*Pages 1--34 from D:\Pdf2Text\Ready4Text_in\pdf\28310.pdf* 1 Federal Communications Commission Office of the Inspector General Semiannual Report to Congress October 1, 2002- March 31, 2003 H. Walker Feaster III Inspector General 1 2 Table of Contents Introduction............................................................. 1 Universal Service Fund .......................................... 2 Audits ................................................................... 11 I. Financial Statement Audit......................... 11 II. Performance Audits.................................. 13 III. Program Audits ........................................ 16 IV. Work- in- Process ...................................... 19 Management ........................................................ 21 Investigations ....................................................... 23 Legislation ............................................................ 26 IG Hotline ............................................................. 27 Specific Reporting Requirements of the Inspector General Act ........................................... 29 Table I OIG Audit Reports With Questioned Costs............................................................. 31 Table II OIG Audit Reports With Recommendations That Funds Be Put To Better Use.................. 32 2 5 First, we would conduct reviews on a statistical sample of beneficiaries large enough to allow us to derive inferences regarding beneficiary compliance at the program level. Second, we would establish a process for vigorously investigating allegations of fraud, waste, and abuse in the program. Unfortunately, there were several obstacles that have impeded our ability to imple-ment our oversight program. These obstacles include a decision by DCAA management not to perform audits on a reimbursable basis, difficulties obtaining adequate audit resources, and questions about the nature of the fund. As a result, although oversight of the USF program is clearly our responsibility, much of the oversight activity that has been performed to date has been performed under the direction of the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) as part of the oversight program that they have established. USAC Oversight In calendar year 2000, USAC contracted with a public accounting firm to conduct audits of eighteen (18) beneficiaries of funding from the first year 3 of the Schools and Libraries program that were identified as potentially high- risk. E- Rate disbursements to these beneficiaries totaled $134.6 million in the first year of the program. The audit report disclosed weaknesses (ranging from regulatory non- compliances to computation errors) at many of the beneficiaries and ques-tioned approximately $8 million in funding disbursements. In addition, their audit resulted in a major investigation involving representatives from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Office of Inspector General. The matter has been referred as a civil false claims suit to the De-partment of Justice where it remains under consideration. USAC has implemented administra-tive procedures to address the findings of this report. However, several fund recoveries are still in process more than a year after the report was issued. Furthermore, several million dollars in questioned disbursements will not be recovered due to a rule waiver issued by the Commission and determinations of non- materiality. In calendar year 2001, USAC contracted with a public accounting firm to conduct audits at twenty- five (25) beneficiaries from the second and third funding years. E- Rate disbursements to these beneficiaries totaled $322 million in the second and third funding years of the program. The draft report for these audits was dated May 31, 2002. In our last semi- annual report, we stated that the results of this audit were under review by USAC and the Commission’s Wireline Competition Bureau (WCB). We have been informed that, at the time that this semi- annual re-porting period ended, the findings in this report have been discussed with the applicants and service providers and that USAC has reviewed each finding. USAC has reported that their analysis of the draft report indicates monetary findings at fourteen (14) of the twenty- five (25) beneficiaries including $11.4 million dollars in inappropriate disbursements and unsupported costs. Further, USAC has reported that there are non- monetary findings at a portion of the eleven (11) beneficiaries where there are no monetary findings. ———————————- 3 In the first year of the program, the Commission authorized $1. 8 billion. In the second and subsequent funding years, the Commission authorized $2. 25 billion. Universal Service Fund Universal Service Fund 5 6 In some cases, the resolution is pending policy guidance from the FCC. In cases where a re-covery is due, USAC either has or is in the process of recovering the funds . USAC has indi-cated that they anticipate issuing a final report as soon as the resolution process is completed. On December 27, 2002, USAC established a contract with a public accounting firm to perform agreed- upon procedures at a sample of seventy- eight (78) beneficiaries covering Funding Year 2000 4 . The sample of 78 was selected by the OIG. In a departure from the two previous au-dits, the agreed- upon procedures being performed under this contract will be performed in ac-cordance with both the Attestation Standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) Standards and Generally Accepted Government Auditing Stan-dards, issued by the Comptroller General (GAS 1994 revision, as amended) (GAGAS). At the time that this semi- annual reporting period ended, the public accounting firm has conducted fieldwork at a number of the selected beneficiaries. The contract establishes that fieldwork will be completed for all beneficiaries by the end of May 2003 and that Agreed- Upon Procedures reports for each beneficiary will be provided to USAC by the end of June 2003. In addition to reviews being conducted by auditors under contract to USAC, the USAC Internal Audit Division (IAD) has conducted several largely targeted audits of E- Rate beneficiaries. Dur-ing calendar year 2002, USAC IAD has conducted audits of six (6) beneficiaries resulting in two (2) reports with clean/ minor discrepancies, two (2) reports seeking recovery of commit-ments/ disbursements, and two (2) reports resulting in referrals to federal law enforcement for investigation. In addition, USAC IAD conducted two (2) fraud investigation audits. Both of these reports were referred to federal law enforcement for investigation. In addition to USAC’s administrative oversight efforts, USAC audits have provided useful infor-mation regarding beneficiary compliance with program rules and regulations. The first two au-dits that they contracted for were not conducted in accordance with GAGAS. Since GAGAS provides specific and stringent guidance on steps that must be taken for a government auditor to rely on work performed by other auditors, we were unable to rely on the work that was per-formed. However, we utilized the results of these audits for audit planning and risk assess-ments purposes. With respect to the agreed- upon procedures review that USAC contracted for in December 2002, we anticipate performing the procedures necessary to determine the degree to which we can rely on the results of that work. We will discuss this effort further in the section on developments during the semi- annual reporting period. OIG Oversight During calendar year 2002, we started twenty- nine (29) audits of E- Rate beneficiaries and ser-vice providers. We intended to conduct these audits using in- house resources and four (4) auditors that were obtained from WCB on a temporary detail. Initially, it was our plan to use available resources to conduct audits at a portion of those beneficiaries selected when we per-formed audit planning with DCAA. 4 Funding year 2000 generally is the period of July 1, 2000 through June 30, 2001. However, in Funding Year 2000, imple-mentation of non- recurring services eligible for discounts through the schools and libraries universal service support mechanism extends through September 30, 2001, and, in some cases, through September 30, 2002. Universal Service Fund Universal Service Fund 6 9 For example, the program requires that applicants comply with any applicable state and local procurement regulations, in addition to the FCC's competitive bidding requirements. However, private schools or other non- public entities may not be subject to state and local procurement rules, and therefore may not have an established procurement process or may not have a proc-ess that ensures competitive procurement of goods and services. The audit will include analy-sis of the competitive procurement process at a sample of E- Rate recipients, evaluation of those practices with program requirements, and an assessment of the effectiveness of those practices and program requirements in ensuring the best value is obtained. The objective of this audit is to evaluate weaknesses in the program area and identify opportunities for improve-ment. In addition, we intend to conduct a survey of the USF High Cost program. This program pro-vides $2.98 billion in support to telecommunication carriers in high cost/ rural service areas. The program has not been subjected to a comprehensive program of audit and oversight by this of-fice. We will perform an audit survey of this program to identify areas of risk, potential vulner-abilities, and compliance with program requirements and regulations. The results of the survey will be used to design an oversight program to ensure the High Cost Program is not subject to fraud, waste and abuse. The strategic plan is intended to serve as a roadmap for implementing our oversight program. A copy of the strategic plan for oversight of the USF can be obtained from the OIG homepage located at www. fcc. gov/ oig. Memorandum of Understanding with the Department of the Interior OIG On January 29, 2003, we executed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Depart-ment of the Interior (DOI) OIG. This MOU is a three- way agreement among the Commission, DOI OIG, and USAC for reviews of schools and libraries funded by the Bureau of Indian Affairs and other universal service support beneficiaries under the audit cognizance of DOI OIG. Un-der the agreement, auditors from the Department of the Interior will perform these reviews using specified agreed- upon procedures for USAC and the FCC OIG. In addition to audits of schools and libraries, the agreement allows for the DOI OIG to consider requests for investigative sup-port on a case- by- case basis. In February 2003, we provided a two- day training class for De-partment of the Interior auditors and provided subsequent training to DOI auditors and investi-gators during March 2003. We anticipate conducting approximately eight (8) reviews with DOI OIG in FY 2003. Contractor Support in FY 2003 In March 2003, we signed a contract with a public accounting firm to provide audit support ser-vices for USF oversight to the OIG. This contract is a one- year contract ending in March 2004. During March 2003, we established two (2) task orders under the contract. The first task order is for a quality review of the agreed- upon procedures review work being performed by a public accounting firm under contract to USAC. As we indicated earlier, USAC established a contract with a public accounting firm to perform agreed- upon procedures at a sample of seventy- eight (78) beneficiaries covering Funding Year 2000. Under this contract, the agreed- upon proce-dures will be performed in accordance with both the Attestation Standards established by Universal Service Fund Universal Service Fund 9 10 the AICPA Standards and Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General (GAS). Although the work is being performed in accordance with GAS, these standards require that we perform procedures that provide a sufficient basis for reliance on the work being per-formed by the public accounting firm under contract to USAC. The purpose of the first task or-der is to perform those procedures and to determine the extent to which we can rely on the re-sults of these reviews to assess program compliance by those recipients where the procedures were performed. Under the second task order, the public accounting firm will perform a series of tasks to assist the OIG in enhancing the USF oversight program including developing and populating a data-base for tracking audit findings and resolution, performing a qualitative assessment of the OIG USF strategic plan, and preparing a capping report on the current status of E- Rate oversight. Availability of Appropriated Funding in FY 2004 The Commission’s FY 2004 budget estimate to Congress includes $3 million “to support the agency efforts to prevent waste, fraud and abuse within Commission programs.” The Commis-sion’s Managing Director has advised us that all of this funding is intended for USF oversight by the OIG. We anticipate using this funding to have contract resources conduct an audit of a sta-tistical sample of E- Rate funding recipients that will enable us to make inferences about the level of compliance with program requirements and recommendations that would benefit the program as a whole. In addition, we intend to conduct audits of selected funding recipients based on identified risks and other criteria. We will also explore expanding our audit coverage to include service providers (vendors of goods and services) that participate in the program, as well as the applicants (schools and libraries). In addition to audits, we anticipate using contract resources to provide audit support to a num-ber of on- going investigations. To date, the OIG has provided audit support to a number of these investigations with OIG staff, detailed auditors, and in teaming arrangements with USAC internal audit. The availability of appropriated funding for contractor support will enable us to enhance our investigative support capability. Reorganization of the OIG to better meet the requirements of USF oversight On March 9, 2003, the OIG reorganized and elevated responsibility for USF oversight to the As-sistant Inspector General level by creating an Assistant Inspector General for USF Oversight. Previously, the responsibility for USF oversight was held by the Director of Program Audits and was in addition to the responsibilities of that position for oversight of other Commission pro-grams and operations. Commission Attention to E- Rate Issues There was increased attention to E- Rate fraud, waste, and abuse issues by the Commission during the semi- annual reporting period. During the review period, the Wireline Competition Bureau developed an order establishing a debarment rule for the E- Rate program. Universal Service Fund Universal Service Fund 10 11 On April 23, 2003, the Commission adopted a rule that persons convicted of criminal violations or held civilly liable for misconduct arising from participation in the program will be debarred from participation for three years and, where circumstances warrant, for a longer period. The Commission also clarified that requests for duplicative services will not be funded, and amended its rules to make clear that applicants must select the most cost- effective service of-fering. In addition to the rulemaking establishing a debarment rule, the Commission is examin-ing opportunities for rule changes to strengthen compliance and oversight over the E- Rate pro-gram. On March 18, 2003, Commissioner Abernathy announced that she is organizing a public forum on improving administration of the E- Rate program. In the public notice announcing the forum, Commissioner Abernathy, who chairs the Federal- State Joint Board on Universal Ser-vice, stated that “( r) ecent meetings with school administrators and the Universal Service Admin-istrative Corporation have convinced me that the FCC needs to take a hard look at whether our rules provide an adequate framework to avoid wasteful expenditures and prevent gaming of the system.” Commissioner Abernathy added that “( w) hile our established procedures have suc-cessfully uncovered instances of program abuse, we need to consider changes to lessen the potential for waste, fraud, and abuse.” The public forum is scheduled for May 8, 2003. USAC Task Force on the Prevention of Waste, Fraud, and Abuse On March 31, 2003, USAC announced the creation of a task force on the prevention of waste, fraud and abuse in the E- Rate program. The stated objective of the task force is to identify ar-eas where improvements can be made in the support mechanism and in outreach and training and to recommend specific actions to combat potential waste, fraud and abuse by both service providers and applicants. USAC has stated that the task force will be composed of fourteen (14) members from the applicant and service provider communities and that the membership will include representatives from public and nonpublic elementary and secondary schools, li-braries, state telecommunications networks, and providers of service in all three categories of services eligible under the support mechanism. USAC has indicated that the task force will pro-duce a final report to USAC in early summer summarizing its recommendations. USF Management Issues During this reporting period, we continued to explore issues related to USF management. These issues include strengthening the nature of the relationship between the Commission and USAC, addressing concerns of Commission financial operations related to USF fund manage-ment, and use of the USF to pay for the cost of OIG oversight. Currently, USAC administers the USF at the direction of the Commission. Part 54 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regula-tions (47CFR54) defines the relationship between the Commission and USAC. However, nu-merous functions, particularly in the area of financial management and oversight, are performed voluntarily by USAC under undocumented, oral agreements. It is our opinion that formalizing certain administrative functions will strengthen the relationship between the Commission and USAC and result in more efficient and effective management of the fund. In addition to ad-dressing the relationship between USAC and the Commission, we have been considering is-sues regarding financial management of the USF. Based on our knowledge of USF financial management matters, it is our opinion that fund management Universal Service Fund Universal Service Fund 11 12 would benefit from the additional control it would be afforded if it were maintained in an account managed by the Department of the Treasury. The last management issue relates to use of the fund to pay for the cost of OIG oversight. Currently, the Commission does not have the author-ity to use USF funds to pay for the FCC’s cost of administering the fund, including the costs as-sociated with providing oversight. In the last two semi- annual reports, we reported the lack of resources as an obstacle to implementation of effective program oversight. While we are confi-dent that appropriated funding will be available in FY 2004, we remain convinced that the best solution for ensuring that adequate resources for program oversight are available would be ac-complished by using the fund to pay for OIG oversight. We believe that these issues should be explored further and will continue to encourage their consideration in discussions with FCC management and other appropriate officials. Conclusion In conclusion and as we have stated in previous semi- annual reports, we are addressing over-sight of the Universal Service Fund on all fronts and will continue to do so. We believe we have made significant progress toward our goal of implementing an effective oversight program dur-ing this semi- annual reporting period and we are encouraged about the many positive develop-ments since our last semi- annual report. However, we continue to have numerous concerns. The number of audits conducted to date does not allow us to make program inferences about beneficiary compliance with program requirements or to make audit recommendations for pro-grammatic improvements. Meanwhile, the results of audits that have been performed and the allegations under investigation lead us to believe the program may be subject to and unac-ceptably high risk of fraud, waste, and abuse through noncompliance and program weak-nesses. In addition, we remain concerned with the pace at which identifiable program improve-ments - such as enhanced requirements for competitive procurement – are being addressed. Despite the positive developments during this reporting period, our position remains as we have previously stated - until such time as resources and funding are available to provide adequate oversight for the USF program, we are unable to give the Chairman, Congress and the public an appropriate level of assurance that the program is protected from fraud, waste and abuse. Universal Service Fund Universal Service Fund 12 16 The FCC works with DCAA to ensure these objectives are met. DCAA performs unannounced floor checks of contractor employees. DCAA auditors also collect timesheets to make sure time is accurately charged, and interview contractor personnel. DCAA makes sure that employees know how to document their time, that procedures for timekeeping are clear, and that the sys-tem is continually verified and violations are remedied promptly. 1. Report on Audit of Labor Charging and Timekeeping Practices of DynCorp Informa-tion and Enterprise Technology, Inc. (Report 02- AUD- 09- 20), October 9, 2002 This review disclosed that DynCorp employees and subcontractors did not have their time-sheets completed up to the previous day and that employee access to timesheets was neither restricted, nor were timesheets controlled documents. These deficiencies were found in a previ-ous audit conducted in December 2001. Additionally, an employee said they did not receive training on proper timekeeping procedures and work assignment documents with charge codes were not provided. These findings were discussed with management, who said they were implementing a new electronic timekeeping system and would provide training to employees on proper timekeeping procedures. 2. Report on Audit of Labor Charging and Timekeeping Practices of AAC Associates, Inc. (Report 02- AUD- 09- 22), January 15, 2003 For the second time in twelve months, employees were found not completing their time sheets on a daily basis, not filling in the “Project Number” section of their timesheet, and others were signing their timesheets in advance. These findings were discussed with AAC’s Accounting Manager, who agreed to take action to resolve the timekeeping deficiencies. 3. Audits of NeuStar, Inc. Revised Price Adjustment Proposal, (Report 03- AUD- 01- 02), October 30, 2002 As requested by the FCC Contracts and Purchasing Center, the Office of Inspector General has completed an audit of NeuStar, Inc’s price adjustment proposal. The objective of this audit was to determine whether NeuStar’s books and records support each element of the proposals, and that the costs are acceptable as a basis for negotiation. To conduct the audit, the OIG estab-lished a purchase order under our interagency agreement with DCAA. NeuStar submitted its proposal for adjustment to the fixed- price agreement under the Third Re-port & Order for the North American Numbering Plan Association (NANPA) for the period De-cember 1998 through June 2000. NeuStar claims it incurred additional costs when it processed central office code assignments exceeding its 120% assumed volume of 10,000 code assign-ments per year with NANPA. Audits 16 19 information security program and practices. FCC management will develop a plan of action for each finding identified during the FY 2002 evaluation. 2. Follow- up Audit of Computer Controls at the FCC Consumer Center, (Report 01- AUD- 07- 30), January 10, 2003 The purpose of this audit was to find out which findings from the prior audit were closed or open. The IG contracted with the public accounting firm of KPMG, LLP to complete this audit. By correcting the problems identified, the security of the Commission’s Consumer Center infor-mation technology program will be strengthened. Of the 103 findings in the original audit (No. 00- AUD- 01- 12), issued on June 21, 2000, 66 were reviewed. The other 37 were either duplicates or out of the scope of this audit. The follow- up audit identified 21 open findings and four new conditions. Problems were found in the areas of Security Program Planning & Management, Access Con-trol, Application Software Development and Change Control, System Software, Segregation of Duties, and Service Continuity. OMD and CGB prepared a joint response to the report where they outlined corrective action and/ or a milestone schedule for the implementation of corrective action. These technical control and internal control improvements will be made to improve security of the Consumer Center. 3. Follow- up Audit on Auction Physical Security at the Portals Site, (Report 02- AUD- 03- 11), March 4, 2003 On September 28, 1999, the OIG issued a report entitled, “Audit Report on the Auction Physical Security at the Portals Site.” In that report, OIG noted that significant technical and internal con-trol improvements could be made to improve the overall security of the Auctions site. The objective of the follow- up audit is to assess the Commission’s efforts to address audit ob-servations and recommendations that were in the original report. To accomplish these objectives, OIG contracted with the consulting firm Job Performance Sys-tems (JPS). All the findings in the original audit were reviewed. Each finding has been catego-rized by risk. The follow- up audit identified seven findings as open. Two have been identified as high risk, three as medium risk, and two as low risk. We recommended that the problems we identified be corrected to strengthen the Commission’s physical security program. Our recommendations will correct present problems and minimize future problems. OMD has either corrected the findings or outlined a plan of action to do so. We concur with OMD’s assessment of the findings. Audits 19 21 The results of our survey suggest that some changes may be needed. We recommend that a course be established for all employees to attend, that an employee awareness campaign be conducted, and that the Computer Security Officer make recommendations to OMD as to whether further action is necessary regarding a possible compromise of electronic information security. 6. Report on the Special Review of the E- Rate Program at Robeson County Public School System, (Report 02- AUD- 02- 04- 13), February 3, 2003 The objective of this review was to assess the beneficiary’s compliance with the rules and regu-lations of the USF program and to identify areas in which to improve the program. Robeson County Public School System is located in a rural region in North Carolina. The review encom-passed the period from July 1, 1999 to June 30, 2000 ( Funding Year 2 of the program) and evaluated the expenditure of $8,828,413 in funding disbursements. The scope of this review was to test compliance with specific program requirements. The review found the beneficiary was compliant with the program requirements and found no material control weaknesses relative to the program. 7. Report on Special Review of the E- Rate Program at Wake County Public School System, (Report 02- AUD- 04- 14), February 5, 2003 The objective of this special review was to assess the beneficiary’s compliance with the rules and regulations of the USF program and to identify opportunities to improve the program. The Wake County Public School System is located in Raleigh, North Carolina. The review encom-passed the period of July 1, 1999 to June 30, 2000 (Funding Year 2 of the program) and evalu-ated the expenditure of $842,225 in funding disbursements. Based on the results of our review, the auditors have concluded that the Wake County Public Schools System is compliant with the requirements of the program for the funding year reviewed. IV. Work- In- Process— Reports on the following audits were not completed as of the date of the publication of this report. 1. Physical Security at the Commission’s Gettysburg, PA Facility The objective of this audit is to identify vulnerabilities and opportunities for improvements in physical security posture at the Commission’s facility in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania. 2. Audit of RAMIS Application Controls The objective of this audit is to determine the extent and effectiveness of application controls in RAMIS. RAMIS is the Commission’s system of record for revenue transactions, and is the Audits 21 27 The OIG initiated an inquiry into allegations that the Commission had failed to respond to a citi-zen’s Freedom of Information (FOIA) request. Through investigation, it was determined that a partial response was made to the citizen and a complete response was not made due to an oversight. A complete response was subsequently made. Accordingly, the OIG found no evi-dence of employee misconduct and the matter was closed. The OIG initiated an investigation into allegations that a Commission employee has improperly used his computer workstation to access pornographic and other non- work related sites. The matter is currently pending. The OIG continues to coordinate and provide assistance to law enforcement entities with re-spect to investigations pertaining to infractions within the Universal Service Fund program of the Commission. Investigations 27 30 Report Fraud, Waste or Abuse to: Office of the Inspector General Federal Communications Commission CALL Hotline: (202) 418 - 0473 or (888) 863 - 2244 www. fcc. gov/ oig You are always welcome to write or visit. Federal Communications Commission Portals II Building 445 12th St., S. W. - Room #2- C762 IG Hotline 30 31 The following summarizes the Office of Inspector General response to the 12 specific re-porting requirements set forth in Section 5( a) of the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended. 1. A description of significant problems, abuses, and deficiencies relating to the administration of programs and operations of such establishment disclosed by such activities during the reporting period. Refer to the section of the semiannual report entitled “Universal Service Fund” on pages two through ten. 2. A description of the recommendations for corrective action made by the Office during the reporting period with respect to significant problems, abused, or deficiencies identified pur-suant to paragraph (1). Refer to the section of the semiannual report entitled “Universal Service Fund” on pages two through ten. 3. An identification of each significant recommendation described in previous semiannual re-ports on which corrective action has not yet been completed. No significant recommendations remain outstanding. 4. A summary of matters referred to authorities, and the prosecutions and convictions which have resulted. Two cases associated with the Commission’s Universal Service Program have been referred to the Department of Justice. 5. A summary of each report made to the head of the establishment under section (6)( b)( 2) during the reporting period. No report was made to the Chairman of the FCC under section (6)( b)( 2) during the reporting period. 6. A listing, subdivided according to subject matter, of each audit report issued by the Office during the reporting period, and for each audit report, where applicable, the total dollar value of questioned costs (including a separate category for the dollar value of unsupported costs) and the dollar value of recommendations that funds be put to better use. Each audit report issued during the reporting period is listed according to subject matter and described in part II, above. Specific Reporting Requirements of the Inspector Specific Reporting Requirements of the Inspector General Act General Act 31 32 7. A summary of each particularly significant report. Each significant audit and investigative report issued during the reporting period is summarized within the body of this report. 8. Statistical tables showing the total number of audit reports with questioned costs and the to-tal dollar value of questioned costs. The required statistical table can be found at Table I to this report. 9. Statistical tables showing the total number of audit reports with recommendations that funds be put to better use and the total dollar value of such recommendations. The required statistical table can be found at Table II to this report. 10. A summary of each audit report issued before the commencement of the reporting period for which no management decision has been made by the end of the reporting period (including the date and title of each such report), an explanation of the reasons why such a manage-ment decision has not been made, and a statement concerning the desired timetable for achieving a management decision on each such report. No audit reports fall within this category. 11. A description and explanation of the reasons for any significant revised management deci-sion made during the reporting period. No management decisions fall within this category. 12. Information concerning any significant management decision with which the Inspector Gen-eral is in disagreement. No management decisions fall within this category. Specific Reporting Requirements of the Inspector Specific Reporting Requirements of the Inspector General Act General Act 32 33 Table I. OIG Reports With Questioned Costs OIG Reports With Questioned Costs Inspector General Reports With Questioned Costs Number of Re-ports Ques-tioned Costs Unsup-ported Costs A. For which no management decision has been made by the commencement of the reporting period. 1 - $253,453 B. Which were issued during the reporting period - - - Subtotals (A + B) 1 - $253,453 C. For which a management decision was made during the reporting period. - - - (i) Dollar value of disallowed costs - - - (ii) Dollar value of costs allowed - - - D. For which no management decision has been made by the end of the report-ing period. 1 - $253,453 Reports for which no management deci- sion was made within six months of is-suance. 1 - $253,453 33 34 Table II. OIG Audit Reports With Recommendations That OIG Audit Reports With Recommendations That Funds Be Put To Better Use Funds Be Put To Better Use Inspector General Reports With Recom-mendations That Funds Be Put To Bet-ter Use Number of Reports Dollar Value A. For which no management decision has been made by the commence-ment of the reporting period. - - B. Which were issued during the report-ing period. - - Subtotals (A + B) - - C. For which a management decision was made during the reporting pe-riod. - - (i) Dollar value of recommendations that were agreed to by manage-ment. - - - Based on proposed management action. - - - Based on proposed legislative ac-tion. - - (ii) Dollar value of recommendations that were not agreed to by man-agement. - - D. For which no management decision has been made by the end of the re-porting period. - - For which no management decision was made within six months of issu-ance. - - 34