type: other

jurisdiction: US

text: b'Semiannual Report\n to the Congress\nOctober 1, 1994 - March 31, 1995\n\n\n\n\n U.S. General Services Administration\n Office of Inspector General\n\x0c\x0c Foreword\n\nThis report, submitted pursuant to the Inspector General Act of 1978,\nas amended, summarizes the activities of the Office of Inspector\nGeneral (OIG) for the 6-month reporting period that ended March 31,\n1995. It is the thirty-third report to the Congress since the appoint-\nment of the Agency\'s first Inspector General. As detailed below, this\nhas been an extraordinary period for both the OIG and the General\nServices Administration (GSA) as a whole.\n\nGSA began the reporting period with a number of reinvention efforts\nalready well underway. In November, national elections brought in a\nnew Congressional leadership with an aggressive agenda to reduce\nGovernment. In December, the President unveiled his plan to\naccelerate reinvention efforts by significantly downsizing and\nrestructuring several agencies, including GSA. As a result of the\nPresident\'s announcement, in January the OIG and GSA launched\nseparate new reviews to assess GSA\'s reinvention options.\n\nOIG and GSA Respond to National Performance Review\nIn early 1993, the National Performance Review (NPR) was initiated\nwith the objective of giving the American people a Government that\nworks better and costs less. All Federal agencies, including GSA,\nbegan to seek ways to fulfill mission requirements more effectively\nwhile at the same time reducing staff and lowering expenditures. To\nthe credit of the Administrator and his management team, GSA has\nbeen on the leading edge of this revolution. GSA recognized that\nchange was imminent and that it needed to thoroughly reexamine\nevery aspect of its operations and delivery systems. Guided by the\nprinciples established by the NPR, the Agency also set out to create a\nsystem in which new ideas and approaches could be tested and\nevaluated. Known as reinvention labs, pilot projects were established\nthroughout the Agency to provide an environment conducive to\nexperimentation.\n\nThe NPR also called upon the OIGs across Government to broaden\ntheir traditional focus and encouraged the OIGs to build better\nrelationships with their agencies\' management based on a shared\ncommitment to improving program operations and effectiveness. The\nPresident\'s Council on Integrity and Efficiency formulated a new\nInspectors General Vision Statement which reaffirms our commit-\nment to improve the economy, efficiency, and effectiveness of our\nagenCies and to prevent and detect fraud, waste, and abuse. The\nstatement sets forth reinvention prinCiples designed to maximize the\neffectiveness of the OIGs by stressing the importance of enhanced\nworking relationships within the OIG community and with agency\nmanagement and the Congress.\n\nSeveral years ago, the OIG embarked upon a program to enhance the\neffiCiency and effectiveness of our own operations. Using Total Quality\nManagement techniques, we set out to rethink, redefine, and\n\x0c Foreword\n\n restructure our business processes and to explore ways to serve our\n clients better. We are pleased to report that our continued efforts are\n now showing substantial results.\n\n Our accomplishments this period were impressive. We achieved almost\n $147 million in cost avoidances, recoveries, and fines. We issued\n 280 audit reports, with financial recommendations of nearly\n $100 million. We initiated 172 investigations and made 295 referrals\n for criminal prosecution, civil litigation, and administrative action.\n These numbers represent the tangible results of the continuing efforts\n of our staff. Many of the changes we have initiated, however, cannot be\n fully captured in a statistical review. In addition, our results, while\n consistent with those of previous periods, were achieved by signifi-\n cantly fewer staff members. Since the close of Fiscal Year (FY) 1994, we\n have lost 10 percent ofour entire staff. Moreover, to achieve these\n results required our staff to overcome many obstacles and delays\n caused by the reorganizations, special projects, and other activities\n associated with the Agency\'s efforts to reinvent itself. Clearly, the OIG\n staff has found ways to do things better and more efficiently.\n\n The pace of change accelerated rapidly for both GSA and the OIG in\n December 1994, when the President announced that GSA and other\n agencies would undergo major restructuring to achieve significant\n savings. Both organizations responded quickly to the President\'s call\n for long-term savings and reductions in the size of Government.\n\n GSA Responds to President\'s Call to Restructure Agency\n In early January, GSA submitted to the Office of Management and\n Budget its "Strategies for Implementation of the President\'s Initiative\n for Long-Term Savings and to Reduce Government." GSA pledged to\n accelerate and broaden actions already underway to strengthen the\n execution of responsibilities for policy and oversight, to identity the\n most cost-effective methods of performing the responsibilities assigned\n to GSA, and to obtain the authority to implement the most cost-\n effective solutions. Against the President\'s requested savings of\n $1.4 billion, GSA identified a target of estimated savings, through\n policy and oversight and in operations, of $4.06 billion for FY 1996 and\n $24.378 billion for the five-year period ending in FY 2000.\n\n GSA also initiated a thorough review of its operations to determine how\n to restructure the Agency. The Agency grouped its programs into major\n business lines and initiated a comprehensive examination to determine\n which business lines should be retained, which should be transferred\n to other agencies, and which lines or specific activities should be\n privatized. To coordinate this review, GSA contracted with a private\n management consulting firm to provide advice and established an\n Operations Review Group (ORG) with representatives from each of the\n services and staff offices and union and regional participants. Teams of\n technical and management experts, with OIG staff as observers, were\n\n\nH Semiannual Report To The Congress\n\x0c rewa\n\nestablished to examine and make recommendations concerning each\nmajor business line. With the assistance of the management\nconsultants, the ORG will review these recommendations to ensure\nthat the process is rational and logical and provides verifiable results.\nTwo teams completed substantive work during this reporting period,\nbut final reports will not be issued until later this year.\n\nOIG Responds to President\'s Call to Restructure Agency\nWe plan to conduct detailed assessments of the results of each\nbusiness line study to ensure that the conclusions reached are\nappropriately supported, that the recommended course for future\nactions is reasonable, and that the proposed actions are in the best\ninterests of the taxpayers.\n\nShortly after the President\'s announcement in December, and to\nfacilitate the accelerated review of GSA programs and operations, the\nOIG formed nationwide audit teams to perform on a "fast track" basis a\nbroad appraisal of GSA\'s major programs and activities. In late\nJanuary, we presented an opinion paper to the Administrator and\nMembers of Congress which provided an independent and objective\nassessment of reinvention options in light of Governmentwide\nrestructuring initiatives. The analysis covered 14 major areas of GSA\nactivities which employ nearly three-fourths of the Agency\'s workforce.\nWe drew upon our knowledge of GSA programs, as well as General\nAccounting Office reports, Agency studies, and major Governmentwide\nreviews. Our proposed restructuring options and potential savings\nestimates were formulated based upon our evaluation of available\ninformation, major program considerations, and our understanding of\nreinvention initiatives.\n\nWe reported that by boldly restructuring the way in which GSA serves\nthe Federal community, opportunities are available for GSA to achieve\nannual Govemmentwide savings of $1.6 billion and reduce GSA\'s\nstaffing level by 6,682. The restructuring options available include\ncentraliZing inherently Governmental activities within GSA, transferring\nor delegating programs to other Federal entities, and privatizing\nprograms. We have received many favorable comments regarding the\nusefulness of our opinion paper. It is being used by officials at the\nOffice of Management and Budget, Congressional committees, and\nmanagers within the Agency to assist in their own examinations of\nGSA\'s programs and activities.\n\nAt the same time as these reinvention activities have been occurring,\nwe have continued to perform our vital role of providing audit and\ninvestigative coverage of GSA programs and operations. We are very\nproud of our accomplishments during the past 6 months, especially in\nlight of the challenges and difficulties we have faced. We are confident\n\n\n\n\n Office of Inspector General iii\n\x0c rewa\n\n that our work is having a positive effect, both on ongoing Agency\n operations and on GSA\'s reinvention efforts. We look forward to\n continuing to work with Agency management and the Congress in\n creating the new GSA.\n\n I want to take this opportunity to thank the GSA Administrator and\n Members of Congress for their unwavering support. I also want to\n commend OIG employees for their contributions to our achievements\n during the past 6 months.\n\n\n\n WILLIAM R. BARTON\n Inspector General\n\n April 30, 1995\n\n\n\n\niv Semiannual Report To The Congress\n\x0c Tab of Con\n\n Page\n\nForeword ........................................................................................... .i\n\nTable of Contents ...............................................................................v\n\nSummary of OIG Performance ..........................................................vii\n\nOIG Profile ......................................................................................... 1\n\nProcurement Activities ....................................................................... 2\n\nReviews of GSA Programs .................................................................. 6\n\nPrevention Activities ......................................................................... 14\n\nReview of Legislation and Regulations .............................................. 18\n\nStatistical Summary of OIG Accomplishments ................................. 21\n\nAppendices\n\nAppendix I - Significant Audits from Prior Reports ........................... 29\n\nAppendix II - Audit Report Register .................................................. 32\n\nAppendix III - Delinquent Debts ....................................................... 56\n\nAppendix N - Reporting Requirements ............................................. 57\n\n\n\n\n Office of Inspector General v\n\x0c\x0c Summary of OIG Performance\n\n\nDIG Accomplishments Total financial recommendations $ 95,903,045\n\n These include:\n\n .. Recommendations that funds be put\n to better use $ 82,678,872\n\n .. Questioned costs $ 13,224,173\n\n Audit reports issued 280\n\n Referrals for criminal prosecution, civil\n litigation, and administrative action 295\n\n Management decisions agreeing with questioned\nResults Attained costs, civil settlements, and court-ordered and\n investigative recoveries $146,525,575\n\n Indictments and informations on criminal\n referrals and civil complaint referrals 10\n\n Successful criminal prosecutions 9\n\n Civil settlements 10\n\n Contractors suspended/debarred 49\n\n Employee actions taken on administrative referrals\n involving GSA employees 12\n\n\n\n\n Offlce of Inspector General vii\n\x0c\x0c OIG Profile\n\n The GSA DIG was established on October 1, 1978 as one of the original\n 12 OIGs created by the Inspector General Act of 1978. The DIG\'s six\n components work together to peiform the missions mandated by the\n Congress.\n\n The DIG provides nationwide coverage of GSA programs and activities.\nOrganization It consists of:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The Office of Audits, an evaluative unit staffed with auditors and\n analysts who provide comprehensive audit coverage of GSA\n operations through program performance reviews, internal\n controls assessments, and financial and mandated compliance\n audits. It also conducts external reviews to support GSA\n contracting officials to ensure fair contract prices and adherence to\n contract terms and conditions.\n\n .. The Office of Investigations, an investigative unit that manages a\n nationwide program to prevent and detect illegal and/or improper\n activities involving GSA programs, operations, and personnel.\n\n " The Office of Counsel to the Inspector General, an in-house\n legal staff that provides legal advice and assistance to all OIG\n components, represents the OIG in litigation arising out of or\n affecting OIG operations, and manages the OIG\'s legislative/\n regulatory review functions.\n\n .. These functions are supported by the Office of Administration,\n the Office of Quality Management, and the Internal Evaluation\n Staff. These components provide in-house information systems,\n budgetary, administrative, personnel, and communications\n services; promote and coordinate the total quality process; and\n plan and direct field office appraisals and internal affairs reviews of\n OIG operations.\n\n The OIG is headquartered in Washington, DC, at GSA\'s Central Office\nOffice Locations building. Field audit and investigations offices are maintained in\n Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Atlanta, Chicago, Kansas City, Fort\n Worth, San Francisco, and Washington, DC. Sub-offices are also\n maintained in Auburn, Cleveland, and Los Angeles.\n\n The OIG started FY 1995 with a total on-board strength of\nStaffing and Budget 387 employees. As of March 31, 1995, our on-board strength was\n 353 employees.\n\n The OIG\'s FY 1995 budget is approximately $33 million.\n\n\n\n\n Office of Inspector General 1\n\x0c Procurement Activities\n\n GSA is responsible for providing space for almost 1 million Federal\n employees. GSA, therefore, acquires buildings and sites, constructs\n facilities, and leases space as well as contracts for repairs, alterations,\n maintenance, and protection ofGovemment-controHed space. GSA also\n operates a Govemmentwide service and supply system. To meet the\n needs of customer agencies, GSA contracts for billions oj dollars worth of\n equipment, supplies, materials, and services each year. We review these\n procurements on both a preaward and postaward basis to ensure that\n the taxpayers\' interests are protected. We peiform approximately\n 400 reviews each year.\n\n\nSignificant DIG Over $7 Million in Civil Settlements\n This period, the Government entered into ten settlement agreements in\nAccomplishments which companies agreed to pay over $7 million to resolve their potential\n civil liability under the False Claims Act. These agreements, negotiated\n by representatives of the Department of Justice and the GSA OIG,\n reflect the ongOing efforts of the OIG to pursue cases involving\n procurement fraud and practices which threaten the integrity of the\n Government\'s procurement process.\n\n Most of these cases involved procurements under GSA\'s Multiple\n Award Schedule (MAS) program. Under this program, GSA negotiates\n contracts with a number of vendors who may then sell covered\n products to Federal agenCies at established contract prices. Consistent\n with the provisions of the Truth in Negotiations Act and the Competi-\n tion in Contracting Act, the process is based on the principles of full\n and open disclosure and fair negotiations. Vendors must provide\n current, accurate, and complete pricing information-including\n information about discounts granted to commercial customers-during\n contract negotiations. Relying on this information, GSA contracting\n personnel may then seek to obtain the best possible prices for the\n Government. In cases where vendors fail to provide current, accurate,\n and complete information, the Government may pay artifiCially inflated\n prices for the products and services it purchases. Highlights of selected\n cases follow.\n\n " A computer manufacturer agreed to pay $1.9 million to settle its\n potential civil liability. An investigation was initiated after an OIG\n audit revealed that the supplier sold items to its commercial\n customers at discounts greater than those disclosed or offered to\n GSA during contract negotiations.\n\n " A manufacturer of scientific testing eqUipment paid the\n Government $1.35 million to settle its potential civil liability. The\n settlement agreement resulted from an audit and investigation\n which showed the company had failed to accurately proVide\n pricing and discount information to GSA contract negotiators as\n required.\n\n\n\n2 Semiannual Report To The Congress\n\x0cProcurement Activities\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 A company that provides automated data processing supplies\n agreed to pay the Government $1.2 million to settle the\n Government\'s claim that the company had submitted a false\n certification and had overcharged Federal customers. An OIG audit\n and investigation revealed that the firm had falsely represented its\n commercial sales to GSA contract negotiators.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 A major manufacturer of household and industrial plastic supplies\n and its Government contracts\' representative agreed to pay\n $1 million to settle a qui tam action under the False Claims Act. The\n qui tam proviSion in the False Claims Act allows individuals to bring\n suit, on behalf of themselves and the Federal Government, against\n contractors who submit false claims or false statements to the\n Government. The OIG confirmed the relator\'s allegation that the two\n companies failed to fully disclose their discount and pricing poliCies\n to GSA negotiators, and failed to pass along price reductions to\n their Government customers, as required by their contracts.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 A company that manufactures highway markers, display systems,\n and traffic signs agreed to pay $550,212 to settle the Government\'s\n claims that it failed to provide current, accurate, and complete\n information to GSA in the course of contract negotiations. The\n settlement also resolved the Government\'s claims that, in the\n course of its contract performance, the company failed to give its\n Government customers the price reductions to which they were\n entitled.\n\n .. A company that sells home medical care and patient room\n furniture paid the Government $350,000. The settlement\n agreement resolved the Government\'s claims that the company\n had failed to give its Federal customers the price reductions to\n which they were entitled by the terms of its MAS contract.\n\n Conspiracy Conviction\n On December 15, 1994, a food service equipment distributor pled guilty\n in U.S. District Court to conspiracy to defraud the Government.\n SentenCing is scheduled for April 1995.\n\n A joint Federal Bureau ofInvestigation, Department of Defense OIG,\n and GSA OIG investigation was initiated in response to confidential\n information received by the U.S. Attorney\'s Office alleging that the\n distributor was systematically overcharging for purchases made under\n a GSA Multiple Award Schedule contract. Investigators found that\n during the period 1987 to 1990, the distributor conspired to defraud\n Federal agencies by quoting inflated list prices and applying discounts\n smaller than required by the contract. To date, the investigation has\n identified approximately $750,000 in fraudulent overcharges which\n stemmed from over $6 million in Government sales.\n\n\n\n Office of Inspector General 3\n\x0c ocurement Activities\n\n The distributor\'s commission system encouraged salespersons to\n overcharge by allowing them to share in any extra profit that resulted\n from their fraudulent activity, while at the same time offering them\n little, if any, compensation for sales made at GSA prices.\n\n Previously, in September 1994, three former salespersons of the\n distributor were sentenced in U.S. District Court after pleading guilty\n to conspiracy to defraud the Government.\n\n GSA Employees Accepted Gratuities\n On January 20, 1995, a former GSA automotive equipment repair\n inspector and a former GSA motor transportation officer pled guilty in\n U.S. District Court to charges of conspiracy and acceptance of illegal\n gratuities. In addition, the motor transportation officer pled guilty to\n falsification of a sworn affidavit. Sentencing is scheduled for April 11\n and 13, 1995, respectively.\n\n A joint Federal Bureau of Investigation and GSA OIG investigation was\n initiated when an auto painting and body repair vendor alleged possible\n corruption involving GSA employees. The investigation disclosed that\n the motor transportation officer and automotive equipment repair\n inspector solicited and received illegal gratuities in exchange for GSA-\n related fleet business. Investigators found that the motor\n transportation officer, who supervised operations at a regional fleet\n management center, accepted cash gratuities via three schemes: 1) the\n vendor submitted to GSA fraudulently inflated repair orders which he\n approved and, in exchange, the vendor paid him in cash the amount by\n which the estimate was inflated; 2) solicitations of cash ostensibly for\n expenses for two seasonal parties for GSA employees but not used for\n that purpose; and 3) a sporadic gratuity scheme wherein he\n occasionally requested cash for personal activities or events. Through\n these schemes, the motor transportation officer accepted at least\n $1,350 and free services on personal vehicles. Investigators also found\n that the automotive equipment repair inspector provided confidential\n bidding information to vendors in exchange for pre-arranged cash\n kickbacks totaling $18,850 and free services on personal vehicles.\n\n The motor transportation officer resigned from his GSA employment\n during the course of the investigation. The automotive equipment\n repair inspector was terminated from Federal employment as a result\n of his misconduct.\n\n Referral to the IRS\n During a recent preaward audit, we noted that a firm failed to withhold,\n report, or pay all required employment taxes for its employees during\n calendar year 1994. The affected items included Federal and State\n income taxes, Social Security, and Medicare.\n\n\n\n\n4 Semiannual Report To The Congress\n\x0c curement Activities\n\nOfficials of the finn infonned the OIG that, due to cash flow problems,\nthey decided to discontinue all employee tax withholding for several pay\nperiods. The officials asserted that they did this in order to ensure that\nthey would have sufficient funds to avoid employee layoffs and still be\nable to issue regular pay checks. We estimate the total underpayment\ncould be as much as $50,000.\n\nWe referred the matter to the Director, Office of Employment Taxes,\nInternal Revenue Service, on March 22, 1995.\n\n\n\n\n Office of Inspector General 5\n\x0c Reviews of GSA Programs\n\n GSA is a central management agency that sets Federal policy in such\n areas as Federal procurement, real property management, and telecom-\n munications. GSA also manages diversified Government operations\n involving buildings management, supply Jacilities, real and personal\n property disposals and sales, data processing, and motor vehicle and\n travel management. In addition, GSA manages 131 accountingJunds\n and provides cross-servicing supportJor client agencies. Our audits\n examine the efficiency, effectiveness, and integrity oJ GSA programs and\n operations and result in reports to management. Our internal audits\n program is designed to Jacilitate management\'s evaluation and\n improvement oj control systems by identifying areas oj vulnerability and\n including recommendations Jor improvement. This period, the OIG\n peTjormed 45 internal reviews on Agency program areas.\n\n\nSignificant DIG DIG Advisory Opinion on Options to Reinvent GSA\n The President, the Congress, and the American public have challenged\nAccomplishments the Executive Branch to reinvent itself into a leaner, more efficient\n Government. In response, GSA has embarked upon a comprehensive\n effort to streamline activities and achieve significant savings for the\n taxpayers. Consistent with our role under the Inspector General Act,\n we completed an analysis of most of GSA\'s major programs and\n activities that will complement the Agency\'s effort to identify savings\n and reengineering opportunities. We believe that our broad knowledge\n of the Agency, coupled with the statutory requirement that we be\n divorced from program operating responsibilities, places us in an\n especially good position to render informed, impartial, and objective\n insights on restructuring options.\n\n We brought our most experienced and knowledgeable audit managers\n together to work in teams in preparing the report on a special "fast\n track" basis. We drew upon the OIG\'s knowledge of GSA programs as\n well as information available in General Accounting Office reports, GSA\n studies, and major Governmentwide reviews such as the National\n Performance Review and the Grace and Hoover Commissions. The\n report was presented to GSA management on January 23, 1995 and\n was provided to cognizant CongreSSional committees and Members. We\n recognize that a number of promising possibilities exist for restructur-\n ing GSA\'s programs, and we are continuing to work with GSA manage-\n ment to independently and objectively review these alternatives.\n\n We believe that GSA could realize annual Governmentwide savings of\n $1.6 billion by boldly restructuring the way it serves the Federal\n community and by increasing its centralized policy and oversight role.\n Our report focused on three restructuring concepts similar to many of\n those being considered by GSA. First, we believe that GSA should\n streamline, as necessary, and keep offices, programs, or services that\n 1) effectively provide policy and oversight, 2) leverage Govemmentwide\n savings because of centralized program control, or 3) are the providers\n of choice for GSA\'s customers. Second, GSA should consider\n\n\n6 Semiannual Report To The Congress\n\x0cReviews of GSA Pfi rams\n\n transferring or delegating programs unrelated to its central mission.\n While some programs should remain within the Government, there may\n not be overriding reasons for GSA to provide such services. In such\n cases, GSA should consider identitying other agencies that could\n appropriately assume program responsibility or be delegated\n operational responsibility when it is cost effective. Third, GSA should\n examine privatization of programs under several broadly-based options\n when it is clear that the commercial sector is a more efficient and\n effective provider of the service. Possible methods of privatizing include\n various forms of contracting with the private sector.\n\n State and Local Taxes on FTS2000\n FfS2000 provides Federal agencies with long-distance telecommuni-\n cations services through two vendors. It has been characterized as the\n largest private telecommunications system in the world, as well as the\n largest non-aerospace civilian agency procurement.\n\n The OIG continued to review important aspects of FTS2000. Previous\n Semiannual Reports to the Congress have reported concerns of the OIG\n with contract changes and overall administrative practices. One of the\n audits we conducted this period focused on the validity of State and\n local taxes imposed on FTS2000 services.\n\n Prior to award of the initial FTS2000 contract in 1988, and again in\n 1990, GSA officials expressed concern over the State/local taxation of\n FfS2000 services. The Office of General Counsel (OGC) was asked to\n provide legal advice on the taxation issue. There is no indication in the\n Agency\'s files that OGC provided any formal written response. During\n 1992 and 1993, OGe received additional requests for advice; however,\n the OGC concluded that it did not have the resources to pursue this\n complex review because of other higher priority FTS2000 related\n matters.\n\n In February 1994, we asked OGe to reassess the tax issue, and it\n agreed that legal review was warranted and subsequently committed\n staff to the project. Legal opinions that have now been issued could\n result in recovery of $2.5 million from several states and the avoidance\n of future payment of an equal amount.\n\n In the December 8, 1994 report, we recommended that as the Office of\n FTS2000 and the Information Technology Service formulate the priority\n requirements for legal support, the OGC should establish with these\n clients procedures for submission and handling of requests for legal\n assistance and timely responses, primarily as they relate to issues\n involving contract award administration.\n\n The OGC has responded favorably by providing its FY 1995 strategic\n plan which calls for the staff attorneys to work more closely with its\n clients in setting legal work priorities and requirements.\n\n\n Office of Inspector General 7\n\x0c Reviews of GSA Programs\n\n GSA\'s Travel Services Program\n Over the past 15 years, GSA\'s Federal Supply Service (FSS) has\n implemented several travel services programs which have greatly\n improved the convenience and efficiency of temporary duty travel for\n Government employees. First, these programs have easily saved the\n Government billions of dollars through fare/rate discount agreements\n with airlines, rail and bus companies, and hotels/motels. Second,\n Travel Management Center contractors (commercial travel agents)\n assist travelers in making reservations and obtaining tickets, thus\n easing the administrative burden on both the traveler and the agencies.\n Finally, Government employees use individual travel cards to charge\n expenses while on official travel, resulting in reduced travel advances\n for the agencies and increased convenience for the employees and\n generating rebate revenues for the Government from the card issuers.\n\n While these programs have been highly successful, we believe that if\n GSA is more assertive in pursuing additional travel management\n initiatives, there is a potential for agencies to save approximately\n $400 million annually, while maintaining their current level of\n temporary duty travel.\n\n The orG reviewed the travel services programs to see if customers were\n receiving the services they want, and if additional improvements could\n be made to make the programs more convenient and economical. To\n accomplish this objective, OrG auditors employed "benchmarking"\n techniques, by comparing the travel industry\'s best practices with\n FSS\'s, and looking for the best ways to enhance programs, improve\n customer service, and reduce costs. The benchmarking involved\n meeting with officials responsible for travel at civilian and military\n agencies and with individuals in travel and related service businesses\n throughout the private sector. Based on these discussions, the auditors\n concluded that FSS can further improve the travel services programs\n and potentially save agencies several hundred million dollars annually.\n\n As of February 1994, FSS had 125 commercial travel agency contracts\n in effect. Each contract covers a designated geographical area.\n Government agencies with dispersed offices must therefore use more\n than one travel agent (GSA uses 65, some agencies use nearly all).\n Government travel managers are unable to accumulate and analyze\n data from multiple travel agents, and as a result, cannot effectively\n monitor travel or ensure employee compliance with travel poliCies.\n Many of the corporate and military travel managers we spoke with\n advised us that limiting the number of travel agencies would result in\n increased services and efilciencies, i.e., additional discounts and\n amenities from frequently used vendors, as well as special reports to\n assist managers. We believe that GSA should restructure travel agency\n contracts to enable each Government agency travel manager to work\n with a single point of contact. The restructured contracts should allow\n travel agents to provide a wider range of services, and do the bulk of\n\n\n\n8 Semiannual Report To The Congress\n\x0cReviews of GSA Programs\n\n the day-to-day work of arranging employee travel. This could save\n Federal agencies millions of dollars each year.\n\n The Travel Card program was designed to reduce the need for travel\n advances and the use of Government Transportation Requests (GTRs)\n and to obtain management information and improve services for\n travelers. Travel officials believe that card usage could be significantly\n increased. Our report stated that travel card usage is lower than it\n could be because the Federal Travel Regulation does not require card\n holders to use the card wherever it is accepted; other charge cards offer\n users personal rebates and other incentives; and some agencies still\n use GTRs because regulations do not discourage their use. Both\n Government and corporate travel managers told us full use of the travel\n card would increase the value of reports provided by the card\n contractor, assist travel managers in negotiating preferred vendor\n agreements, and generate significant dollar savings. By amending\n regulations to require card usage wherever possible, travel costs will be\n lower and management data will improve.\n\n We also believe that GSA should promote the idea of centralized\n payment of employee charge card travel. By so doing, the Government\n could eliminate the annual payment of over $36 million for State and\n local taxes assessed on travelers\' lodging and car rental expenses;\n reduce or eliminate travel advance fees, saving between $1.5 to\n $3.7 million per year; optimize sponsor and productivity refunds,\n potentially eliminating almost $15 million in annual service fees; and\n simplify travel for the employee. Although centralized payment would\n increase the Government\'s risk of loss due to fraudulent charges or\n costs in excess of per diem, we believe the benefits would far outweigh\n any loss. Automated travel voucher systems (which many agencies are\n or soon will be implementing) would minimize the risk and expedite\n recovery from employees. While some legislative action might be\n necessary to expedite centralized payments, the potential for savings is\n Significant, and FSS should pursue any required amendments.\n\n In our report, we advised management that GSA should take a more\n active role in encouraging better travel management in civilian\n Government agencies. By doing so, agencies, the Office of Management\n and Budget, and Congress would have more accurate travel data upon\n which to base decisions, and Government travelers would enjoy the\n same or better services and amenities.\n\n The Commissioner, Federal Supply Service, generally agreed with the\n suggestions in the November 21, 1994 report. The OIG plans, in about\n 1 year, to review FSS\'s progress in expanding the level of travel services\n available to agencies.\n\n\n\n\n Office of Inspector General 9\n\x0c views ofG rams\n\n GSA\'s Fine Arts Program\n GSA, under its Fine Arts program, controls approximately 2,500 works\n of art located in Federal space, as well as thousands of works housed\n in non-federal institutions. Most of the art in non-federal institutions\n was commissioned by the Roosevelt Administration during the 1930\'s\n and 1940\'s to employ out-of-work artists under Works Progress\n Administration (WPA) programs. The assets of the WPA programs were\n transferred to GSA in 1949, when GSA was created.\n\n An audit of the Fine Arts program found that GSA has been making\n efforts to gain better management control over WPA art in non-federal\n institutions. Identifying the art and renewing loan agreements may,\n however, increase GSA\'s costs and be causing some institutions to\n reassess how they participate in the program. Since many institutions\n have had the art for 50 to 60 years, they simply continued caring for it.\n Some assumed the Government had abandoned the works since there\n had been little or no Government contact or assistance.\n\n GSA has retained ownership of many WPA works believing that Federal\n ownership would best assure the art\'s availability to the public and its\n preservation for the future. Some institutions, however, have stated\n that they do not give loaned art the same public display and care that\n owned works receive.\n\n GSA had acquired other art works froni a variety of sources before\n determining where the art would be displayed. As a result, some art\n remains in storage unavailable to the public and incurring storage\n costs. Also, many GSA facilities do not have proper storage space to\n protect the art in their possession.\n\n Finally, the report suggested changes to the fine arts computer system\n to improve the accuracy of exchanged information between Central\n Office and the regional offices.\n\n Our December 22, 1994 report recommended that the Commissioner,\n Public Buildings Service:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Reassess poliCies and practices for owning and managing fine art\n in non-federal institutions.\n\n II Research records related to works GSA has retrieved from\n museums, and return any art that records show was previously\n allocated to the museums.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Define how fine art in Federally controlled space is to be utilized\n and provide gUidance for the acceptance and disposition of fine art.\n\n " Give the regional Fine Arts Officers direct access to the fine arts\n computer data base.\n\n\n\n10 Semiannual Report To The Congress\n\x0cviews of GSA p~ rams\n\n.. Provide secure, climate controlled storage for art that will be stored\n for long periods.\n\nThe Commissioner generally agreed with the recommendations in the\nreport. The audit is still in the resolution process.\n\nProcessing of Thrift Savings Plan Transactions\nThe Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) is a tax-deferred retirement savings and\ninvestment plan for Federal employees covered by the Federal\nEmployees\' Retirement System (FERS) and the Civil Service Retirement\nSystem (CSRS). Employees may contribute a portion of their basic pay\nto the TSP and allocate their contributions among three investment\nfunds. The Government partially matches contributions made by FERS\nemployees, but not CSRS employees. In addition, the Government\ncontributes one percent of FERS employees\' basic pay to the TSP even if\nthe employees do not make their own contributions. During TSP open\nseasons, employees may elect to initiate, terminate, or change the\namount of their contributions or how they are invested. As of\nAugust 31, 1994, the year-to-date TSP contributions for GSA\nemployees totaled over $29 million.\n\nAn OIG review at three regional personnel offices and the National\nPayroll Center (NPC) found that TSP transactions generally are being\nprocessed timely and accurately and in accordance with established\nstandards. However, our review identified several instances of incorrect\nTSP data in the personnel and payroll systems relating to TSP service\ncomputation dates, TSP eligibility dates, and TSP fund investment\nallocation percentages. Neither the employees nor the Government were\nharmed by the erroneous dates (all have been corrected and all but one\nerror occurred prior to a Central Office Personnel instruction\nemphasizing accuracy ofTSP dates). However, errors in the investment\nallocations could affect employees\' investment accounts and result in\nGSA being liable for monetary loss of earnings by employees. Manage-\nment has taken action to correct the affected employees\' accounts, and\nto remind payroll technicians and personnel officers of the need for\naccuracy and completeness in processing TSP actions.\n\nWe believe that FERS employees may not be fully aware that they can\nallot the one percent Government contribution even if they are not\nmaking their own contributions. During the review, we noted\ndifferences in the extent personnel offices inform FERS employees of\ntheir right to allocate the Government one percent contribution among\nthe three TSP funds.\n\nIn the January 3, 1995 report, we recommended that the Regional\nAdministrator and the Associate Administrator for Management\nServices and Human Resources:\n\n\n\n\n Office of Inspector General 11\n\x0c views of GSA Programs\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Require NPC officials to determine the amount of lost earnings\n related to instances of incorrect TSP fund investment allocation\n and correct the affected employees\' TSP accounts.\n\n G Direct personnel offices to reject election forms submitted by FERS\n employees which stop the employees\' contributions but do not\n designate how the one percent TSP contributions are to be\n allocated.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Require personnel offices to provide information to eligible\n noncontributing FERS employees that explicitly states the\n employees\' right to allocate the Government one percent TSP\n contribution among the three investment funds.\n\n Management agreed with the recommendations in the report. The\n audit is still in the resolution process.\n\n Reimbursable Work Authorizations\n GSA\'s responsibility to manage the Federal Government\'s real property\n is established by the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act\n of 1949, as amended (FPASA). The FPASA authorizes GSA\'s Reimburs-\n able Work Authorization (RWA) program wherein GSA provides special\n services, repairs, and alterations of Government owned or leased space\n that exceed the standard level of services allowed tenant agencies as\n part of their rental charge. In FY 1993, almost $332 million in revenue\n was generated from the RWA program.\n\n The OIG has been conducting an ongoing review of GSA\'s accounting\n and billing controls over reimbursable work. As part of the review, we\n completed an audit to determine if GSA is accurately identifYing and\n accounting for the actual costs associated with reimbursable work. We\n found that GSA does not recover the indirect costs related to the\n performance of RWAs from its customer agencies. Indirect costs\n include GSA\'s overhead charges related to contract award and\n administration, data processing, and legal, accounting, and personnel\n support services. These costs were estimated to bG as much as\n $25 million annually. Due to the materiality of the amounts in\n question, we concluded that this condition warrants a material\n weakness designation and should be reported under the Federal\n Managers\' Financial Integrity Act.\n\n We concluded that the failure to recover indirect costs on RWAs is\n contrary to provisions of the FPASA and Congressional intent, as\n reflected in GSA\'s previous appropriations acts. By not charging for\n these indirect costs, GSA is in effect subsidizing the appropriations of\n other agencies at the expense of its own operations. As a result, Federal\n Buildings Fund monies intended for other GSA programs and\n operations must be used to pay for these costs.\n\n\n\n12 Semiannual Report To The Congress\n\x0cviews of GSA Programs\n\nGSA management believes that when the Federal Buildings Fund was\nestablished, a decision was made to include indirect costs in the\ncommercially equivalent rent charges assessed to customer agencies.\nThe Public Buildings Service reported that GSA\'s Office of General\nCounsel and Office of Budget concurred with that assessment. We\nmaintain that the FPASA and GSA\'s appropriations acts require that\nthe costs for reimbursable services, including indirect costs, be charged\ndirectly to the customer agency. Furthermore, in situations where GSA\nhas provided services to customers who have been delegated property\nmanagement authority or own their own buildings, GSA cannot recover\nits indirect costs on RWA projects because those customers do not pay\nrent to the Federal Buildings Fund. Management stated that the\nBusiness Process Reengineering Team has been directed to redesign\nthe current RWA process.\n\nIn the March 31, 1995 report, we recommended that the\nCommissioner, Public Buildings Service:\n\n.. Have the Public Buildings Service Controller work with the Chief\n Financial Officer to develop overhead rates to apply to RWA\n projects.\n\n.. Instruct the regional offices to charge customer agencies for\n overhead on RWA projects and provide the necessary gUidance.\n\nManagement did not indicate its agreement or disagreement with the\nreport recommendations. The audit is still in the resolution process.\n\n\n\n\n Office of Inspector General 13\n\x0c Prevention Activities\n\n In addition to detecting problems in GSA operations, the OIG is\n responsibleJor initiating actions to preventfraud, waste, and abuse and\n to promote economy and efficiency.\n\n The OIG\'s preaward audit program provides information to contracting\nSignificant Preaward officers for use in negotiating contracts. The pre-decisional, advisory\nAudits nature of preaward audits distinguishes them from other audits. This\n program provides vital and current information to contracting officers,\n enabling them to significantly improve the Government\'s negotiating\n position and realize millions of dollars in savings on negotiated\n contracts. This period, the OIG performed preaward audits of\n 193 contracts with an estimated value of over $900 million. The audit\n reports contained over $80 million in financial recommendations.\n\n Multiple Award Schedule Contracts\n This period, four of the more significant Multiple Award Schedule\n contracts we audited had estimated Governmentwide sales totaling\n over $47 million. We found that Government agencies could save over\n $10 million if improved discounts can be negotiated based on the\n information we developed.\n\n The OIG evaluated discount schedule and marketing data submitted in\n response to GSA\'s solicitations for the purchase of training aids and\n devices; laboratory equipment; and draperies, blinds, and bedspreads.\n\n The audits disclosed common problems in the proposals. Companies\n were offering commercial customers and individual Federal agencies\n better pricing than offered to GSA. Also, the companies either did not\n disclose the full extent of higher discounts granted to other customers\n or did not provide adequate justification for not offering the higher\n discounts to GSA.\n\n Other Contracts\n The orG performed two significant audits of claims for increased costs.\n These audits reviewed amounts of over $4 million and recommended\n adjustments of more than $2 million.\n\n \'" The OIG audited a claim for increased costs related to the\n renovation and conversion of two Federal buildings. The contractor\n alleged that a Government directive to suspend on -site work\n resulted in increased costs. We advised the contracting officer that\n most of the claimed costs were not allowable, reasonable,\n supported by appropriate cost accounting records, or allocable to\n the Government contract.\n\n e The OIG reviewed a claim for increased costs related to the\n construction of a Federal courthouse. The contractor alleged that\n Government-caused delays due to defective documents, lack of\n\n\n14 Semiannual Report To The Congress\n\x0c Prevention Activities\n\n direction, lack of permanent utilities, and excessive change orders\n during construction resulted in increased costs. We advised the\n contracting officer that the contractor overstated the costs for\n general conditions, home office overhead, and overtime. In\n addition, the contractor did not adequately support charges related\n to lost productivity, additional heating, materials handling, and\n testing costs.\n\n The Federal Managers\' Financial Integrity Act requires GSA manage-\nFederal Managers\' ment to provide assurance to the President and the Congress that\nFinancial Integrity Act Agency resources are protected from fraud, waste, mismanagement,\n and misappropriation.\nReviews\n We advised management that a material control weakness concerning\n GSA\'s control over its automated personal property disposal system\n should have been reported to the Administrator. In addition, we believe\n that the high risk rating for this program component should be\n retained, not reduced as management recommended. Nothing else\n came to our attention during the review that would lead the OIG to\n conclude that reporting officials had other than reasonable and reliable\n bases for their assurance statements.\n\n Our findings were presented to the Agency\'s Management Control\n Oversight Council. The Council concurred with our recommendation to\n retain the high risk rating for the property utilization/ disposal\n component but, after studying the issue, decided that the Adminis-\n trator\'s 1994 Assurance Letter to the President would not include\n controls over the automated personal property disposal system as a\n material weakness. The Administrator\'s Assurance Letter instead\n highlighted personal property disposal as an area of substantial\n concern.\n\n The OIG presents Integrity Awareness Briefings nationwide to educate\nIntegrity Awareness GSA employees on their responsibilities for the prevention of fraud and\n abuse, and to reinforce employees\' roles in helping to ensure the\n integrity of Agency operations.\n\n These briefings explain the statutory mission of the OIG and the\n methods available for reporting suspected instances of wrongdoing. In\n addition, through case studies and slides, the briefings expose GSA\n employees to actual instances of fraud in GSA and other Federal\n agencies.\n\n The OIG Hotline provides an avenue for concerned employees to report\nHotline suspected wrongdoing. Hotline posters located in GSA-controlled\n buildings, as well as Hotline brochures, encourage employees to use\n the Hotline.\n\n\n\n\n Office of Inspector General 15\n\x0c Prevention Activities\n\n During this reporting period, we received 89 Hotline calls and letters. Of\n these, 84 complaints warranted further action. We also received\n 28 referrals from General Accounting Office and other agencies; 13 of\n these referrals required further action.\n\n The OIG\'s program for reviewing leases prior to award provides\nAdvisory Lease front -end assurance that GSA is adhering to regulations and\nReviews procedures before awarding selected leases exceeding established\n thresholds. These reviews, although advisory in nature, promote\n opportunities for economy and efficiency in the leasing area, and the\n avoidance of problems before they occur.\n\n This period we received 20 lease proposals for review and completed\n 5 audits. One of the proposals reviewed had minor deficiencies which\n were brought to management\'s attention. The Agency has identified the\n leasing program for evaluation as a nationwide reinvention project. The\n OIG will provide an independent verification of the evaluation process.\n\n The OIG performs independent reviews of implementation actions, on a\nImplementation selected basis, to ensure that management\'s corrective actions in\nReviews response to OIG recommendations are being accomplished according to\n established milestones. This period, the OIG performed 8 implementa-\n tion reviews. In 7 of the reviews, the recommendations were fully\n implemented. In the eighth review, 1 recommendation has been\n partially implemented.\n\n The Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990 requires the OI G to conduct or\nFinancial Statements arrange for an annual audit of GSA\'s consolidated financial statements.\nAudit The Act also requires a report on GSA\'s system of internal accounting\n controls and on GSA\'s compliance with laws and regulations. With\n oversight and gUidance from the OIG, an independent public\n accounting firm performed this audit for FY 1994. In the audit report\n dated February 1, 1995, GSA received unqualified opinions on its\n financial statements as well as on its system of internal accounting\n controls. Several conditions were identified where steps should be\n taken to strengthen internal controls. None were considered material.\n The report on GSA\'s compliance with laws and regulations indicated\n that GSA complied in all material respects. In addition, the OIG\n completed limited reviews of the internal controls for two program\n performance measures, assessing reasonableness of the control\n structure to generate reliable performance information as required by\n Office of Management and Budget Bulletin 93-06. The preliminary\n assessment showed that the design and implementation of the existing\n control structure could be improved.\n\n This period, the OIG conducted an evaluation to satisfY legislative\nLegislative requirements for FY 1994 activities. In the review, the OIG evaluated\nRequirements GSA\'s compliance with Public Law 101-121, also known as the Byrd\n Amendment Restrictions on Lobbying Activities. The Amendment\n requires that recipients of contracts, loans, or cooperative agreements\n\n\n16 Semiannual Report To The Congress\n\x0cPrevention Activities\n\nover certain dollar thresholds certifY that no Federal funds were used\nfor lobbying activities. Disclosure of lobbying activity costs paid from\nnon-federal funds is also required. Our review indicated that GSA was\nin compliance with the Amendment\'s requirements.\n\n\n\n\n Office of Inspector General 17\n\x0c Review of Legislation and Regulations\n\n The Inspector General Act oj 1978 requires the OIG to review existing\n and proposed legislation and regulations to detennine their effect on the\n economy and efficiency oj the Agency\'s programs and operations and on\n the prevention and detection ojJraud and abuse.\n\n During this period, the OIG reviewed 252 legislative matters and\n 31 proposed regulations and directives. The OIG prOvided significant\n comments on the following legislative items:\n\n .. Federal Property and Administrative Services Reinvention Act\n of 1995. We endorsed GSA\'s efforts to determine how it can more\n economically and efficiently perform its functions. We also\n registered concerns relating to the test programs the legislation\n would authorize. Specifically, we recommended that the legislation\n establish parameters such as dollar and time period maximums\n for such programs. Also, we recommended deletion of the\n provision for a blanket waiver of all procurement laws and\n regulations in conducting such programs.\n\n .. Office of Management and Budget Procurement Bill No. 11. We\n endorsed the implementation of two-phase selection procedures\n for design and construction acquisition. However, we opposed\n several provisions of the bill which would expand the definition of\n simplified acquisition threshold contracts. First, we opposed the\n provision allowing the inclusion of service contracts of up to\n $1 million in certain circumstances. Second, we objected to\n revising the definition of commercial services to eliminate the\n requirement that an established price be reflected in a catalog.\n Third, we opposed repealing a statutory provision requiring the\n prompt resolution of audit findings. Fourth, we objected to\n increasing substantially the justification approval thresholds for\n procurements conducted without full and open competition.\n\n .. H.R. 9, Job Creation and Wage Enhancement Act of 1995. We\n objected to the so-called "citizens\' rights" provisions on the\n grounds that they were impracticable and would cripple the\n conduct of Federal investigations. We generally agreed that\n whistleblowers should be free from reprisals; however, we objected\n to the private whistleblower provisions because their scope was too\n broad. Finally, we objected to a provision which would create a\n new cause of action that would expose Government employees to\n personal liability for engaging in prohibited regulatory practices.\n We noted that this cause of action could affect and potentially be\n inconsistent with the protections afforded Federal employees\n pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act.\n\n\n\n\n18 Semiannual Report To The Congress\n\x0cReview of Legislation and Regulations\n\n it H.R. 85, Federal Travel Disclosure Act of 1995. We generally\n opposed this bill because the existing system of travel regulations,\n when properly applied, appears to provide adequate controls. We\n also noted that two aspects of the legislation, the provision\n prohibiting agencies from expending funds on travel by other\n agencies\' employees, and the provision requiring public access to\n quarterly travel reports, would hamper the ~IG\'s ability to pursue\n interagency criminal and civil cases and ongoing investigations\n and audits.\n\n it H.R. 28. Freedom from Government Competition Act of 1995.\n While we agreed with the concept of transferring functions\n currently performed by the Government to the private sector, we\n noted that this was only appropriate when cost-effective and\n feasible from a policy standpoint. We questioned the broad and\n sweeping language of the proposed legislation, and we noted that\n careful study was required before any such transfer occurs.\n\n In addition, the OIG provided comments on the following regulatory\n items:\n\n it Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994, P.L. 103-355,\n Implementing Regulations.\n\n it Contractor Whistleblower Provisions. We generally opposed\n the regulation\'s notification provision requiring OIGs to notity\n contractors of their preliminary determination to investigate a\n particular whistleblower complaint. We believed that this\n notification provision might compromise the effectiveness of\n such OIG investigations. Instead, we recommended that such\n notification occur sometime later in the course of the\n investigation, perhaps before the written report of findings is\n prepared by the OIG.\n\n .. Truth in Negotiations Act. We cited the need for clarification\n of the circumstances under which contractors may claim the\n new commercial item exemption and of the audit provisions\n that accompany the new exemption. In addition, we objected to\n the regulation\'s definition of adequate price competition as\n including instances where only one responsive offer is received.\n Also, we suggested that, when appropriate, sample defective\n pricing and price reduction clauses be contained within the\n Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) for easy use by\n contracting officers.\n\n .. Acquisition of Commercial Items. We advised against the\n loosening of the definition of "commercial items" to include\n commercial items with "minor modifications." We noted that\n such items may have undergone Government specialized\n modifications and may be Significantly more expensive as a\n\n\n Office of Inspector General 19\n\x0c Review of Legislation and R ulations\n\n result. In such instances, contracting officers should be given\n the discretion to determine on a case-by-case basis whether a\n modification is minor. In addition, we noted that the\n regulation\'s policy should be revised to allow procuring\n agencies to include additional clauses to protect the\n Government\'s interests. Finally, we suggested that the listing of\n laws in the FAR from which commercial item procurements\n would be exempt should be clarified.\n\n e Law Enforcement Availability Pay Act of 1994. P.L. 103-\n 329. Draft and Final Interim Implementing Rules. We\n advocated allowing individual agencies or offices more flexibility\n in defining the scope of the voluntary opt-out provision. Also, we\n proposed the term "agency head" should be defined to explicitly\n include the Inspector General in agencies where eligible\n investigators are employed within Offices of Inspectors General.\n We also pOinted out a change which needed to be made in the\n manner of accounting for training and travel hours in meeting\n the substantial hours requirement so as to avoid both inequity\n to the agent and unfairness to the Government by an undue\n "loading" of hours to meet the requirement. In addition, we\n believed that there needed to be an allowance for agencies\'\n discretion to suspend availability pay for employees on excused\n absence status pending disciplinary or other proceedings.\n\n\n\n\n20 Semiannual Report To The Congress\n\x0c S tis tical Summa of OIG Accomplishments\n\n Audit Reports Issued\n The OIG issued 280 audit reports, including 5 audits performed for the\n OIG by another agency. The 280 reports contained financial\n recommendations totaling $95,903,045, including $82,678,872 in\n recommendations that funds be put to better use and $13,224,173 in\n questioned costs. Due to GSA\'s mission of negotiating contracts for\n Governmentwide supplies and services, most of the recommended\n savings that funds be put to better use would be applicable to other\n Federal agencies.\n\n Management Decisions on Audit Reports\n Table 1 summarizes the status of the universe of audits requiring\n management decisions during this period, as well as the status of those\n audits as of March 31, 1995. Thirteen reports more than 6 months old\n were awaiting management decisions as of March 31, 1995; all of them\n were pre award audits which are not subject to the 6 month manage-\n ment decision requirement. Table 1 does not include 2 reports issued to\n other agencies this period and 19 reports excluded from the\n management decision process because they pertain to ongoing\n investigations.\n\n\n\n Table 1. Management Decisions on Audits\n Reports with Total\n No. of Financial Financial\n Reports Recommendations Recommendations\n\nFor which no management decision\nhad been made as of 10/1/94\n Less than 6 months old 104 87 $106,537,482\n More than 6 months old 8 6 3,280,308\nReports issued this period 275 178 94,641,71Q\nTOTAL 387 271 $204,459,509\nFor which a management decision\nwas made during the reporting\nperiod\n Issued prior periods 99 81 $107,679,521\n Issued current period 183 .108 51,011,758\nTOTAL 282 189 $158,691,279\nFor which no management decision\nhad been made as of 3/31/95\n Less than 6 months old 92 70 $ 43,629,961\n More than 6 months old ~ ~ 2,138,269\nTOTAL 105 82 $ ?~n\n\n\n\n\n Office of Inspector General 21\n\x0c S tistical Summa of DIG Accomplishmen\n\n Management Decisions on Audit Reports With Financial\n Recommendations\n Tables 2 and 3 present the audits identified in Table 1 as containing\n financial recommendations by category (funds to be put to better use or\n questioned costs). Some of the reports contained recommendations\n that funds be put to better use as well as questioned costs, and these\n reports are therefore included in both Tables 2 and 3.\n\n\n\n\n Table 2. Management Decisions on OIG Audits with\n Recommendations that Funds be Put to Better Use\n No. of Financial\n Reports Recommendations\n --------------------------\n\n For which no management decision had\n been made as of 10/1/94\n Less than 6 months old 80 $ 103,381,971\n More than 6 months old 6 3,280,308\n Reports issued this period 139 81,417,546\n TOTAL 225 $188,079,825\n For which a management decision was\n made during the reporting period\n Recommendations agreed to by\n management based on proposed\n Ell management action $ 130,202,611\n " legislative action\n Recommendations not agreed to\n by management 12,459,659\n TOTAL 156 $142,662,270\n For which no management decision had\n been made as of 3/31/95\n Less than 6 months old 57 $ 43,279,286\n More than 6 months old -.n 2,138,269\n TOTAL 69 $ 45,417,555\n\n\n\n\n22 Semiannual Report To The Congress\n\x0c 5 tis tical mary of OIG Acco hmen\n\n\n Table 3. Management Decisions on OIG\n Audits with Questioned Costs\n No. of Questioned Unsupported\n Reports Costs Costs\nFor which no management decision\nhad been made as of 10/1/94\n Less than 6 months old 8 $ 3,155,511 $-\n More than 6 months old o o\nReports issued this period 42 13,224,173\nTOTAL 50 $ 16.379,684 $-\nFor which a management decision\nwas made during the reporting\nperiod\n Disallowed costs $ 13,067,650* $-\n Costs not disallowed 3,992,187\nTOTAL 36 $ 17,059,837** $-\nFor which no management decision\nhad been made as of3/31/95\n Less than 6 months old 14 $ 350,675 $-\n More than 6 months old ~ o\nTOTAL 14 $ 350,675 $-\n\n* $6,076,174 oJthis amount was recovered in civil settlements, as reported in Table 5.\n** Includes $1,030,828 that management decided to seek that exceeded recommended amounts.\n\n\n\n\n Office of Inspector General 23\n\x0c Statistical Summa of OIG Accomplishments\n\n\n Investigative Workload\n The OIG opened 172 investigative cases and closed 179 cases during\n this period. In addition, the OIG received and evaluated 78 complaints\n and allegations from sources other than the Hotline that involved GSA\n employees and programs. Based upon our analyses of these complaints\n and allegations, OIG investigations were not warranted.\n\n Referrals\n The OIG makes criminal referrals to the Department of Justice or other\n authorities for prosecutive consideration and civil referrals to the Civil\n Division of the Department of Justice or u.S. Attorneys for litigative\n consideration. The OIG also makes administrative referrals to GSA\n officials on certain cases disclosing wrongdoing on the part of GSA\n employees, contractors, or private individuals doing business with the\n Government.\n\n\n Table 4. Summary of OIG Referrals\n Type of Referral Cases Subjects\n\n Criminal 36 71\n Civil 9 18\n Administrative 82 206\n TOTAL 127 295\n\n\n In addition, the OIG made 29 referrals to other Federal activities for\n further investigation or other action and 58 referrals to GSA officials for\n informational purposes only.\n\n Actions on DIG Referrals\n Based on these and prior referrals, 21 cases (43 subjects) were\n accepted for criminal prosecution and 11 cases (18 subjects) were\n accepted for civil litigation. Criminal cases originating from OIG\n referrals resulted in 10 indictments/informations and 9 successful\n prosecutions. OIG civil referrals resulted in 10 case settlements. Based\n on OIG administrative referrals, management debarred 31 contractors,\n suspended 18 contractors, and took 12 personnel actions against\n employees.\n\n\n\n\n24 Semiannual Report To The Congress\n\x0c S tistical Summa ofOIG Acco lishmen\n\n Monetary Results\n Table 5 presents the amounts of fines, penalties, settlements,\n judgments, and restitutions payable to the U.S. Government obtained\n as a result of criminal and civil actions arising from OIG referrals.\n\n In addition, the OIG identified for recovery $2,123,137 in money and/or\n property during the course of its investigations.\n\n\n\n Table 5. Criminal and Civil Recoveries\n Criminal Civil\n\n Fines and Penalties $ lO,150 $\n Settlements or Judgments 7,150,212*\n Restitutions 47,989\n TOTAL $ 58.139 $7,150,212\n*This amount includes $6,076,174 reportable pursuant to section 5(a)(8) oJ the Inspector General Act as\nmanagement decisions to disallow costs. See Table 3.\n\n\n\n\n Office of Inspector General 25\n\x0c\x0cAPPENDICES\n\x0c\x0c /- Significant Audits From Prior arts\n\nUnder the Agency\'s audit management decision process, Maintenance Control Center Operations\nGSA\'s Office of Management Services and Human\nResources, Office of Management Controls and Evaluation, Period First Reported: April 1, 1994 to September 30,\nis responsible for tracking implementation of audit 1994\nrecommendations after a management decision has been The review identified opportunities for improvement in\nreached. That office furnished the following status the processing of invoices and the management of main-\ninformation. tenance and repair data. The report contained five\n recommendations; none have been implemented.\nThirteen audits highlighted in prior Reports to the\nCongress have not yet been fully implemented; all are The recommendations require the establishing of alter-\nbeing implemented in accordance with currently native payment procedures, recording of necessary repair\nestablished milestones. and maintenance information, transferring service\n information from customer agencies, and streamlining\nReal Property Sales operational structure. They are scheduled for completion\n by November 30, 1995.\nPeriod First Reported: April 1, 1994 to September 30,\n1994 Federal Computer Acquisition Center\nThe review found that GSA was not fully recovering costs Period First Reported: April 1, 1994 to September 30,\nand that its accounting system could not adequately track 1994\ncosts. All of the report\'s recommendations have been\nimplemented; however, audit closure awaits a manage- The review found that the Center lacked adequate\nment follow-up review scheduled for completion by management and financial control systems and needed to\nSeptember 30, 1995. fully implement GSA policies and procedures regarding\n automated information system security. The report\n contained three recommendations; one has been\nReal Estate Management implemented.\nPeriod First Reported: April 1, 1994 to September 30,\n1994 The remaining two recommendations require the\n development of a system of internal management\nThe review found that repair and alteration projects in controls and improvements in automated information\none region could be more comprehensively planned and system security. They are scheduled for completion by\ndata bases more accurately maintained. The report April 30, 1995.\ncontained ten recommendations; seven have been\nimplemented. Administrative Support Services\nOne of the remaining recommendations, involving the Period First Reported: April 1, 1994 to September 30,\nvalidation of work items listed in the data base, is 1994\nscheduled for completion by August 31, 1996. The The review identified opportunities for improvement in\nsecond recommendation requires the identification of the administrative support services GSA provides to its\nbuilding retention status and is scheduled for comple- program activities. All of the report\'s recommendations\ntion by June 30, 1996. The third recommendation involves have been implemented; however, audit closure awaits a\nthe validation of inspection data which is scheduled for management follow-up review scheduled for completion\ncompletion by October 31, 1995. by June 30, 1995.\n\n\n\n\n Office of Inspector General 29\n\x0c Appendix /- Significant Audits m Prior Reports\n\nFederal Protective Service Business Allocation\nPeriod First Reported: October 1, 1993 to March 31, Period First Reported: October 1, 1993 to March 31,\n1994 1994\nThe review found that GSA needed to strengthen its con- The review focused on GSA\'s administration of the\ntrol over fireanns and improve physical security. The 60 percent and 40 percent antiCipated business alloca-\nreport contained 14 recommendations; 13 have been tion between two FTS2000 contractors. The report\nimplemented. contained two recommendations; one has been imple-\n mented.\nThe remaining recommendation involves an operational\nreview and the development of a plan for the efficient oper- The remaining recommendation involves GSA\'s determi-\nation of the control centers. It is scheduled for completion nation of its future role in contractor revenue allocation\nby July 31, 1995. A management follow-up review is and indicating it in future proposals. It is scheduled for\nscheduled for completion by August 31,1995. completion by January 31, 1996.\n\nInventory Management Procurement Personnel Development\n Period First Reported: April 1, 1993 to September 30,\nPeriod First Reported: October 1, 1993 to March 31,\n1994 1993\n This review advised management to streamline and update\nThe review identified opportunities for savings in the inven-\n its development programs for procurement personnel.\ntory management of stock in depots. All of the report\'s\n The report contained one recommendation; it has not yet\nrecommendations have been implemented; however, audit\n been implemented.\nclosure awaits a management follow-up review sched-\nuled for completion by March 31, 1996. This recommendation requires improving the warrant-\n ing, training, and certification programs. These\nDistribution Centers improvements are scheduled for completion by May 31,\nPeriod First Reported: October 1, 1993 to March 31, 1995.\n1994\n Local Telephone Service Program\nThe review identified opportunities for improvement in\ninventory management at a wholesale distribution cen- Period First Reported: April 1, 1993 to September 30,\nter. The report contained 16 recommendations; 14 have 1993\nbeen implemented. The review disclosed the need to provide better service to\n Federal customers of the local telecommunications pro-\nOne of the remaining recommendations requires the gram. The report included six recommendations; two have\nimplementation of stock locator software. It is scheduled been implemented.\nfor completion by September 30, 1995. The other rec-\nommendation involves improvements in stock selection 1\\vo of the remaining recommendations require compar-\naccuracy. All actions related to the implementation have ing costs with telephone services available from the private\nbeen completed except for a follow-up review. It is sched- sector and identifYing customers who should be\nuled for completion by November 30, 1995. provided service from another type of system.\n\n\n\n\n30 Semiannual Report To The Congress\n\x0c Appendix /- Significant Audits ior Repo\n\nThe other two recommendations involve rate agreements all pertinent actions have been taken on this recommen-\nand management of toll calls. An action plan outlining dation, it remains open until all recovery actions are\nrevised implementation dates for the recommendations completed.\nis scheduled for completion by May 31, 1995.\n Contract Workload Management\nEmployee Benefit Programs Period First Reported: April 1, 1992 to September 30,\nPeriod First Reported: October 1, 1992 to March 31, 1992\n1993\n This review revealed the need to develop a strategy for\nThis review found that the processing of health benefit addreSSing procurement workload concerns. The report\ninsurance transactions needed improvement. 1be report contained one recommendation; it has not yet been\ncontained two recommendations; one has been imple- implemented.\nmented.\n This recommendation involves the development of the\nThe remaining recommendation required a determina- means to monitor Multiple Award Schedule contracting\ntion whether it would be cost beneficial to recover health workload. This recommendation remains open, and the\nbenefit insurance contributions for prior years and to take Office of Acquisition Policy is monitoring the Agency\'s\nappropriate action based on that determination. While ongoing systems development efforts.\n\n\n\n\n Office ofInspector General 31\n\x0c A endix //- Audit R art Register\n Financial\n -\n Recommendations\n ~-------------~\n\n\n\n\n Funds To Questioned\nDate of Audit Be Put To (Unsupported)\nReport Number Title Better Use Costs\n\n (Note: Due to the pre-decisional nature of some audits, the\n financial recommendations pertaining to these reports are not\n listed in this Appendix.)\n\nPBS INTERNAL AUDITS\n10/13/94 A42161 Preaward Lease Review: Federal Courthouse, Pecos,\n Texas, Lease Number GS-07B-14146\n\n10/31/94 A43024 Postaward Lease Audit: The Portals Building, Lease\n Number GS-I1B-20644\n\n11/08/94 A41519 Audit of Negotiation and Award of Supplemental\n Architect-Engineer Contracts, Region 5\n\n11/15/94 A32461 Review of Pricing and Management of Reimbursable\n Work Authorizations, Pacific Rim Region\n\n11/22/94 A41249 Audit of GSA Region 4 Energy Conservation Projects\n\n12/07/94 A53007 Preaward Lease Review: 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW;\n Washington, DC, Lease Number GS-IIB-40134\n\n12/22/94 A41543 Audit of GSA\'s Fine Arts Program\n\n01/18/95 A42147 Audit of Buildings Management Field Office, El Paso,\n Texas\n\n01/27/95 A32454 Audit of Repair and Alteration Inventory, Public\n Buildings Service, Pacific Rim Region\n\n02/03/95 A53012 Preaward Lease Review: 950 L\'Enfant Plaza, SW;\n Washington, DC, Lease Number GS-I1B-50 124\n\n02/06/95 A53016 Preaward Lease Review: 633 Indiana Avenue, NW,\n Washington, DC, Lease Number GS-IIB-20069\n\n02/14/95 A42419 Audit of the Use of Repair and Alteration Term Contracts,\n Pacific Rim Region\n\n02/27/95 A42124 Audit of Region 7 IndefInite Quanti1y Term Contracts $7,675\n Used for Repairs and Alterations\n\n03/14/95 A42153 Audit of Computer Aided Design (CAD) Equipment\n Utilization, Region 7\n\n\n\n\n32 Semiannual Report To The Congress\n\x0c //- Audit ort Register\n Financial\n Recommendations\n -~----~.--~-\n\n\n\n\n Funds To Questioned\nDate of Audit Be Put To (Unsupported)\nReport Number Title Better Use Costs\n\n\n03/14/95 A42158 Auclit of Energy Conservation Projects, Region 7\n\n03/14/95 A52484 Preaward Lease Audit: 5051 Rodeo Road, Los Angeles,\n California, Pacific Rim Region, Lease Number GS-09B-\n 93226\n\n03/23/95 A42144 Audit of Negotiation and Award of Supplemental\n Architect-Engineer Contracts\n\n03/30/95 A42731 Audit Report on Indirect Costs on PBS Reimbursable\n Work Authorizations\n\n03/30/95 A53030 Auclit of Overtime Practices: Real Property Management\n Division\n\nPBS CONTRACT AUDITS\n10/04/94 A43492 Preaward Audit of Architect and EngineeIing Services\n Contract: DMS International, Inc., Solicitation Number\n GSl1P94EGD0013\n\n10/06/94 A40651 Preaward Audit of Cost or Pricing Data, Relating to a\n Claim for Extended Field and Home Office Overhead\n Costs: Volmar Construction, Inc., Contract Number GS-\n 02P-91-CUC-0035\n\n10/11/94 A43493 Preaward Audit of Architect and EngineeIing Services\n Contract: CRSS Constructors, Inc., Solicitation Number\n GS-03P-94-DXD-00 10\n\n10/20/94 A41581 Preaward Audit of Architect and EngineeIing Services\n Contract: Leonard Parker Associates, Architects, Inc.,\n Solicitation Number GS05P94GBD0020\n\n10/25/94 A42467 Audit of Termination Proposal: Pacific Southwest\n Roofing, Inc., Contract Number GS-09P-90-NPC-0014\n\n10/25/94 A42505 Preaward Audit of Cost or Pricing Data: O\'Connor\n Construction Management, Inc., Contract Number\n GS-09P-94-NPC-0031\n\n10/27/94 A42504 Preaward Audit of Cost or Pricing Data: Daniel, Mann,\n Johnson & Mendenhall, Solicitation Number GS-09P-\n 94-NPC-0031\n\n\n\n\n Office of Inspector General 33\n\x0c Appendix //- Audit Report\n Financial\n Recommendations\n ~--"---.-~---~----\n\n\n\n\n Funds To Questioned\nDate of Audit Be Put To (Unsupported)\nReport Number Title BeUer Use Costs\n\n10/31/94 A40666 Preaward Audit of Architect and Engineering Services\n Contract: Helpern Architects, Solicitation Number\n GS-02P-94-CUC-0071 (N)\n\n10/31/94 A40670 Preaward Audit of Architect and Engineering Services\n Contract: Lakhani & Jordan Engineers, P.C.,\n Solicitation Number GS-02P-94-CUC-0071 (N)\n\n10/31/94 A43501 Preaward Audit of Architect and Engineering Services\n Contract: CKL Architects, Inc., Solicitation Number\n GS-IIP-94-EDG-0006\n\n11/04/94 A40947 Audit of a Claim: SAE Americon Mid-Atlantic, Inc.,\n Contract Number GS-03P-91-CDC-0006\n\n11/08/94 A40658 Preaward Audit of a Claim: Evergreene Painting Studios,\n Inc., Contract Number GS-02P-91-CfC-0049\n\n11/08/94 A43484 Preaward Audit of Sole Source Contract: Omnisec\n International, RFP Number GS-IIP-94-MJC-0031\n\n11/08/94 A43502 Pre award Audit of Sole Source Contract: 4-S\n Construction, Inc., RFP Number GS-IIP-94-MKC-0030\n\n11/10/94 A41582 Preaward Audit of Architect and Engineering Services\n Contract: Phillips Swager Associates, Solicitation\n Number GS05P94GBD0020\n\n11/14/94 A41840 Preaward Audit of Small Business Administration 8(A)\n Pricing Proposal: Williams Electrical Construction &\n Wholesale, Inc., Solicitation Number GS06P94GYC-\n 0062(N)\n\n11/15/94 A41579 Preaward Audit of Architect and Engineering Services\n Contract: Cannon Corporation, Solicitation Number\n GS06P94GYD0033\n\n11/15/94 A52412 Preaward Audit of Cost or Pricing Data: SecureCo,\n Solicitation Number GS-09P-94-KSC-0171\n\n11/16/94 A50606 Preaward Audit of Cost or Pricing Data: Armrest\n Security Patrol, Inc., RFP Number GS-02P-94-CID-0099\n\n11/22/94 A52523 Preaward Audit of Architect and Engineering Services\n Contract: Silverman & Light, Inc., Solicitation Number\n GS-09P-94-KTC-0027\n\n\n\n34 Semiannual Report To The Congress\n\x0c Appendix //- Audit R ort Register\n Financial\n Recommendations\n Funds To Questioned\nDate of Audit Be Put To (Unsupported)\nReport Number Title Better Use Costs\n\n11/23/94 A40667 Pre award Audit of a Claim: Kohn, Pedersen, Fox\n Associates, P.C., First Tier Subcontractor to BPT\n Properties, L.P., Contract Number GS-02P-91CUCOO57\n\n11/23/94 A52524 Preaward Audit of Architect and Engineering Services\n Contract: Gayner Engineers, Solicitation Number\n GS-09P-94-KTC-0027\n\n11/30/94 A40661 Pre award Audit of Change Order Proposal: Leewen\n Mechanical Corporation, Contract Number GS02P93-\n CUC0054\n\n11/30/94 A40671 Preaward Audit of Architect and Engineering Services\n Contract: Mayers & Schiff Associates PC, Solicitation\n Number GS-02P-94-CUC-0069(N)\n\n11/30/94 A40946 Audit of a Claim: Fluidics, Inc., Subcontractor to\n SAE/Americon, Inc., Contract Number GS-03P-91-\n CDC-0006\n\n11/30/94 A40950 Audit of a Claim: Trade Images, Inc., Subcontractor to\n SAE/Americon, Inc., Contract Number GS-03P-91-\n CDC-0006\n\n11/30/94 A50607 Pre award Audit of Cost or Pricing Data: Armrest\n Security Patrol, Inc., RFP Number GS-02P-94-crc-0039\n\n12/02/94 A40349 Audit of Settlement Proposal: Kenneth R. Adams, Inc.,\n Contract Number GS-O 1P-93-BZC-0054\n\n12/06/94 A52522 Preaward Audit of Architect and Engineering Services\n Contract: Holben, Martin & White, Subcontractor to Leo\n A. Daly, Solicitation Number GS-09P-94-KTC-0031\n\n12/06/94 A52531 Preaward Audit of Architect and Engineering Services\n Contract: Baltes-Valentino Associates, Solicitation\n Number GS-09P-94-KTC-0030\n\n12/06/94 A52535 Preaward Audit of Cost or Pricing Data: Leo A. Daly\n Company, Solicitation Number GS-09P-KTC-0031\n\n12/08/94 A51511 Preaward Audit of Architect and Engineering Services\n Contract: Environ, Inc., Solicitation Number GS05P94-\n GBD0021\n\n\n\n\n Office of Inspector General 35\n\x0c Appendix 11- Au ort Register\n Financial\n Recommendations\n Funds To Questioned\nDate of Audit Be Put To (Unsupported)\nReport Number Title Better Use Costs\n\n12/08/94 A51514 Preaward Audit of Architect and Engineering Services\n Contract: Pierce, Goodwin, Alexander & Linville,\n Solicitation Number GS-07P-94-JUC-0011\n\n12/09/94 A52417 Preaward Audit of Architect and Engineering Services\n Contract: Stone Marraccini Patterson, Solicitation\n Number GS-09P-94-KTC-0027\n\n12/12/94 A51207 Preaward Audit of Architect and Engineering Services\n Contract: The Freelon Group, Incorporated, Solicitation\n Number GS-04P-94-EXC-0040\n\n12/12/94 A51208 Preaward Audit of Architect and Engineering Services\n Contract: Hellmuth, Obata & Kassabaum, Inc.,\n Solicitation Number GS-04P-92-EXC-0017\n\n12/12/94 A53609 Preaward Audit of Architect and Engineering Services\n Contract: McMullan & Associates, Inc., Solicitation\n Number GSIIP94EGDOOI6\n\n12/15/94 A40656 Audit of a Claim for Additional Costs: Volmar\n Construction, Inc., Contract Number GS-02P-91-\n CUC-0035\n\n12/16/94 A50616 Preaward Audit of Architect and Engineering Services\n Contract: Lakhani & Jordan Engineers, P.C.,\n Solicitation Number GS-02P-94-CUC-0069(N)\n\n12/16/94 A51510 Preaward Audit of Architect and Engineering Services\n Contract: Guidry Beazley Ostteen Architects, Partner in\n the Lafayette Design Group, Joint Venture, Proposed\n Contract Number GS-07P-94-JUC-0009\n\n12/21/94 A51512 Preaward Audit of Architect and Engineering Services\n Contract: Eskew Filson Architects, Partner in the\n Lafayette Design Group Joint Venture, Proposed\n Contract Number GS-07P-94-JUC-0009\n\n12/22/94 A52411 Preaward Audit of Cost or Pricing Data: Abide\n International, Inc., Solicitation Number GS-09P-94-\n NPC-0031\n\n12/22/94 A52532 Preaward Audit of Architect and Engineering Services\n Contract: SEM Design Corporation, Solicitation\n Number GS-09P-94-KTC-0030\n\n\n\n\n36 Semiannual Report To The Congress\n\x0c Appendix 11- Audit R ort Register\n Financial\n Recommendations\n Funds To Questioned\nDate of Audit Be Put To (Unsupported)\nReport Number Title Better Use Costs\n\n12/29/94 A53612 Pre award Audit of Change Order Proposal: G&B\n Environmental, Inc., a Subcontractor to A. S.\n McGaughan Company, Inc., Contract Number\n GS-IIP91MKC-0196 U\n\n01/03/95 A51812 Audit of Claim for Increased Costs: Spirco\n Environmental, Inc.. Subcontractor to BSI\n Constructors, Inc., Contract Number GSOOP89GYC0192\n\n01/05/95 A41842 Audit of Claim for Increased Costs: Guarantee\n Electrical Company, Subcontractor to BSI Constructors,\n Inc., Contract Number GS06P89GYC-0 192\n\n01/06/95 A50617 Preaward Audit of Architect and Engineering Services\n Contract: Hardy Holzman pfeiffer Associates, Contract\n Number GS-09P-94-KTC-0031 (NAZ04600)\n\n01/09/95 A41841 Audit of Claim for Increased Costs: BSI Constructors,\n Inc., Contract Number GS06P89GYC0192\n\n01/09/95 A51809 Audit of Claim for Increased Costs: Gross Mechanical\n Contractors, Inc., Subcontractor to BSI Constructors,\n Inc., Contract Number GS06P89GYC-0 192\n\n01/lO/95 A50615 Preaward Audit of Architect and Engineering\n Services Contract: Narov Associates, Solicitation Number\n GS-02P-93-CUC-0062{NEG)\n\n01/lO/95 A51217 Preaward Audit of Cost or Pricing Data: Gilbane Building\n Company, Solicitation Number GS-07P-94-JUC-0013\n\n01/12/95 A50614 Preaward Audit of Architect and Engineering Services\n Contract: Richard Meier & Partners, Solicitation\n Number GS-09P-94-KTC-0030(NAZ03600)\n\n01/18/95 A52533 Preaward Audit of Architect and Engineering Services\n Contract: Grommes-Meade Engineering, Inc., Sub-\n contractor to Langdon Wilson Architecture Planning\n Interiors, Solicitation Number GS-09P-94-KTC-0030\n\n01/20/95 A50608 Preaward Audit of a Change Order Proposal: Leewen\n Contracting Corporation, Contract Number GS-02P-93-\n CUC-OlOO(N)\n\n\n\n\n Office of Inspector General 37\n\x0c Appendix //- Audit Report Register\n Financial\n Recommendations\n .~-~.\n\n\n\n\n Funds To Questioned\nDate of Audit Be Put To (Unsupported)\nReport Number Title Better Use Costs\n\n01/23/95 A52536 Preaward Audit of Architect and Engineering Services\n Contract: Langdon Wilson Architecture, Solicitation\n Number GS-09P-94-KTC-0030\n\n01/24/95 A43494 Audit of Claim for Increased Cost: The George Hyman\n Construction Company, Contract Number GS-IIP92-\n MKC0062\n\n01/24/95 A51218 Preaward Audit of Architect and Engineering Services\n Contract: Ray Huff Architects P.A., Solicitation Number\n GS-04P-94-EXC-0033\n\n01/24/95 A51220 Preaward Audit of Architect and Engineering Services\n Contract: Stevens & Wilkinson of S. C., Inc., Consultant\n to Ray Huff Architects P.A., Solicitation Number\n GS-04P-94-EXC-0033\n\n01/25/95 A40673 Preaward Audit of a Claim: BPf Properties, Foley Square,\n L.P., Contract Number GS-02P-91CUC0057\n\n01/26/95 A51519 Preaward Audit of Architect and Engineering Services\n Contract: Gausman & Moore Associates, Inc., Consult-\n ant to Leonard Parker Associates, Architects,\n Solicitation Number GS05P94GBD0020\n\n01/27/95 A51520 Preaward Audit of Architect and Engineering Services\n Contract: Oftedal, Locke, Broadston & Associates, Inc.,\n Consultant to Leonard Parker Associates, Architects,\n Solicitation Number GS05P94GBD0020\n\n01/31/95 A43499 Audit of Claim for Increased Costs: MRC Construction,\n Inc., GSBCANumber 12745\n\n02/01/95 A40945 Audit of a Claim: Contarino Brothers, Inc.,\n Subcontractor to SAE Americon, Inc., Contract Number\n GS-03P-91-CDC-0006\n\n02/01/95 A51518 Preaward Audit of Change Order Proposal: Setterlin\n Construction Company, Contract Number GS05P94-\n GBC0002(NEG)\n\n02/06/95 A53620 Preaward Audit of Architect and Engineering Services\n Contract: Scharf-Godfrey Inc., Solicitation Number\n GS IIP94EGDOO 13\n\n\n\n\n38 Semiannual Report To The Congress\n\x0c endix //- Audit Report Register\n Financial\n Recommendation.s\n ~--.- --\n Funds To Questioned\nDate of Audit Be Put To (Unsupported)\nReport Number Title Better Use Costs\n\n02/15/95 A50610 Preaward Audit of Architect and Engineering Services\n Contract: Haines Lundberg Waehler, Solicitation\n Number GS-02P-93-CUC-0062(N)\n\n02/15/95 A50627 Preaward Audit of Architect and Engineering Services\n Contract: Hardie & Associates Consulting Engineers,\n Solicitation Number GS-02P-93-CUC-0062(NEG)\n\n02/15/95 A53615 Audit of Claim for Increased Cost: Dynalectric\n Company, Subcontractor to The George Hyman\n Construction Co., Contract Number GS-IIP92MKC-\n 0062\n\n02/17/95 A50618 Preaward Audit of Architect and Engineering Services\n Contract: Cesar Pelli & Associates, Solicitation Number\n GS-02P-93-CUC-0062(N)\n\n02/22/95 A53622 Preaward Audit of Cost or Pricing Data: L. H. Cranston\n & Sons, Inc., A Subcontractor to Donohoe Construc-\n tion Company, Inc., Solicitation Number GS-l1B-30 13B\n\n02/28/95 A40944 Audit of a Claim: Dan LePore & Sons, Incorporated,\n Contract Number GS-03P-91-CDC-0006\n\n03/03/95 A52517 Preaward Audit of Cost or Pricing Data: ATL, Inc.,\n Solicitation Number GS-09P-94-KTC-0044\n\n03/06/95 A52516 Preaward Audit of Cost and Pricing Data: O\'Brien-\n Kreitzberg and Associates, Inc., Solicitation Number\n GS-09P-94-KTC-0046\n\n03/09/95 A50328 Preaward Audit of Architect and Engineering Services\n Contract: Kallman McKinnell & Wood Architects, Inc.,\n Solicitation Number GS-05P-94-GBC-0047\n\n03/lO/95 A53619 Audit of Claim for Increased Cost: Manganaro\n Corporation, Maryland, Contract Number GS-IIP-\n 92MKC0062\n\n03/15/95 A51529 Preaward Audit of Architect and Engineering Services\n Contract: Karlsberger Architects, Inc., Partner in Joint\n Venture, Kallmann McKinnell & Wood Architects, Inc.,\n and Karlsberger Architects, Inc., Proposed Contract\n Number GS-05P-94-GBC-0047\n\n\n\n\n Office of Inspector General 39\n\x0c Appendix //- Audit Report Register\n Fi:mmcial\n Recommendations\n .-----~----\n\n\n\n\n Funds To Questioned\nDate of Audit Be Put To (Unsupported)\nReport Number Title Better Use Costs\n\n03/15/95 A51530 Preaward Audit of Architect & Engineering Services\n Contract: Korda/Nemeth Engineering, Inc., Consultant\n to the Joint Venture, Kallmann McKinnell & Wood\n Architects, Inc. & Karlsberger Architects, Inc., Proposed\n Contract No. GS-05P-94-GBC-0047\n\n03/17/95 A53628 Preaward Audit of Architect and Engineering Services\n Contract: Florance Eichbaum Esocoff King Architects,\n Solicitation Number GS IIP94EGC0023\n\n03/20/95 A50621 Preaward Audit of Architect and Engineering Services\n Contract: Consentini Associates, Solicitation Number\n GS-02P-93-CUC-0062(N)\n\n03/20/95 A51822 Pre award Audit of Cost or Pricing Data: Air Masters\n Corporation, Subcontractor to Mosley Construction, Inc.,\n Solicitation Number GS06P94GYC0082(N)\n\n03/20/95 A53627 Preaward Audit of Claim for Increased Costs: Stromberg\n Metal Works, Inc., Contract No. GS-IIP-90MKC-\n 0199/IDC 68201\n\n03/21/95 A53631 Preaward Audit of Architect and Engineering Services\n Contract: GHT Chartered Consulting Engineers,\n Solicitation Number GS IIP94EGC0023\n\n03/22/95 A50629 Preaward Audit of Cost or Pricing Data: John Milner\n Associates, Inc., Contract Number GS-02P-91-CUC-\n 0069(N)\n\n03/24/95 A50334 Preaward Audit of Architect and Engineering Services\n Contract: The Architects Forum, Inc., Solicitation\n Number GS-OIP-95-BW-0003\n\n03/24/95 A50928 Preaward Audit of Architect and Engineering Services\n Contract: Roy F. Weston, Inc., Contract Number\n GSIIP94EGCOOI1\n\n03/24/95 A52547 Preaward Audit of Architect and Engineering Services\n Contract: Lerch Bates Hospital Group, Inc., Solicitation\n Number GS-IIP-94-EGC-OO 11\n\n03/28/95 A51230 Preaward Audit of Architect and Engineering Services\n Contract: Hanscomb Associates, Incorporated,\n Solicitation Number GS-IIP-94-EGC-00 11\n\n\n\n\n40 Semiannual Report To The Congress\n\x0c //- Audit Report Regis\n Financial\n Recommendations\n Funds To Questioned\nDate of Audit Be Put To (Unsupported)\nReport Number Title Better Use Costs\n\n03/28/95 A52498 Preaward Audit of Architect and Engineering Services\n Contract: Yost Grube Hall Architecture P.C., Solicitation\n Number GS-1 OP-94-LTC-0049\n\n03/28/95 A52499 Preaward Audit of Architect and Engineering Services\n Contract: Glumac International, Solicitation Number\n GS-10P-94-LTC-0049\n\n03/29/95 A51531 Preaward Audit of Cost or Pricing Data: Huber, Hunt &\n Nichols, Inc., Solicitation Number GS-09P-94-KTC-\n 0044\n\n03/30/95 A51225 Preaward Audit of Small Business Administration 8(A)\n Pricing Proposal: Ebony Glass & Mirror Company,\n Solicitation Number GS-04P-94-EXC-0062\n\n03/30/95 A536\xc2\xb0~ Preaward Audit of Architect and Engineering Services\n Contract: System Performance Corporation, Solicitation\n Number GS11P95EGD0004\n\n03/30/95 A53634 Preaward Audit of Sole Source Contract: TEX/AM\n Construction Co., Inc., Solicitation Number GS11P94-\n MKC0062\n\nFSS INTERNAL AUDITS\n10/25/94 A31862 Audit of the Federal Supply Service\'s Multiple Award\n Schedule Items to Stock Program\n\n11/21/94 A31823 Audit of GSA\'s Travel Services Programs\n\n11/30/94 A41550 Audit of the Commercial Disposal of GSA Vehicles,\n Region 5\n\n12/23/94 A53006 Audit of Regional Fleet Management Center Operations\n\n02/10/95 A42564 Audit of Billback Amounts for Damaged Vehicles,\n Pacific Rim Region\n\n02/27/95 A42143 Audit of Internal Controls Over Surplus Personal\n Property Sales, Region 7\n\n\n\n\n Office of Inspector General 41\n\x0c Appendix //- Audit Report Register\n Financial\n Recommendations\n --~--~-\n\n\n\n\n Funds To Questioned\nDate of Audit Be Put To (Unsupported)\nReport Number Title Better Use Costs\n\n\nFSS CONTRACT AUDITS\n10/05/94 A40664 Preaward Audit of Multiple Award Schedule Contract:\n Eastman Kodak Company, Solicitation Number FCGS-\n X5-94-0039-B-N\n\n10/06/94 A40345 Preaward Audit of Multiple Award Schedule Contract:\n International Equipment Company, Solicitation\n Number FCGS-Y8-94-0040\n\n10/06/94 A41575 Preaward Audit of Cost or Pricing Proposal: Mobium,\n Inc.\n\n10/06/94 A42487 Preaward Audit of Multiple Award Schedule Contract:\n Zenger-Miller Achieve, Solicitation Number 2FYG-\n JI -94-0004-B\n\n10/06/94 A42573 Preaward Audit of Multiple Award Schedule Contract:\n Avon Marine, Inc., Solicitation Number 7FXI-T5-94-\n 1902-B\n\n10/06/94 A42575 Limited Audit of Government Billings: Zenger-Miller $3,977\n Achieve, Contract Number GS-02F-3037A\n\n10/11/94 A42520 Preaward Audit of Cost or Pricing Data: Munson\n Manufacturing, Inc., Solicitation Number 7FXI-T5-93-\n 1901-B\n\n10/13/94 A41258 Preaward Audit of Multiple Award Schedule Contract:\n Organon Teknika Corporation, Solicitation Number\n FCGS-X5-94-0039-B-N\n\n10/13/94 A42574 Limited Audit of Government Billings: Meridian $3,951\n Instruments, Inc., Contract Number GS-OOF-47 44A\n\n10/13/94 A51209 Limited Audit of Government Billings: Organon $12,547\n Teknika Corporation, Contract Number GS-00F-2560A\n\n10/13/94 A51210 Limited Audit of Government Billings: Organon $20,115\n Teknika Corporation, Contract Number GS-00F-7007A\n\n10/14/94 A42567 Preaward Audit of Multiple Award Schedule Contract:\n Meridian Instruments, Inc., Solicitation Number\n FCGS-Y8-94-0040-B-N\n\n\n\n\n42 Semiannual Report To The Congress\n\x0c Appendix 11- Audit Report Register\n Finamcial\n Recommendations\n ~-~~.\n\n\n\n\n Funds To Qu.estioned\nDate of Audit Be Put To (Unsu.pported)\nReport Number Title Better Use Costs\n\n10/18/94 A42566 Preaward Audit of Multiple Award Schedule Contract:\n Bio-Rad Laboratories, Solicitation Number FCGS-\n X5-94-0039-B-N\n\n10/28/94 A40348 Preaward Audit of Multiple Award Schedule Contract:\n Jeol USA, Inc., Solicitation Number FCGS-Y8-94-\n 0040-B-N\n\n10/31/94 A40669 Preaward Audit of Multiple Award Schedule Contract:\n New Brunswick Scientific Company, Inc., Solicitation\n Number FCGS-Y8-94-oo40-B-N\n\n11/01/94 A42548 Limited Scope Postaward Audit of Multiple Award\n Schedule Contract: Peninsula Laboratories, Inc.,\n Contract Number GS-00F-4 745A\n\n11/03/94 A40347 Preaward Audit of Multiple Award Schedule Contract:\n American Management Association, Solicitation\n Number 2FYG-JI-94-0004\n\n11/04/94 A40665 Preaward Audit of Multiple Award Schedule Contract:\n Carl Zeiss, Incorporated, Solicitation Number FCGS-\n Y8-94-0040-B-N\n\n11/07/94 A51211 Limited Audit of End-of-Contract Aggregate Discount: $20,649\n Neotronics of North America, Incorporated, Contract\n Number GS-OOF-2304A\n\n11/08/94 A42470 Price Adjustments on Multiple Award Schedule\n Contract: Finnigan Corporation, Contract Number GS-\n OOF-5911A for the Interim Period January 1, 1994\n Through May 31, 1996\n\n11/08/94 A43498 Preaward Audit of Multiple Award Schedule Contract:\n Skatron Instruments, Inc., Solicitation Number FCGS-\n X5-94-0039-B-N\n\n11/09/94 A41580 Preaward Audit of Multiple Award Schedule Contract:\n National Education Training Group, Inc., Solicitation\n Number 2FYG-JI -94-0004-B\n\n11/09/94 A52418 Limited Audit of Government Billings: Peninsula $1,900\n Laboratories, Inc., Contract Number GS-00F-4745A\n\n\n\n\n Office of Inspector General 43\n\x0c A endix II-Au t Report\n Financial\n Recommendations- _ . _ -\n -----~-"\n\n\n\n\n Funds To Questioned\nDate of Audit Be Put To (Unsupported)\nReport Number Title Better Use Costs\n\n11/16/94 A40324 Preaward Audit of Multiple Award Schedule Contract:\n Nova Biomedical Corporation, Solicitation Number FCGS-\n X5-94-0039\n\n11/16/94 A40951 Preaward Audit of Multiple Award Schedule Contract:\n E.I. DuPont DeNemours and Company, Inc.,\n Solicitation Number FCGS-X5-94-0039-B-N\n\n11/17/94 A40953 Preaward Audit of Multiple Award Schedule Contract:\n E.I. DuPont DeNemours and Company, Inc.,\n Solicitation Number FCGS-Y8-94-0040-B-N\n\n11/17/94 A41576 Preaward Audit of Multiple Award Schedule Contract:\n Baxter Healthcare Corporation, Solicitation Number\n FCGS-X5-94-0039-B-N\n\n11/18/94 A51509 Preaward Audit of Multiple Award Schedule Contract:\n Lyon Metal Products, Inc., Solicitation Number 3FNH-\n 94-F502-N\n\n11/21/94 A50312 Preaward Audit of Multiple Award Schedule Contract:\n Chartpak, Solicitation Number 2FYS-AP-94-0001B\n\n11/22/94 A42525 Preaward Audit of Cost or Pricing Data: Wajax-Pacific\n Fire EqUipment, Inc., Solicitation Number FCXA-IC-\n 93IFS-B\n\n11/23/94 A40668 Preaward Audit of Multiple Award Schedule Contract:\n Nikon, Incorporated, Solicitation Number FCGS-Y8-94-\n 0040-B-N\n\n11/23/94 A41259 Preaward Audit of Multiple Award Schedule Contract:\n Firearms Training Systems, Incorporated, Solicitation\n Number 2FYG-JI-94-0004-B\n\n11/23/94 A50314 Postaward Audit of Government Billings Under Contract $19,321\n Number GS00F2482A: Nova Biomedical Corporation\n\n11/30/94 A42568 Preaward Audit of Multiple Award Schedule Contract:\n Beckman Instruments, Inc., Solicitation Number\n FCGS-X5-94-0039-B-N\n\n11/30/94 A51515 Preaward Audit of Multiple Award Schedule Contract:\n Office Products International, Solicitation Number\n 2FYS-AP-94-000 1B\n\n\n\n\n44 Semiannual Report To The Congress\n\x0c Appen II . . . Audit R ort Regis\n Financial\n Recommendations -.---~,~--\n\n\n\n\n Funds To Questioned\nDate of Audit Be Put To (Unsupported)\nReport Number Title Better Use Costs\n\n12/01/94 A40932 Postaward Audit of Multiple Award Schedule Contract: $21,720\n Ricoh Corporation, Contract Number GS-OOF-1972A for\n the Pertod October 1, 1990 Through September 30, 1993\n\n12/05/94 A00342 Postaward Audit of Multiple Award Schedule Contract: $1,754,902\n Perkin-Elmer Corporation, Contract No. GS-00F-93781\n for the Pertod May 18, 1987 Through April 30, 1990\n\n12/05/94 AI0218 Postaward Audit of Multiple Award Schedule Contract: $444,859\n Perkin-Elmer Corporation, Contract No. GS-OOF-\n 03601 for the Interim Period June 1, 1988 Through\n April 30, 1990\n\n12/05/94 A43496 Preaward Audit of Multiple Award Schedule Contract:\n Dynatech Laboratortes, Inc., Solicitation Number FCGS-\n X5-94-0039-B-N\n\n12/06/94 A43475 Preaward Audit of Cost or Pricing Data: Zodiac of North\n America, Inc., Solicitation Number 7FXI-T5-94-1902-B\n\n12/14/94 AS0612 Preaward Audit of Multiple Award Schedule Contract:\n Innerspace Technology, Inc., Solicitation Number\n GS-03F-94-AYC-0041\n\n12/19/94 AS 1806 Postaward Audit of Multiple Award Schedule Contract: $39,770\n Wieland Furniture Company, Contract No. GS-OOF-\n S332A for the Interim Period May 13, 1991 Thru\n April 30, 1993 & Contract No. GS-00F-6295A for the\n Interim Pertod August 26, 1991 Thru April 30, 1993\n\n12/20/94 A31544 Postaward Audit of Multiple Award Schedule Contract: $174,192\n Nicolet Instrument Corporation, Contract Number\n GS-00F-2456A, June 8, 1990 Through April 30, 1994\n\n12/20/94 AS0310 Preaward Audit of Multiple Award Schedule Contract:\n Lista International Corporation, Solicitation Number\n 3FNH -94-FS02-N\n\n12/22/94 A40344 Preaward Audit of Multiple Award Schedule Contract:\n Instrumentation Laboratmy, Solicitation Number FCGS-\n X5-94-0039\n\n12/22/94 A41837 Postaward Audit of Multiple Award Schedule Contract: $11,405\n Quanta Corporation, Contract Number GS-03F-1 026A\n for the Pertod August 14, 1991 Through March 31, 1994\n\n\n\n\n Office of Inspector General 45\n\x0c Appendix //- Audit R ort Regis r\n Financial\n Recommendations\n ~---~-----~--------~---.-~\n\n\n\n\n Funds To Questioned\nDate of Audit Be Put To (Unsupported)\nReport Number Title Better Use Costs\n\n12/22/94 A53613 Preaward Audit of Multiple Award Schedule Contract:\n Congressional Information Service, Inc., Solicitation\n Number 2FYG-LG-940002-B\n\n12/23/94 A51513 Preaward Audit of Multiple Award Schedule Contract:\n TImeMed Labeling Systems, Inc., Solicitation Number\n 2FYS-AP-94-000 IB\n\n12/27/94 A50611 Preaward Audit of Multiple Award Schedule Contract:\n Moody\'s Investors Service, Solicitation Number 2FYG-\n LG-940002-B\n\n12/30/94 A51213 Preaward Audit of Small Business Administration 8(A)\n Pricing Proposal: Trinity Furniture, Incorporated,\n Solicitation Number 3FNO-94-M109-N-9-30-94\n\n12/30/94 A52415 Preaward Audit of Multiple Award Schedule Contract:\n Grass Valley Group, Inc., Solicitation Number GS-03F-\n 94-AYC-0041\n\n01/04/95 A52502 Limited Audit of Government Billings: RGB Spectrum, $7,160\n Contract Number GS-03F-2032A\n\n01/06/95 A52537 Limited Scope Postaward Audit: Bio-Rad Laboratories, $5,948\n Contract Number GS-00F-2516A\n\n01/10/95 A21884 Postaward Audit of Multiple Award Schedule Contract: $399,914\n Western Lithotech, Contract Number GS-OOF-06200 for\n the Period October 24, 1988 Through June 30, 1991\n\n01/12/95 A53606 Preaward Audit of Multiple Award Schedule Contract:\n Life Technologies, Inc., Solicitation Number FCGS-\n X5-94-0039-B-N\n\n01/13/95 A51219 Preaward Audit of Multiple Award Schedule Contract:\n S & W Manufacturing, Incorporated, Solicitation\n Number 2FYS-AP-94-0001B\n\n01/17/95 A51521 Preaward Audit of Multiple Award Schedule Contract:\n Forma SCientific, Inc., Solicitation Number FCGE-94-\n C9-0144-N\n\n01/18/95 A50319 Preaward Audit of Multiple Award Schedule Contract:\n O.RE. International, Incorporated, Solicitation Number\n GS-03F-94-AYC-0041\n\n\n\n\n46 Semiannual Report To The Congress\n\x0c Appendix //- Audit Report Register\n Financial\n R.ecommendations\n Funds To Questioned\nDate of Audit Be Put To (Unsupported)\nR.eport Number Title Better Use Costs\n\n01/18/95 A50322 Postaward Audit of Government Billings Under Contract $9,609\n Number GSOOF5729A: O.R.E. International, Inc.\n\n01/18/95 A50609 Preaward Audit of Multiple Award Schedule Contract:\n Xerox Corporation, Solicitation Number 2FYP-DW-\n 94-0007-B\n\n01/18/95 A52112 Pre award Audit of Cost and Pricing Data: Monaco\n Enterprises, Inc., Contract Number GS-07F-3275A\n\n01/20/95 A42569 Preaward Audit of Multiple Award Schedule Contract:\n Beckman Instruments, Inc., Solicitation Number\n FCGS-Y8-94-0040- B-N\n\n01/23/95 A00041 Postaward Audit of Multiple Award Schedule Contract: $931,109\n Carsonite International, Inc., Contract Number GS-\n 07F-14533\n\n01/23/95 A00042 Postaward Audit of Multiple Award Schedule Contract: $205,151\n Carsonite International, Inc., Contract Number\n GS-07F-110 10\n\n01/24/95 A42571 Preaward Audit of Multiple Award Schedule Contract:\n Beckman Instruments, Inc., Solicitation Number FCGS-\n X5-94-0039-B-N\n\n01/24/95 A53618 Preaward Audit of Multiple Award Schedule Contract:\n Bureau of National Affairs, Inc., Solicitation Number\n 2FYG-LG-940002-B\n\n01/25/95 A33429 Postaward Audit of Multiple Award Schedule Contracts: $1,507,850\n Rubbermaid Commerical Products, Inc.\n\n01/26/95 A50321 Preaward Audit of Multiple Award Schedule Contract:\n Barker Advertising Specialty Company, Solicitation\n Number 7FXG-H8-94-9903-B\n\n01/26/95 A50327 Postaward Audit of Government Billings Under Contract $6,053\n Number GS07F6121A: Barker Advertising Specialty\n Company\n\n02/01/95 A50613 Preaward Audit of Multiple Award Schedule Contract:\n Newport/Klinger, Solicitation Number GS-03F-94-\n AYC-0041\n\n\n\n\n Office of Inspector General 47\n\x0c Appendix 11- Audit Report Register\n Financial\n Recommendations\n Funds To Questioned\nDate of Audit Be Put To (Unsupported)\nReport Number Title Better Use Costs\n\n02/03/95 A51524 Preaward Audit of Cost or Pricing Data: All Line, Inc.,\n Subcontractor to C & S Industrial Supply, Inc.,\n Solicitation Number 7FXI -T6-94-400 I-N\n\n02/06/95 A51817 Preaward Audit of Multiple Award Schedule Contract:\n Labconco Corporation, Solicitation Number FCGE-\n 94-C9-0 144-N\n\n02/07/95 A53624 Limited Postaward Audit of Government Billings: Life $3,133\n Technologies, Inc., Contract Number FCGS-X9-90-\n 0023-B-N\n\n02/08/95 A51527 Preaward Audit of Multiple Award Schedule Contract:\n DEC Art Designs, Inc., Solicitation Number GS-03F-\n 95-AYC-0002\n\n02/08/95 A53607 Preaward Audit of Multiple Award Schedule Contract:\n Lexmark International, Inc., Solicitation Number 2FYS-\n AP-94-000 1B\n\n02/09/95 A52459 Preaward Audit of Cost or Prtcing Data: Productivity Plus,\n Inc., Solicitation Number 2FYS-AP-94-000lB\n\n02/14/95 A50316 Preaward Audit of Multiple Award Schedule Contract:\n Raytheon Marine Company, Solicitation Number GS-\n 03F-94-AYC-0041\n\n02/14/95 A50318 Preaward Audit of Multiple Award Schedule Contract:\n American Lightwave Systems, Inc., Solicitation Number\n GS-03F-94-AYC-0041\n\n02/14/95 A50912 Preaward Audit of Multiple Award Schedule Contract:\n McNaughton Book Service, Solicitation Number 2FYS-\n AN-94-0016-M\n\n02/14/95 A51516 Preaward Audit of Multiple Award Schedule Contract:\n KI, Solicitation Number 3FNO-94-M205-NB-9-29-94\n\n02/15/95 A52118 Preaward Audit of Multiple Award Schedule Contract:\n Credit Bureau Reports, Inc., Solicitation Number\n FCXS-FC-940005-N\n\n02/15/95 A53625 Preaward Audit of Multiple Award Schedule Contract:\n Leonard\'s Draperies, Inc., Solicitation Number GS-03F-\n 95-AYC-0002\n\n\n\n\n48 Semiannual Report To The Congress\n\x0c Appendix //- Audit Report Register\n Financial\n Recommendations\n Funds To Questioned\nDate of Audit Be Put To (Unsupported)\nReport Number Title Better Use Costs\n\n02/16/95 A52125 Preaward Audit of Multiple Award Schedule Contract:\n Southwest Decor, Solicitation Number GS-03F-95-AYC-\n 0002\n\n02/17/95 A50920 Price Adjustments on Multiple Award Schedule\n Contract: Allstate Office Products, Incorporated,\n Contract Number GS-25F-4087B for the Interim\n Period December 1, 1994 through March 31, 1998\n\n02/17/95 A52543 Preaward Audit of Multiple Award Schedule Contract:\n F11RSystems, Inc., SolicttationNo. GS-03F-94-AYC-0041\n\n02/17/95 A53623 Preaward Audit of Multiple Award Schedule Contract:\n Yardstick Interiors, Solicitation Number GS-03F-\n 95-AYC-0002\n\n02/21/95 A41578 Price Adjustments on Multiple Award Schedule\n Contract: Allsteel, Inc., Contract Number G8-00F-5073A\n for the Interim Period March 1, 1995 Through\n September 30, 1996\n\n02/22/95 A50324 Preaward Audit of Multiple Award Schedule Contract:\n Thomas W. Raftery, Inc., Solicitation Number GS-03F-\n 95-AYC-0002\n\n02/22/95 A50325 Preaward Audit of Multiple Award Schedule Contract:\n Warren, Gorham & Lamont, Solicitation Number 2FYG-\n LG-940002-B\n\n02/22/95 A51223 Preaward Audit of Multiple Award Schedule Contract:\n Speedline Athletic Wear, Incorporated, Solicitation\n Number 7FXG-K4-94-841O-B\n\n02/23/95 A21273 Limited Postaward Audit of Multiple Award Schedule $87,163\n Contract: Game Time, Incorporated, Contract Number\n GS-07F-16891\n\n02/23/95 A50910 Preaward Audit of Multiple Award Schedule Contract:\n Stanley-Vidmar, Inc., Solicitation Number 3FNH-94-\n F502-N\n\n02/24/95 A51815 Preaward Audit of Multiple Award Schedule Contract:\n Contract Draperies, Inc., Solicitation Number GS-03F-\n 95-AYC-0002\n\n\n\n\n Office of Inspector General 49\n\x0c A en //- Audit\n Fbumcial\n Recommendations\n ------\n Funds To Questioned\nDate of Audit Be Put To (Unsupported)\nReport Number Title Better Use Costs\n\n02/24/95 A52460 Preaward Audit of Multiple Award Schedule Contract:\n Berg Systems International, Inc., Solicitation Number\n GS-03F-94-AYC-0041\n\n02/27/95 A52416 Preaward Audit of Multiple Award Schedule Contract:\n lAC Industries, Solicitation Number 3FNH-94-F502-N\n\n03/02/95 A50624 Preaward Audit of Multiple Award Schedule Contract:\n Dun & Bradstreet, Corporation, Solicitation Number\n FCXS-FC-940005-N\n\n03/03/95 A50622 Preaward Audit of Multiple Award Schedule Contract:\n Allentown Caging Equipment Company, Inc.,\n Solicitation Number FCGE-94-C9-0 144-N\n\n03/06/95 A22160 Postaward Audit of Multiple Award Schedule Contract: $155,884\n Joerns Healthcare, Inc., Contract Number GS-OOF-\n 07366\n\n03/07/95 A50326 Preaward Audit of Multiple Award Schedule Contract:\n Ascom Hasler Mailing Systems, Inc., Solicitation Number\n FCGE-94-C1-0147B-N\n\n03/10/95 A52441 Preaward Audit of Multiple Award Schedule Contract:\n Intermec Corporation, Solicitation No. 2FYS-AP-94-0001B\n\n03/15/95 A42136 Postaward Audit of Multiple Award Schedule Contract: $111,541\n Uniforms Manufacturing, Inc., Contract Number\n GS-07F-40 IlA\n\n03/20/95 A50628 Preaward Audit of Multiple Award Schedule Contract:\n Research Institute of America, Solicitation Number\n 2FYG-LG-940002-B\n\n03/20/95 A51224 Preaward Audit of Multiple Award Schedule Contract:\n Lora! Test and Information Systems: Solicitation Number\n GS-03F-94-AYC-004l\n\n03/22/95 A51532 Preaward Audit of Multiple Award Schedule Contract:\n Cummins-Allison Corporation, Solicitation Number\n FCGE-94-CI-0147B-N\n\n03/23/95 A51526 Preaward Audit of Multiple Award Schedule Contract:\n ADM International, Inc., Solicitation Number GS-03F-\n 95-AYC-0002\n\n\n\n\n50 Semiannual Report To The Congress\n\x0c II-Au\n Financial\n Recommendations\n ----- ------\n Funds To Questioned\nDate of Audit Be Put To (Unsupported)\nReport Number Title BeUer Use Costs\n\n03/24/95 A50626 Preaward Audit of Multiple Award Schedule Contract:\n The C-Mor Company, Solicitation Number GS-03F-\n 95-AYC-0002\n\n03/30/95 A50630 Preaward Audit of Multiple Award Schedule Contract:\n Michaels Textile Company, Inc., Solicitation Number\n GS-03F-95-AYC-0002\n\n03/30/95 A50642 Limited Scope Postaward Audit of Government Billings $1,533\n Under Contract Number GS-02F-4058A: Research\n Institute of America\n\n03/30/95 A50916 Preaward Audit of Multiple Award Schedule Contract:\n Office Depot, Incorporated, Solicitation Number 2FYS-\n AP-94-0001B\n\n03/30/95 A52421 Preaward Audit of Multiple Award Schedule Contract:\n Neff Instrument Corporation, Solicitation Number\n FCGS-Y5-95-0042-B-N\n\n03/30/95 A52545 Preaward Audit of Multiple Award Schedule Contract:\n TRW Information Systems Group, Business Credit\n Services Division, Solicitation Number FCXS-FC-\n 940005-N-11-30-94\n\nITS INTERNAL AUDITS\n12/02/94 A40924 Audit of the GSA Purchase of Telecommunications\n Services (POTS) Program\n\n12/08/94 A40341 Audit of Contracting Officers\' Technical Representatives\n Activities\n\n12/27/94 A43042 Audit of Contract Award Procedures for Computer\n Maintenance Services\n\n01/25/95 A33720 Audit of GSA Delegations of Procurement Authority for\n Automated Data Processing Resources\n\nITS CONTRACT AUDITS\n10/03/94 A40339 Preaward Audit of Multiple Award Schedule Contract:\n Picturetel Corporation, Solicitation Number GSC-KES-\n 00065\n\n\n\n\n Office of Inspector General 51\n\x0c //- Audit Report Register\n Financial\n Recommendations\n Funds To Questioned\nDate of Audit Be Put To (Unsupported)\nReport Number Title Better Use Costs\n\n10/05/94 A43488 Preaward Audit of Multiple Award Schedule Contract:\n Mobile Telesystems, Inc., Contract Number GSOOK-\n 93AGS0653\n\n10/06/94 A42555 Preaward Audit of Multiple Award Schedule Contract:\n Silicon Graphics, Incorporated, Contract Number\n GSOOK94AGS5993\n\n10/06/94 A42557 Preaward Audit of Multiple Award Schedule Contract:\n Calcomp Incorporated, Contract Number GSOOK94-\n AGS5608 (Renewal)\n\n10/12/94 A42570 Preaward Audit of Multiple Award Schedule Contract:\n Micro Decisionware, Inc., Solicitation Number KESO-\n 94-0001 (4-19)\n\n10/13/94 A40340 Preaward Audit of Multiple Award Schedule Contract:\n Executone Information Systems, Inc., Contract\n Number GS-00K-94AGS-0432\n\n10/26/94 A00763 Postaward Audit of Multiple Award Schedule Contract: $1,339,464\n Tandem Computers, Inc., Contract Number GSOOK-\n 86AGS5719 (PS01)\n\n10/26/94 A22479 Postaward Audit of Multiple Award Schedule Contract: $1,199,444\n Tandem Computers, Inc., Contract Number GS-OOK-\n 86AGS5719 (PS02)\n\n10/26/94 A22480 Postaward Audit of Multiple Award Schedule Contract: $1,078,972\n Tandem Computers, Inc., Contract Number GSOOK-\n 89AGS5519\n\n10/26/94 A42565 Preaward Audit of Multiple Award Schedule Contract:\n McBride & Associates, Inc., Solicitation Number KESO-\n 94-0001 (4-19)\n\n10/31/94 A42480 Preaward Audit of Multiple Award Schedule Contract:\n Axil Workstations, Solicitation Number KESO-94-0001\n (4-19)\n\n11/09/94 A40674 Pre award Audit of Change Order Proposal: AT&T\n Communications, Contract Number GS-00K-89-\n AHDOO08\n\n11/22/94 A40332 Preaward Audit of Multiple Award Schedule Contract:\n EMC Corporation, SoliCitation Number KESO-94-000 1\n\n\n\n52 Semiannual Report To The Congress\n\x0c 11- Audit Report Register\n Financial\n Recommendations ----\n Funds To Questioned\nDate of Audit Be Put To (Unsupported)\nReport Number Title Better Use Costs\n\n11/22/94 A41831 Audit of Proposed 1993 Overhead Rates: U.S. Sprint\n Communications Company, Contract Number GSOOK89-\n AHD0009\n\n11/23/94 A50313 Postaward Audit of Government Billings Under Contract $36,000\n Number GSOOK92AGS5527: EMC Corporation\n\n11/30/94 A43487 Report on Review of the Termination for Convenience\n Claim, Contract No. GS-04K-93-BFD-0808: OAO\n Corporation, Information Systems Support Division,\n Greenbelt, Maryland\n\n12/05/94 A43473 Preaward Audit of Multiple Award Schedule Contract:\n Unisys Corporation, Solicitation Number KESO-94-000 1\n (4-19)\n\n01/24/95 A43485 Preaward Audit of Change Order Proposals: Bell Atlantic\n Corporation, Contract Number GSOOK89ADHOO 11\n\n02/17/95 A50311 Postaward Audit of Multiple Award Schedule Contract: $68,472\n Picturetel Corporation, Contract Number GSOOK92-\n AGS0413 for the Period October 1, 1991 to\n September 30, 1992\n\n02/17/95 A50317 Postaward Audit of Multiple Award Schedule Contract: $26,635\n Picturetel Corporation, Contract Number GSOOK92-\n AGS0413, First Renewal Year, for the Period October 1,\n 1992 Through September 30, 1993\n\n02/22/95 A00417 Postaward Audit of Multiple Award Schedule Contract: $165,000\n Landmark Systems Corporation, Contract No. GSOOK89-\n AGS5526, for the Period October 1, 1988 Through\n September 30, 1989\n\n03/09/95 A53633 Preaward Audit of Cost or Pricing Data: American\n Management Systems, Solicitation No. KECP-94001\n\n03/15/95 A00180 Postaward Audit of Multiple Award Schedule Contract: $213,172\n Federal Sales Service, Inc., Contract No. GSOOK88-\n AGS0214 for the Period April 1, 1988, Through\n April 30, 1989\n\n03/15/95 AlO029 Postaward Audit of Multiple Award Schedule Contract: $70,307\n Federal Sales Service, Inc., Contract No. GSOOK-\n 86AGS0237 for the Period May 20, 1986, Through\n March 31, 1987\n\n\n\n Office of Inspector General 53\n\x0c A endix //- Audit Report Register\n Financial\n Recommendations---------\n Funds To Questioned\nDate of Audit Be Put To (Unsupported)\nReport Number Title Better Use Costs\n\n03/15/95 A10030 Postaward Audit of Multiple Award Schedule Contract: $142,646\n Federal Sales Service, Inc., Contract No. GSOOK87-\n AGS0232 for the Period June 11, 1987, Through\n March 31, 1988\n\n03/17/95 A50908 Postaward Audit of Multiple Award Schedule Contract: $26,245\n Bell Atlantic Network Services, Inc., Contract Number\n GSOOK94AGS0412 for the Period October 14, 1993\n Through September 30, 1994\n\n03/30/95 A52540 Limited Audit of Government Billings: Plantronics, Inc., $56,278\n Contract Number GS-00K-92-AGS-0453 PS02\n\nFTS2000 INTERNAL AUDITS\n01/13/95 A23603 Audit of FfS2000 Modifications, AT&T Contract\n\nOTHER INTERNAL AUDITS\n11/04/94 A42732 Limited Audit of the Chief Financial Officer\'s Fiscal Year\n 1994 Section 2 Federal Managers\' Financial Integri1y Act\n Assurance Statement\n\n11/04/94 A42733 Limited Audit of the Office of Management Services and\n Human Resources\' Fiscal Year 1994 FMFIAAssurance\n Statement\n\n11/04/94 A43050 Limited Audit of the Information Technology Service\'s\n Fiscal Year 1994 Section 2 Assurance Statement\n\n11/04/94 A43051 Limited Audit of the Public Buildings Service\'s Fiscal\n Year 1994 Section 2 Assurance Statement\n\n11/04/94 A43053 Limited Audit of the Federal Supply Service Assurance\n Statement, Fiscal Year 1994 Section 2\n\n11/04/94 A43054 Limited Audit of the Office of FTS:!OOO Assurance\n Statement, Fiscal Year 1994 Section 2\n\n11/04/94 A43055 Limited Audit of the Federal Proper1y Resources Service\n Assurance Statement, Fiscal Year 1994 Section 2\n\n11/15/94 A42730 Consolidated Report of Fiscal Year 1994 FMFIA,\n Section 2 Assurance Statements\n\n\n\n\n54 Semiannual Report To The Congress\n\x0c Appendix //- Audit R ort Register\n Financial\n Recommendations\n Funds To Questioned\nDate of Audit Be Put To (Unsupported)\nReport Number Title Better Use Costs\n\n12/08/94 A43027 Audit of State and Local Taxes on FfS2000 Services $2,500,000 $2,500,000\n\n12/28/94 A52710 Limited Audit of the Chief Financial Officer\'s Fiscal Year\n 1994 Section 4 Federal Managers\' Financiallntegrily Act\n Assurance Statement\n\n01/03/95 A41832 Audit of GSA\'s Processing of Thrift Savings Plan\n Transactions\n\n01/13/95 A53009 Limited Review of the General Services Administration\'s\n Compliance with the Byrd Amendment Restrictions on\n Lobbying Activities\n\n02/01/95 A42729 Oversight of CPA Contract, FY 1994 Financial\n Statements\n\n03/10/95 A42728 Audit of Public Buildings Service, Cost Per Occupiable\n Square Foot Comparison\n\n03/10/95 A52714 Audit of Federal Supply Service, Cost Per $100 Sales-\n Stock\n\nOTHER CONTRACT AUDITS\n10/31/94 A40659 Preaward Audit of a Claim: Bridgefield Associates, Inc.,\n Contract Number N710 13\n\n11/16/94 A43500 Audit of Termination Proposal: Pulsar Data Systems,\n Inc., Contract Number GS-00A-1991 /3-92-1-6048\n\nNON-GSA INTERNAL AUDITS\n03/01/95 A53014 Audit of the Thomas Jefferson Commemoration\n Commission\n\n03/23/95 A53017 Audit of the Administrative Procedures of the\n Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or\n Severely Disabled\n\n\n\n\n Office of Inspector General 55\n\x0c Appen quentDeb\n\n\nGSA\'s Office of the Chief Financial Officer provided the \xe2\x80\xa2 Began using the promissory note as the "course oflast\nfollowing information: resort." In situations where it appears nothing may be\n collected from a debtor, special effort is expended to\nGSA Efforts to Improve Debt Collection negotiate a promissory note for whatever the debtor\nDuring the period October 1, 1994 through March 31, can afford to pay. As a result, instead of collecting noth-\n1995, GSA efforts to improve debt collection and reduce ing and writing off the debt, some money will be\nthe amount of debt written off as uncollectible focused collected. This saves the Government time and money\non upgrading the collection function and enhancing debt by not attempting to prosecute a debtor who cannot\nmanagement. These activities included the following: or will not otherwise pay a debt.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Began using preauthorized debits which are nowavail-\n able for use by GSA debtors who have signed .. Continued to refer delinquent debtors to the U.S. Army\n promissory notes. This allows GSA to go directly to the for inclusion in their booklet, "List of Contractors\n debtor\'s bank account and electronically withdraw Indebted to the United States." This may prevent\n monthly payments. contracting officers in GSA and the remainder of the\n Government from issuing new contracts to delinquent\nfI Continued to participate in the IRS Tax Refund Offset\n debtors.\n Program. Tax refund offset is a tool the Government\n uses to collect a debt by withholding all or part of an 4& Continued to initiate quarterly follow-ups with the\n income tax refund. GSA also participates in the Fed- contracting offices concerning claims that are in\n eral Debt/Credit Forum which is a clearinghouse for dispute. Quarterly follow-ups are also initiated on audit-\n ideas on how to collect non-federal debts. related items with the Office of Management Controls\nfI Placed special emphasis on collecting debts by admin- and Evaluation. Assistance is provided to the\n istrative offset. Collection of debts by this method has contracting offices on the correct procedures for pro-\n been on the increase. cessing claims.\n\n\n\nNon-Federal Accounts Receivable\n\n As of As of\n October I, 1994 March 31, 1995 Difference\n\n Total Amounts Due GSA $46,503,700 $45,002,433 $(1,501,267)\n Amount Delinquent $25,932,404 $23,769,614 $(2,162,790)\n\n Total Amount Written\n Off as Uncollectible\n Between 10/1/94 and\n 3/31/95 $ 169,243\n\n\n\nOf the total amounts due GSA and the amounts 1995, approximately $963,000 and $602,000\ndelinquent as of October 1, 1994 and March 31, respectively, are being disputed.\n\n\n\n\n56 Semiannual Report To The Congress\n\x0c Appendix IV -- Reporting quiremen\n\nThe table below cross-references the reporting in Senate Report No. 96-829 relative to the 1980\nrequirements prescribed by the Inspector General Act Supplemental Appropriations and Rescission Bill is\nof 1978, as amended, to the specific pages where they are also cross-referenced to the appropriate page of the\naddressed. The information requested by the Congress report.\n\n\n\n Requirement Page\n\n Inspector Gene:m.l Act\n Section 4(a)(2)-Review of Legislation and Regulations ......................................................................... 18\n\n Section 5(a)(1)-8ignificant Problems, Abuses, and Deficiencies ........................................................... 2,6\n\n Section 5(a)(2)-Recommendations With Respect to Significant Problems, Abuses,\n and Deficiencies .............................................................................................................................. 2,6\n\n Section 5(a)(3)-Prior Recommendations Not Yet Implemented ............................................................ 29\n\n Section 5(a)(4)-Matters Referred to Prosecutive Authorities ................................................................. 24\n\n Sections 5(a)(5) and 6(b)(2)-8ummary ofInstances Where Information Was Refused ......................... None\n\n Section 5(a)(6)-List of Audit Reports .................................................................................................... 32\n\n Section 5(a)(7)-8ummary of Each Particularly Significant Report ....................................................... 2,6\n\n Section 5(a)(8)-8tatistical Tables on Management Decisions on Questioned Costs ............................. 23\n\n Section 5(aj(9)-8tatistical Tables on Management Decisions on Recommendations\n That Funds Be Put to BetterUse ..................................................................................................... 22\n\n Section 5(a)( 10)-8ummary of Each Audit Report Over 6 Months Old for Which No\n Management Decision Has Been Made ........................................................................................... None\n\n Section 5(a)(11)-Description and Explanation for Any Significant Revised\n Management Decision ..................................................................................................................... None\n\n Section 5(a)(12)-Information on Any Significant Management Decisions With Which\n the Inspector General Disagrees ..................................................................................................... None\n\n Senate Report No. 96-829\n Resolution of Audits ............................................................................................................................ 21\n\n Delinquent Debts ................................................................................................................................. 56\n\n\n\n\n Office of Inspector General 57\n\x0c Notes\n\n\n\n\n58 Semiannual Report To The Congress\n\x0cNotes\n\n\n\n\n Office of Inspector General 59\n\x0c tes\n\n\n\n\n60 Semiannual Report To The Congress\n\x0c\x0cFederal Recycling Program 0- Printed on Recycled Paper\n\x0c'