IG-01-015

AUDIT

REPORT BILLINGS FOR DESKTOP COMPUTING AND

TELECOMMUNICATIONS OUTSOURCING AT

THE MARSHALL SPACE FLIGHT CENTER

March 21, 2001

WARNING

This document is a final report of audit issued by the NASA Office of

Inspector General. Contractor information contained herein may be

company confidential. The restriction of 18 USC 1905 should be

considered before this data is released to the public. Any Freedom of

Information Act request for this report should be directed to the NASA

Inspector General for processing in accordance with Title 14 Code of

Federal Regulations, Part 1206.504.

National Aeronautics

and

Space Administration

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Additional Copies

To obtain additional copies of this report, contact the Assistant Inspector General for Auditing

at (202) 358-1232, or visit www.hq.nasa.gov/office/oig/hq/issuedaudits.html.

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

Code W

NASA Headquarters

Washington, DC 20546-0001

NASA Hotline

To report fraud, waste, abuse, or mismanagement contact the NASA Hotline at (800)

424-9183, (800) 535-8134 (TDD), or at www.hq.nasa.gov/office/oig/hq/hotline.html#form; or write

to the NASA Inspector General, P.O. Box 23089, L’Enfant Plaza Station, Washington, DC

20026. The identity of each writer and caller can be kept confidential, upon request, to the

extent permitted by law.

Reader Survey

Please complete the reader survey at the end of this report or at

www.hq.nasa.gov/office/oig/hq/audits.html.

Acronyms

CIO Chief Information Officer

IT Information Technology

ODIN Outsourcing Desktop Initiative for NASA

TMR Technical Management Representative
ADMINISTRATIVELY CONTROLLED INFORMATION – PROPRIETARY

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

W March 21, 2001

TO: A/Administrator

FROM: W/Inspector General

SUBJECT: INFORMATION: Billings for Desktop Computing and Telecommunications

Outsourcing at Marshall Space Flight Center

Report Number IG-01-015

The NASA Office of Inspector General has completed an audit of Billings for Desktop

Computing and Telecommunications Outsourcing at Marshall Space Flight Center (Marshall).

We found that Marshall paid for duplicative services for desktop and telecommunications

services1 that the Outsourcing Desktop Initiative for NASA (ODIN) contractor and two other

contractors provided to Marshall. Duplication of services occurred because Marshall had not

established good management controls during the ODIN transition process. Specifically,

Marshall had not complied with the master ODIN contract and Agency requirements to

establish memorandums of agreement2 or procedures for developing desktop seat3 configuration

requirements and validating billings.

Recommendations

We recommended that Marshall require the ODIN contractor to establish memorandums of

agreement with applicable information technology (IT) service contractors. We also

recommended that Marshall reconcile ODIN contractor invoices to the ODIN scope of work,

and implement written procedures for validating billings for desktop computing and

telecommunications services. The establishment of memorandums of agreement will help

improve the efficiency of desktop and telecommunications services at Marshall.

 

1

 Desktop and telecommunications services include hardware, software, wide-area telecommunications

services, and network access.

2

 The ODIN contract requires that the memorandums of agreement describe the contractors' scope of work,

effective date, and technical support responsibilities. The Agency further requires that the agreements be

established with applicable ODIN contractors, other information technology service contractors, and

applicable Government project offices.

3

 Desktop seats include the following components: hardware and software acquisition, installation, and

maintenance; network access, relocation, system administration and refreshment; and customer support and

training. Seat refreshment involves replacing both standard software and hardware once during the delivery

order period.
ADMINISTRATIVELY CONTROLLED INFORMATION – PROPRIETARY

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

2

Also, implementation of improved billing procedures will help Marshall avoid duplicative

payments to contractors.

Management's Response and OIG Evaluation

Management concurred with the findings and recommendations. NASA agreed to review the

memorandums of agreement to determine whether they are properly developed and executed

and will establish additional memorandums of agreement, as needed, to ensure efficient

management of the ODIN contract. In addition, management is developing guidance to

improve its processes for validating billings.

The Agency's comments were responsive to both recommendations. Details on the status of the

recommendations are in the finding section of the report.

[original signed by]

Roberta L. Gross

Enclosure

Final Report on Billings for Desktop Computing and

Telecommunications Outsourcing at Marshall Space Flight Center
ADMINISTRATIVELY CONTROLLED INFORMATION – PROPRIETARY

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

BILLINGS FOR DESKTOP COMPUTING AND

TELECOMMUNICATIONS OUTSOURCING AT MARSHALL

SPACE FLIGHT CENTER
ADMINISTRATIVELY CONTROLLED INFORMATION – PROPRIETARY

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

(for)

W March 21, 2001

TO: M/Associate Administrator for Space Flight

DA01/Director, Marshall Space Flight Center

FROM: Assistant Inspector General for Auditing

SUBJECT: Final Report on Billings for Desktop Computing and Telecommunications

Outsourcing at the Marshall Space Flight Center

Assignment Number A0000801

Report Number IG-01-015

The subject final report is provided for your information and use. Our evaluation of your

response is incorporated into the body of the report. We combined draft recommendations 2

and 3 into recommendation 2 as a result of additional information that management provided in

response to the draft report. In addition to revising the recommendations, we modified

appropriate sections of the report as necessary to be consistent with the recommendations. We

also modified the estimated monetary benefits related to the recommendations. Management’s

comments address the revised report. Please notify us when agreed-to action has been

completed on these recommendations, including the extent of testing performed to ensure

corrective actions are effective.

If you have questions concerning the report, please contact Mr. David L. Gandrud, Program

Director, Information Technology Audits, at (650) 604-2672, or Mr. Roger W. Flann, Program

Manager, at (818) 354-9755. We appreciate the courtesies extended to the audit staff. The

report distribution is in Appendix F.

Russell A. Rau

Enclosure
ADMINISTRATIVELY CONTROLLED INFORMATION – PROPRIETARY

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

2

cc:

AO/Chief Information Officer

B/Acting Chief Financial Officer

B/Comptroller

BF/Director, Financial Management Division

JM/Director, Management Assessment Division

Code 200.3/GSFC/Mark Hagerty, ODIN Program Manager
ADMINISTRATIVELY CONTROLLED INFORMATION – PROPRIETARY

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

NASA Office of Inspector General

IG-01-015 March 21, 2001

A0000801

Billings for Desktop Computing and Telecommunications

Outsourcing at the Marshall Space Flight Center

Introduction

NASA chartered ODIN in December 1996 to develop an outsourcing arrangement that

provides support for the majority of NASA’s desktop and intra-Center communication

systems. In 1998, NASA awarded a master ODIN contract4 to seven companies. The master

contract has a total estimated value of at least $4 billion over 9 years.5 As of September 2000,

NASA Headquarters and five installations6 including Marshall, had awarded their initial 3-year

delivery order contracts.

ODIN contractors will deliver comprehensive desktop computers, servers, and intra-Center

communication services to NASA and its contractors. ODIN contractors will provide the

services on a per-seat basis. Seats include the following components:

• hardware and software acquisition, installation, and maintenance;

• network access, relocation, system administration and refreshment;7 and

• customer support and training.

The overall audit objective was to determine whether NASA installations were effectively and

efficiently meeting employees’ desktop seat configuration requirements (see Appendix A for

other audit-related information).8 During the audit, we identified a condition at Marshall that

relates to ODIN billings for Government-owned desktop and telecommunications services. The

specific objective for this portion of the audit was to determine whether the ODIN contractor

accurately billed Marshall for Government-owned desktop and telecommunications services.

Summaries on prior audit report coverage relative to desktop outsourcing are in Appendix B.

 

4

 The ODIN master contract number is NAS5-98144.

5

 The contract’s period of performance is June 22, 1998, through June 21, 2007. The period of performance

for each delivery order shall not exceed 3 years; delivery orders may be renewed on a sole-source basis.

6

 The five installations are Goddard Space Flight Center, Johnson, Kennedy, Marshall, and Stennis.

7

 The ODIN contractor will replace both standard software and hardware of desktops once during the

delivery order period.

8

 We addressed the announced audit objectives in Report Number IG-00-060, “Configuration Controls in

Desktop Outsourcing,” dated September 29, 2000.
ADMINISTRATIVELY CONTROLLED INFORMATION – PROPRIETARY

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

2

Results in Brief

The ODIN contractor billed Marshall for desktop and telecommunications services9 that two

other contractors also provided to Marshall. As a result, Marshall paid about $44,000 for

duplicative services during the period May 1999 through December 2000. Marshall may also

incur an estimated $4,000 after December 2000 through the end of the

3-year delivery order period if duplicative services continue. Payments could, therefore, total

about $48,00010 if duplicated services are not terminated (see Appendix C for payment

calculations).

Background

Prior to the ODIN contract, Marshall had received desktop and telecommunications services

from contractors including Intergraph Engineering Services and Silicon Graphics.

11 From fiscal

year 1997 through August 2000, the two contractors provided services totaling about $14

million for Marshall’s IT systems. Intergraph Engineering Services provided maintenance of

hardware and software, sustaining engineering services, system administration, and operations

support for Marshall’s integrated engineering systems. Silicon Graphics provided maintenance

of hardware and system software for some of Marshall’s IT equipment.

In July 1997, Marshall initiated a preliminary inventory of desktop computer hardware to

support development of the ODIN Request for Proposal and performed additional inventories

leading up to the ODIN contract award in October 1998 and contract implementation beginning

in May 1999. Marshall intended, in part, that the ODIN contractor would use inventories to

identify the assets that Marshall would assign to the ODIN contractor.

Contractor Billings

Duplication of services occurred because Marshall had not established good management

controls during the ODIN transition process. Specifically, Marshall had not established formal

memorandums of agreement with the IT service contractors and had not developed written

procedures to define seat requirements and to validate and reconcile contractor invoices.

Key Management Controls

 

9

 Desktop and telecommunications services include hardware, software, wide-area telecommunications

services, and network access.

10 We limited estimated savings in this report to duplicative billings. We did not include additional savings

that may be possible if Marshall reassesses its desktop computing and telecommunications requirements.

Marshall may also realize additional savings as a result of its ongoing validation of its baseline inventory.

11 Intergraph Engineering Services and Silicon Graphics are subcontractors of Computer Sciences

Corporation. These two subcontractors will be referred to hereafter as contractors for reporting purposes.
ADMINISTRATIVELY CONTROLLED INFORMATION – PROPRIETARY

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

3

Key management controls included master contract and Agency requirements. Each of the

requirements is discussed below.

Master Contract Requirements. NASA’s master ODIN contract (Section C.9) requires

that ODIN contractors establish appropriate transition agreements (hereafter referred to as

memorandums of agreement) with other Center contractors. The memorandums of agreement

should describe the contractors' scope of work (such as the number and type of seats to be

transferred), effective date, and technical support responsibilities.

Agency Requirements. NASA further defined the requirement for memorandums of

agreement in a Program Commitment Agreement, signed April 29, 1999, by the NASA

Administrator and the Chief Information Officer (CIO).12 The Program Commitment

Agreement requires the ODIN contractors to meet ODIN transition requirements by

establishing memorandums of agreement with each other, other IT service contractors, and

applicable Government project offices.

As part of the delivery order contract, the Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative

Delegation, NASA Form 1634, dated June 9, 1999, appointed the representative (hereafter

referred to as the technical management representative (TMR)) to monitor the ODIN contract

at Marshall. The NASA contracting officer delegated this responsibility pursuant to Federal

Acquisition Regulation, Part 42, “Contract Administration and Audit Services,” dated October

1, 1999, and NASA FAR Supplement Subpart 1842.270, “Contract Administration and Audit

Services,” dated August 31, 1997. The TMR serves as technical liaison between the ODIN

contractor and the contracting officer and is responsible for monitoring the contractor’s

performance and delivery of the final product and/or service under the contract, reviewing

contractor invoices, and recommending payment as appropriate.

NASA Procedures and Guidelines 4200.1E, “Equipment Management Manual,” dated July 2,

1999, requires that when a new property manager is assigned, the old and new property

managers will conduct a 100-percent inventory of the affected property. A new property

custodian inventory is required when an individual who replaces a property custodian inherits

property previously managed by the “old custodian.” This occurs when the incumbent property

custodian is relieved of his or her property accounts.

Transition to ODIN

When the ODIN contract was awarded, Marshall did not establish adequate management

controls in implementing the contract. Marshall management had not complied with the master

ODIN contract and Agency requirements to establish memorandums of agreement. In addition,

 

12 This agreement sets forth the conditions for desktop outsourcing.
ADMINISTRATIVELY CONTROLLED INFORMATION – PROPRIETARY

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

4

Marshall management had not established written procedures to develop seat requirements and

validate billings.

Silicon Graphics. Marshall did not establish a formal memorandum of agreement with Silicon

Graphics, one of the contractors that continued to provide IT maintenance services for

Marshall. Before Kennedy awarded the ODIN delivery order contract, Marshall had compiled

an inventory list of Marshall’s IT assets that did not appropriately distinguish between desktop

seats that would be covered by ODIN and those not covered by ODIN. Several months after

Kennedy awarded the ODIN delivery order, the Marshall property accountability manager was

still trying to determine which equipment items belonged under the ODIN contract.

The inventory list that Marshall transferred to the ODIN contractor included 35 desktop seats

for which Silicon Graphics continued to provide hardware and software maintenance services.

Because there was no formal memorandum of agreement specifying the scope of work and

related responsibilities, the ODIN contractor relied on the inventory list to determine the

universe of desktop seats it should maintain and bill to Marshall. Additionally, the ODIN

contractor performed only a sample testing of the Marshall-prepared inventory because the

ODIN contractor considered the required 100-percent inventory to be cost prohibitive and

labor intensive. Subsequently, the ODIN contractor billed Marshall for maintenance services

that Silicon Graphics also provided to Marshall. The duplicative billings totaled $7,322 for the

period May 1999 through December 2000. Because Marshall authorized both contractors to

provide services, Marshall may not be entitled to recover the duplicated payments from either

contractor. However, Marshall could reduce future costs by $4,027 if it eliminates the

duplicative hardware and software maintenance services for the 35 seats for the remaining 10

months of the contract.

Intergraph Engineering Services. Marshall had not established procedures to ensure that

users transferred their technical support from Intergraph Engineering Services to ODIN.

Although the ODIN contract became effective May 1, 1999, Intergraph Engineering Services

and the ODIN contractor did not establish a memorandum of agreement until October 1, 1999.

The memorandum stated that Intergraph Engineering Services would no longer provide

hardware maintenance for desktop seatsthat ODIN maintained. Before the memorandum

became effective, users of 83 seats had asked the ODIN contractor for desktop support

because they believed that they were entitled to the same seat services that ODIN provided to

most Center employees. As a result, Marshall paid two contractors (ODIN and Intergraph

Engineering Services) for the same service for these 83 seats during the 5-month period

between the effective date of the ODIN contact and the effective date of the memorandum of

agreement.

On October 1, 1999, Marshall modified the statement of work for Intergraph Engineering

Services to eliminate the hardware maintenance that ODIN also provided on its contract. Prior

to the modification, Marshall had transferred 83 seats from Intergraph Engineering Services to

ODIN, but did not remove them from the Intergraph Engineering Services contract. During the
ADMINISTRATIVELY CONTROLLED INFORMATION – PROPRIETARY

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

5

5-month period, May through September 1999, Marshall paid Intergraph Engineering Services

an estimated $36,281 for hardware maintenance services on the 83 seats and paid ODIN for

the same services. As with Silicon Graphics, Marshall may not be entitled to recover the

duplicated payments from Intergraph Engineering Services because Marshall authorized both

contractors to provide maintenance services.

Contractor Billings. The TMR is responsible for reviewing contractor invoices and

recommending payment as appropriate. During the transition to ODIN, Marshall had not

established written procedures for validating contractor invoices. Consequently, the TMR

approved the ODIN contractor invoice before reconciling invoice discrepancies. Marshall

could prevent future duplicate billings by establishing written procedures and requiring the TMR

and organizational chief information officers to use them in validating contractor billings and

Center seat requirements.

Recommendations, Management's Response, and Evaluation of

Response

The Marshall Center Director should:

1. Require the ODIN contractor to establish memorandums of agreement with

applicable IT service contractors, addressing contractor roles and

responsibilities, scope of work, and the effective date of ODIN support, as

applicable.

Management's Response. Concur. Management stated it had developed memorandums of

agreement with applicable IT service contractors but had not signed all of them nor provided all

of them to the auditors during audit field work. Marshall will review the memorandums of

agreement to determine whether they are properly executed, relevant, and properly maintained;

establish additional memorandums of agreement as needed; and continue to ensure that

applicable contractors follow the memorandums of agreement. Marshall stated that it expects to

complete corrective actions by June 30, 2001. The complete text of management's response is

in Appendix D. Marshall also provided general and specific comments on the report, which we

addressed in Appendix E.

Evaluation of Response. The actions taken by Marshall are responsive to the

recommendation. The recommendation is resolved but will remain undispositioned and open

until agreed-to corrective actions are completed.

2. Reconcile ODIN contractor invoices to the ODIN scope of work and

implement written procedures for validating billings for desktop computing and

telecommunications services.
ADMINISTRATIVELY CONTROLLED INFORMATION – PROPRIETARY

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

6

Management's Response. Concur. Management stated that its validation procedures are

generally effective but can be improved. Marshall is developing written procedures for

evaluating, identifying, and tracking seat assignments, and is improving process automation.

Management expects corrective actions to be completed by September 30, 2001 (see

Appendix D).

Evaluation of Response. The actions taken by management are responsive to the

recommendation. The recommendation is resolved but will remain undispositioned and open

until agreed-to corrective actions are completed.
7

Appendix A. Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Objectives

The overall objective of the audit, which we addressed in a separate report,13 was to determine

whether NASA installations were efficiently and effectively meeting their employees' desktop

seat configuration requirements. This report discusses a condition that we identified at Marshall

relating to ODIN billings for Government-owned desktop and telecommunications services.

The objective for this portion of the audit was to determine whether the ODIN contractor

accurately billed Marshall for Government-owned desktop and telecommunications services.

Scope and Methodology

In performing the audit at Marshall, we did the following:

• To determine the policies and procedures concerning the transition to ODIN, we

interviewed the NASA Headquarters Director of Logistics Management Office,

Marshall CIO, organizational chief information officers, Program Manager for ODIN,

contractor personnel, delivery order contracting officer, technical monitor

representatives, and end users.

• To become familiar with applicable policies related to property management and

accountability and contract administration, we reviewed NASA Procedures and

Guidelines (NPG) 4200.1E, “Equipment Management Manual,” dated July 2, 1999;

NASA Federal Acquisition Regulation Part 42, “Contract Administration and Audit

Services,” dated October 1, 1999; NASA Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement

Subpart 1842.270, same title, dated August 31, 1997; Marshall Procedures and

Guidelines (MPG) 4000.2, “Property Management,” dated September 7, 2000; and

Marshall Management Instruction (MMI) 4000.1C, “Change of Property Manager

Inventory,” dated December 2, 1991.

• To determine the scope of audit coverage, we reviewed the Center's property database

of seats transferred to the ODIN contractor. At the time we performed the actual field

work (March through September 2000), the cut-off date of the most current data

available was February 2000.

• To determine the reliability of computer-processed data in the contractor’s database,

we physically verified the existence of selected items.

 

13 See footnote number 11.
8

Appendix A

• To determine whether controls were adequate, we evaluated the ODIN contractor’s

controls relating to NASA-owned computer and communication assets.

• We interviewed and obtained available data from the Marshall CIO, the TMR, and the

Deputy Director of the Information Services Department. In addition, we interviewed

ODIN, Silicon Graphics, and Intergraph Engineering Services management to identify

their practices for providing maintenance services to Marshall. We also advised the

Marshall CIO, and ODIN, Silicon Graphics, and Intergraph Engineering Services

management on the results of the audit.

• We calculated the cost impact of duplicative billings.

Management Controls Reviewed

We reviewed property management and accountability controls as described in NPG 4200.1E,

“Equipment Management Manual,” dated July 2, 1999; MPG 4000.2, “Property

Management,” dated September 7, 2000; and MMI 4000.1C, “Change of Property Manager

Inventory,” dated December 2, 1991. We also reviewed contract administration controls as

described in the NASA Federal Acquisition Regulation Part 42, “Contract Administration and

Audit Services,” dated October 1, 1999, and the NASA Federal Acquisition Regulation

Supplement Subpart 1842.270 (same title), dated August 31, 1997. Specifically, we reviewed

contract requirements in the ODIN contract and Program Commitment Agreement.

Management controls for property inventory and invoice validation were not adequate as

discussed in the finding.

Audit Field Work

We performed the audit field work from March through September 2000 at Marshall in

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
9

Appendix B. Prior Audit Coverage

Prior Audit Coverage

The NASA Office of Inspector General has issued three reports relating to the Outsourcing

Desktop Initiative for NASA. (Copies of the reports are available at

www.hq.nasa.gov/office/org/hq/issuedaudits.html.)

“Configuration Controls in Desktop Outsourcing,” Report Number IG-00-060,

September 29, 2000

NASA chartered ODIN to provide support for the majority of NASA's desktop and intraCenter communication services. In 1998, NASA awarded a master ODIN contract to seven

companies. Also in 1998, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) awarded a 5-year $110 million

outsourcing contract to a non-ODIN contractor. We found that the desktop seat prices at JPL

significantly exceeded those paid by other NASA installations using the ODIN contract.

Because the JPL outsourcing contract was based on adequate price competition, we did not

question the basis of JPL’s desktop seat prices. However, if JPL uses the ODIN contract to

acquire desktop services after its current contract expires, NASA could avoid costs of as much

as $33 million over a 3-year period. We also found that NASA had not assessed the

effectiveness of two approaches14 the installations used in making desktop seat assignments or

issued procedures for determining seat selections. Accordingly, NASA lacks assurance that it

has assigned seats to employees in the most efficient and effective manner. We recommended

that NASA ensure that JPL include the ODIN contractors among competitors when awarding

the installation’s future desktop outsourcing contract. We also recommended that the ODIN

Program Manager assess the effectiveness of the two seat assignment approaches and issue

procedures to all installations for use in selecting an appropriate approach. Management

concurred with the report recommendations and will take corrective actions.

“Delivery Order Placement Under Outsourcing Desktop Initiative Contracts,” Report

Number IG-99-003, November 10, 1998

NASA can improve its readiness to place ODIN delivery orders by implementing an effective

program management process. Key documents such as the Program Commitment Agreement

and program plan and an overall risk management process have not been approved and put into

effect as required by NASA policy. Improved program

 

14 The two approaches were the installation-wide approach and the installation-component approach. The

installation-wide approach means that each of the three installations (Johnson Space Center, Kennedy

Space Center, and Marshall Space Flight Center) had specified one or more desktop seats as the standard

seat for all installation employees. The installation-component approach means that the installation

delegated the seat assignment responsibility to lead officials (for example, directors, division chiefs, or

supervisors) in various organizational components.
10

Appendix B

management will help NASA to identify and benefit from lessons learned from outsourcing and

effectively manage ODIN delivery order placement. We recommended that the NASA CIO

submit an ODIN Program Commitment Agreement to the NASA Administrator for review and

approval. We also recommended that the ODIN Program Manager complete and execute a

program plan for ODIN. Additionally, we recommended that the ODIN Program Manager

establish a continuous risk management process that would identify risk and its effects, prioritize

risks for mitigation or elimination, and maintain a risk management plan. Management

concurred with the report recommendations and took responsive actions.

“Outsourcing of Desktop Computers,” Report Number IG-98-029, September 14,

1998

NASA had not ensured the adequacy or consistency of cost data to be used to place

outsourcing delivery orders. After completing the Business Case analysis, which supported

outsourcing, NASA updated the available cost data on outsourcing desktop computers, through

successive iterations, to support each phase of the competitive procurement process. NASA

used the updated data to assess the Agencywide benefits of outsourcing. However, NASA had

not issued guidance on preparing reliable cost estimates in support of delivery order placement.

Without consistently prepared and reliable estimates of the costs of the Government activities to

be outsourced, the Centers may be unable to make well-informed decisions on the type and

extent of outsourcing services they should acquire, particularly with regard to services other than

general-purpose computing (for example, intra-Center communications). Also, Centers may be

unable to reliably compare the costs of doing business with eligible vendors or to determine the

total savings actually achieved through outsourcing. We recommended that the NASA CIO

require Centers to develop Government cost estimates for use in determining the type and

extent of outsourcing services to be acquired. We also recommended that the CIO issue

detailed guidance for the Centers to use in developing their cost estimates. Management

concurred with the report recommendations and took responsive actions.
ADMINISTRATIVELY CONTROLLED INFORMATION – PROPRIETARY

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

11

Appendix C. Calculation of Potential Monetary Benefits

****"Proprietary Information Omitted"****
ADMINISTRATIVELY CONTROLLED INFORMATION – PROPRIETARY

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

12

Appendix D. Management's Response
13

Appendix D

See Appendix E

OIG Comment 1

See Appendix E

OIG Comment 2
14

Appendix D

See Appendix E

OIG Comment 3
15

Appendix D
16

Appendix E. OIG Comments on Management’s Response

Marshall management provided the following general and specific comments in its response to

our draft report. Our responses to the comments are also presented.

Management’s Comment. Management stated that the OIG should establish a consistent

policy that would allow management to review, in writing, the OIG finding prior to the issuance

of a draft report. Such a policy would provide an avenue for meaningful discussions resulting in

a more timely resolution of differences.

1. OIG Comment. The draft report is the tool that provides management an opportunity to

respond, in writing, to our findings and recommendations. We considered management

comments before issuing the final audit report and made changes when necessary. Management

provided us with additional facts after we issued the draft report. In response to the additional

information, we made appropriate changes to this final report. In addition to providing the draft

report, we gave Marshall regular briefings on the results of the audit prior to issuing the draft

report. As always, we welcome management's informal comments during the audit phase to

ensure that the draft report will be factually accurate, objective, and useful.

Management’s Comment. Management stated that there was no transition of services from

Utilization Mission Services to ODIN or vice versa, and, therefore, the contractor continued to

operate under the existing contract.

2. OIG Comment. After we issued the draft report, Marshall provided additional information

regarding Utilization Mission Services. Accordingly, we omitted any reference to Utilization

Mission Services in the report.

Management’s Comment. Management disagreed with our comment that Marshall had not

validated contractor billings as required. Marshall referenced several procedures that it had

established to validate billings.

3. OIG Comment. We agree that Marshall has improved its validation procedures for

contractor billings. We changed the comment in the final report to “Marshall had not

established good management controls during the ODIN transition process."
17

Appendix F. Report Distribution

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Headquarters

A/Administrator

AA/Chief of Staff

AI/Associate Deputy Administrator

AO/Chief Information Officer

B/Acting Chief Financial Officer

B/Comptroller

BF/Director, Financial Management Division

JM/Director, Management Assessment Division

M/Associate Administrator for Space Flight

NASA Centers

Director, Marshall Space Flight Center

Code 200.3/GSFC/Mark Hagerty, ODIN Program Manager
NASA Assistant Inspector General for Auditing

Reader Survey

The NASA Office of Inspector General has a continuing interest in improving the usefulness of

our reports. We wish to make our reports responsive to our customers’ interests, consistent

with our statutory responsibility. Could you help us by completing our reader survey? For your

convenience, the questionnaire can be completed electronically through our homepage at

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/oig/hq/audits.html or can be mailed to the Assistant Inspector

General for Auditing; NASA Headquarters, Code W, Washington, DC 20546-0001.

Report Title: Billings for Desktop Computing and Telecommunications Outsourcing at

Marshall Space Flight Center

Report Number: Report Date: 

Circle the appropriate rating for the following statements.

Statement

Strongl

y

Agree

Agree Neutra

l

Disagre

e

Strongl

y

Disagre

e

N/A

1. The report was clear, readable, and

logically organized.

5 4 3 2 1 N/A

2. The report was concise and to the point. 5 4 3 2 1 N/A

3. We effectively communicated the audit

objectives, scope, and methodology.

5 4 3 2 1 N/A

4. The report contained sufficient

information to support the finding(s) in a

balanced and objective manner.

5 4 3 2 1 N/A

Overall, how would you rate the report?

Excellent Fair Very Good Good Poor

If you have any additional comments or wish to elaborate on any of the above

responses, please write them here. Use additional paper if necessary. 

 

 

 

 
 

How did you use the report? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How could we improve our report? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How would you identify yourself? (Select one)

Congressional Staff Media

NASA Employee Public Interest

Private Citizen Other: 

Government: Federal: State: Local: 

May we contact you about your comments?

Yes: ______ No: ______

Name: ____________________________

Telephone: ________________________

Thank you for your cooperation in completing this survey.
Major Contributors to the Report

David L. Gandrud, Program Director, Information Technology Program Audits

Roger W. Flann, Program Manager

Rhodora Posey, Auditor-in-Charge

Carl L. Aley, Auditor

Nancy C. Cipolla, Report Process Manager

Betty G. Weber, Operations Research Manager

Barbara J. Smith, Program Assistant