- -

OF 

INSPECTOR GENERAL 

U.S.DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

INSPECTION

Big Bend National Park 

Mismanaged More Than 

$250,000 in 

Equipment Purchases

Report No.: 2019-ER-042 February 2020
OFFICE OF 

INSPECTOR GENERAL 

U.S.DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Memorandum 

To: David Vela 

Deputy Director Exercising the Authority of Director for the National Park 

Service 

From: Mark L. Greenblatt q ) Inspector General U 

Subject: Final Inspection Report - Big Bend National Park Mismanaged More Than 

$250,000 in Equipment Purchases 

Report No. 2019-ER-042 

This report presents the results of our inspection of purchases made during fiscal years 

(FYs) 2013 and 2015 at Big Bend National Park in Southwest Texas. We initiated this inspection 

after receiving information that the park purchased air conditioning units and shade shelters and 

never installed them. Attachment 1 provides our scope and methodology. 

Our objective was to determine the facts and circumstances surrounding the reported 

information. We found that the park purchased 22 air conditioning units and 26 shade shelters 

that it never installed, a total of more than $250,000 that could have been put to better use (see 

Attachment 2 for monetary impact). Given the park's reported nearly $90 million in deferred 

maintenance, this raises concerns about the management of these funds. 

Background 

In April 2019, we received information that funds may have been misspent at the park 

during FY s 2013 and 2015; specifically, that the park purchased, but never installed, air 

conditioning units and shade shelters, leaving them instead in warehouses or outdoor storage 

areas. We referred the reported information to the National Park Service (NPS), which conducted 

an independent review. 1 

Park Mismanaged More Than $250,000 Worth of Equipment 

We found that during FYs 2013 and 2015, the Big Bend Facilities Management 

department purchased 22 heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HV AC) units and 26 shade 

shelters. Though the Facilities Management department followed appropriate procurement 

procedures when purchasing these items, it never installed them once received at the park. 2 The 

cost of the HVAC units purchased totaled $140,117 and the shade shelters totaled $115,000. 

1 The NPS review addressed broader issues of mismanagement in addition to the specific items in the scope of this inspection. 

The NPS findings were consistent with the results of our inspection. 

2 The facilities manager claimed to have installed two of the HY AC units but provided no support to prove the installation. 

Office of Inspector General | Washington, DC
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

More than $140,000 in HVAC Units Sit Idle in Warehouses and Open Lots 

In FY 2013, park officials purchased 4 HVAC units costing a total of $27,426, and in FY 

2014 the park purchased an additional 18 units costing a total of $112,691. These units, 

purchased 5 to 6 years ago, have sat unused in various indoor (warehouses) and outdoor (open 

lots) locations around the park, despite the project’s purchase justification, which states, “the 

extreme temperatures and sunlight exposure necessitate regular replacement of the heating and 

cooling systems.” See Figure 1. 

Figure 1: Unused HVAC Units Outdoors and in a Warehouse in 2019 

Source: OIG 

While the park facilities manager told us that the units still meet U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency refrigerant rules and could still be installed on the residences for which they 

were intended, we question both the necessity of the initial purchases and the viability of units 

that have sat unmaintained, and in some cases exposed to the elements, for 5 or more years. We 

asked why they were never installed if the units are still usable for their intended purpose, and 

the facilities manager told us that she was hesitant to replace units while the old ones still 

worked, further calling into question the need for the purchases. 

Finally, we noted that in the Project Management Information System (PMIS), which the 

NPS uses to justify and track certain facilities-related projects, the HVAC projects were all 

marked as completed. Final comments on individual projects included statements such as, “work 

completed-new units!!!” and “new energy efficient units!!!” The former superintendent certified 

these projects as complete in the PMIS, but there is no indication of any oversight or review of 

their actual completeness other than the former park superintendent’s digital signature. 

$115,000 in Shade Shelters Remain Uninstalled 

We also confirmed that the park purchased 26, 12-foot by 20-foot shade shelters for 

$115,000 as part of an overall campground rehabilitation project and did not install them. Park 

staff explained they could not install the shelters themselves, and that other aspects of the 

2 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

campground rehabilitation, such as filling and grading for erosion control, exhausted funds that 

otherwise could have been used to construct the shelters. 

Park staff purchased the shelters in FY 2015 and marked the overall rehabilitation project 

as completed in FY 2018. The PMIS completion description included the statement that “[n]ew 

shade structures and picnic tables were purchased,” with no mention that the materials for the 

structures were in bundles on the ground rather than installed as planned (see Figure 2). The 

former superintendent digitally signed off on the completion report in the PMIS, but there is no 

indication of further oversight. While the shade shelters are intended for outdoor use and as such 

may still be usable, they cannot fulfill their intended purpose of protecting visitors from harsh 

weather conditions until installed. 

Figure 2: Shade Shelter Frames in 2019 Still Uninstalled Since FY 2015 

Source: OIG 

We asked the facilities manager if she had solicited any bids for installation, and she said 

she had sought “ballpark quotes” from companies that were onsite for the other portions of the 

rehabilitation project. She could not provide records of any solicitation. 

Conclusion and Recommendations 

The failure to install major equipment purchases for more than 5 years highlights 

problems presented by inadequate management oversight of park personnel with the authority to 

make major facilities-related decisions. More than $250,000 could have been put to better use, 

addressing more immediate deferred maintenance needs or other park priorities. Instead, the park 

used the funds to purchase equipment that, even if there was an immediate need, went unused in 

3 
 

 

 

 

warehouses and outdoor lots exposed to the elements for years, providing none of their intended 

benefits to the park, its staff, or its visitors. 

We recommend that Big Bend National Park: 

1. Develop and implement plans to increase management oversight of major facilities

projects

2. Develop and implement a plan for the use or disposition of the equipment purchased

to address the $255,117 in funds that could have been put to better use

Please provide us with your written response to this report by March 6, 2020. The 

response should provide information on the actions you have taken or planned to address the 

recommendations, as well as target dates and titles of the officials responsible for implementing 

these actions. Please send your response to aie_reports@doioig.gov. 

The legislation creating the Office of Inspector General requires that we report to

Congress semiannually on all audit, inspection, and evaluation reports issued; actions taken to 

implement our recommendations; and recommendations that have not been implemented. 

If you have any questions regarding this inspection report, please contact me at 

202-208-5745.

Attachments (2)

4 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 1 

Scope, Objective, and Methodology 

Scope and Objective 

We inspected purchases of air conditioning units and shade shelters at Big Bend National 

Park in Southwest Texas during fiscal years 2013 and 2015. Our objective was to determine if 

the information we received about funds being misspent were founded. 

Methodology 

We conducted our inspection in accordance with the Quality Standards for Inspection and 

Evaluation as put forth by the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency. We 

believe that the work performed provides a reasonable basis for our conclusions and 

recommendations. 

To accomplish our objective, we: 

• Gained an understanding of the claim we received about misspent funds at Big Bend

National Park

• Interviewed park maintenance staff

• Interviewed the park’s facilities manager

• Interviewed the current park superintendent and chief of administration

• Reviewed and analyzed purchase orders, project management reports, and other

pertinent documentation associated with the purchases

• Requested and received photographs of the uninstalled equipment and other

documentation from park management 

We relied on data provided by the National Park Service to conduct this inspection. 

5 
 

Funds To Be Put To Better Use 

Fiscal 

Year 

Equipment Number 

Type Purchased Value ($) 

2013 HVAC units 4 27,426 

2014 HVAC units 18 112,691 

2015 Shade shelters 26 115,000 

Total: $255,117 

Attachment 2 

6 
Report Fraud, Waste,

and Mismanagement

Fraud, waste, and mismanagement in

Government concern everyone: Office 

of Inspector General staff, departmental 

employees, and the general public. We 

actively solicit allegations of any 

inefficient and wasteful practices, fraud, 

and mismanagement related to 

departmental or Insular Area programs 

and operations. You can report 

allegations to us in several ways.

 By Internet: www.doioig.gov

 By Phone: 24-Hour Toll Free: 800-424-5081

Washington Metro Area: 202-208-5300

 By Fax: 703-487-5402

 By Mail: U.S. Department of the Interior

Office of Inspector General

Mail Stop 4428 MIB

1849 C Street, NW.

Washington, DC 20240