JULY 18, 2007 

AUDIT REPORT

REPORT NO. IG-07-019 (ASSIGNMENT NO. A-06-018-00) 

OFFICE OF AUDITS

NASA COULD IMPROVE CONTROLS AND LOWER THE 

COSTS OF THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL PERSONNEL 

ACT MOBILITY PROGRAM

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration 

 
REPORT NO. IG-07-019 

Final report released by: 

 

 signed

Evelyn R. Klemstine 

Assistant Inspector General for Auditing 

Acronyms 

DG Desk Guide 

FTR Federal Travel Regulation 

HQ Headquarters 

HR Human Resource 

IPA Intergovernmental Personnel Act 

NFTRS NASA Federal Travel Regulation Supplement 

NPR NASA Procedural Requirements 

OA Office of Audits 

OIG Office of Inspector General 

OPM Office of Personnel Management 
JULY 18, 2007 

REPORT NO. IG-07-019 

OVERVIEW

NASA COULD IMPROVE CONTROLS AND LOWER THE 

COSTS OF THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL PERSONNEL 

ACT MOBILITY PROGRAM

The Issue 

Under the authority of the Intergovernmental Personnel Act (IPA), Federal agencies such 

as NASA can temporarily assign personnel to or from eligible non-Federal organizations 

for the mutual benefit of each organization. The IPA Mobility Program provides a source 

of technical and management expertise to all types of NASA missions and functions. 

The overall objective of the audit was to assess the adequacy of internal controls over 

NASA’s IPA Mobility Program. 

Between June 2005 and May 2006, NASA had 145 active IPA agreements with an 

estimated cost of $35.7 million. NASA IPA costs include salary, fringe benefits, travel, 

extended per diem (subsistence) or limited relocation costs, consultant fee loss, and other 

miscellaneous costs. The agreements are authorized at each Center (Headquarters is 

considered a Center for IPA agreement purposes). Of the 145 agreements, 24 are for 

NASA employees assigned to non-Federal organizations. We reviewed the management 

of the other 121 agreements, for employees assigned to NASA from non-Federal 

organizations, with an estimated cost of $32.3 million (about $20.5 million annually). 

We performed audit work at five NASA Centers, including NASA Headquarters. The 

five Centers authorized about 88 percent of the 121 active IPA assignments from nonFederal organizations. Details of the audit scope and methodology are in Appendix A. 

Results 

NASA’s internal controls for evaluating and approving costs associated with the IPA 

Mobility Program were inadequate to ensure that expenditures of about $20.5 million 

annually were properly recorded and accounted for. In addition, NASA did not adopt 

practices used by other Federal agencies to lower IPA Mobility Program costs. We 

estimate that NASA might be able to avoid costs of about $4 million to $12.6 million 

over 3 years by adopting practices that require cost-sharing, disallow indirect costs, and 

place a time limit on extended per diem. 

Inadequate Controls over IPA Expenditures. NASA’s evaluation of IPA agreement 

costs was inadequate because NASA’s IPA policy (NASA Procedural Requirements 

3300.1A, “Appointment of Personnel To/From NASA,” April 8, 2005, and its 

implementing guidance, NASA Desk Guide) did not require approving officials to obtain 

supporting documentation for invoiced costs. The Desk Guide (DG-11) provides 
OVERVIEW

ii REPORT NO. IG-07-019 

guidance and procedures on initiating, processing, and approving IPA agreements, but it 

does not provide guidance to ensure that IPA expenditures were supported, reasonable, 

and allowable. 

NASA personnel did not obtain any supporting documentation for invoiced salary and 

benefit costs or review these costs for consistency with the agreements. Therefore, we 

selected a sample of 21 invoices and requested supporting documentation for the 

invoiced costs from the IPA assignees’ home institutions. We found that home 

institutions did not routinely maintain support for invoiced costs. For example, at 

Marshall Space Flight Center, one university billed NASA for an IPA assignee’s salary 

plus an estimate for the assignee’s pay for vacation and sick leave. However, we found 

that this university’s policy was to include these benefits in the salary amount. NASA’s 

payment of about $30,000 for the estimated vacation and sick leave pay was a duplication 

of what was already included in the salary. 

On two invoices for separate IPA assignees, a non-profit institution billed NASA $10,500 

for benefit costs that were applied to extended per diem costs. However, the two 

assignees’ respective IPA agreements stipulate that benefit costs only be applied to 

salary. In addition, the home institution submitted a single amount on each invoice, 

combining all costs (both fixed and variable), giving NASA no way of evaluating the 

consistency of actual costs as compared to the IPA agreement. 

NASA also lacked procedures to validate the occurrence and allowability of variable IPA 

costs (travel, extended per diem, and other expenses such as supplies). For variable 

costs, IPA home institutions submitted invoices to NASA without supporting 

documentation, travel vouchers, or receipts for lodging, transportation, and supplies. We 

found that Ames Research Center complied with NASA travel policies. However, the 

other Centers that we visited—Headquarters, Goddard Space Flight Center, Johnson 

Space Center, and Marshall Space Flight Center—did not comply with NASA travel 

policies; personnel at these Centers had not verified that invoiced costs had actually been 

incurred or that the costs were in compliance with NASA travel policies. Specifically, 

these four Centers did not require the use of Travel Manager to authorize and process 

IPA assignee travel. 

During our audit, we found that NASA had paid monthly invoices that included travel 

costs as a fixed cost. By paying a fixed monthly amount, NASA had no assurance that 

travel had occurred and, if so, had complied with the Federal Travel Regulation (FTR). 

We also obtained supporting documentation from home institutions for invoiced travel 

costs that showed payment for first-class airfares and per diem in excess of the rates 

prescribed by the General Services Administration. We found no explanation for these 

costs, which should be justified per the FTR. Of the 21 invoices in our sample, 

13 invoices had extended per diem costs. None of the 13 invoices with extended per 

diem costs were processed using Travel Manager. Of the 13 invoices, 10 did not include 

any receipts, as required by NASA travel policies. With no receipts, the costs cannot be 

validated or quantified. 
OVERVIEW

REPORT NO. IG-07-019 iii 

NASA Might Be Able to Lower Its IPA Mobility Program Costs. We also found that 

NASA might be able to lower its costs of the IPA Mobility Program by adopting 

practices that other Federal agencies established in their implementation of Office of 

Personnel Management (OPM) guidelines. We selected six Federal agencies, each with a 

scientific research program, and reviewed their IPA guidance. We found that the six 

agencies had cost control practices that followed OPM guidelines, and we identified three 

specific practices that we believe might lower IPA costs if NASA adopted them: require 

cost-sharing, disallow indirect costs, and place time limits on extended per diem. 

OPM guidelines and the Act specify that agreements should be made for the mutual 

benefit of participating organizations. OPM guidelines also state that cost-sharing 

arrangements should be based on the extent to which the participating organizations 

benefit from the assignment. The larger share of the costs should be absorbed by the 

organization that benefits most from the assignment. NASA DG-11 states that NASA 

and the non-Federal entity must determine the percentage of costs each organization will 

pay. For the NASA IPA agreements that we reviewed, there was no cost-sharing and 

NASA paid the IPA home institutions 100 percent of their costs. 

During our review, we found that two agencies, the Department of Energy and the 

National Science Foundation, negotiate cost-sharing with participating IPA home 

institutions. Both agencies require justification for cost-sharing of less than 15 percent. 

We estimate that 1 percent cost-sharing could result in NASA avoiding costs of about 

$200,000 a year; with 15 percent cost-sharing, that amount could be as much as 

$3 million annually. 

OPM guidelines state that agencies should not reimburse indirect administrative costs 

associated with IPA agreements. All six agencies do not allow indirect costs to be 

included in their IPA agreements. However, DG-11 allows indirect costs to be 

reimbursed if requested by the IPA assignees’ home institutions. We estimate that 

NASA could avoid costs of about $410,000 a year by eliminating its practice of 

reimbursing IPA home institutions for indirect administrative costs. 

OPM guidelines state that extended per diem is meant for short assignments and that 

agencies should not authorize it for an IPA assignment expected to last more than 1 year 

or for an indefinite period. Our review found that three agencies limited extended per 

diem to a maximum of 2 years in implementing OPM guidelines. NASA DG-11, 

section VI.C, states that extended per diem should not normally be authorized for 

assignments that go beyond a year. This is vague compared to the OPM guidelines and 

does not set a clear time limit, as have other Federal agencies. Lacking such a control, 

NASA can pay this cost for the duration of an assignment, which can last 6 years. For 

example, one IPA assignee at NASA Headquarters has an IPA agreement that authorizes 

extended per diem for more than 5 years. We estimate NASA’s cost for this assignee’s 

per diem to be about $214,000, or about $40,000 per year. 

Of the 121 IPA agreements for assignees from non-Federal organizations, 56 were 

authorized by NASA Headquarters. Of those 56, we identified 18 that included extended 

per diem for more than 1 year. As a result, we estimate that NASA could avoid costs of 
OVERVIEW

iv REPORT NO. IG-07-019 

$720,000 annually and $2,160,000 over 3 years if it followed OPM guidelines and other 

agencies’ practices. 

Management Action 

We recommended that the Assistant Administrator for Human Capital Management 

revise IPA Mobility Program guidance to establish procedures for reviewing and 

supporting IPA invoices and to require compliance with NASA travel policy. We 

recommended that Marshall’s Chief Financial Officer initiate actions to recoup the 

$30,000 duplicate payment. The Assistant Administrator should consider whether 

establishing policies and procedures for cost-sharing, eliminating indirect costs, and 

placing a time limit on extended per diem would be beneficial. 

In response to a draft of this report, the Assistant Administrator for Human Capital 

Management and Marshall generally concurred (see Appendix D for the full text of 

management’s comments). The Assistant Administrator nonconcurred with eliminating 

indirect costs and partially concurred with establishing procedures for cost-sharing and 

limiting extended per diem. However, we consider management’s comments to be 

responsive to our recommendations. The changes to IPA guidance proposed by 

management could result in potential monetary benefits of more than $6.9 million over 

the next 3 years ($2.3 million annually). 
JULY 18, 2007 

REPORT NO. IG-07-019 

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

Background __________________________________________ 1 

Objectives ___________________________________________ 3 

RESULTS

Finding A: Inadequate Controls to Safeguard NASA IPA 

Expenditures and Ensure Compliance ____________ 4 

Finding B: NASA Might Be Able to Lower Its IPA 

Mobility Program Costs ______________________ 11 

APPENDIX A 

Scope and Methodology _______________________________ 17 

Review of Internal Controls _____________________________ 18 

Prior Coverage_______________________________________ 18 

APPENDIX B 

IPA Process Flowchart _________________________________ 19 

APPENDIX C 

NASA IPA Agreements ________________________________ 21 

APPENDIX D 

Management Comments _______________________________ 23 

APPENDIX E 

Report Distribution ___________________________________ 27 

JULY 18, 2007 

REPORT NO. IG-07-019 1 

INTRODUCTION

Background 

The Intergovernmental Personnel Act (IPA) of 1970 (title 5, United States Code, sections 

3371 through 3375) authorizes the temporary assignment of personnel between the 

Federal Government and non-Federal organizations for the mutual benefit of the 

participating organizations. The Act allows for assignments between Federal agencies 

and other governmental, academic, tribal, and eligible non-profit organizations. Civilian 

employees of Federal agencies can serve with non-Federal organizations for a limited 

period without loss of employee rights and benefits. In addition, employees of eligible 

entities may serve in Federal agencies. 

In April 1971, Executive Order 11589 delegated to the Office of Personnel Management 

(OPM) certain authorities of the President under the IPA of 1970. The Code of Federal 

Regulations (C.F.R.), title 5, chapter I, part 334, outlines the regulations governing the 

temporary assignment of personnel under the purview of OPM. In 1997, 5 C.F.R. 334 

was revised to allow Federal agencies to operate IPA programs more efficiently without 

OPM’s oversight of individual agreements. 

OPM, NASA Policies and Regulations. After the IPA C.F.R. was revised in 1997, 

OPM published IPA guidelines (untitled) to assist agencies in their day-to-day 

management of personnel assigned under IPA agreements. The Act and 5 C.F.R. 334 are 

incorporated in NASA Procedural Requirements (NPR) 3300.1A, “Appointment of 

Personnel To/From NASA,” April 8, 2005. NASA also incorporated the OPM guidelines 

in DG-11, “NASA Desk Guide on the Intergovernmental Personnel Act (IPA),” dated 

October 1999, amended August 2004. 

According to NPR 3300.1A, the Center’s Financial Management Officer and the 

Headquarters (HQ) Office of Institutional Planning and Investment, Business 

Management Division are responsible for ensuring that adequate financial safeguards are 

included in the terms of all agreements and that the terms are adhered to by all parties. 

NASA DG-11 states that the intent of the IPA is that assignees should not lose income by 

accepting the assignment. Each IPA agreement provides for the reimbursement of costs, 

such as salary. NASA reimburses the non-Federal entity (IPA home institution) and the 

IPA assignee continues to be paid directly by the IPA home institution. The assignee and 

officials from the appropriate NASA Center and IPA home institution must sign an 

agreement for every assignment.

NASA IPA Mobility Program Administration. The majority of NASA IPA 

agreements are with academic institutions and non-profit organizations. NASA uses the 

IPA Mobility Program to attract employees with technical and management expertise for 

all of its Mission Directorates and mission support offices, but mostly in areas under the 
INTRODUCTION

2 REPORT NO. IG-07-019 

Science Mission Directorate. NASA IPA agreements are renewable every 2 years and 

can be extended up to a maximum of 6 years. 

Between June 2005 and May 2006, NASA had 145 active IPA agreements with an 

estimated cost of $35.7 million. We reviewed the management of the 121 agreements for 

employees assigned to NASA from non-Federal organizations, with an estimated cost of 

about $267,000 per agreement ($32.3 million total; about $20.5 million annually). 

NASA IPA costs include salary, fringe benefits, travel, extended per diem (subsistence) 

or limited relocation costs, consultant fee loss, and other miscellaneous costs. The 

agreements are authorized at each Center (HQ is considered a Center for IPA agreement 

purposes) and the amounts vary. Administration of these agreements is accomplished by 

NASA personnel, including approving officials (contracting officer’s technical 

representatives) and NASA accounting and disbursement personnel. Although assigned 

to NASA, IPA assignees continue to receive their pay and benefits from their home 

institutions, which bill NASA. See Appendix B for a flowchart of the basic agreement 

process and Appendix C for details, by Center, on agreements and their costs. 

Internal Controls. The following criteria were used to assess NASA’s controls over the 

IPA Mobility Program: 

• Office of Management and Budget Circular No. A-123, revised June 21, 1995, 

“Management Accountability and Control,” which states: 

Management controls are the organization, policies, and procedures used to 

reasonably ensure that (i) programs achieve their intended results; (ii) resources are 

used consistent with agency mission; (iii) programs and resources are protected from 

waste, fraud, and mismanagement; (iv) laws and regulations are followed; and 

(v) reliable and timely information is obtained, maintained, reported and used for 

decision making. 

• Government Accountability Office “Standards for Internal Control in the Federal 

Government,” November 1999, which states: 

Control activities are the policies, procedures, techniques, and mechanisms that 

enforce management’s directives, such as the process of adhering to requirements for 

budget development and execution. They help ensure that actions are taken to address 

risks. Control activities are an integral part of an entity’s planning, implementing, 

reviewing, and accountability for stewardship of government resources and achieving 

effective results.
INTRODUCTION

REPORT NO. IG-07-019 3 

Objectives 

The overall audit objective was to assess the adequacy of internal controls over NASA’s 

IPA Mobility Program. Specifically, we determined whether 

• NASA had the safeguards necessary to comply with the laws, regulations, 

policies, and procedures related to the IPA Mobility Program, and 

• NASA managed the IPA Mobility Program effectively and efficiently. 

Our review focused on NASA’s management of the 121 assignments from non-Federal 

organizations. Specifically, we reviewed IPA agreements at NASA HQ and four 

Centers: Ames Research Center, Goddard Space Flight Center, Johnson Space Center, 

and Marshall Space Flight Center. These five Centers authorized about 88 percent of the 

121 active IPA assignments from non-Federal organizations; HQ alone authorized 56 of 

the 121 agreements, or 46 percent. See Appendix A for details of the audit’s scope and 

methodology, our review of internal controls, and a list of prior coverage. 
RESULTS

4 REPORT NO. IG-07-019 

FINDING A: INADEQUATE 

CONTROLS TO SAFEGUARD 

NASA IPA EXPENDITURES 

AND ENSURE COMPLIANCE

NASA’s internal controls for evaluating and approving costs associated with the IPA 

Mobility Program were inadequate to ensure that expenditures of about $20.5 million 

annually were properly recorded and accounted for. NASA’s evaluation of IPA 

agreement costs was inadequate because NASA lacked Agency-wide guidance 

requiring verification of invoiced costs to ensure that expenditures made against an 

IPA agreement are supported, reasonable, and allowable. Specifically, NASA did 

not require program personnel to obtain supporting documentation for invoiced costs 

and did not require IPA invoice reviews. In addition, NASA IPA practices did not 

comply with NASA Federal Travel Regulation Supplement (NFTRS) for managing 

travel and analyzing extended per diem costs. As a result, NASA was not properly 

protecting and accounting for Government resources in relation to IPA expenditures 

because of its inadequate internal controls. In addition, noncompliance with NASA 

travel policies results in a higher risk of fraud, waste, and abuse. 

NASA Regulations and Guidance Applicable to the IPA Mobility 

Program 

NASA IPA guidance contained in DG-11, section III.F, provides information related to 

allowable salaries, benefits, travel, extended per diem, relocation, and indirect (general 

and administrative) costs. The majority of NASA IPA costs are in these cost categories 

(listed in Appendix C). However, DG-11 does not advise on the allowability of other 

costs, such as those for supplies and incidentals. OPM, in its guidelines that assist 

agencies in their day-to-day management of the mobility program, state that supplies and 

other miscellaneous costs should be prohibited. 

NASA IPA Travel Guidance. NASA DG-11, section VI.D, states that an IPA assignee 

to NASA who must travel away from the location of the assignment to perform official 

business may be reimbursed travel expenses, as would be the case for a Federal 

employee. In addition, DG-11 states that reimbursements should be limited to those that 

Federal employees can claim under the Federal Travel Regulation (FTR). The FTR 

states that individuals must provide any additional information an agency requires. 

NASA Travel Policies and Controls. NFTRS addresses NASA-specific policies and 

procedures. NFTRS, as stated in NASA’s Financial Management Requirements, 

Volume 12, Appendix A (effective April 2005), requires NASA travelers, authorizing 

and approving officials, and financial management personnel to be familiar with the 

provisions of the FTR. NFTRS sections 301-50.2 and 301-51.1 require using the services 

of the travel management center to make travel arrangements and require the use of the 
RESULTS

REPORT NO. IG-07-019 5 

Government travel charge card for most expenses. NFTRS section 301-52.2 states that 

“travel claims must be recorded on a travel voucher within the Agency-wide electronic 

travel system,” which is the Travel Manager system. 

NASA Lacked Internal Controls to Validate IPA Expenditures 

NASA DG-11 provides guidance and procedures on initiating, processing, and approving 

IPA agreements. However, NASA internal controls for evaluating and approving costs 

associated with the IPA Mobility Program were inadequate to ensure that expenditures 

were properly recorded and accounted for. NASA policies did not require personnel to 

obtain supporting documentation for invoiced costs. During our review, we observed 

that NASA Centers received invoices periodically (monthly, quarterly) from IPA home 

institutions for costs incurred under the agreements. Upon receipt, the NASA Center’s 

finance or technical organization compared each invoice’s costs with the agreement’s 

budget limit. The IPA assignee’s technical organization representative (usually a NASA 

employee) then conducted a cursory review for obvious errors. 

After reviewing the five Centers’ processes for approving invoiced IPA costs, we 

determined that NASA controls were inadequate to ensure that costs had appropriate 

supporting documentation. Therefore, we selected a sample of 21 invoices and requested 

supporting documentation for the invoiced costs from the IPA assignees’ home 

institutions (universities and non-profit entities).1

 We used the documentation provided 

to determine whether the invoiced costs were supported, reasonable, allowable, in 

accordance with agreement terms, and compliant with applicable FTR and NFTRS 

guidelines. We found examples of invoices from IPA home institutions that had 

unsupported and noncompliant extended per diem and travel costs; unsupported 

employee benefits; and supplies and services that OPM guidelines suggest prohibiting. 

Those examples are discussed in the following section. 

IPA Program Costs Were Unsupported 

There are two general categories of IPA costs: fixed and variable. Fixed costs, such as 

salary and benefits, tend to remain the same over time; variable costs, such as travel, 

extended per diem, and other expenses, depend on certain events, such as a travel 

requirement, and vary over time. For fixed IPA costs, the Agency needs controls to 

ensure that these costs are legitimate and reasonable. Variable costs need controls over 

each event to ensure that the event has occurred and that the associated costs are 

authorized and allowable. 

 

1

 Our sample was not a random sample; it was based on invoices that included travel costs, extended per 

diem, and other miscellaneous costs. The 21 invoices were for 19 different IPA assignees from 15 IPA 

home institutions. 
RESULTS

6 REPORT NO. IG-07-019 

We reviewed 121 IPA agreements at an annual estimated cost of $20.5 million; annual 

costs for the 106 agreements authorized at the five Centers that we visited were about 

$18.8 million annually. Of the $18.8 million, $15.6 million was for salary and benefits 

(see Appendix C). After IPA agreements are made, NASA needs to review invoiced 

fixed costs (salary and benefits) for consistency and legitimacy. The invoiced variable 

costs (travel, extended per diem, and other expenses) need controls over each occurrence 

and the associated costs. 

Fixed Costs Invoiced. NASA personnel did not obtain any supporting documentation 

for invoiced salary and benefit costs or compare the invoiced costs to the costs in the 

agreements. 

At Marshall Space Flight Center, one university billed NASA for an IPA assignee’s 

salary plus an estimate for the assignee’s pay for vacation and sick leave. However, we 

found that this university’s policy was to include these benefits in the salary amount. 

NASA’s payment of about $30,000 for the estimated vacation and sick leave pay was a 

duplication of what was already included in the salary. Although the agreement had 

obligated funding for the estimated $30,000 leave pay and the Center authorized 

payments for portions of that amount, the Act prohibits payments in excess of actual and 

allowable costs expended. We discussed this issue with NASA representatives, who 

initiated actions to follow up with the university. 

On two invoices for separate IPA assignees, a non-profit institution billed NASA $10,500 

for benefit costs that were applied to extended per diem costs. However, the two 

assignees’ respective IPA agreements stipulate that benefit costs only be applied to 

salary. In addition, the home institution submitted a single amount on each invoice, 

combining all costs (both fixed and variable), giving NASA no way of evaluating the 

consistency of actual costs as compared to the IPA agreement. 

Variable Costs Invoiced. NASA lacked procedures to validate the occurrence and 

allowability of variable IPA costs (travel, extended per diem, and other expenses such as 

supplies). For variable costs, IPA home institutions submitted invoices to NASA without 

supporting documentation, travel vouchers, or receipts for lodging, transportation, and 

supplies. 

The FTR states that individuals must provide information an agency requires, which 

NASA identifies in NFTRS. For instance, NFTRS requires the use of the Travel 

Manager system to record travel claims and extended per diem. 

However, NASA IPA guidance and procedures do not comply with NFTRS policies 

concerning the use of the travel management center2

 and the Travel Manager system for 

arranging, reviewing, and approving travel and extended per diem costs. We found that 

Ames Research Center complied with NASA travel policies. However, HQ, Goddard 

Space Flight Center, Johnson Space Center, and Marshall Space Flight Center did not 

 

2

 NFTRS sections 301-50.2 and 301-51.1 require using the services of the travel management center to 

make travel arrangements and require the use of the Government travel charge card for most expenses. 
RESULTS

REPORT NO. IG-07-019 7 

comply with NASA travel policies; personnel at these Centers had not verified that 

invoiced costs had actually been incurred or that the costs were in compliance with 

NASA travel policies. Specifically, these four Centers did not require the use of Travel 

Manager to authorize and process IPA assignee travel. In addition, the four Centers did 

not have any documents to support the IPA travel costs. Consequently, the four Centers 

relied on the IPA home institutions to validate that the IPA assignees’ travel occurred and 

was authorized. For the 121 NASA IPA agreements that we identified, IPA assignee 

travel costs totaled about $1.6 million per year (see Appendix C). 

During our review, we found that NASA paid invoices that included travel costs as a 

fixed cost. Our sample included a university that did not provide any supporting 

documentation for travel costs. The monthly invoice was for exactly 1/12 of the 

estimated travel costs included in the agreements (estimated at $5,000). By paying a 

fixed monthly amount, NASA had no assurance that travel had occurred and, if so, had 

complied with the FTR. 

Other universities’ support for invoiced travel costs in our sample showed payment for 

first-class airfares and per diem in excess of the rates prescribed by the General Services 

Administration. We found no explanation for these costs, which should be justified per 

the FTR. In addition, we found invoices that included questionable items, such as 

conference fees added to travel costs. Per the FTR, conference fees are not reimbursable 

until after approval of the travel costs. 

Similar to IPA travel guidance, IPA guidance and procedures for extended per diem do 

not comply with NFTRS, which requires recording extended per diem costs in Travel 

Manager. In addition, NASA personnel did not obtain any supporting documentation for 

IPA extended per diem costs. Certain costs (such as lodging and utilities) at the extended 

temporary duty location must be supported with receipts. Further, extended per diem 

amounts must be adjusted when an IPA assignee travels. For the 121 NASA IPA 

agreements that we identified, IPA assignee extended per diem costs totaled about 

$1.1 million per year (see Appendix C). 

Of the 21 invoices in our sample, 13 invoices included extended per diem costs. Travel 

Manager was not used to process any of the 13 invoices’ costs, and 10 did not include 

any receipts, as required by NFTRS. For 8 of the 13 invoices, the institutions did not 

adjust per diem as required by NFTRS, which states that the extended per diem rate3

 is to 

be suspended during times of authorized travel. 

Furthermore, NASA IPA guidance, DG-11, section VI.C, states that the Center should 

perform a cost-effectiveness analysis when considering extended per diem versus limited 

relocation costs. We found that the Centers we visited were not performing cost analyses 

before allowing extended per diem costs. 

 

3

 Extended per diem, for assignments of more than 120 days, is 55 percent of the maximum per diem rate 

for that location. 
RESULTS

8 REPORT NO. IG-07-019 

NASA lacks guidance on the allowability of other costs, such as supplies and incidentals, 

which the OPM guidelines suggest prohibiting. For the 121 IPA agreements that we 

identified, NASA allotted about $100,000 per year for IPA assignees’ incidental costs 

(see Appendix C). 

In our sample of 21 invoices, 3 invoices from a non-profit institution included charges for 

cell phones, messaging, file services, and network services, which the OPM guidelines 

suggest prohibiting. The guidelines state that, for reimbursement for assignments, 

“[a]gencies should not authorize for indirect or administrative costs associated with the 

assignment.” The guidelines also state that “[o]ther prohibited costs include tuition 

credits, office space and furnishings, supplies, and staff support and computer time.” 

These costs, which were included on the 3 invoices, ranged from $600 to $900 per 

invoice. 

In addition, we found invoices that included other supplies and support costs, such as 

software, postage, and an audit fee. As a result of our questioning, one institution did 

agree to return $554 that NASA should not have paid. 

NASA’s IPA Funds at Risk 

NASA was not properly protecting and accounting for Government resources used 

toward IPA expenditures because of its inadequate internal controls. NASA did not 

request, review, or maintain supporting evidence for the invoiced costs, and IPA home 

institutions’ invoices included unsupported costs and questionable charges. As a result, 

NASA was at an increased risk of fraud, waste, and abuse. NASA management needs to 

establish procedures for reviewing and supporting IPA invoices to minimize the risks of 

fraud, waste, and abuse and the associated costs. 

In addition, the IPA guidance and practices (excluding Ames Research Center’s practice) 

did not require compliance with NASA travel policies. NASA personnel did not verify 

travel costs to ensure the costs were authorized and allowable per the FTR. Had NASA 

used the Travel Manager system to control IPA travel and extended per diem costs, 

NASA would have separated most of the variable costs from the IPA invoicing process, 

resulting in a more efficient reimbursement process. Using Travel Manager and the 

travel management center would provide NASA additional controls on IPA travel costs 

by ensuring that costs that are actually incurred are authorized and allowable. These 

added controls would result in monetary benefits, but we did not attempt to quantify the 

potential monetary benefits. 
RESULTS

REPORT NO. IG-07-019 9 

Recommendations, Management’s Response, and Evaluation of 

Management’s Response 

Recommendation 1. We recommended that the Assistant Administrator for Human Capital 

Management revise NPR 3300.1A, chapter 6, “Intergovernmental Personnel Act (IPA) 

Assignments,” and NASA DG-11 to 

a. clarify the criteria for reasonable and allowable IPA agreement costs for fringe 

benefits, salary, and other miscellaneous and incidental costs (in concordance 

with OPM guidelines). 

b. establish procedures with appropriate NASA officials for reviewing invoices 

containing IPA costs and require that NASA personnel obtain and maintain 

independent supporting documentation for validating invoiced costs. 

c. require compliance with NFTRS and NASA travel procedures for use of the 

travel management center and the Travel Manager system to obtain travel 

arrangements, travel authorizations, approvals, and reimbursements, to include 

extended per diem costs. 

d. require compliance with NFTRS and, for NPR 3300.1A, NASA DG-11, and 

require documentation for cost analyses used in determining whether to pay 

extended per diem or limited relocation costs. 

Management’s Response. The Assistant Administrator concurred, stating that the 

guidelines in the IPA Desk Guide (DG) would be updated no later than December 31, 

2007. The update will clarify NASA guidelines to ensure consistency with OPM 

guidelines with respect to costs for fringe benefits, salary, and other miscellaneous and 

incidental costs. 

The Assistant Administrator stated that the Office of Human Capital Management will 

partner with the Chief Financial Officer by September 30, 2007, on establishing 

procedures for reviewing invoices containing IPA costs, noting that the Chief Financial 

Officer has Agency responsibility for finance and procurement. Additionally, the Office 

of Human Capital Management will ensure that the procedures outline the required 

documentation for validating invoiced costs. 

The Office of Human Capital Management will also require that individuals on IPA 

assignments to NASA comply with NFTRS and NASA travel procedures as well as 

ensure that the applicable NPR and DG require compliance with NFTRS, and require 

appropriate documentation regarding the payment of extended per diem or limited 

relocation costs. 

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

recommendations are resolved, but will remain open pending verification of the revisions 

to NPR 3300.1A, chapter 6, and NASA DG-11. 
RESULTS

10 REPORT NO. IG-07-019 

Recommendation 2. We recommended that Marshall Space Flight Center’s Chief 

Financial Officer review the IPA agreement and payments to the university discussed in the 

“Fixed Costs Invoiced” section on page 6 and initiate actions to recoup the $30,000 

duplicate payment as well as any other billed costs that were unreasonable, unsupported, 

inconsistent with the university’s policies, or in excess of the university’s actual 

expenditures. 

Management’s Response. The Assistant Administrator for Human Capital Management 

concurred, stating that the Marshall Office of the Chief Financial Officer and Office of 

Human Capital are coordinating with representatives from the university to assess 

whether there was a $30,000 duplicate payment as well as evaluate the IPA for the issues 

noted in the recommendation. Management will provide documentation concerning the 

review of the IPA agreement by August 31, 2007. The Assistant Administrator also 

described several initiatives undertaken to improve internal controls to safeguard IPA 

expenditures.

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

recommendation is resolved, but will remain open pending our review of Marshall’s 

documentation. 
RESULTS

REPORT NO. IG-07-019 11 

FINDING B: NASA MIGHT BE 

ABLE TO LOWER ITS IPA

MOBILITY PROGRAM COSTS

NASA might be able to lower the costs of its IPA Mobility Program by adopting 

practices that other Federal agencies established in implementing OPM guidelines. 

We estimate that NASA could avoid costs of about $1.3 million to $4.2 million 

annually by implementing policies and procedures that require cost-sharing, disallow 

indirect costs, and place a time limit on extended per diem. 

Comparison of NASA and Other Agencies’ IPA Programs 

We selected six Federal agencies and reviewed their IPA program and policies. The 

purpose of our review was to identify practices that could improve the cost-effectiveness 

of NASA’s IPA Mobility Program. We selected the following six agencies for review 

because each has a scientific research program: 

• National Science Foundation 

• National Institute of Standards and Technology, Department of Commerce 

• National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services 

• U.S. Department of Agriculture 

• Department of Energy 

• Environmental Protection Agency 

We found that the six agencies had cost control practices, which follow OPM guidelines, 

and identified three specific areas that we believe NASA could benefit from adopting. 

Agency Practices and OPM Guidelines for Controlling IPA Costs 

The areas that we identified for NASA’s consideration were to require cost-sharing, to 

disallow indirect costs, and to place time limits on extended per diem. 

Cost-Sharing. OPM guidelines and the Act specify that agreements should be made for 

the mutual benefit of participating organizations. OPM guidelines also state that costsharing arrangements should be based on the extent to which the participating 

organizations benefit from the assignment. The larger share of the costs should be 

absorbed by the organization that benefits most from the assignment. NASA DG-11 

states that NASA and the non-Federal entity must determine the percentage of costs each 

organization will pay. For the NASA IPA agreements that we reviewed, there was no 

cost-sharing and NASA paid the IPA home institutions 100 percent of their costs. 
RESULTS

12 REPORT NO. IG-07-019 

During our review, we found that two agencies, the Department of Energy and the 

National Science Foundation, negotiate with participating IPA home institutions to share 

a minimum of 15 percent of the IPA costs. Both agencies require justification for a lesser 

rate because it is expected that assignments will be made on a shared cost basis. These 

negotiations are reflected in the individual IPA agreements. 

For the 121 agreements for personnel assigned to NASA from non-Federal organizations, 

the cost-sharing practice would have resulted in avoiding annual costs of between about 

$200,000 (1 percent cost-sharing) and $3 million (15 percent cost-sharing). The annual 

cost avoidance amounts were based on the annualized value of the 121 agreements (as 

shown in Appendix C, Table 2), which totaled $20,453,260: 1 percent of that amount is 

$204,532; 15 percent is $3,067,989. Projecting those amounts over 3 years yields cost 

avoidance ranging from $613,596 (1 percent cost-sharing) to $9,203,967 (15 percent 

cost-sharing). 

Indirect Costs. OPM guidelines state that agencies should not reimburse indirect 

administrative costs associated with IPA agreements. All six agencies do not allow 

indirect costs to be included in their IPA agreements. However, DG-11 allows for 

reimbursement of IPA home institutions’ indirect costs, which NASA defines as 

applicable general and administrative costs associated with IPA assignees. DG-11 states 

that discussions with OPM officials indicated that OPM guidelines were not intended to 

prohibit reimbursement of indirect costs. Thus, DG-11 allows indirect costs to be paid if 

requested by the IPA assignees’ home institutions. We estimate that NASA could avoid 

costs of about $410,000 a year by eliminating its practice of reimbursing IPA home 

institutions for indirect costs. 

Annualized indirect costs authorized in the 121 IPA agreements totaled $410,272: 

$365,167 at the five Centers we visited and $45,105 at the other Centers (see 

Appendix C, Tables 3 and 4). Projecting that amount over 3 years yields cost avoidance 

of $1,230,813. 

Extended Per Diem Costs. OPM guidelines state that extended per diem is meant for 

short assignments and that agencies should not authorize it for an IPA assignment 

expected to last more than 1 year or for an indefinite period. Our review found that three 

agencies limited extended per diem to a maximum of 2 years in implementing OPM 

guidelines. The Department of Energy and the National Science Foundation limited per 

diem to 2 years, while the National Institute of Standards and Technology limited it to no 

more than 1 year. 

NASA DG-11, section VI.C, states that extended per diem should not normally be 

authorized for assignments that go beyond a year. This is vague compared to the OPM 

guidelines and does not set a clear time limit, as have other Federal agencies. Lacking 

such a control, NASA can pay this cost for the duration of an assignment, which can last 

6 years. For example, one IPA assignee at NASA HQ has an IPA agreement that 

authorizes extended per diem for more than 5 years (from 2003 through 2008). We 

estimate NASA’s cost for this assignee’s per diem to be about $214,000, or about 

$40,000 per year. 
RESULTS

REPORT NO. IG-07-019 13 

Of the 121 IPA agreements for assignees from non-Federal organizations, 56 were 

authorized by NASA HQ. Of those 56, we identified 18 that included extended per diem 

for more than 1 year. Although per diem rates vary with time and location, we based our 

estimated average of $40,000 per year for the 18 assignees on the per diem rate 

authorized in the HQ agreements. As a result, we estimate cost avoidance at $720,000 

annually and $2,160,000 over 3 years. 

Summary of Estimated Potential Monetary Benefits from 

Implementing Practices that Follow OPM Guidelines 

We estimate that NASA could avoid costs of about $4 million to $12.6 million over 

3 years if the Agency implements practices that follow OPM guidelines, as other Federal 

agencies discussed in this report have done. That estimate is the projection of annual 

costs avoided (about $1.3 million to $4.2 million) that we determined based on the 121 

IPA agreements that we identified (see the following figure). 
RESULTS

14 REPORT NO. IG-07-019 

Estimated Range of Potential Monetary Benefits 

$1.3 million annually $4.2 million annually

Require Cost-Sharing (1 percent)

Eliminate Indirect Costs

Limit Per Diem (1 year)

Require Cost-Sharing (15 percent)

Eliminate Indirect Costs

Limit Per Diem (1 year)

$4 million over 3 years $12.6 million over 3 years

Recommendations, Management’s Response, and Evaluation of 

Management’s Response 

Recommendation 3.a. We recommended that the Assistant Administrator for Human 

Capital Management consider revising NPR 3300.1A, chapter 6, to establish policies and 

procedures requiring IPA agreements to include cost-sharing. The procedures should 

stipulate that IPA home institutions cover up to 15 percent of the total proposed costs and 

require that NASA provide detailed explanations to justify no cost-sharing and obtain 

NASA senior management approval. 

Management’s Response. The Assistant Administrator partially concurred, stating that 

NASA should make a good faith effort to encourage cost-sharing negotiations with the 

participating organizations. Effective with the update to the IPA Desk Guide (no later 

than December 31, 2007), the Office of Human Capital Management will require that all 

$720,000 

$204,532 

$410,272 

$410,272 

$720,000 

$3,067,989 

$2,160,000 

$613,596 

$1,230,813 

$1,230,813 

$2,160,000 

$9,203,967 
RESULTS

REPORT NO. IG-07-019 15 

new IPA agreements negotiate cost-sharing arrangements to cover at least 10 percent of 

the total proposed costs. 

Evaluation of Management’s Response. Management’s planned action is responsive 

and may result in cost avoidance of $6.1 million over the next 3 years ($2 million 

annually). The recommendation is resolved, but will remain open pending verification of 

the revisions to NPR 3300.1A, chapter 6. 

Recommendation 3.b. We recommended that the Assistant Administrator for Human 

Capital Management consider revising NPR 3300.1A, chapter 6, to disallow reimbursement 

of indirect costs in IPA agreements. Remove sections 6.6.1 and 6.6.2 and update DG-11 to 

reflect the change in policy. 

Management’s Response. The Assistant Administrator nonconcurred, stating that her 

office has contacted OPM to discuss the issue of reimbursement of indirect or 

administrative costs and to request clarification and further guidance on this issue. 

Evaluation of Management’s Response. Management’s planned action is responsive. 

Our recommendation was for management to consider disallowing indirect costs since 

these costs are generally not paid for by other Federal agencies. DG-11 states that 

discussions with OPM officials indicated that OPM guidelines were not intended to 

prohibit reimbursement of indirect costs. We would encourage management to discuss 

with OPM officials the practice of disallowing indirect costs; however, we consider the 

recommendation resolved and closed. 

Recommendation 3.c. We recommended that the Assistant Administrator for Human 

Capital Management consider revising NPR 3300.1A, chapter 6, to limit extended per diem 

to 1 year per agreement, including extensions. Revise DG-11 to include the 1-year limit. 

This should be implemented in conjunction with Recommendation 1.d (requiring 

documented evidence of cost comparisons between extended per diem and limited 

relocation) and include cost limits for extended per diem authorizations. 

Management’s Response. The Assistant Administrator partially concurred, stating that 

the Office of Human Capital Management will revise its IPA DG to limit extended per 

diem to 2 years per agreement, to include modifications and extensions, as well as 

cost limits for extended per diem authorizations. 

Evaluation of Management’s Response. Management’s planned actions are responsive 

and may result in cost avoidance of $840,000 over the next 3 years, or $280,000 annually 

(based on our estimated average of $40,000 per year for the seven assignees on the per 

diem rate authorized in the HQ agreements). The recommendation is resolved, but will 

remain open pending verification of the revisions to NPR 3300.1A, chapter 6, and 

NASA DG-11. 

APPENDIXES

REPORT NO. IG-07-019 17 

APPENDIX A 

Scope and Methodology 

We performed work at NASA HQ and four NASA Centers: Ames Research Center, 

Goddard Space Flight Center, Johnson Space Center, and Marshall Space Flight Center. 

During our audit work, we reviewed NASA internal controls over the IPA Mobility 

Program. We interviewed NASA personnel to identify NASA policies and procedures 

related to the IPA Mobility Program. We reviewed applicable OPM guidelines and 

5 C.F.R. 334. We also interviewed personnel from non-Federal participating 

organizations to obtain an understanding of their invoice processes and to obtain 

supporting documentation for invoices submitted to NASA that we selected for additional 

review. 

We selected NASA HQ, Ames, Goddard, Johnson, and Marshall for this audit because 

these Centers authorized 88 percent of the 121 active IPA agreements for assignments 

from non-Federal organizations. In addition, we selected 21 HQ and Marshall invoices 

for a review of supporting documentation using the following criteria: 

• high agreement budget, 

• travel card usage, 

• high travel costs, 

• high per diem costs, 

• high salary costs, or 

• former NASA employee. 

We reviewed the 21 IPA agreements’ invoices to determine whether the records of the 

participating IPA home institutions adequately supported their costs. Our findings are 

not projectable, as the sample was not selected randomly. 

We also compared NASA’s policies and procedures with those of other Federal agencies 

to determine whether NASA could apply cost-saving practices used by these agencies to 

reduce program costs. For our comparison, we selected the following six agencies 

because each has a scientific research program: 

• National Institute of Standards and Technology 

• National Science Foundation 

• National Institutes of Health 

• U.S. Department of Agriculture 

• Department of Energy 

• Environmental Protection Agency 
APPENDIX A 

18 REPORT NO. IG-07-019 

We performed this audit from April 2006 through April 2007 in accordance with 

generally accepted government auditing standards. We limited our scope to address 

NASA’s management of the 121 IPA agreements for employees assigned to NASA from 

non-Federal organizations; we did not evaluate the 24 agreements for NASA employees 

assigned to a non-Federal organization. We did not use computer-processed data to 

perform this audit. 

Review of Internal Controls 

We reviewed NASA policies and procedures and internal controls related to the IPA 

Mobility Program. We identified the weaknesses discussed in Finding A of this report. 

Our recommendations, if implemented, will improve controls over the IPA Mobility 

Program. 

Prior Coverage 

During the last 5 years, the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the NASA OIG, 

and the National Science Foundation (NSF) have issued three reports of particular 

relevance to the subject of this report. Unrestricted reports can be accessed over the 

Internet at http://www.gao.gov (GAO), 

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/oig/hq/audits/reports/FY07/index.html (NASA), and 

http://www.nsf.gov/oig/auditpubs.jsp (NSF). 

Government Accountability Office

“National Science Foundation: External Assignments Under the Intergovernmental 

Personnel Act’s Mobility Program” (GAO-01-1016, September 24, 2001) 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

“Intergovernmental Personnel Act Agreements” (A-03-005-00, July 31, 2003) 

National Science Foundation

“Audit of Costs Associated with Visiting Personnel” (OIG 04-2-006, July 23, 2004) 
APPENDIX B 

REPORT NO. IG-07-019 19 

IPA PROCESS 

FLOWCHART

The IPA Mobility Program is decentralized, with each Center separately managing its 

own IPA program. 

The basic process followed at each Center, including Headquarters, is that the requesting 

office or directorate seeking a particular IPA candidate completes, along with the 

assignee and the home institution, NASA Official Form (OF) 69, “Assignment 

Agreement.” The completed agreement is submitted to the Center’s Human Resource 

(HR) Office for review and coordination. The HR Office sends the draft agreement to 

NASA’s Office of the General Counsel for review. In addition, a budget review is 

performed by the appropriate (Center) budget office. The purpose of these reviews is to 

verify that the proposed agreement follows OPM guidelines and NASA IPA guidance as 

well as any applicable Center policy. 

After the various reviews and approvals, the agreement is returned to the HR Office 

which routes the agreement for signature by the appropriate NASA approving officials, 

the IPA assignee, and the IPA home institution. 

Once the agreement is signed and approved, the HR Office distributes copies of the 

agreement to all parties in the agreement and notifies the NASA Human Capital Office. 

A copy is also provided to the Center’s Accounts Payable Department for funding 

allocation to process invoice payments. 

The following flowchart outlines the basic process. 
APPENDIX B 

20 REPORT NO. IG-07-019 

IPA Process Flowchart 

Center 

Requesting 

Office 

Center HR 

Management 

NASA’s 

General 

Counsel

Center Budget 

Approval 

Process

Center HR 

Management 

Home Institution 

(Non-Profit or Educational 

Institution) 

IPA Candidate 

Center HR 

Management 

Requesting 

Office 

NASA Human 

Capital Office 

Accounts Payable 

Department 
APPENDIX C 

REPORT NO. IG-07-019 21 

NASA IPA AGREEMENTS

During FYs 2005 and 2006 (specifically, June 1, 2005, through May 31, 2006), NASA 

had 145 active IPA agreements, with an estimated cost (budget limit) of $35.7 million. 

The following tables provide details on the agreements. 

Table 1. NASA IPA Agreements 

 Type of Agreement 

Number of 

 Agreements Total Budget Limit 

For a non-Federal employee to be assigned 

 to NASA 121 $32,271,059 

For a NASA employee to be assigned 

 to a non-Federal organization 24 3,392,619 

 Total 145 $35,663,678 

Table 2. IPA Agreements for Assignees from Non-Federal Organizations 

 Center 

Number of 

 Agreements 

Annualized Value 

 (Estimated Annual Costs) 

Total 

 Budget Limit 

Ames Research Center 19 $ 4,062,079 $ 8,616,679 

Glenn Research Center 3 442,193 617,392 

Goddard 6 972,162 968,477 

HQ 56 10,486,898 15,566,053 

Johnson 6 850,119 930,136 

Kennedy Space Center 5 419,559 605,105 

Langley Research Center 3 272,498 405,719 

Marshall 19 2,437,243 3,607,714 

Stennis Space Center 4 510,509 953,784 

 Total 121 $20,453,260 $32,271,059 
APPENDIX C 

22 REPORT NO. IG-07-019 

Table 3. Itemization of Annualized Values 

of IPA Agreements for Assignees from Non-Federal Organizations 

at the Five Centers Selected for Review

Cost Element Ames Goddard HQ Johnson Marshall Total 

Salary $2,685,581 $615,775 $6,197,111 $635,800 $1,712,233 $11,846,500

Fringe benefits 1,019,828 210,111 1,952,220 161,126 438,098 3,781,383

Per diem/subsistence 20,000 72,000 970,643 17,095 30,781 1,110,519

Travel 116,951 74,276 1,157,620 36,098 162,311 1,547,256

Indirect 147,522 – 182,190 – 35,455 365,167

Lost consulting fees 18,461 – – – – 18,461

Other (supplies) 48,018 – – – 55,865 103,883

Other (relocation) 5,718 – 27,114 – 2,500 35,332

 Total $4,062,079 $972,162 $10,486,898 $850,119 $2,437,243 $18,808,501

Table 4. Itemization of Annualized Values 

of IPA Agreements for Assignees from Non-Federal Organizations 

at the Four Centers Not Selected for Review

 Cost Element Glenn Kennedy Langley Stennis Total 

Salary $374,015 $346,611 $199,018 $398,019 $1,317,663 

Fringe benefits 32,846 54,902 27,488 66,994 182,230 

Per diem/subsistence – – – – 0 

Travel 22,637 9,023 35,021 29,441 96,122 

Indirect 10,057 9,023 9,970 16,055 45,105 

Lost consulting fees – – – – 0 

Other (supplies) 2,638 – 1,001 – 3,639 

Other (relocation) – – – – 0 

 Total $442,193 $419,559 $272,498 $510,509 $1,644,759 
APPENDIX D 

REPORT NO. IG-07-019 23 

MANAGEMENT COMMENTS
APPENDIX D 

24 REPORT NO. IG-07-019 

name of 

university 

redacted 

FOIA exemption b(6)
APPENDIX D 

REPORT NO. IG-07-019 25 
APPENDIX D 

26 REPORT NO. IG-07-019 
APPENDIX E 

REPORT NO. IG-07-019 27 

REPORT DISTRIBUTION

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

Administrator 

Deputy Administrator 

Chief of Staff 

Associate Administrator for Institutions and Management 

Assistant Administrator for Human Capital Management 

Executive Director, NASA Shared Services Center 

NASA Centers 

Director, Ames Research Center 

Director, Dryden Flight Research Center 

Director, John H. Glenn Research Center at Lewis Field 

Director, Goddard Space Flight Center 

Director, Jet Propulsion Laboratory 

Director, Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center 

Director, John F. Kennedy Space Center 

Chief Counsel, John F. Kennedy Space Center 

Director, Langley Research Center 

Director, George C. Marshall Space Flight Center 

Chief Financial Officer, George C. Marshall Space Flight Center 

Director, John C. Stennis Space Center 

Non-NASA Organizations and Individuals 

Office of Management and Budget 

Deputy Associate Director, Energy and Science Division 

Branch Chief, Science and Space Programs Branch 

Office of Personnel Management 

Acting Associate Director, Human Capital Leadership & Merit System 

Accountability Division 

Deputy Associate Director, Center for Human Resources 

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 
APPENDIX E 

28 REPORT NO. IG-07-019 

Congressional Committees and Subcommittees, Chairman and 

Ranking Member 

Senate Committee on Appropriations 

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

Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

Senate Subcommittee on Space, Aeronautics, and Related Sciences 

Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

House Committee on Appropriations 

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

House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

House Subcommittee on Government Management, Organization, and Procurement 

House Committee on Science and Technology 

House Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight 

House Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics 
REPORT NO. IG-07-019 29 

Major Contributors to the Report: 

Raymond Tolomeo, Director, Science and Aeronautics Research Directorate 

Michael Niedringhaus, Project Manager 

Stephen Siu, Team Lead 

Anh Doan, Auditor 

Kenneth Colon, Auditor 
JULY 18, 2007 

REPORT NO. IG-07-019 

OFFICE OF AUDITS

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

ADDITIONAL COPIES

Visit www.hq.nasa.gov/office/oig/hq/audits/reports/FY07/index.html 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 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://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/oig/hq/hotline.html#form. 

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

by law.