Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
EPA IG report on Cascade Sierra Solutions

EPA IG report on Cascade Sierra Solutions

Ratings: (0)|Views: 1,834|Likes:
Published by Lachlan Markay

More info:

Published by: Lachlan Markay on Sep 12, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

09/12/2012

pdf

text

original

 
 
U.S.
 
ENVIRONMENTAL
 
PROTECTION
 
AGENCY
 
OFFICE
 
OF
 
INSPECTOR
 
GENERAL
 
Examination of Costs ClaimedUnder EPA CooperativeAgreement 2A-83440701 AwardedUnder the Recovery Act toCascade Sierra Solutions,Eugene, Oregon
Report No. 12-R-0749 September 4, 2012
Scan this code tolearn more aboutthe EPA OIG.
 
 
Report Contributors:
Michael OwenDarren SchorerJohn BurnsEileen Collins
Abbreviations
CA Cooperative AgreementCARB California Air Resources BoardCFR Code of Federal RegulationsCSS Cascade Sierra SolutionsDERA Diesel Emissions Reduction ActEPA U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyFY Fiscal yearFTE Full-time equivalentMY Model yearOIG Office of Inspector GeneralOMB Office of Management and BudgetRecovery Act American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
Cover photo:
Example of an EPA certified SmartWay tractor. (EPA photo)
Hotline
To report fraud, waste, or abuse, contact us through one of the following methods:e-mail:
write:
EPA Inspector General Hotline
phone:fax:
1-888-546-8740202-566-25991200 Pennsylvania Avenue NWMailcode 2431T
online:
 
 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
12-R-0749September 4, 2012
Office of Inspector General
At a Glance
Why We Did This Review
The U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency (EPA),Office of Inspector General,reviewed the amounts drawnby Cascade Sierra Solutions(CSS) under CooperativeAgreement (CA) 2A-83440701.The purpose of the audit was todetermine whether CSScomplied with federalrequirements and terms andconditions for Diesel EmissionReduction Act grants orcooperative agreementsawarded under the AmericanRecovery and ReinvestmentAct of 2009 (Recovery Act).EPA awarded the CA to CSS inAugust 2009 under theRecovery Act. The CA provides$9 million to create a revolvingloan program for heavy dutydiesel trucks to save fuel andreduce emissions.
This report addresses thefollowing EPA Goal or Cross-Cutting Strategy:
 
Taking action on climate change and improving air quality 
For further information, contactour Office of Congressional andPublic Affairs at (202) 566-2391.The full report is at:www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2012/
 
Examination of Costs Claimed Under EPACooperative Agreement 2A-83440701 Awarded Under the Recovery Act toCascade Sierra Solutions, Eugene, Oregon 
 
What We Found
CSS’ financial management system did not support that funds drawn arereasonable, allocable, and allowable in accordance with applicable laws,regulations, and CA terms and conditions. In particular, CSS’:
 
Financial management system pertaining to cash draws, revolving fundaccounting, project costs, and progress reporting does not meet therequirements of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) under 40 CFRPart 30 and 2 CFR Part 230, and the CA.
 
Procurements did not meet competition or cost and price analysisrequirements of 40 CFR Part 30, the recipient’s procurement policy, orCA requirements.
 
Reporting of the number of jobs created or retained with Recovery Actfunds did not comply with Office of Management and Budget guidance.As a result, we are unable to provide an opinion on the financial resources,related liabilities, revenue, expenses, and residual balances of the CA-fundedrevolving loan program. Therefore, we have questioned the $9 million drawnunder the CA as unallowable costs.
Recommendations and Planned Agency Corrective Actions
We recommend that the Director for the Office of Grants and Debarment disallowand recover $9 million in questioned costs; consider suspension and debarmentof CSS on current and future awards; require CSS to ensure that the use of fundsmeets federal criteria; require special conditions for future awards to CSS; andprovide clarifying guidance to CSS on progress reporting requirements. We alsorecommend that the Director require CSS to comply with pertinent procurementrequirements; disallow pre-2007 model year trucks as project costs; and assistCSS with developing a methodology to calculate number of jobs created anddirect CSS to correct the numbers reported, with documentation. The Agencygenerally agreed with the findings and said that it has initiated corrective actionsto address some of the weaknesses identified in the report. CSS disagreed withmost of the findings and two of the recommendations. CSS partially agreed withone recommendation and neither agreed nor disagreed with sixrecommendations. CSS described actions planned to document compliance withEPA procurement regulations and is willing to work with EPA on developing aRecovery Act job reporting methodology.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->