Return to the USDOJ/OIG Home Page

The Administration of Contracts and Agreements for Linguistic Services by the Drug Enforcement Administration

Report No. 02-33
August 2002
Office of the Inspector General


APPENDIX I

OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY

REDACTED VERSION

Our objectives were to determine whether the: (1) Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) adequately monitored the performance and costs of the linguistic services providers, (2) recipients of the linguistic services were satisfied with the services received, and (3) DEA complied with the Government Performance Results Act (GPRA) requirements as they relate to the linguistic services contracts and agreements. We conducted our audit in accordance with Government Auditing Standards and included such tests as were considered necessary to accomplish our objectives. Our audit concentrated on, but was not limited to, the period July 1, 1997, through July 31, 2001.

One phase of our audit involved the completion of individual audits of the DEA's linguistic services contracts at Dallas, Houston, Miami, and San Diego. At each of these locations we focused on performing tests and interviewing personnel from the DEA, the United States Attorneys Offices, and the contractors to determine if the:

  • recipients of the linguistic services were satisfied with the quality of the services provided by the contractors.
  • contractors billed and were paid for individual services and amounts ordered by the contract delivery orders. To perform this test, we randomly selected and obtained a sample of the delivery orders issued for each contract. We then obtained all the invoices that were paid against the sample delivery orders. In total, we sampled 284 of the 1,462 invoices paid to the contractors at the four locations. The 284 invoices totaled $2,003,725. We then compared the services and amounts paid on the invoices to the services and amounts ordered by the delivery orders.
  • contractors billed and were paid for individual services that were completed within the performance period specified in the delivery orders and started after the delivery orders were issued by the Contracting Officer. To perform this test, we randomly selected and obtained a sample of the delivery orders issued for each contract. We then obtained all the invoices that were paid against the sample delivery orders. In total, we sampled 409 of the 1,462 invoices paid to the contractors at the four locations. The 409 invoices totaled $2,846,406. We then compared the: (1) performance periods contained in the delivery orders to the actual performance periods billed by the contractors for the services ordered, and (2) performance periods contained in the invoices to the dates the Contracting Officer issued the delivery orders authorizing the services.
  • contractors maintained timesheets, as required by the contracts, to support the personnel and hours billed. To perform this test, we determined if timesheets were provided to the DEA for invoices paid under the contracts. In total, we sampled 427 of the 1,462 invoices paid to the contractors at the four locations. The 427 invoices totaled $2,638,261.
  • contractors billed and were paid when contract employees were not performing any work under the contracts. To perform this test, we interviewed the DEA personnel who observed the contractors' personnel.
  • contractors obtained written approval from the DEA to change key personnel before billing for such personnel, as required by the contracts. To perform this step, we reviewed the sample invoices to identify instances where the contractors changed the key personnel on the contracts and then we interviewed the Contracting Officer's Technical Representatives (COTRs) to determine if the contractors obtained written approval from the DEA to make the changes. In total, we sampled 84 of the 513 invoices paid to the contractors at three of the four locations. We did not review this issue for the Miami contract because the contract did not contain this requirement. The 84 invoices totaled $699,948.
  • contractors billed and were paid for hours for which the DEA's sign-in/sign-out logs showed the contractors' employees worked. To perform this step, we selected a sample of invoices for each contract and compared the hours billed on the invoices to the hours on the sign-in/sign-out logs. In total, we sampled 268 of the 1,440 invoices paid to the contractors at three of the four locations. We did not review this issue for the San Diego contract because at the start of our audit, the San Diego office did not maintain sign-in/sign-out logs. The 268 invoices totaled $1,127,421.
  • contractors billed and were paid for only one site supervisor and one team leader per shift as provided for in the contracts. To perform this step, we reviewed the sign-in/sign-out logs supporting a sample of invoices for each contract to determine if the contractors assigned more than one site supervisor and team leader per shift. In total, we sampled 83 of the 1,462 invoices paid to the contractors at the four locations. The 83 invoices totaled $705,993.
  • contractors billed and were paid for overtime that was authorized by the contracts and properly approved by the COTRs. To perform this step, we reviewed a sample of invoices from each contract to determine if any overtime was billed and paid without being authorized in the contracts or without proper approval from the COTRs. In total, we sampled 348 of the 1,462 invoices paid to the contractors at the four locations. The 348 invoices totaled $1,961,710.
  • contractors submitted invoices for travel costs authorized by the contracts and properly approved by a DEA representative. To perform this step, we reviewed a sample of invoices to determine if the travel costs claimed were in accordance with the Federal Travel Regulations as required by the contract and were approved by a DEA representative as required. In total, we reviewed a sample of 36 invoices containing travel payments out of the 1,462 invoices paid to the contractors at the four locations. The 36 invoices totaled $299,263.
  • contractors submitted invoices based on the frequency required by the contracts. To perform this step, we interviewed the COTRs and reviewed a sample of invoices paid under each contract.
  • DEA adequately monitored the performance of the contractors. To perform this step, we obtained the Contracting Officer's memoranda that designated the COTRs for each contract to identify the responsibilities of the COTRs for monitoring the contractors' performances. We then reviewed a sample of invoices for each contract to determine if the COTRs reviewed and approved the invoices for payment as required. We also obtained the performance reports prepared by the COTRs to determine if they were completed as required.

The second phase of our audit involved the review of the FY 1997, FY 1998, FY 1999, FY 2000, and FY 2001 interagency reimbursable agreements between the DEA and the [DELETED]. In this phase, we performed tests and interviewed personnel from the DEA and the [DELETED] to determine if the:

  • [DELETED] billed and was paid for the total costs authorized by the reimbursable agreements. To perform this step, we reviewed all 56 invoices paid under the agreements to determine if the [DELETED] reimbursements exceeded the total amounts authorized under the agreements for each fiscal year. The 56 invoices totaled $4,134,844.
  • [DELETED] billed and was paid for personnel that were authorized by the reimbursable agreements. To perform this step, we reviewed a sample of 36 of the 56 invoices paid under the reimbursable agreements to determine if any civilian personnel were paid without being authorized in the agreements. The 36 invoices totaled $1,805,904.
  • [DELETED] billed and was paid for hours worked by part-time civilian personnel that were authorized by the reimbursable agreements. To perform this step, we reviewed the 36 sample invoices to determine if any part-time civilian personnel exceeded the maximum hours and months authorized in the agreements. The 36 invoices totaled $1,805,904.
  • [DELETED] billed and was paid for travel expenditures authorized by the reimbursable agreements. To perform this step, we reviewed the 36 sample invoices and determined that 17 involved costs reimbursed for civilian personnel in travel status. We then reviewed the supporting documentation for the 17 invoices to determine if the travel costs claimed and paid were authorized by the agreements. The 36 invoices totaled $1,805,904.
  • [DELETED] maintained supporting documents, as required by the reimbursable agreements, to support the personnel and hours billed. To perform this step, we determined if payroll records were maintained by the [DELETED] to support the personnel and hours billed on the 36 sample invoices. The 36 invoices totaled $1,805,904.
  • [DELETED] billed and was paid at the hourly rates authorized by the reimbursable agreements. To perform this step, we reviewed all 31 invoices paid in FY 1997, FY 1998, and FY 1999 to determine if the [DELETED] billed the hourly rates approved in the agreements. The 31 invoices totaled $1,113,645.
  • [DELETED] billed and was paid for awards that were authorized by the reimbursable agreements. To perform this step, we reviewed all 31 invoices paid in FY 1997, FY 1998, and FY 1999 to determine if awards were billed and paid without being authorized in the agreements. The 31 invoices totaled $1,113,645.
  • [DELETED] billed and was paid for administrative costs authorized by the reimbursable agreements. To perform this step, we reviewed all 56 invoices paid under the agreements to determine if the [DELETED] billed and was paid for administrative costs that exceeded the amounts authorized under the agreements. The 56 invoices totaled $4,134,844.
  • [DELETED] billed and was paid for overtime that was authorized by the reimbursable agreements. To perform this step, we reviewed the 36 sample invoices and to determine if any overtime was billed and paid without being authorized in the agreements or without proper approval from the DEA's designated representative. The 36 invoices totaled $1,805,904.
  • DEA adequately monitored the agreements with the [DELETED]. To perform this test, we interviewed the DEA's Program Analyst that monitored the [DELETED] invoices to determine the process she used to verify the accuracy and support for the invoices.

The last phase of our audit involved the review of the actions taken by the DEA to comply with the GPRA requirements as they relate to the linguistic services contracts and agreements. In this phase, we reviewed the GPRA to determine if the DEA was required to develop performance indicators for the linguistic contracts and if so, whether the DEA actually developed the performance indicators and included them in the annual performance plan.

REDACTED VERSION