OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR IRAQ RECONSTRUCTION

RREEVVIIEEWW OOFF IIRRAAQQ RREELLIIEEFF AANNDD

RREECCOONNSSTTRRUUCCTTIIOONN FFUUNNDD

UUNNMMAATTCCHHEEDD DDIISSBBUURRSSEEMMEENNTTSS

SSIIGGIIRR--0066--004433 

JJJAAANNNUUUAAARRRYYY 333000,,,222000000777
SPECIAL INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR IRAQ RECONSTRUCTION

January 30, 2007 

MEMORANDUM FOR U.S. AMBASSADOR TO IRAQ 

 ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 

 AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER, BUREAU OF 

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

 DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF IRAQ RECONSTRUCTION, 

 U.S. AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT 

 CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER, U.S. ARMY CORPS OF 

 ENGINEERS 

 DIRECTOR, IRAQ RECONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 

 OFFICE 

 

SUBJECT: Review of Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund Unmatched Disbursements 

(SIGIR-06-043) 

The Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR) performed this audit in 

accordance with our statutory duties contained in Public Law 108-106, as amended, which 

requires that we provide for the independent and objective conduct of audits, as well as 

leadership and coordination of, and recommendations on, policies designed to promote 

economy, efficiency, and effectiveness in the administration of programs and operations and 

to prevent and detect waste, fraud, and abuse. This report discusses our review of internal 

controls related to disbursements of Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Funds (IRRF) 

apportioned to the Department of State (DoS), Department of Defense (DoD), and the U.S. 

Agency for International Development (USAID). 

Objectives 

This review was announced on July 21, 2006, with the overall objective to determine the 

amount of IRRF unmatched disbursements, and whether U.S. government agencies have 

established adequate management controls over IRRF 1 and IRRF 2 unmatched 

disbursements. To accomplish this objective, we addressed these questions: 

• How much of the IRRF monies have been identified as unmatched disbursements? 

• How often are unmatched disbursements reviewed by government officials, and who 

makes the determination that the disbursement was an IRRF expenditure? 

400 Army Navy Drive • Arlington, Virginia 22202
• Have IRRF unmatched disbursements subsequently been identified to other IRRF 

projects? 

• What management controls are in place to eliminate and resolve unmatched 

disbursements? 

Our results were limited to an assessment of DoD and USAID because DoS officials did not 

provide access to the detailed IRRF obligations and disbursements data needed for our 

review. As such, we plan to perform a separate audit of unmatched DoS disbursements at a 

later date.

Background 

The Emergency Wartime Supplemental Appropriations Act, Public Law 108-11, created the 

Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund (referred to as IRRF 1) and appropriated approximately 

$2.5 billion to be used for a broad range of humanitarian and reconstruction activities by the 

USAID and DoS, DoD, the Treasury, and Health and Human Services in Iraq. The 

Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense and for the Reconstruction of Iraq 

and Afghanistan, Public Law 108-106, appropriated an additional $18.4 billion, referred to as 

IRRF 2, for the rebuilding of Iraq. As of September 30, 2006, approximately 97% of the 

total $20.9 billion for IRRF 1 and 2 was apportioned to DoD ($14 billion), USAID 

($4.7 billion), and DoS ($1.6 billion). 

Internal controls represent an organization’s plans, methods, and procedures used to meet its 

missions, goals, and objectives and serve as the first line of defense in safeguarding assets 

and preventing and detecting errors, fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement. Internal 

controls over disbursements include the policies, procedures, and management controls to 

ensure contractor invoices are not paid unless the invoices can be matched to obligations in 

the organization’s accounting system.1

 Disbursements must be matched with corresponding 

obligations in official accounting records to ensure that funds are spent in accordance with 

the purposes and limitations set by Congress and to avoid fraudulent disbursements or 

erroneous payments. DoD in its Department of Defense Financial Management Regulation 

(DoD 7000.14-R), Volume 3, Chapter 11, defines an unmatched disbursement as a 

disbursement transaction that has been received and accepted by an accounting office, but 

has not been matched to the correct detail obligation (paragraph 110219).2

 For purposes of 

our analysis and this report, we used the DoD definition, because DoS and USAID do not 

have their own definitions of unmatched disbursements. 

 

1

 Invoices are bills submitted for payment. Disbursements are the payments. 

2

 A disbursement transaction can be either a request for payment that is pending and needs to be matched to the 

correct detail obligation before payment can be made, or less frequently, a cash payment that has already been 

made and must retroactively be matched to the correct detail obligation. We examined both types of 

transactions in this audit. 

2
Results 

DoD and USAID have effective internal controls to prevent unmatched disbursements. We 

tested DoD controls over $9.2 billion in disbursements and found, in all instances that DOD 

disbursements could be matched with obligations in accounting records. Similarly, we tested 

USAID’s controls over $4.3 billion in disbursements and found no unmatched 

disbursements. 

DoD Internal Controls 

In 2003, the Deputy Secretary of Defense designated the Secretary of Army the executive 

agent for acquisition and program management support of the Coalition Provisional 

Authority. When the Coalition Provisional Authority was dissolved the U.S. Army 

continued to maintain the responsibility for DoD. The Secretary of the Army in turn 

delegated to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) the primary responsibility for 

maintaining accounting records. The USACE Finance Center provides accounting services 

utilizing the U.S. Corps of Engineers Financial Management System (CEFMS). All IRRF 

obligations and disbursements are recorded in CEFMS, either directly by the Finance Center 

or through transactions where payment is approved by other DoD entities. For example, if a 

U.S. military unit in Iraq makes a cash payment to an Iraqi vendor, the unit verifies that the 

vendor is entitled to the payment and funds are available by reviewing the invoice and 

supporting documentation, the contractual authorization for the payment, and the funding 

authorization. The record of that payment is then processed electronically through the 

Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) and provided to the USACE Finance 

Center for posting into CEFMS. 

Management control procedures for obligations are covered in Volume 3, Chapter 8, of DoD 

7000.14-R, Department of Defense Financial Management Regulation. This regulation 

requires the offices responsible for recording obligations in their respective accounting 

systems to do so at the time they are incurred, but no later than ten calendar days after they 

are incurred.3

 It also requires that disbursements be matched to their corresponding 

obligations. The regulation states the vast majority of obligations and disbursements are 

matched automatically via DoD’s various financial system interfaces; however, some 

obligations and disbursements require manual matching because of non-automated processes 

or transactions rejected by automated systems. 

According to USACE Finance Center officials, the automated controls in CEFMS prevent 

disbursements from being recorded in CEFMS if they cannot be matched to the appropriate 

obligations. The Deputy Director of the Finance Center also reported to us that spot checks 

are conducted as part of the Center’s internal controls process to ensure that disbursements 

are properly recorded. Because other DoD entities are authorized to disburse IRRF funds 

maintained by USACE, the Finance Center must ensure those disbursements and related 

obligations are appropriately recorded in CEFMS. 

 

3

 This regulation applies to all DoD accounting systems, including CEFMS. 

3
We tested DoD’s internal controls over $9.2 billion in disbursements as of September 19, 

2006, and found no unmatched disbursements. Our tests of the accounting data found in all 

instances that funds were obligated before funds were disbursed and disbursements could be 

matched with obligations in accounting records. The U.S. Army Audit Agency also 

reviewed fund control and accountability over Fiscal Year 2004 IRRF funds and found that 

financial management system and processes were generally effective for ensuring the 

accurate recording of commitments, obligations, and disbursements.4

 

USAID Internal Controls 

USAID’s budgetary and financial management policy directives and required procedures are 

covered in Series 600 of its Automated Directives System. Chapter 621, “Obligations,” 

which requires that obligations be recorded when the federal government places an order for 

an item or service, awards a contract, or enters into similar transactions that will require 

payments in the same or a future period. The chapter also requires assistant administrators, 

office directors, and mission comptrollers to annually certify to the USAID Chief Financial 

Officer that obligations incurred during the fiscal year (1) are consistent with legal and policy 

requirements, (2) have been recorded in the agency’s accounting or procurement system, and 

(3) are supported by adequate records maintained in accordance with agency guidelines for 

records retention. In the event that an obligation does not meet these requirements, the 

certification must disclose the exception. Chapter 630, “Payables Management,” requires that 

voucher examiners, who are responsible for the proper review and processing of vouchers 

submitted by contractors, determine that a valid obligation exists before a voucher can be 

paid. As Chapter 630 states: 

“When USAID processes a voucher for payment, the Certifying Officer must have complete 

and current knowledge of all payments involved with the related obligation.***Therefore, 

only the designated paying office that maintains the complete obligation/payment record can 

disburse any funds. However, USAID can disburse funds if approval is first obtained from the 

responsible payment office (office retaining the records).” 

According to USAID accounting personnel, USAID procedures do not allow for unmatched 

disbursements. They told us that they must return to contractors all invoices found to be 

lacking their corresponding obligation documents, such as contracts or purchase orders, and 

that they are not authorized to pay any invoice if insufficient obligations exist on the 

respective contract. 

On July 24, 2006, the Chief Financial Officer notified all pertinent managers and officers of 

their annual responsibility to certify the validity of obligations and requested them to review 

all obligations incurred during the fiscal year for validity. The Chief Financial Officer 

defined a valid obligation as one that is (1) supported by written evidence, (2) for a purpose 

authorized by law, (3) executed by an individual who is authorized to incur an obligation, (4) 

required to fill a bona-fide need in the period of availability of the appropriation or fund 

used, and (5) executed during the period of availability of the funds. 

 

4 Fund Accountability for Fiscal Year 2004 Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Funds (U.S. Army Audit AgencyA-2006-0046-ALA, January 31, 2006).

4
On October 2, 2006, the USAID Mission-Iraq Controller certified, without exception, that 

obligations incurred during the fiscal year were (1) valid, (2) have been recorded in the 

agency’s accounting or procurement system, and (3) are supported by adequate records 

maintained in accordance with agency guidelines for records retention. 

We tested USAID’s controls over $4.3 billion in disbursements as of November 26, 2006, 

and found no unmatched disbursements. Our tests of the accounting data found in all 

instances that funds were obligated before funds were disbursed and that disbursements could 

be matched with obligations in accounting records. However, because USAID could not 

provide us with 4 of the 32 invoices we requested, which represented $42.4 million of the 

$445 million in invoices we tested, we could not make a complete determination before our 

audit concluded. On January 22 and 24, 2007, subsequent to the release of our draft audit 

report, USAID officials provided the remaining four invoices, and we completed our analysis 

of sampled invoices. From our review of all 32 USAID invoices, it appears that USAID has 

adequate controls. 

Unable to Assess DoS’ Internal Controls 

DoS officials did not provide access to detailed IRRF obligations and disbursements data 

needed for our review. On July 25, 2006, the DoS Inspector General requested that we defer 

our entrance conference because the DoS Bureau of Resource Management was understaffed 

and fully engaged with the Department’s first [OMB Circular] A-123 review of internal 

controls and the audit of DoS financial statements; particularly trying to deal with the 

material weaknesses which were reported in the previous audit report. On August 11, 2006, 

we contacted the Deputy Chief Financial Officer of the Bureau of Resource Management, to 

request a meeting to begin our review. After several follow-up requests, the first meeting 

was held on October 31, 2006, at which time we requested financial information related to 

our audit. After much delay, on December 13, 2006, DoS provided us with its listing of all 

IRRF disbursements and its own analysis of them. The DoS analysis showed $60,113 in 

unmatched disbursements from total disbursements of $1.3 billion, as September 30, 2006. 

However, because DoS did not provide us with a detailed listing of its obligations to compare 

with its disbursements, we could not independently validate the reasonableness of the 

unmatched disbursements data or the effectiveness of DoS’s policies, procedures, and 

practices regarding controls over disbursements. Therefore, we plan to perform a separate 

audit of DoS’s unmatched disbursements at a later date. 

Recommendations 

Because the DoD and USAID management controls over disbursements appear to be 

adequate to identify and resolve unmatched disbursements, we make no recommendations. 

Management Comments and Audit Response 

This report contains no recommendations; therefore no written response was required. A 

draft of this report was provided to USACE for DoD, USAID, and DoS. USACE officials 

responded with no comments to add. USAID officials provided no response. DoS officials 

provided technical comments, which were addressed in the final report. 

5
Scope and Methodology 

This review was announced on July 21, 2006 (Project No. 6027), with the overall objective 

of determining whether DoS, DoD, and USAID—the agencies receiving the majority of 

IRRF monies—had established effective internal controls to identify, review, resolve, and 

eliminate IRRF unmatched disbursements. 

Limitation in Scope of This Review 

Because DoS officials did not provide us access to the requested IRRF 1 and 2 obligations 

and disbursements data, we were not able to assess DoS’s controls of unmatched 

disbursements. We plan to perform this assessment at a later date. 

 

Review Methodology 

DoD 

To determine the effectiveness of DoD’s controls to identify, review, resolve, and eliminate 

unmatched disbursements, we obtained and reviewed DoD’s policies and procedures for 

obligations, disbursements, and unmatched disbursements. To test DoD’s controls, we took 

the following actions: 

1. We obtained a complete list of obligations that contained 8,089 entries totaling 

$12.5 billion and disbursements totaling $9.2 billion (for the period of September 24, 

2003 to August 23, 2006) from the USACE Finance Center as of September 19, 2006. 

In reviewing the list, we found in almost all instances that information related to each 

disbursement included the obligation number, vendor name, and the purpose of the 

obligation. We previously reported that there were 96 entries valued at $362.5 

million where no vendor name was specified.5 Within the 8,089 obligations, we 

further examined 43 obligations, valued at $3.4 million, listed as DFAS-“transactions 

by others,” where the obligations could not be matched to a specific vendor name. 

We obtained supporting documentation for 5 of the transactions and found specific 

vendors were identified on the documents. We were informed by Finance Center 

officials that through a more detailed review of records they were able to identify 

specific vendors for all 43 transactions. 

2. We analyzed obligations and disbursements data for five design-build contracts6

included in our previous audit of administrative task orders7 to determine whether 

disbursements could be matched to obligations.8

 We identified accounting entries for 

2,685 invoices in the CEFMS, involving total obligations of $1.89 billion and total 

 

5 Interim Audit Report on Improper Obligations Using the Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund (IRRF 2) 

(SIGIR-06-037, September 22, 2006). 

6

 A design-build construction contract places the design and building phases of a project under the same 

contract. 

7 Review of Administrative Task Orders for Iraq Reconstruction Contracts (SIGIR-06-028, October 23, 2006). 8

 We selected these transactions as they allowed us to build on our prior work. 

6
disbursements of $1.18 billion. The entries identified each contract and related task 

orders. We further selected and reviewed a judgmental sample of 119 contractor 

invoices, with a total value of $55.6 million, that included disbursements made in 

each of the Fiscal Years reviewed, to determine if they identified the obligating 

document and task order number. All 119 contractor invoices contained the name of 

the vendor to be paid and the contract and task order and, therefore, could be matched 

to obligations in accounting records. 

3. We selected and reviewed each of the DFAS end-of-month uncleared lists for April 

through October 2006 for Transactions By Others/Transactions For Others 

(TBO/TFO). According to Finance Center officials, when other government 

organizations, such as DFAS, process disbursements involving IRRF funds, those 

transactions are recorded either as TBO/TFO, or as an intragovernmental payment 

and collection (IPAC). For TBO/TFO transactions, the disbursing organization 

charges the USACE accounting code on disbursement documents, such as payment 

vouchers, and must submit those documents to the Finance Center for posting and 

reimbursement. For IPAC transactions, the disbursing organization utilizes the IPAC 

system, an Internet-based system operated by the Department of the Treasury, to 

transfer funds from the USACE financial accounts to the disbursing organization’s 

financial accounts. Subsequently, the disbursing organization must submit supporting 

documents to the Finance Center for posting and reconciliation with Treasury’s IPAC 

data. If a disbursement cannot be matched to an obligation or insufficient funds have 

been obligated, DFAS includes it on a list of uncleared transactions. Other problem 

transactions, such as those with incomplete contractor name or contract number, are 

also to be included on the uncleared list. In accordance with the USACE standard 

operating procedures, the Finance Center must research any transaction that appears 

on the uncleared lists to reconcile discrepancies. As reported to us by Finance Center 

officials, and as we observed during our August 2006 visit to the Finance Center, 

located in Millington, Tennessee, contractor invoices must be returned to the 

responsible procurement personnel for validation and adjustment if obligations have 

not been recorded in accounting records. Of the total 162 problem invoices that 

appeared on the combined lists for those months, only one was identified by DFAS as 

an unmatched disbursement. That invoice appeared on the April 2006 list and was for 

$50,717. The item was cleared and did not appear on the May list. The majority of 

transactions on the uncleared list were there because they lacked sufficient 

documentation for payment. Since the monthly list reflects all previously uncleared 

transactions, any previously unmatched disbursements had been cleared. 

4. We selected and reviewed each of the IPAC lists for August 9 and 21, 2006. We 

randomly selected 11 of 52 transactions from the August 9th list. We selected every 

transaction but 1 of the 17 (a $20 transaction) from the August 21st list, as it was the 

most current list as of the time of our visit in August 2006. For the 27 transactions 

we reviewed, totaling $804,500, we found the invoices matched to obligations in 

accounting records (Table1). 

7
Table 1—Invoices on IPAC Lists as of August 9, and 21, 2006 

List Date Total Number Dollar Value 

(in thousands) 

Number 

Reviewed 

Dollar Value 

(in thousands) 

August 9, 2006 52 $4,092.1 11 $374.9

August 21, 2006 17 429.6 16 429.6

Total 69 $4,521.7 27 $804.5

Source: SIGIR analysis of U.S. Corps of Engineers Finance Center-prepared IPAC lists 

5. We also reviewed the U.S. Army Audit Agency (AAA) report Fund Accountability 

for Fiscal Year 2004 Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Funds, Audit Report A-2006-

0046-ALA, dated January 31, 2006. At the request of the former Acting Secretary of 

the Army, AAA reviewed the Project and Contracting Office’s fund control and 

accountability over FY 2004 IRRF funds. The audit found that the Project and 

Contracting Office’s financial management system and processes were generally 

effective for ensuring the accurate recording of commitments, obligations, and 

disbursements. 

USAID 

To determine the effectiveness of USAID’s controls to identify, review, resolve, and 

eliminate unmatched disbursements, we obtained and reviewed USAID’s policies and 

procedures for obligations and disbursements. We interviewed USAID accounting personnel 

concerning unmatched disbursements and learned that USAID’s procedures are designed to 

not allow for unmatched disbursements. We obtained the USAID Mission-Iraq Controller’s 

certification that, without exception, obligations incurred during fiscal year 2006 are valid, 

have been recorded in the agency’s accounting or procurement system, and are supported by 

adequate records. To test USAID’s controls we took the following actions: 

1. We reviewed the USAID Mission-Iraq’s financial report as of November 30, 2006, 

which contained disbursements through November 29, 2006, for all IRRF 1 and 

IRRF 2 awards, obligations, and disbursements. According to this report, USAID had 

obligated $4.6 billion and disbursed $4.3 billion for contracts, purchase orders, grants, 

or cooperative agreements and administrative costs. We reviewed the report to 

determine if obligations were recorded in accounting records before funds were 

disbursed. We found no instance where disbursements were processed before 

obligations were recorded in accounting records. 

2. To assess whether disbursements could be matched with obligations in the accounting 

records, we performed two tests. First, we selected 12 invoices totaling about 

$47.7 million for one of USAID’s contractors in Iraq, and found all invoices could be 

matched with recorded obligations. Second, we randomly selected 32 high dollar 

value disbursements (totaling $445 million) for review, and requested that USAID 

provide us with the invoices. The 32 invoices we requested included disbursements to 

contractors (16), grantees (13), and IPAC (3). As of December 28, 2006, we received 

8
from USAID documentation supporting 28 of the 32 invoices with a combined value 

of $402.4 million. On January 22 and 24, 2007, we received the remaining four 

invoices, which represented $42.4 million of the $445 million. We matched all 32 

invoices with appropriate obligations in accounting records as follows: 

• Contractors: these 16 invoices contained the name of the vendor to be paid and 

the contract identification number and job order number and so could be matched 

to obligations in accounting records. 

• Grantees: for these 13 invoices, we were told by USAID officials that there are 

no invoices because the grantee provides a quarterly financial report on 

expenditures. In lieu of invoices, USAID officials provided listings of 

obligations, disbursements, and payments for each of the 13 grantees. We were 

able to link the disbursements to the appropriate obligations. 

• IPAC: for these 3 invoices, we received a summary of the IPAC transactions 

including the purchase order number, dollar amount, and government 

organization receiving the payment. We were able to link the disbursement to the 

appropriate obligations in the accounting records. 

Use of Computer-Processed Data 

To perform this audit, we used data that originated in both the CEFMS and USAID’s 

accounting system,9 neither of which we audited. We did not test any of the general and 

application controls of the automated systems utilized. However, in determining data validity 

of the information we used from these systems, we compared the system data to selected 

source documents (contract delivery orders, shipment receiving documents, and contractor 

invoices). As a result of our comparison, we determined that the data was sufficiently 

reliable to accurately portray whether there were any unmatched disbursements control 

issues. 

Prior Coverage 

We reviewed applicable reports issued by SIGIR and the Army Audit Agency: 

• Review of Administrative Task Orders for Iraq Reconstruction Contracts (SIGIR06-028, October 23, 2006)

• Interim Audit Report on Improper Obligations Using the Iraq Relief and 

Reconstruction Fund 2 (SIGIR-06-037, September 22, 2006) 

• Fund Accountability for Fiscal Year 2004 Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Funds 

(U.S. Army Audit Agency-A-2006-0046-ALA, January 31, 2006) 

 

9

 For more information on the reliability of data drawn from CEFMS, see U.S. Government Accountability 

Office (GAO) reports, Significant Weaknesses in Corps of Engineers’ Computer Controls, (GAO Report 01-

089, October 2000), and Corps of Engineers Making Improvements But Weaknesses Continue, (GAO Report 

02-589, June 2002). 

9
We performed this review from July 2006 through January 2007 in accordance with 

generally accepted government auditing standards. 

- - - - 

This report is provided for your information and use. This report does not contain any 

recommendations; therefore, no written response to this report is required. A draft of this 

report was provided to USACE, USAID, and DoS. USACE officials responded with no 

comments to add. DoS officials provided technical comments, which were addressed in the 

final report, as appropriate. USAID provided no comments. 

We appreciate the courtesies extended to the staff. For additional information on this report, 

please contact Mr. Joseph T. McDermott, Assistant Inspector General for Audit, (703-604-

0982 / joseph.mcdermott@sigir.mil), or Mr. Steven H. Sternlieb (703-428-0240 / 

steven.sternlieb@sigir.mil). For the report distribution, see Appendix A. For a list of the 

audit team members, see Appendix B. 

Stuart W. Bowen, Jr. 

Inspector General 

cc: See Distribution 

10
Appendix A. Report Distribution 

Department of State 

Secretary of State 

Senior Advisor to the Secretary and Coordinator for Iraq 

Director of U.S. Foreign Assistance/Administrator, U.S. Agency for International 

Development 

 Director, Office of Iraq Reconstruction* 

 Assistant Secretary for Resource Management/Chief Financial Officer, 

 Bureau of Resource Management* 

U.S. Ambassador to Iraq 

Director, Iraq Reconstruction Management Office 

Mission Director-Iraq, U.S. Agency for International Development 

Inspector General, Department of State 

Department of Defense 

Secretary of Defense 

Deputy Secretary of Defense 

Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)/Chief Financial Officer 

 Deputy Chief Financial Officer 

 Deputy Comptroller (Program/Budget) 

Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense-Middle East, Office of Policy/International 

Security Affairs 

Inspector General, Department of Defense 

Director, Defense Contract Audit Agency 

Director, Defense Finance and Accounting Service 

Director, Defense Contract Management Agency 

Department of the Army 

Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology 

Principal Deputy to the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics, 

and Technology 

Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Policy and Procurement) 

Director, Project and Contracting Office 

Commanding General, Joint Contracting Command-Iraq/Afghanistan 

Assistant Secretary of the Army for Financial Management and Comptroller 

Chief of Engineers and Commander, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

 Commanding General, Gulf Region Division 

Chief Financial Officer, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers* 

Auditor General of the Army 

U.S. Central Command

Commanding General, Multi-National Force-Iraq 

Commanding General, Multi-National Corps-Iraq 

Commanding General, Multi-National Security Transition Command-Iraq 

Commander, Joint Area Support Group-Central 

11
Other Federal Government Organizations 

Director, Office of Management and Budget 

Comptroller General of the United States 

Inspector General, Department of the Treasury 

Inspector General, Department of Commerce 

Inspector General, Department of Health and Human Services 

Inspector General, U.S. Agency for International Development 

President, Overseas Private Investment Corporation 

President, U.S. Institute for Peace 

Congressional Committees and Subcommittees, Chairman and 

Ranking Minority Member 

U.S. Senate 

Senate Committee on Appropriations 

Subcommittee on Defense 

Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs 

Senate Committee on Armed Services 

Senate Committee on Foreign Relations 

Subcommittee on International Operations and Terrorism 

Subcommittee on Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs 

Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information and 

International Security 

Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, 

and the District of Columbia 

U.S. House of Representatives 

House Committee on Appropriations 

Subcommittee on Defense 

Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs 

Subcommittee on Science, State, Justice and Commerce and Related Agencies 

House Committee on Armed Services 

House Committee on Government Reform 

Subcommittee on Management, Finance and Accountability 

Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats and International Relations 

House Committee on International Relations 

Subcommittee on Middle East and Central Asia 

* Recipient of draft audit report. 

12
Appendix B. Audit Team Members 

This report was prepared and the audit work was conducted under the direction of 

Joseph T. McDermott, the Assistant Inspector General for Audit, Office of the Special 

Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction. The staff members who contributed to the 

report include: 

Karen D. Bell 

Shawn D. Kline 

Kenneth A. Littlefield 

B. Quinton Lynch 

Richard P. McVay 

Robert L. Pelletier 

Steven H. Sternlieb 

13
SIGIR’s Mission Regarding the U.S. reconstruction plans, programs, 

and operations in Iraq, the Special Inspector General 

for Iraq Reconstruction provides independent and 

objective: 

• oversight and review through comprehensive 

audits, inspections, and investigations 

• advice and recommendations on policies to 

promote economy, efficiency, and effectiveness 

• deterrence of malfeasance through the prevention 

and detection of fraud, waste, and abuse 

• information and analysis to the Secretary of 

State, the Secretary of Defense, the Congress, 

and the American people through Quarterly 

Reports 

Obtaining Copies of SIGIR 

Reports and Testimonies 

To obtain copies of SIGIR documents at no cost, go 

to SIGIR’s Web site (www.sigir.mil). 

To Report Fraud, Waste, 

and Abuse in Iraq Relief 

and Reconstruction 

Programs 

Help prevent fraud, waste, and abuse by reporting 

suspicious or illegal activities to the SIGIR Hotline: 

• Web: www.sigir.mil/submit_fraud.html 

• Phone: 703-602-4063 

• Toll Free: 866-301-2003 

Congressional Affairs Marthena Cowart 

Assistant Inspector General for Congressional 

 Affairs 

Mail: Office of the Special Inspector General 

 for Iraq Reconstruction 

 400 Army Navy Drive 

 Arlington, VA 22202-4704 

Phone: 703-604-0368 

Email: marthena.cowart@sigir.mil 

Public Affairs Denise Burgess 

Assistant Inspector General for Public Affairs 

Mail: Office of the Special Inspector General 

 for Iraq Reconstruction 

 400 Army Navy Drive 

 Arlington, VA 22202-4704 

Phone: 703-428-1217 

Fax: 703-428-0818 

Email: PublicAffairs@sigir.mil 

14