U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

The EPA Needs to Improve 

Timeliness and Documentation 

of Workforce and Workload 

Management Corrective Actions 

Report No. 13-P-0366 August 30, 2013 

Scan this mobile 

code to learn more 

about the EPA OIG. 
 

Report Contributors: Patrick Gilbride

 Randy Holthaus 

 Lawrence Gunn 

 Kevin Lawrence 

Abbreviations 

AFC Audit Follow-Up Coordinator 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

FY Fiscal Year 

MATS Management Audit Tracking System 

OAM Office of Acquisition Management 

OARM Office of Administration and Resources Management 

OCFO Office of the Chief Financial Officer 

OIG Office of Inspector General 

RMD Resource Management Directive 

Hotline 

To report fraud, waste, or abuse, contact us through one of the following methods: 

email: OIG_Hotline@epa.gov write: EPA Inspector General Hotline 

phone: 

fax: 

1-888-546-8740 

202-566-2599 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Mailcode 2431T 

online: http://www.epa.gov/oig/hotline.htm Washington, DC 20460 
 

 

 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 13-P-0366 

August 30, 2013 Office of Inspector General 

At a Glance
 

Why We Did This Review 

Within the past 3 years, the 

U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency’s Office of Inspector 

General issued three audit 

reports containing 

recommendations designed to 

improve the agency’s workforce 

and workload management. 

We conducted this audit to 

determine whether the EPA 

effectively implemented 

corrective actions for issues 

identified in OIG reports relating 

to the agency’s 

workforce and workload. 

Deficiencies in workforce and 

workload management have 

been a longstanding issue at the 

EPA. Recent budget cuts due to 

sequestration have highlighted 

the need to improve workforce 

and workload management. 

This report addresses the 

following EPA Goal or 

Cross-Cutting Strategy: 

 Strengthening EPA’s 

workforce and capabilities. 

For further information, contact 

our Office of Congressional and 

Public Affairs at (202) 566-2391. 

The full report is at: 

www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2013/ 

20130830-13-P-0366.pdf 

The EPA Needs to Improve Timeliness and 

Documentation of Workforce and Workload 

Management Corrective Actions 

What We Found 

The EPA did not complete the majority of the corrective actions relating to 

workload and workforce management within planned timeframes. Further, some 

corrective actions were delayed by more than 6 months and the EPA did not 

notify the OIG of those delays, as required by EPA Manual 2750. The Office of 

Management and Budget Circular A-50 requires agencies to establish systems to 

assure the timely implementation of corrective actions. Complex corrective action 

plans and implementing new workload and workforce management initiatives 

contributed to delays in completing the corrective actions. Program staff and 

managers from the Office of Administration and Resources Management and the 

Office of the Chief Financial Officer informed us they were not aware of the 

Manual 2750 requirement to notify the OIG if actions are delayed 6 months or 

more. Delaying corrective actions relating to workforce and workload 

management resulted in unfinished improvements to the EPA’s management of 

its limited resources. 

We also found that the EPA did not update the status for several of the corrective 

actions we reviewed. EPA Manual 2750 requires audit follow-up coordinators to 

manage audit data in the agency’s Management Audit Tracking System. This 

includes entering and updating corrective actions and their associated due dates 

for each corrective action. However, the AFCs and other program staff did not 

believe it was necessary to update the status for completed actions since the 

completion date had been added in a separate field. There were some instances 

where the AFC could not update the status field because program staff had not 

provided certification that it was complete or had not provided a new planned 

date. If the EPA does not update MATS with current information, the OIG and 

other stakeholders do not have accurate information available regarding the 

status of corrective actions. 

 Recommendations and Planned Corrective Actions 

We recommend that the chief financial officer: (1) send notifications to all the 

EPA’s action officials informing them that when corrective action dates will be 

extended by more than 6 months they must provide the OIG with written 

notification that includes the new milestone dates, and (2) ensure that training 

provided to staff on EPA Manual 2750 emphasizes that AFCs should update all 

fields in MATS and that program staff should provide timely information to AFCs. 

EPA agreed with both recommendations and proposed corrective actions that we 

believe will address our findings. 
 

 

SUBJECT: The EPA Needs to Improve Timeliness and Documentation of Workforce and 

Workload Management Corrective Actions 

Report No. 13-P-0366 

FROM: Arthur A. Elkins Jr. 

Maryann Froehlich, Acting Chief Financial Officer 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

THE INSPECTOR GENERAL 

August 30, 2013 

MEMORANDUM 

TO: 

This is our report on the subject audit conducted by the Office of Inspector General of the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. This report contains findings that describe the problems the 

OIG has identified and corrective actions the OIG recommends. This report represents the opinion of 

the OIG and does not necessarily represent the final EPA position. 

Action Required 

The agency concurred with both of our recommendations. We accept EPA’s response and planned 

corrective actions and no further response is needed. We will post this report to our website at 

http://www.epa.gov/oig. 

If you or your staff have any questions regarding this report, please contact Richard Eyermann, acting 

assistant inspector general for the Office of Audit, at (202) 566-0565 or Eyermann.Richard@epa.gov; 

or Patrick Gilbride, product line director, at (303) 312-6969 or Gilbride.Patrick@epa.gov. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The EPA Needs to Improve Timeliness and Documentation of 13-P-0366 

Workforce and Workload Management Corrective Actions 

Table of Contents 

Chapters 

1 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 1 

Purpose .......................................................................................................... 1 

Background .................................................................................................... 1 

 Scope and Methodology ................................................................................. 2 

2 The EPA Did Not Complete Some Corrective Actions in a Timely Manner ....... 4
 

Corrective Actions Should Be Taken Promptly ................................................ 4 

The EPA Did Not Complete Some Corrective Actions Timely ......................... 4 

The EPA Did Not Notify the OIG on Two Audits When Corrective 

 Actions Would Be Completed Beyond 6 Months of Planned Dates ...... 5 

Improving Workload and Workforce Management Is Important ....................... 6 

Conclusions...................................................................................................... 7 

Recommendation ............................................................................................. 7 

Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation ........................................................... 7 

3 The EPA Did Not Always Record Corrective Actions Correctly in MATS .......... 8 

The EPA Did Not Always Document the Correct Status for 

 Corrective Actions .................................................................................. 8 

The EPA Needs to Ensure Audit Follow-Up Status Is Accurately Updated ...... 9 

Conclusions...................................................................................................... 9 

Recommendation ............................................................................................. 10 

Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation ........................................................... 10 

Status of Recommendations and Potential Monetary Benefits................................... 11 

Appendices 

A Summary of Three OIG Reports on Workload and Workforce 

Management ............................................................................................................ 12 

B Agency Response ................................................................................................... 15 

C Distribution .............................................................................................................. 18 
 

 

 

Chapter 1

Introduction 

Purpose 

From 1999 through 2010 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s authorized 

full-time positions decreased from 18,366 to 17,417. Given the long-term federal 

budget crisis, along with the more recent sequestration budget cuts, this trend is 

likely to continue. Due to an inability to hire additional staff, it is crucial that the 

EPA make meaningful improvements to its workload management. 

Within the past 3 years, the Office of Inspector General issued three audit reports 

containing recommendations designed to improve the agency’s workforce and 

workload management. The purpose of this follow-up audit was to determine 

whether the EPA effectively implemented corrective actions for issues identified 

in OIG reports relating to the agency’s workforce and workload. 

Background 

Deficiencies in workforce and workload management have been a longstanding 

issue at the EPA and remain an important area for the agency to address. In 2002, 

the EPA acknowledged human capital as an agency internal control weakness. In 

2008, the EPA removed human capital from the list of agency weaknesses and 

added the more specific topic of workforce planning as an office-level weakness 

for the Office of the Chief Financial Officer. However, our 2012 report to the 

agency on its key management challenges and internal control weaknesses noted 

that the EPA still has not developed analytical methods, nor does it collect data 

needed, to measure its workload and the corresponding workforce levels 

necessary to carry out that workload. Therefore, we elevated workforce planning 

to an agency management challenge in July 2012. 

EPA Manual 2750, Audit Management Procedures, is the EPA’s key framework 

for audit resolution. This manual assigns responsibilities and establishes agency 

policies and procedures for audit management and follow-up. It specifies the chief 

financial officer as the designated agency audit follow-up official. In compliance 

with the Office of Management and Budget Circular A-50, Audit Followup, the 

agency audit follow-up official is responsible for agencywide audit resolution and 

ensuring that action officials implement corrective actions. The agency audit 

follow-up coordinator is in the OCFO and supports the agency audit follow-up 

official. The agency AFC is responsible for maintaining and operating the 

agency’s audit tracking system for OIG audits, coordinating with other office 

audit follow-up coordinators across the agency and training them on audit followup procedures. Office AFCs are responsible for helping office staff understand the 

13-P-0366 1 
 

 

audit tracking system and managing OIG audit data in the agency’s audit tracking 

system, including: 

	 Entering corrective actions and associated due dates per the corrective 

action plan. 

	 Tracking the implementation of corrective actions and ensuring that 

extensions to due dates are obtained from the action official as 

appropriate. 

	 Ensuring that the action official notifies the OIG in writing, with a copy to 

the agency management official and any office AFC(s) involved, if 

completion of any corrective action will be extended by more than 

6 months past the date agreed to by the agency and the OIG. 

	 Entering past due comments into the agency’s audit tracking system as 

needed prior to March 31 and September 30 for semiannual reporting. 

	 Entering the final action date into the agency’s audit tracking system once 

a certification memo has been received, as well as the date of the 

certification memo and the name and title of the signer. 

The EPA uses its Management Audit Tracking System to track and document 

audit resolution. OCFO is the primary office within the EPA responsible for 

administering MATS. According to OCFO’s quality assurance plan, Ensuring the 

Quality of Data in MATS, “OCFO administers MATS and uses it to track 

information agency-wide on audit corrective actions, including financial 

information and reasons for missed deadlines.” Regarding the role of office 

AFCs, the quality assurance plan states, “Designated Audit Follow-up 

Coordinators in program and regional offices then use MATS to track such key 

dates as the 180-day milestone for agreeing on corrective actions in response to 

OIG final report recommendations and the 365-day milestone for implementing 

corrective actions. Office AFCs are responsible for entering accurate, complete, 

and verifiable information into MATS.” 

Scope and Methodology 

We conducted our audit from November 2012 to June 2013 in accordance with 

generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that 

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

findings and conclusions based on our evaluation objectives. We believe that the 

evidence we obtained during this audit provides a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions. 

We interviewed staff and managers from the OCFO’s Office of Budget; and the 

Office of Administration and Resources Management’s Office of Human 

13-P-0366 2 
 

 

 

Resources, Office of Grants and Debarment, Office of Acquisition Management, 

and Office of Policy and Resources Management. 

We reviewed the following OIG reports associated with the EPA’s workforce and 

workload management issued from October 2010 to September 2011: 

	 EPA’s Contracts and Grants Workforce May Face Future Workload 

Issues, Report No. 11-R-0005, October 25, 2010. 

	 EPA Needs to Strengthen Internal Controls for Determining Workforce 

Levels, Report No. 11-P-0031, December 20, 2010. 

	 EPA Needs Workload Data to Better Justify Future Workforce Levels, 

Report No. 11-P-0630, September 14, 2011. 

Each report contained recommendations to address the EPA’s workforce and/or 

workload management. We obtained and reviewed the EPA’s corrective action 

plans associated with each of the subject audit reports. We also reviewed MATS 

reports associated with the corrective actions for each of the audit reports. 

We obtained the MATS reports in October 2012 just prior to starting the audit. 

A description of the recommendations and corrective actions associated with these 

reports is in appendix A. 

In addition to the subject reports and corresponding corrective action plans, we 

reviewed EPA Manual 2750, Audit Management Procedures; OMB Circular 

A-50, Audit Followup; and other background and criteria relevant to the audit, 

including: 

 MATS User Manual. 

 MATS Quality Assurance Plan.
 

 OARM’s Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity Act Assurance Letter. 

 OCFO’s Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity Act Assurance Letter. 

 OIG’s 2012 Management Challenges Letter to EPA. 

13-P-0366 3 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 2

The EPA Did Not Complete Some Corrective Actions 

in a Timely Manner
 

The EPA did not complete the majority of its corrective actions relating to 

workload and workforce management in a timely manner. Further, for two audits 

we reviewed containing recommendations for OCFO, they did not notify the OIG 

when corrective actions were delayed more than six months. OMB Circular A-50 

requires agencies to establish systems to assure the timely implementation of 

corrective actions that address audit recommendations. EPA Manual 2750 

requires the EPA to notify the OIG in writing when a corrective action will be 

delayed by more than 6 months. For these audits, the EPA’s staff did not notify 

the OIG when corrective actions were significantly delayed because they were not 

aware of that requirement. Improving workforce and workload management is 

important. Considering the present economic and budgetary climate and the 

increased need for the federal government to work with the utmost efficiency, it is 

important that the EPA continue to work on improving its workload and 

workforce management processes. 

Corrective Actions Should Be Taken Promptly 

OMB Circular A-50 provides the policies and procedures agencies are required to 

use when responding to reports issued by inspectors general. The circular states, 

“Audit [follow-up] is an integral part of good management, and is a shared 

responsibility of agency management officials and auditors. Corrective action 

taken by management on resolved findings and recommendations is essential to 

improving the effectiveness and efficiency of Government operations. Each 

agency shall establish systems to assure the prompt and proper resolution and 

implementation of audit recommendations.” 

EPA Manual 2750, revised on September 28, 2012, also contains requirements 

relating to the timeliness of corrective actions. The manual requires the EPA to 

notify the appropriate assistant inspector general in writing if corrective action 

dates will be missed by more than 6 months. The action official must also 

document the reason(s) and revised dates in MATS. 

The EPA Did Not Complete Some Corrective Actions Timely 

The EPA completed the two corrective actions associated with OIG report 

11-R-0005, EPA’s Contracts and Grants Workforce May Face Future Workload 

Issues, within the originally planned timeframes. However, the EPA extended the 

dates for completing 10 of the 17 corrective actions associated with the other two 

reports (see appendix A). For example, in OIG report 11-P-0630, we 

recommended that OCFO conduct a pilot project requiring the EPA’s 

13-P-0366 4 
 

 

organizations to collect and analyze workload data on key project activities. We 

also recommended that OCFO use information learned from the pilot and the 

ongoing contracted workload study to issue guidance to the EPA’s program 

offices on workload analysis. The EPA agreed to address these recommendations 

by the end of fiscal year 2012. However, the EPA has not completed these 

corrective actions and does not plan to do so until the end of FY 2013. 

Some actions were delayed because of the complexity of the actions. The AFC for 

OCFO explained that it can be very challenging to accurately input information 

into MATS when the corrective actions cited in the agency’s corrective action 

plan are complex. For example, in response to recommendations in OIG report 

11-P-0630, personnel from OCFO’s Office of Budget spent time benchmarking 

other organizations and piloting processes with the EPA’s program offices. 

During that process, the Office of Budget identified a process for collecting and 

analyzing workload data and proposed this approach to the Deputy Administrator. 

To test this approach and ensure cost effectiveness, the Deputy Administrator and 

the Office of Budget agreed it would be best to pilot this approach prior to 

implementing it nationwide. Though this was a reasonable business decision, the 

additional piloting delayed corrective actions. 

Further, the EPA has not conducted workload analysis in over 20 years. It has 

therefore been difficult for the EPA to develop accurate timeframes for 

completing corrective actions without careful planning and identifying detailed 

actions that will contribute to effectively addressing recommendations. 

Additionally, some of OARM’s corrective actions were late because OARM 

agreed to complete the actions in conjunction with updates to Resources 

Management Directives 2520, U.S. EPA’s Administrative Control of 

Appropriated Funds, which was also delayed. In OIG report 11-P-0031, 

recommendation 3-1 required OARM to amend its workforce planning guidance 

in conjunction with RMD 2520 and the annual planning and budget memoranda. 

To address this recommendation, OARM agreed to amend workforce planning 

guidance to request that program and regional offices provide relevant workforce 

information as part of the agency’s annual budget process. OFCO delayed 

completion of its RMD 2520 update until the end of FY 2013. However, rather 

than continuing to delay its corrective action, OARM completed workforce 

planning guidance documents. Therefore, in spite of delays to RMD 2520, OARM 

worked proactively and found a way to complete its corrective action. 

The EPA Did Not Notify the OIG on Two Audits When Corrective 

Actions Would Be Completed Beyond 6 Months of Planned Dates 

For two audits, OCFO did not notify the OIG when it delayed completion of some 

its corrective actions by more than 6 months. For example, in OIG report 

11-P-0031, we recommended that OCFO amend RMD 2520 and the annual 

planning and budget memoranda to require using workload analysis to help 

13-P-0366 5 
 

 

determine employment levels needed to accomplish agency goals. To address that 

recommendation, OCFO agreed to amend RMD 2520 to more fully describe 

workload planning needs. OCFO originally planned to complete that corrective 

action by the end of February, 2012. However, OCFO still has not completed the 

update to RMD 2520 and has delayed that planned completion date to the end of 

FY 2013. 

The EPA did not provide the OIG with written notification of the delay in 

providing an update to RMD 2520. OCFO did not notify the OIG that some 

actions would be more than 6 months late because staff and managers were not 

aware of that requirement. The AFC for OCFO was not certain but thought that 

notification should have been sent to the OIG prior to making changes. However, 

that did not occur for the delays in our subject reports. The deputy director of 

OCFO’s Office of Budget informed us she was not aware of any method other 

than MATS where offices communicate this information (changes to dates or 

actions) to the OIG. Even though OARM did not have any corrective actions 

more than 6 months late, some of its staff were not aware of this requirement 

either. The AFC for OARM stated she is not aware of any formal communications 

regarding corrective actions outside of what she puts into MATS. 

Improving Workload and Workforce Management Is Important 

Considering the present economic and budgetary climate and the increased need 

for the federal government to work with the utmost efficiency, it is important that 

the EPA continue to work on improving its workload and workforce management 

processes. The EPA has yet to implement any agencywide workload analysis 

guidance or methodology. Given the significance of this issue and the need for 

progress agencywide, we elevated this issue from an internal control weakness to 

an agency management challenge in our 2012 Management Challenges Letter to 

EPA. 

The corrective actions the EPA established to address the recommendations in our 

prior reports focus on important improvements needed to better manage the 

EPA’s limited resources. Extending the completion of those corrective actions has 

resulted in a delay to these improvements. Further, we were not aware of the 

delayed corrective actions because the EPA did not notify us when it extended 

milestones by more than 6 months. 

The EPA informed us that the agency has already addressed the specificity of 

corrective action plans through guidance in the updated EPA Manual 2750. 

Program staff and managers informed us that the guidance contained in the 

updated manual provides clear instructions on preparing quality corrective action 

plans. They also informed us that staff training is already underway on changes 

and additions to EPA Manual 2750. 

13-P-0366 6 
 

 

 

 

Conclusions 

Audit follow-up is a shared responsibility between the EPA and the OIG and is an 

important component of sound program management. To help us monitor 

corrective actions, it is important for the EPA to notify us of significant delays 

that will exceed 6 months. To increase the effectiveness of its corrective action 

process, EPA should ensure that the training administered on the updated EPA 

Manual 2750 includes instruction on preparing concise corrective actions and 

notifying the OIG of any significant delays in planned completion dates. 

Recommendation 

We recommend that the chief financial officer: 

1. Notify all the EPA’s action officials that when they extend planned 

completion dates for corrective actions by more than 6 months they must 

provide the OIG with written notification that includes the new milestone 

dates. 

Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation 

The EPA concurred with recommendation 1 and provided three corrective actions it 

has taken or plans to take. First, OCFO held a quarterly conference call with 

agency AFCs in June 2013 regarding the audit finding. Second, OCFO plans to 

develop and provide MATS training to AFCs by December 31, 2013. Third, OCFO 

plans to also conduct management accountability reviews to ensure audit follow-up 

documentation and data in MATS is accurate. OCFO plans to complete such 

reviews within all regional and headquarters offices by September 30, 2015. 

We concur with the EPA’s corrective actions associated with recommendation 1 

and consider the recommendation resolved with corrective action pending. 

13-P-0366 7 
 

 

 

 

Chapter 3

The EPA Did Not Always Record Corrective Actions 

Correctly in MATS
 

The EPA did not update the status in MATS for several of the corrective actions 

we reviewed. EPA Manual 2750 specifies that AFCs manage audit data in MATS, 

including entering and updating corrective actions and associated due dates for 

each corrective action. MATS status was not updated because the AFCs and other 

program staff did not believe it was necessary for completed actions since the 

completion date had been added in a separate field. There were also instances 

where the AFC could not update the status field because program staff had not 

provided certification that it was complete or a new planned completion date was 

established. If MATS is not updated with current information, the OIG and other 

stakeholders do not have assurance that progress is being made to implement 

corrective action in a timely manner. 

The EPA Did Not Always Document the Correct Status for 

Corrective Actions 

According to OCFO’s quality assurance plan, OCFO relies on program and 

regional offices to carry out corrective actions to which they have agreed in 

response to audit recommendations. The plan specifies that offices should 

document activities and report progress in MATS. OCFO administers MATS and 

uses it to track information agencywide on corrective actions. 

EPA Manual 2750 establishes policies and procedures, and assigns agency 

responsibilities for audit management and follow-up. The manual specifies that 

the agency AFC is responsible for maintaining and operating the agency’s audit 

tracking system. The agency AFC is also responsible for coordinating across the 

agency with other offices’ AFCs as necessary to track audit reports from issuance 

through completion of corrective actions. Additionally, the agency AFC also 

trains office AFCs on audit follow-up procedures so that they can educate action 

officials in their offices. Office AFCs are responsible for managing audit data in 

MATS, including entering and updating corrective actions and associated due 

dates per the corrective action plan. 

Based on MATS reports from October 2012, the status of several corrective 

actions was listed as “unspecified” for two of the three reports we reviewed: OIG 

Report 11-P-0031 and OIG Report 11-R-0005 (see appendix A). “Unspecified” is 

the default status in MATS when the AFC does not input any information into a 

status field. For example, the status of corrective actions associated with OIG 

report 11-P-0031 recommendations 4-1, 4-2, and 4-3 was listed as “Unspecified.” 

However, we know from supporting documentation provided by OARM during 

13-P-0366 8 
 

 

our review that OARM completed those corrective actions. In February 2013, we 

brought this to the attention of the AFC for OARM. Subsequently, that AFC 

updated MATS to show the current status of each of those corrective actions as 

complete. 

The EPA Needs to Ensure Audit Follow-Up Status Is 

Accurately Updated 

The status of several corrective actions was not updated for two different reasons. 

First, OARM staff informed us they did not see the importance of updating the 

status field in MATS for completed corrective actions when the completion date 

had been entered. They believed the completion date adequately signified 

completion. However, stakeholders that review MATS may not understand this. 

To avoid confusion, AFCs should update all data fields within MATS. 

A second reason the status field in MATS was not updated was because the AFC 

did not have enough information to determine the actual status. Two of OCFO’s 

corrective actions were labeled “unspecified.” Both of those corrective actions 

related to updating the OIG on the status of efforts to improve workload analysis. 

Although the AFC believed those corrective actions were complete, she could not 

label them as such because program staff had not provided her with certification 

that the corrective actions had been completed. Program staff and managers 

should ensure AFCs have all of the information they need to keep MATS accurate 

and up to date. 

Audit follow-up is essential to good management and is a shared responsibility 

between the EPA and the OIG. If MATS is not updated with current information, 

the OIG does not have an accurate picture of the status of corrective actions. 

Further, OCFO relies on data contained in MATS to prepare semiannual reports 

and to compile an end-of-year audit follow-up report. The EPA includes this report 

in its annual Performance and Accountability Report to Congress and the President. 

Thus, the quality of the EPA’s annual report to Congress depends on the accuracy 

and completeness of data that agency AFCs enter in MATS. 

As mentioned in the previous chapter, the EPA informed us that it is already 

providing training on the updated version of EPA Manual 2750. The EPA should 

ensure that training emphasizes the importance of updating the status of all 

corrective actions in MATS. 

Conclusions 

MATS is the primary way the EPA reports the status of corrective actions to the 

OIG. Although it seems clear to AFCs and others responsible for overseeing data 

in MATS that a corrective action is complete when the completion date is entered, 

it may not seem clear to otherstakeholders who review the system. An unspecified 

status gives the appearance that a corrective action may not be complete. This 

13-P-0366 9 
 

 

 

could lead to misinterpretations or incorrect conclusions about the status of 

corrective actions. To avoid this problem, AFCs need to ensure they regularly 

complete all fields in MATS with accurate and up-to-date information. 

Recommendation 

We recommend that the chief financial officer: 

2. Ensure that training provided on EPA Manual 2750 emphasizes that 

(a) AFCs should update all fields in MATS, and (b) program staff and 

managers should provide timely information to AFCs to ensure that they 

can update all fields within MATS. 

Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation 

The EPA concurred with recommendation 2 and provided two corrective actions it 

has taken or plans to take. First, OCFO held a quarterly conference call with 

agency AFCs in June 2013 to address the audit finding. Second, OCFO plans to 

develop and provide MATS training to agency AFCs by December 31, 2013. 

We concur with the EPA’s corrective actions associated with recommendation 2 

and consider the recommendation resolved with corrective action pending. 

13-P-0366 10 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Status of Recommendations and 

Potential Monetary Benefits 

POTENTIAL MONETARY 

RECOMMENDATIONS BENEFITS (in $000s) 

Rec. 

No. 

Page 

No. Subject Status1 Action Official 

Planned 

Completion 

Date 

Claimed 

Amount 

Agreed To 

Amount 

1 7 Notify all the EPA’s action officials that when they 

extend planned completion dates by more than 

6 months they must provide the OIG with written 

notification that includes the new milestone dates. 

O Chief Financial Officer 09/30/2015 

2 10 Ensure that training provided on EPA Manual 2750 

emphasizes that (a) AFCs should update all fields in 

MATS, and (b) program staff and managers should 

provide timely information to AFCs to ensure that they 

can update all fields within MATS. 

O Chief Financial Officer 12/31/2013 

O = recommendation is open with agreed-to corrective actions pending 

C = recommendation is closed with all agreed-to actions completed 

U = recommendation is unresolved with resolution efforts in progress 

13-P-0366 11 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix A 

Summary of Three OIG Reports on Workload and 

Workforce Management 

 Recommendations and corrective actions for OCFO are highlighted in blue. 

 Recommendations and corrective actions for OARM are highlighted in yellow. 

EPA Needs to Strengthen Internal Controls for Determining Workforce Levels, 

Report No. 11-P-0031, issued December 20, 2010 

Recommendations Corrective Actions 

Planned 

Dates from 

Corrective 

Action 

Report 

Planned 

Dates from 

MATS 

Completed 

Dates from 

MATS 

Status in 

MATS 

2-1. Amend the Resource Management 

Directive 2520 and the annual planning 

and budget memoranda to require using 

workload analysis to help determine 

employment levels needed to accomplish 

Agency goals. 

1-1. Amend RMD 2520 to 

more fully describe workload 

planning needs. 

2/29/2012 9/30/2012 00-00-0000 Delayed 

(over 1 

year until 

9/30/2013) 

2-2. Require the Agency to complete a 2-1. Receive Final Results of 9/30/2011 9/30/2011 9/28/2011 Complete 

workload analysis for all critical functions Workload Survey/Bench (on time) 

to coincide with developing the strategic marking Study. 

plan. 

2-2. Begin Quarterly Progress 

Updates to the OIG. 

Not in 

Corrective 

Action 

Report 

10/31/2011 00-00-0000 Unspecified 

2-3. Review Final Study 11/30/2011 11/30/2011 5/31/2012 Complete 

Results, Results from Region (6 months late) 

1 and 6 pilots, and external 

variables analysis to develop 

Workload Analyses Options. 

2-4. Circulate Draft Workload 

Analyses Options for 

Comment. 

2/29/2012 2/28/2012 5/31/2012 Complete 

(3 months late) 

2-5. Present Options and 

Recommendation to Senior 

Leadership. 

3/31/2012 3/31/2012 6/1/2012 Complete 

(2 months late) 

2-6. Option Approved by 

Senior Leadership 

(DECISION POINT). 

4/28/2012 4/28/2012 6/1/2012 Complete 

(1 month late) 

2-7. Next Steps. 6/30/2012 6/30/2012 6/30/2012 Complete 

(on time) 

2-8. Update OIG on Next Not in 9/30/2012 00-00-0000 Unspecified 

Steps and Major Milestones. Corrective 

Action 

Report 

3-1. Amend its workforce planning 3-1. Amend OARM's 2/29/2012 2/29/2012 8/30/2012 Complete 

guidance (in conjunction with Resource workforce planning guidance (on time -

Management Directive 2520 and the to request program and MATS was 

annual planning and budget memoranda) regional offices provide the incorrect. 

to require that headquarters program number of positions by This action 

offices and regions provide the number of Mission Critical Occupation was actually 

positions for the current fiscal year in each (MCO) and linkage to goals, completed 

MCO (see Appendix D), and the number where applicable, as part of 2/29/2012.) 

projected to accomplish planned Agency the Agency's annual budget 

goals. process (completion 

13-P-0366 12 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Planned 

Recommendations Corrective Actions 

Dates from 

Corrective 

Action 

Planned 

Dates from 

MATS 

Completed 

Dates from 

MATS 

Status in 

MATS 

Report 

contingent upon OCFO's 

update RMD 2520 and annual 

planning and budget 

memoranda). 

3-2. Report the MCO data gathered in 

conjunction with Resource Management 

Directive 2520 and OB’s annual planning 

and budget memoranda, within the Human 

Capital Management Report. 

3-2. Incorporate only current 

year (baseline) MCO data 

gathered as part of the 

Agency's annual budget 

process into the Human 

Capital (HC) Management 

Report. 

12/15/2011 12/15/2011 12/15/2011 Complete 

(on time) 

4-1. Upon development of the Agency’s 

Strategic Plan, require Agency program 

and regional offices to provide local-level 

workforce-planning data, including current 

year and potential shifts in the numbers of 

MCO positions needed to meet strategic 

goals. 

4-1. Revise Strategic 

Workforce Plan to improve 

the linkage with the Agency's 

Strategic Plan and describe 

how workforce planning will 

help the Agency achieve its 

strategic goals. 

2/29/2012 2/29/2012 8/28/2012 Unspecified 

(almost 6 

months late) 

4-2. Summarize the local-level workforceplanning data needed to achieve each EPA 

strategic goal. 

4-2. Summarize MCO data 

for planning purposes and 

linkage to strategic goals. 

2/29/2012 2/29/2012 8/30/2012 Unspecified 

(6 months late) 

4-3. Provide summarized local-level 

workforce-planning data, including data 

sorted by programmatic goal level, to OB. 

4-3. Update workforce 

planning guidance and/or 

Strategic Workforce Plan, and 

summarize MCO data for 

planning purposes and 

linkage to strategic goals. 

2/29/2012 2/29/2012 8/28/2012 Unspecified 

(almost 6 

months late) 

EPA Needs Workload Data to Better Justify Future Workforce Levels, 

Report No. 11-P-0630, issued September 14, 2011 

Recommendations Corrective Actions 

Planned 

Dates from 

Corrective 

Action 

Report 

Planned 

Dates from 

MATS 

Completed 

Dates from 

MATS 

Status in 

MATS 

1. We recommend that the Chief Financial 

Officer conduct a pilot project requiring 

EPA organizations to collect and analyze 

workload data on key project activities. 

1-1. Create a workload 

analysis model for air and 

water permitting programs. 

9/30/2012 5/31/2012 5/31/2012 Complete 

(on time) 

1-2. Conduct Analyses of 

Grants and Superfund Cost 

Recovery. 

9/30/2012 1/31/2013 00-00-0000 Adhering 

2. We recommend that the Chief Financial 

Officer use information learned from the 

pilot and the ongoing contracted workload 

study to issue guidance to EPA program 

offices on: 

a. How to collect and analyze workload 

data 

b. The benefits of workload analysis 

c. How this information should be used to 

prepare budget requests 

2-1. Revise RMD 2520 to 

incorporate workload 

planning guidance. 

9/30/2012 9/30/2013 00-00-0000 Adhering 

13-P-0366 13 
 

 

 

 

 

 

EPA’s Contracts and Grants Workforce May Face Future Workload Issues, 

Report No. 11-R-0005, issued: October 25, 2010 

Recommendations Corrective Actions 

Planned 

Dates from 

Corrective 

Action 

Report 

Planned 

Dates from 

MATS 

Completed 

Dates from 

MATS 

Status in 

MATS 

2-1. OARM should direct OAM and OGD 2-1. OGD will review EPA's 9/30/2011 11/30/2011 9/1/2011 Unspecified 

to establish procedures to review the performance against (1 month 

metrics for Recovery Act and non- applicable Recovery Act/non- early) 

Recovery Act contract and grant activities Recovery Act metrics for 

with senior managers for the period ending grant activity beginning with 

September 30, 2010, and quarterly the fourth quarter of FY 2010 

thereafter. For any metrics that do not and for each quarter thereafter 

meet performance goals, senior managers through the end of FY 

should examine the reasons the goals were 2011.Also, On February 1, 

not met, and where a control weakness is 2011, OGD will have a kickrevealed, develop a plan with corrective off meeting with Senior 

actions, dates, and responsible offices to Resource Officials covering 

ensure that the goals are met in the future. the fourth quarter of FY 2010 

If goals are not attained due to resource and the first quarter of FY 

limitations, OAM and OGD should work 2011. 

with OCFO to reexamine the distribution 

of Recovery Act management resources. 

3-1. We recommend that the Assistant 3-1. OAM is in the process of 9/30/2011 9/30/2011 9/1/2011 Unspecified 

Administrator for Administration and implementing a Balanced (1 month 

Resources Management, direct OAM to Scorecard Initiative including early) 

develop and implement organization-wide performance measurement 

performance measures to better manage its and performance management 

activities. programs. 

13-P-0366 14 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix B 

Agency Response 

July 29, 2013 

MEMORANDUM 

SUBJECT: EPA’s Response to the Office of Inspector General Draft Report, Project Number 

OA-FY13-0047, “EPA Needs to Improve Timeliness and Documentation of 

Workforce and Workload Management Corrective Actions,” dated June 18, 2013 

FROM: Nanci E. Gelb, Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator 

Office of Administration and Resources Management 

David A. Bloom, Acting Deputy Chief Financial Officer 

Office of the Chief Financial Officer 

TO: Richard Eyermann, Acting Assistant Inspector General 

Office of Audit 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft report, “EPA Needs to Improve 

Timeliness and Documentation of Workforce and Workload Management Corrective Actions,” 

Project Number OA-FY13-0047. We appreciate your staff’s efforts to continue to promote the 

agency’s need for timely reporting in our corrective action tracking system. Since the report 

addressed both workforce and workload challenges, we have coordinated our review of the OIG 

report and its recommendations. 

AGENCY’S OVERALL POSITION 

The EPA recognizes the need to more clearly communicate progress implementing OIG 

workforce and workload recommendations. Our offices concurred with the recommendations 

presented and have already begun to strengthen training and coordination to do so. The EPA 

agrees with the OIG on completing corrective actions in a timely fashion, notifying the OIG 

when corrective actions are delayed more than six months, and recording completed corrective 

actions accurately in the agency’s Management Audit Tracking System. 

13-P-0366 15 
 

 

AGENCY’S RESPONSES TO REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS 

No. Recommendation High-Level 

Intended Corrective 

Actions(s) 

Estimated Completion 

Date 

1 Notify all the EPA’s 

action officials that when 

they extend planned 

completion dates for 

corrective actions by more 

1.1 Hold conference call with 

agency Audit Follow-up 

Coordinators 

Completed 6/18/2013; 

(Quarterly conference calls 

are ongoing) 

than 6 months, they must 

provide the OIG with 

written notification that 

1.2 Develop training for AFC 

on using MATS 

Q1 FY 2014 

includes the new 

milestone dates 1.3 Conduct Management 

Accountability Reviews to 

Ongoing 

(OCFO completed reviews 

review audit follow-up of Region 1, OAR, and 

documentation and QA/QC OW in June 2013; EPA 

data in MATS expects to complete the full 

round of reviews of all 

regional and HQ offices 

every 3 years, e.g. Q4 FY 

2015) 

2 Ensure that training 

provided on EPA Manual 

2750 emphasizes that (a) 

AFCs should update all 

fields in MATS and (b) 

program staff and 

managers should provide 

timely information to 

AFCs to ensure that they 

can update all fields 

within MATS 

2.1 Hold conference call with 

agency Audit Follow-up 

Coordinators 

Completed 6/18/2013; 

(Quarterly conference calls 

are ongoing) 

2.2 Develop training for AFC 

on using MATS 

Q1 FY 2014 

CONTACT INFORMATION 

If you have workload questions, please contact Carol Terris, Acting Director, Office of 

Budget/OCFO at (202) 564-0533 or Hamilton Humes, senior advisor, Office of Budget/OCFO at 

(202) 564-2835. For workforce questions, please contact John Taylor, Director, Office of Human 

Capital Management Division/OHR/OARM, at (202) 564-0948 or Alan Bogus at (202) 564-

0228. For questions regarding MATS data, please contact Bernadette Dunn, the agency audit 

follow-up coordinator at (202) 564-4963. 

13-P-0366 16 
 

 

 

 

CONCLUSION 

We remain committed to partnering with your staff on findings and recommendations that help 

protect human health and the environmental and support the agency’s efforts to do so. We are 

always looking for innovative ideas to improve the ability of the EPA’s programs to strengthen 

resource stewardship while also achieving better environmental results. We recommend this 

report be closed on issuance. 

cc: Josh Baylson, Associate Chief Financial Officer, OCFO 

 Susan Kantrowitz, Director, Office of Human Resources, OARM

 Angela Freeman, Deputy Director, Office of Human Resources, OARM 

 Carol Terris, Acting Director, Office of Budget, OCFO 

 John Showman, Director, Office of Policy and Resources Management, OARM

 Steve Blankenship, Deputy Director, Office of Policy and Resources Management, OARM

 Jeanne Conklin, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Budget, OCFO 

 John Taylor, Director, Office of Human Capital Management Division, OHR/OARM 

Diane Kelty, OCFO 

Debbie Rutherford, OCFO 

 Kimberly Dubbs, OCFO 

Barbara Freggens, OCFO 

 Hamilton Humes, OCFO 

Alan Bogus, OARM

 Debbi Hart, OARM 

13-P-0366 17 
 

 

Appendix C 

Distribution 

Office of the Administrator 

Deputy Administrator 

Chief Financial Officer 

Assistant Administrator for Administration and Resources Management 

Deputy Chief Financial Officer 

Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator for Administration and Resources Management 

Director, Office of Budget, Office of the Chief Financial Officer 

Agency Follow-Up Coordinator 

General Counsel 

Associate Administrator for Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations 

Associate Administrator for External Affairs and Environmental Education 

Director, Office of Human Resources, Office of Administration and Resources Management 

Director, Office of Grants and Debarment, Office of Administration and Resources Management 

Director, Office of Acquisition Management, Office of Administration and 

 Resources Management 

Audit Follow-Up Coordinator, Office of the Chief Financial Officer 

Audit Follow-Up Coordinator, Office of Administration and Resources Management 

13-P-0366 18