Department of Homeland Security
 

FEMA Should Recover $48 Million of Public Assistance 

Grant Funds Awarded to Erie County, New York – 

Severe Weather October 2006 

OIG-13-23 (Revised) March 2013
 
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Dcpal1mcm orHomehmd Security 

March 29, 2013

MEMORANDUM FOR: MaryAnn Tierney 

Acting Regiona l Administrator, Region II 

Federal Emer~nCYja7gem t Agency 

FROM: O. MIChael8e~r ~ / _ 

As~ Sl ant s~QUienefli l V"C... __ -

Office of Emergency Milnag~ment Oversight 

SUBJECT: FEMA ShouJd ~over $48 Million uf Public Assisforn:e GraM 

Funds Awarded to Erie County, New Vork - Severe WNther 

Ot;tobtf 2006 

FEMA Disaster Numbe r 1665-0R-NY 

Aud it Re port Numbe r OIG-B-B (Revised) 

AttachE!d for your info rmation is our revi!il!d report, FEMA Should Recover $48 Million of 

Public Asslstonce Grant Fund5 Aworded to fr/e County, New York - Severe Weather October 

2006. Wt rels.sued the report to re5Pond to II Congr~ssional ret;uest that we clarify Erie 

County's selection of a local contractOI that was not made within the ret;uired onle~t of 

open competition regulations. h~ revlslOll did not change the subst.1nc~ of the nnding or 

the recommendation. 

We audlltd Public A»istance funds awarded to Erie Co unty (County), In New York {public 

Assistance Identification Numbe r 029-99029-(0). Our audit objective was to determine 

whether the County aceourlled for and upend~d Federal Eme rgency Managemerlt AllerlCY 

(Fe MA) gra rlt fUrlds ordin ll to Federal regulations and FEMA Il uid eli nes. 

The New Yo rk SI31e Divisio n of Homeland Se~urity and Emergency Services (HSES), a FEMA 

grantee, awarded the Co urlly $55.4 mil lion for damages au ",d by a ~evere lake effecl snow 

and ice storm thaI occurred in October 2006. The award provided 75 percent FEMA fund irlg 1 for 30 large and 10 small pmjem. Our audit covered the period October 12, 2006, through 

August 11, 2012, ~nd included a reI/lew of 18 large projects totaling $53 million, or 96 

percent of the total award {5ee b hibll fl., Schedule of PmjectsAuditedl 

We conducted hi ~ performance audit betweerl February and August 2012 pursuarlt to the 

in5pector General Act of 1978, as amended, and according to gerle rally accepted govemment 

'Fl!(jeral ,eRulllion. in ~fe<t.t tho tim. 01 the diSOlIII!1S!1 thf I. ' HO Pfojc<l th ~,hold it $59.700. 
 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

 Department of Homeland Security 

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 objective. We believe that the evidence obtained provides 

a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based upon our audit objective. We 

conducted this audit according to the statutes, regulations, and FEMA policies and guidelines 

in effect at the time of the disaster. 

We interviewed FEMA, HSES, and County officials; reviewed judgmentally selected project 

costs (generally based on dollar value); and performed other procedures considered 

necessary to accomplish our objective. Accomplishing our audit objective did not include 

assessing the adequacy of the County’s internal controls applicable to grant activities. We 

did, however, gain an understanding of the County’s method of accounting for disasterrelated costs and its procurement policies and procedures. 

BACKGROUND 

On October 12–13, 2006, the County experienced a severe lake effect snow and ice storm. 

The storm was dubbed the “October Storm” and officially referred to by the National 

Weather Service as “Lake Storm Aphid.” The October Storm dropped up to 2 feet of snow in 

less than 12 hours, causing tree limbs possessing significant foliage to snap, taking down 

power lines, and causing considerable damage throughout northern Erie County. The State 

of New York declared a state of emergency for the counties affected by the storm and 

requested FEMA aid. On October 24, 2006, President George W. Bush declared a major 

disaster for Erie and the surrounding counties. The original disaster declaration limited the 

period to 6 months for the County to incur reimbursable debris removal and cleanup costs. 

The County, unable to complete the needed work, requested numerous time extensions. 

The time extensions eventually expired on October 24, 2008, more than 2 years after the 

original disaster. 

RESULTS OF AUDIT 

Although the County accounted for FEMA grant funds on a project-by-project basis as 

required by Federal regulations, it did not comply with Federal grant regulations and FEMA 

guidelines when awarding contracts totaling $39.4 million of the $53 million we reviewed. In 

addition, FEMA reimbursed the County $9 million for inadequately supported costs. Finally, 

the County improperly charged $33,066 of administrative costs as direct costs, and included 

$10,456 of duplicate costs within the claimed Emergency Operations Center (EOC) supply 

costs. As a result, we question $48,465,416 of ineligible and unsupported costs claimed by 

the County. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 2 OIG-13-23 
 

 

 

 

 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

 Department of Homeland Security 

Finding A: Contracting Practices Did Not Comply with Federal Procurement Regulations 

The County awarded $39,391,260 in contracts in a manner that limited competition and 

disregarded Federal contracting regulations. The County Executive directed the purchasing 

department to award contracts giving preference to local contractors, but did not ensure the 

process followed open competition and documentation requirements. The work contracted 

for included vegetative debris removal and disposition, storm-damaged tree removal, and 

the monitoring of these activities. As a result, we question these costs as detailed in table 1. 

Table 1: Projects and Their Contracted Amounts 

Project 

Amount 

Contracted 

Amount Not 

Questioned*

Amount 

Questioned 

6 $ 769,196 $ 769,196 

208 812,306 812,306 

241 809,854 809,854 

242 1,667,633 1,667,633 

243 9,221,951 9,221,951 

244 1,031,546 1,031,546 

330 6,121,895 6,121,895 

342 2,244,165 2,244,165 

344 7,740,314 7,740,314 

485 202,689 $ 138,676 64,013

609 4,125,064 197,910 3,927,154

615 4,505,539 4,505,539 

645 475,694 475,694 

$ 39,727,846 $ 336,586 $ 39,391,260

*Amount Not Questioned column includes costs incurred from October 18, 2006, through

 October 21, 2006, using contracts the County had in place at the time of the disaster. 

Federal procurement standards, 44 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 13.36, require grant 

recipients to: 

•	 Perform procurement transactions in a manner providing full and open competition 

except under certain circumstances. (13.36(c)) 

•	 Prepare a cost or price analysis in connection with every procurement action, 

including contract modifications. (13.36(f)(1)) 

•	 Take all necessary affirmative steps to assure that small businesses, minority firms, 

women’s business enterprises, and labor surplus area firms were used when possible. 

(13.36(e)) 

•	 Not place arbitrary actions in the procurement process. (13.36(c)(1)(vii)) 

www.oig.dhs.gov 3	 OIG-13-23 
 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

 Department of Homeland Security 

•	 Maintain records sufficient to detail the significant history of the procurement, 

including the rationale for the method of procurement, the basis for contractor 

selection, and basis for the contract price. (13.36(b)(9)) 

Full and Open Competition

The County’s bid evaluation process did not comply with Federal procurement regulations. 

The County created a variety of unacceptable sole source and average bid methods for 

pricing the contracts. For example, a senior County official said that for several of the 

awards, the County computed an average or mean of the bids and awarded unit price 

contracts for similar services, using the same rate for all the awards. Ultimately, not all of 

the original bidders accepted the contract terms using this pricing method. The bidders on 

the low end of this scale of bids received a windfall profit, whereas some of those at the 

higher end of the scale chose not to accept the lower price, yet their bids still stayed in the 

pool to calculate the mean price. The logic behind this method increased the cost that was 

passed on to the Federal Government. 

Cost or Price Analysis

The County provided no written evidence that it performed required cost or price analyses 

demonstrating the reasonableness of the contract pricing, as required by 44 CFR 13.36(b)(9) 

and 44 CFR 13.36(f)(1). The County provided only verbal statements of its use of an average 

rate methodology. We confirmed the County’s statements regarding the computation of an

average rate; and we could, within reason, mathematically achieve the same average rates. 

The County performs similar tasks (vegetation cleanup, trimming, removing hanging limbs, 

etc.) with its own workforce and equipment on a normal basis and should have cost records 

readily available. However, the County did not document a comparison of any of these 

proposed rates to its own costs. No basis for reasonableness as determined by the County 

exists. Therefore, we conclude that the County did not perform a cost or price analysis. 

Affirmative Steps for Minority Firms, Women’s Business Enterprises, and Labor Surplus Area 

Firms

The County failed to demonstrate the implementation of required affirmative steps to assure 

minority firms, women’s business enterprises, and labor surplus area firms were used when 

possible, as required by 44 CFR 13.36(e). The requirement for prime contractors to take 

affirmative steps to use minority firms, women’s business enterprises, and labor surplus area 

firms was particularly important in the County because of the shortage of qualified 

contractors in the area. In many cases, winning local contractors ultimately subcontracted 

the work to non-local subcontractors. The County could not provide us with evidence 

showing the non-local subcontractors used local labor, minority firms, women’s business 

www.oig.dhs.gov 4	 OIG-13-23 
 

 

 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

 Department of Homeland Security 

enterprises, or labor surplus area firms2

. Having a local company subcontract to a non-local 

contractor does not achieve the intent of the legislation to put local people to work and keep 

the dollars within the community. 

No Arbitrary Actions

The County is prohibited from placing arbitrary actions in the procurement process, as per 44 

CFR 13.36(c)(1)(vii). FEMA provided the County copies of the regulations, supporting 

materials, and direct access to FEMA and HSES personnel during the initial stages of the 

disaster recovery. Materials provided clearly explain the procurement process required for 

Federal grant recipients. The County did not provide any written policies or procedures 

memorializing the preference in selecting local contractors while keeping the open 

competition principles set forth in the CFR or FEMA policies. 

History and Rationale for Procurement Decisions

County officials said they spoke with FEMA to get acceptance prior to implementing the local 

contracting decision. During the course of our audit, the County could not substantiate the 

claim or provide the names of the FEMA officials who said that the County could disregard 

the Code of Federal Regulations in awarding contracts. However, we did find a news 

interview at the time of the disaster in which a FEMA spokeswoman would not say whether 

the County’s decision to award contracts only to local vendors posed a problem. She did say 

that the County needed to solicit bids, evaluate offers, and award contracts in compliance 

with all of the applicable regulations. We could not verify many of the County 

representations, nor ensure that proper measures were taken due to a lack of records. 

Conclusion

We conclude that the County did not conduct the procurement transactions in a manner 

providing full and open competition. As the County’s contracting practices did not comply 

with Federal rules and regulations, we question $39,391,260 as ineligible contract costs. 

County Response. County officials disagree with this finding. The current Director of 

Purchasing said that the County followed its own contracting procedures during the disaster. 

She also said that whenever County contracting procedures appeared to violate a Federal 

rule or regulation, the County obtained and followed guidance provided by a FEMA 

representative. For the contracts in question, she said she received verbal approval from 

FEMA for the County’s actions. However, she could not get the FEMA representatives to 

commit their approval to writing. In addition, she said she lost the notes and records of the 

discussions she had with FEMA concerning this issue. The Director of Purchasing also said 

2

 At the time of the disaster and storm clean up, the City of Buffalo, in Erie County, was a labor surplus area as 

defined by the U.S. Department of Labor. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 5 OIG-13-23 
 

 

 

 

 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

 Department of Homeland Security 

that restricting contracting to local firms did not cause FEMA to incur additional costs. She 

said the County solicited bids before awarding the contracts and in some cases, it averaged 

the bids and offered the average rate to any contractor who could accept the contract. For 

example, for debris removal, the County offered a rate of $11.25 per cubic yard of debris to 

all prospective contractors. The County said that the use of an average unit rate for similar 

services and multiple contractors mitigates any harm to FEMA for noncompetitive

contracting and is a fair method of dealing with multiple contractors for the same service.

OIG Response. The County violated Federal contracting rules and regulations. A FEMA 

representative cannot nullify Federal rules and regulations verbally or in writing. The County 

provided no documentation of meetings with FEMA representatives. In addition, we found 

no evidence that the use of a set rate per unit of service mitigates the impact of 

noncompetitive contracting. 

Finding B: Unsupported Claimed Costs 

The County claimed unsupported costs of $9,030,634 under projects 600, 614, 628, and 675. 

Table 2: Unsupported Costs by Project 

Amount 

Project Questioned 

600 $5,447,640

614 1,388,830

628 2,190,301

675 3,863

$9,030,634

Federal regulation 2 CFR 225, Cost Principles for State, Local, and Indian Tribal Governments, 

Appendix A, C.1.j., states that a cost must be adequately documented to be allowable under 

Federal awards. Federal regulation 44 CFR 13.20(b)(6) further states that accounting records 

must be supported by such source documentation as canceled checks, paid bills, payrolls, 

time and attendance records, contract and subgrantee award documents, and so on. In 

addition, 44 CFR 206.223(a)(1) states that an item of work must be required as a result of a 

major disaster event to be eligible for financial assistance. The County did not provide 

adequate documentation to show that the amounts charged to projects 600, 614, 628, and 

675 contain expenditures allowable under the PA program. Further, the County could not 

produce a cost summary or reconciliation that could support the amounts questioned. The 

project worksheets simply described these costs as estimates. In addition, the interim 

summaries provided by the County showed these costs as estimates, and the projects as not 

completed. The County never performed a final reconciliation. Finding E: Accounting and 

Grant Management, discusses this issue further. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 6 OIG-13-23 
 

 

 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

 Department of Homeland Security 

County Response. The County disagreed with this finding. The County stated that the 

records for projects 600, 614, 628, and 675 were lost. 

OIG Response. Because Federal cost principles state that a cost must be adequately

documented to be allowable under Federal awards, the County will have to provide invoices 

and canceled checks to document that it incurred and paid the costs it claimed. If the 

County can produce records documenting the amounts in question, the costs could be 

allowable. 

Finding C: Administrative Costs Charged Direct 

The County claimed ineligible administrative costs of $33,066 under project 675. These 

expenditures apply to activities not specifically accountable to a work project. 

Per FEMA 322, Public Assistance Guide, October 1999, the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief 

and Emergency Assistance Act, Public Law 93-288, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 5121, et. seq., 

stipulates that each grant recipient be provided an administrative allowance to meet the 

cost of administering the grant. The administrative allowance for subgrantees covers direct 

and indirect costs incurred in requesting, obtaining, and administering public assistance. 

FEMA denied the County’s initial claim of $45,000 for project 675 consultant fees. The 

County appealed the denial and FEMA subsequently authorized the $45,000 claim provided 

the County demonstrates the eligibility of the expenditures. During our subsequent review 

of the invoices, we determined that a portion of the claimed costs are administrative in 

nature and therefore not eligible. 

Of the $45,000 in claimed costs, the County paid $33,066 to a consultant to review and 

research projects and other issues for the County. The consultant fee is supposed to be part 

of the administrative allowance. We determined the remaining $11,934 as eligible costs. 

County Response. The County said that the letter reinstating the funding made the cost 

eligible.

OIG Response. The County misunderstood FEMA’s response to the appeal. FEMA authorized 

the payment of the non administrative portion of the $45,000 claim. The claim contained 

$33,066 of administrative expenses. 

Finding D: Duplicate Costs Included in the EOC Supplies Costs 

The County claimed duplicate costs of $10,456 under project 675 as part of an equipment 

usage claim.

www.oig.dhs.gov 7 OIG-13-23 
 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

 Department of Homeland Security 

The County claimed equipment usage using FEMA’s equipment rates. The County also 

claimed the repair and maintenance costs for that same equipment. Federal regulation 44 

CFR 206.228(a)(1)(iii) states that when there are no established rates, reimbursement for 

ownership and operation costs of applicant-owned equipment will be done through FEMA 

equipment rates. In addition, FEMA Public Assistance Guide, FEMA 322, restates the above 

and adds that the work performed with the equipment must be eligible work. Equipment 

usage rates are based on either a mileage or hourly rate, which includes costs of fuel, 

insurance, depreciation, and maintenance. Given that FEMA’s equipment rates are 

developed to include maintenance and general supplies, by claiming both the rate and 

expense, the County is being reimbursed twice.

We question $10,456 as follows:

•	 Vehicle and Small Motor Repairs and Maintenance. The County claimed $8,470 for 

repairs on two pickup trucks, gasoline, oil, fuel stabilizer, repairs on a small motor, 

and two new tires. 

•	 Aviation Repairs. The County claimed $1,986 for repairs to a small airplane used to 

survey the disaster recovery efforts. 

By claiming the costs of equipment repair as well as the equipment usage rate, the County 

received duplicate reimbursement. We determined that the County submitted the duplicate 

charges because it apparently misunderstood FEMA disaster recovery regulations. 

County Response. The County did not respond to this finding. 

Finding E: Accounting and Grant Management 

The County and HSES did not exercise due prudence over FEMA’s $55.4 million disaster 

assistance grant. The County’s internal report on recordkeeping, overtime, and financial 

issues made these same observations. While the County is ultimately responsible for its 

recordkeeping and the costs incurred; HSES did not provide adequate day-to-day 

management or monitor subgrant activity. 

The County’s 2006 A-133 Audit and the County’s Comptroller September 2010 “Review of 

the Erie County Storm Fund” identified recordkeeping errors with the accounting of 

reimbursements from FEMA. The 2006 A-133 Audit reported that the County did not follow

generally accepted accounting principles, which resulted in an approximately $5,000,000 

timing error. The County’s 2010 Comptroller report disclosed that the County’s 

reimbursements from FEMA and HSES exceeded the County’s incurred costs by $1.4 million. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 8	 OIG-13-23 
 

 

 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

 Department of Homeland Security 

We could not reconcile all claimed project costs with the actual costs incurred. We did not 

report this as a separate finding within this report but included it as questioned costs, 

reported under other FEMA and Federal criteria. To resolve this issue, we interviewed the 

then Deputy Commissioner of Emergency Services, responsible for maintaining the disaster 

accounting records. He did not adequately explain why his recordkeeping of the costs 

stopped before project finalization. Instead, what he provided showed that the County 

submitted estimated costs to HSES for reimbursement. Thus, we concluded that the County 

did not complete all cost reconciliations for all of the final individual projects. 

The County’s post-disaster change in its overtime policy resulted in the County improperly 

billing FEMA $3.6 million. FEMA will reimburse overtime costs of regular employees in 

accordance with the County’s pre-disaster personnel policy. Per FEMA 322 Public Assistance 

Guide, normal procedures must not be altered because of the potential for reimbursement 

from Federal funds. The County legislature passed a special ordinance, early in the disaster 

recovery, to allow overtime payment to certain employees previously barred from this 

benefit. The County’s Comptroller took exception to the legislative change. Two reports the 

County Comptroller’s office issued, “Review of the Erie County Storm Fund” and “Erie County 

Department of Personnel Audit of Payroll Transactions for the Period January 1, 2007 – 

December 31, 2008,” expressed concern over the County’s payroll recordkeeping and this 

policy change. However, in support of the overtime policy change, administration officials 

said that the County needed to set a precedent on the payment of overtime in disaster 

situations. They said that a failure to do so would place future overtime reimbursements in 

jeopardy. In addition, they said that since FEMA will reimburse overtime for regular 

employees, the County would be foolish not to pay it.3

 Due to the County’s inability to 

provide adequate support, finding B captures this labor practice within the total questioned 

amount. 

HSES should have better managed its grant responsibilities and should have been aware of 

the County’s need for additional support. Federal regulation 44 CFR 13.37(a)(2) requires the 

grantee to ensure that subgrantees know of the requirements imposed on them by Federal 

regulations. Further, 44 CFR 13.40(a) requires the grantee to manage the day-to-day 

operations of subgrant activity and monitor subgrant activity to assure compliance with 

applicable Federal requirements. In July 2005, the New York State Legislature and Governor 

created the Erie County Fiscal Stability Authority (ECFSA) to monitor the County’s finances, 

stating, “a condition of fiscal stress exists.” On November 3, 2006, ECFSA declared a “control 

period,” which remains in effect to date, allowing it to establish wage and/or hiring freezes 

and set maximum levels of County spending. Further, the FEMA-State Agreement for this 

disaster requires HSES to comply with the requirements of laws and regulations contained in 

3

 It should be noted that the Deputy Commissioner earned the second highest overtime amount in this disaster. 

He retired promptly after the final FEMA reimbursement. The Comptroller noted in his report that the massive 

amount of overtime earned would increase one’s retirement funds, should one retire soon after the earning.

Seven out of the ten highest overtime earners retired shortly after the disaster period.

www.oig.dhs.gov 9 OIG-13-23 
 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

 Department of Homeland Security 

the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act and its related Federal 

regulations. 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

We recommend that the Acting Regional Administrator, FEMA Region II: 

Recommendation #1: Disallow $39,391,260 (Federal share $29,543,445) of improperly 

procured contract costs as ineligible, unless FEMA grants an exemption for all or part of the 

costs as provided for in 44 CFR 13.43(a) and section 705(c) of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster 

Relief and Emergency Assistance Act as amended. (finding A) 

Recommendation #2: Disallow $9,030,634 (Federal share $6,772,976) in unsupported costs 

unless the County provides adequate documentation to support these costs. (finding B) 

Recommendation #3: Disallow $33,066 (Federal share $24,800) as indirect administrative

costs. (finding C) 

Recommendation #4: Disallow $10,456 as duplicate expenditures. (finding D)

Recommendation #5: Develop and enforce policies and procedures to ensure that grantees 

and subgrantees in the State of New York follow proper Federal procurement procedures 

when expending public assistance grant funds. (finding E) 

Recommendation #6: Develop and enforce policies and procedures to ensure that grantees 

and subgrantees in the State of New York follow proper accounting practices and procedures 

when accounting for public assistance grant funds. (finding E) 

DISCUSSION WITH MANAGEMENT AND AUDIT FOLLOWUP 

We discussed the results of our audit with County officials and included their comments in 

this report, as appropriate. We held an exit conference with the County on August 17, 2012. 

The County generally did not agree with our findings. 

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 we receive and evaluate your response, the 

recommendation will be considered open and unresolved. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 10 OIG-13-23 
 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

 Department of Homeland Security 

Consistent with our responsibility under the Inspector General Act, we will provide 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. 

Major contributors to this report are Kaye McTighe, Division Director; Trudi Powell, Audit 

Manager; and Ken Valrance, Senior Auditor. 

Please call me with any questions, or your staff may contact John Kelly, Deputy Assistant 

Inspector General, Office of Emergency Management Oversight, at (202) 254-4100. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 11 OIG-13-23 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

 Department of Homeland Security 

EXHIBIT A 

Schedule of Projects Audited 

October 12, 2006, to October 24, 2008 

Erie County, New York 

FEMA Disaster Number 1665-DR-NY 

Project 

Number

Award 

Amount Finding A Finding B Finding C Finding D

Total 

Questioned

Costs 

243 $ 9,221,951 $ 9,221,951 $ 9,221,951

344 7,740,314 7,740,314 7,740,314 

600 7,103,234 $5,447,640 5,447,640 

330 6,121,895 6,121,895 6,121,895 

615 4,505,539 4,505,539 4,505,539 

609 4,125,064 3,927,154 3,927,154 

628 3,605,931 2,190,301 2,190,301 

342 2,244,165 2,244,165 2,244,165 

242 1,667,633 1,667,633 1,667,633 

614 1,388,830 1,388,830 1,388,830 

244 1,031,546 1,031,546 1,031,546 

208 812,306 812,306 812,306

241 809,854 809,854 809,854

6 769,196 769,196 769,196

649 704,098 0

675 495,070 3,863 $33,066 $10,456 47,385

645 475,694 475,694 475,694

485 202,689 64,013 64,013

Totals $53,025,009 $39,391,260 $9,030,634 $33,066 $10,456 $48,465,416

www.oig.dhs.gov 12 OIG-13-23 
 

 

 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

 Department of Homeland Security 

Appendix A 

Report Distribution

Department of Homeland Security

Secretary 

Chief Financial Officer 

Under Secretary for Management 

Audit Liaison, DHS 

Acting Chief Privacy Officer 

Federal Emergency Management Agency

Administrator 

Chief of Staff 

Chief Financial Officer 

Chief Counsel

Director, Risk Management and Compliance 

Audit Liaison. FEMA Region II 

Audit Liaison, FEMA (Job Code G-12-015)

Grantee

Director, New York State Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Services 

Deputy Comptroller for Local Government and School Accountability

Subgrantee

Erie County, New York

Office of Management and Budget 

Chief, Homeland Security Branch 

DHS OIG Budget Examiner 

Congress 

Senate Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Homeland Security 

Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Homeland Security 

House Committee on Homeland Security 

House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

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

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.