Audit 

 Report 

Audit of the Accountability and Control of 

Materiel Assets of the 

Coalition Provisional Authority in Baghdad 

Report Number 04-011 July 26, 2004 

Office of the Inspector General 

Coalition Provisional Authority
COALITION PROVISIONAL AUTHORITY 

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

400 Army Navy Drive • Arlington, Virginia 22202

July 26, 2004 

MEMORANDUM FOR DIRECTOR, DEFENSE CONTRACT MANAGEMENT AGENCY 

SUBJECT: Accountability and Control of Materiel Assets of the Coalition Provisional 

Authority in Baghdad, Iraq 

We are providing this audit report for your information and use. We performed the audit 

in accordance with our statutory duties contained in Public Law 108-106 which mandates the 

conduct of audits relating to the treatment, handling, and expenditure of funds by the Coalition 

Provisional Authority or its successor entities on Iraq reconstruction, and of the programs, 

operations, and contracts carried out in utilizing such funds. We considered management 

comments on a draft of this report in preparing the final report. 

Management comments are not responsive to the finding or recommendations contained 

in this report. However, management indicated in its response that corrective actions are 

planned. Those corrective actions are generally responsive to Recommendation 1. Management 

did not comment on the Recommendation 2. We continue to believe that Recommendation 2. is 

valid and will work with Defense Contract Management Agency representatives to reach a 

mutually satisfactory resolution. We will perform audit follow-up to evaluate management’s 

corrective actions. 

We appreciate the courtesies extended to the staff. Questions should be directed to Mr. 

Brian Flynn at (703) 343-9229 or Mr. Kevin Ellenberger at (703) 343-9230. Management may 

request a formal briefing on the results of this audit. See Appendix F for the report distribution.

 Stuart W. Bowen, Jr. 

 Inspector General 

 Coalition Provisional Authority 
i

Office of the Inspector General 

Coalition Provisional Authority 

Report Number 04-011 July 26, 2004 

Accountability and Control of 

Materiel Assets of the Coalition Provisional Authority in Baghdad 

Executive Summary 

Introduction. This report is the first in a series resulting from our review of the management of 

the Logistics Civil Augmentation Program III contract and the associated Task Order 0044. This 

report discusses accountability and control of materiel assets used to support the Coalition 

Provisional Authority (CPA) in Baghdad, Iraq. 

The Department of the Army issued contract number DAAA09-02-D-0007, Logistics Civil 

Augmentation Program III1

 on December 14, 2001, to Brown and Root Services, a Division of 

Kellogg Brown and Root, Inc. (KBR). The Logistics Civil Augmentation Program III contract 

provides civilian augmentation for base operations and supports U.S. Army operations on a 

global basis. 

Task Order 0044 was issued by the Department of the Army to KBR on March 6, 2003, to 

provide logistics and life support services for the CPA Regional Offices located in the North, 

Central/Main, South Central, and the Southern areas of Iraq and for specified CPA satellite 

locations. 

As of April 2004, KBR had performed a reported $308,529,7722 of work on Task Order 0044. 

The cost of actual completed work and an additional forecast for work in progress for Task Order 

0044 was reported by KBR to be $633 million as of March 27, 2004. As part of Task Order 

0044, KBR property records show they managed 20,531 items valued at over $61.1 million in 

Baghdad, Iraq. 

Objective. The objective of the audit was to evaluate the effectiveness of policies, procedures, 

and property accountability measures used to account for and control materiel at CPA branch 

offices, headquarters, and warehouse locations. 

Conclusion. We projected that KBR could not account for 6,975 (34 percent) property items 

from an inventory of 20,531 records valued at $61.1 million. Further, we projected that 1,425 

(6.9 percent) property items were on-hand but were not recorded on hand receipts. In addition, 

we projected that 5,920 (28.8 percent) hand receipts were not on file or had not been prepared. 

 

1

 The first LOGCAP contract was awarded to KBR in 1992. The second LOGCAP contract was awarded to 

Dyncorp in 1997. Both LOGCAP I and II were awarded for a term of 5 years, whereas the LOGCAP III contract 

has a 10 year term. (Source: “Outsourcing War,” Business Week Online, September 9, 2003) 2

 We are unable to validate the accuracy of the dollar amount reported. The Defense Contract Audit Agency has 

been unable to validate the contractor’s cost reporting system. This issue is presented and discussed in detail in 

CPA-IG Report, Review of Logistics Civil Augmentation Program III, Task Order 44 (Project D2004-DCPAAC0029), dated May 6, 2004. 
ii

As a result, we projected that property valued at more than $18.6 million was not accurately 

accounted for or was missing. 

Recommendations. We recommend that the Commander, Defense Contract Management 

Agency, Iraq (DCMA) ensure an accurate property control system analysis is performed after 

ongoing corrective actions are completed and conduct a thorough review of CPA property in 

Baghdad, Iraq to locate the missing property. Upon completion of the review, we recommended 

that DCMA seek to recover the cost of missing equipment from the responsible personnel. 

Further, we recommended that DCMA initiate appropriate recovery actions from KBR, if it 

failed to fulfill its contractual obligations. 

Management Corrective Actions. According to its response, DCMA and KBR are currently 

conducting a 100 percent inventory of the Baghdad property and accomplishing Reports of 

Survey, as appropriate. 

Management Comments. DCMA did not concur with the findings, asserting that the majority 

of the sample items reported as unaccountable were subsequently located and should not have 

been considered errors. DCMA did not comment on the recommendations. 

Audit Response. The management comments are not responsive to the finding or the 

recommendations. However, management indicated in its response that corrective actions are 

planned that are generally responsive to Recommendation 1. Although management did not 

comment on Recommendation 2., we continue to believe Recommendation 2. is valid. We will 

work with DCMA representatives to reach a mutually satisfactory resolution. 
Table of Contents 

Executive Summary i 

Introduction 

Background 1 

Objective 2 

Finding 

Accountability and Control of CPA Property 3 

Appendices 

A. Scope and Methodology 8 

B. Quantitative Analysis 9 

C. Missing Property Items from the Central Location in Baghdad, Iraq 12 

D. Management Comment 14 

E. Acronyms 17 

F. Report Distribution 18 

G. Audit Team Members 20 
1

Background 

This report is the first in a series resulting from our review of the management of the Logistics 

Civil Augmentation Program III contract and the associated Task Order 0044. This report 

discusses accountability and control of materiel assets used to support the Coalition Provisional 

Authority (CPA) in Baghdad, Iraq. The scope and methodology used to perform this audit are 

discussed at Appendix A. The acronyms used in this report are shown at Appendix E and the 

audit team members are shown at Appendix G. 

Logistics Civil Augmentation Program. The Department of the Army issued contract number 

DAAA09-02-D-0007, Logistics Civil Augmentation Program III(LOGCAP),3 on December 14, 

2001, to Brown and Root Services, a Division of Kellogg Brown and Root, Inc. (KBR). This is 

an indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity cost-plus award-fee and an “on-call” provider service 

contract with actual costs dependent on specific requirements.4

 The LOGCAP contract provides 

civilian augmentation for base operations and supports U.S. Army operations on a global basis. 

When the Department of the Army identifies a significant “event” or requirement for a specific 

service or commodity, it issues a Task Order under the LOGCAP contract to specifically address 

the performance requirements and contract terms for the particular event or requirement. The 

Task Order generally contains its own statement of work as well as a “Not to Exceed” dollar 

limitation. 

Task Order 0044. Task Order 0044 (TO 0044) was issued by the Department of the Army to 

KBR on March 6, 2003, to provide logistics and life support services for the CPA Regional 

Offices located in the North, Central/Main, South Central, and the Southern areas of Iraq and for 

the CPA satellite locations specified in the statement of work. As KBR performs the 

requirements cited in the specific TO 0044 it bills for the associated costs. As of April 2004, 

KBR had performed a reported $308,529,7725

 of work on Task Order 0044. The cost of actual 

completed work and an additional forecast for work in progress for TO 0044 was reported by 

KBR to be $633 million as of March 27, 2004.

Property Control Procedures. In 2002, KBR published the LOGCAP III Property Control 

Procedures to document its property control system in support of the LOGCAP contract. The 

property control procedures delineate the approved procedures for accounting, controlling, and 

ordering that are applicable to government furnished and contractor acquired property. The 

 

3

 The first LOGCAP contract was awarded to KBR in 1992. The second LOGCAP contract was awarded to 

Dyncorp in 1997. Both LOGCAP I and II were awarded for a term of 5 years, whereas the LOGCAP III contract 

has a 10 year term. (Source: “Outsourcing War,” Business Week Online, September 9, 2003) 4

 Typical requirements associated with the LOGCAP contract include such items as providing Camp Operations 

(lodging, subsistence, laundry, sanitation needs, etc.), Force Protection (camp and personnel), and Transportation 

(vehicle motor pools as well as personnel and cargo movement). Additional requirements are initiated by Client 

Directives (specific requested projects that are within the overall Task Order scope but are not general in nature - 

e.g., a specific construction request)

5

 We are unable to validate the accuracy of the dollar amount reported. The Defense Contract Audit Agency has 

been unable to validate the contractor’s cost reporting system. This issue was presented and discussed in detail in 

CPA-IG Report, Review of Logistics Civil Augmentation Program III, Task Order 44 (Project D2004-DCPAAC0029), dated May 6, 2004. 
2

property control procedures require that KBR issue property items to users on DA Form 2062 

(hand receipt) or DA Form 3161 (temporary hand receipt) to maintain accurate property 

accountability. The property control procedures require KBR property managers to conduct 

periodic inspections of those hand receipts to ensure control of those hand receipts. An accurate 

and complete set of hand receipts is needed to ascertain the custody and location of the property 

so that KBR may perform a required 100 percent property inventory annually. 

Objective 

The objective of the audit was to evaluate the effectiveness of policies, procedures, and property 

accountability measures used to account for and control materiel at CPA branch offices, 

headquarters, and warehouse locations. 
3

Accountability and Control of CPA Property 

We projected that KBR could not account for 6,975 (34 percent) property items from an 

inventory of 20,531 records valued at $61.1 million. Further, we projected that 1,425 

(6.9 percent) property items were on-hand but were not recorded on hand receipts. In addition, 

we projected that 5,920 (28.8 percent) hand receipts were not on file or had not been prepared. 

This occurred because KBR did not effectively manage government property as it did not 

properly control CPA property items and its property records were not sufficiently accurate or 

available to properly account for CPA property items. As a result, we projected that property 

valued at more than $18.6 million was not accurately accounted for or was missing. 

Logistics Civil Augmentation Program Administrative Contracting 

Officer 

The U.S. Army Materiel Command designated the Defense Contract Management Agency 

(DCMA) as the LOGCAP administrative contracting officer. The duties of the LOGCAP 

administrative contracting officer include being the government property administrator. Federal 

Acquisition Regulation, Part 45, “Government Property,” requires the government property 

administrator to review and approve the overall accuracy, effectiveness, and implementation of 

the contractor’s property control system. 

Accordingly, DCMA reviewed and approved the LOGCAP property control system on January 

15, 2003. The property administrator was also responsible for conducting a yearly property 

control system analysis. The property control system analysis review covered 15 property 

management functions such as inventory records, physical inventories, and receiving and storage 

procedures. If, during the property control system analysis, the property administrator finds any 

part of the contractor’s property control system to be inadequate, the contractor must take 

necessary corrective action before the system can be re-approved. 

Missing and Unaccounted For CPA Property 

We projected that KBR could not account for 6,975 (34 percent) property items from an 

inventory of 20,531 records valued at $61.1 million. Further, we projected that 1,425 

(6.9 percent) property items were on-hand but were not recorded on hand receipts. In addition, 

we projected that 5,920 (28.8 percent) hand receipts were not on file or had not been prepared. 

Quantitative Analysis. To evaluate the effectiveness property accountability, random statistical 

sampling was used to identify items for review and to estimate the differences between the KBR 

inventory records and the audited sample items. We selected our sample from an inventory 

population of 20,531 items valued at more than $61.1 million. The quantitative analysis plan and 

results are discussed at Appendix B. 
4

Property Record Accuracy. Our examination of 164 randomly selected property records 

disclosed that 52 property items were missing or could not be unaccounted for by KBR. A list of 

the missing property items is shown at Appendix C. The missing items included 2 generators 

valued at more than $878,000 and 18 vehicles valued at more than $1.1 million. 

We projected that KBR could not account for 6,975 (34 percent) property items from an 

inventory of 20,531 records valued at $61.1 million. 

Property Record Completeness. Our examination of 85 randomly selected on-hand property 

items disclosed that 13 items were not recorded in the property book. We traced the 85 on-hand 

property items to the property book. The 13 items included a generator found in the warehouse 

yard and valued at $144,000 that did not have a hand receipt or issue-document to indicate when 

the item arrived or how it was received. We projected that 1,425 (6.9 percent) property items 

were on-hand but were not recorded on hand receipts. 

Our examination also disclosed that for 12 of 52 missing items, KBR did not have hand receipts 

on file. KBR policies required that a hand receipt or temporary hand receipt be completed for all 

government property issued. The absence of a hand receipt makes it impossible or at least 

difficult to trace government property items back to the original receiver. we projected that 

5,920 (28.8 percent) hand receipts were not on file or had not been prepared. 

Oversight of Government Property 

KBR did not effectively manage government property as it did not properly control CPA 

property items and its property records were not sufficiently accurate or available to properly 

account for CPA property items. 

DCMA Oversight. DCMA was unaware of the missing property and the potential errors in the 

KBR property records. Team members from the DCMA Iraq/Kuwait office completed the fiscal 

year 2004 property control system analysis in February 2004. The team members concluded that 

KBR conducted physical inventories within a reasonable period of time and in accordance with the 

KBR property control procedures. The DCMA physical inventory review identified zero errors 

and concluded that KBR records and supporting documents were complete and accurate. 

Our audit results do not match the results of the DCMA property control system analysis. 

Contrary to DCMA results, our review, as of April 2004, disclosed 27 (52 percent) of the 52 

missing property items were last inventoried between 4 months and 12 months previous to our 

review. For example, a truck utility vehicle (Item no. 15 in Appendix C) was last “100% 

inventoried” or was last seen on May 27, 2003, and a Global Positioning System (Item no. 36 in 

Appendix C) was last inventoried or seen on April 12, 2003. Additionally, the property record for 

an unaccounted for Satellite Receiver (Item No 31 in Appendix C) did not have a date entered to 

identify when it was last inventoried. Although the KBR property control procedures require only 

yearly inventories, KBR personnel stated it is KBR policy to inventory all property items once 

every three months. 
5

Conclusion 

Consequently, we projected that property valued at more than $18.6 million was not accurately 

accounted for or was missing. 

Management Corrective Actions 

After the completion of our audit and according to its management comments, DCMA took a 

proactive role by requiring KBR accomplish a 100 percent inventory and accounting for all 

government property in its possession. For example, at of the time of this final report, DCMA 

was searching for and coordinating with KBR on the recovery of all missing vehicles. Further, 

DCMA located 3 of the missing vehicles and was in the process of recovering them from 

unauthorized users. Additionally, as of May 4, 2004, there were 113 vehicles for which the users 

had not returned for a required 2 weeks re-dispatching. DCMA recovered 2 of the 113 

delinquent vehicles. 

DCMA, with KBR’s assistance, has taken the initiative in accomplishing Reports of Survey. For 

example, DCMA issued 15 reports for lost, damaged, or destroyed government property to 

recover the cost from personnel who misused the property. Also, DCMA has requested the CPA 

Director of Logistics and the CPA Chief of Staff to establish a board to process those Reports of 

Survey. 

Recommendations, Management Comments, and Audit Response 

We recommend the Commander, Defense Contract Management Agency, Iraq: 

1. Ensure an accurate property control system analysis is performed after ongoing corrective 

actions are completed. 

2. Conduct a thorough review of Coalition Provisional Authority property in Baghdad, Iraq 

to locate the missing property. Upon completion of the review, the Defense Contract 

Management Agency should seek to recover the cost of missing equipment from the 

responsible personnel. Further, the Defense Contract Management Agency should 

initiate appropriate recovery actions from Kellogg Brown & Root, if it failed to fulfill its 

contractual obligations. 

Management Comments. DCMA did not concur with the findings, asserting that the majority 

of the sample items reported as unaccountable were subsequently located and should not have 

been considered errors. DCMA did not comment on the recommendations. The management 

comments are shown at Appendix D. 

Audit Response. The management comments are not responsive to the finding or the 

recommendations. However, management indicated in its response that corrective actions are 

planned that are generally responsive to Recommendation 1. Although management did not 

comment on Recommendation 2., we continue to believe Recommendation 2. is valid. We will 

work with DCMA representatives to reach a mutually satisfactory resolution. Our responses to 

management’s specific comments are provided below. 
6

Management Stated. “The nonconcurrence is based on the fact that inventoried sample 

of Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) owned items is not representative of the population, 

and thus no conclusions, recommendations, or results can be accepted. During the audit, 164 

randomly selected property records were inventoried of which 52 (32 percent) of the items were 

reported by the CPA IG to be missing or unaccounted. However, a DCMA review of the results 

identified problems with the sample. Of the 20 most expensive items determined to be missing, 

three(3) items should not have been in the sample and three (3) items could not be traced to the 

Master Property Book where supposedly the sample had been taken. In addition, the remaining 

fourteen (14) items were physically located by DCMA.” 

Audit Response. We disagree with management’s conclusions and comments. The 

property was not found during the audit, despite numerous attempts by the auditors to locate the 

property, working with both KBR and DCMA personnel. 

The audit was conducted with the Property Book Record provided by KBR. DCMA 

participated in providing us with the data. Management’s assertion that the audit was 

accomplished with inaccurate data is, in fact, a further confirmation that property records were 

not sufficient to effectively manage property. Additionally, if the auditors were provided and 

evaluated the wrong property book, DCMA does not explain how the auditors were able to find 

114 (68 percent) of the items. 

DCMA contends that 3 items should not have been in the sample, because they were not 

accountable to the LOGCAP contract. However, DCMA does not explain why property not 

accountable to the contractor was recorded in the contractor’s property book. This situation is an 

additional example of the inaccuracies in the accountable property records. Further, DCMA 

does not acknowledge that on numerous occasions the auditors tried to locate the property with 

the help of either or both DCMA and KBR representatives. Those representatives had ample 

opportunities, during the course of the audit, to point out any data problems but did not do so. 

DCMA also asserts that three items that auditors selected for review from the property 

book provided to us by KBR for our audit could not be traced to the current property book. We 

have provided copies of the property book record provided to us for our audit for the questioned 

items to DCMA. We are concerned with this new information. Specifically, management’s 

assertion indicates the possibility that property records were removed from the property book 

without their knowledge or approval and a continued lack of controls. We believe a system that 

allows for items to be deleted, and DCMA to be unaware of those changes, requires careful 

examination and analysis during the proposed DCMA property control system analysis. 

Finally, DCMA indicated in its response that it has taken the corrective action in locating 

14 of the items shown as missing in our audit. That action would indicate to us acceptance of the 

report’s conclusions, recommendations, and results. Although we have not verified those the 

existence of the 14 located items, we commend DCMA for taking action to locate missing items. 

Management Stated. “The audit states that 85 items were randomly selected, and 13 

were not recorded on the property book. There was no supporting documentation so we cannot 

comment on this accuracy. How was the projection that 1,400 items may be on-hand and not on 

accountable records determined? Appendix C [now Appendix B] shows no statistical projection 

for this estimate.” 

Audit Response. We initially discussed our draft report with management on July 11, 

2004. We were unaware management required additional data to fully comment on our report 

until after our second meeting on July 17, 2004. However, we have provided management with 

the data in question and included in Appendix B the additional statistical analysis. 
7

Management Stated. “The audit states that 12 of the 52 missing items were not on 

proper hand receipt and thus 22-36% of all KBR items are projected to be not properly hand 

receipted. As stated above, we do not believe your sample is valid and thus not representative of 

the population.” 

Audit Response. We evaluated the data provided by KBR and DCMA and worked 

closely with both organizations in attempting to locate missing property. Our audit and 

evaluations are accurate and representative of the condition of property records at the time of the 

audit. Further, DCMA did not provide any evidence to support its contention that the sample is 

not valid. Nevertheless, management actions subsequent to our audit are commendable, but do 

not alter the conditions we found while performing the audit. 

Management Stated. ”The Defense Contract Management Agency has taken a 

proactive approach to resolve property accountability issues associated with Task Order 44 of the 

LOGCAP III contract. These initiatives include requiring KBR to conduct a 100 percent 

inventory to be completed by 30 September 2004, scheduling a Property Control System 

Analysis (PCSA) beginning 16 August 2004, and full participation in the DOD/DOS Transition 

Sub-team on property accountability” 

Audit Response. The actions DCMA cited in its response would indicate to us 

acceptance of the report’s conclusions, recommendations, and results. We commend DCMA for 

the prompt actions to address deficiencies identified during our audit. 
8

Appendix A. Scope and Methodology 

We performed this financial audit from April 2004 through May 2004 in accordance with 

generally accepted government auditing standards. 

We obtained a copy of the Kellogg Brown and Root, Inc. (KBR) property book, as of April 17, 

2004. It contained all 20,531 Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) owned property items 

located in Baghdad, Iraq. Those property items were valued at $61,140,695. We randomly 

selected for our sample, without replacement, 164 items of CPA owned property from the 

property book database and selected 85 reverse sample items6

 from April 03 through April 27, 

2004. See Appendix B for the statistical plan and projected results. 

We also interviewed KBR managers and CPA equipment custodians to determine if all CPA 

assets were maintained on accountable records. Further, we reviewed KBR records to determine 

if an annual inventory had been completed and an individual had signed the hand receipt for 

accepting custodianship. Finally, we reviewed accountability procedures to record, inventory, 

and reconcile assets and transactions to test the internal controls. 

Use of Computer-Processed Data. We relied on computer-processed data contained in the 

KBR property database file. We comparing output data to physical inventories to validate data 

accuracy and reviewed output products for completeness, obvious errors, and reasonableness. 

Despite the fact the KBR property book was not complete; we believe the conclusions and 

recommendations in this report are valid when viewed with other available evidence. 

 

6

 We selected for review 80 items in a statistically valid method and 5 judgmentally selected items. Our statistical 

projection is based on only the 80 items randomly selected. 
9

Appendix B. Quantitative Analysis

This appendix discusses two quantitative plans. The first plan discussed was to determine the 

accuracy of the inventory records and the second was to determine the accuracy of the inventory 

items on the floor versus inventory items on the property records. 

Quantitative Plan 

Objective: The audit objective is to determine the accuracy of the inventory records. Statistical 

sampling is used to identify items to review and to estimate the differences between audited and 

inventory records. 

Population: An Excel file, CPA.xls, was provided that constituted the inventory population of 

20,531 items and representing $61,140,695 of inventory. 

 

Measures: The sampling plan measures for this project are the differences in the inventory 

records and the audited items that cannot be supported. 

Parameters: We agreed to use a 90 percent confidence level for each estimate. 

Sample Plan 

A single stage stratified sampling design was used. Items were stratified by inventory price as 

follows: 

Samples were randomly selected using a simple random sample without replacement 

methodology. Excel 2002 RAND() function was used to randomize the items. 164 items were 

randomly selected for the sample. 

Population Sample 

Stratum $ N N $ 

$500k > 2,939,450 4 4 2,939,450 

$100k < $500k 9,691,447 42 30 6,800,669 

$25k < $100k 18,714,308 513 30 984,599 

$450 < $25k 27,831,748 8,999 50 193,405 

$0 < $450 1,963,743 10,973 50 8,267 

Total 61,140,695 20,531 164 10,926,389 
10

Statistical Analysis And Interpretation 

Based on the audit results, we calculated the following statistical projections for the 20,531 

inventory items in the population: 

90 Percent Confidence Interval 

 Lower Bound Point Estimate Upper Bound 

Errors 

Error rate 

5,531 

26.9% 

6,975 

34.0% 

8,419 

41.0% 

We are 90 percent confident that the total amount of errors is between 5,531 and 8,419 and the 

error rate is between 26.9% and 41.0%. 

We statistically projected the total dollar error in the $61,140,695 inventory population: 

 

90 Percent Confidence Interval 

 Lower Bound Point Estimate Upper Bound 

Error $11,062,543 $18,628,047 $26,193,552 

We are 90 percent confident that the total dollar error is between $11,062,543 and $26,193,552 

Additionally, we statistically projected the total number of hand receipt errors for the 20,531 

inventory items in the population: 

90 Percent Confidence Interval 

 Lower Bound Point Estimate Upper Bound 

Errors 

Error rate 

4,537 

22.1% 

5,920 

28.8% 

7,302 

35.6% 

We are 90 percent confident that the total number of hand receipt errors is between 4,537 and 

7,302 and the error rate is between 22.1 % and 35.6%. 

Documentation, Presentation And Defense Of Results 

We have provided documentation of the calculations for the working papers, and will assist in 

preparing the technical appendix information for the report. If needed, we will respond to 

questions or challenges concerning the quantitative plan, analysis, or results. 

Quantitative Plan 

Objective: The audit objective is to determine the accuracy of the inventory items on the floor 

versus inventory items on the property records. Statistical sampling is used to identify items to 

review and to estimate the differences between audited and inventory records. 
11

Population: An Excel file, CPA.xls, was provided that constituted the inventory population of 

20,531 items. 

 

Measures: The sampling plan measures for this project are the differences in the inventory items 

audited and inventory items on the property records that cannot be supported. 

Parameters: We agreed to use a 90 percent confidence level for each estimate. 

Sample Plan 

A simple random sampling design was used. The population consisted of 20,531 items of 

inventory and the sample size consisted of 80 randomly selected inventory items. 

We randomly selected without replacement inventory items using a list of 100 random integer 

values between 1 and 360 representing degrees on a compass and an associated integer value 

between 1 and 100 representing linear distance from a center point. The random numbers were 

generated using SAS version 8. 

We randomly selected items from each audit location that was used in the book to floor sample. 

At each location a position as reasonably close to the center point of the most inventory was 

determined. Using a hand held compass a north heading was determined. Positioned facing 

north, the next random number in sequence was chosen that represented the degree heading from 

which to choose the sample. The random number in the second column represented the 

minimum distance to walk before selecting an item to sample. If an inventory was not 

encountered at that distance the first inventory item encountered just beyond the distance value 

was selected for sampling. If the item was not within the scope of the audit for any reason such a 

client inventory being occupying the floor space but there was an item within the proximity, this 

item was chosen. If the compass heading and linear distance produced no items we returned to 

the central point and used the next random number in the sequence. All random selections began 

at the center point. In instances where the distance to the farthest item exceeded 100 feet, we 

estimated the distance, divided the distance by 100 and used that factor to scale the random 

number distance for that location. 

Statistical Analysis And Interpretation 

Based on the audit results, we calculated the following statistical projections for the 20,531 

inventory items in the population. 

 90 Percent Confidence Interval 

 Lower Bound 

Errors 

Error rate 

1,425 

6.9% 

We are 90 percent confident that the total amount of errors is at least 1,425 and the error rate is at 

least 6.9%. 

Documentation, Presentation And Defense Of Results 

We have provided documentation of the calculations for the working papers, and will assist in 

preparing the technical appendix information for the report. If needed, we will respond to 

questions or challenges concerning the quantitative plan, analysis, or results. 
12

Appendix C. Missing Property Items from the 

Central Location in Baghdad, Iraq 

# NOMENCLATURE

COST 

PRICE GP_NUM INV_DATE

HAND 

RECEIPT

1 GENERATOR 1750 KW 734,863 L055087 2/29/2004 YES 

2 TRUCK UTILITY SUV 4X4 ARMORED 255,000 L084329 3/21/2004 YES 

3 TRUCK UTILITY SUV 4X4 ARMORED 255,000 L084332 3/21/2004 YES 

4 TRUCK UTILITY 150,000 L050475 3/21/2004 YES 

5 GENERATOR 648 KW 144,000 L052870 2/29/2004 YES 

6 TRUCK UTILITY 8 TON 45,000 L180053 12/8/2003 YES 

7 TRUCK UTILITY 36,580 L049795 3/21/2004 YES 

8 TRUCK UTILITY 36,580 L049632 3/21/2004 YES 

9 TRUCK UTILITY 35,000 L045483 10/3/20073* NO 

10 TRUCK UTILITY 35,000 L036346 10/24/2003* NO 

11 TRUCK PICK UP 35,000 L127019 11/18/2003 NO 

12 TRUCK UTILITY 4X4 34,629 L055305 3/21/2004 YES 

13 TRUCK UTILITY 4X4 32,500 L137842 3/21/2004 YES 

14 TRUCK UTILITY 4X4 31,900 L137818 3/21/2004 YES 

15 TRUCK UTILITY 4X4 30,470 L059598 5/27/2003* YES 

16 TRUCK UTILITY 29,010 L059586 3/21/2004 YES 

17 TRUCK UTILITY 27,047 L055031 3/21/2004 YES 

18 TRUCK STAKE BED 2.5 TON 25,900 L137898 3/21/2004 YES 

19 TRUCK UTILITY SUV 4X4 25,500 L025004 10/14/2003* YES 

20 TRUCK UTILITY 4X4 22,110 L055434 3/21/2004 YES 

21 ACCOMMODATION UNIT 8 X 20 FT 10,000 L170974 1/4/2004 NO 

22 COMPUTER LAPTOP 2,049 L058301 8/5/2003* YES 

23 COMPUTER LAPTOP 2,049 L058174 10/13/2003* YES 

24 RADIO HANDHELD 1,600 L012805 10/13/2003* YES 

25 COMPUTER LAPTOP 1,553 L013844 8/3/2003* NO 

26 COMPUTER LAPTOP 1,298 L072000 8/1/2003* YES 

27 COMPUTER LAPTOP 1,298 L071594 8/2/2003* NO 

28 COMPUTER LAPTOP 1,298 L072430 8/5/2003* YES 

29 PUMP SEWAGE 3 IN 1,200 L012760 7/8/2003* NO 

30 HELMET BALLISTIC 594 L053195 3/30/2004 YES 

31 RECEIVER SATELLITE 500 L057709 ** YES 

32 RADIO HF 500 L092264 12/1/2003 NO 

33 VEST BALLISTIC SIZE XL 396 L113054 2/17/2004 YES 

34 VEST BALLISTIC SIZE L 396 L113327 3/14/2004 YES 

35 DOLLY HAND TRUCK 334 L198816 2/11/2004 YES 

36 GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM 294 L050009 4/12/2003* YES 

37 DESK OFFICE 150 D19425 7/25/2003* NO 

38 DESK OFFICE 2 DWR 150 D27102 9/5/2003* NO 

39 DESK OFFICE PEDESTAL 150 D19252 2/20/2004 YES 

40 CABINET FILE 4 DWR 120 D30442 12/9/2003 YES 

41 TABLE FOLDING 6 FT 115 D26569 8/4/2003* YES 

 

* 27 (52 percent) of the 52 missing items with 100% inventory date over four months. 

** 1 missing item without a date to identify when the last 100% inventory was done. 
13

# NOMENCLATURE

COST 

PRICE GP_NUM INV_DATE

HAND 

RECEIPT

42 DESK OFFICE 3 DWR 110 D27306 9/4/2003* YES 

43 CABINET FILE 4 DWR 98 D27634 9/14/2003* NO 

44 CHAIR OFFICE ROTARY HIGH BACK 75 D27202 8/19/2003* YES 

45 CHAIR OFFICE ROTARY HIGH BACK 75 D19389 8/26/2003* NO 

46 CHAIR OFFICE HIGH BACK 75 D27788 9/17/2003* YES 

47 CHAIR OFFICE HIGH BACK 75 D27852 9/17/2003* YES 

48 DRIVE DISK FLOPPY EXTERNAL 35 L072513 6/2/2003* YES 

49 DRIVE DISK FLOPPY EXTERNAL 35 L073208 7/2/2003* YES 

50 DRIVE DISK FLOPPY EXTERNAL 35 L072863 8/5/2003* YES 

51 DRIVE DISK FLOPPY EXTERNAL 35 L072887 8/5/2003* YES 

52 DRIVE DISK FLOPPY EXTERNAL 35 L072884 8/5/2003* YES 
14

Appendix D. Management Comments
15
16
17

Appendix E. Acronyms 

CPA Coalition Provisional Authority 

DCMA Defense Contract Management Administration 

KBR Kellogg Brown and Root, Inc. 

LOGCAP Logistics Civil Augmentation Program
18

Appendix F. Report Distribution 

Office of the Secretary of Defense 

Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)/Chief Financial Officer Director, Program Analysis and Evaluation Deputy Chief Financial Officer 

 Deputy Comptroller (Program/Budget) 

Inspector General, Department of Defense 

Director, Defense Procurement and Acquisition 

Office of the Secretary of State 

U.S. Ambassador to Iraq 

Inspector General, Department of State 

Director, Iraq Reconstruction Management Office 

Department of the Army 

Assistant Secretary of the Army, Acquisition, Logistics & Technology 

 Assistant Secretary of the Army for Policy and Procurement 

Auditor General, Department of the Army 

Other Defense Organizations

Director, Defense Contract Management Agency 

Director, Defense Contract Audit Agency 

Director, Iraq Project and Contracting Office 

Other Federal Government Organizations 

Office of Management and Budget 

Government Accountability Office 

Inspector General, Department of Commerce 

Inspector General, Health and Human Services 

Inspector General, U.S. Agency for International Development 
19

Congressional Committees and Subcommittees, Chairman and Ranking Minority Member 

Senate Committee on Appropriations 

Senate Subcommittee on Defense, Committee on Appropriations 

Senate Committee on Armed Services 

Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs 

Senate Committee on Foreign Relations 

House Committee on Appropriations 

House Subcommittee on Defense, Committee on Appropriations 

House Committee on Armed Services 

House Committee on Government Reform 

House Subcommittee on Government Efficiency and Financial Management, Committee on 

Government Reform 

House Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats, and International Relations, 

Committee on Government Reform 

House Subcommittee on Technology, Information Policy, Intergovernmental Relations, and the 

Census, Committee on Government Reform 
20

Appendix G. Audit Team Members 

The Logistics Management Division, Office of the Assistant Inspector General for Auditing, 

Coalition Provisional Authority, prepared this report. Personnel of the Office of the Assistant 

Inspector General for Auditing, Coalition Provisional Authority, who contributed to the report 

are listed below. 

John Betar 

Brian Flynn 

Robert Murrell 

Kevin Ellenbeger 

Kayode Bamgbade 

James Hartman