visibility and transparency, 19 it will\n provide a focal point for such input and increase the availability of\n information on what goods and services have been requested, ordered, and\n delivered. 20\n\n Conclusion\n FEMA is called upon to provide essential goods and services to help state\n and local governments respond to disasters. While FEMA is generally\n successful in delivering these goods and services, duplication and waste\n does occur. This is the result of a linear, stove-piped process and a lack of\n integrated systems.\n\n The National Incident Management System, based on \xe2\x80\x9cbest practices\xe2\x80\x9d in\n emergency management, prescribes single-point ordering, under which the\n Logistics Section is responsible for ordering all incident-related resources\n and supplies. Coupled with an integrated IT system, implementing this\n\n\n19\n FEMA is in the process of developing Total Asset Visibility (TAV) that will provide better visibility and tracking\n\nof FEMA assets, but this system is not yet fully operational. \n\n20\n The impact of political pressure on FEMA\xe2\x80\x99s disaster response activities is further examined in the Management\n\nAdvisory Report, FEMA\xe2\x80\x99s Response to Hurricane Ike (OIG-09-78), issued in June 2009. \n\n\n FEMA\xe2\x80\x99s Sourcing for Disaster Response Goods and Services\n\n\n Page 20\n\n\x0c concept will allow greater transparency over disaster sourcing and\n delivery, and will increase FEMA\xe2\x80\x99s effectiveness in disaster response.\n\nRecommendations\n We recommend that the Administrator, Federal Emergency Management\n Agency:\n\n Recommendation 1: Implement the single-point ordering concept\n prescribed by the National Incident Management System, coordinating all\n sourcing through the Logistics Section.\n\n FEMA officials have indicated that full implementation of the single-point\n ordering concept could take up to 5 years. Therefore, we recommend that,\n as an incremental step, the Administrator develop a timeline and interim\n steps for co-locating the appropriate personnel from the\n Finance/Administration Section and the Operations Section with the\n Ordering Unit in the Logistics Section, as discussed in the \xe2\x80\x9cFEMA\n Integrated Operations and Logistics Guidance\xe2\x80\x9d dated April 6, 2009.\n\n Recommendation 2: Invest in the necessary information technology\n systems to ensure full integration of existing FEMA systems to support\n single-point ordering and enhance visibility over the sourcing process.\n\nManagement Comments and OIG Analysis\n\n FEMA concurs with our recommendations and will provide us with a\n detailed corrective action plan, with timeframes, in 90 days. We consider\n the two recommendations resolved but open, pending receipt and review\n of FEMA\xe2\x80\x99s corrective action plan.\n\n\n\n\n FEMA\xe2\x80\x99s Sourcing for Disaster Response Goods and Services\n\n\n Page 21\n\n\x0cAppendix A\nPurpose, Scope, and Methodology\n\n\n Our objective was to review (1) FEMA\xe2\x80\x99s plans and strategies for\n sourcing goods and services in response to disasters, and (2)\n FEMA\xe2\x80\x99s ability to manage and implement its plans and strategies\n for sourcing. We reviewed relevant laws, federal regulations, and\n DHS and FEMA policies and guidance. We also reviewed\n congressional testimony and prior Office of Inspector General and\n Government Accountability Office audit reports.\n\n We conducted our audit from July 2008 to March 2009, analyzing\n FEMA\xe2\x80\x99s plans and strategies for sourcing disaster goods in\n response to hurricanes Gustav and Ike in Texas. Specifically, we\n reviewed the following four sourcing mechanisms: (1) warehoused\n goods; (2) mission assignments; (3) interagency agreements; and\n (4) contracts, and the decision-making processes for deciding\n which sourcing mechanism to use.\n\n We met with FEMA officials at headquarters and in the field, and\n with the State Coordinator for Resources & Logistics in the Texas\n Emergency Management Division. During September, October\n and November 2008, we were onsite at the Austin JFO, which was\n coordinating FEMA\xe2\x80\x99s response to the hurricanes in Texas.\n\n We selected and examined six resources FEMA provided in the\n wake of hurricanes Gustav and Ike in Texas: water, ice, emergency\n meals, tarps, generators and their installation, and pet/animal\n services, to determine whether FEMA has a strategy for choosing a\n sourcing mechanism to use for each of these resources.\n\n We conducted this audit under the authority of the Inspector\n General Act of 1978, as amended, and according to generally\n accepted government auditing standards.\n\n\n\n\n FEMA\xe2\x80\x99s Sourcing for Disaster Response Goods and Services\n\n\n Page 22\n\n\x0cAppendix B\nManagement Comments to the Draft Report\n\n\n\n\n FEMA\xe2\x80\x99s Sourcing for Disaster Response Goods and Services\n\n\n Page 23\n\n\x0cFEMA\xe2\x80\x99s Sourcing for Disaster Response Goods and Services\n\n\n Page 24\n\n\x0cAppendix C\nSelected Information Technology Systems Used in the Sourcing Process\n\n Action Tracking System is a computerized tracking database used\n by the Action Tracker to maintain status and disposition of all\n incoming action requests.\n\n Automated Deployment Database (ADD) is used to identify and\n deploy personnel to disaster sites.\n\n eCAPS is used to provide electronic coordination and approval of\n the Requisition and Commitment for Services and Supplies\n (FEMA Form 40-1) and Mission Assignments (MA). This is a\n web-based service and will support all 40-1s and MAs processed in\n FEMA that are disaster related.\n\n eTasker is a web-based system designed to provide FEMA\n Logistics Management Coordinators with an automated,\n standardized system to record all activities associated with\n fulfilling requests for goods or resources submitted.\n\n Integrated Financial Management Information System (IFMIS) is\n FEMA\xe2\x80\x99s official accounting system that maintains and processes\n all financial data. IFMIS is the source of all FEMA financial data\n for both internal and external reporting.\n\n Logistics Information Management System III (LIMS) is the\n system of record for personal property accountability requirements.\n Personal property includes items such as computers, cell phones,\n generators, and office furniture.\n\n ProTrac is the contract management and tracking software used by\n the Acquisition Management Division.\n\n\n\n\n FEMA\xe2\x80\x99s Sourcing for Disaster Response Goods and Services\n\n\n Page 25\n\n\x0cAppendix D\nNRF Emergency Support Functions\n\nThe Emergency Support Function (ESF) structure is used to coordinate federal\ninteragency support for incident response. Various federal agencies are assigned as ESF\ncoordinators, primary agencies, or support agencies. These roles are further defined in\nthe ESFs Annexes to the National Response Framework (NRF).\n\nThis table identifies the ESFs and the basic responsibilities of each.\n\n ESF Scope\n1 \xe2\x80\x93 Transportation Aviation/airspace management and control\n Transportation safety\n Restoration/recovery of transportation infrastructure\n Movement restrictions\n Damage and impact assessment\n2 \xe2\x80\x93 Communications Coordination with telecommunications and IT\n industries\n Restoration and repair of telecommunications\n infrastructure\n Protection, restoration, and sustainment of national\n cyber and IT resources\n Oversight of communications within the federal\n incident management and response structures\n3 \xe2\x80\x93 Public Works and Engineering Infrastructure protection and emergency repair\n Infrastructure restoration\n Engineering services and construction management\n Emergency contracting support for life-saving and\n live-sustaining services\n4 - Firefighting Coordination of federal firefighting activities\n Support to wildland, rural, and urban firefighting\n operations\n5 \xe2\x80\x93 Emergency Management Coordination of incident management and response\n efforts\n Issuance of mission assignments\n Resource and human capital\n Incident action planning\n Financial management\n6 \xe2\x80\x93 Mass Care, Emergency Mass care\nAssistance, Housing, and Human Emergency assistance\nServices Disaster housing\n Human services\n7 \xe2\x80\x93 Logistics Management and Comprehensive, national incident logistics planning,\nResource Support management, and sustainment capability\n Resource support (facility space, office equipment and\n supplies, contracting services, etc.)\n\n\n\n\n FEMA\xe2\x80\x99s Sourcing for Disaster Response Goods and Services\n\n\n Page 26\n\n\x0c ESF Scope\n8 \xe2\x80\x93 Public Health and Medical Public health\nServices Medical\n Mental health services\n Mass fatality management\n9 \xe2\x80\x93 Search and Rescue Life-saving assistance\n Search and rescue operations\n10 \xe2\x80\x93 Oil and Hazardous Materials Oil and hazardous materials (chemical, biological,\nResponse radiological, etc.) response\n Environmental and short- and long-term cleanup\n11 \xe2\x80\x93 Agriculture and Natural Nutrition assistance\nResources Animal and plant disease and pest response\n Food safety and security\n Natural and cultural resources and historic properties\n protection\n Safety and well-being of household pets\n12 \xe2\x80\x93 Energy Energy infrastructure assessment, repair, and\n restoration\n Energy industry utilities coordination\n Energy forecast\n13 \xe2\x80\x93 Public Safety and Security Facility and resource security\n Security planning and technical resource assistance\n Public safety and security support\n Support to access, traffic, and crowd control\n14 \xe2\x80\x93 Long-Term Community Social and economic community impact assessment\nRecovery Long-term community recovery assistance to states,\n local governments, and the private sector\n Analysis and review of mitigation program\n implementation\n15 \xe2\x80\x93 External Affairs Emergency public information and protective action\n guidance\n Media and community relations\n Congressional and international affairs\n Tribal and insular affairs\n\nFor further information regarding ESFs and the National Response Framework, please\nsee www.fema.gov/emergency/nrf/.\n\n\n\n\n FEMA\xe2\x80\x99s Sourcing for Disaster Response Goods and Services\n\n\n Page 27\n\n\x0cAppendix E\nList of Related Reports\n\n\nU.S. Coast Guard\xe2\x80\x99s Management of 2005 Gulf Coast Hurricanes Mission Assignment\n Funding (OIG-09-34), March 2009, www.dhs.gov/xoig/assets/mgmtrpts/OIG_09-\n 34_Mar09.pdf\n\nFEMA\xe2\x80\x99s Implementation of Best Practices in the Acquisition Process (OIG-09-31),\n February 2009, www.dhs.gov/xoig/assets/mgmtrpts/OIG_09-31_Feb09.pdf\n\nInternal Controls in the FEMA Disaster Acquisition Process (OIG-09-32), February\n 2009, www.dhs.gov/xoig/assets/mgmtrpts/OIG_09-32_Feb09.pdf\n\nNational Communications System\xe2\x80\x99s Management of 2005 Gulf Coast Hurricanes Mission\n Assignment Funding (OIG-09-23), February 2009,\n www.dhs.gov/xoig/assets/mgmtrpts/OIG_09-23_Feb09.pdf\n\nU.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement\xe2\x80\x99s Management of 2005 Gulf Coast\n Hurricanes Mission Assignment Funding (OIG-09-22), February 2009,\n www.dhs.gov/xoig/assets/mgmtrpts/OIG_09-22_Feb09.pdf\n\nChallenges Facing FEMA\xe2\x80\x99s Acquisition Workforce (OIG-09-11), November 2008,\n www.dhs.gov/xoig/assets/mgmtrpts/OIG_09-11_Nov08.pdf\n\nHurricane Katrina Multitier Contracts (OIG-08-81), July 2008,\n www.dhs.gov/xoig/assets/mgmtrpts/OIG_08-81_Jul08.pdf\n\nU.S. Customs and Border Protection\xe2\x80\x99s Management of 2005 Gulf Coast Hurricanes\n Mission Assignment Funding (OIG-08-80), July 2008,\n www.dhs.gov/xoig/assets/mgmtrpts/OIG_08-80_Jul08.pdf\n\nLogistics Information Systems Need to Be Strengthened at the Federal Emergency\n Management Agency (OIG-08-60), May 2008,\n www.dhs.gov/xoig/assets/mgmtrpts/OIG_08-60_May08.pdf\n\nFEMA\xe2\x80\x99s Preparedness for the Next Catastrophic Disaster (OIG-08-34), March 2008,\n www.dhs.gov/xoig/assets/mgmtrpts/OIG_08-34_Mar08.pdf\n\n\n\n\n FEMA\xe2\x80\x99s Sourcing for Disaster Response Goods and Services\n\n\n Page 28\n\n\x0cAppendix F\n\nMajor Contributors to This Report.\n\n\n Donald Bumgardner\n Amy Hall\n Moises Dugan\n Trudi Powell\n Jacob Farias\n Kristofer Hensley\n\n\n\n\n FEMA\xe2\x80\x99s Sourcing for Disaster Response Goods and Services\n\n Page 29\n\x0cAppendix G\nReport Distribution\n\n\n Department of Homeland Security\n\n Secretary\n Deputy Secretary\n Chief of Staff of Operations\n Chief of Staff of Policy\n Acting General Counsel\n Executive Secretariat\n Director, GAO/OIG Liaison Office\n FEMA Administrator\n FEMA, Chief of Staff\n Assistant Secretary for Office of Policy\n Assistant Secretary for Office of Public Affairs\n Assistant Secretary for Office of Legislative Affairs\n FEMA Audit Liaison (DP8A04)\n\n Office of Management and Budget\n\n Chief, Homeland Security Branch\n DHS OIG Budget Examiner\n\n Congress\n\n Congressional Oversight and Appropriations Committees, as\n appropriate\n\n\n\n\n FEMA\xe2\x80\x99s Sourcing for Disaster Response Goods and Services\n\n\n Page 30\n\n\x0cADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND COPIES\n\nTo obtain additional copies of this report, please call the Office of Inspector General (OIG) at (202) 254-4100,\nfax your request to (202) 254-4305, or visit the OIG web site at www.dhs.gov/oig.\n\n\nOIG HOTLINE\n\nTo report alleged fraud, waste, abuse or mismanagement, or any other kind of criminal or noncriminal\nmisconduct relative to department programs or operations:\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Call our Hotline at 1-800-323-8603;\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Fax the complaint directly to us at (202) 254-4292;\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Email us at DHSOIGHOTLINE@dhs.gov; or\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Write to us at:\n DHS Office of Inspector General/MAIL STOP 2600,\n Attention: Office of Investigations - Hotline,\n 245 Murray Drive, SW, Building 410,\n Washington, DC 20528.\n\n\nThe OIG seeks to protect the identity of each writer and caller.\n\x0c"