[Final Evaluation Report on the Department of the Interior Working Capital Fund]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

Report No. 2003-I-0056

Title: Final Evaluation Report on the Department of the Interior
       Working Capital Fund

Date:  June 16, 2003

**********DISCLAIMER********** 
This file contains an ASCII representation of an OIG report. No attempt has been made to display graphic images or illustrations. Some tables may be included, but may not resemble those in the printed version. A printed copy of this report may be obtained by referring to the PDF file or by calling the Office of Inspector General, Division of Acquisition and Management Operations at (202) 219-3841. 
******************************

June 16, 2003

Memorandum

To:	Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management and Budget

From: 	William J. Dolan, Jr.
	Regional Audit Manager, Eastern Region

Subject:	Final Evaluation Report on the Department of the Interior Working Capital Fund (No. 2003-I-0056) 

This report presents the results of our evaluation of the Department of the Interior's Working Capital Fund (WCF) program activity.  We performed the evaluation at the request of the Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies.  

The Department uses the WCF to provide common administrative services to Bureaus and offices within the Department and to other federal agencies.  Our main findings were that the WCF had accumulated a $20 million surplus as of September 30, 2001, had not established authorized reserves, and had deficiencies in its billing process.  The Department needs to determine the amounts necessary to fund authorized reserves and could use a portion of the surplus for this purpose.

In the May 30, 2003, response to our draft report, the Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management and Budget concurred with the report's nine recommendations.  However, the response did not provide sufficient information for us to consider recommendation 6 resolved.  Accordingly, we request that you provide the additional information requested in Appendix 4.  Please provide a response to Mr. Roger LaRouche, Assistant Inspector General for Audits, (MS 5341-MIB) by July 18, 2003.

The legislation, as amended, creating the Office of Inspector General, (5 U.S.C. App. 3) requires semiannual reporting to Congress on all audit reports issued, actions taken to implement audit recommendations, and recommendations that have not been implemented.  Therefore, this report will be included in our next semiannual report.

We appreciate the cooperation exhibited by the WCF staff and compliment them for taking timely actions to address the issues brought to their attention during our review.    If you have any questions regarding this report, please contact me at (703) 487-8011.

cc:	Audit Liaison Officer, National Business Center























This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Executive Summary
Department of the Interior Working Capital Fund

The Department of the Interior (DOI or Department) established the Working Capital Fund (WCF) in 1950 to finance common support services - such as accounting and contracting - for the Department and its bureaus and offices, as well as other federal departments and agencies.  The fund is replenished through billing these federal entities for services provided.

The WCF finances the operations of the National Business Center (NBC), which provides products and services; the Office of Aircraft Services (OAS), which operates all aircraft activities; and other DOI management activities such as the Office of the Chief Information Officer, which are provided by the Departmental offices.  

In an attempt to standardize procedures and simplify operations, the Department merged three of its service centers into the NBC in 1999. During our evaluation, however, we found that NBC continues to operate as three separate components with some of its original redundancies.  

Other concerns disclosed by our evaluation are summarized below:

* The WCF accumulated a $20 million surplus as of September 30, 2001.  Key WCF officials were unaware of this surplus prior to our evaluation.

* The NBC planned to increase prices to fund six reserves, four of which we believe are not authorized.  In addition, the planned price increases did not consider the $20 million surplus.

* WCF financial data did not provide enough information to determine whether specific product lines were making or losing money.

* The WCF was used to fund activities provided by offices that also received direct appropriations.

* The WCF did not provide sufficient information to customers to facilitate budgeting.

We did find, however, that credit card rebates, which are collected and managed through the WCF, were used for authorized activities in accordance with legislative intent.

We made nine recommendations to improve departmental management and the National Business Center Working Capital Fund operations.









Contents

Page

	Introduction	1
		Background	1
		Objective and Scope	2
	
	Results of Evaluation	3
		Surplus of $20 Million	3
		Reserves	6
		Bureau Charges	7
		Information to DOI Customers	9
		Authorized Activities and Credit Card Rebates	10

	Recommendations	11

Office of Assistant Secretary, Policy, Management and Budget Response and Office of Inspector General Reply	13

Appendices
			1.  NBC Products and Services	17
			2.  Methodology and Prior Audit Coverage	19
			3.  Response to the Draft Audit Report...........................21
			4.  Status of Recommendations....................................33
			









































This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Introduction

The Working Capital Fund (WCF) was created1 to provide common administrative and support services efficiently and economically at cost to the bureaus and offices of the Department of the Interior (DOI) and other Federal agencies.  The WCF is a revolving fund, which is replenished by revenues received from customers who are billed for the costs of services provided.

The WCF finances the operation of the National Business Center (NBC), which provides products and services; the Office of Aircraft Services (OAS)2, which operates all aircraft activities; and departmental management activities, which are provided by the Departmental offices.  The NBC was formed in fiscal year (FY) 1999 with the merger of the Interior Service Center, located in Washington, D.C.; the Washington Administrative Service Center, located in Reston, VA; and the Denver Administrative Service Center, located in Denver, CO.  The NBC is the principal service provider, offering 28 products and services to its customers (see Appendix 1).
As shown in Figure 1, estimated revenue for the WCF for FY 2002 was $473 million, 72 percent from NBC services, 23 percent from OAS, and 5 percent from departmental management activities.

The original authorizing legislation limited the WCF to performing work and accepting payment from only Federal sources.  In FY 2000, however, the DOI was authorized to retain rebates earned through its purchase card program.  This authority became permanent in FY 2001.  These rebates, estimated at $6 million for FY 2002, were deposited into the WCF to fund administrative management projects of general benefit to the DOI's bureaus and offices.  These projects were evaluated and prioritized in consultation with the DOI's Management Initiative Team3, which earmarks the funds for the highest priority projects.  Also, in FY 2001, the WCF was authorized to rent meeting space within the Main Interior Complex to the private sector.

The objective of our evaluation was to determine whether the WCF charged DOI entities and other government agencies equitably and consistently.  We also wanted to determine whether customers were provided with sufficient information to plan and budget for WCF charges; whether WCF charges were used for allowable activities; and whether credit card rebates were used appropriately. 

The scope of our evaluation included a review of WCF procedures for establishing written policies and procedures, including performance goals and measures for fiscal years 2001 and 2002.  The Office of Aircraft Services (OAS) was excluded from our review because the General Accounting Office recently conducted an audit of the OAS and issued a report in April 2002.

The methodology of our evaluation and prior audit/evaluation coverage are detailed in Appendix 2.



Results of Evaluation

Improvements are needed in the administration of the WCF.  Specifically, we found that:

* Key WCF officials were unaware of an accumulated $20 million surplus as of September 30, 2001.

* The WCF did not establish authorized reserves for accumulated annual leave and equipment replacement.  Furthermore, the NBC planned to implement four other reserves within the WCF, which we believe are not authorized, and then planned to raise prices to fund all six reserves.

* The WCF was used to fund activities provided by offices that also received direct appropriations.

* The WCF did not provide a sufficient level of transparency in supplying information to customers.

Despite these weaknesses, the WCF appropriately charged customers for allowable activities such as budget, procurement, personnel management, finance, and accounting services.  In addition, the WCF's exceptional operation of the bankcard rebate program maximized purchase card rebates awarded to the Department.  As a result, the WCF collected $6 million in rebates used to fund activities such as diversity initiatives and information technology security.     

The WCF had accumulated a $20 million surplus as of September 30, 2001.  WCF officials were unaware of this surplus prior to our evaluation.  An analysis shows that approximately $17 million of the surplus was accumulated prior to the organizational merger in 1999, and an additional $3 million was accumulated in FYs 2000 and 2001. Since the WCF tracks revenue and expenses by billing type, we found that DOI bureaus accounted for approximately $14 million, or 70 percent, of the $20 million surplus.  DOI officials were unable to provide an explanation or analysis of the surplus.  In the absence of any other credible explanation afforded by the Department, we believe that charging customers for more than the cost of delivering services may have been the principle cause of the surplus.  We also found instances where customers were charged less than the cost of delivering services.  We attribute this overcharging and undercharging to an accounting system that cannot track costs and revenues by products and services and the lack of a standard billing process.

The WCF uses the Department's Federal Financial System (FFS) to record its revenue and expenses.  Although the FFS contains data to track revenue and expenses by billing type, it does not contain detailed data to do the same by products and services.  Lacking accurate cost information on its business lines, the WCF cannot identify which of its products and services are losing money and, therefore, cannot determine whether to increase prices or eliminate products and services.  A report prepared for management by the WCF's Cost Accounting Team stated that "the current accounting structure, current accounting application, and current procedures for recording employee time and attendance would not be adequate to support Activity Based Costing."  Management recognizes these weaknesses in the accounting system and will need to address them before implementing an Activity Based Costing system.

The WCF does not have a standardized billing process.  Although the WCF merged its service centers in 1999, it continues to function as three separate organizations using three separate billing methods:  

* Direct Billing - Services, such as printing orders, are billed through a time and materials reimbursable support agreement.  This method is used to bill customers outside the department. 

* Centralized Billing - Services, such as building security, are billed at fixed prices.  This method is used to bill DOI customers.

* Fee for Service - Services are billed at pre-established unit costs.  For example, payroll is billed on a price per W-2.  This method is used to bill DOI customers and customers outside of the department.







Although revenue from direct billing (customers outside the department) was similar to revenue from centralized billing (DOI customers), DOI customers paid the majority of the surplus, as shown in Figure 2.  


We determined that the billing method used to charge DOI customers is based on estimates that are adjusted infrequently, whereas bills sent to customers outside the department are more closely related to actual costs.

In addition to using three different billing methods, the WCF is inconsistent in recovering administrative costs.  Some billings did not include a charge for administrative costs, others charged a predetermined amount for administration, and still others used an administrative (indirect cost) rate.  In cases where a rate was used, the WCF could not determine whether the rate effectively recovered administrative costs.  

These problems occurred because the WCF had not developed and implemented a single set of policies and procedures for billing customers and recovering administrative costs.  Examples of billing errors noted during our review include: 

* The WCF charged mail and messenger services to the Advisory Council for Historic Preservation in the Main Interior Building in FY 2002.  Although the Council had occupied space in the Main Interior Building at one time, it had moved its offices to another location during FY 2001. 

* The WCF charged DOI bureaus and offices differently than external clients for its drug-testing program.  The WCF charged its external clients an administrative fee that it did not charge the DOI bureaus.

* The WCF charged only DOI bureaus and offices for the costs of updating a financial accounting system problem.  These costs should have been charged equally to all WCF customers that benefited from the updated system.

* The WCF charged customers for automated data processing based on outdated usage information.


The WCF had not established authorized4 reserves for accrued annual leave and equipment replacement.  Instead, the WCF financed these costs through current operations.  During the evaluation, WCF officials informed us that they planned to establish six reserves - the two specifically authorized by legislation and four others for research and development, capital investment, contingencies, and shut down.  To finance the six reserves, the WCF plans to increase prices to its customers by $38 million over a 5-year period.  

In response to our concerns about the four additional reserves, WCF officials obtained an opinion from the Office of the Solicitor (SOL).  The SOL opined that reserves were not limited to those specifically identified in the authorizing legislation for accrued annual leave and depreciation of equipment, but also may encompass other reserves.  The OIG Office of General Counsel (OGC) disagreed with the SOL analysis.  OGC found the purpose of the fund and those reserves that may be collected by the WCF are restricted by the precise language found in 43 U.S.C.ï¿½ï¿½ 1467 and 1468.

We contacted the Departments of the Treasury, State, and Justice to inquire about the reserves they established for their working capital fund operations.  These agencies either established reserves only for costs that are specifically authorized by legislation, or they annually funded the costs through current operations.  The results of our inquiries are summarized below:

* The Department of the Treasury is authorized to establish reserves for accrued annual leave and depreciation of plant and equipment.  It has not, however, established any reserves for these items and recovers these costs through current operations.  Also, excess revenues over expenditures (surplus) are returned to their customers. 

* The Department of State is authorized to establish reserves for accrued annual leave and depreciation of plant and equipment.  However, the Department of State funds these costs through current operations.  If the fund collects too much money, it reduces the rates charged for services in the succeeding year.

* The Department of Justice is authorized and has established reserves for depreciation of plant and equipment, improvement and implementation of the Department's financial management and payroll/personnel systems, and development and implementation of law enforcement or litigation related automated data processing systems.

We believe that the WCF should (1) establish reserves only for accrued annual leave and equipment replacement, as authorized, (2) determine the amounts necessary to fund each reserve, and (3) fund the authorized reserves with part of its $20 million surplus before considering price increases.


The WCF charged the bureaus $12 million for departmental management activities.  These charges, which are separate from the NBC, were in addition to $71 million appropriated by the Congress.  We raise this issue because it appears to conflict with appropriation language, which states that "no programs funded with appropriated funds in the Departmental Management ... may be augmented through the Working Capital Fund or the Consolidated Working Fund."  

Based on our review of budget justifications, we were able to identify charges of $8.5 million to bureaus and offices for specific activities that were also funded by direct appropriations of $8.8 million to Departmental management, as follows:


Amounts (In Millions)
Activity
Appropriation
Charges



Office of the CIO
$2.9
$5.5 
Risk & Public Safety
1.4
 1.5
Planning and Performance
 .4
  .7
Office of Communication
1.2
  .7
Office of Financial Mgt.
2.9
  .1



          Totals
$8.8
$8.5


	









DOI management officials believe that there is a distinction between the funding of policy and oversight [Department management] versus funding activities which are operational in nature.  They also believe these factors are clearly disclosed in the budget justifications for Departmental Management and the WCF.  They further advised that "in all likelihood, such services have existed since the inception of the fund in the 1950s."  Additionally, we were told that this method of funding was presented "with the [Appropriations] Committee's concurrence" in the 1997 budget justification, in conjunction with a reorganization of WCF activities.  The WCF, however, was unable to provide documentation to support this position. 

We do not believe the information is clearly disclosed in the budget justification.  For example, we reviewed the FY 2002 budget amounts pertaining to the program activities for the CIO contained in the FY 2003 budget justification for Departmental Management.  The budget justification identified a direct appropriation of $2.9 million.  It does not identify an additional $5.5 million, which the CIO will receive through WCF charges to the bureaus and offices. 

The budget for the WCF is presented 80 pages after the budget for the CIO and identifies activities, amounts, and full time equivalent (FTE) positions funded through the WCF for NBC, other WCF activities, and OAS.  For the other WCF activities, there are 18 individual activities totaling approximately  $12 million.  Some of the activities clearly related to information technology (IT), such as IT security and IT initiatives. However, the narrative descriptions of these and the other activities do not specify that any of them will be used to finance the operations of the CIO.  To identify the $5.5 million, one would have to determine which of the 18 activities (we later found that there are six) were funding the CIO. 
 
We believe that DOI officials should discuss this method of funding with the House and Senate Subcommittees on Appropriations for Interior and Related Agencies to ensure that all parties are clearly aware of how activities are funded and clarify future budget justifications.

The WCF does not provide a comprehensive report that identifies which services are mandatory or optional, the amount of the services being provided, or the methodology used to charge the bureaus.  The billings described only general categories and did not provide explanations for adjustments to initial cost estimates. For example, the Management and Technical Services Division is listed as a single line item in the WCF centralized billing.  We determined that this line item is actually charged as an administrative cost and consists of the Division Chief and Secretary, Planning and Performance Branch, Facilities Group, Logistics, Mail Room Group, and MSD Support Services. 

In another example, the centralized billing included a line item for Capital Planning without any description.  In response to our inquiry, WCF officials provided a document that states, "To comply with the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996, the agency must maintain a robust Information Technology Capital Planning and Investment Control program."  This does not describe to customers, however, what services they receive under Capital Planning.

Further, there was no distinction between optional and mandatory services.  As a result, the bureaus and offices could not make informed decisions regarding the nature of services available to them or determine whether or not they used or needed the services for which they were billed.  

The bureaus use the WCF's budget estimates to request appropriated funds.  If these estimates do not accurately represent future costs, the bureaus must fund the difference with funds allocated for other activities.  For example, in FY 2003, the WCF billed three DOI bureaus an additional  $2.2 million over original estimates:  the Office of the Secretary, $880,000; the National Park Service, $690,000; and the Bureau of Land Management, $614,000.  In order to compensate for this increase, the bureaus used funds allocated for other activities.  These increases have created skepticism and concern among the bureaus as to whether the WCF charges fairly.  As a result of our concerns, the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Budget initiated monthly meetings with DOI bureaus and offices to promote a new level of transparency.  

We did not identify any instances where the WCF charged bureaus and offices for activities that were not authorized.  
The WCF charged customers for allowable activities such as budget, procurement, personnel management, finance, and accounting.  In addition, the WCF's operation of the bankcard rebate program maximized purchase card rebates awarded to the Department.  We found that the credit card rebates were used for the general benefit of the bureaus.  Credit card rebates were $6 million for FY 2001 and are expected to be $6 million for FY 2002.  Projects funded from credit card rebates include diversity initiatives, payroll enhancements, audit support, and IT security.


Recommendations

To improve the WCF, we recommend that the Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management and Budget:

1. Implement a cost accounting system to track costs and revenues by product line.

2. Develop and implement written policies and procedures regarding recovery of costs by product lines to prevent over and under charging of customers.

3. Establish equitable administrative cost rates.

4. Establish reserves only as specified in authorizing legislation.  After appropriate financial analysis, set limits for the reserves.

5. Fund authorized reserves with existing surplus.

6. Discuss with the House and Senate Subcommittees on Appropriations for Interior and Related Agencies the current method of funding for and the clear disclosure of Departmental management activities in the budget justifications.

7. Use current data to provide customers with the most accurate information available.

8. Provide the bureaus with a list of services that are mandatory and those that are optional.

9. Provide a detailed explanation to the bureaus and offices when original billings are revised.  At a minimum, the explanation should include a justification for the revision and a description of additional services or enhancements to be provided.


























This Page Intentionally Left Blank





















 

Office of Assistant Secretary, Policy, Management and Budget Response and Office of Inspector General Reply

The May 30, 2003, response (Appendix 3) generally agreed with the nine recommendations.  The response also included suggested changes to the report and additional information that we considered and included as appropriate.  Although we included many of the suggested changes recommended by the response, there were three substantial changes that we did not make.  These changes addressed the use of the term "surplus," the establishment of reserves, and billing methods.  The Assistant Secretary's comments in these areas and our replies are summarized below.

Surplus
The response disagreed with our use of the term "surplus," requesting we delete the words entirely from the body of the report and Recommendation 5 and replace the term with "cumulative results of operations."  The response stated that surplus implies that the WCF contains cash in excess of the Department's needs.  In support of its position, the response stated:
. . . the report fails to mention that the audited financial statement indicates that nearly $17 million has been identified for equipment  depreciation and replacement. . . . Second, the $20 million "surplus" reported in the study only includes four sub-accounts which have positive values and did not consider the overall impact that a possible reduction in resources might have on the entire fund. . . . Finally, the report, of necessity, is based on funding levels reported at a given point in time.  Most of the data in the report is based on FY [fiscal year] 2001 end of year data, yet we are today operating in the eight month of FY 2003, some 20 months later.  


Describing the $20 million as a surplus is appropriate, notwithstanding that our calculation of the amount was based on an analysis of the WCF's fiscal year 2001 reported cumulative results of operations.  The WCF's reported cumulative results of operations for fiscal year 2001 totaled approximately $80 million.  We reduced the $80 million by amounts reported for unfunded liabilities (accrued annual leave) and for property, plant and equipment, which left a balance of $36.5 million.  This amount represents the excess of revenue over expenses that had accumulated since inception of the WCF.  We made further reductions related to revenues attributable to the credit card rebate program ($7 million) and to the Office of Aircraft Services ($12 million).  Finally, we added $2.1 million, representing excess WCF revenues over expenses for fiscal 2001, to the $17.5 million balance.  Calling this adjusted amount cumulative results of operations would be inaccurate because the $20 million surplus is attributed to only excess revenues over expenditures, whereas cumulative results of operations would additionally include unfunded liabilities and the capitalized value of equipment less depreciation.  

We did not reduce the $20 million by reported accumulated depreciation5 (approximately $14 million for fiscal year 2001) because accumulated depreciation does not directly relate to future equipment replacement needs.  The $14 million represents equipment costs that have been expensed in the current and prior years and has little relationship to the amount that should be established as a reserve. The NBC did not provide us with any information or analysis on future equipment replacement needs.  Equating accumulated depreciation to a reserve for equipment replacement is unrealistic because all capitalized equipment is depreciated, whereas, only some of the equipment will be replaced in a given year.  A reserve for annual equipment replacement would be a much lesser amount. Further, the WCF was paying for annual equipment replacement with funds recovered through customer billings.
 
Regarding the comment that our study included "only four sub-accounts which have positive values," we disagree.  Our analysis considered all funds that had a balance whether positive or negative.  

In regard to the period covered by our analysis, we used the most recent audited financial data (fiscal year 2001) that was available at the time of our review.  Subsequent to the completion of our analysis, the Department issued its annual financial report for fiscal year 2002.  Our review of audited financial data in the 2002 report notes that the WCF had accumulated an additional $2 million of excess revenue over expenditures. 


Establishment of Reserves
The response suggested we revise the report statement (page 6), "The WCF had not established authorized reserves for accrued annual leave and equipment replacement."  The response suggested we state, "WCF managers had not established an auditable process for reserves for equipment replacement."  The response noted that accrued annual leave is a liability of the WCF and has already been taken into account when arriving at cumulative results of operations.  To reserve any additional cash for this would constitute double counting.  It is an auditable process for legally allowed capital replacement reserves that is the missing piece.


At the time of our review, the WCF had not established reserves for accrued annual leave or equipment replacement because they were paid from current operations on an as needed basis. There was not an auditable process because the WCF had not established any reserve accounts. In fact, before we identified the $20 million, WCF officials informed us that they had not established any reserves for accumulated annual leave or equipment replacement.

We agree with the Assistant Secretary's response, that if the accrued annual leave liability is to be used as the reserve amount, a separate reserve should not be established.  However, this policy needs to be established and disclosed in the financial statements because we were unable to identify that accrued annual leave liability was included in the WCF's balance sheet for FY 2001 and FY 2002.    

If the WCF decides to fund equipment replacement through a reserve, an analysis would need to be performed to determine the cost of equipment that needs to be replaced.  The WCF would then need to identify this amount as a reserve in the financial statements.  The WCF should not use the accumulated depreciation amount included in the financial statements because it is an inflated amount that includes fully depreciated equipment still being used and equipment that will not be replaced until future years.


Billing Methods
The response requested that we delete the statement and related figure on page 5 of the report, "Although revenue from direct billing (customers outside the Department) was similar to revenue from centralized billing (DOI customers), DOI customers paid the majority of the surplus, as shown in figure 2."  The response stated that the revenue and expense by fund should be considered non-severable, especially for the four funds in this analysis.  Therefore, cumulative results of operations should not be considered separately.


We disagree with deleting the sentence as requested.  We believe that the three billing methods should be shown separately to demonstrate that there is a problem with the centralized billing method.  The statement in the report and related graph clearly show that payments made by DOI customers represent the majority of the surplus.  As stated previously, cumulative results of operations are comprised of a number of items.  This statement in the report concerns the portion of the cumulative results of operations that represents excess revenues over expenditures.  























p
Appendix 1
NBC Products and Services


* Accounting Operations
* Acquisition Services
* ADP Services
* Business Opportunities
* Contract Administration
* Creative Communication
      Services
* DOI University
* Drug & Alcohol Testing
* Electronic Commerce
* Employee & Public Services
* Enhanced Fixed Assets
* Performance Support Services                              
* Procurement Systems
* Quarters Programs

* Executive Information Services
* FHRIS
* Federal Financial System
* Federal Payroll System
* FPPS 2000
* Fiscal Services
* Hyperion Enterprise
* Independent Validation &
      Verification Services
* Legacy Plus 
* Momentum
* Organization Development
* T&A System
* Travel Manager
* Web Development & Hosting            






























This Page Intentionally Left Blank



















Appendix 2

Methodology and Prior Audit Coverage

Our evaluation was conducted in accordance with the President's Council on Integrity and Efficiency's Quality Standards for Inspections.  Accordingly, we conducted tests or reviews of records that we considered necessary under the circumstances.  We evaluated the internal controls over the WCF's administration and operation and found significant weaknesses relating to the lack of policies and procedures affecting the control environment.

We reviewed the Department's fiscal year 2001 Government Performance and Results Act annual performance report and determined that none of the goals and measures were related to our objective.

In addition, we reviewed relevant financial reports on the WCF billings and budgetary reports for FYs 2000 and 2001 and contacted selected Departments that had WCFs to determine what, if any, reserves they maintained.

We performed site visits in Washington, D.C., Reston, VA, and Denver, CO.

We found that the OIG had not performed an audit on the Department of the Interior's Working Capital Fund in the last 5 years.  We did find that the General Accounting Office had issued a report dated April 2002 on the Office of Aircraft Services.  The report stated that the OAS has not fully recovered the costs associated with the aviation program.  From fiscal years 1997 through 2000, OAS had charged bureaus about $4 million less than actual costs.  GAO has not issued a report on the Department of the Interior Working Capital Fund in the last 5 years.
























This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Response to Draft Report















































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































Status of Recommendations

Recommendations
Status
Action Required

1,2,3,4,5,7,8 and 9

Resolved, Not
implemented

No further response to the Office of Inspector General is necessary.  The recommendations will be referred to the Department's Audit Followup Official for tracking of implementation.

6

Management concurs; additional information needed

Provide an action plan, including a target date and the title of the official responsible for seeking clarification from the House and Senate Subcommittees on Appropriations.


















































This Page Intentionally Left Blank
1 43 U.S.C. ï¿½ 1467 authorized the creation of the working capital fund in the Department of the Interior.

2 OAS merged with the NBC in FY 2002.

3 The Management Initiative Team is made up of representatives from each DOI bureau.  Its role is to recommend projects to be funded with bank card rebates to the Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management and Budget.

4 43 U.S.C. ï¿½ 1467 states that the "fund shall be reimbursed from available funds of bureaus, offices, and agencies for which services are performed at rates which will return in full all expenses of operation, including reserves for accrued annual leave and depreciation of equipment."

5 The accumulated depreciation account is used to accumulate the depreciation to date for all capital assets less those that were sold, traded or scrapped.
                                           ??



i







 





i




1