IG-02-019

AUDIT 

REPORT PROPERTY CONTROL SYSTEM ANALYSIS 

REPORTING ON SPACE FLIGHT 

OPERATIONS CONTRACT 

SUBCONTRACTORS 

July 8, 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 

DOD Department of Defense 

DCMA Defense Contract Management Agency 

FAR Federal Acquisition Regulation 

FY Fiscal Year 

IPO Industrial Property Officer 

OIG Office of Inspector General 

SFOC Space Flight Operations Contract 

USA United Space Alliance 
July 8, 2002 

W 

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

FROM: W/Assistant Inspector General for Audits 

SUBJECT: Final Report on Audit of Property Control System Analysis Reporting on 

Space Flight Operations Contract Subcontractors 

 Assignment Number A-00-007-01 

 Report Number IG-02-019 

Enclosed please find the subject final report. Our evaluation of your response has been 

incorporated into the body of the report. We consider management's proposed corrective 

actions responsive for the recommendations, which will remain open for reporting 

purposes until corrective actions are completed. Please notify us when actions have been 

completed on these recommendations. The final report distribution is in Appendix F. 

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

concerning the report, please contact Daniel J. Samoviski, at (301) 286-6890, or Larry J. 

Timmons, at (321) 867-4705. 

[Original Signed By] 

Alan J. Lamoreaux 

Enclosure 
2 

cc: 

HQ/AI/Associate Deputy Administrator 

HQ/AB/Associate Deputy Administrator for Institutions 

HQ/B/Deputy Chief Financial Officer 

HQ/B/Comptroller 

HQ/BF/Director, Financial Management Division 

HQ/G/General Counsel 

HQ/JM/Director, Management Assessment Division 

2
NASA Office of Inspector General 

IG-02-019 July 8, 2002 

 A-00-007-01 

Property Control System Analysis Reporting on 

 Space Flight Operations Contract Subcontractors 

Introduction 

NASA accomplishes much of its mission through the use of contractors and often 

provides Government-furnished property to them, or the contractors acquire property 

using NASA funds. On October 31, 1996, the Johnson Space Center (Johnson) awarded 

the Space Flight Operations Contract (SFOC) to the United Space Alliance (USA). The 

SFOC involves processing and maintaining the Space Shuttle, which includes the orbiter, 

external tank, and solid rocket booster components. As of September 30, 2000, USA 

held Government property1

 valued at more than $9.6 billion and 107 SFOC 

subcontractors held $1.289 billion of Government property. 

Contractors and subcontractors are required to manage and account for NASA property 

in accordance with Federal and NASA regulations and policies. Accordingly, contractors 

and subcontractors develop and maintain property management systems to ensure that 

they comply with those requirements. A prime contractor can either oversee a 

subcontractor's property management system or request that NASA delegate this 

responsibility to a supporting Government property administrator, such as the Defense 

Contract Management Agency (DCMA2

). 

At USA's request, NASA delegated oversight responsibility to the DCMA for the 107 

SFOC subcontractors. This oversight responsibility includes performing a property 

control system analysis (System Analysis) of the contractor's property management 

system. The System Analysis is a critical property management tool because it evaluates 

15 elements of a contractor's property management system (see Appendix B). The 

objective of the System Analysis is to identify system weaknesses and ensure compliance 

with contract terms and conditions. For example, for the acquisition element of the 

System Analysis, DCMA addresses contract compliance by assessing acquisition controls 

to ensure that contractors and subcontractors buy or fabricate only contractually approved 

items. If the DCMA waives the System Analysis, then DCMA should provide a letter to 

 

1

 Government property includes items such as special test equipment, special tooling, agency-peculiar 

equipment, and raw materials used for Shuttle and International Space Station fabrication and maintenance. 2

 The DCMA, a Department of Defense agency, provides a variety of delegated services to Federal 

agencies such as contract administration, quality assurance, and property administration. 
NASA stating so and the basis for the waiver.3 DCMA summarizes the results of the 

System Analysis in a report tilted "Summary of Property Control System Analysis,” 

which should be provided to the Johnson Industrial Property Officer (IPO) within 30 

days of issuance.4

 

Our audit objective was to determine whether NASA properly managed contractor-held 

property by obtaining and reviewing DCMA System Analysis reports. A subsequent 

report will address other issues associated with property that was lost, damaged, or 

destroyed and identifying excess property. Details on our scope and methodology are in 

Appendix A. 

Property Administration Oversight Reporting 

NASA is not assured that Government property held by SFOC subcontractors was 

properly managed. Specifically, NASA property officials did not maintain effective 

communications with DCMA property administrators to keep fully informed about SFOC 

subcontractor performance and progress related to property control problems. For 

example, the NASA IPO did not obtain and review fiscal year (FY) 2000 DCMA System

Analysis Reports for SFOC subcontractors whose property administration NASA 

delegated to DCMA at the request of the prime contractor. This occurred because the 

SFOC IPO did not perform the required property management administration oversight 

responsibilities. Accordingly, NASA is not assured that the SFOC prime contractor has 

an established system to assess the adequacy of records control, protection, preservation, 

and maintenance of $86 million of Government property in the possession of SFOC 

subcontractors. 

NASA Guidance for Property Administration 

Agency Guidance. The NASA Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Supplement, 

Subpart 1845.7205, describes property administration functional oversight 

responsibilities. The NASA FAR Supplement states that NASA contracting officers 

retain functional management responsibility for their contracts. Furthermore, utilization 

of another contract administration office, such as DCMA, does not relieve contracting 

officers of their ultimate responsibility for the proper and effective management of 

contracts. Each NASA installation designates an IPO to manage and coordinate property 

matters among the various contracting officers, technical officials, contractor officials, 

delegated property administrators such as DCMA, and plant clearance officers. 

Generally, the IPO is responsible for the entire contract property management function. 

The NASA FAR Supplement 1845.7205 assigns several responsibilities to the IPO 

including maintaining effective communication with delegated property administrators, 

 3

 The Letter of Contract Administration Delegation, Special Instructions (NASA Form 1430A), requires 

DCMA to advise NASA on any waivers of the System Analysis. 4

 Details on the IPO's responsibilities are in this report in the section entitled Property Administration 

Oversight Reporting. 

2
such as DCMA, to keep fully informed about contractor performance and progress on 

any property control problems. Furthermore, the IPO is required to obtain and review 

System Analysis reports for all contracts for which property administration has been 

delegated in order to keep fully informed of any property control problems.

 

Procurement Information Circular. On August 13, 1997, the NASA Procurement 

Office issued Procurement Information Circular 97-5, which contains instructions for 

contracting officers to use when delegating property administration and plant clearance 

responsibilities (see Appendix C). The Circular requires the contracting officer to ensure 

that DCMA regularly provides all the required information and documents, such as the 

System Analysis reports, to NASA. 

Department of Defense (DOD) Guidance. The DOD Manual for the Performance of 

Contract Property Administration sets forth instructions to property administrators to 

ensure uniformity and consistency in the administration of contract provisions relating to 

property held by contractors and subcontractors. The Manual identifies 15 property 

management system analysis elements, which are briefly described in Appendix B. For 

one of those elements, subcontract control, the Manual states that if a delegated property 

administrator, such as DCMA, identifies deficiencies in the subcontractor's property 

management system, then the NASA property administrator will ascertain whether the 

prime contractor had knowledge of the deficiencies and whether corrective actions were 

implemented. The System Analysis reports should identify deficiencies in the 

subcontractor's property management system. 

Submission of System Analysis Reports 

System Analysis Reports Not Obtained and Reviewed. The Johnson IPO did not 

perform required property management oversight responsibilities. Specifically, for 

FY 2000, the Johnson IPO did not obtain and review 34 of the 107 required System

Analysis reports for SFOC subcontractors or obtain waiver justifications from DCMA. 

The 34 subcontracts, which included $86 million in Government property, are shown in 

Appendix D.5

 The IPO is identified in the contracting officer's Letter of Acceptance of 

Contract Administration Delegation (NASA Form 1431) as the recipient of the System

Analysis reports or waiver justifications. As stated in the NASA FAR Supplement, the 

IPO is the primary custodian of the System Analysis reports and uses them to manage 

and account for Government property in the possession of subcontractors. The IPO, 

therefore, must ensure that the System Analysis reports are obtained and reviewed within 

30 days of issuance and should request them directly from the DCMA when they are not 

received. If the reports are not received after notification to DCMA, the IPO should 

inform the cognizant contracting officer. 

 5 During our audit work, we found that NASA did not assess SFOC subcontract management in 2001. As 

a result, we obtained a subcontract listing from USA, which showed that, as of March 4, 2002, USA had 

not received 25 of 102 required System Analysis reports. The property value related to the 25 reports 

exceeds $53 million. 

3
Need for System Analysis Reports. We judgmentally selected 20 of the 34 subcontracts 

for review to determine the reasons the System Analysis reports were not obtained and 

reviewed. The 20 subcontracts accounted for $65 million of the $86 million of 

contractor-held property. We contacted the DCMA property administrators for the 

selected subcontracts and obtained System Analysis reports for all 20 subcontracts. (The 

20 subcontracts are identified in Appendix D with a yes in the Reports Obtained column.) 

The Johnson IPO stated that she did not obtain and review all the System Analysis 

reports during FY 2000 because of a heavy workload and insufficient staff resources. 

Further, the IPO did not notify the SFOC contracting officer that all the required System

Analysis reports (or waiver justifications) for SFOC subcontractors were not received. 

Because the IPO did not obtain and review the 34 System Analysis reports, NASA could 

not determine whether $86 million in Government property held by 34 (of 107) SFOC 

subcontractors was properly managed and accounted for. The NASA IPO and property 

administrators should use the System Analysis reports to assess the contractor’s 

performance of property administration. The analysis of a contractor's property control 

system is a critical part of the property oversight process. Through reviewing the System

Analysis report, the property administrator determines whether the contractor is 

effectively and efficiently complying with the terms and conditions of the contract. 

If the System Analysis report identifies unsatisfactory conditions, NASA may disapprove 

the contractor's property control system. When this happens, the contractor's liability for 

lost, damaged, or destroyed property could increase. The status of the property control 

system determines where the burden of proof rests whenever Government property is 

lost, damaged, or destroyed. Under an approved property control system, the burden of 

proof rests with the Government to prove that the property loss, damage, or destruction 

resulted from willful misconduct or lack of good faith on the part of the contractor. 

However, under a property management system in which approval has been withheld or 

withdrawn, the burden of proof shifts to the contractor, who must prove that the property 

loss, damage, or destruction was not connected with any deficiency that caused 

withdrawal of system approval. 

Conclusion 

System Analysis reports serve an important function in ensuring that contractors comply 

with contract terms and conditions while managing Government property in their 

custody. Approval of a contractor's property management system also affects the 

contractor's liability for property that is lost, damaged, or destroyed. Accordingly, it is 

critical that NASA annually obtain and review the reports for each of the USA 

subcontractors to ensure that Government property valued at more than a billion dollars 

in their possession is being properly managed and accounted for. NASA should contact 

DCMA and determine the status of the System Analysis reports for the 14 contracts noted 

in Appendix D. 

4
Recommendations, Management's Response, and Evaluation of 

Response

The Director, Johnson Space Center, should direct: 

1. The SFOC contracting officer to immediately initiate follow-up actions with 

DCMA to ensure that it submits the remaining 14 System Analysis reports. 

2. The IPO to annually obtain and review the System Analysis reports for all 

SFOC subcontractors, for which NASA delegated property administration 

responsibilities to DCMA (at USA's request), in accordance with the 

requirements of the NASA FAR Supplement. 

Management's Response. NASA concurred with the recommendations and is in the 

process of completing corrective actions. However, NASA did not agree with the report 

findings and conclusions regarding oversight adequacy. NASA stated that actual 

oversight responsibility, which is the prime contractor's responsibility; the adequacy of 

the subcontractors' property control; and the performance of system analysis by DCMA 

were never in question. NASA stated that the only issue in question is the Johnson IPO 

maintenance of a complete file of DCMA subcontractor system analysis reports, which is 

not required. 

For recommendation 1, NASA stated that the delegations, which created the requirement 

for DCMA to send the System Analysis reports to NASA, were in error and were not a 

FAR requirement. Further, all existing support requests will be reissued to reflect 

supporting property administration special instructions and to require that copies of 

System Analysis reports be submitted to the prime contractor. The Johnson property 

administrator obtained the outstanding 14 System Analysis reports to ensure that all 

issues discussed in the audit report were properly reviewed. 

Regarding recommendation 2, although NASA did not agree with the report findings, 

management is taking appropriate actions to establish a better delineation of the 

appropriate property administration responsibilities for all parties involved. NASA 

management stated that the report findings are based on the auditor’s interpretation of the 

extent of the Government’s responsibilities regarding subcontractor oversight and that 

prime contractors are responsible for all Government property under their contracts, 

including property in the possession or control of a subcontractor. There is no 

requirement for the IPO to obtain, review, and maintain a file of the systems analyses for 

the prime contractor’s subcontractors. The NASA property administrator is to review the 

prime contractors’ management and control of their subcontractors during the 

performance of the Subcontract Control function. NASA has no privity of contract with 

a prime contractor’s subcontractors. Subcontracts are commercial agreements, not 

Government contracts. NASA has privity of contract with prime contractors only; 

5
therefore, NASA requires them to ensure that their subcontractors manage any NASAowned property in accordance with the prime’s standards that have been approved by the 

Government. Only the prime contractor is required to provide property management and 

data to NASA, regardless of where the property is located. NASA may request 

supporting property administration at an alternate or subcontractor location when 

requested by the prime contractor. This does not relieve the prime contractor of 

responsibility. 

The complete text of management's response is in Appendix E. 

Evaluation of Management's Response. Management's proposed actions are 

responsive to our recommendations. The recommendations are considered resolved but 

will remain open until proposed actions are completed. 

In reference to recommendation 1, NASA is reissuing those delegations, which will 

require DCMA to send the System Analysis reports to the prime contractor instead of to 

the IPO. The delegation re-issuance eliminates the requirement for the IPO to obtain and 

review the System Analysis reports. Although NASA stated that the 14 outstanding 

System Analysis reports were obtained and reviewed, NASA did not state whether 

DCMA identified any system deficiencies for those contractors. We will address this 

question during our verification of NASA's corrective actions. 

Regarding recommendation 2, we do not agree with NASA's position that the report 

findings are based on our interpretation of the extent of the Government’s responsibilities 

regarding subcontractor oversight. Rather, our position is the result of the property 

administration delegations, which created the requirement for DCMA to send System

Analysis reports or waiver justifications to NASA. As a result, the Johnson IPO should 

have obtained and reviewed the reports or waiver justifications as required by the NASA 

FAR Supplement. We discussed our concerns with former NASA contracting officers 

who concurred with our observations and conclusions. As noted earlier, NASA 

management is reissuing the delegations to require DCMA to issue the System Analysis 

reports to the prime contractor instead of the IPO. 

We also do not agree with NASA's position that the only issue in question was the 

maintenance of a complete file of DCMA reports by the Johnson IPO. Those reports 

serve a valuable purpose in that they alert both the prime contractor and NASA 

management of potential property management system deficiencies. When the reports 

are not obtained and reviewed by NASA, then NASA loses assurance that the contractor 

is complying with contract terms and conditions while managing Government property in 

its custody. 

6
Appendix A. Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 

Objective

Our overall objective, which will be addressed in future audits, was to determine whether 

NASA and its delegated agencies appropriately managed Government property held by 

contractors. This report addresses whether the Johnson Space Center (Johnson) obtained 

and reviewed required reports from the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA). 

Scope and Methodology 

The audit scope focused on property administration and Property Control System

Analysis (System Analysis) reports received for fiscal year 2000 under the Space Flight 

Operations Contract (NAS 9-20000). We reviewed contract documentation for 107 

contracts with more than $1.2 billion in contractor-held property to determine whether 

the Johnson Industrial Property Officer (IPO) followed property administration 

requirements and guidance. We identified 34 SFOC subcontracts with $86 million in 

contractor-held property for which the Johnson IPO did not obtain and review System

Analysis reports or waivers from DCMA. We reviewed pertinent System Analysis 

reports and Department of Defense (DOD) and NASA guidance. We interviewed NASA 

and contractor personnel to clarify property administration issues. We did not use 

computer-processed data in the audit. 

Management Controls Reviewed 

We reviewed the following management controls: 

• Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 42, "Contract Administration and 

Audit Services," Subpart 42.2, "Contract Administration Services," states that 

contracting officers can delegate contract administration or specialized support 

services to another agency such as the DCMA. 

• FAR Part 42, "Contract Administration and Audit Services," Subpart 42.3, 

"Contract Administration Office Functions," lists those services, which include 

property administration, that can be delegated by a contracting officer. 

• FAR Part 45, "Government Property," Subpart 45.3, "Providing Government 

Property to Contractors," describes policies and procedures for providing 

Government property to contractors. 

• FAR Part 45, "Government Property," Subpart 45.5, "Management of 

Government Property in the Possession of Contractors," prescribes the minimum

requirements contractors must meet in establishing and maintaining control over 

Government property. 

7

ADMINISTRATIVELY CONTROLLED INFORMATION - INTERNAL PREDECISIONAL 

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY DRAFT AUDIT REPORT
Appendix A 

• NASA FAR Supplement Part 1845, "Government Property," Subpart 1845.1, 

"General," states that NASA will use DOD Manual 4161.2-M, "Manual for the 

Performance of Contract Property Administration," when reviewing a contractor's

property administration system. 

• NASA FAR Supplement Part 1845, "Government Property," Subpart 1845.72, 

"Contract Property Management," Section 1845.7203, "Delegations of Property 

Administration and Plant Clearance," states that when property administration is 

delegated to DOD, property administration will be performed in accordance with 

DOD regulations and procedures. 

• NASA FAR Supplement Part 1845, "Government Property," Subpart 1845.72, 

"Contract Property Management," Section 7204, "Retention of property 

administration and plant clearance," states that NASA may occasionally retain the 

property administration and plant clearance functions. 

• DOD Manual 4161.2-M, "DOD Manual for the Performance of Contract Property 

Administration," sets forth instructions to ensure uniformity and consistency in 

the administration of contract provisions relating to Government property in the 

possession of contractors. 

Audit Field Work 

We performed the audit field work at Johnson and Kennedy Space Centers from October 

2000 through November 2001. We conducted the audit in accordance with generally 

accepted government auditing standards.

8

ADMINISTRATIVELY CONTROLLED INFORMATION - INTERNAL PREDECISIONAL 

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY DRAFT AUDIT REPORT
Appendix B. Property Management System Analysis Elements 

The objective of a property management system analysis is to assess the contractor's

ability to comply with the approved property control system and contractual obligations 

as they pertain to property. The analysis, based on criteria in DOD Manual 4161.2-M, 

includes 15 elements, which are described below: 

1. Property Management. Ensures that the contractor establishes and maintains an approved 

property control system. 

2. Acquisition. Ensures that only contractually approved items are bought or fabricated. 

3. Receiving. Ensures that damaged or missing items are resolved and that accepted items are 

properly recorded. 

4. Identification. Ensures that property is properly identified, marked, and recorded. 

5. Records. Ensure proper accountability of property.

6. Movement. Ensures that property is moved under the proper authority with appropriate 

documentation and adequate protection. 

7. Storage. Ensures that stored property is controlled, protected, and preserved. 

8. Physical Inventories. Ensure that the contractor schedules and performs inventories in 

accordance with the contractor's approved property control system. 

9. Reports Preparation. Ensures that contractor's property reports are timely, accurate, and 

complete. 

10. Materials Consumption. Ensures that materials are consumed in accordance with contract 

requirements and are not diverted to other work. 

11. Utilization. Ensures that the contractor used property in accordance with the contract terms 

and conditions. 

12. Maintenance. Ensures that the contractor established and follows an appropriate method of 

maintaining property.

13. Subcontract Control. Ensures that the contractor established adequate subcontract control. 

14. Disposition. Ensures that the contractor has a system for disclosing excess property and for 

effecting its timely disposition. 

15. Contract Close-Out. Ensures that the contractor has a method to ensure completion of all 

contract close-out actions related to property.

9

ADMINISTRATIVELY CONTROLLED INFORMATION - INTERNAL PREDECISIONAL 

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY DRAFT AUDIT REPORT
Appendix C. Procurement Information Circular 97-5 

10

ADMINISTRATIVELY CONTROLLED INFORMATION - INTERNAL PREDECISIONAL 

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY DRAFT AUDIT REPORT
Appendix D. SFOC Subcontracts Without FY 2000 

 System Analysis Reports 

Subcontract 

Number 

Subcontractor Report

 Date1

 

Amount Reports

Obtained2

42736 Abex Parker Hannifin 12/28/99 $ 270,512 Yes 

RR96K0171 AIL Systems 09/23/99 3,826,513 No 

43060 Allied Signal 09/29/99 6,531,189 No

RR97K0229 Arrowhead 06/99 985,741 No

DT97K0045 Arrowhead Products 06/09/98 520,876 No 

PP98K04284 Ball Aerospace 07/01/99 452,182 Yes 

RR98K0303 Ball Aerospace 07/01/99 3,948,772 Yes

P00032830 Ball Aerospace 11/01/99 2,061,307 Yes

40756 Cincinnati Electronics 08/26/99 1,304,588 Yes 

RR96K0166 Corning, Inc. 09/99 4,427,404 Yes

PP96K1988 Eaton 12/14/98 989,505 No

DT97K0047 Hamilton Sundstrand 09/10/98 4,374,735 Yes

P000024504 Hamilton Sundstrand 09/10/98 510,118 Yes

RR96K0183 Hamilton Sundstrand 09/10/98 3,424,249 Yes

40467 Hi Shear 11/18/98 130,863 No

77492 Honeywell 02/09/99 7,850,670 Yes

DT97K0040 Honeywell 02/09/99 4,165,418 Yes

P000040406 Honeywell 02/09/99 168,640 Yes

RR98K0336 Honeywell 02/09/99 2,940,480 Yes

DT97K0052 Kearfott 11/05/96 1,435,676 No

RR97K0222 Kearfott 11/05/96 1,325,426 No

RR97K0294 L-3 Communication 03/25/97 121,821 No

43878 Lebarge, Joplin 08/19/97 395,417 No 

P000020662 Lockheed Martin 06/10/99 12,278,901 Yes 

RR98K0306 Lockheed Martin 06/10/99 5,583,971 Yes 

42628 Metrum-Datape 01/19/95 364,994 No

40754 Moog 04/22/99 7,861,225 Yes

300552 Moog 04/22/99 131,062 Yes

DT97K0051 Moog 04/22/99 1,498,305 Yes

RR97K0249 Moog 04/22/99 1,295,106 Yes

RR96K0164 Northrup Grumman 09/29/97 3,964,823 No

DT97K0048 Odetics 08/29/96 1,186,562 Yes

45882 Primex Aeorspace 11/23/98 176,244 No 

PP97K3386 Primex Aeorspace 11/23/99 162,453 No

 Total $86,665,748 

1. The report date is the most current report in the property administrator’s file. The Defense Contract

Management Agency (DCMA) rated the subcontractor’s property management system as of the report

date. 

2. Yes means that we obtained the DCMA System Analysis reports and that the subcontractor’s 

property management system is rated satisfactory. No indicates that we did not obtain System

Analysis reports from the DCMA for these subcontractors. Accordingly, the Johnson Industrial

Property Officer should obtain and review these reports. 

11
Appendix E. Management's Response 

12
Appendix E 

13
Appendix E 

14
Appendix E 

15
Appendix E 

16
Appendix E 

17
Appendix F. Report Distribution 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Headquarters 

HQ/A/Administrator 

HQ/AI/Associate Deputy Administrator 

HQ/AA/Chief of Staff 

HQ/AB/Associate Deputy Administrator for Institutions 

HQ/B/Acting 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 

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

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

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

Managing Director, Acquisition and Sourcing Management Team, General Accounting 

 Office 

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

 Space 

18
Appendix F 

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, Committee on Science 

Congressional Member 

Honorable Pete Sessions, U.S. House of Representatives 

19
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: Property Control System Analysis Reporting on Space Flight Operations 

Contract Subcontractors

Report Number: Report 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. 

1
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.

2
Major Contributors to the Report 

Daniel Samoviski, Program Director, Program and Project Management Audits 

Larry J. Timmons, Auditor-in-Charge 

Ellis Lee, Auditor 

Nancy Cipolla, Report Process Manager 

Iris Purcarey, Program Assistant