IG-02-027

AUDIT 

REPORT NASA’S CONTRACT AUDIT 

FOLLOW-UP SYSTEM 

September 30, 2002

 National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Additional Copies 

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

Audits 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 Audits. Ideas and requests can also be mailed to: 

 Assistant Inspector General for Audits 

 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 

CO Contracting Officer 

CATS II Corrective Action Tracking System II 

DCAA Defense Contract Audit Agency 

DOD Department of Defense 

DODIG DOD Inspector General 

FAR Federal Acquisition Regulation 

FY Fiscal Year 

JPL Jet Propulsion Laboratory 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

PIC Procurement Information Circular 

RCA Reportable Contract Audit 
September 30, 2002 

W 

TO: H/Assistant Administrator for Procurement 

FROM: W/Assistant Inspector General for Audits 

SUBJECT: Final Report on Audit of NASA’s Contract Audit Follow-up System 

 Assignment Number A-01-044-00 

 Report Number IG-02-027 

Enclosed please find the subject final report. Please refer to the Executive Summary for 

the overall audit results. Our evaluation of your response has been incorporated into the 

body of the report. We consider management’s proposed or completed corrective actions 

responsive to the recommendations. The corrective actions completed for 

recommendations 2 and 4 are sufficient to close those recommendations for reporting 

purposes. Recommendations 1 and 3 will remain open for reporting purposes until 

corrective actions are completed. Please notify us when actions have been completed on 

the recommendations, including the extent of testing performed to ensure corrective 

actions are effective. The final report distribution is in Appendix I. 

We appreciate the courtesies extended to the audit staff. If you have questions 

concerning the report, please contact Mr. Lorne A. Dear, Program Director, Procurement 

Audits, at (818) 354-5634; Mr. Patrick A. Iler, Program Manager, at (216) 433-5408; or 

Mr. Steven K. Siu, Auditor-in-Charge, at (818) 354-3451. 

[original signed by] 

Alan J. Lamoreaux 

Enclosure 
2 

cc: 

HQ/AI/Associate Deputy Administrator 

HQ/B/Acting Deputy Chief Financial Officer 

HQ/B/Comptroller 

HQ/BF/Director, Financial Management Division 

HQ/G/General Counsel 

HQ/JM/Director, Management Assessment Division 

GRC/0100/Director, Glenn Research Center 

GSFC/100/Director, Goddard Space Flight Center 

JPL/180-801/Director, NASA Management Office, Jet Propulsion Laboratory 

JSC/AA/Director, Johnson Space Center 

LaRC/106/Director, Langley Research Center 

MSFC/DAO1/Director, Marshall Space Flight Center 
Contents 

Executive Summary, i 

Introduction, 1 

Findings and Recommendations, 2

Finding A. Low Net Savings Rate for NASA-Negotiated Questioned 

Costs, 2 

Finding B. Monitoring Delegated Resolution Authority, 9 

Appendix A - Objective, Scope, and Methodology, 14 

Appendix B - Reportable Contract Audit Reports, 17

Appendix C - Audit Reports for Which NASA Negotiated Final 

Settlement, 18

Appendix D – Department of Defense Inspector General Review of 

Sustention Rates on Questioned Costs, 20 

Appendix E – Reportable Contract Audit Reports for Which NASA 

Delegated Resolution and Disposition Authority, 21

Appendix F - Major NASA Contractors, 22

Appendix G - Summary of Prior Coverage, 23

Appendix H - Management’s Response, 25

Appendix I - Report Distribution, 28 
NASA Office of Inspector General 

IG-02-027 September 30, 2002 

 A-01-044-00 

NASA’s Contract Audit 

Follow-up System

Executive Summary 

Background. NASA uses the services of other Federal agencies to perform audits of 

contractors, educational institutions, and non-profit organizations receiving NASA grants 

and contract awards. The focus of this audit was on audits performed by the Defense 

Contract Audit Agency (DCAA). The DCAA audits are a critical oversight control over 

contractors working on major NASA contracts and programs. For fiscal years (FY’s) 

1999, 2000, and 2001, NASA paid the DCAA a total of $50.4 million ($15.4, $16.4, and 

$18.6 million, respectively) for contract audit services. 

To improve the effectiveness and efficiency of Government operations, Office of 

Management Budget (OMB) Circular A-50, “Audit Followup” requires all Federal 

agencies to establish audit follow-up systems “to assure the prompt and proper 

resolution1

 and implementation of audit recommendations.” Resolution should occur 

within a maximum of 6 months after issuance of a final report,2 and corrective action 

should proceed as rapidly as possible. The Circular also requires that the follow-up 

systems provide for a complete record of action taken on both monetary and 

nonmonetary findings and recommendations. 

During FY 2000, we completed audits of NASA’s contract audit follow-up systems at 

Goddard Space Flight Center (Goddard), Johnson Space Center (Johnson), and Marshall 

Space Flight Center (Marshall). NASA management concurred with all our 

recommendations and took corrective actions, which included issuing Procurement 

Information Circular (PIC) 00-06, “Contract Administration and Audit Services,” dated 

May 30, 2000. The PIC incorporated the DCAA definition of reportable contract audit 

(RCA)3

 reports and established requirements for reporting and tracking the reports. 

Additionally, the PIC required contracting officers (CO’s) to maintain a dialog with the 

Department of Defense (DOD) CO’s on the status of significant DCAA audit 

recommendations on NASA contracts for which NASA delegated resolution and 

 

1

 Resolution is the point at which the audit organization and agency management or contracting officials 

agree on action to be taken on reported findings and recommendations; or in the event of disagreement, 

resolution is the point at which the audit follow-up official determines the matter to be resolved. 

2

 OMB Circular A-50 pertains to final audit reports containing findings and recommendations that are 

issued to Federal agencies or contractors. 

3

 RCA reports encompass a variety of DCAA reports, including those with questioned costs of $100,000 or 

more. RCA reports are defined in Appendix B. 
disposition authority to the DOD. NASA Centers are required to report all RCA reports 

received to NASA headquarters so it can track the recommendations for reporting 

purposes. 

Objective. The overall audit objective was to evaluate the adequacy of NASA’s contract 

audit follow-up system. Additional details on the objective, scope, and methodology are 

in Appendix A. 

 

Results of Audit. The NASA contract audit follow-up system can be improved. Where 

NASA retained resolution and disposition authority for DCAA audit reports, NASA 

CO’s achieved a significantly lower net savings4

 percentage of the DCAA-reported 

questioned costs5

 than the DOD. Specifically, for 33 incurred cost, claims, and cost 

accounting standards audit reports closed during FY’s 1999-2001, NASA CO’s achieved 

net savings of only $14.9 million (19.0 percent) of the questioned costs totaling $78.6 

million. For this same period and same types of reports, DOD CO’s achieved net savings 

of 54.4 percent6

 of the DCAA-reported questioned costs. Further, NASA’s net savings 

have significantly declined over the last 3 years. We estimated that in comparison to 

DOD net savings for the last 3 years, NASA did not recover an additional $28 million 

dollars of DCAA-reported questioned costs (Finding A). 

NASA CO’s also did not adequately monitor DCAA RCA reports on major NASA 

contractors when NASA delegated resolution and disposition authority to the DOD. 

Specifically, the NASA corrective action tracking system (CATS II)7

 did not include 

4

 The DCAA Financial Management Information System Manual defines net savings as the amount of 

costs and/or profit the Government saves through sustention of DCAA questioned costs (see footnote 5). 

The amount of net savings is dependent on the type of contract and type of audit (for example, incurred 

cost, cost accounting standards, or forward pricing audits). Net savings from sustained questioned costs 

are calculated recognizing the following:

• Under cost-type contracts, the sustained questioned costs will be reported as the net savings

amount. 

• Under incentive-type contracts, the net savings amount to be reported is the Government’s share 

of any sustained questioned costs. 

• For overhead, general and administrative expenses, and home office allocations, net savings will 

be calculated using the mix of contracts shown above applied to the sustained questioned costs. 

5 OMB Circular A-133, defines questioned cost as follows: 

Questioned cost means a cost that is questioned by the auditor because of an audit 

finding: (1) Which resulted from a violation or possible violation of a provision of a 

law, regulation, contract, grant, cooperative agreement, or other agreement or document

governing the use of Federal funds, including funds used to match Federal funds; (2) 

Where the costs, at the time of the audit, are not supported by adequate documentation;

or (3) Where the costs incurred appear unreasonable and do not reflect the actions a 

prudent person would take in the circumstances. 6

 The 54.4 percent net savings data was provided by the DCAA and represents all negotiations conducted 

by DOD CO’s (including NASA contractors for those reports NASA delegated to DOD CO’s) for incurred 

cost, claims, and cost accounting standards audit reports closed during FY’s 1999, 2000, and 2001. 7

 CATS II is the electronic tracking system that NASA uses to monitor the resolution and disposition of 

audit recommendations, including DCAA contract audit recommendations and questioned costs. 

ii
records for 24 sampled DCAA RCA reports for which NASA delegated resolution and 

disposition authority to the DOD. This is a repeat finding8

 and shows that NASA CO’s 

are still not complying with the requirements of PIC 00-06. As a result, NASA could not 

ensure that audit recommendations were resolved in a timely manner or determine that 

the resolutions were in NASA’s best interest. For the 24 sampled reports, the DOD 

sustained $12.5 million in questioned costs that applied to NASA contracts. However, 

CATS II did not contain current and accurate information on any of the reports, so NASA 

could not rely on CATS II for reporting purposes. Further, NASA officials were not 

aware of the $12.5 million that DOD had sustained on major NASA contracts and 

programs (Finding B). 

Recommendations. We recommended that NASA improve its procedures for preparing 

for, conducting, and documenting negotiations of contract audit questioned costs. We

also recommended that NASA improve its procedures for tracking and monitoring the 

resolution of contract audit questioned costs. 

Management’s Response. Management concurred with all the recommendations. The 

complete text of the response is in Appendix H. We consider management’s proposed or 

completed corrective actions responsive. 

.

 8

 See Appendix G, “Summary of Prior Coverage” for the three NASA Office of Inspector General audit

reports issued in FY 2000. 

iii
Introduction 

Policies and procedures concerning NASA’s contract audit follow-up system are in the 

NASA Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Supplement 1842.73019

 and the PIC. The 

policies and procedures require that the NASA contract audit follow-up system track all 

RCA reports and that audit recommendations be resolved as expeditiously as possible, 

but within 6 months of the date of the audit report. The NASA FAR Supplement also 

requires that when resolution and disposition authority is delegated, NASA CO’s should 

at least semiannually review and document in the contract files the status and disposition 

of significant audit recommendations. The review and documentation should include 

findings with questioned costs. 

NASA relies on the DCAA to identify the RCA reports for those contracts for which 

NASA retains responsibility for resolution and disposition. The DCAA provides 

monthly lists of RCA reports to the NASA Office of Procurement, which forwards the 

lists to the NASA Centers for their use in contract audit follow-up. The Centers submit 

to the Office of Procurement quarterly status reports on actions taken on the RCA report 

recommendations and the targeted dates for resolution and disposition. Records of action 

taken on recommendations in the RCA reports are subsequently input into NASA’s 

CATS II. For FY’s 1999, 2000, and 2001, NASA CO’s negotiated the resolution of 

DCAA audit recommendations, including questioned costs, on 33 incurred cost, claim,

and cost accounting standards audits. 

When NASA delegates resolution and disposition authority to the DOD, the DCAA 

forwards copies of audit reports to the NASA Center that awarded the contracts included 

in the DCAA audits. NASA CO’s are responsible for monitoring the actions taken by 

DOD CO’s on NASA’s behalf. NASA’s policy and procedures require the Centers to 

report all RCA reports to the NASA Headquarters Office of Procurement on a quarterly 

basis so the reports can be input into the CATS II. NASA uses the CATS II, which 

should include all RCA reports, to meet the OMB Circular A-50 requirement to track and 

promptly resolve audit report findings and to respond to congressional inquiries and 

internal reporting requirements. The Headquarters Office of Procurement Audit Liaison 

Representative monitors the status of the RCA reports in the CATS II and prepares a 

quarterly progress report for the Assistant Administrator for Procurement. 

As part of its oversight duties, the NASA Headquarters Office of Procurement conducts 

procurement management surveys at NASA installations that address, in part, contract 

audit follow-up of the DCAA RCA reports. 

 9

 NASA FAR Supplement 1842.7301, “NASA External Audit Follow-up System” revised February 20, 

2002, provides guidance on audit tracking and resolution. 
Findings and Recommendations 

Finding A. Low Net Savings Rate for NASA-Negotiated Questioned 

Costs 

Where NASA retained resolution and disposition authority for DCAA audit reports, 

NASA CO’s achieved a significantly lower net savings of the DCAA-reported questioned 

costs than the DOD. Specifically, for 33 audit reports closed during FY’s 1999-2001, 

NASA CO’s achieved net savings of only $14.9 million (19.0 percent) of the total $78.6 

million in costs questioned. In contrast, for this same period and for the same types of

audit reports, DOD CO’s achieved net savings of 54.4 percent of the DCAA-reported 

questioned costs.10 The lower NASA net savings occurred because NASA CO’s did not 

• establish a negotiation position, 

• involve the DCAA auditors in the negotiation process,11 

• adequately document the rationale for not accepting DCAA-reported 

questioned costs, and 

• promptly resolve questioned costs. 

Consequently, in comparison to DOD net savings, NASA did not recover an estimated 

additional $28 million12 of DCAA-reported questioned cost over the last 3 years--an 

average of $9.3 million13 annually. 

OMB, FAR, and NASA Guidance 

OMB Circular. OMB Circular A-50, “Audit Followup,” section 5, states: 

Audit follow-up is an integral part of good management and is a shared responsibility of 

agency management officials and auditors. Corrective action taken by management on 

resolved findings and recommendations is essential to improving the effectiveness and

efficiency of Government operations. Each agency shall establish systems to assure the 

prompt and proper resolution and implementation of audit recommendations. These 

systems shall provide for a complete record of action taken on both monetary and nonmonetary findings and recommendations. 

 10 We obtained the data for the NASA net savings rate from sustained questioned costs from NASA’s 

 CATS II. The DCAA provided us the DOD net savings rate information. 11 DCAA was not invited to participate in negotiations or to evaluate any additional information provided 

by the contractors. 12 We calculated the estimated additional $28 million by applying the difference between the DOD net 

savings rate and the NASA net savings rate (54.4 percent minus 19.0 percent equals 35.4 percent) to the 

DCAA-reported questioned costs for the 3 years (35.4 percent times $78.6 million equals $27.824 million). 13 We calculated the average annual $9.3 million by dividing the estimated $27.824 million by 3 years. 

 2 
OMB Circular A-50 also requires agencies to assign a high priority to the resolution of 

audit recommendations and establishes requirements for Agency resolution and 

corrective action as follows: 

(2) Require prompt resolution and corrective actions on audit recommendations. 

Resolution shall be made within a maximum of six months after issuance of a final report

or in the case of audits performed by non-Federal auditors, six months after receipt of the 

report by the Federal Government. Corrective actions should proceed as rapidly as 

possible. 

(5) Provide a means to assure timely responses to audit reports and to resolve major 

disagreements between the audit organization and agency management or contracting 

officials. The process should provide sufficient time to permit resolution to take place 

within the six-month limit. 

FAR Guidance. FAR 42.705-1, “Contracting officer determination procedure,” 

section b.(4), states: 

(4) The Government negotiating team shall develop a negotiation position. Pursuant to

 10 U.S.C. 2324(f) and 41 U.S.C. 256(f), the contracting officer shall- 

 (i) Not resolve any questioned costs until obtaining- 

 (A) Adequate documentation on the costs; and 

 (B) The contract auditor's opinion on the allowability of the costs. 

 (ii) Whenever possible, invite the contract auditor to serve as an advisor at any 

 negotiation or meeting with the contractor on the determination of the contractor's

 final indirect cost rates. 

In addition, section b.(5) states that the contracting officer shall, among other 

things: 

. . . (ii) Prepare a written indirect cost rate agreement conforming to the requirements 

 of the contracts; 

 (iii) Prepare, sign, and place in the contractor general file (see 4.801(c)(3)) a 

 negotiation memorandum covering- 

 (A) The disposition of significant matters in the advisory audit report; 

 (B) Reconciliation of all costs questioned, with identification of items and

 amounts allowed or disallowed in the final settlement as well as the 

 disposition of period costing or allocability issues; 

 (C) Reasons why any recommendations of the auditor or other Government

 advisors were not followed; . . . . 

NASA Guidance. NASA FAR Supplement 1842.7301, “NASA external audit follow-up 

system,” states that audit recommendations should be resolved within 6 months after 

receipt of the audit report and should be corrected as expeditiously as possible. The 

guidance also states that the identification and tracking of contract audit reports under 

NASA cognizance are accomplished in cooperation with the DCAA. 

 3 
Comparison of NASA Net Savings to DOD Net Savings

In comparison to DOD CO’s, NASA CO’s achieved a significantly lower net savings rate 

for the same type of DCAA-questioned costs. For the 3-year period ended September 30, 

2001, NASA’s average net savings was only 19.0 percent compared to DOD’s average 

net savings of 54.4 percent for incurred cost, claims, and cost accounting standards audit 

reports that were closed.14 Further, the NASA net savings rate trend over the last 3 years 

has significantly declined as illustrated below: 

Comparison of NASA and DOD

 Net Savings from Questioned Costs

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001

Fiscal Years

Percent

DOD

NASA

Factors Contributing to NASA’s Low Net Savings 

Several factors contributed to NASA’s low net savings percentage. Each factor is 

separately discussed in the following paragraphs: 

Negotiation Positions and Negotiation Memorandums. Ten (91 percent) of the 1115

contract files did not contain evidence that the CO’s developed a negotiation position 

prior to negotiations as required by the FAR. Further, negotiation memorandums on the 

negotiation results either were not in the file or did not describe the rationale for not 

 14 We calculated the 3-year average by dividing the total net savings for the 3-year period by the total

questioned costs for the 3-year period (see Appendix C). 15 NASA negotiated DCAA questioned costs in 33 audit reports during FY’s 1999, 2000, and 2001. We

selected for a detailed analysis a sample of 11 of the 19 audit reports that were negotiated during FY 2001. 

The sampled audit reports included three at Johnson Space Center, Houston, Texas; three at Glenn 

Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio; three at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, California; and two at

Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Alabama. See Appendix C for details on the reports by fiscal 

year and for information on the FY 2001 reports that we analyzed. 

 4 
sustaining questioned costs in 9 (82 percent) of the 11 contract files reviewed. The 

negotiation position is important to help guide the CO’s negotiations with the contractor. 

The negotiation memorandum is needed to document the CO’s decisions and to enable 

reviewers or future CO’s to understand the rationale for and the reasonableness of the 

decisions reached. Further, the negotiation memorandum should provide a reconciliation 

of all questioned costs and explanations of why the CO did not follow the DCAA 

recommendations and sustain the questioned costs. 

Use of DCAA Auditors. NASA procurement officials at Glenn Research Center 

(Glenn), Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), Johnson, and Marshall did not effectively 

involve the DCAA auditors in the negotiation process for all 11 reports reviewed. NASA 

procurement officials did not comply with FAR 42.705-1, which requires CO’s to obtain 

adequate documentation on the costs and the contract auditor’s (that is, DCAA’s) opinion 

on the allowability of the costs before resolving questioned costs. Further, we found no 

evidence that NASA CO’s invited the DCAA auditors to serve as advisors at negotiations 

whenever possible. DCAA auditors involved in the subject audits told us that for 9 (82 

percent) of 11 reports sampled, the DCAA auditors did not agree with the NASA CO’s 

decision regarding the resolution of questioned costs. The DCAA audit supervisors and 

auditors stated that NASA CO’s did not ask the supervisors or auditors to attend 

negotiations or to review subsequent data provided by the contractor in response to 

DCAA-reported questioned costs. The DCAA audit supervisors and auditors also stated 

that DOD CO’s use the DCAA auditors at negotiations at most of the major contractors. 

During FY 2001, the DCAA’s participation at negotiations, primarily for DOD CO’s, 

totaled 55,886 hours.16 

NASA CO’s Disagreed with DCAA-Reported Questioned Costs. NASA CO’s or their 

representatives disagreed with all or part of the DCAA-questioned costs in all 11 reports 

sampled. For 9 (82 percent) of the 11 audit reports, the CO’s or their representatives did 

not adequately support in the contract files their rationale for such disagreements. In 

addition, we found no evidence that NASA obtained the DCAA auditors’ opinions on the 

reasons the CO’s or their representatives gave for not sustaining the questioned costs. 

The following examples illustrate these weaknesses: 

• At Glenn, NASA sustained only $195,851 (11.6 percent) on total questioned costs 

of $1.7 million for three DCAA audit reports. A price analyst, who had a CO 

warrant to enable him to settle contract audit questioned costs, conducted the 

negotiations. NASA procurement officials did not prepare a negotiation position, 

and the negotiation memorandum did not adequately explain the reasons the price 

analyst did not follow the DCAA auditor’s recommendations. 

• At JPL, NASA sustained only $58,800 (4.3 percent) on total questioned costs of 

$1.37 million for three DCAA audit reports. NASA procurement officials did not 

develop a negotiation position for all questioned costs, and the negotiation 

 16 A DCAA headquarters representative provided us this data on the DCAA’s participation at negotiations. 

The DCAA does not maintain separate statistics for NASA. 

 5 
memorandums were so inadequately documented that we could not determine 

why the DCAA auditor’s recommendations were not followed. In addition, the 

negotiation memorandums did not include a reconciliation of all questioned costs, 

and we could not identify items and amounts sustained or not sustained in the 

final settlement. The FAR requires that negotiation memorandums include a 

reconciliation of all costs questioned, with identification of items and amounts 

allowed or disallowed in the final settlement, and the reasons any recommendations made by the DCAA auditor were not followed. 

Timeliness in Resolving Recommendations. During FY 2001, NASA procurement 

officials did not meet the 6-month timeframe in resolving the DCAA-reported questioned 

costs for 17 (89 percent) of the total 19 negotiated reports. NASA’s sustention rates17 for 

questioned costs dropped significantly when resolutions of the audit recommendations 

were delayed. The following table shows NASA’s sustention rates for FY 2001 based on 

the length of time to resolve questioned costs. 

NASA Sustention Rates on Questioned Costs 

(Costs in millions) 

Sustention

Age of Report 

(a)

Number of 

Reports 

(b)

Costs 

Questioned 

(c)

Costs 

Sustained 

(d)

Rate 

(Percentage) 

(d/c)

Less than 6 months 2 $ .402 $ .357 88.8 

6 months to 1 year 4 .984 .358 36.4 

1 to 2 years 6 2.340 .447 19.1 

More than 2 years 7 26.957 2.443 9.1 

By comparison, a review by the Department of Defense Inspector General (DODIG)18

showed a similar reduction in sustention rates over time. DOD CO’s sustained a 

significantly higher percentage (97 percent) of costs questioned for reports settled within 

1 year compared to the percentage (33.5 percent) for those that were more than 2 years 

old. Appendix D summarizes the DOD sustention rates of questioned costs as presented 

in the DODIG report. 

 17 The sustention rate is calculated by dividing the questioned cost sustained by the questioned cost. As 

defined in DOD Directive 7640-2, questioned costs sustained means that portion of costs questioned by the 

auditor upheld as a result of actions taken by either the contractor or the contracting officer during 

negotiations. 18 DODIG Audit Report No. 00-03, “The Air Force Contract Audit Followup System,” dated October 4, 

1999, addressed the effect that delays in negotiating questioned costs had on the sustention rate. 

 6 
While delays in negotiating questioned costs are sometimes unavoidable, resolving audit 

issues in a timely manner could result in higher sustention rates of questioned costs. 

NASA could improve its potential for sustained costs by minimizing processing delays 

based on the higher sustention rate for audit reports closed within 1 year. By settling 

reports in a timelier manner, CO’s may be able to sustain a significantly higher 

percentage of future DCAA-reported questioned costs. 

Procurement Management Surveys. The NASA Headquarters Office of Procurement 

conducts periodic procurement management surveys of NASA Centers to monitor the 

effectiveness of internal controls over the procurement process. The surveys cover 

procurement management contracting officer activities including contract audit 

follow-up. 

From 1999 through 2001, the Office of Procurement conducted procurement 

management surveys at the Centers where we performed detailed audit work.19 While 

the survey reports covered the tracking of RCA reports and the timely resolution of audit 

recommendations, the reports did not address the effectiveness in resolving and 

implementing audit recommendations, including questioned costs, by Center CO’s. 

Conclusion 

NASA spent a total of $50.4 million during FY’s 1999 through 2001 on DCAA reviews 

as a critical oversight control on major NASA contracts and programs. In our opinion, 

NASA did not effectively use such reports for which costs were questioned. By taking 

more aggressive action in negotiating DCAA-questioned costs, NASA can increase the 

amount of questioned costs sustained by millions of dollars. If NASA’s sustained 

questioned cost rates were similar to the rates for DOD, NASA would have recovered an 

additional $28 million of DCAA-reported questioned costs over the last 3 years, or an 

average of $9.3 million annually. 

Recommendations, Management’s Response, and Evaluation of 

Response 

We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for Procurement: 

1. Require CO’s to develop and document a negotiation position prior to 

negotiations; involve knowledgeable DCAA auditors in the negotiation process and 

in the review of any data provided by the contractor in response to the DCAA 

report; fully describe in a negotiation memorandum the reasons the DCAA audit 

recommendations were not followed; and reconcile all questioned costs with the 

identification of items and amounts allowed or disallowed. 

 19 See Scope and Methodology in Appendix A for the Centers where we performed detailed audit work. 

 7 
Management’s Response. Concur. The Office of Procurement agreed to issue a PIC by 

October 31, 2002, reminding the CO’s of DCAA’s responsibility in the development of 

the negotiation position and the subsequent negotiations. Management stated that the 

existing FAR and NASA FAR Supplement language address several of the points made 

by this recommendation, but did not address DCAA’s involvement in the actual 

negotiations. The complete text of management’s response is in Appendix H. 

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

the recommendation. The recommendation is resolved but will remain undispositioned 

and open until the agreed to corrective action is completed. 

2. Include in procurement management surveys an assessment of the 

adequacy of the negotiation documentation related to the resolution of DCAA 

questioned costs, the timeliness of the resolution of audit recommendations, and the 

net savings percentage on reported questioned costs. 

Management’s Response. Concur. For future procurement management surveys, the 

Office of Procurement directed procurement survey teams to assess the adequacy of the 

negotiation documentation related to the resolution of DCAA questioned costs, the 

timeliness of the resolution of audit recommendations, and the net savings percentage on 

reported questioned costs. Management noted that CO’s will not always agree with 

DCAA questioned costs. When disagreements occur, the procurement survey teams will 

determine whether the disagreements were addressed in the pre-negotiation objective the 

CO developed (see Appendix H). 

Evaluation of Management’s Response. Management’s actions are responsive to the 

recommendation. The recommendation is resolved and dispositioned and will be closed 

for reporting purposes with the issuance of this report. 

 8 
Finding B. Monitoring Delegated Resolution Authority 

NASA CO’s did not adequately monitor the DCAA RCA reports on major NASA 

contractors when NASA delegated20 resolution and disposition authority to the DOD. 

Specifically, the NASA CATS II did not include records for 24 sampled DCAA RCA 

reports covering major NASA contractors for which NASA delegated resolution and 

disposition authority to the DOD. This occurred because NASA procurement personnel 

did not comply with OMB Circular A-50 and NASA guidance for coordinating with 

DOD CO’s and for reporting RCA reports to the NASA Office of Procurement when 

reports were received and because NASA did not receive some reports. As a result, 

NASA could not ensure that audit recommendations were resolved in a timely manner or 

that the resolutions were in NASA’s best interest. Additionally, the CATS II was not 

accurate because it had no records on sustained questioned costs of about $12.5 million 

(from a total of $19.0 million). Further, NASA personnel were not aware of the $12.5 

million in questioned costs that DOD had sustained on major NASA contracts and 

programs. 

OMB and NASA Far Supplement Guidance

OMB Circular. OMB Circular A-50 requires that agencies establish contract audit 

follow-up systems to assure the prompt and proper resolution and implementation of 

audit recommendations. The systems must maintain complete records of action taken on 

both monetary and nonmonetary recommendations. In addition, the Circular states that 

agencies should “maintain accurate records of the status of audit reports or 

recommendations through the entire process of resolution and corrective action.” The 

Circular objectives are to emphasize the importance of monitoring the implementation of 

resolved audit recommendations in order to assure that promised corrective action is 

actually taken and to improve accounting and collection controls over amounts due the 

Government. 

NASA FAR Supplement. NASA FAR Supplement 1842 requires NASA CO’s to 

maintain a dialogue with DOD CO’s who have been delegated activities on NASA 

contracts. The NASA CO’s are required to conduct a review of the DOD CO’s contract 

files no less frequently than semiannually and to document in the NASA contract files the 

status and disposition of significant DCAA audit recommendations. In addition, NASA 

FAR Supplement 1842.7301 states: 

All reportable contract audit reports as defined by Chapter 15, Section 6, of the DCAA 

Contract Audit Manual (CAM) shall be reported quarterly to the Headquarters Office of 

Procurement (Code HK); . . . . 

 20 At the time of contract award, the CO prepares a letter of contract administration delegation detailing the 

general and special contract administration functions being delegated and forwards the delegation letter to

the cognizant DOD contract administration office. 

 9 
NASA PIC. PIC 00-06, dated May 30, 2000, incorporates the DCAA definition of RCA 

reports. The PIC states that procurement personnel who receive an RCA report directly 

from DCAA should immediately report the receipt of the RCA report to the NASA 

Center point of contact for DCAA21 for inclusion in the NASA CATS II. Further, the 

PIC states that it is essential that NASA CO’s maintain a dialogue with DOD CO’s as 

required by NASA FAR Supplement 1842.7301 and that NASA CO’s should document 

their files of any action taken by the DOD CO or should include documentation provided 

by the DOD in the NASA contract file. 

NASA Monitoring of Delegated Resolution and Disposition Authority

NASA delegated to the DOD the authority for resolution and disposition of the audit 

recommendations in the 24 RCA reports we reviewed (see Appendix E for the individual 

reports). NASA received 1422 of the 24 reports. For the other 10 reports, NASA was not 

listed as an addressee, and the NASA CO’s did not identify the RCA reports by 

maintaining a dialog with the DOD CO’s which is required by the NASA FAR 

Supplement. In addition, the NASA CO’s did not monitor the status and resolution of the 

audit recommendations in the 14 RCA reports received.23 Therefore, NASA had no 

knowledge of about $12.5 million that DOD sustained on NASA contracts that involved 

NASA major contractors and programs. Further, contract files did not contain 

documentation on the resolution of the reports, and CO’s were unaware of DOD actions 

that affected their contracts for the 24 reports. 

For the 24 reports, the DCAA questioned $94.2 million, including $19.0 million that 

related to NASA contracts. DOD CO’s sustained $12.5 million in questioned costs that 

related to the NASA contracts. The questioned costs and amounts sustained follow: 

 21 The Center point of contact for DCAA is the NASA employee that is responsible for updating and 

maintaining the CATS II at each center. 22 DCAA erroneously sent three reports that addressed Goddard contracts with the California Institute of 

Technology to the JPL NASA Management Office. The JPL NASA Management Office did not forward 

the reports to Goddard and did not enter the RCA report into CATS II. 23 Two of the 14 audit reports received by NASA were sent to the Marshall Procurement Office. At the 

time of our review, the Marshall contracts covered by the RCA reports were closed, and the contract files 

had been sent to storage. Consequently, Marshall procurement officials told us they could not reasonably

retrieve the contract files to determine whether they contained documentation of coordination with the 

DOD ACO’s. 

 10 
FY 2001 Questioned and Sustained Costs*

 for Audit 

Reports where NASA Delegated Resolution Authority

(Dollars in millions) 

NASA 

Center

Number 

of 

Reports

Total 

Questioned 

Costs

NASA 

Share of 

Questioned 

Costs

Total 

Sustained 

Costs

NASA

Share of 

Sustained 

Costs

Goddard 11 $38.5 $ 9.7 $24.8 $ 5.7 

Johnson 6 19.4 7.1 10.2 5.8 

Marshall 7 36.3 2.2 19.3 1.0

 Total 24 $94.2 $19.0 $54.3 $12.5

*

 Costs in this table represent the questioned and sustained costs, by NASA Center, for the DCAA audit

reports negotiated in FY 2001 for contracts for which NASA delegated resolution and disposition authority 

to the DOD. 

Major Contractors with Significant Program Dollars. Twenty of the 24 reports 

involved NASA contractors that ranked in the top 20 of all NASA contractors based on 

contract dollars (see Appendix F). The 24 DCAA audit reports describe NASA 

contractors working on major NASA programs that involved significant contract dollars: 

• One report, with total questioned costs of $7.9 million, involved a contractor 

working on the International Space Station Propulsion Module Project. 

• One report, with total questioned costs of $5.9 million, involved a contractor 

working on maintenance of Space Shuttle engines. 

• One report, with total questioned costs of $1.6 million, involved a $1.0 billion 

contract for Earth Observing System data. 

Previously Reported Similar Conditions. We previously reported similar conditions in 

four NASA Office of Inspector General audit reports issued since FY 1998 (see 

Appendix G for a synopsis of conditions in prior reports).24 As a result of the prior 

reviews, the NASA Office of Procurement issued PIC 00-06, dated May 30, 2000. The 

PIC provided additional guidance to ensure NASA compliance with the NASA FAR 

Supplement Part 1842 and OMB Circular A-50. 

Following NASA Guidance 

CATS II Tracking. The NASA Center point of contact for DCAA did not notify the 

NASA Office of Procurement about RCA reports for contracts where NASA had 

delegated to the DOD the authority to resolve and disposition contract audit findings. 

Therefore, the reports were not entered into the CATS II system. NASA uses CATS II to 

 24 GAO report GAO/NSIAD-94-229, September 30, 1994, also cited NASA for not adequately monitoring 

audits resolved by the DOD. 

 11 
monitor the resolution and disposition of audit recommendations, including DCAA 

contract audit questioned costs. Data entered into CATS II on RCA reports for which 

resolution and disposition authority had been delegated to the DOD would serve as an 

internal control to prompt NASA CO’s to follow up with the DOD and to document the 

resolution of such reports in the contract files. 

Procurement Management Surveys. During 2000 and 2001, the NASA Headquarters 

Office of Procurement conducted Procurement Management Surveys at the NASA 

Centers that had delegated to the DOD authority for the resolution and disposition of 

contract audit findings, including questioned costs. However, the survey reports did not 

address the effectiveness of the CO’s monitoring of the delegated authority. Including 

assessments of such monitoring in Procurement Management Surveys would help focus 

attention on the need for NASA Centers to report all RCA reports to Headquarters and 

for NASA CO’s to coordinate with the DOD CO’s and to document the disposition of 

significant audit findings in the contract files. 

Conclusion 

Although NASA spent a total of $50.4 million on DCAA audits during FY’s 1999 

through 2001, NASA did not get the full benefit from the DCAA RCA reports for which 

NASA delegated resolution and disposition authority to the DOD. NASA has overall 

responsibility for managing its contracts, and NASA CO’s should maintain better 

oversight of contract audit activities. NASA had no knowledge of about $12.5 million 

that DOD sustained on NASA contracts that involved NASA major contractors and 

programs. NASA Centers should more effectively monitor and report to NASA 

headquarters RCA reports for which significant dollars are questioned to ensure prompt 

and proper tracking and reporting to meet OMB circular requirements and to respond to 

congressional inquiries. 

Recommendations, Management’s Response, and Evaluation of 

Response 

We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for Procurement: 

3. Remind procurement personnel to report to NASA Headquarters all 

DCAA RCA reports on NASA contracts for which resolution authority was 

delegated to DOD. 

Management’s Response. Concur. On July 31, 2002, the Director of DCAA met with 

the Assistant Administrator for Procurement. They agreed that in addition to the monthly 

list of RCA reports DCAA currently provides, DCAA would include any report 

administered by DOD for which the impact of questioned costs to NASA exceeds the 

RCA threshold. This would ensure that questioned costs exceeding the RCA threshold 

 12 
are in the NASA tracking system and that NASA officials review the status. DCAA will 

determine how the monthly reporting will be implemented. The complete text of

management’s response is in Appendix H. 

Evaluation of Management’s Response. Management’s action is fully responsive to 

the recommendation. The recommendation is resolved but will remain undispositioned 

and open until DCAA begins providing the agreed-upon monthly reports. 

4. Require procurement management surveys to include an assessment on 

whether NASA CO’s reviewed DOD CO contract files semiannually, reported to 

NASA Headquarters all RCA reports, and documented contract files on the 

disposition of significant DCAA audit recommendations as required by NASA FAR 

Supplement 1842 and NASA PIC 00-06. 

Management’s Response. Concur. For future procurement management surveys the 

Office of Procurement directed procurement survey teams to determine whether CO’s 

documented the contract files for actions taken by administrative CO’s on NASA’s 

behalf and included any documentation provided by administrative CO’s in the contract 

files (see Appendix H). 

Evaluation of Management’s Response. Management’s action is responsive to the 

recommendation. The recommendation is resolved and dispositioned and will be closed 

for reporting purposes. 

 13 
Appendix A. Objective, Scope, and Methodology 

Objective 

The overall objective of the audit was to evaluate the adequacy of NASA’s contract audit 

follow-up system on Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) audit reports. Specifically, we 

determined whether: 

• NASA’s audit follow-up activities ensured the prompt and effective resolution and 

disposition of contract audit findings and recommendations, including the recording of 

action taken on all recommendations, and that the follow-up activities were in 

compliance with Office of Management Budget (OMB) Circular A-50. 

• Contracting officers (CO’s) obtained an adequate sustention rate on the settlement of

DCAA-reported questioned costs. 

• The NASA corrective action tracking system (CATS II) and the semiannual report 

contained current and accurate information on all applicable DCAA audit reports and 

subsequent settlement activities. 

Scope and Methodology 

The NASA Office of Inspector General is responsible25 (1) to review NASA’s policy for 

obtaining contract administration and audit services, including those from the DCAA, and (2) 

to evaluate NASA’s follow-up system and specific categories of contract audit work 

performed in connection with NASA programs. 

We performed the detailed audit work at NASA Headquarters, Washington, D.C.; Glenn 

Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio; the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, California; 

Johnson Space Center, Houston, Texas; and Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, 

Alabama. We requested contract audit follow-up documentation from Goddard Space Flight 

Center, Greenbelt, Maryland. We reviewed OMB Circular A-50 requirements; Federal 

Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 42-705-1 requirements; and NASA’s policies, including 

NASA FAR Supplement 1842.73 and Procurement Information Circular 00-06, and other 

agencies’ policies referenced in NASA guidelines, such as Department of Defense (DOD) 

Directive 7640.226 and the DCAA Contract Audit Manual. We interviewed NASA CO’s to 

determine whether audit recommendations were resolved and dispositioned promptly and 

 25 The Inspector General Act of 1978 assigns responsibility for reviewing Agency policies and operations to the 

Inspectors General. 

26 DOD Directive 7640.2, “Policy for Follow-up on Contract Audit Reports,” August 16, 1995, contains DOD 

guidance for resolving contract audit findings and questioned costs. 

 14 
Appendix A 

effectively. We also interviewed the NASA representatives in charge of the contract audit 

follow-up system at the Centers we visited and NASA Headquarters officials in the Office of 

Procurement. 

To determine whether NASA’s follow-up activities ensured the prompt and effective 

resolution and disposition of contract audit findings and recommendations, we selected two 

samples: 

• We reviewed the CATS II listing of 33 DCAA reportable contract audit reports for 

which NASA retained resolution and disposition authority. The DCAA audit reports 

contained questioned costs (excluding operations audits) that NASA negotiated during 

FY’s 1999, 2000, and 2001. Nineteen of the 33 audit reports were closed in FY 2001, 

and we judgmentally selected 11 reports for a detailed analysis, including interviews 

of NASA and DCAA personnel. 

• For DCAA reports that NASA delegated resolution and disposition authority to the 

DOD, we reviewed 24 DCAA reports with questioned costs of more than $200,000 

each. We selected the reports from a DCAA-provided list of audit reports negotiated 

during FY 2001. 

Use of Computer-Generated Data 

We obtained computer-generated data from the NASA CATS II database and tested the data 

by comparing it to source documents for the sampled DCAA reportable contract audit (RCA) 

reports. The tests showed errors in the information regarding the resolution of questioned 

costs in DCAA RCA reports for which NASA retained resolution and disposition authority. 

The tests also showed the lack of any information on DCAA reports for which NASA 

delegated resolution and disposition authority to the DOD. 

Management Controls 

We examined NASA policies and procedures concerning the contract audit follow-up system. 

We also reviewed NASA practices to track RCA reports and to follow up on audit 

recommendations for timely resolution and disposition. 

We considered management policies and procedures to be adequate. However, controls need 

to be strengthened to ensure that NASA (1) obtains a higher net savings rate on the DCAAreported questioned costs (Finding A) and (2) monitors the DCAA RCA reports for which 

NASA has delegated resolution and disposition authority to the DOD (Finding B).

 15 
Appendix A 

Audit Field Work 

We performed the audit work from November 2001 through April 2002. We conducted the 

audit in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

 16 
Appendix B. Reportable Contract Audit Reports 

The Defense Contract Audit Agency Contract Audit Manual 7640.1, Volume 2, Chapter 15, 

defines reportable contract audit reports: 

1. Those reports containing findings and recommendations, whether or not the 

findings are qualified, covering estimating system surveys, accounting and 

related internal control system reviews, defective pricing reviews, and cost

accounting standards (CAS) matters. (Reports containing only favorable

findings and recommendations, such as CAS reports recommending that a 

contractor’s proposed accounting change be approved, or estimating system

surveys that only contain “suggestions for improvements” are not

reportable.) 

2. Those reports covering operations audits, incurred costs, settlement of final 

indirect cost rates, final pricing submissions, termination settlement

proposals, and claims if reported costs or rates questioned or 

unsupported/qualified equal $100,000 or more. 

3. Reports on audit-determined final indirect cost rates and Form(s) 1, to the 

cognizant Administrative Contracting Officer (ACO) when the auditor 

cannot reach an agreement with the contractor. 

 17 
Appendix C. Audit Reports for Which NASA Negotiated Final Settlement 

 

 

Summary by Fiscal Year 

Fiscal No. of Questioned Sustained Sustention

Year Reports Costs Costs 1 Rate 2

__(a)__ ___(b)__ ____(c)____ ____(d)____ ___(d/c)__

1999 7 $23,370,391 $ 6,376,230 27.3 

2000 7 24,530,600 4,925,316 20.1 

2001 19 30,683,216 3,605,379 11.8

Totals 33 $78,584,207 $14,906,925 19.0

1

 Sustained cost is that portion of costs questioned by the Defense Contract Audit Agency auditor 

upheld as a result of actions taken by either the contractor or the contracting officer. 2

 We calculated the sustention rate by dividing the sustained cost by the questioned cost. 

(See next page for details on audit reports reviewed in fiscal year 2001.) 

 18 
Appendix C 

 

Fiscal Year 2001 

Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) Reports 1

As Adjusted 2

 Report Report NASA Questioned Sustained Percent Reviewed

 Number Date Contractor Center 3 Costs Cost s Sustained by OIG 4

1301-97M10250026 05/25/1999 Analex Corp. GRC $ 392,453 $ 111,146 28.32 Yes 

1301-99M10250029 05/28/1999 Analex Corp. GRC 1,016,702 83,146 8.18 Yes 

1301-98M10100002 09/15/2001 Analex Corp. GRC 279,406 1,559 0.56 Yes 

1701-97J10100080 06/01/2001 D. Thigpen & Assoc. GRC 288,000 288,000 100.00 No 

1701-94J17900002 03/09/2000 Sverdrup Tech. GRC 115,633 61,285 53.00 No 

1681-93A16990006 05/28/1993 Sverdrup Tech. GRC 293,293 293,293 100.00 No 

1681-94J16990014 05/31/1994 Sverdrup Tech. GRC 29,468 0 0.00 No 

1681-94J16990013 09/27/1994 Sverdrup Tech. GRC 476,684 455,907 95.64 No 

1701-93J10100453 05/03/2000 Sverdrup Tech. GRC 291,453 285,134 97.83 No 

6121-99T10150201 06/25/1999 Raytheon STX GSFC 158,065 158,065 100.00 No 

4901-98J101500015 06/29/1999 CalTech6 JPL 523,804 32,064 6.12 Yes 

4901-98J101006035 12/07/1999 CalTech JPL 544,451 16,896 3.10 Yes 

4901-99J101100015 06/29/2000 CalTech JPL 297,265 9,840 3.31 Yes 

3521-99M10250003 09/25/1999 Northrop Grumman JSC 494,000 94,000 19.03 Yes 

3521-92D19200001 07/29/1994 Rockwell Co. JSC 24,234,014 1,500,000 6.19 Yes 

3521-95D10250026 09/30/1996 Stellacom, Inc. JSC 514,264 0 0.00 Yes 

1661-01B17200002 02/26/2001 Riggins Co., Inc. LaRC 114,348 69,466 60.75 No 

1211-96A10250003 07/28/1999 Micro Craft Inc. MSFC 383,104 78,972 20.61 Yes 

1211-96A10250004 07/30/1999 Micro Craft Inc. MSFC 236,809 66,606 28.13 Yes

Totals 19 Reports $30,683,216 $3,605,379 11.75 11

1 DCAA audit reports resolved by NASA procurement personnel during fiscal year 2001. 

2 We adjusted the amounts shown for questioned costs and sustained costs based on a review of NASA’s 

contract files and the DCAA audit reports. 3 NASA Centers: 

GRC Glenn Research Center 

GSFC Goddard Space Flight Center 

JPL Jet Propulsion Laboratory

JSC Johnson Space Center 

LaRC Langley Research Center 

MSFC Marshall Space Flight Center 4

 The NASA Office of Inspector General reviewed the DCAA reports. 5

 DCAA also questioned a total of $653,454 of direct material costs in these three reports on JPL. The primary

issue in question was the allocation of the costs among NASA projects and not the allowability of the costs. 

Therefore, we did not include those questioned costs in our analysis. 6California Institute of Technology. 

 19 
Appendix D. Department of Defense Inspector General (DODIG) Review of 

Sustention Rates on Questioned Costs* 

We obtained the information below from DODIG Audit Report No. 00-03, “The Air Force 

Contract Audit Followup System,” dated October 4, 1999. We performed a similar review on 

NASA’s sustention rates (see table “NASA Sustention Rates on Questioned Costs” on page 6 

of this report). 

(Costs in millions)

Age of Report

Number of

Reports

Costs 

Questioned

Costs 

Sustained

Sustention 

Percentage

1 year or less* 23 $ 56.3 $54.6 97.0 

1 to 2 years 13 3.7 3.0 81.1 

Over 2 years 25 67.8 22.7 33.5 

* The DODIG Audit Report did not provide statistics for reports resolved within 6 months. 

 20 
Appendix E. Reportable Contract Audit Reports for Which NASA 

 Delegated Resolution and Disposition Authority 

Fiscal Year 2001 

 (

D

ollars in

T

h

o

usa

n

ds)

Report Number 

Report 

Date 

Resolution 

Date Contractor 

NASA 

Center

1 

Total 

Questioned 

Cost 

N

ASA

Share of 

Questione

Cost 

4901-1995H10150025 09/29/95 02/06/01 Aerojet General Corp. GSFC $ 392 $ 2

3121-1998H10100058 06/30/00 09/27/01 Ball Aerospace & Technology Corp. GSFC 2,184 86151-1995H10250021 09/29/95 12/29/00 Orbittal Science 

Corp. GSFC 878 3

6121-1998U10250941 05/28/98 03/13/01 Raytheon Infor

mation Systems GSFC 1,574 1,5

6121-1998U10250006 09/23/98 03/13/01 Raytheon Infor

mation Systems GSFC 647 6

2901-1999B10250003 07/09/99 09/30/01 Raytheon Systems Co.

GSFC 2,141 5

2901-1998A10250017 09/30/98 09/30/01 Raytheon Systems Co. GSFC 1,465 24291-1999J10150001 06/30/99 03/21/01 Space Systems Loral Inc. GSFC 460 44901-1999P10100248 06/29/00 12/29/00 California Institute of Technology

GSFC 11,059 2,6

4901-1998P10150001 06/29/99 03/09/01 California Institute of Technology

GSFC 9,786 4

4901-1998P10100248 12/23/99 12/29/00 California Institute of Technology

GSFC 7,904 1,8

4181-1999V10150002 07/30/99 06/14/01 Allied Signal Aerospace Co. JSC 894 64381-1998C10150001 07/06/98 09/28/01 Boeing Co. – BD&S Group JSC 7,901 84381-1999C10150001 04/30/99 09/28/01 Boeing Co. – BD&S Group JSC 2,585 23521-2000D17900006 09/27/00 04/04/01 Boeing Co. – S&D Systems JSC 213 24701-1998L10150001 09/21/98 09/13/01 Boeing North America - Rocketdyne JSC 5,974 4,13421-1999D10150001 07/16/99 09/30/01 McDonnell Douglas Corp. JSC 1,797 94291-1998U10150001 09/29/99 05/09/01 United Tech. Corp. – CSD

MSFC 5,502 2

3121-1996K10150001 09/20/96 04/18/01 Lockheed 

Martin Corp.2 MSFC 9,197 2

3121-1997K10150002 09/25/97 04/18/01 Lockheed 

Martin Corp.2 MSFC 6,113 3

3121-1997K10150004 03/27/98 04/18/01 Lockheed 

Martin Corp.2 MSFC 6,413 3

3121-1997K10150003 06/25/98 04/18/01 Lockheed 

Martin Corp.2 MSFC 8,247 4

1461-1995S17900625 10/10/95 03/14/01 Lockheed Martin Infor

mation Systems

2 MSFC 237 2

2261-1999B10250007 03/31/99 06/07/01 Moog, Inc.

MSFC 632 2

Totals 24 Reports $94,192 $19,0

21 

1 NASA Centers: 

GSFC Goddard Space Flight Center JSC Johnson Space Center MSFC Marshall Space Flight Center 2 A Marshall procurement official told us t

hat t

he NASA contracting officer (CO) for Marshall’s pri

ncipal contract, NAS8-36200, with 

maintains a regular dialog with the Department of Defense (DOD) administrative contracting officer. Nevertheless, the NASA CO wawhether t

he DOD administrative CO advised NASA about t

hese audit reports. 
Appendix F. Major NASA Contractors 

Fiscal Year 2001 

No. of 

Reports Contract Dollars

 Contractor in Sample Ranking 1 (in millions)

Boeing Co. 3 2 $1,658.5

California Institute of Technology 3 --2 1,451.7

Lockheed Martin Corp. 5 3 608.3

Boeing North American, Inc. 1 6 303.6

McDonnell Douglas Corp. 1 7 282.2

Raytheon Information Systems Co. 4 11 127.7

United Technologies Corp. 1 16 89.1

Ball Aerospace & Technology Corp. 1 19 80.9

Orbital Science Corp. 1 20 74.4

Aerojet General Corp. 1 36 35.3

Space Systems Loral Inc. 1 66 13.6

Moog, Inc. 1 99 7.3

Allied Signal Aerospace Co. 1 -- 5.1

Total 24 $4,737.7

Total NASA Procurements FY 2001 $12,748.1

1

 The source of information for ranking the top 100 NASA contractors is the NASA Annual Procurement

Report for Fiscal Year 2001. 2

 The California Institute of Technology (CalTech) is an educational institution that has a NASA contract 

to operate the Jet Propulsion Laboratory for NASA. We included CalTech on the list because of the 

significant contract dollars. 

22
Appendix G. Summary of Prior Coverage 

The NASA Office of Inspector General and the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) 

have issued reports related to the use of audit services provided by the Defense Contract 

Audit Agency (DCAA) and to NASA's contract audit follow-up system. The reports are 

summarized below. Copies of the NASA reports are available at 

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

NASA Office of Inspector General (OIG) 

“NASA Settlement of DCAA’s Incurred Cost Audits at Goddard Space Flight 

Center,” Report Number IG-00-046, September 18, 2000. The follow-up system did 

not include complete records of actions taken on the DCAA reportable contract audit 

(RCA) reports delegated to the Department of Defense (DOD) contracting officers 

(CO’s) for resolution and disposition. As a result, Goddard Space Flight Center 

procurement personnel could not ensure that the DCAA audit recommendations were 

resolved in a timely manner and that the resolutions were in NASA’s best interest. We

identified a similar finding during our follow-up system audits at Marshall Space Flight 

Center and Johnson Space Center (Report Number IG-00-010, March 6, 2000, and IG00-032, May 19, 2000). 

“NASA Contract Audit Follow-up System at Johnson Space Center,” Report 

Number IG-00-032, May 19, 2000. The follow-up system did not include complete 

records of actions taken on the DCAA audit reports delegated to the DOD CO’s for 

resolution and disposition. As a result, Johnson procurement personnel could not ensure 

that the DCAA audit recommendations were resolved in a timely manner and that the 

resolutions were in NASA’s best interest. We identified a similar finding during our 

audit of the NASA contract audit follow-up system at Marshall (Report Number 

IG-00-010, March 6, 2000). Also, Johnson procurement personnel did not track and 

report certain DCAA RCA reports and did not resolve or disposition the DCAA-reported 

audit recommendations within 6-months after report issuance pursuant to Office of 

Management Budget (OMB) Circular A-50. Consequently, the DCAA audit 

recommendations were not resolved in a timely fashion, and NASA funds that should 

have been disallowed, withheld, or reduced could not be reallocated to other NASA 

programs. Management concurred with the two recommendations and issued 

Procurement Information Circular 00-06 and a letter to the Team Leader, Procurement 

Management Survey Team, to include the “Audit Follow-up Process” in all future 

procurement surveys. 

23
Appendix G 

“NASA Contract Audit Follow-up System at Marshall Space Flight Center,” Report 

Number IG-00-010, March 6, 2000. The follow-up system did not include complete 

records of actions taken on the DCAA RCA reports delegated to DOD CO’s for 

resolution and disposition. As a result, Marshall procurement personnel could not ensure 

that the DCAA audit recommendations were resolved in a timely manner and that the 

resolutions were in NASA’s best interest. Also, Marshall procurement personnel did not 

track and report certain DCAA RCA reports and did not resolve the DCAA-reported 

audit recommendations within 6 months after report issuance pursuant to OMB Circular 

A-50. Consequently, the DCAA audit recommendations were not resolved in a timely 

fashion, and NASA funds that should have been disallowed, withheld, or reduced could 

not be reallocated to other NASA programs. Management concurred with the four 

recommendations. 

“Review of NASA’s Use of Audit Services Provided by the Defense Contract Audit 

Agency,” Report Number P&A-98-001, September 30, 1998. NASA needed to 

improve its oversight of the use, benefits, and effectiveness of DCAA services. Also, 

NASA’s audit follow-up system needed improvement to ensure that all reports, including 

those delegated to DOD for resolution and disposition, were properly accounted for and 

resolved. The NASA Centers did not have a centralized point to receive and track audit 

reports, and NASA did not monitor the status of the DCAA audit reports delegated to 

DOD for resolution and disposition. NASA CO’s were often not informed by the DOD 

CO’s of the actions taken that affected NASA contracts. Consequently, NASA could not 

ensure that the DCAA audit recommendations were resolved on a timely basis and that 

the resolutions were in NASA’s best interest. 

U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) 

“NASA Contract Management: Improving the Use of DCAA’s Auditing Services,” 

Report Number GAO/NSIAD-94-229, September 30, 1994. The GAO raised many 

concerns related to NASA contractors’ unallowable cost claims, the status of contractors’ 

business systems, NASA’s involvement in the DCAA’s audit planning process, 

timeliness of contract close out, and contract audit tracking and follow-up systems. The 

GAO made six recommendations. Two of the recommendations dealt with NASA’s 

untimely tracking and follow-up for the DCAA RCA reports: (1) monitoring the DCAA 

audit recommendations that are resolved by the DOD CO’s and (2) documenting the 

status and disposition of the DCAA audit recommendations in contract files. NASA 

management agreed that its audit tracking and reporting systems needed improvements. 

24
Appendix H. Management’s Response 

25
Appendix H 

26
Appendix H 

27
Appendix I. Report Distribution

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Headquarters 

HQ/A/Administrator 

HQ/AI/Associate Deputy Administrator 

HQ/AA/Chief of Staff 

HQ/B/Acting Deputy Chief Financial Officer 

HQ/B/Comptroller 

HQ/BF/Director, Financial Management Division 

HQ/G/General Counsel 

HQ/H/Assistant Administrator for Procurement 

HQ/HK/Director, Contract Management Division 

HQ/HS/Director, Program Operations Division 

HQ/J/Assistant Administrator for Management Systems 

HQ/JM/Director, Management Assessment Division 

HQ/L/Assistant Administrator for Legislative Affairs 

HQ/M/Associate Administrator for Space Flight 

NASA Centers 

ARC/D/Director, Ames Research Center 

FRC/0100/Director, John H. Glenn Research Center at Lewis Field 

GSFC/100/Director, Goddard Space Flight Center 

GSFC/150/Chief Financial Officer, Goddard Space Flight Center 

JSC/AA/Director, Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center 

LaRC/106/Acting Director, Langley Research Center 

LaRC/109/Chief Financial Officer, Langley Research Center 

KSC/AA/Director, John F. Kennedy Space Center 

KSC/CC/Chief Counsel, John F. Kennedy Space Center 

MSFC/DA01/Director, George C. Marshall Space Flight Center 

Non-NASA Federal Organizations and Individuals 

Assistant to the President for Science and Technology Policy 

Deputy Associate Director, Energy and Science Division, Office of Management and 

 Budget 

Branch Chief, Science and Space Programs Branch, Energy and Science Division, Office 

 of Management and Budget 

28
Appendix I 

Non-NASA Federal Organizations and Individuals Continued

Managing Director, Acquisition and Sourcing Management Team, General Accounting 

 Office 

Senior Professional Staff Member, Senate Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and 

 Space 

Chairman and Ranking Minority Member – Congressional Committees and 

Subcommittees 

Senate Committee on Appropriations 

Senate Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies 

Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

Senate Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Space 

Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs 

House Committee on Appropriations 

House Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies 

House Committee on Government Reform

House Subcommittee on Government Efficiency, Financial Management, and 

 Intergovernmental Relations 

House Subcommittee on Technology and Procurement Policy 

House Committee on Science 

House Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics 

Congressional Member 

Honorable Pete Sessions, U.S. House of Representatives 

29
NASA Assistant Inspector General for Audits 

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 Audits; NASA Headquarters, 

Code W, Washington, DC 20546-0001. 

Report Title: NASA’s Contract Audit Follow-up System

Report Number: Date: 

Circle the appropriate rating for the following statements. 

Strongly 

Agree Agree Neutral Disagree 

Strongly 

Disagree 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 # Poor

# Good

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 

Lorne A. Dear, Program Director, Procurement Audits 

Patrick A. Iler, Program Manager, Procurement Audits 

Patrick A. Monaco, Auditor-in-Charge 

Stephen K. Siu, Auditor-in-Charge 

Lydia C. Lin, Auditor 

Nancy C. Cipolla, Report Process Manager 

Debra Schuerger, Program Assistant