Scan this mobile 

code to learn more

about the EPA OIG.

EPA Compliance With 

Retention Incentive 

Regulations and Policies 

Report No. 14-P-0245 May 2, 2014

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Report Contributors: Leah Nikaidoh

Darren Schorer

Catherine B. Allen

Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

DFAS Defense Finance and Accounting Service

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

HR Human Resource

HRO Human Resources Officer

OHR Office of Human Resources

OIG Office of Inspector General

OPM Office of Personnel Management

Hotline Suggestions for Audits or Evaluations

To report fraud, waste or abuse, contact us 

through one of the following methods:

To make suggestions for audits or evaluations, 

contact us through one of the following methods:

email:

phone:

fax:

online:

write:

OIG_Hotline@epa.gov

1-888-546-8740

1-202-566-2599

http://www.epa.gov/oig/hotline.htm

EPA Inspector General Hotline 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Mailcode 2431T

Washington, DC 20460

email:

phone:

fax:

online:

write:

OIG_WEBCOMMENTS@epa.gov

1-202-566-2391

1-202-566-2599

http://www.epa.gov/oig/contact.html#Full_Info

EPA Inspector General 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Mailcode 2410T

Washington, DC 20460
 

 14-P-0245

May 2, 2014

Why We Did This Review

On August 27, 2013, a member 

of the U.S. Senate Committee 

on Environment and Public 

Works requested that the 

U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA), Office of 

Inspector General (OIG),

initiate work in connection with 

a fraud committed by John C. 

Beale, a former Senior Policy 

Advisor with the EPA’s Office of 

Air and Radiation. In particular, 

the committee member asked

the OIG to determine EPA

policies and processes that 

“facilitated” Beale’s fraud.

Although the EPA authorized 

retention incentive pay to Beale 

until 2003, the agency

continued to make retention 

incentive payments to him until 

2013.

This report addresses the 

following EPA theme:

 Embracing EPA as a high 

performing organization.

For further information, 

contact our public affairs office 

at (202) 566-2391.

The full report is at:

www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2014/ 

20140502-14-P-0245.pdf

EPA Compliance With Retention Incentive 

Regulations and Policies 

 What We Found

The EPA did not comply with Office of Personnel 

Management regulations or agency policies on 

retention incentive pay. From 2006 through 2013, 

retention incentives were paid to 13 EPA 

employees totaling $667,376. Eleven employees 

received retention incentive pay totaling $481,819. 

For 10 of the employees, no documentation of the required annual 

recertification was available. One employee received retention incentive pay for 

4 years beyond the date of a promotion. 

EPA employees received unauthorized retention pay due to:

 Agency and management confusion over the requirement for annual 

recertification of retention incentive pay.

 The agency’s human resource system lacking internal controls to track, 

notify and automatically discontinue retention incentive pay if not properly 

authorized.

 Lack of follow-up by the EPA’s Office of Human Resources regarding 

coding errors for terminated retention incentives.

 Lack of follow-up by EPA managers and employees regarding the status of 

outstanding actions being processed by the EPA’s Office of Human 

Resources.

Recommendations and Agency Corrective Actions

We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for Administration and 

Resources Management and the Chief Financial Officer:

 Determine if any additional evidence exists to justify a retention incentive. 

If unjustified, pursue action to recover retention incentive payments made 

to EPA employees.

 Pursue action to recover the unauthorized retention incentive amounts paid 

to the EPA employees who received retention incentive pay beyond their 

promotion date or authorized end date.

The agency agreed with the recommendations. The agency is working to find 

additional evidence to determine if retention incentive payments were justified,

and has initiated the collection processes for the two overpayment cases.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Inspector General

At a Glance

EPA did not comply with 

Office of Personnel 

Management regulations 

or agency policies on 

retention incentive pay. 
May 2, 2014

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: EPA Compliance With Retention Incentive Regulations and Policies

Report No. 14-P-0245

FROM: Arthur A. Elkins Jr.

TO: Craig E. Hooks, Assistant Administrator

Office of Administration and Resources Management

Maryann Froehlich, Acting Chief Financial Officer

Office of the Chief Financial Officer

This is our report on the subject audit conducted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),

Office of the Inspector General (OIG). The report contains findings that the OIG has identified and 

corrective action that the OIG recommends. The report represents the opinion of the OIG and does not 

necessarily represent the final EPA position. Final determination on matters in this report will be made 

by EPA managers in accordance with established audit resolution procedures.

Action Required

In accordance with EPA Manual 2750, you are required to provide a written response to this report 

within 60 calendar days. You should include planned corrective actions and completion dates for the 

unresolved recommendations. Your response will be posted on the OIG’s public website, along with our 

memorandum commenting on your response. Your response should be provided as an Adobe PDF file 

that complies with the accessibility requirements of Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as 

amended. The final response should not contain data that you do not want released to the public. If your 

response contains such data, you should identify the data for redaction or removal, along with 

corresponding justification. Because there are two action officials identified in this report, we request 

that the Office of Administration and Resources Management take the lead to provide the agency’s 

response. 

We will post this report to our website at http://www.epa.gov/oig.

If you have any questions, please contact Kevin Christensen, acting Assistant Inspector General for 

Audit, at (202) 566-1007 or christensen.kevin@epa.gov; or Robert Adachi, Director, Forensic Audits, 

at (415) 947-4537 or adachi.robert@epa.gov. 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Inspector General

EPA Compliance With Retention Incentive 

Regulations and Policies

Report No. 14-P-0245, 

May 2, 2014
2

Reasons for Review

 Part of continuing work on internal controls of 

payroll and benefits. 

 Review initiated on the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) policies and procedures 

for paying retention incentives.

14-P-0245
3

Scope and Methodology

 Performed fieldwork from October 31, 2013, to March 20, 

2014.

 Conducted assignment in accordance with generally accepted 

government auditing standards issued by the Comptroller 

General of the United States.

 EPA Office of Inspector General (OIG) personnel were covered 

in a separate report.

 Determined whether the EPA paid employees retention 

incentives in accordance with federal regulations and EPA 

policy.

14-P-0245
4

Scope and Methodology (cont’d.)

 Obtained a listing of EPA employees who received retention 

incentives for calendar years 2006 through August 7, 2013.

 Reviewed retention incentive request forms, correspondence 

and SF-50s (if available) for each employee.

 Interviewed staff from the EPA’s Office of Human Resources 

(OHR) and staff from the agency’s Shared Service Centers.

 Interviewed two EPA employees who received retention 

incentive pay in 2013.

14-P-0245
5

OPM Regulations

 Office of Personnel Management (OPM) regulations found in the Code of 

Federal Regulations (CFR) at 5 CFR Part 575: 

o Authorize payment of incentive for employees:

• With unusually high or unique qualifications.

• Likely to leave in the absence of an incentive.

o Require annual review of the determination to pay the incentive.

o Require an authorized agency official to annually document in writing its 

determination to pay the incentive.

o Require reduction or termination of the retention incentive 

authorization whenever conditions change. 

14-P-0245
6

EPA Policies

 The EPA’s Pay Administration Manual:

o Authorizes a 1-, 2- or 3-year retention incentive.

o Requires annual recertification using the EPA authorization form.

o Requires the Human Resources Officer (HRO) to provide 

notification in advance of the annual reauthorization date. 

o Requires termination if the employee is reassigned or promoted 

to a different position.

 Per the EPA’s waiver policy, the employee is required to 

notify the supervisor and the HRO about overpayments.

14-P-0245
7

Results

 The EPA did not fully comply with OPM regulations or EPA 

policy on retention incentive pay.

 Thirteen EPA employees received retention incentives from 

2006 through 2013 (excluding John C. Beale*). 

 The EPA paid a total of $667,376 in retention incentives to 

those 13 employees. 

* See OIG Report No. 14-P-0036, issued on December 11, 2013.

14-P-0245
8

Results (cont’d.)

 Of the 13 EPA employees paid retention incentives, 

11 employees received retention incentive pay totaling 

$481,819.

o For 10 EPA employees, no documentation of annual 

recertification was identified.

o One employee received retention incentive pay for 4 years 

beyond the promotion date.

 No EPA employees currently receive retention incentives.

14-P-0245
9

Results (cont’d.)

Employee

Uncertified 

Incentive*

Beyond 

Promotion** Total

1 $72,712 $72,712

2 83,232 83,232

3 33,762 33,762

4 $104,975 104,975

5 1,342 1,342

6 29,356 29,356

7 16,311 16,311

8 13,858 13,858

9 22,156 22,156

10 26,911 26,911

11 77,204 77,204

Total $376,844 $104,975 $481,819

*Amounts were calculated using data provided by the EPA and are subject to reconciliation with payroll records. 

**Amount was calculated by the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS).

14-P-0245
10

Uncertified Incentives

 For 10 employees, no documentation was identified to 

support that incentives were authorized annually, as required 

by federal regulations and EPA policies.

 One employee received $77,204 in unauthorized pay. The 

agency had approved a 1-year retention incentive, but the 

agency continued to make uncertified incentive payments for 

over 4 more years. 

14-P-0245
11

Pay Beyond Promotion

 One employee received incentive pay for 4 years, but the 

employee’s incentive should have been terminated in 2009

because he was promoted.

o The agency’s OHR notified the employee about the termination 

of incentive pay in 2009.

o The OHR processed the termination in the human resource (HR) 

system in 2009.

o The termination action was miscoded in the HR system, so the 

employee continued to receive incentive pay.

o In 2013, DFAS issued a debt notice of $104,975 to the EPA 

employee.

14-P-0245
12

How Did This Happen?

 Confusion over the requirement for annual recertification.

 Evidence of the annual recertification was not retained.

 The EPA’s HR system lacks internal controls to track, notify and automatically 

discontinue retention incentive pay if the incentive pay is not authorized by an 

annual recertification.

 The OHR did not follow up with DFAS to verify that termination of pay took 

effect.

 Managers and employees did not follow up with the OHR regarding the status of 

outstanding actions.

14-P-0245
13

Why Is This Important?

 Unauthorized retention payments were made to 11 EPA 

employees.

 Two EPA employees are disputing the collection process for 

the overpayment of incentive pay.

 The John C. Beale case has placed heightened scrutiny on 

how EPA manages and controls its payroll and administrative 

activities, including retention incentive pay.

14-P-0245
14

Recommendations

 We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for Administration and 

Resources Management and the Chief Financial Officer:

1. Determine if any additional evidence exists to justify a retention 

incentive. If unjustified, pursue action to recover retention 

incentive payments made to EPA employees.

2. Pursue action to recover the unauthorized retention incentive 

amounts paid to the EPA employees who received retention 

incentive pay beyond their promotion date or authorized end date.

14-P-0245
15

Agency Response

 The OIG received comments from EPA’s Office of Administration and Resources 

Management and the Office of the Chief Financial Officer and at the exit 

conference held April 23, 2014. Based upon the exit conference, updated 

comments were received from the Office of Administration and Resources 

Management and the Office of the Chief Financial Officer on April 28, 2014.

 Based upon the exit conference and agency comments, we modified some 

wording in the report to clarify our position.

 The agency concurred with key modifications to the report and agreed with the 

recommendations.

 The agency’s comments and the OIG’s response are included in appendix A.

14-P-0245
16

Agency Initiatives and Corrective Actions

 In response to recommendation 1, the agency is working to find 

additional evidence to determine if retention incentive payments 

were justified.

 In response to recommendation 2, the agency has initiated the 

collection processes for the two overpayment cases.

 The agency also has taken initiatives to strengthen its internal 

controls over retention incentives. Specifically, the agency:

 Created a new retention incentive request justification requiring 

detailed documentation.

 Issued an HR bulletin on retention incentives.

 Issued communications in the Management Matters newsletter.

 Developed a new draft human resources incentive policy.

 Created a quarterly retention incentive report.

14-P-0245
14-P-0245 17

Status of Recommendations and 

Potential Monetary Benefits

RECOMMENDATIONS

POTENTIAL MONETARY

BENEFITS (in $000s)

Rec. 

No.

Page 

No. Subject Status1 Action Official

Planned 

Completion 

Date

Claimed 

Amount

Agreed-To 

Amount

1 14 Determine if any additional evidence exists to 

justify a retention incentive. If unjustified, pursue 

action to recover retention incentive payments 

made to EPA employees.

U Assistant Administrator for 

Administration and 

Resources Management and 

Chief Financial Officer

$300

2 14 Pursue action to recover the unauthorized retention 

incentive amounts paid to the EPA employees who 

received retention incentive pay beyond their 

promotion date or authorized end date.

C Assistant Administrator for 

Administration and 

Resources Management and 

Chief Financial Officer

 4/28/14 $182 $182

1 O = recommendation is open with agreed-to corrective actions pending 

C = recommendation is closed with all agreed-to actions completed 

U = recommendation is unresolved with resolution efforts in progress
14-P-0245 18

Appendix A

Agency’s Comments on Discussion Draft Report 

and OIG Responses

April 28, 2014

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: OIG Review of EPA's Compliance with Retention Incentive 

Regulations and Policies

FROM: Craig E. Hooks, Assistant Administrator

 Office of Administration and Resources Management

Maryann Froehlich, Acting Chief Financial Officer

 Office of the Chief Financial Officer

TO: Arthur A. Elkins, Jr.

 Inspector General

We have reviewed the discussion draft report entitled Review of EPA’s Compliance With 

Retention Incentive Regulations and Policies. The OIG review complements EPA’s on-going 

efforts to strengthen its internal controls over payroll management. The EPA believes that the 

OIG’s conclusions in the report may be flawed if the OIG presumes that retention incentives paid 

were in “excess” if certain documentation was not located. That potential conclusion does not 

acknowledge the fact that, in at least some of the cases, the record retention schedules had 

expired and therefore the documentation may have existed but was properly destroyed. In other 

cases, personnel files for the employees in question have been transferred to a new employer or 

to OPM (in the case of retired employees) and, therefore, the EPA would no longer have the 

documentation sought by the OIG. We have not been provided working papers from OIG and do 

not know if documents were sought from OPM or from new employers for at least four of the 

reviewed employees. It is inappropriate to conclude that the incentive pay agreement was 

somehow flawed in situations where the retention pay was justified but for various reasons no 

documentation could be located.

OIG Response 1. We recognize that records may have existed and were properly destroyed in 

accordance with retention schedules. Our intent in the discussion draft report was to 

acknowledge that evidence was not necessarily retained for all recertifications. However, 

documentation provided to the OIG indicates managers and OHR were confused about the 

need to determine on an annual basis whether the retention incentive payment is still 

warranted. We recognize that the agency will need to review incentive payments without 

benefit of the documentation required in accordance with EPA policy to make a determination 

whether the incentive pay should be recovered. 
14-P-0245 19

In the aftermath of the Beale fraud case, the agency implemented a number of changes to the 

policies, procedures and processes governing retention incentives. Also, the EPA’s migration to 

the Department of Interior Business Center will provide additional functionality in our systems 

and provide further protection. Finally, OARM and OCFO prepared a joint report, “2014 Internal 

Control Assessments: Travel, Payroll, Parking and Transit,” which evaluated the effectiveness of 

the agency’s internal financial management controls in place in 2013. 

OIG Response 2. We acknowledge the agency’s efforts to strengthen internal controls. 

However, no EPA employees are currently receiving retention incentives and we are unable to 

assess the implementation and adequacy of the controls. 

AGENCY TECHNICAL COMMENTS

1. As a result of the Beale case, the agency has been proactive in taking steps to 

strengthen its internal controls over retention incentives which the report does not 

recognize. Some of the specific actions the agency has taken are: 

 Created a new retention incentive request justification requiring clear, detailed 

documentation including copies of previous retention allowances, if any, explicit 

periods of coverage and salary adjustment with explicit not to exceed dates, 

signatures by supervisors, management, human resource and financial officials as 

well as an employee signature certification.

 Issued an HR bulletin on retention incentives delineating all requirements for 

approval, justification, documentation and annual review of incentives. The Bulletin 

was disseminated to HR officers, program managers and the HR Shared Service 

Centers.

 Issued communication in the Management Matters newsletter to all agency managers 

dedicated to the topic of appropriate use and management of retention incentives. 

 Developed a new draft human resources incentive policy which clearly delineates 

EPA’s implementation requirements and processes. The agency will finalize the 

policy after OPM issues the new government-wide update of a recruitment, relocation 

and rewards incentive directive.

 Created a quarterly retention incentive report drawn from the data in the payroll 

system. The report is provided to the HR Shared Service Centers, the Executive 

Resources Division, and HR PMOs to ensure only designated employees are 

receiving retention incentives.

In addition to the above, the agency is mapping out and analyzing its payroll management 

processes to further strengthen the internal controls over retention incentives. The 

assessment will, include: 

 Documenting the internal controls to manage retention incentives and statutory pay 

limit payments; 

 Documenting payroll processing (starting payroll, payroll corrections, payroll journal, 

garnishment reporting, wage type reports, etc.); 
14-P-0245 20

 Documenting OCFO’s role in conjunction with the shared service provider, including 

payroll posting to COMPASS, debt collection, cash differences, benefit calculations, 

and reconciliation processes;

 Documenting internal controls for each of the office’s processes;

 Analyzing the internal controls and documenting findings;

 Developing recommendations and corrective action procedures; and

 Conducting an A-123 review of the new corrective actions.

OIG Response 3. We acknowledge the agency efforts to strengthen internal controls. 

We also appreciate that the agency recognizes retention incentives were a 

vulnerability and made an extensive effort to update internal controls to prevent 

overpayments in the future.

2. The agency does not agree with a potential conclusion that in all cases no documentation 

existed to support the retention incentives for the 13 non OIG employees. In the agency’s 

response to the audit, we have committed to review of a wide variety of documents or other 

information which provides evidence of a need for and establishment of a warranted 

incentive agreement. Some information located to date may be evidence of valid annual 

recertifications. Moreover, as described below, documentation may not currently be 

available at the EPA because of records retention schedule expirations or employee 

separations from agency. For example: 

 Transition to the electronic Official Personal Folder (eOPF) caused files to be purged

of retention incentive documentation. Agency policy on retention allowances 

specifies that servicing Human Resources Officers will maintain retention allowance 

records on the temporary side of the employee’s eOPF and in a separate allowance 

file. The documents were retained in hard copy by the agency in temporary files 

until the records retention requirement was satisfied and then the records were

shredded. Since agency policy specified a two year retention of the files, the OIG 

assumption that no documents existed to support annual re-certifications may be 

inaccurate. In at least one of the cases, we are aware of some documentation of a recertification request that was maintained by an HR Specialist. Once our review of 

service center re-certification documentation is complete, we will share our findings 

with the OIG. 

 With regard to employee separations, there were two employees who retired and 

two who left the agency. As a result, official (eOPF) files are not in EPA 

possession. For the two retirees, as is custom, official files are in the possession of 

OPM’s records center in Boyers, PA. For the departed employees, their new 

employers, if a federal agency, would possess official personnel files. No 

conclusion can be reached on these cases based solely on the fact that 

documentation no longer exists at the EPA. 
14-P-0245 21

OIG Response 4. In the discussion draft report we only identified 11 employees as 

having received unauthorized retention incentive pay. Of the 11, two received retention 

incentive pay beyond their promotion date or authorized end date. We acknowledge that 

the agency has initiated the collection processes for these two cases. 

As stated in OIG Response 1, we recognize that records may have existed and were 

properly destroyed in accordance with retention schedules. Our intent in the discussion 

draft report was to acknowledge that evidence was not necessarily retained for all 

recertifications. Considering that there was confusion over the need to recertify every 

year, there is a risk the annual recertifications were not completed. We did find examples 

of the documentation of the initial retention incentive in the employee file but no 

recertifications for years two and three. It is not unreasonable to assume that if the 

documentation for the initial year is available that documentation prepared for the 

subsequent years would also be available. 

As stated in the report, OPM regulations and EPA policies require the agency to review 

employee retention incentives at least annually to determine whether the pay is still 

warranted. An authorized agency official must certify this determination in writing. The 

regulations further state that the agency may continue to pay the retention incentive as 

long as the conditions giving rise to the original determination still exist. Documentation 

provided to the OIG indicates that managers and HR specialists were unclear on the 

recertification requirements and that recertifications may not have been authorized for all 

years that employees received retention incentives. Therefore, the EPA needs to take steps 

to determine if the retention incentives were in fact properly justified for all employees. 

3. We disagree with potential conclusions that agreements for which recertification 

documentation cannot currently be located are automatically deemed not valid or that the 

current absence of, or failure to locate, annual recertification documentation demonstrates 

that employees received excess pay. An examination of each case with consideration 

given to equity and fairness to employees acting in good faith under a presumption of a 

three-year arrangement is warranted. In addition, we note that in the Beale case the OIG 

determined that Mr. Beale was “authorized for two, three year periods” of a retention 

incentive, even though the OIG did not locate annual recertifications for the second 

incentive period. In light of this, similar treatment for the eleven employees with 

incentive agreements may be reasonable. 

We are in the process of examining documentation for initial agreements and renewal certifications. 

While we have located some documentation, we have not completed our review. We are willing to 

share relevant documentation uncovered during the review process, if any. 
14-P-0245 22

OIG Response 5. As discussed in OIG Response 4, the discussion draft report identified 

11 employees with unauthorized retention incentive payments. We acknowledge that the agency 

has already initiated the collection processes for two employees. 

The retention incentive regulations and EPA policies are clear on the need to provide a written 

recertification annually. OPM regulations at 5 CFR 575.311(f)(3) require an authorized agency 

official to reduce or terminate a retention incentive when conditions change. A condition change 

could be a promotion with an increase in salary or a change in the labor market conditions making

it more likely to recruit a candidate with similar competencies. The EPA Payroll Administration 

Manual requires the recommending official to annually determine whether the retention incentive 

is still justified. EPA policy requires this determination must be certified by the approving official 

in writing. 

While agency employees may have operated in good faith under the assumption that their 

incentive pay was for a multi-year period, this does not override the agency’s responsibility that 

EPA managers and OHR had to ensure that OPM regulations and EPA policies were followed. 

Documentation in the files provided to the OIG does show evidence that there were managers 

aware of the requirement to recertify annually. Also, a 2008 email from the OHR Policy Division 

to the Las Vegas Human Resources Officer provided clarification on retention incentive policy. 

The OHR stated that the requirement for annual recertification is in required by regulation and 

does not authorize multiple-year incentives.

The agency has recognized that there were vulnerabilities in the internal controls over retention 

incentives based on the steps it has taken to strengthen controls. We believe these vulnerabilities 

may have resulted in payments of retention incentives that were not justified in accordance with 

federal regulations. Our intent in making recommendation 1 was to recognize that other evidence 

can be considered by the agency in determining that the retention incentive payments were 

justified. For example, the other evidence can include:

- Documentation available in locations other than the human resources offices in Las Vegas, 

Cincinnati and Research Triangle Park.

- Annual recertifications that had been prepared but destroyed or lost. This could be 

confirmed through interviews with the employee’s supervisor.

It is at the agency’s discretion to take this information to determine if the payments made were 

justified or to seek recovery actions.

John C. Beale’s retention incentive pay was not audited as part of this review. However, in 

OIG Report No. 14-P-0036, Early Warning Report: Internal Control and Management Actions 

Concerning John C. Beale Pay Issues, we reported that Beale was first authorized a retention 

incentive in 1991 and his retention incentive pay was recertified annually for 1992 and 1993. 

No requests were submitted between 1994 and 1999. A new 3-year request was submitted by the 

Office of Air and Radiation in 2000, but no recertifications were prepared or submitted for years 2 

and 3. From our review of the Office of Air and Radiation’s analysis of Beale’s retention incentive 

pay, the Office of Air and Radiation stated that retention incentive pay “must be reauthorized 

every third year.” This is not correct, according to OPM regulations and EPA policies, and 

reinforces our position that there was confusion over the need for annual recertifications.
14-P-0245 23

AGENCY’S RESPONSE TO REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS

No. Recommendation High-Level Intended 

Corrective Action(s)

Estimated Completion by 

Quarter and FY

1 Determine if any additional 

evidence exists to justify a 

retention incentive without 

documented, authorized 

annual recertification. If no 

additional evidence exists, 

pursue action to recover 

unauthorized retention 

incentive payments made 

to EPA employees.

The agency will continue the 

process of searching for 

relevant evidence of initial 

retention incentive agreements 

and renewal certifications and 

determine if any recovery 

actions are warranted.

OARM will complete the 

documentation review by 

May 30, 2014.

2 Pursue action to recover 

the unauthorized retention 

incentive amounts paid to 

the EPA employees who 

received retention 

incentive pay beyond their 

promotion date or 

authorized end date. 

The agency has already 

initiated the collection 

processes for the two

overpayment cases. 

Completion pending 

outcome of the labor 

relations process initiated 

by the involved 

employees. 

OIG Response 6. For recommendation 1, the agency has agreed to take corrective action, but 

did not provide a milestone date for issuing determinations on any recovery actions that may 

be warranted. Therefore, we consider this recommendation to be unresolved, pending a 

corrective action plan that includes milestones dates for the determination. 

The agency agreed with recommendation 2 and has taken corrective action. Therefore, we 

consider the agency’s actions to be complete and we will close out this recommendation upon

issuance of our report. 

Questions regarding human resources issues, can be directed to Susan Kantrowitz, Director, 

Office of Human Resources (202) 564-4606; any questions regarding financial issues can be 

directed to Jeanne Conklin, Acting Director, Office of Financial Management at (202) 564-5342.

cc: David Bloom

 Nanci Gelb

 Susan Kantrowitz

 Jeanne Conklin

 Stefan Silzer
14-P-0245 24

Appendix B

Distribution

Office of the Administrator

Deputy Administrator

Chief of Staff 

Assistant Administrator for Administration and Resources Management

Chief Financial Officer

Agency Follow-Up Coordinator

General Counsel

Associate Administrator for Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations

Associate Administrator for External Affairs and Environmental Education

Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator for Administration and Resources Management

Deputy Chief Financial Officer

Director, Office of Financial Management, Office of the Chief Financial Officer

Director, Office of Human Resources, Office of Administration and Resources Management

Director, Office of Policy and Resource Management, Office of Administration and 

Resources Management

Deputy Director, Office of Policy and Resource Management, Office of Administration and 

Resources Management

Audit Follow-Up Coordinator, Office of Administration and Resources Management

Audit Follow-Up Coordinator, Office of the Chief Financial Officer