Return to the USDOJ/OIG Home Page
Return to the Table of Contents

Budget Execution in the United States Marshals Service During Fiscal Years 2002 and 2003

Report No. 04-02
October 2003
Office of the Inspector General


Findings and Recommendations

I. ADHERENCE TO CONGRESSIONAL SPENDING INSTRUCTIONS

The USMS needs to improve its budget execution process to ensure that it is executing its budgets in accordance with Congressional spending instructions. In FY 2002, the USMS budget included 17 spending instructions, and in FY 2003, 22 spending instructions. We found that the USMS could not demonstrate adherence to 7 of the 17 FY 2002 spending instructions and 9 of the 22 in FY 2003. Generally, these deficiencies were due to two factors. First, the USMS does not track changes, obligations, and expenditures to cost centers or against estimates developed from cost modules. Second, the USMS records do not document that certain funds were expended for the purpose intended by Congress.

As part of the budget execution process for FY 2002 and FY 2003, the USMS was directed to submit spending plans to Congress for its appropriations. According to the FY 2002 Conference Report:

The Conferees are concerned that, even with a reformed budget execution process, a small budget shortfall in the Marshals Service at the beginning of the year was left unaddressed until well into the fourth quarter, despite sharp prompting from the Committees on Appropriations. Therefore, the conferees direct the Marshals Service to submit, through the Justice Management Division, within 30 days of enactment of this Act, an overall agency spending plan for the full amount appropriated for fiscal year 2002.

MBD officials stated that they believe the request for a detailed spending plan came from the Senate due to its reservations about the USMS's cost module process. In addition, MBD officials offered that Congress was concerned about the USMS's budget management when the Appropriations Committees received a $9 million reprogramming request four days before the end of FY 2001. In this regard, MBD officials stated that the USMS submitted a request to the Justice Management Division (JMD) and OMB to reprogram $9 million of funding for rent on August 25, 2001, one month before the end of the fiscal year. However, the request was not sent to the Hill until the end of the fiscal year.

MBD officials also stated that tensions with Congress intensified over the detailed spending plans that Congress had requested in connection with the FY 2002 appropriation. The MBD submitted the plan to OMB within 30 days of the passage of the appropriation bill, as required, but OMB did not immediately forward the plan to Congress. We reviewed documentation and verified that the USMS submitted its FY 2002 spending plan to OMB on January 4, 2002, and that OMB forwarded the spending plan to the Hill on April 10, 2002, 132 days after passage of the appropriations law.

Use Of Cost Modules

Similar to other Department of Justice components, the USMS uses cost modules to develop estimates of the budgetary resources needed to fund new positions and to annualize the second-year funding of new positions. The USMS varies its cost modules based on the series of the new position, rather than the program offices to which the positions will be assigned. For example, there are different cost modules for job series 1811 (Criminal Investigator) and job series 0082 (Deputy Marshal) positions. (For a sample of a cost module, see Appendix II.)

The USMS prepares its cost modules based on written guidance provided by the Department of Justice (DOJ). The cost module is used to develop an estimate of the total cost for new positions. The cost module contains line items and allows the USMS to budget for costs associated with positions, such as salaries, benefits, weapons, vehicles, furniture, computers, travel, telephones, postage, and background investigations. Some of the line items in the cost module are based on flat amounts that the USMS is required to use, while other line items are based on actual past spending of the USMS. There is no clear rule for why something is, or is not, included in a cost module. However, items that will be shared among several positions (i.e. fax machines, copiers) are usually not included.

The cost module is based on averages. Although the cost module may allocate $100,000 for each new position, some new positions may cost more than that amount and some less. This could be due to any number of variables in the estimate. For instance, the cost of travel in New York City is different from the cost of travel in Houston. Similarly, personnel in these two cities do not receive the same pay raise increases. Therefore, the cost for like positions based on locations could be different from each other.

If the Congressional appropriation is less than the amount developed in the cost module, the USMS does not adjust the cost module or the number of new positions. Instead, the USMS delays the hiring for the new positions until as late in the fiscal year as necessary. The DOJ's cost module guidelines instruct that only 50 percent of the salaries and benefits funding needed for a new position be requested for the first year under the theory that it will take at least six months for the position to be filled. This practice allows the USMS to purchase the items that accompany the new positions, such as weaponry, but manage the appropriation by avoiding the full first-year salaries and benefits expense.

The USMS allocates its budget based on the cost modules. Specifically, the USMS allocates the appropriation directly to the cost centers where the expense will be incurred. For example, for the appropriation relating to the new positions in the ESU, the amount representing vehicles in the cost module is allocated directly to the Business Services Division (BSD), training funds to the Training Academy, and computer network funds to the Information Technology Services (ITS). However, once the funds are allocated to the individual cost centers, the MBD is unable to track the related expenditures. For instance, the MBD is unable to determine whether the BSD actually spends all of the funds allocated on behalf of the ESU (e.g. vehicles only for the ESU). To further complicate the situation, because the cost module is based on an average, it is not necessarily improper for the BSD to be spending less than the allocated amount on the ESU vehicles. Thus, the USMS's use of a cost module for allocation purposes, without expenditure tracing, reduces or eliminates from the outset the possibility that the USMS will be 100 percent in compliance with Congressional intent.

In addition, because the USMS cannot trace corresponding expenditures, the USMS cannot verify the accuracy of the estimates formulated by the cost module, on which the USMS bases its allocations to cost centers. Thus, any errors in the cost module may be perpetuated year after year. For example, the cost module used for the FY 2002 new positions in the ESU included $228,384 of funding for nine vehicles, or $25,376 of funding per vehicle. However, based on BSD records, we determined that these nine vehicles were acquired for the ESU at a total cost of $260,861, or $28,985 per vehicle. This variation between formulated costs and actual costs required the BSD to compensate for over $32,000 of expenses for which it had received no funding. While the actual costs of other vehicles the BSD acquired in FY 2002 may have fallen short of their estimates and offset any loss to the BSD, under its current system, the USMS cannot track these expenditures to ensure that the vehicles line item, as well as the other line items in the cost module, remain accurate.

The USMS used cost modules for the following Congressional spending instructions:

FY 2002
  • $3,150,000 for ESU personnel and equipment (15 new positions);
  • $5,825,000 for the East Coast/West Coast Task Forces (24 new positions); and
  • $3,625,000 for courthouse security personnel (52 new positions).
FY 2003
  • $15,800,000 for 106 supervisory deputies;
  • $5,650,000 for 40 additional positions for protection of the judiciary;
  • $2,259,000 for 18 positions for high priority districts;
  • $2,916,000 for two new task forces in the Heartland (24 new positions); and
  • $2,750,000 for ESU personnel, training, and equipment (10 new positions).

When questioned, MBD officials asserted their support for the use of the cost modules, which they have been using consistently for the last four years. MBD officials also stated that they do not have the staff available to track expenditures related to the cost modules, and that the practice would be an inefficient use of resources. In our opinion, by allocating funds using cost modules without being able to track actual expenditures to the cost module estimates, the USMS could not demonstrate that the funds provided by Congress in response to the cost module estimates were used for the specific purposes identified in the estimates. Therefore, we conclude that the USMS needs to implement a methodology for tracking expenditures to cost module estimates in order to demonstrate to Congress that it is adhering to its spending instructions.

Congressional Spending Instructions

In order to determine whether the USMS executed its budgets for FY 2002 and FY 2003 in accordance with Congressional spending instructions, we reviewed the USMS's allocation and obligation of the funds specifically mentioned in the appropriation laws and conference reports, and tested 10 percent of the related transactions whenever possible. In many cases, the USMS provided worksheets that identified how funds were allocated to various cost centers. The USMS uses these worksheets to develop and track its budget allocations, and to record the allocations into the STARS. Accordingly, we had to rely on the worksheets to trace the allocations to the STARS because the USMS does not use an automated budget system that is integrated with its accounting system. We present the results of our review by fiscal year.

FY 2002 Budget

Congress provided funding for the USMS in four appropriations: 1) Salaries and Expenses; 2) Construction; 3) Federal Prisoner Detention; and 4) Fees and Expenses of Witnesses.2 Furthermore, Congress provided the USMS with additional funding for FY 2002 under a supplemental appropriations act. To determine whether the USMS's total obligations for FY 2002 were within its total budget authority, we reviewed the SF-133s that the USMS submitted to the OMB at the end of FY 2002. Based on these SF-133s, we determined that the USMS had approximately $663 million of budgetary resources available for Salaries and Expenses in FY 2002. The USMS obtained these resources from the two FY 2002 appropriation laws and from funding remaining from prior year appropriations. With this same SF-133 report, the USMS reported about $656 million of obligations for Salaries and Expenses in FY 2002. Accordingly, we concluded that the USMS expended funds for Salaries and Expenses in FY 2002 within its budget authority. Similarly, based on the USMS's SF-133 reports submitted to the OMB at the end of FY 2002, we found that the USMS's spending on Construction, Federal Prisoner Detention, and Fees and Expenses of Witnesses to be within its budget authority. We therefore focused our review on the specific Congressional spending instructions within the budget categories.

We found that the USMS could not demonstrate adherence to the following 7 of the 17 FY 2002 spending instructions:

  • Prisoner Information System
  • Electronic Surveillance Unit
  • East Coast/West Coast Task Forces
  • Courthouse Security Personnel
  • Prisoner Transportation
  • Courthouse Security Equipment
  • Construction

Following are the results of our audit of USMS activities against the 17 spending instructions.

Salaries and Expenses

In FY 2002, Congress appropriated $619,429,000 to the USMS for Salaries and Expenses. Within this funding, Congress included spending instructions for nine specific items that total $33,407,000. We reviewed the nine spending instructions to determine if the USMS allocated and obligated funds in compliance with Congressional intent.

Spending Instruction
$6,000 for official reception
$4,000,000 for a prisoner information system
$500,000 for the Special Operations Group
$583,000 for permanent changes of station
$3,150,000 for the ESU
$5,825,000 for two fugitive task forces
$3,625,000 for courthouse security personnel
$1,451,000 for prisoner transportation
$14,267,000 for courthouse security equipment

Official Reception: Congress instructed that a maximum of $6,000 be made available for official reception and representation expenses. A MBD official stated that the USMS did not make a specific allocation of $6,000 to any cost center for Official Reception, but rather this funding comes from funds allocated to the Director's and Deputy Director's office. The obligations against this spending instruction are also not segregated from other Director and Deputy Director obligations through a project code in STARS. However, officials in the Office of the Director and the Finance Office monitor the obligations made against this spending instruction to ensure the expenses do not exceed the allowed amount. For FY 2002, the USMS provided us with a worksheet listing seven transactions for Official Reception expenses that totaled $5,969. From these seven transactions, we judgmentally selected one transaction for testing and found that this transaction was fully supported.

Prisoner Information System: In FY 2002 Congress provided an appropriation for an automated prisoner information system for "which not to exceed $4,000,000 shall be available." A MBD official stated that the USMS allocates funds for the Justice Detainee Information System (JDIS), which is the system the USMS is developing in response to the spending instruction, but only when the fiscal year is closed out and available funds are identified. According to the MBD, the USMS did not allocate any FY 2002 funding for the JDIS in FY 2002.

We reviewed the JDIS as part of our review of the Congressional spending instructions. The JDIS is an automated prisoner information system. Since FY 1997, Congress has appropriated up to $4 million annually, or $28 million in total, to develop the JDIS. However, to date the USMS has allocated the JDIS only $5.5 million of the available $28 million over the past 7 years. According to MBD officials, the JDIS remains in the preliminary planning phase.

While we understand from the appropriations language that the USMS is not required to obligate the full $4 million to JDIS each fiscal year, we believe the USMS should clarify the need for and intent of this annual appropriation to ensure that it is meeting congressional expectations with respect to development of the JDIS.

Special Operations Group: In FY 2002, Congress appropriated a one?time program increase of $500,000 to the Special Operations Group (SOG) for training, equipment, and facilities maintenance. We found that the USMS allocated a total of $1,578,000 to the SOG in FY 2002, which included $495,000 of the one-time increase. In addition, we found that the other $5,000 of the increase was reallocated to the Training Academy, where training funding is centralized.

Permanent Changes of Station: In FY 2002, Congress appropriated a one-time increase of $583,000 to the USMS for permanent changes of station (PCS) to assist with relocating USMS employees from one duty station to another. We found that the USMS allocated a total of $918,050 to its Human Resources Division (HRD) for PCS by combining the $583,000 one-time increase with the PCS base amount of $335,050. We obtained a worksheet from MBD personnel that listed the 38 PCS moves the USMS funded in FY 2002; however, the $918,050 only covered 15 of these moves. The remaining PCS moves were paid through funding identified from a mid-year review of all or object classes. Of the 15 moves, we tested 3 for supporting documentation and found these transactions were fully supported.

Electronic Surveillance Unit: Congress provided an increase of $3,150,000 to the Electronic Surveillance Unit (ESU) for personnel and equipment. MBD personnel provided documentation showing that $1,490,000 of the $3,150,000 was allocated among several cost centers in accordance with the cost module for 15 new positions. Because of the USMS's use of the cost module, we could not perform testing of specific expenditures.

MBD personnel also provided documentation showing an allocation of $1,660,000 to the ESU for equipment. The ESU prepared a worksheet listing the 18 equipment purchases it made against the appropriation, which totaled $1,543,902. From these 18 transactions, we selected 2 transactions for testing and both of these transactions were properly supported.

East Coast/West Coast Task Forces: Congress provided an increase in funding of $5,825,000 to the USMS for the creation of dedicated fugitive task forces on both coasts of the United States. We obtained a worksheet from the MBD that showed an allocation of $5,882,278, or $57,278 more than the spending instruction, for establishment of these fugitive task forces, including the creation of 24 new positions. Based on the worksheet provided by the MBD, we determined that these funds were divided in accordance with the cost module, specifically through transfers to the Investigative Services Division (ISD), the BSD, the HRD, the ITS, the Training Academy, the Central Courthouse Management Group (CCMG), the ESU (for radios), and the MBD (for salaries and benefits). Because of the USMS's use of the cost module, we could not perform testing of specific expenditures.

Courthouse Security Personnel: Congress provided an increase in funding of $3,625,000 to the USMS for courthouse security personnel at existing and new courthouses. A MBD official provided a worksheet showing the allocation of the funds to create 52 new positions in 6 districts. This cost module contains 65 line items, including $278,772 for background investigations, $90,272 for desktop computers, $488,523 for vehicles, and $8,060 for postage. Based on the worksheet provided by the MBD, we determined that these funds were divided in accordance with the cost module, specifically through transfers to the ISD, the BSD, the HRD, the ITS, the Prisoner Services Division (PSD), the SOG, the Judicial Security Division (JSD), the Training Academy, the CCMG, the ESU, and the MBD. However, because of the USMS's use of the cost module, we could not perform testing of specific expenditures.

Prisoner Transportation: Congress appropriated an additional $1,451,000 for prisoner transportation in FY 2002 compared to FY 2001. A MBD official provided us with a worksheet that shows an allocation of $1,451,000 to the Justice Prisoner and Alien Transportation System (JPATS) Air Movement account for Salaries and Expenses. We also obtained a STARS report for this account and were informed that the $1,451,000 was included in the total budget authority for this account of $26,054,000, of which the entire amount was obligated. Although a cost module was not involved with this spending instruction, we could not test transactions because the USMS could not distinguish which expenditures were made with the $1,451,000 funding increase.

Courthouse Security Equipment: The CCMG manages the allocation for Courthouse Security Equipment. In FY 2002, Congress appropriated $14,267,000 to the USMS for Courthouse Security Equipment, including furnishings, relocations, and telephone systems and cabling. In the conference report, Congress identified 30 specific courthouse locations and funding distributions for the USMS. Of the $14,267,000 identified in the spending instructions, the CCMG obligated $10,423,757 for the specified locations. The CCMG obligated the total amount of funds allocated in the conference report in only 3 instances, deviating from the conference report instructions for the following 27 items:

Courthouse
Locations
Specified in
Conference
Report
Amount
Allocated in
Conference
Report
Amount
Obligated by
the USMS
Difference
from
Conference
Report
Fort Smith, AR $200,000 -1 ($200,000)
Denver, CO $1,090,000 $1,544,957 ($454,957)
Washington, DC $75,000 -2 ($75,000)
Jacksonville, FL $1,065,000 $483,999 $581,001
Dublin, GA $432,000 $182,511 $249,489
Moscow, ID $50,000 $10,000 $40,000
Bowling Green, KY $330,000 $230,537 $99,463
Bay City, MI $175,000 $25,000 $150,000
Detroit, MI $450,000 $763,442 ($313,442)
Cape Girardeau, MO $75,000 -2 ($75,000)
East St. Louis, MO $10,000 -2 ($10,000)
Greenville, MS $645,000 $121,336 $523,664
Gulfport, MS $540,000 -1 ($540,000)
Hattiesburg, MS $590,000 $193,031 $396,969
Oxford, MS $1,095,000 $780,384 $314,616
Newark, NJ $300,000 $246,875 $53,125
Columbus, OH $300,000 -2 ($300,000)
Muskogee, OK $920,000 $852,555 $67,445
Florence, SC $321,000 $159,253 $161,747
Spartanburg, SC $555,000 $163,242 $391,758
Columbia, SC $195,000 $201,524 ($6,524)
Amarillo, TX $450,000 -2 ($450,000)
Houston, TX $1,063,000 $1,220,000 ($157,000)
Laredo, TX $700,000 $810,536 ($110,536)
Waco, TX $423,000 $458,640 ($35,640)
Cheyenne, WY $800,000 $558,172 $241,828
Security Survey3 $180,000 $179,764 $236
Source: Data provided by CCMG.
  1. Project funded by prior year Task Order.
  2. Project on hold due to construction and/or design delays.
  3. Security Survey is for all courthouse locations.

A CCMG official indicated that the Congress was aware of the changes. However, we found no documentation that disclosed the formal advisory to the Congress or acknowledgement by the Congress. Therefore, we cannot with any certainty determine that the USMS actions complied with the overall intent of the instructions.

We asked CCMG officials about the differences between the conference report allocations and the CCMG's obligations. A CCMG official stated that the dollar figures in the conference report originated from estimates developed by the CCMG two years earlier. According to this official, many times projects are changed or completed and the money is moved to another project. The reasons provided by CCMG officials for not allocating any funding to a location specified in the conference report were that projects were completed using prior year funds or that projects were delayed due to construction and design delays. CCMG personnel provided us with a worksheet showing a total of $14,266,423 of obligations against the $14,267,000 allocation. Of this amount, $10,423,757 of the obligations resulted from instructions in the conference report while the other $3,842,665 of obligations resulted from the CCMG's decision to realign funding to 29 other locations. From the 55 transactions identified for FY 2002, we selected 6 Courthouse Security Equipment transactions for testing. We found that all transactions were properly supported.

Construction

The CCMG also oversees the USMS's Construction appropriations. In FY 2002, Congress appropriated $15 million to the USMS for Construction and listed specific courthouse locations and funding distributions for the USMS to follow in the conference report. The Construction appropriation is considered "no-year" funding, meaning that it is available for spending even after the fiscal year ends. Of the $15 million identified in the spending instructions, the CCMG obligated $14,998,701. The CCMG obligated the funds in accordance with the 33 spending instructions, except for six locations.

CCMG officials noted that, generally, the CCMG spends its Construction appropriation exactly how it is allocated in the conference report. However, in FY 2002 the $250,000 earmarked for New York City was not used because this project was still in the preliminary planning phase. Instead, the CCMG redirected the funding to three other projects: Baltimore, Maryland; Midland, Texas; and San Francisco, California. In addition, the CCMG made deviations from the spending instructions for the Hot Springs, Arkansas and Raleigh, North Carolina locations. CCMG officials noted that, again, these changes stemmed from the fact that Construction estimates were two years old. Also, a CCMG official stated that the USMS advised Congress that the funds would be shifted to the three projects. However, we found no documentation evidencing that advisory. Therefore, we cannot state with confidence that the USMS complied with the Conference Report spending instructions.

A CCMG official provided us with a worksheet listing a total of $14,998,701 of obligations through 32 reimbursable work authorizations (RWA) against the $15,000,000 appropriation. We tested 3 of the 32 RWA's for supporting documentation and found the RWA's to be fully supported.

Federal Prisoner Detention

Congress appropriated approximately $706 million for Federal Prisoner Detention for FY 2002. It included no specific spending instructions for this account. With additional funding from prior year recoveries and carryovers, and other cooperative agreements, the USMS advised us that the total budget authority for Federal Prisoner Detention by the USMS for FY 2002 was about $743 million.

The MBD provided us with a worksheet that showed $729 million in obligations against the $743 million. The obligations consisted mostly of payments for housing prisoners ($633 million), medical costs for prisoners ($35 million), guards ($10 million), and cooperative agreements ($35 million). We compared the obligations from the worksheet to the STARS and found no material difference. We also reviewed the reimbursable agreements the USMS had with the Federal Bureau of Prisons and the Department of Health and Human Services and verified that the obligations did not exceed the estimated amounts of the agreements. As noted previously, we reviewed the obligations in the SF-133 report to OMB for Federal Prisoner Detention for FY 2002. Based on this report, we determined that the USMS's spending for Federal Prisoner Detention in FY 2002 was within its total budget authority.

Fees and Expenses of Witnesses

In FY 2002, Congress appropriated $156,145,000 to the USMS for Fees and Expenses of Witnesses. With this funding, Congress included spending instructions for three specific items.

  • $6,000,000 for witness safesites
  • $1,000,000 for armored vehicles
  • $5,000,000 for telecommunications equipment

These appropriations are classified as no-year funds and, therefore are available until expended. The USMS provided a listing of obligations and expenditures from FY 2002 for Fees and Expenses of Witnesses. We totaled these obligations and expenditures, matched them to the spending instructions, and selected eight transactions from the list to review in detail. We documented the transactions selected and verified the input of the obligations for these transactions in STARS, as follows:

Witness Safesites: Congress instructed that $6 million of funding may be made available for witness safesites, including the planning, construction, renovation, remodeling, and repair of witness safesites. We verified $5,064,118 in total obligations and expenditures for this spending instruction for FY 2002.

Armored Vehicles: Congress instructed that a maximum of $1 million may be made available for the purchase and maintenance of armored vehicles for transportation of protected witnesses. We verified $968,261 in total obligations and expenditures for armored vehicles against this spending instruction in FY 2002.

Telecommunications Equipment: Congress instructed that a maximum of $5 million may be made available for secure telecommunications equipment, including a secure automated information network to store and retrieve the identities and locations of protected witnesses. We verified $4,884,656 in total obligations and expenditures against this spending instruction in FY 2002.

FY 2002 Supplemental

In FY 2002, Congress provided supplemental appropriations to the USMS totaling $19,325,000, to be spent in accordance with the following instructions.3

  • $5,000,000 for courthouse security equipment
  • $4,000,000 for additional protection at trials
  • $1,200,000 for courthouse security expenses
  • $9,125,000 for Construction

Courthouse Security Equipment: In the FY 2002 Supplemental, Congress provided an additional $5 million for Courthouse Security Equipment, but did not provide specific courthouse locations for the funds. As instructed by the conference report, the USMS transferred $200,000 of the $5 million to the Eastern District of Virginia to pay for the terrorism trials being held there. We obtained a STARS report from MBD personnel that showed a $200,000 allocation to the Eastern District of Virginia and a STARS Web report showing $256,800 of obligations made against this account. We also obtained a STARS Web report from MBD personnel that showed $4,770,943 of obligations against the $4.8 million of remaining funding. These obligations were incurred through 36 RWAs.

Additional Protection at Trials: Congress appropriated $4 million for additional protection of the federal judiciary in New York City involved in the World Trade Center bombing and embassy bombing trials. We obtained a STARS report from MBD personnel that showed a $4 million allocation being transferred from the Special Assignments account to the Judicial Security account for the embassy bombing trials. We also obtained a STARS Web report from MBD personnel that showed $4,001,126 of obligations under the project code for the embassy bombing trials.

Courthouse Security Expenses: Congress appropriated $1.2 million for Courthouse Security Expenses at the Foley Square (New York City) and Brooklyn federal courthouses. We obtained a STARS report from MBD personnel, which showed that $700,000 was allocated to the Southern District of New York, where Foley Square is located, and that $500,000 was allocated to the Eastern District of New York, where Brooklyn is located. MBD personnel also provided a STARS Web report showing $1,187,652 of obligations made against the $1.2 million spending instruction.

Construction: As part of the supplemental appropriation, Congress provided the USMS with $9,125,000 for Construction for the highest priority districts as determined by the USMS. We obtained a STARS report from a MBD official that showed an allocation of $9,125,000 to the CCMG. In addition, a CCMG official provided us with a worksheet that listed the 30 RWAs that the $9,125,000 was divided among. We tested three of these RWAs for supporting documentation and found the transactions to be fully supported.

FY 2003 Budget

Congress provided the FY 2003 funding for the USMS in three appropriations: 1) Salaries and Expenses; 2) Construction; and 3) Fees and Expenses of Witnesses.4 Beginning in FY 2003, Congress transferred funding for Federal Prisoner Detention to the Office of the Detention Trustee. As part of the FY 2003 budget, Congress included a departmentwide rescission, or cancellation, of 0.65 percent of the total funding in this law. The USMS implemented this rescission across its agency. Congress also provided the USMS with funding under the Emergency Wartime Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2003, bringing total FY 2003 funding to about $879 million, before the rescission. The President signed the FY 2003 appropriation law on February 20, 2003.

On May 8, 2003, the USMS issued allocation amounts to the district offices and issued allocation amounts to the other cost centers six days later. We compared the amount of time used to execute the FY 2003 budget to the amount of time used to execute the FY 2002 budget. Specifically, by reviewing a timeline of the budget events for FY 2002, we determined that a period of 10 weeks (November 28, 2001, through February 8, 2002) elapsed from when the President signed the appropriation law to when the USMS provided the districts and cost centers with the amount of their allocations. Thereafter, another 3 weeks elapsed before all the allocations were signed and issued to the districts and cost centers. In comparison, according to the timeline for FY 2003, a period of 11 weeks (February 20, 2003, through May 8, 2003) elapsed from when the President signed the FY 2003 appropriation law to when the districts were issued the amounts of their allocations.

The MBD is still assessing the funding requirements for the districts and Headquarters in order to finalize the FY 2003 allocations. In addition, USMS officials noted that the release of annual allocations at this point in the fiscal year is exacerbated by the simultaneous mid-year review of funding. During the mid-year review, the MBD and the Director review the spending of all districts and cost centers to determine whether funding can be moved to support "unfunded" programs. Thus, USMS officials are reluctant to issue funding which could soon be withdrawn. Based on the timelines and explanations provided by USMS officials, we concluded that any delay in the release of the allocations to the costs centers in FY 2003 was due mainly to the delayed passage of the appropriation law.

To determine whether the USMS's total obligations for FY 2003 are within its FY 2003 total budget authority, we reviewed the SF-133 Report on Budget Execution reports the USMS submitted to the OMB for the quarter ended June 30, 2003. The USMS reported total budgetary resources of about $732 million for Salaries and Expenses in FY 2003. The USMS obtained these resources from the first FY 2003 appropriation law and from remaining funding from prior year appropriations. The USMS reported about $493 million of obligations against the appropriation for Salaries and Expenses. Based on these numbers, we concluded that the USMS's spending for Salaries and Expenses until the end of April 2003 was within its budget authority. Similarly, based on the USMS's SF-133 reports submitted to OMB for the second quarter of FY 2003, we found the USMS's spending on Construction and Fees and Expenses of Witnesses to be within its budget authority.

Based on our review of the USMS compliance with the Congressional spending instructions, we found that the USMS could not demonstrate adherence to 9 of the 22 FY 2003 spending instructions, as follows:

  • Courthouse Security Positions
  • Prisoner Information System
  • Special Assignments
  • Positions for Protection of the Judiciary
  • Positions for High Priority Districts
  • Annualization of Existing Task Forces
  • Task Forces for the Heartland
  • ESU Personnel, Training, and Equipment
  • Foreign Offices

Salaries and Expenses

In FY 2003, Congress appropriated $680,474,000 to the USMS for Salaries and Expenses. With this funding, Congress included spending instructions for 15 specific items. We reviewed the 15 spending instructions to determine if the USMS allocated and obligated funds in compliance with Congressional intent.

Spending Instruction
$15,800,000 for courthouse security positions
$6,000 for official reception
$4,000,000 for a prisoner information system
$12,061,000 for courthouse security equipment
$3,300,000 for ESU base funding
$1,000,000 for leg/handcuffs
$10,015,000 for special assignments
$2,766,000 for the Warrant Information Network
$5,650,000 for 40 additional positions for protection of judiciary
$2,259,000 for 18 positions for high priority Districts
$2,268,000 to annualize the two existing task forces
$2,916,000 for two new task forces in the "Heartland"
$2,750,000 for ESU personnel, training, & equipment
$1,715,000 to create a permanent USMS presence in Jamaica, Dominican Republic, and Mexico.
$10,424,000 for motor vehicles

Courthouse Security Positions: Congress provided $15.8 million for the creation of 106 supervisory Deputy Marshal positions for courthouse security. We reviewed the worksheet from MBD personnel that provided the allocations the USMS made for these 106 positions, totaling $15.8 million. According to a MBD official, the 106 positions will be divided with 1 position assigned to each of the 94 districts, except Guam, and 1 position assigned to each of the 13 circuits. These allocations were based on the USMS's cost module, but on a per?position basis. Among the items listed, the cost module included $182 for random drug tests, $806 for firearms, and $24,126 for a vehicle per new position. We reviewed the cost module and determined that the $15.8 million of funds was allocated in accordance with the cost module, specifically through transfers to the BSD, the HRD, the ITS, the ISD, the Training Academy, the MBD, and the individual districts receiving the positions. Because of the USMS's use of the cost module, we could not perform testing of specific expenditures.

Official Reception: In FY 2003, Congress again instructed that a maximum of $6,000 be made available for official reception and representation expenses. As noted previously, MBD personnel do not specifically allocate the $6,000 to any cost center, but rather this funding comes out of the Director and Deputy Director's funds. The USMS provided us with a worksheet that showed 16 transactions totaling $4,239 against the $6,000 limit in FY 2003. We tested two of these transactions for supporting documentation and found that the transactions were fully supported.

Prisoner Information System: In FY 2003, Congress again provided an appropriation of no more than $4 million for an automated prisoner information system. As noted previously, the USMS only allocates money for the JDIS at the end of each fiscal year. Thus, the USMS has not yet allocated funding for the JDIS for FY 2003; however, MBD personnel requested permission from the OMB in July 2003 to move $1.5 million from the USMS's FY 1999 and FY 2000 appropriations to the no-year account for the JDIS.

If the OMB approves the $1.5 million reapportionment, this will result in the JDIS receiving a total of $5.5 million out of a possible $28 million since FY 1997. As we previously stated, we believe the USMS should clarify the need for and intent of this annual appropriation to ensure that it is meeting congressional expectations with respect to development of the JDIS.

Courthouse Security Equipment: In FY 2003, Congress appropriated $12,061,000 to the USMS for Courthouse Security Equipment but did not list specific courthouse locations or funding distributions. CCMG staff provided us with a worksheet showing a total of $5,619,276 of obligations made against this $12,061,000 allocation as of June 2003. These obligations leave $6,441,724 of the $12,061,000 allocation unobligated. From the 34 transactions available for FY 2002, we selected 3 transactions for testing and found these transactions were fully supported.

ESU Base Funding: In FY 2003, Congress appropriated $3.3 million to the ESU for recurring costs that the USMS considered as establishing the program's base funding. We reviewed the budget worksheets and determined that a total of $3,146,450 was allocated to the ESU after deductions for the across?the?board rescission and administrative expenses. A total of $1,728,071 of this funding has been obligated as of June 30, 2003. Because this is considered base funding, this allocation could be used for any ESU expense to include awards; travel; rental payments; communication, utilities and miscellaneous; other services; and supplies and equipment.

Hand/Leg Cuffs: Congress appropriated $1 million to the USMS for hand and leg cuffs. On June 23, 2003, the MBD authorized $922,483 of funds for the purchase of hand and leg cuffs. The PSD sought the requisition for 9,985 sets of full restraints, 500 sets of over-size cuffs, and 165 sets of over-size leg irons. On June 25, 2003, the MBD also received a requisition for the purchase of 9,985 locks to accompany the sets of hand and leg cuffs at a total cost of $70,993. Based on these requisitions, only $6,523 of the $1 million appropriation remains unobligated.

Special Assignments: Congress earmarked $10,015,000 of the Salaries and Expenses appropriation for Special Assignments. MBD personnel provided a copy of a workplan to show that a total of $9,949,903 was allocated for special assignments in FY 2003. This amount reflects the departmentwide rescission of $65,098 from the $10,015,000 spending instruction. MBD staff also provided a worksheet showing total obligations of $7,118,588 made against the $9,949,903 of funding. The MBD did not provide any STARS documents for these expenditures and could not provide a breakdown of actual transactions for testing purposes.

Warrant Information Network: Congress instructed that not less than $2,766,000 be allocated for the Warrant Information Network (WIN) and subscriptions to various networks and on-line systems. We obtained a STARS report from MBD staff that showed an allocation of $2,850,707 to WIN for FY 2003. MBD staff also provided a STARS report that showed total budget authority of $2,930,527 for this program and total obligations of $987,032 as of July 8, 2003.

Protection of the Judiciary: Congress provided $5,650,000 for 40 additional personnel and equipment for the protection of the Judiciary for high threat trials. A MBD official provided a copy of the cost module for these 40 positions and the locations where the positions will be assigned. We reviewed the cost module and determined that MBD personnel allocated $4,273,440 for 40 positions for the protection of the Judiciary in accordance with the cost module. We also determined that MBD personnel allocated $1,350,000 for screening devices, monitoring equipment for courtrooms, crowd and vehicle barriers, guard and command posts, portable badging stations and identification cards for visitors, light and heavy duty armored vehicles, and armored vests. However, because of the USMS's use of the cost module, we could not perform testing of specific expenditures.

High Priority Districts: Congress appropriated $2,259,000 for 18 positions for those districts with the highest priority needs. A MBD official provided a copy of the cost module for these 18 positions and the locations where the positions will be assigned. We reviewed the cost module and determined that MBD personnel allocated $1,402,776 for 18 positions for the districts that the USMS deemed as high priority. MBD officials stated that when the budget was originally formulated, the MBD requested $2,259,000 of funding for 22 Criminal Investigator positions for the Joint Terrorism Task Force. However, Congress instead provided a program increase for 18 Deputy Marshals for high priority districts. Although Deputy Marshal positions cost less than Criminal Investigator positions, Congress still provided the full amount of funding the USMS had originally requested. As a result, the USMS had a surplus of $856,224. A MBD official could not provide documentation on how this surplus was used but speculated that the surplus was used to cover a shortfall in funding for the FY 2003 pay raise. However, because of the USMS's use of the cost module, we could not perform testing of specific expenditures.

Annualization of Existing Task Forces: This spending instruction allocating $2,268,000 was not formally requested by the USMS, but provided by Congress to annualize the funding for the East Coast and West Coast Fugitive Task Forces that were created in FY 2002. A MBD official provided us with a worksheet showing how the $2,268,000 of funding was allocated among several cost centers. A MBD official also provided documentation from some of these cost centers to show how each cost center's portion of the $2,268,000 was included in that cost center's funding. We did not test transactions because expenditures cannot be traced to the source of funding once the funding is allocated to various cost centers.

Heartland Task Forces: Congress earmarked $2,916,000 to the USMS for the creation of two additional task forces in the "Heartland." Congress did not define the term Heartland and the USMS officials chose to create task force locations in Chicago and Atlanta. The USMS used a cost module to estimate the funds needed for these positions. We reviewed the worksheets provided to us by MBD personnel and determined that MBD personnel allocated $2,538,846 for the creation of two new fugitive task forces with a total of 24 new positions. This allocation reflects a deduction for the rescission and a transfer of funds to the Wireless Management Office (WMO) for centralized radio purchases. We reviewed documentation of the allocation through a STARS report. However, since the USMS used a cost module to estimate the costs for these new positions, we could not perform testing of specific expenditures.

ESU: Congress appropriated a $2,750,000 increase to the ESU for personnel, training, and equipment. Consistent with its estimating of costs for ESU positions in FY 2002, the USMS used a cost module to estimate the funds needed in FY 2003 for these positions. We reviewed the worksheet and STARS report and determined that the USMS allocated $2,310,976 to the ESU. This allocation reflects the agency-wide rescission, a transfer of funds to the WMO, and an allocation to the MBD where salaries and benefits are centralized. In addition, we obtained from MBD personnel a copy of a memorandum that discusses the planned breakdown of the spending instruction. Since the USMS used a cost module to estimate the costs for these new positions, we could not perform testing of specific expenditures.

Foreign Offices: Congress provided an increase in the USMS's funding for the establishment of permanent foreign offices in Jamaica, the Dominican Republic, and Mexico. We obtained a STARS report from MBD personnel that showed that the USMS allocated $1,703,853, after the rescission, for the opening of these foreign offices. MBD staff also provided a copy of the Investigative Services Division's (ISD) spending plan for the foreign offices. Based on a STARS report, ISD has spent $25,613 of the $1,703,853 allocation on the foreign offices to date. The expenditures were classified as travel and transportation of persons and other services; however, MBD officials were unable to identify through their accounting system the specific transactions for testing purposes.

Vehicles: In FY 2003, Congress provided a program increase of $10,424,000 to the USMS for vehicles. We received a STARS report from MBD staff that showed an allocation, after the rescission, of $10,356,244 to the BSD for vehicles. The BSD provided a list of the 88 vehicles it has purchased, through 51 transactions, in FY 2003, and the estimated costs of these transactions. We added the costs provided and calculated a total of $1,876,639 in FY 2003 obligations as of June 30, 2003. We tested 5 of these 51 transactions, which included 5 vehicles, for supporting documentation. These transactions were fully supported, but only three of the purchases were made with appropriated funds; the other two purchases were made from lease savings and proceeds from vehicle auctions. One of the five vehicle purchases was for a USMS Headquarters office while the other four purchases were for districts. Of the 88 vehicles purchased, 6 vehicles were for the USMS's Headquarters and 82 vehicles were for the districts.

Construction

In FY 2003, Congress appropriated $15,126,000 to the USMS for Construction, but did not list specific courthouse locations or funding distributions for the USMS to follow. We received a STARS report from MBD staff that showed an allocation, after the rescission, of $15,028,000. CCMG staff provided us with a total of $14,378,000 of obligations through 40 RWAs, which it has made against the allocation. We tested 4 of the 40 RWAs for supporting documentation and found the transactions to be fully supported.

Fees and Expense of Witnesses

In FY 2003, Congress appropriated $175,645,000 of no-year funding to the USMS for Fees and Expenses of Witnesses. With this funding, Congress included spending instructions for four specific items.

  • $19,500,000 for the Witness Security program
  • $6,000,000 for witness safesites
  • $1,000,000 for armored vehicles
  • $5,000,000 for telecommunications equipment

A USMS official provided us with a listing of obligations and expenditures for Fees and Expenses of Witnesses in FY 2003. We totaled these obligations and expenditures, matched them to the spending instructions, and selected six transactions from the list to review in detail. We documented the transactions selected and verified the input of the obligations for these transactions in STARS, as follows:

Witness Security Program: Congress instructed that a maximum of $19.5 million may be made available for the Witness Security program. We received a copy of the USMS's Reimbursable Agreement (RA) with JMD for the Witness Security Program. The estimated amount listed on the RA is $19.5 million. The MBD estimated that as of mid?August 2003 the USMS has obligated about $16.3 million of this amount.

Witness Safesites: Congress instructed that $6 million of funding may be made available for witness safesites, including the planning, construction, renovation, remodeling, and repair of witness safesites. We verified $4,896,422 in total obligations for FY 2003 for this spending instruction.

Armored Vehicles: Congress instructed that a maximum of $1 million may be made available for the purchase and maintenance of armored vehicles for transportation of protected witnesses. We verified $14,067 in total obligations for armored vehicles against this spending instruction in as of July 15, 2003.

Telecommunications Equipment: Congress instructed that a maximum of $5 million may be made available for secure telecommunications equipment, including a secure automated information network to store and retrieve the identities and locations of protected witnesses. We verified $2,642,123 in total obligations for this spending instruction as of July 15, 2003.

Wartime Supplemental

In FY 2003, Congress provided additional funding to the USMS through the Wartime Supplemental Act.5 Through this Act, Congress appropriated the USMS $8 million for Salaries and Expenses that remains available until September 30, 2004. The conference report instructed that of this amount:

  • $5.8 million be allocated to those districts with the highest priority needs for protection of the judicial process; and
  • $2.2 million be allocated to upgrade the Marshals Service secure communications capability.

According to a MBD official, as of July 1, 2003, the USMS had not yet received the apportionment for this appropriation from OMB. However, MBD has received the Warrant from Treasury that provides notification that the funds are available and prepared the apportionment request to OMB. The MBD has also prepared cost modules for the division of the $5.8 million for new positions, as well as a breakdown of the locations where the new positions will be assigned. Similarly, the MBD has also prepared a plan for how the $2.2 million of secure communications funding will be spent. Because these funds have not been released, no expenditures have been made, and we could not perform any testing of transactions.

USMS Planned Improvements

On September 27, 2002, the USMS Comptroller issued a memorandum to the USMS Headquarters senior staff and USMS district offices that incorporated changes to the USMS's financial management and budget allocation approach for FY 2003. The memorandum implemented the use of project codes in the budget execution process, to enhance the USMS's ability to trace expenditures to their corresponding budget allocations. An official in the USMS's Office of Finance stated that the use of project codes would help link budget allocations to expenditures that are made in the same cost center but would not track expenditures across cost centers. For instance, expenditures incurred directly by ESU for its nine new positions would all carry the same project code; however, the vehicle expenditures made by the BSD on behalf of the ESU's new positions would carry a different project code. Thus, Congressional spending instructions that relate to a program area that uses a cost module would still not be traceable to their corresponding expenditures.

Conclusion

After reviewing the USMS's execution of funds in light of Congressional spending instructions in the appropriation laws and conference reports for FY 2002 and FY 2003, we conclude that the USMS needs to implement a budget execution system that tracks changes, obligations, and expenditures to the budget estimates included in spending instructions. As a result, we cannot attest to the USMS's adherence to a total of 16 spending instructions for FY 2002 and FY 2003.

With regard to the tracking of changes, obligations, and expenditures to the budget estimates included in spending instructions, we found that when the USMS used a cost module for estimating and allocating costs associated with new positions, the accounting system did not accumulate costs in parallel fashion. Therefore, we could not attest with any degree of certainty that funds were expended for the purposes estimated in the associated cost module. This opinion applies to six specific USMS purposes, two of which existed in both fiscal years, as follows:

  • ESU - FY 2002 and FY 2003
  • East Coast/West Coast Task Forces - FY 2002
  • Courthouse Security Personnel - FY 2002 and FY 2003
  • Positions for Protection of the Judiciary - FY 2003
  • Positions for High Priority Districts - FY 2003
  • Heartland Task Forces - FY 2003

Notwithstanding the use of the cost module, we also found other cases where we could not track expenditures to instructions for a variety of reasons, as follows:

  • Prisoner Transportation - FY 2002: We could not test transactions because the USMS could not identify the specific expenditures against the $1.45 million funding increase.
  • Courthouse Security Equipment - FY 2002: The CCMG deviated from the conference report instructions for 27 of 30 locations. We acknowledged that federal agencies may deviate from spending instructions in conference reports, but we also are aware that by doing so they create a greater risk for criticism from the Congress. A CCMG official indicated that the Congress was aware of the changes. However, without some document that discloses this, we could not with any certainty determine that the USMS actions complied with the overall intent of the instructions.
  • Construction - FY 2002: The CCMG obligated almost all of the $15 million as indicated in the spending instructions. The one issue of note was that $250,000 originally earmarked for New York City was redirected to three other locations because the New York City project was still in the planning phase. Again, a CCMG official stated that the USMS advised Congress that the funds would be shifted to the three projects. However, we had no documentation evidencing the advisory. Therefore, as we indicate in Courthouse Security Equipment above, without such we cannot attest that the USMS complied with the spending instructions relative to the project.
  • Special Assignments - FY 2003: MBD staff provided a worksheet showing total obligations of $7.1 million against the $9.9 million of funding but could not provide a breakdown of actual transactions for testing purposes.
  • Annualization of Existing Task Forces - FY 2003: We did not test transactions because expenditures could not be traced to the source of funding once the funding was allocated to cost centers.
  • Foreign Offices - FY 2003: The ISD spent about $26,000 of the $1.7 million allocation. The expenditures were classified as travel and transportation of persons and other services; however, MBD officials were unable to identify through their accounting system the specific transactions for testing purposes.

To its credit, in September 2002 the USMS Controller issued a memorandum to the USMS Headquarters senior staff and USMS District Offices incorporating changes to the USMS financial management and budget allocation approach for FY 2003. The memorandum implemented the use of project codes in the budget execution process to enhance the ability of the USMS to trace expenditures to the corresponding budget allocations. However, according to an official in the USMS Office of Finance, the use of the project codes would track expenditures made from the same cost center, but not across cost centers. Therefore, the USMS still needs to address the issue of tracking expenditures across cost centers.

Lastly, in our judgment the USMS needs to reassess its financial needs for implementing the JDIS to ensure that it meets Congressional expectations. Since FY 1997, the USMS had the option to allocate to the JDIS up to $4 million annually, or $28 million in total. Yet, the USMS has only provided the JDIS with $4 million as a result of a FY 2001 OMB reapportionment from FY 1997 funds. The USMS did schedule the JDIS to receive an additional $1.5 million in FY 2003, but as of our audit fieldwork, that had not been accomplished.

As a result of the issues disclosed herein, we cannot provide assurance to Congress that the USMS adhered to all of its spending instructions for FY 2002 and FY 2003.

Recommendations

We recommend that the Director of the USMS:

  1. Develop a budget execution system that tracks changes, obligations, and expenditures to the budget estimates included in spending instructions.
  1. Reexamine its annual Congressional request of $4 million for JDIS, in light of the USMS's record of not allocating more than $5.5 million of the available $28 million of these funds over the past seven years.

II. MOTOR VEHICLE FLEET

We determined that 55 percent of the vehicles in the districts and 37 percent of the vehicles at the USMS's Headquarters exceeded the GSA's minimum mileage replacement criteria. The average mileage of the USMS motor vehicle fleet is 105,000 miles. Although the USMS has a vehicle maintenance plan, it does not have a regular vehicle replacement plan to address the needed vehicle upgrades. In order to reduce the average mileage of the USMS motor vehicle fleet from the current 105,000 miles, the USMS needs to develop and implement a vehicle replacement plan.

According to a BSD summary report, the USMS spent approximately $15.9 million during FY 2002 to lease and purchase vehicles. The amount included about $4.8 million from an end-of-year realignment of funds (also see Other Matters), but did not include a program increase for replacement of vehicles. In addition to acquiring vehicles for use by operational units, during FY 2002 the USMS also purchased two new sedans for the Director and Deputy Director at a cost of $56,268. These vehicles augment a utility vehicle with secure communications equipment, also purchased in FY 2002. According to the Headquarters' vehicle listing provided by the BSD, these vehicles are assigned to USMS Headquarters. There are no vehicles in the USMS Motor Pool officially designated for use by specific offices or persons. However, only the Director, the Deputy Director or their designee, can use this utility vehicle because of the secure communications equipment in the vehicle. The Director's Office provided a brief narrative showing when the Suburban was received, its current mileage, and the ways in which the vehicle is used.

In FY 2003, Congress provided the USMS with a one-time increase of $10.4 million to purchase motor vehicles. When providing this increase, the Senate expressed concerns that the USMS's "approach to fleet management is 'run to failure'." The BSD provided us with a prioritized list of their planned purchases using the $10.4 million.

We received a STARS report from MBD staff that showed an allocation, after the rescission, of about $10.4 million to the BSD for vehicles. The BSD provided a list of 88 vehicles the USMS purchased for approximately $1.9 million as of June 30, 2003. We reviewed the transactions for five of the vehicles and found that they were supported. However, only three of the purchases were made with appropriated funds. The other two purchases were made from lease savings and proceeds from vehicle auctions. One of the five vehicle purchases was for a USMS Headquarters office while the other four purchases were for districts. Of the 88 vehicles purchased, 6 vehicles were for the USMS's Headquarters and 82 vehicles were for the districts.

The GSA minimum mileage replacement criteria for motor vehicles provides that an agency may replace sedans and station wagons at 60,000 miles or three years of age, whichever comes first. Similarly, an agency may replace 4 to 6 wheel drive motor vehicles and trucks weighing less than 12,500 pounds at 40,000 miles or at 6 years of age, whichever comes first. We found that the mileage for about 55 percent of the USMS district fleet vehicles and 37 percent of the USMS headquarters exceeded the GSA mileage replacement criteria. USMS officials advised us that the USMS does not have a vehicle replacement plan in place. According to an official in the BSD, creating a regular replacement plan is difficult because in the past the USMS has not been able to obtain the funding necessary to replace the high?mileage vehicles in its fleet. This BSD official stated that the current average mileage of the vehicles in the USMS's motor vehicle fleet was 105,000 miles. According to the same official, to reduce the average mileage of the vehicles in the USMS's motor vehicle fleet from 105,000 miles to 80,000 miles, the USMS would need to receive at least $10 million per year for the next 4 to 5 fiscal years. Notwithstanding the $10.4 million in FY 2003, USMS officials indicated that the lack of a replacement plan is due to the USMS not being able to obtain the funding necessary to replace the higher?mileage vehicles.

We assessed whether the USMS motor vehicle fleet was adequately funded and managed. We reviewed vehicle logs to identify the universe of vehicles, their current mileage, and their assigned locations (district or headquarters). Not including forfeited and transferred-in vehicles, 2,186 vehicles were assigned to the districts and 54 vehicles were assigned to USMS Headquarters. Fifty-five percent (1,210) of the 2,186 vehicles in the districts and 37 percent (20) of the 54 vehicles at USMS Headquarters exceeded the GSA minimum mileage replacement criteria. Of the 2,240 vehicles, which are in the USMS's motor vehicle fleet, 1,799 were purchased vehicles and 441 were leased vehicles. Of the 1,230 vehicles in the USMS's motor vehicle fleet that exceeded GSA's minimum mileage standards, 1,081 are purchased vehicles and 149 are leased vehicles. Thus, about 60 percent of the USMS's purchased vehicles and about 34 percent of the USMS's leased vehicles exceed the GSA's minimum mileage criteria.

Absent a regular vehicle replacement plan, many of the vehicles in the USMS's motor vehicle fleet pose a possible safety threat to USMS employees. In addition, the maintenance requirements of higher?mileage vehicles may result in a reduction in the number of vehicles in service. Further, the lack of a regular vehicle replacement schedule affects the USMS's ability to budget effectively for vehicle replacement and may result in the costs of replacing vehicles to be bunched within one or two fiscal years. The USMS needs to develop and implement a vehicle replacement plan to ensure the continual use of reliable and safe vehicles.

Recommendation

We recommend that the Director of the USMS:

  1. Develop and implement a formal vehicle replacement policy that includes replacement criteria such as vehicle age and mileage.

Footnotes
  1. The FY 2002 Appropriation Law is P.L. 107-77. The accompanying Conference Report is House Report 107-278
  1. The FY 2002 Supplemental appropriations law is P.L. 107-117. The accompanying Conference Report is House Report 107-350.
  1. The FY 2003 Appropriation Law is P.L. 108-7. The accompanying Conference Report is House Report 108-010.
  1. The FY 2003 Wartime Supplemental law is P.L. 108-11. The accompanying Conference Report is House Report 108-076.