OCTOBER 29, 2008 

AUDIT REPORT

REPORT NO. IG-09-002 (ASSIGNMENT NO. A-08-014-00) 

OFFICE OF AUDITS

NASA’S CONFERENCE PLANNING PROCESS 

NEEDS IMPROVEMENT

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration 

 
REPORT NO. IG-09-002 

Final report released by: 

 signed 

Evelyn R. Klemstine 

Assistant Inspector General for Auditing 

Acronyms 

CFO Chief Financial Officer 

FAP Fundamental Aeronautics Program 

FMR NASA Financial Management Requirements 

FTR Federal Travel Regulation 

FY Fiscal Year 

GSA General Services Administration 

M&IE Meals and Incidental Expense 

NSSC NASA Shared Services Center 

OCFO Office of the Chief Financial Officer 

OIG Office of Inspector General 
OCTOBER 29, 2008 

REPORT NO. IG-09-002 

OVERVIEW

NASA’S CONFERENCE PLANNING PROCESS 

NEEDS IMPROVEMENT

The Issue 

The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 (Public Law 110-161), requires NASA to 

submit quarterly reports to the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) on costs and 

contracting procedures used to provide NASA-sponsored fiscal year (FY) 2008 

conferences or meetings with costs exceeding $20,000. The Act requires OIG to analyze 

these quarterly reports and provide an analytical report, with recommendations as 

necessary, to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees no later than 

September 30, 2008. 

As of October 16, 2008, NASA had provided data on conferences with costs exceeding 

$20,000 for the first and second quarters of FY 2008 (October 2007–March 2008). 

NASA provided preliminary data for the first quarter of FY 2008 in a draft document 

dated May 15, 2008. However, NASA did not provide final first quarter data until July 7, 

2008, and did not provide second quarter data until July 25, 2008. The timing of 

NASA’s submissions precluded OIG from providing a sufficiently thorough analysis to 

satisfy the reporting requirements for Public Law 110-161 and resulted in a scope 

limitation. Our review was limited to the three conferences identified by NASA in its 

May 2008 draft report. As NASA has recently revised its criteria for what is includable 

as a reportable conference, we identified an additional scope limitation on this review. 

We reviewed cost documentation for these conferences to determine if NASA followed 

Federal contracting procedures and Federal Travel Regulation (FTR). Rather than focus 

on assessing the completeness and accuracy of NASA’s report, we focused on reviewing 

the supporting information and data for the three conferences reported to us in May 2008. 

Details of the audit’s scope and methodology are in Appendix A. 

Results 

For the three conferences we reviewed, NASA conference planners did not incorporate 

all information required to accurately estimate conference costs. NASA requires 

conference planners to collect comprehensive cost information for two reasons: to allow 

managers to make informed business judgments about whether proposed expenditures are 

reasonable and necessary and to ensure that costs, when incurred, meet the Government’s 

expectations in terms of what it is getting and at what price. Failing to use the costestimating internal control for conferences prevents the Agency from exercising business 
OVERVIEW

ii REPORT NO. IG-09-002 

judgment in decision making and makes the Agency vulnerable to excessive charges for 

meals, incidentals, and associated charges. Conference planners were unaware of the 

information required by NASA’s Financial Management Requirements (FMR) for 

conference cost estimation and location selection. As a result, conference planners 

significantly underestimated conference costs (at least in terms of required 

documentation) for the three conferences we reviewed by a total, for all three, of 

approximately $604,000, thus, costs averaged 263 percent more than estimated. For 

example, NASA spent approximately $147,000 on light refreshments for the three 

conferences we reviewed, which involved add-on costs not subject to review pursuant to 

the internal control system designed to cause such review. In addition, conference 

planners did not make informed, cost-effective decisions when selecting locations to 

meet the Government’s needs or comply with the Administration’s direction as regards 

avoiding conferences at resorts. By underestimating conference costs, conference 

planners increased the risk that program budgets could be negatively impacted by 

conference cost overruns. 

In addition, some conference attendees claimed, and NASA reimbursed them for, 

unallowable meal costs. Specifically, we identified instances of travelers not adjusting 

M&IE rates to reflect when NASA provided meals. In addition, some travelers received 

full M&IE rates on days when they were in transit to or from the location, which is not in 

compliance with NASA policy. This occurred because NASA travelers and travel 

voucher preparers did not adjust M&IE rates appropriately and approvers did not identify 

inappropriate M&IE rates during review. As a result, NASA inappropriately spent 

approximately $768 for Government-provided meals and an additional $531 for the 

non-reduced M&IE. 

Management Action 

We recommended that the NASA Chief Financial Officer (CFO) revise NASA’s FMR 

(August 2008), Appendix A, to include instructions for completing the NASA Sponsored 

Conference – Approval to Conduct form, clarify the form number, and ensure that NASA 

conference planners are aware of Federal and Agency conference planning policies and 

procedures to include the policies put forth in the NASA Administrator’s November 16, 

2005, memorandum. We also recommended that the NASA CFO issue an Agency-wide 

reminder to travelers, as well as travel voucher preparers and approvers, of the FTR 

requirement to reduce M&IE rates provided during temporary duty travel when the 

Government furnishes meals. Finally, we recommended that the NASA CFO require 

conference planners to notify conference attendees when M&IE rates should be adjusted 

due to the Government providing meals at NASA-sponsored conferences. 

The Deputy CFO concurred with our recommendation to revise the NASA FMR and also 

concurred with our recommendation to remind travelers, travel voucher preparers, and 

approvers of requirements to reduce M&IE rates when the Government provides meals 

and stated that OCFO will issue appropriate instructions to address both 
OVERVIEW

REPORT NO. IG-09-002 iii 

recommendations by December 31, 2008. The Deputy CFO partially concurred with our 

recommendation to require conference planners to notify conference attendees when 

meals will be provided by the Government, noting that conference planners might not 

always be the appropriate or most effective person(s) to provide attendees with a 

reminder about the FTR’s requirements regarding reducing allowable M&IE rates. In 

addition, the Deputy CFO stated that OCFO will issue appropriate guidance on 

complying with the FTR’s requirements and NASA’s FMR by December 31, 2008. 

Management’s comments are responsive; however, all three recommendations will 

remain open until we have verified that the new instructions and guidance issued meets 

the intent of the recommendations. (See Appendix D for the full text of management’s 

comments.) 

OCTOBER 29, 2008 

REPORT NO. IG-09-002 

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

Background __________________________________________ 1 

Objectives and Scope Limitation __________________________ 2 

Other Matters of Interest _______________________________ 2 

RESULTS

Finding A: Conference Planning Activities Need Improvement ___ 4 

Finding B: Incorrect Meal Allowances Paid to NASA 

Conference Attendees_______________________________ 14 

APPENDIX A 

Scope and Methodology _______________________________ 19 

Review of Internal Controls _____________________________ 21 

Prior Coverage_______________________________________ 22 

APPENDIX B 

Conference Approval Form _____________________________ 23 

APPENDIX C 

NASA Administrator’s Memorandum ______________________ 25 

APPENDIX D 

Management Comments _______________________________ 28 

APPENDIX E 

Report Distribution ___________________________________ 32 

OCTOBER 29, 2008 

REPORT NO. IG-09-002 1 

INTRODUCTION

Background 

The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 (Public Law 110-161), December 26, 2007, 

requires NASA to submit quarterly reports to the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) 

identifying costs and contracting procedures for NASA-sponsored fiscal year (FY) 2008 

conferences or meetings (called conferences throughout) with costs exceeding $20,000. 

For each such conference, NASA should specify the purpose of the conference, number 

of conference attendees, a detailed statement of the conference costs, and a description of 

the contracting procedures used to carry out the event. The description of contracting 

procedures should note whether NASA awarded contracts on a competitive basis and 

discuss any cost comparisons conducted. The Act contains an accompanying statement 

that the OIG shall analyze NASA’s reports, make recommendations, if necessary, and 

provide an analytical report citing each conference identified and any recommendations 

to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees no later than September 30, 2008. 

Our review was limited to the three conferences NASA initially identified in its May 15, 

2008, draft report on conferences with costs exceeding $20,000 and held during the first 

quarter of FY 2008. In attendance were NASA employees, contractor employees, and 

other agency representatives. 

• Procurement Training Conference held in Orlando, Florida, October 16–18, 2007, 

for 144 attendees, costing approximately $248,000. 

• Fundamental Aeronautics Program (FAP) Annual Conference held in New 

Orleans, Louisiana, October 30–November 1, 2007, for 418 attendees, costing 

approximately $367,000.1

• Aviation Safety Technical Conference held in St. Louis, Missouri, October 9–12, 

2007, for 281 attendees, costing approximately $219,000. 

For these three conferences, NASA relied on contracted event planners to perform 

conference planning services such as finding a hotel that met the sponsoring 

organization’s requirements, arranging and negotiating snack and meal costs, maintaining 

a Web site for registration, conducting on-site registration, and providing hand-out 

materials. To have a contractor provide conference-planning services, the contracted 

event planner and the responsible NASA conference-planning official agree on a cost 

proposal, which identifies services to be provided and total cost. The conference planner 

 

1

 The approximate total cost and number of attendees as reported in the final “First Quarter FY 2008 

Report on NASA Sponsored Conference,” dated July 7, 2008. 
INTRODUCTION

2 REPORT NO. IG-09-002 

then completes the NASA Sponsored Conference – Approval to Conduct form 

(Appendix B). The instructions note that this form must be approved by a NASA 

“Officials in Charge of Headquarters Offices,” Center Directors, or their designee. 

Objectives and Scope Limitation 

The overall audit objective was to determine whether NASA complied with the 

requirements of Public Law 110-161; submitted complete, accurate, and reliable 

information to the OIG; and followed Federal contracting procedures and Federal Travel 

Regulation (FTR) to minimize conference costs. We recognize that this is a new 

reporting requirement for NASA that has resulted in an intensive manual effort to achieve 

compliance because the Agency’s information systems are not currently configured to 

collect and report this information in a fully automated manner. Therefore, rather than 

focus on assessing the completeness and accuracy of NASA’s report, we focused on 

reviewing the supporting information and data for the three conferences reported to us in 

May 2008. We also reviewed internal controls as they related to the overall objective. 

As of September 9, 2008, NASA had provided data for the first and second quarters of 

FY 2008. However, NASA did not provide final first quarter data until July 7, 2008, and 

did not provide second quarter data until July 25, 2008. The timing of NASA’s 

submissions precluded OIG from providing a sufficiently thorough analysis to satisfy the 

reporting requirements for Public Law 110-161. Therefore, we limited our review to the 

original three conferences reported to the OIG on May 15, 2008, in the First Quarter 

FY 2008 Report on NASA Sponsored Conferences (Draft). 

The scope of our audit was also limited due to a disagreement between NASA and OIG 

on the interpretation of the reporting requirement. Specifically, reports for the first and 

second quarter on conferences with costs exceeding $20,000 may have excluded training 

conferences and excluded conferences that were attended only by NASA employees and 

NASA contractors because NASA was considering contractors to be employees. NASA 

has since agreed with the OIG to include conferences at which NASA provides training 

to attendees off-site (i.e., not at a NASA facility) and conferences attended by NASA and 

NASA contractors. This resulted in a scope limitation because these two categories were 

excluded from the first quarter report we reviewed. See Appendix A for details of the 

audit’s scope and methodology, more detail regarding the scope limitation, our review of 

internal controls, and a list of prior coverage. 

Other Matters of Interest 

On July 25, 2008, NASA provided the OIG with the Second Quarter FY 2008 Report on 

NASA Sponsored Conferences. NASA reported four conferences with costs exceeding 

$20,000. While the OIG is required to review cost documentation for these conferences, 

to do so at this time would preclude our meeting the statutory deadline of September 30, 
INTRODUCTION

REPORT NO. IG-09-002 3 

2008, for reporting our findings based on a substantive analysis of the data. However, a 

summary of the data NASA reported for the four conferences is provided in Table 1. 

Table 1. Second Quarter FY 2008 Conference Locations, 

Attendees, and Total Cost 

Conference Title Location 

Number of 

Attendees Total Costs 

Pr-Service Institute - Workshop Anchorage, AK 24 $86,410.00 

Third NASA/JAXA International 

TRMM Science Conference 

Las Vegas, NV 202 $195,550.11 

NASA PM Challenge 2008 

Conference 

Daytona Beach, FL 714 $848,172.54 

Airspace Systems Technical 

Interchange Meeting 

Austin, TX 216 $155,258.93 

Since this reporting requirement will continue in FY 2009, we plan to review these 

conferences in conjunction with our FY 2009 audit. 
RESULTS

4 REPORT NO. IG-09-002 

FINDING A: CONFERENCE 

PLANNING ACTIVITIES NEED 

IMPROVEMENT

For the three conferences we reviewed, NASA conference planners did not 

incorporate all information required to accurately estimate conference costs. In 

addition, one conference planner chose a resort hotel as a conference location despite 

a memorandum from the Administrator noting that selecting resort locations could 

create the appearance that the event is wasting Government resources. These issues 

arose because conference planners were unaware of the information required by 

NASA’s FMR for conference cost estimation and location selection. As a result, 

conference planners significantly underestimated conference costs for the three 

conferences we reviewed by a total, for all three, of approximately $604,000; thus 

costs averaged 263 percent more than estimated. In addition, conference planners 

did not make informed, cost-effective decisions when selecting locations to meet the 

Government’s needs. Further, by underestimating conference costs, conference 

planners increased the risk that program budgets could be negatively impacted by 

conference cost overruns. 

Conference Planning Guidance 

NASA is required to follow applicable Agency and Federal requirements for planning 

and holding an Agency-sponsored conference. Conference planning guidance is 

contained in the General Services Administration’s (GSA), FTR, NASA’s FMR, and a 

November 2005 memorandum from the NASA Administrator to Officials-in-Charge of 

Headquarters Offices and Center Directors concerning planning Agency-sponsored 

events. NASA uses an internal form, NASA Sponsored Conference – Approval to 

Conduct, that staff are required to use to plan Agency-sponsored conferences and 

estimate total conference costs. 

Federal Conference Planning Guidance. FTR, Chapter 301, “Temporary Duty Travel 

Regulations,” Part 301-74 and Appendix E, provide conference-planning guidance for 

Federal agencies. The guidance states that when planning a conference, agencies must 

minimize all conference costs, including administrative costs and conference attendees’ 

travel costs. In addition, agencies must maximize the use of Government-owned or 

Government-provided conference facilities as much as possible. Lastly, agencies must 

develop and establish internal policies to ensure these standards are met. The guidance 

also states that agencies should consider all direct and indirect conference costs paid by 

the Government, whether paid directly by agencies or reimbursed by agencies to travelers 

or others associated with the conference. 
RESULTS

REPORT NO. IG-09-002 5 

To determine which conference expenditures result in the greatest advantage to the 

Government, the FTR states that agencies must assure there is appropriate management 

oversight of the planning process. In addition, agencies must always do cost 

comparisons of the size, scope, and location of the proposed conference. Moreover, for 

each conference an agency sponsors or funds, in whole or in part, for 30 or more 

attendees, the agency must consider at least three sites and maintain a record of the costs 

of each alternative site considered. The FTR further states that these records must be 

made available for inspection to the agency’s OIG or other interested parties. 

NASA’s Conference Planning Guidance. NASA FMR, Volume 12, Part 301-74, April 

2005, clarifies conference guidance provided in the FTR and requires the preparation of 

the NASA Sponsored Conference – Approval to Conduct form, which is referenced and 

shown in Appendix A of the FMR (without a designated form number). The instructions 

for completing the form are not found within the FMR; however, they are on-line at 

NASA Electronic Forms Web site with a form identified as GRC-634, NASA Sponsored 

Conference – Approval to Conduct. (See Appendix B for the Approval form.) The 

GRC-634 instructions direct conference planners to determine estimated travel costs for 

all NASA conference attendees by including travel and per diem expenses, lodging rates, 

and ground transportation costs. Planners are also directed by the instructions to estimate 

conference services costs and provide examples of such costs, which should include, but 

not be limited to, meeting room costs, audiovisual equipment, light refreshments, and 

printing. 

With regard to selecting a conference location, the NASA Administrator issued a 

memorandum on November 16, 2005 (Appendix C), that provides guidance on 

conference planning. The memorandum states, in part, that 

. . . Government-owned facilities, including NASA Centers, should be considered as 

event locations if suitable facilities are available. Sites within 25 miles of a NASA 

Center are preferable, since not all attendees would then require hotel accommodations. 

Aside from cost considerations, employees must be conscious of appearance concerns 

when selecting an event location. Selecting sites in exotic or resort destinations may 

create the appearance that the event is wasting Government resources in order to 

facilitate personal vacations or entertainment for employees. Employees should take care 

to select event locations that are cost justified, appropriate to the purpose of the event, 

and which minimize, to the greatest extent possible, any appearance of impropriety. . . .

Information Provided on Conference Approval Forms Was 

Inaccurate and Incomplete 

NASA officials responsible for signing the approval forms for the three conferences we 

reviewed did not ensure that the information on the forms was accurate and complete. 

The form should provide an estimate of all direct and indirect conference costs. 
RESULTS

6 REPORT NO. IG-09-002 

Comparing the estimates with actual totals reported to the OIG on July 7, 2008, we 

identified significant underestimates of costs. See Table 2 for the estimated cost as 

indicated on the approval forms and the actual cost as reported by NASA, and the 

difference between the two amounts. 

Table 2. Conference Costs – Estimated vs. Actual 

Conference 

Title Dates 

Number of 

Attendees 

Estimated 

Cost 

Actual 

Cost 

Cost in Excess 

of Estimate 

Procurement 

Training 

Conference 

October 16–

18, 2007 

144 $94,863.00 $248,123.11 $153,260.11 

Fundamental 

Aeronautics 

Program 

Annual 

Conferencea

October 30–

November 1, 

2007 

418 $75,000.00 $366,517.50 $291,517.50 

Aviation Safety 

Technical 

Conference 

October 9–12, 

2007 

281 $60,000.00 $218,813.67 $158,813.67 

a The approximate cost and number of attendees (NASA employees, contractor employees, and other 

agency representatives) as reported in the final “First Quarter FY 2008 Report on NASA Sponsored 

Conferences,” dated July 7, 2008. 

Procurement Training Conference. The NASA conference planner completed 

GRC-634 but underestimated conference costs by approximately $150,000, or 

162 percent. This occurred because the planner did not estimate costs for all the items 

needed to hold the conference. Further, the NASA conference planner chose a resort 

hotel more than 25 miles from a NASA Center as the conference location. Finally, we 

also identified costs related to light refreshments and hotel reservations that were 

relatively high when compared to Government allowances for the area but not 

inappropriate based on existing conference guidance. 

 Incomplete Data Provided. The NASA conference planner estimated a flat 

airfare rate for each attendee of $300. We reviewed the airfare paid by 37 conference 

attendees and determined the average fare paid was approximately $423.2

 This difference 

of $123 significantly increased the overall conference costs. In addition, the planner did 

not estimate lodging or ground transportation costs as required and noted in the 

instructions for completing GRC-634. Therefore, the airfare information the planner 

recorded was of limited use in determining total travel costs for NASA attendees. 

 

2

 We were unable to review the vouchers for all conference attendees to determine the actual average of 

airfare because NASA was unable to provide an accurate listing of NASA employees who attended the 

conference. 
RESULTS

REPORT NO. IG-09-002 7 

In addition, according to the GRC-634 instructions, the planner is to estimate conference 

services costs and provide examples of such costs as meeting room audiovisual 

equipment, light refreshments, and printing. However, the approval form for this 

conference did not list any specific items and costs for audiovisual equipment or food and 

beverages; it only states “No minimums required, rates are negotiable – meets minimum 

requirements.” NASA reported that the actual amount spent on audio visual and food 

and beverage costs was approximately $21,375 with an additional $59,840 spent on 

contractor support, facilities, and other miscellaneous items/services. 

 M&IE Issues. The light refreshment costs for this conference totaled about 

$19,500. Items provided included non-alcoholic beverages, fruit, bagels, and cookies. 

The cost for these items for the 3 days of the conference equaled about $47 per day per 

person, which by itself is 96 percent of the $49 daily meals and incidental expense 

(M&IE) rate.3

 The conference planner did not include any information regarding light 

refreshments in the records of costs for any of the three alternative locations considered; 

therefore, we were unable to determine if the actual costs were reasonable. While these 

costs were not inappropriate, based on existing conference guidance, they do represent 

96 percent of the total daily M&IE for the conference. 

 Hotel Booking Fees. NASA also paid an $11,137 fee to a contractor for 

reserving 125 hotel rooms. The contractor’s firm fixed price contract included a 

20 percent fee for all direct costs.4 The contractor reserved a block of hotel rooms for 

$55,685 for conference attendees, which made the cost of hotel rooms a direct cost and, 

therefore, subject to the 20 percent fee. NASA would have saved $11,137 if conference 

attendees had paid for their hotel rooms with their Government-issued travel cards. 

Further, because of the firm fixed price contract, NASA paid the contractor $55,685 for 

the 125 rooms even though the contractor only paid the hotel $51,012.04. With this 

$4,672.96 overpayment, in total, NASA spent $15,809.96 more than what would have 

been paid if conference attendees had paid for their hotel rooms with their Governmentissued travel cards. NASA is unable to recoup the $4,672.96 overpayment because this 

was a firm fixed priced contract, which places the burden of performance on the 

contractor and is not subject to any adjustment based on actual cost. 

 Inappropriate Site Selected. The conference planner decided to conduct the 

procurement conference at the Orlando World Center Marriott Resort and Convention 

Center, which the conference planner stated was not a resort location. The site amenities 

include a spa, five restaurants, four swimming pools, a jogging/fitness trail and a fitness 

center, sauna, scuba diving, miniature golf, and a golf course. Approval of this resort 

 

3 The M&IE rate is established by GSA for travel and is meant to reimburse employees on official travel 

for expenses incurred. 

4

 The normal fee is 10 percent of direct costs; however, due to the unforeseen bankruptcy of the original 

contractor for this conference, NASA had to issue an emergency contract, as allowed under Federal 

Acquisition Regulations, to the subcontractor originally performing the work. Therefore, the contractor 

was able to charge a 20 percent fee for this conference. Although NASA was unable to prevent the 

10 percent increase, the normal fee would have still resulted in an expense of approximately $6,000. 
RESULTS

8 REPORT NO. IG-09-002 

location conflicts with the NASA Administrator’s November 2005 memorandum that 

states employees should take care to select event locations that minimize to the greatest 

extent possible any appearance of impropriety and that are within 25 miles of a NASA 

Center, which would decrease associated travel costs. 

Fundamental Aeronautics Program Annual Conference. For the FAP Annual 

Conference, NASA used a contractor as the event planner. The contractor, rather than 

the NASA conference planner, completed the required approval form and underestimated 

costs by approximately $290,000, or 389 percent. The underestimation resulted because 

the contractor did not include information that would have provided a more accurate 

overall estimate. Specifically, the form did not include an estimated number of NASA 

attendees, travel costs, or conference service costs. Further, we identified costs related to 

light refreshments and Government-provided meals that were relatively high when 

compared to Government allowances for the area but not inappropriate based on existing 

conference guidance. Finally, we found that the conference location selected was more 

than 25 miles from a NASA Center. 

 Incomplete Data Provided. Although the contracted event planner did estimate 

the daily M&IE rate and lodging rate for three alternative locations considered, the 

planner did not estimate airfare or ground transportation costs for any conference 

attendees. The collective airfares of attendees traveling from the various NASA Centers 

to the conference should have been an important consideration in estimating total travel 

costs, especially since the three locations considered were in different cities, which would 

have a significant impact on airfare costs. 

 M&IE Issues. NASA stated that approximately $107,600 was spent on food and 

beverages for this conference. That amount comprised a single Government-provided 

meal and daily light refreshments. The cost breakdown was about $18,500 for lunch and 

about $89,100 for light refreshments. Thus, the cost to NASA for the one lunch provided 

was approximately $49 per person, while the M&IE amount allowable for one lunch in 

New Orleans is $16. Further, the cost per person per day to NASA for the light 

refreshments provided was about $59 and is equivalent to the entire M&IE daily rate for 

New Orleans. While the contracted event planner did record estimated food and 

beverage costs ($60,000) and audiovisual costs ($15,000), the amount spent was 

approximately $107,600 for food and beverages and approximately $32,520 for audio 

visual. Based on the information we examined, we could not determine why the actual 

costs were significantly higher than the estimated costs.

 Inappropriate Site Selected. None of the three locations considered was within 

25 miles of a NASA Center. The lodging and M&IE rates were equivalent in all three 

locations and, therefore, would not have had a significant impact on cost. However, had 

the planner sought a hotel within 25 miles of a NASA Center, NASA could have saved 

on hotel accommodations. 
RESULTS

REPORT NO. IG-09-002 9 

Aviation Safety Technical Conference. The Aviation Safety Technical Conference was 

also arranged by a contracted event planner; and, for this conference also, the contractor 

completed NASA’s required approval form instead of the NASA conference planner. 

The cost estimates were underestimated by approximately $159,000, or 265 percent. 

This occurred because the contracted event planner did not provide an estimate for all the 

items needed to adequately estimate travel and conference service costs. Specifically, the 

form did not include an estimated number of NASA attendees, travel costs, or conference 

service costs. Finally, we identified costs related to light refreshments and Government 

provided meals that were relatively high when compared to Government allowances for 

the area but not inappropriate based on existing conference guidance. Further, we found 

that the conference location selected was more than 25 miles from a NASA Center. 

 Incomplete Data Provided. Although the contracted event planner did record the 

daily M&IE rate and lodging rate for the three hotels considered, the planner did not 

estimate airfare or ground transportation costs for any conference attendees. Also, the 

contracted event planner, as required, recorded estimated food and beverage costs and 

audiovisual costs for the hotel selected but provided no estimated food and beverage 

costs for the other two locations considered, which does not allow for a cost comparison 

to determine the most cost-efficient location. 

 M&IE Issues. NASA stated that approximately $61,000 was spent on food and 

beverages for this conference. The amount comprised two Government-provided meals 

and daily light refreshments. The cost breakdown was about $23,000 for lunches and 

$38,000 for light refreshments. The cost to NASA for each lunch was approximately 

$43 per person, while the M&IE amount allowable for one lunch in St. Louis is $16. 

Further the cost per person per day to NASA for the light refreshments provided was 

about $39 per day or 66 percent of the daily $59 M&IE rate. 

Inappropriate Site Selected. St. Louis is not within 25 miles of any NASA 

Center. Had the planner sought a hotel within 25 miles of a NASA Center, it is likely 

that NASA could have saved on hotel accommodations. 

Improved Guidance Needed 

Incomplete estimates of conference costs for the three conferences we reviewed occurred 

primarily because the NASA officials responsible for planning and/or approving the 

conference estimates were unaware of the information required by NASA’s FMR for 

estimating conference costs. Conference planners and approvers stated they were not 

aware that the forms were incomplete. Specifically, they were not aware that they were 

required to list on the form all the costs associated with travel and conference services. 

The officials responsible for approving the cost estimates for all three conferences all 

believed that the only estimated costs that required documentation and approval were the 

common expenses incurred by the contractor such as refreshments and audiovisual 

services. Conference expenses incurred directly by the attendees, but ultimately paid by 
RESULTS

10 REPORT NO. IG-09-002 

NASA, such as airfares and hotel charges were excluded from the initial conference 

estimates. Although the instructions for preparation of GRC-634, are clear—that all 

costs should be included when preparing the form—these instructions are not included in 

the FMR. Further, the FMR does not identify a form number or reference that 

instructions can be found in connection with GRC-634. Incomplete forms are of limited 

value to officials responsible for financial approval of total conference costs and are 

ineffective in ensuring that the requirements of the FTR are met.

Although the approval form was provided in the FMR, we did find that the instructions 

for the form were not. We did find them through the NASA Electronic Forms Web site. 

The need to seek out the instructions could explain why the NASA officials responsible 

for planning and/or approving the conference estimates were unaware of the information 

required and why they did not address that some costs were not included on the form. 

FTR guidance, however, clearly states that agencies must minimize all conference costs, 

including administrative costs and conference attendees’ travel costs, and to minimize 

travel costs, conference planners would need to identify conference expenses incurred 

directly by the attendees such as airfare and hotel charges. Further, the NASA 

Administrator’s November 2005 memorandum provides guidance regarding the choice of 

conference sites, specifically recommending sites within 25 miles of a NASA Center to 

reduce hotel charges, and notes problems of selecting resort hotels—i.e., creating the 

appearance that the event is wasting Government resources in order to facilitate personal 

vacations or entertainment for employees. 

Conclusion 

Due to inadequate conference planning and an incorrect understanding of NASA’s cost 

estimation requirements, NASA conference planners significantly underestimated 

conference costs for three conferences reviewed—the Procurement Training Conference 

by approximately $153,260, or 162 percent; the FAP Annual Conference by $291,517.50, 

or 389 percent; and the Aviation Safety Technical Conference by $158,814, or 

265 percent. Further NASA spent approximately $147,000 on light refreshments for the 

three conferences we reviewed, which were relatively high when compared to 

Government allowances for the area but not inappropriate based on existing conference 

guidance. The cost of light refreshments represented 96 percent of the M&IE for the 

Procurement Training Conference, 100 percent of the M&IE for the FAP Annual 

Conference, and 66 percent of the M&IE for the Aviation Safety Technical Conference. 

Incomplete forms are misleading and prevent conference planners from complying with 

FTR requirements. In addition, NASA officials are unable to make sound and informed 

decisions when selecting the most cost-effective conference site because the data they are 

using is incomplete. Underestimated costs also increase NASA’s risk that sponsoring 

organizations may not have funds available to pay all conference costs. 
RESULTS

REPORT NO. IG-09-002 11 

Management’s Comments on the Finding and Evaluation of 

Management’s Comments 

Management’s Comments on the Findings. In response to a draft of this report, the 

Deputy CFO provided comments on various issues discussed in this finding. (See 

Appendix D for the full text of management’s comments.) 

To summarize, the Deputy CFO noted that the Consolidation Appropriations Act of 

2008, passed late in the first quarter of FY 2008, led to challenges for NASA in 

developing the required reports, including the limitations in NASA’s current systems. 

The Deputy CFO also stated that the OIG’s comparison of the total light refreshment 

costs to the number conference attendees was not appropriate—i.e., “the OIG is 

comparing apples to oranges”—because less than half the attendees at the two 

Aeronautics conferences discussed were NASA employees. 

The Deputy CFO also faults our comparisons between estimated conference costs and 

actual conference costs. He states that the comparisons appear to be based “on an 

incomplete appreciation of the process by which a final approved cost estimate was 

reached, and an interpretation about the required use of the Approval to Conduct forms,” 

which “is currently optional, an approved means to satisfy the requirement of 

FTR 301-74.” As an example, the Deputy CFO cites the Procurement Training 

Conference and states that the Office of Procurement reported targeting a cost estimate of 

$216,000 for the conference, but the support service contractor’s bankruptcy 2 weeks 

before the conference led to a price increase from $116,856 to $136,900. The Deputy 

CFO states that OIG distorted the percentage difference between the conference cost 

estimate and the actual cost partially because we used the estimated total cost of $94,863 

and excluded the contractor’s price increase and that the difference between the estimated 

and the actual cost is less than 6 percent. 

Finally, the Deputy CFO comments that the audit report is partially inaccurate with 

regard to our reporting that the audit scope was also limited due to a disagreement 

between NASA and the OIG on the interpretation of the reporting requirement. The 

Deputy CFO states that by the time NASA prepared its annual report for all conferences, 

the OIG had reconsidered its initial position and subsequently adopted NASA’s 

interpretation with respect to routine training being outside the Act’s scope. 

Evaluation of Management’s Comments. In response to the NASA Deputy CFO’s 

comments, we have addressed each of his concerns. 

With regard to when the Consolidated Appropriations Act was signed into law by the 

President of the United States, December 26, 2007, we have added this date to the 

background of the report to provide additional context. 

With regard to the total spent per day per conference attendee on light refreshments, the 

OIG divided the total spent on refreshments by the total number of conference attendees, 
RESULTS

12 REPORT NO. IG-09-002 

as provided by NASA to include non-NASA attendees. The total per person per day 

equated to 96 percent of the M&IE rate for the Procurement Training Conference, 

100 percent of the M&IE rate for the FAP Conference, and 66 percent of the M&IE rate 

for the Aviation Safety Conference. Since we made a direct analysis of total light 

refreshment costs to total number of attendees—i.e., apples to apples—the comparison is 

appropriate. 

The Deputy CFO suggests that our findings related to differences between estimated 

costs and actual costs result from an incomplete understanding of the approval process 

for a final cost estimate and misinterpretation of NASA policy requirements. We note 

that the NASA FMR, Volume 12, Appendix A, Part 301-740 - Conference Planning, 

Section 301-74.19, states that “The recording requirements of FTR 301-74.19 will be 

fulfilled by completion and retention of the NASA Sponsored Conference – Approval to 

Conduct form . . ..” Thus, use of the NASA Sponsored Conference – Approval to 

Conduct form is mandatory. FTR 301-74.19 states that for each conference, Agencies 

must maintain a record of the cost of each alternative conference site considered. Costs 

to be included, according to FTR 301-74.2, are all direct and indirect costs paid by the 

Government. Therefore, the estimated total cost of the conference as recorded on the 

NASA Sponsored Conference – Approval to Conduct form should include an estimate of 

all direct and indirect costs. Using the Deputy CFO’s example of the Procurement 

Training Conference, the NASA Sponsored Conference – Approval to Conduct form for 

that Conferences states the estimated total cost was $94,863. Adding the increase of 

$20,044 due to the emergency procurement contract, as calculated by NASA, the total 

estimated conference cost would only be $114,907. This would still result in an 

underestimate of $133,216.11 or approximately 116 percent. 

Finally, concerning our audit scope limitation based on whether to include training 

conferences, on February 20, 2008, NASA issued guidance on the Act’s reporting 

requirements. Specifically, NASA issued the Conference Costs Reporting Requirements 

Frequently Asked Questions guidance, which stated that training was not reportable. On 

May 7, 2008, the OIG met with officials from NASA’s Office of the General Counsel 

and OCFO to discuss NASA’s guidance with regard to meeting the Act’s requirements. 

The OIG stated that formal training by an official training institute might not be 

reportable under the Act; but NASA-sponsored, off-site training provided to NASA and 

non-NASA employees with costs exceeding $20,000 is reportable. NASA and OIG are 

now in agreement that such conferences should be reported; however, NASA may have 

excluded them from the data provided for the first quarter of FY 2008. 

Recommendation, Management’s Response, and Evaluation of 

Management’s Response 

Recommendation 1. The NASA Chief Financial Officer should include instructions for 

completing NASA Sponsored Conference – Approval to Conduct form, within the FMR, 

clarify the form number, and ensure that all conference planners are aware of Federal and 
RESULTS

REPORT NO. IG-09-002 13 

Agency conference planning policies and procedures, to include the policies put forth in the 

NASA Administrator’s November 16, 2005, memorandum. 

Management’s Response. The Deputy Chief Financial Officer concurred and stated that 

OCFO will issue appropriate instructions by December 31, 2008. 

Evaluation of Management’s Response. Management’s comments are responsive; 

however, the recommendation will remain open until we evaluate the new instructions. 

At that time, we will determine whether the instructions provide sufficient guidance for 

completing the NASA Sponsored Conference – Approval to Conduct form and whether 

the form and instructions are contained in the FMR; whether the form number is clearly 

identifiable; and whether OCFO has provided a means to ensure that all conference 

planners are aware of Federal and Agency conference planning policies and procedures, 

to include the policies put forth in the NASA Administrator’s November 16, 2005, 

memorandum. 
RESULTS

14 REPORT NO. IG-09-002 

FINDING B: INCORRECT MEAL 

ALLOWANCES PAID TO NASA

CONFERENCE ATTENDEES

Cost documentation we reviewed for the three NASA-sponsored conferences 

showed that NASA incorrectly reimbursed employees attending the conferences for 

unallowable meals that were expensed on the employee’s travel voucher. 

Specifically, we found instances where M&IE was not adjusted when meals were 

furnished by the Government, M&IE rates were not calculated correctly on the first 

or last day of travel, and M&IE amounts were paid twice. These incorrect meal 

allowances occurred because NASA travelers and travel voucher preparers did not 

adjust M&IE rates appropriately, and approvers did not identify inappropriate M&IE 

rates during review. As a result, we identified a 41 percent error rate related to 

M&IE payments for the vouchers reviewed. In addition, for the three conferences 

combined, NASA paid inappropriate conference expenditures relating to M&IE of at 

least $1,299. While the total amount is immaterial, the high percentage of errors on 

the vouchers reviewed is an indication of a potential internal control weakness. 

M&IE Rate Adjustments 

FTR Section 301-11.18 states that the M&IE rate must be adjusted for meals furnished to 

the traveler by the Government. GSA sets the M&IE rate for various localities as well as 

the individual rate that the M&IE must be reduced when breakfast, lunch, or dinner is 

provided by the Government. GSA’s FY 2008 M&IE rate for both the Aviation Safety 

Technical Conference and FAP Annual Conference localities was $59 per day, of which 

$16 must be reduced for furnished lunches. Further, FTR Section 301-11.101 states that 

travelers should be reimbursed for three-quarters of the M&IE rate on days the 

employees are traveling to and from their temporary duty location. 

NASA travelers create travel vouchers that are then approved by the Travel Manager 

System’s Reviewing and Approving Official. The NASA Shared Services Center 

(NSSC) is then responsible for processing all travel vouchers. The NSSC’s policy is to 

not collect overpayments of less than $50 because of the cost associated with the 

collection process. 

Incorrect M&IE Paid to Conference Attendees 

For the three conferences we reviewed, we used a statistical sample to select NASA civil 

service personnel who attended each conference and then reviewed the employee’s travel 

voucher for accuracy (see Appendix A for further details on the sampling process). We 
RESULTS

REPORT NO. IG-09-002 15 

were unable to project the results of our statistical sample because NASA was unable to 

provide us an accurate listing of conference attendees for any of the three conferences 

reviewed. Without an accurate list of attendees, we could not determine the percentage 

of travel vouchers that were inaccurate. However, we identified a 41 percent error rate 

related to M&IE errors for the vouchers reviewed (Table 3). 

Table 3. Travel Voucher M&IE Errors 

Conference Title 

Number of 

Vouchers 

Reviewed 

Number of 

Errors 

Percentage 

of Errors 

Total Dollar 

Value of 

Errors 

Procurement Training 

Conference 37 4 11 $306 

Fundamental Aeronautics 

Program Annual 

Conference 

29 16 55 $299 

Aviation Safety 

Technical Conference 35 21 60 $694 

 Total 101 41 41 $1,299 

Specifically, some travelers did not adjust M&IE rates for meals provided by NASA 

during the conference, M&IE was not calculated correctly on the first or last day of 

travel, and M&IE amounts were paid twice. Although the monetary amount of the 

individual and collective errors is immaterial, the percentage of errors on the vouchers 

reviewed is material and is an indication of a potential internal control weakness. 

M&IE Not Adjusted for Meals Provided. For two of the three conferences reviewed, 

NASA provided meals as part of the conference; therefore, the NASA employee needed 

to reduce the daily M&IE for the meal(s) provided based on FTR requirements. 

However, vouchers reviewed for 33 of 64 conference attendees, or 52 percent, did not 

adjust the M&IE rates on their travel vouchers for meals paid for by NASA, totaling 

$768. 

• During the Aviation Safety Technical Conference, NASA provided two lunches; 

therefore, NASA employees should have reduced their daily $59 M&IE rate by 

$16 per day. We found that 18 of the 35 NASA employees (51.4 percent) did not 

reduce their M&IE for one or both lunches, for a total overpayment of $528. 

• During the FAP Annual Conference, NASA funded one lunch, thereby reducing 

the employee’s $59 daily M&IE by $16 per day. We found that 15 of the 29 
RESULTS

16 REPORT NO. IG-09-002 

NASA employees (52 percent) did not reduce their M&IE for the lunch provided 

by NASA, for a total overpayment of $240. 

Incorrect M&IE Calculation. Eight employees received a total of $531 in travel 

reimbursements for incorrectly calculated M&IE. Specifically, seven employees 

received a combined total reimbursement of $311 for a full-day M&IE rate on the first or 

last day of travel instead of the 3/4-rate required by the FTR. 

• For the Procurement Training Conference, three employees were incorrectly 

reimbursed a total of $86. 

• For the Aviation Safety Technical Conference, three employees were incorrectly 

reimbursed a total of $166. 

• For the FAP Annual Conference, one employee was incorrectly reimbursed $59. 

In addition, one employee was reimbursed twice for 5 days of M&IE for a total 

overpayment of $220.5 

Conclusion 

Employees were incorrectly reimbursed for M&IE at three conferences because NASA 

travelers and travel voucher preparers did not adjust M&IE appropriately. Further, 

approvers did not identify inappropriate M&IE rates during review. As a result of the 

lack of thorough reviews of the travel vouchers, NASA paid for duplicate lunches for the 

employees. Specifically, NASA inappropriately spent approximately $768 for 

Government-provided meals and an additional $531 for the non-reduced M&IE. 

Although the monetary amount of the individual and collective errors/overpayments is 

immaterial, the percentage of errors on the vouchers reviewed is material and indicates a 

potential internal control weakness on the part of preparers and approvers. Since most of 

the overpayments to travelers were less than $50 and it is NSSC’s policy not to collect 

amounts under $50, we are not making a recommendation to collect those overpayments. 

However, we will provide to NASA a list of travelers who received overpayments 

exceeding $50 to ensure that NSSC collects those overpayments. 

 

5

 The duplicative payment resulted from the traveler completing two travel vouchers because two funding 

sources were used to fund the travel. The traveler realized the error after electronically signing the 

voucher and immediately notified the applicable administrative staff (who entered the data), the manager, 

and the NASA Shared Service Center to initiate the collection process. However, the NSSC did not 

generate a bill of collection until August 14, 2008, after we inquired about the overpayment. 
RESULTS

REPORT NO. IG-09-002 17 

Recommendations, Management’s Response, and Evaluation of 

Management’s Response 

Recommendation 2. The NASA Chief Financial Officer should remind travelers, travel 

voucher preparers, and approvers of the Federal Travel Regulation requirement to reduce 

rates for Meals and Incidental Expense provided by the Government during temporary duty 

travel. 

Management’s Response. The Deputy CFO concurred and stated that OCFO will issue 

appropriate instructions by December 31, 2008. 

Evaluation of Management’s Response. Management’s comments are responsive; 

however, the recommendation will remain open until we evaluate the new instructions. 

At that time, we will determine whether the instructions issued remind travelers, travel 

voucher preparers, and approvers of the Federal Travel Regulation requirement to reduce 

rates for the Meals and Incidental Expense provided by the Government during 

temporary duty travel. 

Recommendation 3. The NASA Chief Financial Officer should require NASA conference 

planners to notify attendees when Meals and Incidental Expense should be adjusted because 

meals have been provided by the Government at a NASA-sponsored conference. 

Management’s Response. The Deputy CFO partially concurred but noted that 

conference planners might not always be the appropriate or most effective person(s) to 

provide attendees with a reminder about the Federal Travel Regulation’s requirements 

regarding reducing allowable Meal and Incidental Expense. The Deputy CFO further 

stated that the OCFO will issue appropriate guidance on complying with the Federal 

Travel Regulation’s requirements and NASA’s FMR by December 31, 2008. 

Evaluation of Management’s Response. Management’s comments are responsive; 

however, the recommendation will remain open until we evaluate the new guidance. At 

that time, we will determine whether the instructions issued meet the intent of the 

recommendation that attendees are notified directly when meals are being provided by 

the Government. 

APPENDIXES

REPORT NO. IG-09-002 19 

APPENDIX A 

Scope and Methodology 

We performed this audit from April 2008 through October 2008 in accordance with 

generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan 

and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable 

basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the 

evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on 

our audit objectives. We performed our review at the Glenn Research Center, the 

Goddard Space Flight Center, NASA Headquarters, and Stennis Space Center. 

Scope Limitation. The scope of our audit was limited due to NASA providing the 

conference data for the first quarter on July 7, 2008, and for the second quarter on 

July 25, 2008, which precluded a thorough analysis. The Consolidated Appropriations 

Act, 2008 (Public Law 110-161), requires NASA to provide quarterly and annual reports 

concerning FY 2008 and future conference attendance and expenses to the OIG. The 

Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO) determined that the reporting requirement 

applied to NASA Headquarters, NASA Centers, and Mission Directorates. The OCFO 

directed those entities to provide to OCFO by February 10, 2008, an initial submission to 

include separate conference reports for FY 2007, the first quarter of FY 2008, and a 

projection of total costs for conferences in FY 2008. However, the OCFO did not submit 

its initial first quarter FY 2008 draft report to the OIG until May 15, 2008, and failed to 

submit the final first quarter report until July 7, 2008. 

Public Law 110-161 requires the OIG to analyze the conference reports, make 

recommendations if necessary, and provide a report citing each occurrence and 

recommendation to the House and Senate Appropriation Committees no later than 

September 30, 2008. However, the required audit scope, the untimely data submission, 

and the time needed for report preparation, all compounded by the impending 

September 30, 2008, deadline, limited our audit scope to reporting on the three 

conferences identified in the draft first quarter FY 2008 report. In the final version, dated 

July 7, 2008, NASA reported a fourth conference to the OIG that took place during the 

first quarter of FY 2008. But the time constraints precluded our reviewing this 

conference as part of this audit. The fourth conference was the Exploration Systems 

Mission Directorate Technology Exchange Conference held in Galveston, Texas, from 

November 11–15, 2007. This conference had 319 attendees and cost NASA 

approximately $186,000. 

The scope of our audit was limited to a disagreement between NASA and OIG on the 

interpretation of the reporting requirement. Specifically, reports for the first and second 

quarter on conferences with costs exceeding $20,000 may have excluded training 
APPENDIX A 

20 REPORT NO. IG-09-002 

conferences and excluded conferences that were attended only by NASA employees and 

NASA contractors because NASA was considering contractors to be employees. NASA 

has since agreed with the OIG to include conferences at which NASA provides training 

to attendees off-site (i.e., not at a NASA facility) and conferences attended by NASA and 

NASA contractors. This resulted in a scope limitation because these two categories were 

excluded from the first quarter report we reviewed. 

Regulations, Policies, and Procedures. To determine whether NASA conducted the 

reported conferences in accordance with Federal regulations and NASA policies and 

procedures, we reviewed the following laws, regulations, policies, and procedures: 

• Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, December 19, 2007; 

• Administrator Memorandum, “Planning Agency-Sponsored Events,” 

November 16, 2005; 

• Federal Travel Regulation, Chapter 301, “Temporary Duty (TDY) Travel 

Allowances,” January 2004; 

• NASA Financial Management Requirements, Part 301-11, Per Diem Expenses, 

and Part 301-74, Conference Planning, December 2007; 

• NASA Federal Travel Regulation Supplement, Volume 12, Appendix A; and 

• NASA Memorandum to Senator Coburn, March 5, 2008. 

For the three conferences reviewed, we met with senior-level Headquarters officials 

responsible for planning the conferences and approving the conference location 

decisions. In addition, for each conference we met with conference planners, contracting 

officers, contracting officer’s technical representatives, and technical representatives for 

the conference tasks. We also reviewed travel vouchers for conference attendees, using 

statistical sampling techniques, and reviewed the statistical sampling plan for the NSSC. 

Sampling Methodology. We selected a statistical sample of conference attendees for 

each conference to review their travel authorizations and vouchers. We determined 

sample size, critical error rate, and the maximum risk to bear for each conference. To 

determine sample size, we used the Defense Contract Audit Agency sampling software, 

“EZ Quant Attribute Discovery Sample Size Procedure,” for attribute discovery samples. 

An attribute discovery sample is a special case of attribute sampling in which the 

occurrence of a single error constitutes a failure of the universe. A critical error rate is 

the maximum universe error rate considered acceptable, and the Government risk is the 

complement of confidence level (probability). 
APPENDIX A 

REPORT NO. IG-09-002 21 

• For the Procurement Training Conference, EZ Quant produced a sample size of 

38 attendees based on NASA’s universe of 119 attendees, a critical error rate of 

5 percent, and a maximum Government risk rate of 10 percent. 

• For the FAP Annual Conference, EZ Quant produced a sample size of 39 not 

37 attendees based on NASA’s universe of 211 attendees, a critical error rate of 

5.2 percent, and a maximum Government risk rate of 10 percent. 

• For the Aviation Safety Technical Conference, EZ Quant produced a sample size 

of 37 not 39 attendees based on NASA’s universe of 133 attendees, a critical error 

rate of 5.3 percent, and a maximum Government risk rate of 10 percent. 

However, after we selected our statistical samples, we determined that the universes 

provided to us by NASA included names of NASA employees who did not attend the 

conferences or submit vouchers. Therefore, we reviewed 37 vouchers for the 

Procurement Training Conference, 29 for the FAP Annual Conference, and 35 for the 

Aviation Safety Technical Conference. Since NASA was unable to provide us an 

accurate listing of conference attendees, we are unable to project the results of our 

analysis to the conferences as a whole. 

Use of Computer-Processed Data. During the audit fieldwork, we relied on computerprocessed data provided to us by NASA personnel for our review and analysis. The data 

sources include data in Excel spreadsheets and PDF files that NASA OCFO generated 

out of the following systems and provided to us for our review: 

• Travel Manager 

• SAP [Systems, Applications, and Products]/Business Warehouse 

• SATERN [System for Administration, Training, and Educational Resources for 

NASA] 

During the audit fieldwork, nothing specific from the provided data came to our attention 

to cause us to question the validity of the data generated and provided to us out of the 

above systems for the conferences reviewed. However, we also realize that NASA 

conceded that errors could exist due to a highly labor intensive effort in gathering and 

reporting the conference data. 

Review of Internal Controls 

We reviewed and evaluated internal controls associated with planning the conferences to 

ensure that NASA obtained adequate competition and that management selected the 

conference site in accordance with Agency guidance. We also reviewed internal controls 

associated with the accuracy and reliability of travel vouchers. We identified a control 
APPENDIX A 

22 REPORT NO. IG-09-002 

weakness in the preparation and approval of travel vouchers that resulted in NASA 

incorrectly reimbursing employees. 

Prior Coverage 

We identified two reports from external agencies that are of particular reference to the 

subject of this report. 

Department of Justice OIG

“Department of Justice Conference Expenditures” (Audit Report 07-42, 

September 2007). The audit team found that three types of costs associated with 

conferences—external event planning, food and beverages, and audio-visual—

represented more than 70 percent of the cost of planning and hosting conferences. In 

addition, the audit team identified some incurred expenses that, while allowable, 

appeared to be extravagant. Specifically, DOJ questioned costs for food and beverages 

exceeding established M&IE rates for the conference locations and attendees’ failure to 

reduce the M&IE claimed on related travel vouchers as required by the FTR. 

Transportation Security Administration OIG

“Assessment of Expenditures Related to the First Annual Transportation Security 

Administration Awards Program and Executive Performance Awards” (OIG-04-46, 

September 2004). The assessment found that although TSA obtained competitive bids 

for some of the services needed for the award program, it did not solicit competitive bids 

when selecting a site nor did it compare the total costs associated with different site 

selections or ceremony configurations. In addition, the assessment determined some of 

the awards associated with the awards program to be excessive. 
APPENDIX B 

REPORT NO. IG-09-002 23 

CONFERENCE APPROVAL FORM
APPENDIX B 

24 REPORT NO. IG-09-002 
APPENDIX C 

REPORT NO. IG-09-002 25 

NASA ADMINISTRATOR’S 

MEMORANDUM
APPENDIX C 

26 REPORT NO. IG-09-002 
APPENDIX C 

REPORT NO. IG-09-002 27 
APPENDIX D 

28 REPORT NO. IG-09-002 

MANAGEMENT COMMENTS
APPENDIX D 

REPORT NO. IG-09-002 29 

We added, 

in the first 

sentence on 

page 1, the 

date Pub. 

Law 110-

161 was 

enacted. 
APPENDIX D 

30 REPORT NO. IG-09-002 

We noted, 

on page 5 

that the instructions 

were not 

included in 

the FMR. 
APPENDIX D 

REPORT NO. IG-09-002 31 
APPENDIX E 

32 REPORT NO. IG-09-002 

REPORT DISTRIBUTION

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

Administrator 

Deputy Administrator 

Chief of Staff 

Chief Financial Officer 

Non-NASA Organizations and Individuals 

Office of Management and Budget 

Deputy Associate Director, Energy and Science Division 

Branch Chief, Science and Space Programs Branch 

Government Accountability Office 

Director, Defense, State, and NASA Financial Management, Office of Financial 

Management and Assurance 

Director, NASA Issues, Office of Acquisition and Sourcing Management 

Congressional Committees and Subcommittees, Chairman and 

Ranking Member 

Senate Committee on Appropriations 

Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies 

Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

Subcommittee on Space, Aeronautics, and Related Sciences 

Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

House Committee on Appropriations 

Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies 

House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

Subcommittee on Government Management, Organization, and Procurement 

House Committee on Science and Technology 

Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight 

Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics 
REPORT NO. IG-09-002 33 

Major Contributors to the Report: 

Dan Devlin, Director, Human Capital and Institutional Management Directorate 

Nicole Ellis, Project Manager 

Daniel Birnbaum, Auditor 

Lynette Westfall, Auditor 

Mike Bruns, Auditor 

Bruce Schmidt, Management Analyst 

Janet Overton, Editor 
OCTOBER 29, 2008 

REPORT No. IG-09-002 

OFFICE OF AUDITS

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

ADDITIONAL COPIES

Visit http://oig.nasa.gov/audits/reports/FY09 to obtain additional copies of this report, or contact 

the Assistant Inspector General for Auditing at 202-358-1232. 

COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT

In order to help us improve the quality of our products, if you wish to comment on the quality or 

usefulness of this report, please send your comments to Ms. Jacqueline White, Director of Special 

Projects and Quality Assurance, at Jacqueline.White@nasa.gov or call 202-358-0203. 

SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE AUDITS

To suggest ideas for or to request future audits, contact the Assistant Inspector General for 

Auditing. Ideas and requests can also be mailed to: 

Assistant Inspector General for Auditing 

NASA Headquarters 

Washington, DC 20546-0001 

NASA HOTLINE

To report fraud, waste, abuse, or mismanagement, contact the NASA OIG Hotline at 800-424-9183 

or 800-535-8134 (TDD). You may also write to the NASA Inspector General, P.O. Box 23089, 

L’Enfant Plaza Station, Washington, DC 20026, or use http://oig.nasa.gov/hotline.html#form. The 

identity of each writer and caller can be kept confidential, upon request, to the extent permitted 

by law.