Department of Homeland Security

Office of Inspector General 

Review of the U.S. Coast Guard's 


Expenditure Plans for the American 


Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 


(Redacted) 


American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
 

OIG-10-06 October 2009 
 

Office of Inspector General 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 

Washington, DC 25028 

October 23, 2009 

Preface 

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

established by the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-296) by amendment 

to the Inspector General Act of 1978. This is one of a series of audit, inspection, and 

special reports prepared as part of our oversight responsibilities for programs, grants, and 

projects awarded by the department under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 

of 2009 to promote economy, efficiency, and effectiveness within the department. 

This report includes observations on the department’s efforts to manage funds 

appropriated by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, and includes 

issues that should be considered by the department and its components to improve the 

management of those funds. We trust this report will result in more effective, efficient, 

and economical operations. We express our appreciation to all those who contributed to 

the preparation of this report. 

Richard L. Skinner 

Inspector General 
Table of Contents/Abbreviations 

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

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

Results of Review ................................................................................................................4 

Plans Generally Practical, Thorough, and Comprehensive ...........................................5 

Recovery Act Goals .......................................................................................................6 

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

Appendices 

Appendix A: Purpose, Scope, and Methodology.......................................................10 

Appendix B: Management Comments to the Draft Report.......................................11 

Appendix C: Schedule of Obligations and Outlays for Recovery Act Funds ...........13 

Appendix D: Major Contributors to This Report ......................................................16 

Appendix E: Report Distribution ..............................................................................17 

Abbreviations 

FY fiscal year 

DHS Department of Homeland Security 

Review of the U.S. Coast Guard’s Expenditure Plans for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 
OIG
 Department of Homeland Security 

Office of Inspector General 

Executive Summary 

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery 

Act) allocated $240 million to the Coast Guard, including $142 

million for the alteration or removal of obstructive bridges under 

the Truman-Hobbs Act of 1946, and $98 million for acquisition, 

construction, and improvements to the Coast Guard’s shore 

facilities and vessels. As required by the Recovery Act, the Coast 

Guard issued two plans for expending the stimulus funds in both of 

these areas. 

We reviewed the expenditure plans to determine whether they 

were practical, thorough, comprehensive, and designed to meet the 

goals of the Recovery Act. Further, we evaluated the plans 

according to prudent management principles, such as risk 

mitigation and management control strategies. 

The Coast Guard generally developed practical, thorough, and 

comprehensive plans to spend Recovery Act funds to alter 

obstructive bridges and to acquire, construct, or improve its shore 

facilities and vessels. Although the plans were generally designed 

to meet the Recovery Act’s goals, the Coast Guard’s plans for 

shore facility and vessel projects and alteration or removal of 

obstructive bridges did not meet the Recovery Act’s “quick-start” 

goal of using 50% of the stimulus funds for activities that could be 

initiated by June 17, 2009. 

We are not making any recommendations in this report. 

Review of the U.S. Coast Guard’s Expenditure Plans for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 

Page 1 
 

 

 

 

Background 

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Public 

Law 111-5 (Recovery Act), was enacted on February 17, 2009, 

injecting $787 billion of federal funds into the economy to 

preserve and stimulate economic growth in the United States. 

The Recovery Act made supplemental appropriations to federal 

departments and agencies for infrastructure investment, energy 

efficiency and science, assistance to the unemployed and 

disabled veterans, and state and local stabilization. 

Under the provisions of the Recovery Act, the Department of 

Homeland Security (DHS) received approximately $2.8 billion 

for equipment, construction, infrastructure improvement, and 

emergency management grants. The Coast Guard received $142 

million of this amount to alter or remove obstructive bridges in 

accordance with the Truman-Hobbs Act of 19461

 and an 

additional $98 million for acquisition, construction, and 

improvements to Coast Guard shore facilities and vessels. 

The Coast Guard issued expenditure plans for Recovery Act 

funds on April 3, 2009, as required by the Recovery Act. The 

Coast Guard issued an update to the acquisition, construction, 

and improvements plan on July 30, 2009. We reviewed these 

expenditure plans to determine whether they were practical, 

thorough, comprehensive, and designed to meet the goals of the 

Recovery Act. Further, we evaluated the plans according to 

prudent management principles, such as risk mitigation and 

management control strategies. We did not evaluate the original 

process the Coast Guard used to establish its criteria or any 

underlying assumptions. 

Alteration of Bridges 

The Coast Guard determines which bridges are eligible for 

alteration or removal under the Truman-Hobbs Act. The Coast 

Guard then conducts an eligibility investigation if a bridge has a 

history of allisions2

 or a history of complaints that the bridge has 

become an unreasonable obstruction to navigation. According to 

Coast Guard regulations, the Coast Guard may issue an “Order to 

1

 The Truman-Hobbs Act, 33 C.F.R. 511, et seq., allows federal funds to be used to alter or remove
 

bridges that are unreasonable obstructions to navigation. 

2

 The term “allision” refers to the striking of a moving vessel against a stationary vessel that is at anchor
 

or aground, or a fixed object such as a bridge, pier, or wharf. 

Review of the U.S. Coast Guard’s Expenditure Plans for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 

Page 2 
 

 

 

 

 

Alter” under the Truman-Hobbs Act if the benefit-to-cost ratio 

for altering the obstructive bridge equals or exceeds one.3 

The federal government and the bridge owner share the design, 

engineering, and construction costs to alter a bridge. The bridge 

owner typically pays between 5% and 10% of the cost, in 

proportion to the benefits that the owner is expected to receive 

after the alteration. The bridge owner selects the contractor in 

consultation with the Coast Guard. 

Although Congress allocates funding for the alteration of 

obstructive bridges each year during the budgeting process, it 

usually does not approve enough funding in any given year to 

complete an entire alteration project. Because of this, the Coast 

Guard “banks” the appropriation for each obstructive bridge until 

there are enough funds to complete the entire alteration project. 

The Coast Guard will combine $142 million in Recovery Act 

funds with previous appropriations of $120.4 million to complete 

four bridge alteration projects in Iowa, Illinois, Alabama, and 

Texas for a total of $262.4 million as detailed below: 

Bridge Name State 

Recovery Act 

Appropriation 

(Millions) 

Previous 

Appropriations 

(Millions) 

Order to 

Alter 

Issued 

Burlington Bridge Iowa 1991 

Elgin, Joliet & 

Eastern Bridge Illinois 1995 

Mobile Bridge Alabama 1999 

Galveston Causeway 

Bridge Texas 2001 

Sub-Total $142.0 $120.4 

Total $262.4 

Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements to Facilities 

and Vessels 

The Recovery Act appropriated $98 million for “acquisition, 

construction, and improvements to the Coast Guard’s shore 

facilities and aids to navigation facilities; priority procurements 

due to material and labor cost increases; and costs to repair, 

3

 33 C.F.R. 116.30 (c). The benefit-to-cost ratio is calculated by dividing the annualized navigation 

benefit of the proposed bridge alteration by the annualized government share of the cost of the alteration. 

33 C.F.R. 116.30 (b). 

Review of the U.S. Coast Guard’s Expenditure Plans for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 

Page 3 
 

 

renovate, assess, or improve vessels.” The Coast Guard plans to 

use $88 million of this amount for construction, renovation, and 

repair of shore facilities that support its operations in multiple 

locations, as listed below: 

Project Name State 

Station Coos Bay Covered Mooring Oregon 

Coast Guard Cutter Sycamore Cordova 

Housing Phase IV 

Alaska 

Station Neah Bay Covered Moorings Washington 

Support Center Elizabeth City Replacement 

of Thrun Hall (Phase I) 

North 

Carolina 

Station Indian River Bulkhead Repairs Delaware 

Training Center Yorktown Water 

Distribution System 

Virginia 

Group/Air Station North Bend Engineering 

and Aviation Survival Technician Building 

Oregon 

The Coast Guard will use the remaining $10 million to complete 

six vessel improvement projects on its 12 High Endurance 

Cutters, as listed below: 

Project Name Number of 

Cutters 

Boiler Fireside Upgrades and Reliability 

Improvement 

8 of 12 

Automatic Bus Tie Switch Upgrade 8 of 12 

Lube Oil Purifier Replacement 4 of 12 

Refrigeration System Upgrade 4 of 12 

Fire and Smoke Alarm System 6 of 12 

Auxiliary Salt Water Pump Replacement 10 of 12 

Results of Review 

The Coast Guard generally developed practical, thorough, and 

comprehensive plans to spend Recovery Act funds to alter obstructive 

bridges and acquire, construct, or improve its shore facilities and vessels. 

Although the plans were generally designed to meet Recovery Act goals, 

the Coast Guard’s plans for shore facility and vessel projects and 

alteration or removal of obstructive bridges did not meet the Recovery 

Act’s “quick-start” goal of using 50% of the stimulus funds for activities 

that could be initiated by June 17, 2009. 

Review of the U.S. Coast Guard’s Expenditure Plans for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 

Page 4 
 

 

Plans Generally Practical, Thorough, and Comprehensive 

The Coast Guard generally developed practical, thorough, and 

comprehensive plans to spend Recovery Act funds to alter obstructive 

bridges and acquire, construct, or improve its shore facilities and vessels. 

For example, the Coast Guard used merit-based selection criteria from 

its existing guidance to choose four bridge projects, seven shore facility 

projects, and six vessel projects to receive stimulus funding. The 

expenditure plans included applicable clauses of the Recovery Act, such 

as section 1605, which requires, with certain exceptions, that only iron, 

steel, and manufactured goods produced in the United States be used for 

the construction or alteration of a public work. 

Bridge Alteration Projects 

The Coast Guard, as required by the Recovery Act, selected four 

bridge alteration projects that were “ready to proceed to 

construction.” The Coast Guard also followed the guidance in its 

Bridge Manual related to the alteration of unreasonably 

obstructive bridges under the Truman-Hobbs Act.

4 

Of 12 bridges identified as unreasonably obstructive, six bridges 

had received previous Truman-Hobbs Act appropriations and 

were “ready to proceed to construction.” According to the Coast 

Guard, it selected projects from the list of six bridges based on 

creating a greater economic impact by maximizing the number of 

projects that could be completed with available funds. 

Shore Facilities Projects 

The Coast Guard used its Shore Facilities Project Development 

Manual and Field Planning for Shore Infrastructure guidance5 

to develop its seven Recovery Act shore facilities projects . 

According to the Coast Guard, it had already completed the field 

planning process for the seven projects. The projects were also 

“shovel ready” or close to ready and were expected to meet the 

Recovery Act’s timely obligation and expenditure requirements. 

4

 Commandant Instruction M16590.5C, Bridge Manual, Chapter 7 - Alteration of Unreasonably
 

Obstructive Bridges under the Truman-Hobbs Act, March 2004. 

5

 Commandant Instruction M11000.17, Field Planning for Shore Infrastructure, November 2007;
 

Commandant Instruction M11010.14, Shore Facilities Project Development Manual, February 1995. 

Review of the U.S. Coast Guard’s Expenditure Plans for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 

Page 5 
 

 

As of April 2009, the Coast Guard’s Shore Facilities 

Requirements List contained 76 unfunded prioritized projects. 

According to the Coast Guard, the seven projects selected were 

high priorities on this list, met the requirements of the Recovery 

Act guidance, and could be completed with the funding provided. 

Vessel Projects 

The Coast Guard followed the guidelines in its Naval 

Engineering Manual 6 to select the six engineering change 

projects for its High Endurance Cutters. The criteria also 

includes factors such as safety, operational and mission 

readiness, maintenance cost avoidance, logistics cost avoidance, 

and risk. The Coast Guard also chose these projects because 

they could be completed during annual dockside maintenance 

rather than dry-dock maintenance, which occurs only once every 

4 years. 

Recovery Act Goals 

The Coast Guard generally designed expenditure plans to meet Recovery 

Act goals. However, the Coast Guard’s plan for the shore facility and 

vessel projects as well as the plan for alteration of obstructive bridges 

did not meet the Recovery Act’s “quick-start” goal. 

Quick-Start Activities Provision 

The goal of the quick-start activities general provision (section 

1602 of the Recovery Act) was to use at least 50% of the funds 

for activities that could be initiated within 120 days of the date 

that the Recovery Act was signed, or by June 17, 2009. 

Bridge Alteration Projects 

According to the Coast Guard, it planned to commit 100% of its 

Recovery Act funds for bridge alteration within 120 days of 

enactment but actually committed 0% of these funds during this 

period. Delays in obligating these funds occurred when the 

proposed bid period was lengthened in order to accommodate 

increased contractor interest in bidding for these projects. Bridge 

owners awarded or plan to award contracts according to the 

following schedule: 

6

 Commandant Instruction M9000.6E, Naval Engineering Manual, October 2004. 

Review of the U.S. Coast Guard’s Expenditure Plans for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 

Page 6 
 

 

Bridge Name Planned or Actual Contract 

Award Date 

Burlington Bridge July 31, 2009 

Mobile Bridge August 20, 2009 

Elgin, Joliet & Eastern Bridge September 2009 

Galveston Causeway Bridge September 2009 

Bridge owners also plan to complete these four bridge projects 

by the fourth quarter of FY 2011 or earlier. The following graph 

shows the Coast Guard’s schedule of planned and actual 

obligations (commitments to pay) and planned outlays (actual 

payments) for the bridge alteration projects through FY 2010. 

Appendix C contains a more detailed schedule. 

Alteration of Bridges (in Millions of Dollars) 

$0 

$20 

$40 

$60 

$80 

$100 

$120 

$140 

$160 

Planned Obligations $0.0 $142.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 

Actual Obligations $0.0 $0.0 $142.0 

Planned Outlays $0.0 $6.4 $21.9 $22.9 $31.6 $28.3 $21.6 $9.3 

Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 

FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011-

2012 

19.9%

15.2%

4.5%

15.4%16.1

%

22.3% 

100.0%100.0% 

6.5% 

June 17, 

2009 

Fiscal Year 

Shore Facility and Vessel Projects 

The expenditure plan for shore facility and vessel projects did 

not meet the “preference for quick-start activities” goal. 

According to the Coast Guard, it obligated 7.7% of the shore 

facility and vessel acquisition, construction, and improvement 

funds by June 17, 2009. The Coast Guard said it could not 

Review of the U.S. Coast Guard’s Expenditure Plans for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 

Page 7 
 

3.4

%

 

obligate the funds sooner because it needed more time to develop 

and award procurement contracts that satisfy the competitive 

sourcing requirements of the Federal Acquisition Regulation. 

However, the Coast Guard plans to obligate all funds by 

September 30, 2010, as required by the Recovery Act. The 

following graph shows the Coast Guard’s schedule of planned 

and actual obligations and planned outlays for shore facility and 

vessel improvements projects through FY 2010. Appendix C 

contains a more detailed schedule. 

Acquisitions, Construction, and Improvements (in Millions of Dollars) 

$0 

$10 

$20 

$30 

$40 

$50 

$60 

$70 

Planned Obligations $0.00 $0.64 $14.66 $5.33 $20.29 $2.76 $54.33 $0.00 

Actual Obligations $0.00 $7.50 $0.00 

Planned Outlays $0.00 $0.00 $2.05 $2.39 $7.89 $8.44 $15.44 $61.80 

Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 

FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011-2012 0.65% 8.6% 55.4% 2.1% 8.0% 20.7% 15.0% 15.8% 2.8% 5.4% 2.4% 63.1% 7.7% 

June 17, 

2009 

Special Contracting Provision 

The special contracting provision (section 1554 of the Recovery 

Act) recommended that, to the maximum extent possible, 

recipients award fixed-price contracts through the use of 

competitive procedures. 

Bridge Alteration Projects 

The Coast Guard’s expenditure plan for the bridge alteration 

projects addressed this goal. According to the Coast Guard, the 

bridge owners will advertise and award (in consultation with the 

Coast Guard) fixed-price bridge alteration contracts through a 

competitive bidding process. 

Review of the U.S. Coast Guard’s Expenditure Plans for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 

Page 8 
 

The Coast Guard also plans to use competitive procedures to 

award fixed-price contracts for most of the proposed shore 

facility and vessel projects. However, two contracts for vessel 

improvements will be awarded based upon other than full and 

open competition due to requirements for the procurement and 

installation of brand name specific equipment. 

We do not make any recommendations in this report. 

Management Comments and OIG Analysis 

The Coast Guard appreciates the OIG’s analysis of the U.S. 

Coast Guard’s Expenditure Plans for the American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act of 2009 and concurs with the report. The Coast 

Guard also provided technical comments which were 

incorporated into the report. 

We included the comments from the Deputy Assistant 

Commandant for Resources and Deputy chief Financial Officer 

for the U.S. Coast Guard in Appendix B. 

Review of the U.S. Coast Guard’s Expenditure Plans for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 

Page 9 
 

Appendix A 

Purpose, Scope, and Methodology 

The objective of our review was to determine whether the Coast 

Guard developed practical, thorough, and comprehensive plans to 

spend the funds provided in the Recovery Act for the alteration of 

bridges and for acquisition, construction, and improvements to 

shore facilities and vessels. Our review included a determination 

of whether the Coast Guard followed its own criteria for 

prioritizing projects. We did not evaluate the original process the 

Coast Guard used to establish its criteria or any underlying 

assumptions. We: 

•	 Reviewed laws, regulations, and guidance related to the 

Recovery Act; 

•	 Obtained information on the processes and controls in place 

for budgetary resources management and financial and 

contract management; 

•	 Examined prior audit reports that provided suggested 

improvements in the program-specific areas and 

Department of Homeland Security acquisition management 

and acquisition workforce planning; 

•	 Reviewed the Coast Guard’s Recovery Act expenditure 

plan, dated April 3, 2009, for alteration of bridges eligible 

under the Truman-Hobbs Act of 1946; 

•	 Reviewed the Coast Guard’s Recovery Act expenditure 

plans, dated April 3, 2009 and July 30, 2009, for 

acquisition, construction, and improvements to shore 

facilities and vessels; 

•	 Reviewed documentation in support of the Recovery Act 

project expenditure plans, such as program-specific draft 

Recovery Act plans, and methodologies used to select 

projects targeted for Recovery Act expenditures; and 

•	 Interviewed the Coast Guard Senior Accountable Official, 

as well as officials from the Coast Guard Bridge, Naval 

Engineering, and Shore Facilities Programs. We conducted 

these interviews at the Coast Guard’s headquarters offices 

in Washington, DC. 

We performed our review between March 2009 and August 2009 

under the authority of the Inspector General Act of 1978. 

We would like to thank the Coast Guard for the cooperation and 

courtesies extended to our staff during this review. 

Review of the U. S. Coast Guard’s Expenditure Plan for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 

Page 10 
Appendix B

Management Comments to the Draft Report

.u.s....oep. art......erltb~f.. ..

.HomolandSQçurlty .

United States

Coast Guard

From:

To: Anne L. Ricba.rds

Assistant Inspector General for Audits

Deparment of Homeland Secunty

Sl,bj: USCG COMMENTS ON OIG DRAFT REPORT ON AR EXPENDiTURE PLANS

Ref: (a)OBS orG Oraft Report of Septern~r to, 2009

1. This memorandum transmits the CoastOuad'5responseto the Of:ce of Inspetor Oenet.a1

(010) report findin~s and recommendations contained in reference (a.).

2. The Coast Guard appreciates the 01(1'5 analysis of our U.S. Coast Guard's Expenditure Plans

for the. Amencan Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 and concur wiui report

3. Lised beløw are OUt comments by page number and topics:

a. Pag. 3: . Brtdge Program Table. As shown please redact dollar amoWllS associated withtlie

specific bndge projects. Theplanped aI()unlS for projects not yet awarded are procurement

sensitve. Please retain the subtotal andtotå! amounts.

b. Page 3: AcqUisition, Cori8tJ'(ltion~.andImpro'\enients to .Fa£:îliies and Vessels -

Recmmend changin~"desigra,ted" to "appropnated" in the first line,

c. Page 6: Bridge Alteration Projects -The CoastOuard does not¡:ward contracts for the

alteration of bridges. Contracts are awarded by the bridge owners. The .ias sentence should read:

"Bndge owners awarded or plan to award contrCts according to the fOllowingsebedule:"

d. Pa~e 1: Bl'dge Table -Elgin,Npllet and Eastern Bridge planned awatd date is. September

2009 instead ofAu~st 20. 2009.. Mobile Bridge.ac.tua.l award date Was Augut 2Q, 20Q9 instead

ofSepteinber 2009, The first sentence below this mble shpuld read: "Bridge owners also plan to

complete uiese fOur bndge projects by the fourth quaer of FY2011 Or /.arlier,"

e. Page 7: Bridge Table - Alteration of Bridges (in MUUons ofDoUars) -change Actua

Obligations from $51,OM to St42,M as ofSeptember21, 2009.

f. Page 9: Shore Faemty and Vessel ProJects - The "Special Contracting Provision" section

about "Shore FaciIties and Vessel Project" states the"Two contracts for the vessel

improvements wil be sole-soure contracts, The Coast Ouard plans to award one cogtractlo an 8

(a) vendor," This is incorrect, neither of the sole-soureawardees for the vessel projects will be 8

(a.) vendors.

Review of the U. S. Coast Guard's Expenditure Plan for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009

Page
Appendix B 

Management Comments to the Draft Report 

. Subj: USCG COMMENTS ON OlG DRAFT R.EPORT ON ARM EXPEDlTURE PLANS 

g. Page 12: Appendix C - As shown redad in both tables all project specific quarerly 

distribution amounts associated with the two below appropriations which are procurement 

sensitive. However, you may leave the tota quarly amounts. 

h. Page 13: Appendi1 C - As shown redael in both tables all project specitc quarerly 

distribution amounts associated with the two below appropriations which are procurement 

sensitive. However, you may leave the total quaerly amounts. 

i. Paçe 14: ~ppendb C - As ~hown redad all project specific quarrly distribution amounts 

associated with the WHEe Project. However, you may leave the total quaerly amounts. 

4. Tfyou have any questions, Mr. Mark Kulwicki at (202) 372.3533. Alterntively, Commander 

Todd Offtt Chief of Extemal Coordination can be reached at (202) 372~3S35. 

# 

2 

Review of the U.S. Coast Guard's Expenditure Plans for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
 

Page 12
 
Bridge Name Planned 

Obligation of 

Funds 

Estimated Outlays of ARRA funds (Millions) 

FY09 

Q3 

FY09 

Q3 

FY09 

Q4 

FY10 

Q1 

FY10 

Q2 

FY10 

Q3 

FY10 

Q4 

Mobile Bridge 

Elgin, Joliet & Eastern Bridge 

Burlington Bridge 

Galveston Causeway Bridge 

Total $142.0 $6.1 $21.9 $32.5 $31.6 $28.3 $21.6 

Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements to Facilities and Vessels 

Shore Facilities 

Schedule of Shore Facility Obligations: 

Shore Facilities Project Total 

Appropriation 

(Millions) 

Estimated Obligations of ARRA funds (Millions) 

 

 

 

 

FY09 

Q3 

FY09 

Q4 

FY10 

Q1 

FY10 

Q2 

 

 

FY10 

Q3 

FY10 

Q4 

Station Coos Bay Covered Mooring 

Coast Guard Cutter Sycamore 

Cordova Housing Phase IV 

Station Neah Bay Covered Moorings 

Support Center Elizabeth City 

Replacement of Thrun Hall (Phase I) 

Station Indian River Bulkhead 

Repairs 

Training Center Yorktown Water 

Distribution System 

Group/Air Station North Bend 

Engineering & Aviation Survival 

Technician Building 

 

Total $88.00 $12.45 $19.00 $2.55 $54.00 

Appendix C 

Schedule of Obligations and Outlays for Recovery Act Funds 

Alteration of Bridges 

Schedule of Obligations and Outlays: 

Review of the U. S. Coast Guard’s Expenditure Plan for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
 

Page 13
 
Shore Facilities Project Total Estimated Outlays of ARRA funds (Millions) 

Outlay 

(Millions) 

FY09 FY09 FY10 FY10 FY10 FY10 FY11 

Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 

Station Coos Bay Covered Mooring 

Coast Guard Cutter Sycamore Cordova Housing Phase IV 

Station Neah Bay Covered Moorings 

Support Center Elizabeth City Replacement of Thrun Hall (Phase I) 

Station Indian River Bulkhead Repairs 

Training Center Yorktown Water Distribution System 

Group/Air Station North Bend 

Engineering & Aviation Survival 

Technician Building 

Total $88.00 $1.41 $1.55 $4.70 $6.45 $13.42 $60.47 

Vessel Projects 

Schedule of Vessel Project Obligations: 

WHEC Project Total Estimated Obligations of ARRA funds (Millions) 

Appropriation 

(Millions) 

FY09 FY09 FY10 FY10 FY10 FY10 

Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 

Engineering Technical Support 

Boiler Fireside Upgrades and Reliability Improvement 

Automatic Bus Tie Switch Upgrade 

Lube Oil Purifier Replacement 

Refrigeration System Upgrade 

Fire and Smoke Alarm System 

Auxiliary Salt Water Pump Replacement 

Total* $10.00 $0.64 $2.21 $5.33 $1.29 $0.21 $0.33 

*Minor Rounding Differences May Exist 

Appendix C 

Schedule of Obligation and Outlays for Recovery Act Funds 

Schedule of Shore Facility Outlays: 

Review of the U.S. Coast Guard’s Expenditure Plans for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 

Page 14 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix C 

Schedule of Obligation and Outlays for Recovery Act Funds 

Schedule of Vessel Project Outlays: 

WHEC Project Total 

Outlay 

(Millions) 

Estimated Outlays of ARRA funds (Millions) 

FY09 

Q3 

FY09 

Q4 

FY10 

Q1 

FY10 

Q2 

FY10 

Q3 

FY10 

Q4 

FY11 

Engineering Technical 

Support 

Boiler Fireside Upgrades 

and Reliability 

Improvement 

Automatic Bus Tie Switch 

Upgrade 

Lube Oil Purifier 

Replacement 

Refrigeration System 

Upgrade 

Fire and Smoke Alarm 

System 

Auxiliary Salt Water Pump 

Replacement 

Total* $10.00 $0.64 $0.84 $3.19 $1.99 $2.02 $1.34 

*Minor Rounding Differences May Exist 

Review of the U.S. Coast Guard’s Expenditure Plans for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 

Page 15 
Appendix D 

Major Contributors to This Report 

Brooke Bebow, Director 

Linda Howard, Director 

Lorinda Couch, Project Lead 

Mary Williams, Auditor 

Christopher Byerly, Analyst 

Tessa May-Fraser, Analyst 

Nga Dang, Analyst 

Lovella Viray, Analyst 

Lindsay Kirchoffner, Analyst 

Andrea Rambow, Desk Officer 

Lisa Vonder Haar, Desk Officer 

Andre Marseille, Independent Referencer 

Review of the U. S. Coast Guard’s Expenditure Plan for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 

Page 16 
Appendix E 

Report Distribution 

Department of Homeland Security 

Secretary 

Deputy Secretary 

Chief of Staff for Operations 

Chief of Staff for Policy 

General Counsel 

Executive Secretariat 

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 

United States Coast Guard Liaison 

Office of Management and Budget 

Chief, Homeland Security Branch 

DHS OIG Budget Examiner 

Congress 

Congressional Oversight and Appropriations Committees, as 

appropriate 

Review of the U. S. Coast Guard’s Expenditure Plan for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 

Page 17 
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND COPIES 

To obtain additional copies of this report, please call the Office of Inspector General (OIG) at (202) 254-4100, 

fax your request to (202) 254-4305, or visit the OIG web site at www.dhs.gov/oig. 

OIG HOTLINE 

To report alleged fraud, waste, abuse or mismanagement, or any other kind of criminal or noncriminal 

misconduct relative to department programs or operations: 

• Call our Hotline at 1-800-323-8603; 

• Fax the complaint directly to us at (202) 254-4292; 

• Email us at DHSOIGHOTLINE@dhs.gov; or 

• Write to us at: 

DHS Office of Inspector General/MAIL STOP 2600, 

Attention: Office of Investigations - Hotline, 

245 Murray Drive, SW, Building 410, 

Washington, DC 20528. 

The OIG seeks to protect the identity of each writer and caller.