Department of Homeland Security
 

Massachusetts’ Management of 


Homeland Security Grant Program Awards 


for Fiscal Years 2008 Through 2011 


OIG-13-44 February 2013
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

 Department of Homeland Security

Federal Emergency Management Agency 

Anne L. Richards 

Assistant Inspector General for Audits 

 Washington, DC 20528 / www.oig.dhs.gov 

FEB 28 2013 

MEMORANDUM FOR: 	 David J. Kaufman 

Acting Assistant Administrator 

Grant Programs Directorate 

FROM: 

SUBJECT: 	 Massachusetts’ Management of Homeland Security Grant 

Program Awards for Fiscal Years 2008 Through 2011 

Attached for your action is our final report, Massachusetts’ Management of Homeland 

Security Grant Program Awards for Fiscal Years 2008 Through 2011. We incorporated the 

formal comments from the Office of Policy, Program Analysis and International Affairs and 

the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in the final report. 

The report contains 11 recommendations aimed at improving the overall effectiveness of 

the Commonwealth of Massachusetts’ management of State Homeland Security Program 

and Urban Areas Security Initiative Grants. Your office concurred with 8 of the 11 

recommendations. Based on information provided in your response to the draft report, we 

consider recommendations 1 through 3, 6 through 9, and 11 resolved. Once your office has 

fully implemented the recommendations, please submit a formal closeout letter to us 

within 30 days so that we may close the recommendation(s). The memorandum should be 

accompanied by evidence of completion of agreed-upon corrective actions and of the 

disposition of any monetary amounts. 

Recommendations 4, 5, and 10 remain unresolved. As prescribed by the Department of 

Homeland Security Directive 077-01, Follow-Up and Resolutions for Office of Inspector 

General Report Recommendations, within 90 days of the date of this memorandum, please 

provide our office with a written response that includes your (1) agreement or disagreement, 

(2) corrective action plan, and (3) target completion date for each recommendation. Also, 

please include responsible parties and any other supporting documentation necessary to 

inform us about the current status of the recommendation. Until your response is received 

and evaluated, the recommendations will be considered open and unresolved. 

Consistent with our responsibility under the Inspector General Act, we are providing copies 

of our report to appropriate congressional committees with oversight and appropriation 

responsibility over the Department of Homeland Security. We will post the report on our 

website for public dissemination. 
 

 

 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Please call me with any questions, or your staff may contact John E. McCoy II, Deputy 

Assistant Inspector General for Audits, at (202) 254-4100. 

Attachment 

2 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix A: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology ........................................... 22 


Appendix B: Management Comments to the Draft Report 

Appendix D: Number of Days Elapsed Between Required Obligation and 


.............................. 24 


Appendix C: Description of the Homeland Security Grant Program ................. 46 


Availability .................................................................................... 47 


Appendix E: Potential Monetary Benefits ......................................................... 48 


Appendix F: Major Contributors to This Report ................................................ 49 


Appendix G: Report Distribution ........................................................................ 50 


 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Table of Contents 

 


Executive Summary ............................................................................................................ 1 


 


 


 


Background ........................................................................................................................ 2 


Results of Audit .................................................................................................................. 2 


The Commonwealth of Massachusetts’ Grant Management Practices ................ 2 


 


 


 


 


 


Homeland Security Strategies ................................................................................ 3 


Recommendation ................................................................................................... 6 


Management Comments and OIG Analysis ........................................................... 7 


Performance Measures .......................................................................................... 7 


Recommendation ................................................................................................... 9 


Management Comments and OIG Analysis ........................................................... 9 


Obligation of Grant Funds ...................................................................................... 9 


Recommendation ................................................................................................. 11 


Management Comments and OIG Analysis ......................................................... 11 


Management and Administration Expenses ........................................................ 12 


Recommendations ............................................................................................... 13 


Management Comments and OIG Analysis ......................................................... 14 


Procurement Practices, Property Records, and Expenditure Review ................. 15 


Recommendations ............................................................................................... 19 


Management Comments and OIG Analysis ......................................................... 20 


Appendixes 

 


www.oig.dhs.gov OIG-13-44 
 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Abbreviations 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

DHS Department of Homeland Security 

EOPSS Executive Office of Public Safety and Security 

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency 

FY fiscal year 

HSGP Homeland Security Grant Program 

M&A management and administration 

OIG Office of Inspector General 

SHSP State Homeland Security Program 

SPR State Preparedness Report 

THIRA Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment 

UASI Urban Areas Security Initiative 

www.oig.dhs.gov OIG-13-44 
 

 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Executive Summary 

Public Law 110-53, ImplementingfRecommendationsfoffthef9/11fCommissionfActfoff

2007, as amended, requires the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Office of 

Inspector General (OIG) to audit individual States’ management of State Homeland 

Security Program and Urban Areas Security Initiative grants. This report responds to the 

reporting requirement for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. 

The audit objectives were to determine whether the Commonwealth of Massachusetts 

distributed and spent State Homeland Security Program and Urban Areas Security 

Initiative grant funds effectively and efficiently, and in compliance with applicable 

Federal laws and regulations. We also addressed the extent to which grant funds 

enhanced the Commonwealth of Massachusetts’ ability to prevent, prepare for, protect 

against, and respond to natural disasters, acts of terrorism, and other manmade 

disasters. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts was awarded approximately 

$122 million in State Homeland Security Program and Urban Areas Security Initiative 

grants during fiscal years 2008 through 2011. 

In most instances, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts distributed and spent the 

awards in compliance with applicable laws and regulations. However, the 

Commonwealth needs to update and improve its Homeland Security Strategies, develop 

a performance measurement system to assess preparedness, obligate grant funds 

within required time limits, and strengthen onsite monitoring of subgrantees to ensure 

their compliance with Federal procurement and property management requirements. 

More than $4 million in questioned costs was identified, primarily resulting from the 

Commonwealth exceeding the limitations on management and administration expenses 

in fiscal years 2008 through 2011. 

To improve in these areas, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the 

Executive Office of Public Safety and Security in Massachusetts should provide more 

guidance for and oversight of the grant process. Our 11 recommendations call for FEMA 

to initiate improvements which, if implemented, should help strengthen grant program 

management, performance, and oversight. FEMA concurred with 8 of the 11 

recommendations. Written comments to the draft report are incorporated as 

appropriate and are included in appendix B. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 1 OIG-13-44 
 

 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Background 

DHS provides Federal funding through the Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP) to 

help State and local agencies enhance capabilities to prevent, deter, respond to, and 

recover from terrorist attacks, major disasters, and other emergencies. Within DHS, 

FEMA is responsible for administering the HSGP. FEMA supports preparedness by 

developing policies, ensuring that adequate plans are in place and validated, defining 

capabilities required to address threats, providing resources and technical assistance to 

States, and synchronizing preparedness efforts throughout the Nation. Appendix C 

contains a detailed description of the interrelated grant programs that constitute the 

HSGP. 

HSGP guidance requires the Governor of each State and Territory to designate a State 

Administrative Agency to apply for and administer grant funding awarded under the 

HSGP. The State Administrative Agency is the only entity eligible to apply for HSGP 

funds. The Governor of Massachusetts designated the Executive Office of Public Safety 

and Security (EOPSS) to serve as the State Administrative Agency for the 

Commonwealth of Massachusetts. 

EOPSS was awarded more than $122 million in HSGP funds during fiscal years (FYs) 2008 

through 2011. This included approximately $56 million in State Homeland Security 

Program (SHSP) funds and approximately $66 million in Urban Areas Security Initiative 

(UASI) grant funds. During this period, EOPSS awarded the SHSP and UASI grant funds 

to 4 Homeland Security Planning Regions, the Metropolitan Boston Homeland Security 

Region (Boston UASI), 10 State agencies, and 6 other organizations. 

Public Law 110-53, ImplementingfRecommendationsfoffthef9/11fCommissionfActfoff

2007, as amended, requires DHS OIG to audit individual States’ management of SHSP 

and UASI grants. This report responds to the reporting requirement for the 

Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Appendix A contains details on the objectives, 

scope, and methodology of this audit. 

Results of Audit 

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts’ Grant Management Practices

In most instances, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts distributed and spent 

SHSP and UASI awards in compliance with applicable laws and regulations. 

However, the Commonwealth’s grant management practices can be improved by: 

www.oig.dhs.gov 2 OIG-13-44 
 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

•	 Updating and improving the objectives in the State Homeland Security 

Strategy (State strategy) and the UASI Homeland Security Strategy (UASI 

strategy); 

•	 Establishing performance measures to assess overall Commonwealth 

capabilities and preparedness; 

•	 Obligating grant funds to subgrantees within the required time period; and 

•	 Better monitoring of its Homeland Security Planning Regions to ensure 

compliance with procurement, property, and expenditure documentation 

requirements. 

These deficiencies existed in the Commonwealth because FEMA and EOPSS 

provided insufficient guidance and oversight for grant management. As a result, 

the Commonwealth could not effectively measure and assess its capabilities and 

emergency preparedness. Additionally, more than $4 million in questioned costs 

were identified, primarily resulting from the Commonwealth exceeding the 

limitations on management and administration (M&A) expenses in FYs 2008 

through 2011. 

Homeland Security Strategies

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts had an outdated Homeland Security 

Strategy, which had not been updated since 2007. According to FY 2011 FEMA 

guidance, States and UASIs should update their Homeland Security Strategies 

every 2 years. Although EOPSS officials recognized the need to revise its 

strategy, the office delayed the revision until after FEMA issued the National 

Preparedness Goals. As a result, the Commonwealth may have spent HSGP 

funds on outdated risks, needs, goals, or objectives. Without current and 

defined goals and objectives, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts could not 

effectively measure progress toward improving its preparedness, prevention, 

response, and recovery capabilities. 

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts’ State and UASI strategies did not include 

objectives with measurable target levels of performance, nor did they include 

evaluation plans to monitor progress toward achieving objectives. On July 22, 

2005, DHS issued DepartmentfoffHomelandfSecurityfStatefandfUrbanfAreasf

HomelandfSecurityfStrategyfGuidancefonfAligningfStrategiesfwithfthefNationalf

PreparednessfGoal. According to the guidance, “an objective sets a tangible and 

measurable target level of performance over time against which actual 

www.oig.dhs.gov 3 	 OIG-13-44 
 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

achievement can be compared, including a goal expressed as a quantitative 

standard, value, or rate.” In addition, to ensure the success of a strategy, the 

State or urban area must guarantee that it has an evaluation plan to monitor 

progress, compile key management information, track trends, and keep the 

strategy on track. The evaluation plan should include a process to review and 

analyze the steps being taken to achieve the goals and objectives of the strategy, 

as well as to determine whether the right elements are being used to measure 

progress. The review and analysis process enhances the plan’s flexibility by 

providing the opportunity to validate internal and external facts and 

assumptions and to allow for adaption and revision as conditions alter. 

According to the guidance, objectives should be: 

•	 Specific, detailed, particular, and focused—help to identify what is to be 

achieved and accomplished; 

•	 Measurable—be quantifiable, provide a standard for comparison, and 

identify a specific achievable result; 

•	 Achievable—not beyond the ability of a State, region, jurisdiction, or locality; 

•	 Results-oriented—identify a specific outcome; and 

•	 Time-limited—have a target achievement date. 

The 2007 State strategy, which the Commonwealth used to guide its program 

during FYs 2008 through 2011, included 3 broad-based goals and 18 objectives, 

but none included target completion dates and therefore were not time-limited. 

Furthermore, although the goals and objectives addressed the four mission areas 

and eight National Priorities, the steps to implement them were not always 

specific. Nor were the objectives measurable; that is, they did not provide a 

standard for comparison or identify an achievable result. Table 1 shows 

examples of deficiencies in the 2007 State strategy’s objectives. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 4 	 OIG-13-44 
 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Table 1. Deficiencies in the 2007 State Homeland Security Strategy
 

Goal Objective Deficiencies

1. Create a Common 

Operating Picture among 

Homeland Security and 

Public Safety Stakeholders 

Pursue effective prevention 

efforts through analysis of 

risks. 

The objective is not: 

• Specific 

• Measurable 

• Time-limited 

2. Strengthen and Expand 

Partnerships for Prevention 

and Preparedness 

Integrate public health 

preparedness into homeland 

security efforts. 

The objective is not: 

• Specific 

• Measurable 

• Time-limited 

3. Focus of Private Sector 

and Public Participation in 

Prevention and 

Preparedness 

Enhance recovery capability. The objective is not: 

• Specific 

• Measurable 

• Time-limited 

Source: EOPSS, State Strategy Plan. 

The Urban Area Working Group, consisting of one member from the City of 

Boston and members from eight surrounding municipalities, was responsible for 

developing the UASI strategy. Similar to the State strategy, the 2010 UASI 

strategy contained objectives that were not specific, measurable, or timelimited. The UASI strategy had seven goals and 30 objectives, none of which 

included target completion dates. Table 2 shows some examples of deficiencies 

in the UASI strategy’s objectives. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 5 OIG-13-44 
 

 

 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Table 2. Deficiencies in the 2009 UASI Homeland Security Strategy 

Goal Objective Deficiencies

2. Strengthen Enhance programs designed to The objective is not: 

Infrastructure Protection protect critical infrastructure and 

key resources against multiple 

hazards and threats, and reduce 

the level of risk to the Region. 

• Specific 

• Measurable 

• Time-limited 

3. Strengthen 

Information Sharing and 

Collaboration Capabilities 

Enhance the Region’s ability to 

facilitate the distribution of 

relevant, actionable, timely 

information and/or intelligence 

that is updated frequently to the 

consumers who need it. 

The objective is not: 

• Specific 

• Measurable 

• Time-limited

 6. Strengthen Medical Establish a transparent system to The objective is not: 

Surge and Mass protect the health of the • Specific 

Prophylaxis Capabilities population through the use of 

isolation and/or quarantine 

measures in order to contain the 

spread of disease. 

• Measurable 

• Time-limited 

Source: Boston UASI, Homeland Security Strategy. 

According to FEMA officials, although the agency had approved the 

Commonwealth of Massachusetts’ strategies, its approval meant only that it had 

received the strategies. FEMA did not review the strategies to ensure that the 

objectives were measurable or that there were timeframes for completing them. 

EOPSS officials agreed that the objectives did not have completion dates. 

However, they believed that each objective contained implementation steps, and 

completion of these steps would allow them to measure their progress in 

completing the goals and objectives in the strategy. 

Without goals and objectives that meet FEMA criteria, the Commonwealth of 

Massachusetts could not effectively evaluate and monitor progress made on its 

strategies in regard to its preparedness, prevention, response, and recovery 

capabilities. 

Recommendation 

We recommend that the Federal Emergency Management Agency Assistant 

Administrator, Grant Programs Directorate: 

www.oig.dhs.gov 6 OIG-13-44 
 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Recommendation #1:

Assist the Director of EOPSS and the Urban Area Working Group in updating their 

Homeland Security Strategies, ensuring that the strategies include measurable 

target levels of performance, as well as objectives that are specific, measurable, 

achievable, results-oriented, and time-limited; and an appropriate evaluation 

plan to measure progress. 

Management Comments and OIG Analysis 

FEMA concurred with recommendation 1, and will require EOPSS and the Boston 

UASI to update their respective Homeland Security Strategies, ensuring that the 

strategies include measurable target levels of performance, as well as objectives 

that are specific, measurable, achievable, results-oriented, and time-limited; and 

an appropriate evaluation plan. EOPSS and the Boston UASI will submit the 

revised Homeland Security Strategies to FEMA for review no later than 6 months 

after issuance of the OIG final report. 

EOPSS informed us that it had to wait until FEMA completed the requirements 

for the Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment (THIRA) process. 

EOPSS commenced a comprehensive statewide risk, vulnerability, and 

capabilities assessment process that will inform both its THIRA and state 

strategy. EOPSS expects to present its updated state strategy to FEMA in the 

spring of 2013. 

The actions proposed by FEMA and EOPSS meet the intent of the 

recommendation. Recommendation 1 is considered resolved and open, pending 

the completion, submission, and review of the strategy revisions. 

Performance Measures

EOPSS and the Boston UASI did not have sufficient performance measures to use 

in determining their ability to deter, prevent, respond to, and recover from acts 

of terrorism and natural and manmade disasters. Furthermore, FEMA has not 

provided clear guidance to the Commonwealth on developing performance 

measures. 

According to Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 13.40(a), 

MonitoringfandfReportingfProgramfPerformance, grantees must monitor grantand subgrant-supported activities to ensure compliance with applicable Federal 

requirements and to ensure that performance goals are being achieved. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 7 OIG-13-44 
 

 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Although it did not establish performance measures, EOPSS made efforts to 

monitor progress on funded projects and prepared a report on the use of HSGP 

funds. For example, EOPSS required subgrantees to submit quarterly 

programmatic and financial progress reports, which staff reviewed to monitor 

subgrantee progress. EOPSS also prepared a TrendfandfProcessfReport dated 

October 2008, which included an overview of HSGP funding that the 

Commonwealth received since 2003. The report described how the Homeland 

Security Planning Regions used the funds to improve the Commonwealth’s 

communications infrastructure, allocated emergency response resources, 

purchased search and rescue equipment, and shared resources. 

Commonwealth and Boston UASI officials also conducted exercises and prepared 

after-action reports, which, according to these officials, were used to identify 

areas in need of future HSGP funds. For example, the Boston UASI conducted an 

exercise called Urban Shield, which tested integrated systems to prevent, 

protect, respond to, and recover in the greater Boston high-threat, high-density 

urban area. The multilayered training exercise was designed to enhance the 

skills and abilities of first responders, as well as those responsible for 

coordinating and managing large-scale events. The UASI used the after-action 

report from this exercise to prioritize future expenditures so that the urban area 

could be better prepared for critical events. 

FEMA has not provided clear guidance to States on developing performance 

measures. FEMA has provided States with emergency preparedness priorities 

and target capability needs, which the States use as a basis for their State SelfAssessments.1

 Effective performance measures would assist in the 

Commonwealth’s State Self-Assessments by focusing on and measuring those 

preparedness priorities important to the Commonwealth. 

The need of procedures for assessing performance prevented the 

Commonwealth from evaluating its accomplishments to ensure that it achieved 

its goals and objectives, and that it aligned its funding requests with real threats 

and vulnerabilities. Furthermore, without good performance measurements 

from the Commonwealth, DHS may not have been able to determine the 

effectiveness of the HSGP. 

1

 Congress requires that States receiving FEMA-administered Federal Preparedness assistance annually 

submit a State Preparedness Report that includes an assessment of State compliance with national 

preparedness systems, current capability levels, and resources needed to meet National Preparedness 

Priorities. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 8 OIG-13-44 
 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Recommendation 

We recommend that the Federal Emergency Management Agency Assistant 

Administrator, Grant Programs Directorate: 

Recommendation #2:

Require EOPSS to develop interim performance measures until the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency issues guidance for all Homeland Security Grant 

Program grant recipients. 

Management Comments and OIG Analysis 

FEMA concurred with recommendation 2 and is currently developing processes 

to measure core capabilities in accordance with the National Preparedness Goal 

pursuant to Presidential Policy Directive 8. The Commonwealth was to complete 

the THIRA and submit it to FEMA by January 31, 2013. The THIRA will be used to 

create a baseline and targets for FY 2013 and beyond. FEMA has also redesigned 

the State Preparedness Report (SPR) to help states demonstrate and track 

preparedness improvement over time. The SPR is a standardized capability 

assessment that compares the THIRA targets to current capability, and 

documents any gaps that exist. Within 90 days, FEMA will verify submission of 

both the SPR and THIRA. 

EOPSS agreed that the goals and objectives in the 2007 State Homeland Security 

Strategy should be time limited; however, the strategy does detail 33 specific 

implementation steps related to each of the 18 objectives under 3 broader goals. 

According to EOPSS, in May 2010 it completed an internal progress report that 

included the degree of progress toward accomplishing each implementation step. 

The actions proposed by FEMA meet the intent of the recommendation. 

Recommendation 2 is considered resolved and open, pending the completion, 

and submission of the THIRA and SPR. 

Obligation of Grant Funds 

For SHSP funds awarded to the Commonwealth during FYs 2008 through 2011, 

EOPSS did not obligate funds within 45 days, as required by FEMA program 

guidance, in 24 of 24 instances. EOPSS did not make funds available to 

subgrantees to expend until as many as 472 days after the date that EOPSS was 

required to obligate the funds. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 9 OIG-13-44 
 

 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

According tofFEMAfHomelandfSecurityfGrantfProgramfGuidance, State 

Administrative Agencies must obligate and make available to local government 

units at least 80 percent of SHSP and UASI grant funds within 45 days of FEMA’s 

award date. The obligation must include the following requirements: 

•	 There must be some action to establish a firm commitment on the part of 

the awarding entity. 

•	 The action must be unconditional on the part of the awarding entity (i.e., no 

contingencies for availability of funds, and all special conditions prohibiting 

obligation, expenditure, and drawdown must be removed). 

•	 There must be documentary evidence of the commitment. 

•	 The award terms must be communicated to the official grantee. 

During FYs 2008 through 2011, EOPSS sent letters to subgrantees notifying them 

of the amount of HSGP funds they were eligible to receive. Commonwealth 

officials considered the date of the notification letter to be the funding 

obligation date. However, the notification letters did not constitute obligation of 

funds because they contained conditions that had to be met before the funds 

would be made available to the subgrantee. For example, the letters required 

subgrantees to submit budgets and expenditure plans for EOPSS approval. Upon 

approval of the budgets and plans, EOPSS would enter into a contract with a 

fiduciary agent representing the subgrantee.2 According to the letter, subgrantees 

could not undertake grant-funded activity prior to final execution of the contract 

with the fiduciary agent, and costs incurred outside the official contract period 

would not be reimbursed. Consequently, funds were not obligated until EOPSS 

executed a contract with the fiduciary agent. 

We compared the date that FEMA awarded the funds to EOPSS with the date of 

the final contract execution, when funds were available to subgrantees for 

expenditure. From FYs 2008 through 2011, EOPSS granted 24 awards to the four 

Homeland Security Planning Regions and the Boston UASI and their fiduciary 

agent; none of the awards were obligated and available to the subgrantees 

within the required 45 days. The awards ranged from 44 to 472 days late. 

2

 The Metropolitan Area Planning Council was selected as the fiduciary agent for four of five Homeland 

Security Planning Regions (did not include the Boston UASI Region). The fiduciary agent acts as the fiscal 

“pass-through” to the regions for SHSP grant funds and ensures compliance with the financial and 

administrative requirements of the grants. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 10 	 OIG-13-44 
 

 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Table 3 shows the longest delays for each fiscal year. Appendix E contains details 

of all 24 awards granted during FYs 2008 through 2011. 

Table 3. Timeliness of Subgrantee Awards, FYs 2008–2011

Fiscal Year Date of

FEMA Award 

Date Funds Should 

Be Awarded

(45 Days After

FEMA Award) 

Name of 

Subgrantees With

Longest Delay 

Number of

Days Late 

2008 08/29/08 10/13/08 NE, SE, C, and W 

Regions 422 

2009 08/21/09 10/05/09 NE Region 442 

2010 09/13/10 10/28/10 UASI Region 472 

2011 09/01/11 10/16/11 NE, SE, C, and W 

Regions 151 

Source: DHS OIG analysis of EOPSS data. 

EOPSS delays in obligating HSGP funds to subgrantees may be attributable to the 

subgrantees having to submit plans and budgets before an award was obligated. 

SHSP and UASI grants have a 36-month (3-year) period of performance. As a 

result of delays in obligating funds and to prevent possible deobligation of funds 

at the end of the original grant period, EOPSS requested two extensions to the 

FY 2008 period and one extension to the FY 2009 period. The delay in making 

HSGP funds available for expenditure may have reduced the Commonwealth’s 

ability to prevent, protect against, respond to, and recover from acts of 

terrorism, major disasters, and other emergencies. 

Recommendation 

We recommend that the Federal Emergency Management Agency Assistant 

Administrator, Grant Programs Directorate: 

Recommendation #3: 

Require EOPSS to assess and streamline the current processes and procedures 

for obligating funds to subgrantees so that funds are obligated within a 

reasonable period. 

Management Comments and OIG Analysis 

FEMA concurred with recommendation 3 and will require EOPSS to assess and 

streamline processes and procedures for obligating funds to subgrantees. EOPSS 

www.oig.dhs.gov 11 OIG-13-44 
 

 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

shall report to FEMA the results of this assessment and potential steps to be 

taken to expedite the obligation of funds to the subgrantees no later than 90 

days after the issuance of the OIG final report. 

EOPSS informed us that they made improvements in this area since they 

contracted with a fiduciary agent to receive the local share/regional funds on 

behalf of the regional homeland security advisory councils. Improvements were 

noted in FY 2011 and FY 2012 where contracts were signed within 151 days and 

74 business days, respectively, after EOPSS received its award from the Federal 

Government. 

The actions proposed by FEMA meet the intent of the recommendation. 

Recommendation 3 is considered resolved and open pending completion of the 

corrective action. 

Management and Administration Expenses 

For its SHSP and UASI awards, the Commonwealth exceeded the limitations on 

M&A expenses in FYs 2008 through 2011. According to the FEMAfHomelandf

SecurityfGrantfProgramfGuidancefandfApplicationfKitffor FYs 2008 and 2009, 

States could retain a maximum of 3 percent of funds to be used solely for M&A 

expenses. FY 2010 HSGP guidance limited M&A expenses to 5 percent of the 

funds awarded. States could pass a portion of the State’s M&A allocation on to 

local subgrantees to support local M&A, but the total allocation amount could 

not exceed 3 percent for FYs 2008 and 2009 and 5 percent for FY 2010. Federal 

statutes also limit the amount of grant funding that may be used for M&A.3 

FEMA changed its grant guidance in FY 2011, allowing up to 9 percent of HSGP 

funds to be retained for M&A expenditures associated with HSGP awards. 

According to FEMA program officials, FEMA’s guidance meant that (1) the 

Commonwealth could expend up to 5 percent of the total award on M&A 

expenditures, and (2) since 80 percent of HSGP funds must be passed through to 

subgrantees, the subgrantees could expend up to 4 percent of the total award 

on M&A expenditures (5 percent of the 80 percent passed through). However, 

we believe that FEMA program officials incorrectly interpreted the limit on M&A 

spending, and, as a result, FEMA’s FY 2011 guidance may violate Public Law 111­

3 Public Law 110-53, ImplementingfRecommendationsfoffthef9/11fCommissionfAct off2007,fAugust 3, 2007, 

stipulates that M&A expenses may not exceed 3 percent of the grant for FYs 2008 and 2009. According to 

Public Law 111-83, DepartmentfoffHomelandfSecurityfAppropriationsfAct,f2010, October 28, 2009, a 

grantee may use not more than 5 percent of the amount of a grant for expenses directly related to 

administration of the grant. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 12 OIG-13-44 
 

 

 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

83, which stipulates that a grantee may not use more than 5 percent of an award 

to administer the grant. 

Using this same method that was ultimately included in the FY 2011 guidance, 

and with FEMA approval, the Commonwealth and its subgrantees retained M&A 

funds totaling 5.4 percent of awards in FYs 2008 and 2009, exceeding the 

3 percent limit, and 9 percent of awards in FYs 2010 and FY 2011, exceeding the 

5 percent limit. For example, in FY 2008, the total SHSP and UASI awards 

amounted to approximately $31 million. The Commonwealth retained $929,805 

(3 percent) of the total award for M&A. In addition, subgrantees in the five 

Homeland Security Planning Regions received $24.8 million (80 percent) of the 

total award and retained $743,844 (3 percent of the subawards) for M&A. 

Therefore, a total of 5.4 percent of the total FY 2008 award was retained for 

M&A—an amount that exceeded the statutory limit for M&A expenses by 

$743,844. We estimate that the Commonwealth and subgrantees will exceed 

the statutory limit for M&A for FYs 2008–2011 by $3.9 million, as shown in 

Table 4. 

Table 4. Unallowable M&A, FYs 2008–2011

Fiscal 

Year

Total SHSP and 

UASI Award

Amounts 

Total M&A

Retained for 

Commonwealth 

and Its

Subgrantees 

Total M&A

Allowed per

Statute 

Unallowable 

M&A 

2008* $30,993,500 $1,673,649 $929,805 $743,844 

2009* $29,986,100 $1,619,249 $899,583 $719,666 

2010** $34,509,695 $3,105,873 $1,725,485 $1,380,388 

2011** $26,721,838 $2,404,965 $1,336,091 $1,068,874 

Total $122,211,133 $8,803,736 $4,890,964 $3,912,772

 *M&A limit for FYs 2008 and 2009 was 3 percent.
 

** M&A limit for FYs 2010 and 2011 was 5 percent.
 

Source: DHS OIG analysis of EOPSS data.
 

Recommendations 

We recommend that the Federal Emergency Management Agency Assistant 

Administrator, Grant Programs Directorate: 

www.oig.dhs.gov 13 OIG-13-44 
 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Recommendation #4:

Require EOPSS to return funds that exceeded the statutory limits for 

management and administrative expenses. 

Recommendation #5:

Correct the HomelandfSecurityfGrantfProgramfGuidance to comply with 

statutory limitations on management and administration expenditures. 

Management Comments and OIG Analysis 

FEMA disagrees with recommendations 4 and 5. FEMA contends that the Public 

Law authorizes recipients of SHSP and UASI programs to spend a percentage of 

their grant on administrative expenses. The term “recipient of a grant” appears 

in the law and sets forth the permitted uses for UASI and SHSP funds. The 13 

enumerated uses for which “recipients” may expend funds include an array of 

activities to be performed at both the grantee and subgrantee levels. 

Accordingly, FEMA has interpreted the law to include the State, urban areas, and 

other local recipients of SHSP and UASI funding to be “recipients of a grant” and 

each recipient allowed a percentage of funds for administrative expenses. 

According to FEMA, the amounts spent on administration by the Commonwealth 

and local grant recipients on administration between FYs 2008 and 2011 were 

specifically authorized by statute and are allowable expenses under the SHSP 

and UASI programs. Because the amount spent on administration did not 

exceed the amounts authorized by statute, there is no need to request that 

EOPSS return any funds. 

Regarding recommendation 5, FEMA program officials contend that the guidance 

is not in conflict with statutory provisions concerning the amounts that grant 

recipients may spend on administration, and is not necessary to correct or 

otherwise amend the guidance. 

We disagree with the response to both recommendations 4 and 5. We believe 

that FEMA program officials incorrectly interpreted the limit on M&A spending, 

and that FEMA’s FY 2011 guidance may violate Public Law 111-83, which 

stipulates that a grantee (Commonwealth of Massachusetts) may not use more 

than 5 percent of an award to administer the grant. Recommendations 4 and 5 

are considered unresolved and open pending resolution of the different 

interpretations involving administrative expenses. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 14 OIG-13-44 
 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Procurement Practices, Property Records, and Expenditure Review
 

We identified instances in which subgrantees did not fully comply with 

procurement, property record, and expenditure documentation requirements. 

The Commonwealth might have identified and resolved these issues through 

better monitoring of subgrantees. 

Procurement Practices 

In most instances, subgrantees complied with State procurement requirements 

for goods and services purchased with HSGP funds. However, in our review of 

118 procurements, we identified 8 instances in which subgrantees and the 

Commonwealth either did not comply with State requirements or did not follow 

State recommendations. In addition, subgrantees did not comply with Federal 

procurement requirements in awarding four training contracts. 

In one instance, a subgrantee did not comply with State procurement 

requirements by renewing a contract that should have been rebid. A $98,655 

contract was awarded to a technical expert to compile studies, make an 

assessment, and develop recommendations for interoperable communications. 

Subsequently, the contract was increased to $166,000 for design and 

development work at specific locations. According to the State Procurement

Manual (ThefChapterf30BfManualf–fLegalfRequirements,fRecommendedf

Practices,fandfSourcesfoffAdvicefforfProcuringfSupplies,fServices,fandfRealf

Property, dated May 2011), a contract cannot be amended if the price is more 

than 25 percent of the original contract. In response to the fiduciary agent 

request, the Massachusetts OIG deemed the procurement a renewal that did not 

violate the 25 percent requirement. However, according to the manual, 

contracts cannot be renewed for supplies or services not included in the original 

contract. The original contract did not specify design and development work, 

and the amended contract notes that the contract was amended with a change 

in scope of work. 

In another instance, a State agency purchased 16 all-terrain vehicles for 

$100,316, and awarded a contract to a company with a prior contract, rather 

than conducting a competitive procurement. The agency contended that only 

this vendor could provide what was needed; it also claimed it had researched the 

unit price and deemed it competitive. According to the State Procurement 

Manual, however, sole source contracts are not allowable for this type of item. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 15 OIG-13-44 
 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

We identified six contracts under which items were purchased from a Statewide 

contract that had more than one vendor. The State Procurement Manual 

recommends soliciting quotes from each vendor on the Statewide contract and 

awarding the contract to the vendor offering the needed quality of supplies or 

services at the lowest price. We requested evidence that quotes were solicited 

from other vendors, but this information was not provided. 

Subgrantees did not comply with Federal procurement requirements in 

procuring professional services to conduct four training courses, ranging in cost 

from $30,000 to $147,000. Although the State Procurement Manual exempts 

these types of services from its requirements, subgrantees must comply with 

Federal requirements in the CFR. According to 44 CFR § 13.36(b)(1), 

Procurement, subgrantees must use their own procurement procedures, which 

reflect applicable State and local laws and regulations, provided that the 

procurements conform to applicable Federal law and regulations. Federal 

procurement regulations direct subgrantees to use full and open competition to 

acquire equipment and services except in certain circumstances, such as when 

an item is available only from one source. When noncompetitive procurements 

are used, the subgrantee must conduct cost analyses to ensure that prices 

obtained are fair and reasonable. The subgrantees did not provide 

documentation to justify noncompetitive procurements or cost analyses to 

support the reasonability of the costs. 

We attribute the cases of noncompliance to the fiduciary agent’s unfamiliarity 

with the State Procurement Manual concerning contract renewals, as well as the 

differences between State and Federal procurement requirements regarding 

competition for training contracts. Also, EOPSS’ protocol for conducting site 

visits of subgrantees was limited to ensuring compliance with the State 

Procurement Manual, with no mention of Federal procurement requirements. 

Without full and open competition or a cost analysis in cases of a noncompetitive 

procurement, the grantee cannot ensure that the cost of the equipment or 

services is reasonable. Subgrantees must comply with both State and Federal 

procurement requirements to ensure that the grant funds are used to provide 

equipment or services at reasonable prices. 

Property Record Requirements 

The grantee and subgrantee systems for managing property did not ensure full 

compliance with Federal and State requirements. Improvements are needed in 

applying decals to the equipment, maintaining property records, and developing 

an adequate control system to ensure that safeguards are in place to prevent 

www.oig.dhs.gov 16 OIG-13-44 
 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

loss, damage, or theft of the property. In two of three regions visited, property 

records did not have adequate descriptions and unique identifying numbers. 

Additionally, there was little or no evidence of the State performing equipment 

checks to verify that the items were adequately recorded in the inventory records. 

44 CFR 13.32(d), ManagementfRequirements, establishes procedures and 

minimum requirements for managing equipment (including replacement 

equipment). Property records must be maintained and must include the 

property’s description, identification number, source of the property, the title 

holder, acquisition date, cost and percentage of Federal funds used in the cost, 

location, use and condition, and ultimate disposition. 

Additionally, EOPSS InventoryfGuidance dated May 2010 requires all subgrantees 

to maintain a computer-based inventory of all equipment purchased with HSGP 

funds. Equipment is defined as tangible items with a unit cost of $500 or greater 

and a shelf life of at least 1 year. All such equipment must, when practicable, be 

tagged with the following text: “Purchased with funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Homeland Security.” 

According to the fiduciary agent’s program manager, property records are 

populated at the time a purchase order is executed. The fiduciary agent later 

conducts an annual inventory, which includes tagging the items with Homeland 

Security decals and adjusting the locations in the records if the items have moved. 

We identified the following deficiencies in equipment management: 

•	 The fiduciary agent waited to put the decals on items until the time of the 

annual inventory. Because it waited, the fiduciary agent may have been 

unable to access the equipment. For example, cameras already mounted on 

buildings were not tagged. 

•	 Although numerous items were included on one invoice, the “Item 

descriptions” listed in the property records were generically titled, such as 

“technical rescue equipment” or “hardware and software.” The individual 

items included on the purchase order were hydraulic jacks, hoists, and 

communication equipment, which are susceptible to theft and therefore 

should be properly recorded and tracked. 

•	 The fiduciary agent did not include serial numbers from equipment in its 

records. In addition, 31 percent of the items listed in the Northeast Region’s 

inventory records, and 78 percent of the items listed in the Southeast Region’s 

www.oig.dhs.gov 17 	 OIG-13-44 
 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

inventory records did not have an inventory item number. Without an 

identifying number, equipment could not be safeguarded from loss, damage, 

or theft. 

•	 The Commonwealth performed limited verification of inventory records. 

According to the GrantsfManagementfManual, Commonwealth personnel 

are required to perform equipment spot checks during site visits. However, 

the Commonwealth documented only four checks in FY 2012. All four were 

performed on the day that the program coordinator accompanied the 

auditors in their review of equipment items. 

The examples cited above occurred because of an oversight on the part of the 

fiduciary agent and lack of verification by the grantee. As a result, the 

Commonwealth could not ensure that assets procured with grant funds were 

safeguarded to prevent loss, damage, or theft and used as intended; or that it 

would know the location to have ready access to vital emergency preparedness 

equipment. 

Construction Item 

The Boston UASI used $157,000 in FY 2009 UASI funds to construct a Trench 

Rescue Simulator, which is a permanent trench used to conduct search and 

rescue training. FEMA approved the expenditure and advised EOPSS that a 

construction waiver was unnecessary because the expenditure was for the 

installation of a training prop. FEMA believed that the Trench Rescue Simulator 

was allowable because it was a cost related to administering the training, 

planning, scheduling, facilities, materials and supplies, reproduction of materials, 

and equipment. However, FEMA 2009 HSGP guidance prohibits using HSGP 

funds for construction and renovation, except for necessary components of a 

security system at critical infrastructure facilities. 

Supporting Documentation 

In three instances, the UASI and EOPSS needed additional review to ensure that 

costs were allowable, allocable, and reasonable: 

•	 Monthly supporting documentation for a training contractor included 47 

Weekly Time and Attendance Records for 10 employees; one employee 

initialed 32 of 47 employees’ timesheets as employee, supervisor, or both. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 18 	 OIG-13-44 
 

 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

•	 The UASI awarded a contract for intelligence analyst support that contained 

neither a scope of work nor the costs for these services. Accordingly, EOPSS 

and the UASI were unable to verify that the hourly rates for the job positions 

contained in the invoices were consistent with the terms of the contract. 

The scope of work and personnel costs were added to the contract about a 

year after the contract was signed. 

•	 EOPSS and the UASI paid considerable overtime for employees to attend 

training and exercises. Current procedures for reimbursing overtime/backfill 

require a training course certificate, copy of a sign-in roster, or a letter from 

the training agency. Without verifying the employees’ timesheets, EOPSS 

and the UASI were unable to verify that the employees worked sufficient 

hours to qualify for overtime. When requesting reimbursement for 

overtime, EOPSS and the UASI did not conduct periodic sampling of 

employee timesheets to verify that employees were eligible for overtime. 

Recommendations 

We recommend that the Federal Emergency Management Agency Assistant 

Administrator, Grant Programs Directorate: 

Recommendation #6:

Require EOPSS to notify all entities awarded Homeland Security Grant Program 

funds of the requirement to use and follow Federal, State, and local procurement 

policies and standards as required for purchasing or acquiring equipment and 

services. 

Recommendation #7:

Encourage EOPSS to complete a review of all grant-funded purchases using 

FYs 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011 State Homeland Security Program and Urban 

Areas Security Initiative grant funds that were exempt from the requirements of 

the State Procurement Manual. These reviews should ensure that the 

procurements complied with the Federal requirements in 44 CFR § 13.36. 

Recommendation #8: 

Require EOPSS to revise and update the site visit protocol to ensure that it 

includes a review of subgrantee compliance with Federal procurement 

requirements. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 19 	 OIG-13-44 
 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Recommendation #9:

Require EOPSS to perform more equipment spot checks to ensure that 

subgrantees develop and sustain a property management system that meets 

Federal requirements. 

Recommendation #10:

Recover the unallowable costs of $157,000 for construction of the Trench Rescue 

Simulator. 

Recommendation #11:

Require EOPSS to obtain adequate supporting documentation before 

reimbursing subrecipients. 

Management Comments and OIG Analysis 

FEMA concurred with recommendations 6 through 9 and 11, and disagreed with 

recommendation 10. EOPSS disagreed with the specifics included in several of 

the examples provided, but generally agreed with recommendations 6 through 9 

and 11. EOPSS disagreed with recommendation 10 and provided written 

approval from FEMA’s Grant Programs Directorate. 

Regarding recommendation 6, FEMA shall require EOPSS to inform all HSGP 

awardees to use and follow appropriate procurement policies as required by 

44 CFR, Section 13.36. EOPSS shall report its plan to notify HSGP awardees of 

the procurement requirements to FEMA no later than 90 days after the issuance 

of the OIG final report. 

Regarding recommendation 7, FEMA shall require EOPSS to conduct a review of 

all grant-funded purchases using FYs 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011 SHSP and UASI 

grant funds that were exempt from the requirements of the State Procurement 

Manual. These reviews should ensure that the procurements complied with the 

Federal requirements in 44 CFR, Section 13.36. EOPSS shall report the results of 

this review to FEMA no later than 90 days after the issuance of the final OIG 

report. 

Regarding recommendation 8, FEMA shall require EOPSS to revise and update 

the site visit protocol to include a review of subgrantee compliance with the 

www.oig.dhs.gov 20 OIG-13-44 
 

 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

procurement requirements of 44 CFR, Section 13.36. EOPSS shall report to 

FEMA once it has revised and updated the site visit protocol no later than 90 

days after the issuance of the OIG final report. 

Regarding recommendation 9, FEMA shall require EOPSS to perform more 

equipment spot checks during monitoring site visits. EOPSS shall report to FEMA 

how it will verify its personnel conduct consistent spot checks no later than 90 

days after the final issuance of the OIG final report. 

Regarding recommendation 11, FEMA shall require EOPSS to obtain adequate 

documentation before reimbursing subgrantees. EOPSS shall ensure that all 

subgrantees comply with 44 CFR, Section 13.20 entitled StandardsfforfFinancialf

ManagementfSystems, subsection (b) (6) entitled SourcefDocumentation. EOPSS 

shall report to FEMA how it will obtain adequate documentation before 

reimbursement no later than 90 days after the issuance of the OIG final report. 

The actions proposed by FEMA for recommendations 6 through 9 and 11 meet 

the intent of the recommendation. Accordingly, these recommendations are 

considered resolved and open pending completion of the corrective actions. 

Regarding recommendation 10, FEMA did not concur and said that it granted 

permission to EOPSS to install a trench rescue simulator because it considered 

the project to be the installation of a training prop and not construction. We 

disagree with this response. FEMA’s 2009 HSGP guidance prohibits using HSGP 

funds for construction and renovation, except for necessary components of a 

security system at critical infrastructure facilities. In addition, Public Law 110-53 

provides for exceptions for certain construction projects; however, the 

exceptions must be specifically approved by the FEMA Administrator. 

Recommendation 10 is considered unresolved and open pending resolution of 

the different interpretations regarding construction projects. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 21 OIG-13-44 
 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Appendix A 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Office of Inspector General (OIG) was 

established by the HomelandfSecurityfActfoff2002 (Public Law 107-296) by amendment 

to the InspectorfGeneralfActfoff1978. This is one of a series of audit, inspection, and 

special reports prepared as part of our oversight responsibilities to promote economy, 

efficiency, and effectiveness within the Department. 

This report provides the results of our work to determine whether the Commonwealth 

of Massachusetts spent SHSP and UASI grant funds (1) effectively and efficiently, and 

(2) in compliance with applicable Federal laws and regulations. We also addressed the 

extent to which funds enhanced the State’s ability to prevent, prepare for, protect 

against, and respond to natural disasters, acts of terrorism, and other manmade 

disasters. 

The HSGP and its five interrelated grant programs fund a range of preparedness 

activities, including planning, organization, equipment purchase, training, exercises, and 

management and administration costs. However, only SHSP and UASI funding, 

equipment, and supported programs were reviewed for compliance. The scope of the 

audit included the SHSP and UASI grant awards for FYs 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011 (see 

table 5). We reviewed the plans developed by the Commonwealth to improve 

preparedness and all-hazards response, the goals set within those plans, the 

measurement of progress toward the goals, and the assessments of performance 

improvement that result from this activity. 

Table 5. Commonwealth of Massachusetts Homeland Security Grant Program Awards

Funded Activity State Homeland 

Security Program

Urban Areas 

Security Initiative Total

FY 2008 $17,210,000 $13,783,500 $30,993,500 

FY 2009 $15,421,500 $14,564,600 $29,986,100 

FY 2010 $15,575,715 $18,933,980 $34,509,695 

FY 2011 $7,787,858 $18,933,980 $26,721,838 

Grand Total $55,995,073 $66,216,060 $122,211,133 

Source: DHS OIG analysis of EOPSS data. 

We relied on FEMA’s computer-processed data that contained information on the grant 

funds awarded during FYs 2008 through 2011. We conducted limited tests on these 

data against source documentation to ensure that the data were sufficiently reliable to 

be used in meeting our audit objective. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 22 OIG-13-44 
 

 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

We visited the designated State Administrative Agency, EOPSS, and the foll

subgrantees that had been awarded funding in FYs 2008, 2009, 2010, and 

State Agencies 

• Department of Fire Services 

• Executive Office of Environmental Affairs 

• Massachusetts Emergency Management Services 

• Massachusetts State Police 

Regions

• Metro Boston UASI 

• Northeast 

• Southeast 

Other Recipients 

• American Red Cross 

• Massachusetts Convention Center 

• Metropolitan Area Planning Council 

owing 10 

2011: 

At each location, we interviewed responsible officials, reviewed documentation 

supporting State and subgrantee management of grant funds, and inspected selected 

equipment procured with grant funds. We also interviewed officials awarded UASI 

grant funds to determine whether funds were expended according to grant 

requirements and priorities established by the Commonwealth. 

We conducted this performance audit between May and October 2012, pursuant to the 

InspectorfGeneralfActfoff1978, as amended, and according to generally accepted 

government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the 

audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based upon our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence 

obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based upon our 

audit objectives. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 23 OIG-13-44 
 O

 

FFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

 Department of Homeland Security 

Appendix B 

Management Comments to the Draft Report 

u.s. DCparlmClIl ofUomelDlId So<urily 

Wa. hinglrln. DC 2OH2 

JAN 29 lOIJ 

MEMORANDUM FOR: Anne L. Richards 

Assistant Inspector General for Audits 

Office of Inspector General 

FROM: Da vid J. Kaufman VI¥ r V) 

AssO(; iate Administrator fo r ( V' 

Policy, Program Analysis and International Affairs 

SUBJECT: Response to OIG DRAFT REPORT: '',Ad(lssacllllsefls' Management oj 

Homeland Security Program Grants Awarded During Fiscal Years 

2008 Through 20 I J " 

OIG Project No. l2-12 1-AUD-FEMA 

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) appreciates the opportunity to review and 

respond to OIG Draft Report: "Massac/JlIsells' Mmwgemel/{ of flome/and Security Program Grants 

Awm'dad During Fisc(li Yatlrs 2008 Through 10//" - For Official Use Only - OIG Project No. 12-

12l AUD-FE~1A. 

The findings and recommendations in this report identify measures that the Federa l Emergency 

Management Agency Grant Programs Directorate (GPO) will be used to enhance the effectiveness 

and efficiency of how wc execute and mcasure our programs. We rccognizc thc nccd to continue to 

improve the process, including a.ddressing the recommendations raised in this report. The draft report 

contained II recommendations with wh ich FEMA concurs with 8. The followi ng arc our responses 

to the recommendations for corrective action: 

Recommendation I: Assist the Director of Executive Office of Public Safety and Security (EOPSS) 

and the Urban Area Working Group in updating their Homela nd Security Strategies, ensu ring that the 

strategies include measurable target levels of performance , as wcll as objectives that are specific, 

measurable, achievable, results-oriented, and time-limited, and appropriate evaluation 

FEMA Response: Concur 

The Assistant Admin istrator of the Grant Programs Directorate shall require EOPSS and the Boston 

Urban Area to update their respective Ilomeland Security Strategies, ensuring that the strategies 

inc lude measurab le target leve ls of performance, as well as objectives that are specific, measurable, 

achievable, results-oriented, and time-limited, and an appropriate evaluation. EOPSS and the Boston 

Urban Area sha ll submit the revised Home land Security Strategies to GPD for rev iew no lmer than 

six momhs after issuance of the DIG fina l report. FEMA requests this recommendation be reso lved 

and open pending the completion, submission and rev iew of the strategy revisions. 

\\'\\'w.rcma.£ov 

www.oig.dhs.gov 24 OIG-13-44 
 

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

 Department of Homeland Security 

OIG Recommendation 2: Require EOPSS to develop interim performance measures until the 

Federal Emergency Management Agency issues guidance for all Homeland Security Grant Program 

(HSGP) grant recipients. 

FEMA Response: Concur 

The FEMA National Preparedness Directorate (NPD) is currently developing processes to measure 

core capabilities in accordance with the National Preparedness Goal pursuant to PPD-S. The State 

will complete the Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment (THIRA) and submit it to 

FBMA by January 31. 2013. The THIRA will be used to create a baseline and targets for Fiscal Year 

2013 and beyond. FEMA has also redesigned the State Preparedness Report (SPR) to help states 

demonstrate and track preparedness improvement over time. The SPR is a standardized capability 

assessment that compares the THIRA targets to current capability. and documents any saps that 

exisL Within 90 days FEMA will verify submission Oftxlth the SPR and THIRA. FEMA requests 

this recommendation be resolved and open pending the completion and submission of the THIRA 

and SPR. 

OIG Recommendation 3: Require BOPSS to assess and streamline the current processes and 

procedures for obligating funds to subgrantees so that funds are obligated within a reasonable period. 

FEMA Response: Concur 

The Assistant Administrator of the Grant Programs Directorate shall require EOPSS to assess and 

streamline (where possible) processes and procedures for obligating funds to subgrantees. EOPSS 

shall report to GPD the results of this assessment and potential steps to be taken to expedite the 

obligation of funds to the subgrantees no later than 90 days after the issuance of the OIG final report. 

FEMA requests this recommendation be resolved and open pending the completion of the corrective 

action. 

OIG Recommendation 4: Require EOPSS to return funds that exceeded the statutory limits for 

management and administrative expenses. 

FEMA Response: Non Concur 

FBMA disagree with this recommendation. Section 2008 of the of the Implementing 

Recommendations o/the 9/11 Commission Act 0/2007 (P.L. 110-53) as amended by the Personnel 

Reimbursement lor Imelligence Cooperation and Enhancement of Homeland Security Act of 2008 

(the PRICE of Homeland Security Act) (P.L. 110412) authorizes "recipient[s1 of a grant" under the 

VASI and SHSP programs to spend up to three percent of their grant on administrative expenses 

directly related to the grant. (6 U.S.C. § 609(a)(II». The tenn "recipient of a grant" appea" in the 

introductory language at 6 u.s ,C. § 609(a), the section which sets forth the pennitted uses for UAS] n and SHSP funds. The thirteen enumerated uses for which "recipients may expend funds include an 

array of activities to be perfonned at both the grantee and subgrantee levels. It would be illogical to 

assume that "recipient" should be construed more narrowly in 6 U.S.C. § 609(a)(11) than in 6 U.S.C. 

§ 609(a)(I) through 609(a)(l0) and in 609(a)(12) and (609)(a)(13). Therefme, as used in 6 U.S.C. § 

609(a)(11). the State. high-risk urban areas, and other local recipients ofUASI and SHSP funding. 

are all considered to be an individual "recipient of a grant." 

2 

 

www.oig.dhs.gov 25 OIG-13-44 
 

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

 Department of Homeland Security 

For FY 2010, FY 2011, and FY 2012, Congress increased the amount available for administrative 

expenses 1l1 under the VASI and SHSP programs from three percent to five percent. As a result, for 

FY 2008 and FY 2009, each "recipient ofa grant" was entitled to spend up to three percent of the 

grant funds they received on administrative expenses. For FY 2010 - FY 2012, each "recipient ofa 

grant" was entitled to spend up to five percent of the grant funds they received on administrative 

expenses. 

For FY 2008 and FY 2009, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts retained three percent of the UASI 

and SHSP funding FEMA distributed for administrative costs related to those programs. Each of the 

local high-risk urban areas and other local grant recipients also retained three percent of their grants 

for administration. Likewise, for FY 20 I 0 and FY 20 II, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts 

retained five percent of the UAS) and SHSP funds FEMA distributed for administrative costs directly 

related to those proh-TfBms. In FY 201 0 and FY 2011, each of the local high-risk urban areas and 

other local grant recipients also retained five percent of their grants for administrative expenses. 

Because the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, as well as all of the local high-risk urban areas and 

other local grant recipients, are all "recipients ofa grant" as defined by 6 U.S.C. §609(a)(11), each of 

them was authorized to spend up to three percent of their grant for FY 2008 and FY 2009 and fIVe 

percent of their grant for FY 201 0 and FY 2011 on administration, Consequently, the amounts spent 

on administration by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and local grant recipients on 

administration between FY 2008 and FY 2011 were specifically authorized by statute and are 

allowable expenses under the UAST and SHSP programs. Because the amount spent on 

administration did not exceed the amounts authorized by statute, there is no need to request that 

EOPSS return any funds. FEMA requests this recommendation be resolved and closed. 

OIG Recommendation 5: Correct the Homeland Security Grant Program Guidance to comply with 

statutory limitations on management and administration expenditures. 

FEMA Response: NOD Concur 

FEMA disagree with this recommendation, As explained in FEMA's response to Recommendation 

#4, Congress has not placed an absolute cap on the amount of appropriated funds available to pay for 

administrative expenses under the UASI and SHSP grant programs. lnstead. Congress has 

authorized each "recipient of a grant" to spend up to a certain percentage aftncir award on 

administrative expenses directly related to the grant. 6 U.S.C. § 609(a)(11). For FY 2011, the 

amount of the grant that each "recipient of a granf' was authorized by statute to spend on 

administrative expenses was five percent. DeparIment of Defense and Full Year Continuing 

Appropriations Act, 2011 (p.L. 112-10). To enforce the Congressional directive to FEMA to allow 

each "recipient of a grant" to expend up to five percent of their award on administrative expenses, 

FEMA's FY 2011 HSOP Guidance permitted each "'recipient ofa grant" to retain five percent of 

their award for administrative expenses. The FY 201] guidance allowed state grant recipients, such 

as Massachusetts, to retain five percent of the UASI and SHSP amounts distributed to it by 

FEMA. Additionally. the FY 2011 guidance permitted each local grant recipient (such as high~risk 

urban areas) to retain five percent of their grant awards for administration. This guidance is 

(I) Deparlment 0/ Homeland Security Apprcprioti0l11 Act, 2010 (PL 111-83): Department a/De/emil and Full Ylcr 

Continumg Appropriati(J11s AN, 1011 (P.L 112·10); Consolidaled ApproprialiolU Act, 1011 (PL 112-74). 

3 

 

www.oig.dhs.gov 26 OIG-13-44 
 

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

 Department of Homeland Security 

consistent with the Congressional directives expressed in 6 U.S.C. § 609 and P.L. 112-10. Because 

FEMA's HSGP guidance is not in conflict with statutory provisions concerning the amounts grant 

recipients may spend on administration, it is not necessary to correct or otherwise amend the 

guidance. FEMA requests this recommendation be resolved and closed. 

OIG Recommendation 6: Require EOPSS to notify all entities awarded Homeland Security Grant 

Program funds of the requirement to use and follow Federal, State, and local procurement policies 

and standards as required for purchasing or acquiring equipment and services. 

FEMA Response: Concur 

The Assistant Administrator of the Grant Programs Directorate shall require EOPSS to infonn all 

HSGP awardees to use and follow appropriate procurement policies as required by 44 CFR § 13.36. 

EOPSS shaH report its plan to notify HSOP awardees of the procurement requirements to GPD no 

later than 90 days after the issuance of the OIG finall'eport. FEMA requests this recommendation 

be resolved and open pending the completion ofthe corrective action. 

OIG Recommendation 7: Encourage EOPSS to complete a review of aU grant~funded purchases 

using FYs 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011 State Homeland Security Program and Urban Area Security 

Initiative grant funds that were exempt from the requirements of the State Procurement Manual. 

Th~se reviews should ensure that the procurements complied with the Federal requirements in 44 

CFR § 13.36. 

FEMA Response: Concur 

The Assistant Administrator of the Grant Programs Directorate shall require EOPSS to conduct a 

review of aU grant*funded purchases using FYs 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011 State Homeland Security 

Program and Urban Area Security Initiative grant funds which were exempt from the requirements of 

the State Procurement Manual. These reviews should ensure the procurements complied with the 

Federal requirements in 44 CFR § 13.36. EOPSS shall report the results of this review to GPD no 

later than 90 days after the issuance of the final OIG report. FEMA requests this recommendation be 

resolved and open pending the completion of the corrective action. 

OIG Recommendation 8: Require EOPSS to revise and update the site visit protocol to ensure that 

it includes a review of subgrantee compliance with Fedeml procurement requirements. 

FEMA Response: Concur 

The Assistant Administrator of the Grant Programs Directorate shall require EOPSS to revise and 

update the site visit protocol to include a review of subgrantee compliance with the procurement 

requirements of44 C.F.R. § 13.36. EOPSS shall report to GPD once it has revised and updated the 

site visit protocol no later than 90 days after the issuance of the OIG final reIXJrt. FEMA requests 

this recommendation be resolved and open pending the completion of the corrective action. 

4 

 

www.oig.dhs.gov 27 OIG-13-44 
 OF

 

FICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

OIG Recommendation 9: Require EOPSS to perform more equipment spot checks to ensure that 

subgrantees develop and sustain a property management system that meets Federal requirements. 

FEMA Response: Concur 

The Assistant Administrator of the Grant Programs Directorate shall require EOPSS to perform more 

equipment spot checks during monitoring site visits. EOPSS shall report to GPO how it will verifY 

its personnel conduct consistent spot checks no later than 90 days after the final issuance afthe OIG 

final report. FEMA requests this recommendation be resolved and open pending the completion of 

the corrective action. 

OIG Recommendation 10: Recover the unallowable costs of$157,000 for construction oftbe 

Trencb Rescue Simulator. 

FEMA Response: Non Concur 

GPD granted permission to the SAA to install a trench rescue simulator because it is a training prop 

that required installation which is not considered construction. FEMA recommends the 

recommendation be resolved and closed. 

OIG Recommendation 11: Require EOPSS to obtain adequate supporting documentation before 

reimbursing sub-recipients. 

FEMA Response: Concur 

TIle Assistant Administrator of the Grant Programs Directorate shall require EOPSS to' obtain 

adequate documentation before reimbursing subgrantees. EOPSS shan ensure all subgrantees comply 

with 44 CFR §13.20Standards for financial management systems. (b) (6) Source Documentation. 

EOPSS shall report to GPD how it will obtain adequate documentation before reimbursement no 

later than 90 days after the issuance of the 010 final report. FEMA requests this recommendation be 

resolved and open pending the completion of the corrective action. 

Thank you for the work that you and your team did to better inform us throughout this audit. We 

look forward to the final report. Please direct any questions regarding this response to Gary 

McKeon. FEMA's Branch Chief Audit Liaison Office, at 202-646-1308. 

5 

 

www.oig.dhs.gov 28 OIG-13-44 
 

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

 Department of Homeland Security 

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts 

Executive Office of Public Safety & Security 

Office of Grants & Research 

Ten Park Plaza, Suite 3720 

Boston, Massachusetts 02116 Mary Elizabeth Devill L. Patrick Tel: 617~725~3301 Heffernan Governor Fax: 617~725-O260 Secretary 

Timothy P. Murray 617 ~ 725~0267 

Ellen J. Frank lieutenant Governor www.mass.gov/eops Executive Director 

January 16, 2013 

Anne L. RichanJs, Assistant Inspector General for Audits 

DHS Office of Inspector General 

245 Murray Drive, SW, Building 4 10 

Washington DC 20528 

Dear Assistant Inspector General Richards: 

The Executive Office of Public Safety and Security (EOPSS) for the Commonwea1th of 

Massachusetts appreciates the opportunity to resJXlnd to the Department of Homeland Security 

Office of the Inspector General's Draft Audit, a copy of which was provided to us December 7, 

2012. 

EOPSS found the process to be cngaging and informative and the DHS OrG audit team to he 

professional and courteous. There is always room for improvement when overseeing the 

expenditure of public monies and we appreciate the objective review of the team to indicate 

where we can make improvements. We take the team's recommendations seriously and have 

already begun to implement changes as a result for example in our sub-recipient outreach and 

monitoring processes. 

While we agrtt= in general with many of the overall recommendations, we do disagree with 

several of the specific examples cited, especially where EOPSS obtained written permission 

from DHS/FEMA to take certain actions such as allowing our sub-recipients to utilize funds for 

necessary Management and Administration costs in addition to those retained and used by the 

Commonwealth at the state level. Similarly, EOPSS obtained written pennission from 

DHSIFEMA, without a construction waiver, to allow the Boston UASI to install a trench rescue 

simulator but the DHS 010 felt that the installation was unallowable witham a waiver. Other 

examples where we disagree with the audit's conclusions are reflections of some of the inherent 

challenges of implementing this complex grant program. 

It is our hope that by conducting this and other state audits, the DHS OIG gains an in-depth 

understanding of the realities of implementing this highly regulated and complex grant program, 

which diffcrs from many other federal grant programs in that it entails iniliating entirely new 

operating methodologies and programs; buying, installing and effectively utilizing sophisticated 

 

www.oig.dhs.gov 29 OIG-13-44 
 

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

 Department of Homeland Security 

equipment and infrastructure; and continuously coordinating with a wide range of stakeholders to 

achieve myriad programmatic outcomes. 

EQPSS has worked to implement effective homeland security projects and programs for nearly a 

decade now. It is dear however that some of the prerequisites of this grant program such as 

limiting Management and Administration funds to no more than 5% of the total award and 

requiring that funds be available for sub-recipient use within 45 days ofthe award actually 

hinder the effectiveness of the program by not allowing for sufficient planning time or dedicated 

program mWlagement. 

During the audit,. EOPSS sought to conununicate to the audit learn the importance of planning in 

the effective implementation of homeland security programs. We believe that by requiring 

prospective sub-recipients to provide detailed plans and budgets before contracts are issued, we 

are both building a better program from the outset and ensuring thal sufficient programmatic and 

fiscal controls are in place to ensure accountability. 

Underscoring the importance of planning in effective program implementation, EOPSS has 

found that the most effective homeland security-funded projects are those that cut across 

jurisdictional and disciplinary boundaries and pull together stakeholders to leverage each other's 

knowledge and resources. This kind of complex coordination, which is central to FEMA's own 

goals, takes a great deal of time and human engagement. This planning work is what gets lost 

with such strict limits on the use ofM&A and the 45 day obligation requiremenr.1t is our hope 

that when the DHS OIG presents its overoll findings and recommendations about the Homeland 

Security Grant Program, this perspective will be represented. 

Again, we appreciate the opportunity to respond to the draft audit and have provided responses to 

specific recommendations in the attached audit response document. 

Sincerely, 

f!!:: ~·;f~ Executive Director 

Cc; Michael Siviy, Director of Grants Management, Office of Inspector Generol, DHS 

Dennis Deely, Audit Manager, Office of Inspector General, DHS 

2 

 

www.oig.dhs.gov 30 OIG-13-44 
 

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

 Department of Homeland Security 

Massachusetts Response to DHSjO IG Draft Aud it 

Homeland Security Strategies: [Draft Audit p.3] 

Response to Recommendation "1. P. 7 Draft Audit: 

EOPSS informed the audit team during our first meeting that we are aware tha t our State Homeland 

Security Strategy (SHSS) is out of date and that we are working on an updated State Strategy in concert 

with the FEMA·required Threat Hazard Identification Risk Assessment (THlRA) process. In 2011 when 

PPD-8 and the National Preparedness Goal were announced, it was clear to us that we would want to 

have our updated Sta te Strategy align with FEMA's nation-wide guidelines. We had to wait until the 

whole program was laid out between March 2011 and April 2012, before we could begin to update our 

state strategy to conform to the new FEMA program. As soon as the new core capabilities and THIRA 

process were rolled out, we commenced a comprehensive statewide risk, vulnerability and capabilities 

assessment process that will inform both ourTHIRA and State Strategy. We expect to be able to 

present our updated State Strategy to FEMA in the spring of 2013. 

Performance Measures [Draft Audit p, 7] 

Response to Recommendation # 2 P. 8 Draft Audit 

The draft aud it also asserts that EOPSS' existing homeland security strategy does not have measurable 

objectives and that EOPSS has not evaluated progress towards achieving the goals and objectives of its 

2007 State Homeland Security Strategy. 

While we agree that goals and objectives should be time limited and that a more detailed performance 

evaluation plan would be preferable, the 2007 State Homeland Security Strategy does detail 33 specific 

implementation steps related to each of the 18 objectives under the three broader goals. At the end of 

May, 2010 EOPSS completed an internal progress report on its homeland security program that included 

a chart indicating the degree of progress towards accomplishing each implementation step within the 

state's goals and objectives. A review of this progress was also provided in January 2010 at a statewide 

stakeholders' meeting to plan for the following grant year. 

The 124-page, May, 2010 report's Executive Summary describes several frameworks within which to 

view the homeland security grant program, its activities and accomplishments. The body of the report, 

not only documents what had been done between 2003 and 2010 with homeland security grant funds, 

but what had been accomplished. This document, as well as a September 2011 Executive Summary 

update, was provided to the DHSjOIG auditors. However, the draft audit only refers only to a 2008 

document entitled "Trends and Process," which was an earlier internal review of the program. 

While we agree that SMART Goals and objectives should be included in our new State Homeland 

Security Strategy and that at both the state and federal level, there is a lack of specific, quantitative 

outcome measurements, we do not agree with the impression given that EOPSS has not engaged in any 

evaluative activities of its homeland security program. Moreover, the table provided in the audit report 

provides an incomplete representation of the state strategy because it shows only a partial description 

1 

JanuarY, 2013 

 

www.oig.dhs.gov 31 OIG-13-44 
 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

 Department of Homeland Security 

Massachusetts Response to DHSjO IG Draft Aud it 

of just one of the several objectives per goal and does not include any of the specific implementation 

actions that are in fClct associ.ired with each of the 18 objectives in the Str,Hegy. 

Obligation o f Grant Funds: (Draft Audit p. 9] 

Response to Recommendat ion II 3 P. 11 Draft Audit 

Prior to the DHS/OIG audit, EOPS$ believed that it was in compliance with the 4S·day obligation 

requirement. Each year, EOPSS calculates the amount of the 80% local share funds and UASI funds that 

will go to the state's homeland security planning regions and sends them a Letter of Obligation for that 

amount of funding within the 45 day time period. DHS conducts regular on-site monitoring of EOPSS in 

both the fiscal and programmatic areas and has never informed EOPSS that this practice is noncompliant with the 45 day obligation requirement. 

It is true that EOPSS does not issue contracts until a detailed spending plan and budget is submitted by 

the intended sub-recipient. Because for the local share funds, these spending plans are embedded in 

annual "regional" plans, EOPSS provides a month or more for the homeland security regions to put 

together these documents. EOPSS then reviews the documents to ensure that proposed projects are 

consistent with the state's homeland security strategy, the Investment Justifications approved by DHS 

for that funding year and that the projects are both allowable and address a homeland security gap. 

This review process includes meeting with representatives of the homeland security regions to discuss 

questions or concerns and the re-submission of revised plans and budgets as necessary. Once the 

review process is completed, the contracting process begins. This process can be as quick as three 

weeks but sometimes gets held up at the sub-recipient end because the sub-recipient does not return 

the signed contract document to EOPSS in a timely manner. 

In 2008 and 2009 EDPSS conducted an open and public award process for a fiduciary agent to receive 

the local share/regional funds on behalf of the regional homeland security advisory councils. Previously 

each region had its own fiduciary agent. EOPSS saw the consolidation of this function as a means to 

obtain greater efficiency and coordination of effort. Without a lead agency or fiduciary to receive the 

funds, EOPSS could not contract the funds to the regional advisory councils. The open and public award 

process for the fiduciary took more time than expected due to an insufficient response to the first 

posting. The prolonged open and public award process continued into 2009, after which EOPSS was 

able to begin to streamline the process to the point where in 2011 the contracts were signed within 151 

days and in 2012 contracts were signed on December 14, 2012, 74 business days after EOPSS received 

its award from the federal government. The trend of shortening the time period between the award to 

the state and the state contracting funds to the homeland security planning regions would also be 

apparent for FFY 2010 funds if it weren't for the fact that one of the regions delayed submitting a 

detailed scope of work (plan) and budget for 10 months thereby affecting the average length of time to 

make contracted funds available. 

EOPSS disagrees with the DIG's assertion that the amount oftime that it took for EOPSS to sign 

contracts with its homeland security region sub-recipients "may have reduced the Commonwealth's 

ability to prevent, protect against, respond to, and recover from acts of terrorism, major disasters, and 

2 

JanuarY, 2013 

 

www.oig.dhs.gov 32 OIG-13-44 
 O

 

FFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

 Department of Homeland Security 

Massachusetts Response to DHSjO IG Draft Aud it 

other emergencies." This assertion is unsubstantiated and a deeper review of the lead time that each 

homeland security funded project requires would quickly make it cledr thelt founddtional plann!n!! and 

coordination activities take place for many months before projects are ready to be implemented and 

that the regional councils themselves were not ready to implement the projects outlined in their plans. 

The additional time that it took to sign these contracts did not impact the Regions' progress. 

EOPSS is committed to continuing the trend of making funds available for sub-recipients to spend as 

soon as possible, however, EOPSS will not agree to sign a contract or interdepartmental service 

agreement (ISA) w ithout a detailed budget and scope o f services and without a sufficient internal revie w 

and approval process. In conversations, both DHS and the OIG audit staff acknowledged that the 45-

day unconditional obligation requirement is not realistic for most states and does not take state-level 

contracting, grant management and fiscal processing considerations into account. It is our hope that 

the OIG might also include a general recommendation to extend the date of required obligation while 

also extending the perioo of performance of the HSGP grants to better match necessary planning 

requirements for most effectively implementing the unique programs that these grant programs 

support. 

Management and Administration Expenses 

Obligation of Grant Funds: [Draft Audit p. 111 

Response to Recommendation It's 3,4 P. 12 Draft Audit 

Massachusetts disagrees with the OIG's assertion that the Commonwealth exceeded limits placed on 

the utilization of management & administration (M&A) funds and contests the recommendation to 

return a portion of the M &A that it and its sub-recipient~ have u~ed to implement the HSGP program. 

The e-mail t hread reproduced below represen ts the Commonwealth's good faith efforts and due 

diligence in securing DHS approval to retain the annual allowed percentage of M&A tha t the state is 

eligible to retain and allow sub-recipients to al~o retain a portion of their ow n awards for the 

management and administra tion of their grant funds. 

The following e-mail request and response from DHS represents written permission from our federal 

funding agency to retain t he allowed annual percentage of M &A and to allow our sub-recipients to also 

retain the allowed annual percentage of M&A from their awards. 

;'From: Donehoo. Dennis (Denms.DonehoolaJdhs.gov] 

Selll: Wednesday. October 22.20083:26 PAl 

To: Graffltn. Victorta (OGR) 

Cc: Kevan. Robert: flampton, Judy: Timperi, Jejf(OGR) 

S ubject: RJ::: AI &A Clanficalion 

V;ctona, 

After rf!NJeWIng the Grant GUIdance and discussion m GPO. we have determined that the State IS eligible 

to retam 3% of the Grant fO( M&A Local sub-recipients are ellf}lble to retam 3% of what they are awarded 

If the State Wishes to pass dawn a port/Ofl of their M&A to the locals. then the locals M&A cannot exceed 

3% Forexample, tor $100 00 lhe State could retain $3.00 M&A The local SUb-reclpi6rlts may retam 3% 

3 

January, 2013 

 

www.oig.dhs.gov 33 OIG-13-44 
 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

 Department of Homeland Security 

Massachusetts Response to DHSjOIG Draft Audit 

cI $ 9700 whICh was passed dawn from the State (which IS $ 2.91) Neither the State nor the local subfeclplent can exceed 3% 8<Y;h for thel' M&A If you have any further questKXlS please '*' not hesitate to 

call 

Dennis K DcnehOo 

Program Analyst 

Grant Programs Directexate 

Federal Emergency Management Agency 

500 C Street SW 

Techworfd BUlldlllg Room 5008 

wash/natoo DC 'XJ47? 

202· 786-9837 (Office) 

202-536-7374 (B-Berry) 

202-786-9921 (Fax) 

From: GriJffli", Victor/it (OGR) {mallto:Victoriil.Grilfflin@stat e.miI.us] 

Sent: WednesdiJy. October 22, 200812:56 PM 

To: Donehoo, Dennis 

Subject: RE' M &A ClarirlciJlion 

HI Dennts' I know that Jeff spoke to you about this last week but we are stilI a little bit confounded and I 

thmk that puttmg our questton III wntlng to you, is probably appropnate at thIs point 

In prepanng to obligate FFY 2008 funds, we noticed that there appears to be a sl9l1Jficant change 

governmg the distribution of M&A turds We would /Ike to clanfy the FFY 2008 HSGP Management & 

AdministratIVe (M&A) a/Jowabilltyas It pertams to us (the award r9CIPlent and SAA) and local sub· 

recIpients (our Regional Homeland SecUf/ty Advisory Councils and the Boston-area UASI) 

Companng the FFY 2007 HSGPgUldance to the FFY 2008 guidance appears to reveal a Significant 

departure from FFY 07 about which we are seeking c/anfication Hoo'ever, an FAQ regardsng FFY 2008 

M&A appears to confirm our anginal understanding about the dlVISJOn of M&A from total award and sub· 

recipIent awards 

The FFY 2007 HSGPgUldance specific to M&A reads as follows 

"All prOJrams Within the FY 2007 HSGP have allowable M&A costs for both the State as well as the local 

Unit of government. Urban Area, or destgnated subgrantee No mere than 5 percent of the total amount 

alaa/ed to the State for prOJrams Within FY 2007 HSGP may be retamed at the State level and used for 

M&A purposes In ackiJtlOO, kx;al JurIsdICtion subgrantees may retam and use up to 3 pen:;ent of thetr 

subaward from the State fer /ocaJ M&A purposes " 

The FFY 2008 HSGP guidance IS dsfferent In respect to thiS ISSue, and roods as follows, 

"A maximum of up to three percent (3%) of funds awarr:.la:1 may be retained by the State (as opposed to 5 

percent [5%J 01 furds as naiad In the FY 2{)()7 HSGp), and any funds retamed are to be used solely for 

management and administratIVe purposes asscclatad With the HSGP award States may pass through a portIOn of the State's M&A allocation to local subgrantees to support local management and 

admlnlstratlO1 actlVltteS, the (Nerall subgrantee M&A amount may not equal more than three percent 

(3%) . 

Additionally, the FFY 2008 FEMA·GPD FAQ document (dated mOO8) on the FEMA webSite has a 

quest/Ofl and response specific to M&A, which reads as follows, 

4 

January, 2013 

 

www.oig.dhs.gov 34 OIG-13-44 
 

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

 Department of Homeland Security 

Massachusetts Response to DHSjOIG Draft Aud it 

"Question How much fundIng tcmards management and administration (M&A) are subgrantees a//oNed 

tospend? ~ 

"Response Subgrantees are alk::1Ned to spend no more than 3% of their CNerall HSGP award for M&A 

purposes SAA's may also opt to pass doNn a portlCX1 of their M&A funds to subgrantees. rcwever the 

total M&A amount spent by subgrantees cannot exceed 3% overall .. 

Our mterpretatJO(l of the above IS that we (the SAA and reclpJent at this (undmg) may retam up to 3% of 

the total HSGP award amount for M&A purposes In add/I/Ofl, sub-recipients (a g . the Councils and the 

UASI) may retain up to 3 percent of the If lOcal HSGP awards for M&A purposes This mterpretatlOn 

matche.'_ OJ! cum:mt operating mrriBI 

As you kn<:NJ from your site visIt. our current operatsonal mcxJel in Massa:;hUsetts (of the SAA and the 

CouncllsAJASI) - whICh IS necessary for many reasons, the foremost being the lack of a stateWIde ard 

operatlOflal county government stn.x:ture - IS dependent on havIng adequate M&A turr:Js at the State and 

local subgrant level 

Agam, the purpose of puttmg thIS questKYI m wntmg IS so that we are clear We WIlt abide by whatever 

deterrmnatlO(J IS made by US DHS 

Thank you agam (or your help. 

Victona Graff/in 

Victona Graff/in. Director 

Home/and Secunty DivlsKXI 

Office of Grants and Research 

ExecutIVe OfflCs of PubIK; Safety & Secunty 

Ten Park Plaza. SUits 3720 

BostOfJ. MA 02116 

(617) 725-3378 

(617) 725-0260 (Q 

victorIa qrafflir@statema us 

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts is a home rule state, without a county level of government. In 

order to be able to accomplish anything that coordinated our 351 cities and towns, we had to establish 

homeland security planning regions. In 2004, Massachusetts divided the state into five homeland 

security regions and appointed multi-disciplinary, multi-jurisdictional planning councils for each region. 

This system has enabled the state to accomplish much larger projects than would ha ve been possible if 

the 80% local share of HSGP funds were distributed either municipally or by competitive application 

process. We are very proud of the accomplishments of this system, not the least of which is the crossdisciplinary problem solving and relationship building that has resulted from the establishment of these 

regions and councils. By giving EOPSS written permission to retain our M&A to administer the grant 

program and to allow our regional fiduciary to retain M&A out of the regional awards, FEMA enabled 

this more effective, regional homeland security system to function. Again, we would urge the DHSjOIG 

to consider the programmatic benefits of recommending that the use of M&A be expanded as opposed 

to merely looking at whether or not FEMA should have allowed EOPSS to allow its sub-recipients who 

were implementing the regional council projects to use M&A. 

5 

January, 2013 

 

www.oig.dhs.gov 35 OIG-13-44 
 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

 Department of Homeland Security 

Massachusetts Response to DHSjO IG Draft Aud it 

Procurement Practices, Property Records, and Expenditure Review.. 

Although EOPSS disagrees about the facts in several of the examples provided by the OIG regarding 

procurement practices, property records and expenditure review, we nonetheless Cllilree that there is 

always room for improvement in communicating with and monitoring sub· recipient performance with 

regard to the above issues. We have therefore already begun conducting additional outreach to our 

sub-recipients to remind them of these obligations, which are spelled out in the special conditions 

documents that they sign at the time they receive their contracts and ISA's. 

Procurement Practices.;. 

Obligation of Grant Funds: [Draft Audit p. 13] 

Response to Recommendation n 5 P. 13 Draft Audit 

The draft audit report provides three examples that the OIG feels are instances in which local, state, or 

federal procurement rules were not sufficiently followed. We disagree about the facts in two of the 

three situations. However, we do agree that procurement is an area with great potential for error and 

impropriety and that therefore ongoing training, outreach and monitoring around sub-recipient 

procurement practices is a valid recommendation. In mid-December 2012, EOPSS held a conference call 

to underscore with its homeland security regional council members and fiduciary representatives the 

importance of complying with federal rules as well as state and local laws and regulations. This 

particular issue was highlighted in the call because of concerns that the OIG raised regarding the 

procurement of training services. 

The first example provided by the DHS/OIG is one in which there appears to be a difference in 

interpretation of Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 30B, local procurement rules. The DHS/OIG 

asserts that the fiduciary agent should have gone out to bid for ongoing services related to technical 

assistance and design services for interoperable communications systems. Before exercising the 

optional renewal provision in this existing contract, the fiduciary agent contacted the Massachusetts OIG 

to ensure that it was not exceeding the allowable amount of additional fees under MGL Chapter 30B. 

The response received from the state OIG was that because the original contract was written to include 

up to three years of design services, the normal restriction on adding more than 25% of the value of the 

contract does not apply because it is a contract renewal and not an extension. The original contract 

was competitively bid according to MGLChapter 30B. 

The fiduciary sought guidance from the state OIG, whose office is the primary enforcement agency for 

Chapter 30B procurement, and proceeded based on that guidance. While it is possible that the 

fiduciary erred in its understanding of its own question to the state OIG and the OIG's response, we feel 

that the fact that the fiduciary made an effort to check with the state OIG on this nuanced procurement 

issue is an indication of their level of awareness and commitment to the state's very stringent and 

complex local procurement rules. All fiduciary staff involved in procurement activities have received 

6 

January, 2013 

 

www.oig.dhs.gov 36 OIG-13-44 
 

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

 Department of Homeland Security 

Massachusetts Response to DHSjO IG Draft Aud it 

state procurement training from the office of the state OIG and have certification to at least the level of 

goods and services procurement. 

In the second elCample of training courses not competitively procured, we agree that EOPSS needs to 

remind sub.recipients that even if a particular type of procurement is exempt from competitive bidding 

requirements at the state or local level, this does not elCempt procurement from federal competitive 

procurement requirements. In December, 2012 EOPSS held a special conference call with subrecipients to reiterate this point. However, EOPSS does not agree that the particular training courses 

were proc ured out of compliance w it h federal rules. Alt hough state procurement ra ws do not recognize 

sole source procurements, except in extremely limited circumstances, sole source procurement is 

allowed under federal procurement according to 44 CFR 13.36 4.1.A. 

In two of the four examples cited by the audit team} the MACTAC and Structural Collapse Trainings} the 

training providers selected were the only ones that were either certified to provide a desired 

certification level of training, or in the case of MACTAC, the only one that provides the specific training 

course. The process for determining that these circumstances justified using the particular training 

providers was outlined in a training petition to EOPSS by the homeland security council. EOPSS 

approved the training petition. A quote process was used for the $147,000 SWAT course and the quote 

sheet was provided to the DHS/OIG auditors. Finally, the $30,000 training cited by the OIG was actually 

part of the MACTAC training not a separate example. 

While we do not feel that the procurement of these training courses was non-compliant, we do agree 

there needs to be more rigorous application and documentation of competitive procurement generally 

in the area of trainings. We will continue to work on this with our sub-recipients. 

In the third example, the Massachusetts Environmental Police (MEP) purchased 16 all-terrain vehicles 

(ATV's) for $100,316 to assist in fulfilling their search and rescue mission. MEP provided EOPSS with 

docu mentation that they solicited at least fou r quotes for the vehicles before ma king the purchase, 

meeting the federal requirement for competitive procurement. Nonetheless, after the auditor's 

reviewed this procurement, EOPSS did find that the MEP should have followed state procurement 

requirements, which dictate either using a statewide contract or conducting a Request for Quotations 

process if the desired goads or services are nat available through an existing statewide contract. 

Statewide contracts are competitively bid by the state's Operational Services Division, which is the 

procu rement department for the Commonwealth. It appears that the available statewide contract for 

ATVs, did not meet MEP's needs, however, they should have more closely fallowed procedures for 

conducting a procurement when no existing statewide contract matches the specified goads or services. 

EOPSS has met with MEP about this issue. EOPSS has discussed this situation with MEP and they 

understand the need to fallow and document procurement policies more carefully. MEP also has an 

additional procurement professional assigned to them to assist with procurements such as this one. 

EOPSS has also already provided a mandatory grant management outreach to all state-share 2012 subrecipients that included a review of procurement requirements. We will also be sure to review 

procu rement when we do site visits and ather monitoring. 

7 

January, 2013 

 

www.oig.dhs.gov 37 OIG-13-44 
 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

 Department of Homeland Security 

Massachusetts Response to DHSjO IG Draft Aud it 

Property Record Requirements: [Draft Audit p. 1S] 

We disagree with the DHS/OIG auditor's assertion that EOPSS' and our sub-recipients' systems for 

managing property do not ensure full compliance with federal and state requirements. 

The DHS/OIG asserts that decals are not placed on equipment in a timely manner and used the example 

of security cameras that had been installed without decals having been placed on them. The decals in 

question serve two purposes, one is to state that the item has been purchased with homeland security 

grant funds and the other purpose is to provide a unique identification number for inventory tracking. 

Typically, decals are placed on items as close to the time that they are delivered as possible. The 

fiduciary mails the inventory stickers to the end user when they receive sign off that the equipment has 

been delivered. The fiduciary simultaneously enters the data into its inventory tracking spreadsheet and 

the end user affixes the tags as soon as possible after the equipment is received. 

The DHS/OIG team asserts that the fiduciary stated that decals are placed on items only at the time of 

the annua I inventory check. The fid ucia ry stated however that a pplying decals at the annua I inventory 

is a "backup" to the standard procedure and does not represent the normal practice. The DHS/OIG also 

stated that because decals had not been placed on some security cameras prior to them being mounted, 

that the fiduciary may have been unable to access the equipment via the equipment inventory. This is 

not the case because the electronic inventory is initially populated at the time the equipment is 

delivered. Information such as inventory tag numbers are often added to the record that is created as 

soon as the recipient sends the signed receiving copy to the fiduciary. 

The DHS/OIG appears to have misunderstood how the fiduciary's purchase order system, including item 

details, feeds into the electronic inventory tracking system. The draft audit states that, 'Although 

numerous items were included on one invoice, 'item descriptions' listed in the property records were 

genericallv titled such as 'technical rescue equipment' or 'hardware and software.' The individual items 

included on the purchase order were hydraulic jacks, hoists, and communications equipment, which are 

susceptible to theft and therefore should be properly recorded and tracked. N 

There are dollar thresholds involved in the requirement to track inventory, These are $5}000 at the 

federal level and $500 per EOPSS' homeland security sub-grant conditions. The individual items that 

are contained in the technical rescue trailers do not generally meet either of these thresholds, though 

the trailer itself does. The technical rescue trailers are included in the inventory list. Each trailer has a 

list of items that are contained within the trailer. The homeland security councils have established or 

are in the process of establishing procedures and protocols to ensure that these assets are returned 

from deployment with t he same equipment that they left with. At the time of the auditors visit, the 

Southeast Region trailers were in the process of being delivered by the vendor and the contents 

finalized, 

The third example that the auditor provides states that "the fiduciar~' agent did not include serial 

numbers from equipment in its records. In addition 31% of items listed in the Northeast's Inventory 

records and 78% of the items listed in the Southeast Region's inventory records did not have an inventory 

8 

January, 2013 

 

www.oig.dhs.gov 38 OIG-13-44 
 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

 Department of Homeland Security 

Massachusetts Response to DHSjO IG Draft Aud it 

item number. " The federal requirement is for either a serial number or a unique identification number 

to be included in the inventory for equipment. For items that meet the $500 threshold and there fore 

require tagging, typically, the number printed on the bar-coded tag is used as the unique identify ing 

number, rather than the serial number. This is allowable under the federal equipment inventory 

guidelines and makes more sense given the need to tag equipment. 

The percentages listed above were not mentioned in the earlier audit ou tline and so we were not able 

to discuss with the audit team what they specifically are referring to. However, after reviewing the 

inventory records , it is clear that there are items listed in the inven tory lis ts that do not meet the dollar 

value threshold and that therefore may not have been tagged and recorded with a unique identification 

number. However, we do agree that if an item is included in the inventory list, even if it is not required 

to be included, it should have as much information as possible associated with it and EOPSS will follow 

up with the fiduciary to ensure that this occurs. 

The fourth example cited by the DHSjOIG auditor asserts that EOPSS does not do sufficient equipment 

spot checks and that the only equipment spot checks done by EOPSS in 2012 were done during the audit 

itself. 

In fact, over the past five years, EOPSS' Homeland Security Division has conducted 206 monitoring visits 

and desk reviews across all of our homeland security grants. In calendar years 2011 and 2012 EOPSS 

conducted 14 site visits in each of those calendar years related to the grant programs being audited. 

Additional site visits were conducted by the homeland security division staff on other homeland security 

grant programs not included in the audit. While it is true that four of the site visits conducted in 2012 

occurred simultaneously with the auditor's site visits, EOPSS felt that these visits represented a good 

opportunity for us to do equipment spot checks. 

EOPSS provided the auditors with our monitoring log where these site visits are recorded, along with 

examples of site visit reports that document equipment spot checks. It is possible however that 

because some entries list the type of monitoring as a site visit, not an equipment check, that the 

auditors may have thought that equipment is not checked during a normal site visit. Site visits almost 

always include equipment checks, except in the case where the fiduciary agent for the local share funds 

is being visited by EOPSS. 

EOPSS has contracted with the fiduciary to conduct equipment checks in each of the homeland security 

planning regions, which the fiduciary does, not only annually but also in the normal course of daily 

business. Additionally, EOPSS staff attends every regional homeland security advisory council meeting, 

of which there are four or five each month. At these meetings and at other EOPSS and Councilsponsored events, EOPSS staff views equipment that has been purchased. Also, as a result of attending 

monthly Council meetings, EOPSS staff is generally aware of the status of specific equipment and any 

issues that may be associated with these procurements. 

9 

JanuarY, 2013 

 

www.oig.dhs.gov 39 OIG-13-44 
 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

 Department of Homeland Security 

Massachusetts Res ponse to DHS/OIG Draft Audit 

Construction Item 

EOPSS believes t hat the Trench Rescue Simulator is an allo w able expenditure as a result of our April, 

2011 e-mail correspondence w it h DHS r Eg arding t his project. Note: The e-mail messages below bot h 

relat e specifically to the Trench Rescue Simulator project for the Boston UASI. 

From : Dc:nehoo, Oemis [mai1to Denn is Onnehnp@dhsnoy] 

Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 20119:40 AM 

To: Chipman, Brook (OGR) 

Subject: RE: EHPSM submissiOn 

Brook, 

Also, a construction waiver is not necessary, as t his is the installation of a trainirg prop. 

Dennis Donehoo 

Program Analyst 

Eastern Branch of Preparedness Grants Division 

Grant Programs Directorate 

Federal Emergency Managem ent Agency 

Department of Horn eland Security 

800 K Street NW 

Techworld Building Room 5008 

Washington, DC 20472-3625 

202-786-9837 (Office) 

202-786-6621 (Fax) 

202-536-7374 (Blackberry) 

WARNING: This aOclJI'Mm is FOR OFFfCJAL USE OM Y (FooO). ft is to be contlOkd, sore(/, handfed, transmtt~d, diftritut~d, 

and d~sN of in accord.;nc~ with DHS poley r~Jatin!} to FOOD information. This infotmatiOn shafJ not be diftri/:x)t~d beyond th~ 

anginal :Jddr~.ss;e~s wtholJt prior :JlJthoriz:Jtion of tM Of(jinf1tor. 

From: Ch ipman, Brook (OGR) [mailto:Brook.ChipmatJ(IDstate.ma.usl 

Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 20 11 9:37 AM 

To: Donehoo, Dennis 

Subject: RE : EHPSM submission 

Great, thanks. 

10 

January, 2013 

 

www.oig.dhs.gov 40 OIG-13-44 
 

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

 Department of Homeland Security 

Massachusetts Response to DHS/OIG Draft Audit 

From: Dooehoo, Dem is [majltn 'Genojs Ppnehpo@rlbsgOY] 

Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 20119 :09 AM 

To: Chipman, Brook (OGR) 

Subject: RE : EHPSM submission 

Brook, 

I checked the EHP tracker and this has been approved. Just waiting forthe letter. 

Dennis Donehoo 

Program Analyst 

Eastern Branch of Preparedness Grants Division 

Grant Programs Directorate 

Federal Emergency Managem ent Agency 

Department of Hom eland Security 

800 K Street NW 

Techworld Building Room 5008 

Washington, DC 20472-3625 

202-786-9837 (Office) 

202-786-6621 (Fax) 

202-536-7374 (Blackbeny) 

WARNING: ThiS t;kX'Uf~nt is FOR OFFfCJAL USE 01lL Y (FOUO). It is to ~ contlfJkd, $OIed, Hld~ tnlnsmttM, difJtribut~d, 

~fId d~sed of jf) f1ccord.mce wit}) DHS poky re~tJn9 to FOOD K1fom~tio!l_ This iflfotmfltion shill! 001 Ix: di!iribtJted beyond the 

orirJinllf Ilddressees w thallI prbr authorization of tM originator. 

From: Chp man, Brod< (OGR) (mailto:BroolcChipmap@state.ma.usl 

Sent: Mon:::!ay, Ap-il ll, 2011 3:58 PM 

To: Donehoo, Dennis 

Subject: FW: EHP9\'1 submissbn 

Dennis, 

CheclOng in on this EHPSM . 

We originaly submitted it on 213 and then provided a SHPO on 3/10 

Any update would be appreciated. 

And just to confirm our earlier exchanges on a matter involving this project: our 

understanding based on earlier phone and e-mail exchanges IS that we don't need to 

request a construction waiver regarding the installation of thi s trench rescue 'prop'. 

11 

January, 2013 

 

www.oig.dhs.gov 41 OIG-13-44 
 

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

 Department of Homeland Security 

Massachusetts Response to DHSjOIG Draft Audit 

Thanks, 

Brook 

From: Chipman, Brook (OGR) 

Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2011 2:34 PM 

To: 'Donehoo, Dennis' 

Subject:: FW: EHPSM su bmission 

Oennis, 

Hope all is well 

Can you please help me get a status on these two EHPSM submissions or is it OK for 

me to send an e-mail to check to askcsid@dhs.90V? 

Thanks, 

Brook 

From: Chipman, Brook. ( OGR) 

Sent: f\londay, t-larch 2S, 2011 9:53 AM 

To: 'Donehoo, Denni s' 

Subject: FIN: EHPSM submission 

Good morning, 

Just checking in on these EHPSM's for the Boston UASl's: 

'Trench Prop', U9·5A, submitted 213, SHPO on 3110, 

'Urban Shield ' Exercise, subm itted 2128. 

Thanks, 

Brook 

From: Chipman, Brook ( OGR) 

Sent: f>1onday, February 28, 2011 2:20 PM 

To: 'ASKCsid' 

Cc: 'Donehoo, Dennis'; 'Barron, Jenny (OGR)' 

Subject:: EHPSM submission 

Hello, 

12 

JanU<3 ry, 2013 

 

www.oig.dhs.gov 42 OIG-13-44 
 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

 Department of Homeland Security 

Massachusetts Response to DHS/OIG Draft Audit 

Please let me know if you have any questions regarding this submission . 

Thanks, 

Brook 

Mr. Brook W. Chipman 

Senior Program Manager 

Executive Office of Public Safety and Security 

Office of Grants and Research 

Homeland Security Division 

Ten Park Plaza, Suite 3720 

Boslon,MA02116 

617-725-3332 voice 

617-725-0267 fax 

brook. chip man@state.ma.us 

www.mass.go\.1s op ss 

You do notneed CCI'lstruction W(tjV€rS for this type of'nstdlation. We require construction wOlVers for 

Jarge projects that involves breaking ground, or remodeling ab~'djng to the pantiis footpfint is 

chaJged. 

FEMA 

Dennis Donehoo 

Program Analyst 

Easf2 rn Branch oj Preparedness Grants Division 

Grant Programs Directorate 

Federal Emergency Management Agency 

Department oj Homeland S€cwlty 

800 K Street NW 

Techworld BUilding &am 5008 

Washington, DC 20472-3625 

202-786-9837 (Office) 

202-786-6621 (Fax) 

202-536-7374 (Blackherry) 

WARNING. This dOC/iment is FOR OFFfClAL USE 01\( Y (FooO). It is to be contlOled, !fared, ham:J~d, /r;msmited, dfflriJ:;t)t~d, 

and d~sed of in accardi/flcl! with DHS policy reJatll19 to FOOD iJ?for~lIon This infotmalion sharI oot be d~riblJted beyond t~ 

onginaf addre SSfJes w tMJlJt prior i1u/flOrltO/tion of 1M Of(}irI;xor 

13 

January, 2013 

 

www.oig.dhs.gov 43 OIG-13-44 
 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

 Department of Homeland Security 

Massachusetts Response to DHSjOIG Draft Audit 

From : Chipmao/ Brook (OGR) (fT1iIilto:B(QQk Chi/Jll1iff1@sfatemaus! 

Se nt: FridiJ~ April 15. 20111:52 PM 

To: dennis.donehoo@dhs.oov 

Subje ct: Construction Waiver Q 

Dennis, 

I want to check with you regarding the need for construction waivers for three UASI 09-funded projects 

at four sites. 

In the attachment ''VAS! 09 Project Construction Wal'vel3" Question H I have listed the proposed equipment 

purchases involved by site (the flM:) SomelVille ones are in one chait). 

I have also attached the four related EHPSM, that HoE will soon submit, as these contain more project 

information including photos of the insta/lation locations. 

My question is whether these items, that ilrl: referenced directly or indirectly in the 09 HSGP 

guidance s w nstruction ilnd renovation section, would actually require waivers? 

Given these items will only Involved mnor installation MOrA, I thought perhaps waive!S would not 

be !1eCe5SiIry. 

Thanks in advance for your guidance in this matter. Please let me know if you need additional 

information to make this decision. 

Thanks, 

Brook 

Supporting Documentation: [Draft Audit p. 17] 

Responses to Recommendation Ifs 6·11 Pp. 17·18 Draft Audk 

The auditors reviewed many documents covering millions of dollars of spending and found a handful of 

instances where supporting documentation for reimbursement was deemed to be insufficient. EOPSS 

agrees that in these instances documentation supporting reimbursement for these costs was not as 

strong as it should have been. We also agree with Recommendation n 6 that EOPSS "notify all entities 

awarded Homeland Security Grant Program Funds af the requirement to use and follow Federal, State, 

and focal procurement policies and standards as required jor purchasing or acquiring equipment and 

services. " Although EOPSS does do this within its contracting documents, ongoing outreach and 

education around these requirements is nonetheless warranted. EOPSS has already begun to provide 

this additional outreach by holding conference calls and meetings with sub-recipients to discuss these 

very issues. On January gil" EOPSS held a mandatory meeting with all FFY 2012 state share SHSPand 

UASI sub-recipients to review laws and regulations governing the grant as well as general grant 

management practices, common probl ems and audit findings. 

14 

January, 2013 

 

www.oig.dhs.gov 44 OIG-13-44 
 

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

 Department of Homeland Security 

Massachusetts Response to DHSjOIG Draft Aud it 

Similarly, EOPSS generally agrees with Recommendations, 7 and 8 that speak to the need to ensure that 

sub.recipients understand that they must comply with feder .. 1 competitive procurement practices even 

where state procurement laws may provide exemptions, to include such education and oversight in sub· 

recipient monitoring and to continue to conduct more and well documented equipment spot checks. 

Again, EOPSS has already spoken to the Regional Homeland Security Councils, their fiduciary agent and 

the City of Boston Office of Emergency Management regarding the difference in state and federal rules 

around competitive procurement for training. 

EOPSS also agrees generally with recommendation # 9 that calls for more equipment spot checks and to 

ensure that sub-recipients develop and sustain a property management system that meets federal 

requirements. While we feel that our homeland security regions' property management system meets 

federal standards, we nonetheless agree that property management and equipment checks can always 

be improved upon and require ongoing attention. We will work with our staff to conduct more spot 

checks when out at Regional meetings and ensure that the fiduciary for the Homeland Security Regions 

documents their equipment checks, even when they are not pre-planned but occur during the course of 

a business meeting. 

EOPSS does not agree with Recommendation 10 regarding recovering what it deems as unallowable 

costs related to the trench rescue simulator for which EOPSS and the City of Boston received written 

approval from DHS as documented in the e-mail exchange on pages 10 & 11. 

EOPSS agrees with recommendation 11 that adequate supporting documentation needs to be obtained 

before reimbursing sub-recipients. EOPSS demonstrated our rigorous, three-level reimbursement 

review process to the auditors. Nonetheless, we do agree that the audit team did find examples where 

supporting documentation could and should have been stronger. EOPSS will continue to work with our 

staff and sub-recipients to ensure that supporting documentation is always sufficient. We will pay 

particular additional attention to the issue of who is signing off on the time sheets of contractors who 

are performing services under the grant, as well as reinforcing our existing requirement that backfill and 

overtime reimbursements be supported by actual payroll records. The fiduciary agent already collects 

these but EOPSS recognizes that compliance with this requirement was less than 100% and we have 

already begu n to discuss the issue with those sub-recipients that may not have fully understood the 

requirement. 

15 

January, 2013 

 

www.oig.dhs.gov 45 OIG-13-44 
 

 

 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Appendix C 

Description of the Homeland Security Grant Program 

The HSGP provides Federal funding to help State and local agencies enhance capabilities 

to prevent, deter, respond to, and recover from terrorist attacks, major disasters, and 

other emergencies. The HSGP encompasses several interrelated Federal grant programs 

that together fund a range of preparedness activities, including planning, organization, 

equipment purchase, training, and exercises, as well as management and administration 

costs. Programs include the following: 

•	 The State Homeland Security Program provides financial assistance directly to each 

of the States and Territories to prevent, respond to, and recover from acts of 

terrorism and other catastrophic events. The program supports the implementation 

of the State Homeland Security Strategy to address identified planning, equipment, 

training, and exercise needs. 

•	 The Urban Areas Security Initiative provides financial assistance to address the 

unique planning, equipment, training, and exercise needs of high-risk urban areas, 

and to assist in building an enhanced and sustainable capacity to prevent, respond 

to, and recover from threats or acts of terrorism and other disasters. Allowable 

costs for the urban areas are consistent with the SHSP. Funding is expended based 

on the Urban Area Homeland Security Strategies. 

The HSGP also includes other interrelated grant programs with similar purposes. 

Depending on the fiscal year, these programs include the following: 

•	 Metropolitan Medical Response System 

•	 Citizen Corps Program 

•	 Operation Stonegarden (beginning FY 2010) 

www.oig.dhs.gov 46 	 OIG-13-44 
 

 

 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Appendix D 

Number of Days Elapsed Between Required Obligation and 

Availability

Subgrantee 

Date FEMA

Awarded Funds 

to State

Funds Required 

To Be Obligated 

Within 45 days 

Actual Date 

Funds Were 

Obligated 

Number of

Days Late 

Northeast 

Region

08/29/2008 10/13/2008 12/09/2009 422 

08/21/2009 10/05/2009 12/21/2010 442 

09/13/2010 10/28/2010 05/27/2011 211 

09/01/2011 10/16/2011 03/15/2012 151 

Southeast 

Region

08/29/2008 10/13/2008 12/09/2009 422 

08/21/2009 10/05/2009 12/06/2010 427 

09/13/2010 10/28/2010 05/27/2011 211 

09/01/2011 10/16/2011 03/15/2012 151 

Western Region 

08/29/2008 10/13/2008 12/09/2009 422 

08/21/2009 10/05/2009 12/06/2010 427 

09/13/2010 10/28/2010 05/27/2011 211 

09/01/2011 10/16/2011 03/15/2012 151 

Central Region 

08/29/2008 10/13/2008 12/09/2009 422 

08/21/2009 10/05/2009 12/06/2010 427 

09/13/2010 10/28/2010 05/27/2011 211 

09/01/2011 10/16/2011 03/15/2012 151 

Boston UASI 

Region

08/29/2008 10/13/2008 03/27/2009 165 

08/21/2009 10/05/2009 12/10/2010 431 

09/13/2010 10/28/2010 02/12/2012 472 

09/01/2011 10/16/2011 02/27/2012 134 

Metropolitan 

Area Planning

Council 

08/29/2008 10/13/2008 04/06/2009 175 

08/21/2009 10/05/2009 10/25/2010 385 

09/13/2010 10/28/2010 03/04/2011 127 

09/01/2011 10/16/2011 11/29/2011 44 

Source: DHS OIG. 


www.oig.dhs.gov 47 OIG-13-44 
 

 

 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Appendix E 

Potential Monetary Benefits

Classification of Monetary Benefits

Finding Rec. 

No. 

Funds To 

Be Put to

Better Use

Questioned

Costs –

Unsupported 

Costs

Questioned

Costs –

Other

Total

Total funds that exceeded 

the statutory limits for 

management and 

administrative expenses 

4 $3,912,772 $3,912,772 

Unallowable costs of 

construction of the Trench 

Rescue Simulator 

10 $157,000 $157,000 

Total $4,069,772 $4,069,772 

Source:ffDHS OIG. 


www.oig.dhs.gov 48 OIG-13-44 
 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Appendix F 

Major Contributors to This Report 

Michael Siviy, Director 

Dennis Deely, Audit Manager 

David Porter, Auditor 

Sandra Ward-Greer, Auditor 

Frank Lucas, Auditor 

Lindsey Koch, Auditor 

Kelly Herberger, Communications Analyst 

Marisa Coccaro, Independent Referencer 

www.oig.dhs.gov 49 OIG-13-44 
 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Appendix G 

Report Distribution 

Department of Homeland Security

Secretary 

Deputy Secretary 

Chief of Staff 

Deputy Chief of Staff 

General Counsel 

Executive Secretary 

Director, GAO/OIG Liaison Office 

Assistant Secretary for Office of Policy 

Assistant Secretary for Office of Public Affairs 

Assistant Secretary for Office of Legislative Affairs 

Acting Chief Privacy Officer 

Federal Emergency Management Agency

Administrator 

Assistant Administrator, Grant Programs Directorate 

Federal Emergency Management Agency Audit Liaison 

Grant Programs Directorate Audit Liaison 

Office of Management and Budget

Chief, Homeland Security Branch 

DHS OIG Budget Examiner 

Congress

Congressional Oversight and Appropriations Committees, as appropriate 

www.oig.dhs.gov 50 OIG-13-44 
 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND COPIES 

To obtain additional copies of this document, please call us at (202) 254-4100, fax your 

request to (202) 254-4305, or e-mail your request to our Office of Inspector General 

(OIG) Office of Public Affairs at: DHS-OIG.OfficePublicAffairs@oig.dhs.gov. 

For additional information, visit our website at: www.oig.dhs.gov, or follow us on Twitter 

at: @dhsoig. 

OIG HOTLINE 

To expedite the reporting of alleged fraud, waste, abuse or mismanagement, or any 

other kinds of criminal or noncriminal misconduct relative to Department of Homeland 

Security (DHS) programs and operations, please visit our website at www.oig.dhs.gov 

and click on the red tab titled "Hotline" to report. You will be directed to complete and 

submit an automated DHS OIG Investigative Referral Submission Form. Submission 

through our website ensures that your complaint will be promptly received and 

reviewed by DHS OIG. 

Should you be unable to access our website, you may submit your complaint in writing 

to: DHS Office of Inspector General, Attention: Office of Investigations Hotline, 245 

Murray Drive, SW, Building 410/Mail Stop 2600, Washington, DC, 20528; or you may 

call 1 (800) 323-8603; or fax it directly to us at (202) 254-4297. 

The OIG seeks to protect the identity of each writer and caller.