Department of Homeland Security 

Office of Inspector General 

U.S. Coast Guard's Anti-Deficiency Act 
 

Violations for the Response Boat-Medium 
 

Major Acquisition Project for 
 

Fiscal Years 2004 Through 2009 
 

OIG-11-82 May 2011 
Office ofInspector General 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 

Washington, DC 20528 

MAY 1 0 2011 

Preface 

The Department of Romeland Security (DRS) Office ofInspector General (OIG) was 

established by the Homeland Security Act of2002 (Public Law 107-296) by amendment 

to the Inspector General Act of1978. This is one of a series of audit, inspection, and 

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

efficiency, and effectiveness within the department. 

This report addresses whether Anti-Deficiency Act violations occurred through improper 

use of appropriations during the administration of the Response Boat-Medium Major 

Acquisition project between fiscal years 2004 and 2009. It is based on interviews with 

employees and officials of relevant agencies and institutions, direct observations, and a 

review of applicable documents. 

The recommendations herein have been developed to the best knowledge available to our 

office, and have been discussed in draft with those responsible for implementation. We 

trust this report will result in more effective; efficient, and economical operations. We 

express our appreciation to all of those who contributed to the preparation of this report. 

lime L. Ie ar s 

Assistant Inspector General for Audits 
Table of Contents/Abbreviations 

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

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


Results of Review ................................................................................................................3 
 

ADA Violations for FYs 2004 Through 2009 ...............................................................3 
 

Conclusion ...........................................................................................................................5
 


Recommendations................................................................................................................5
 


Management Comments and OIG Analysis ........................................................................6 
 

Appendices 

Appendix A: Purpose, Scope, and Methodology.........................................................8 
 

Appendix B: Management Comments to the Draft Report .......................................10 
 

Appendix C: FY 2004 Through 2009 Anti-Deficiency Act Violations......................12 
 

Appendix D: Major Contributors to this Report........................................................13 
 

Appendix E: Report Distribution ..............................................................................14 
 

Abbreviations 

ADA Anti-Deficiency Act 
 

Coast Guard United States Coast Guard 
 

FY fiscal year 
 

OIG Office of Inspector General 
 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 
 

RB-M Response Boat-Medium 
 
OIG
 


Department of Homeland Security 

Office of Inspector General 

Executive Summary 

The Coast Guard initiated the acquisition of the Response BoatMedium in 2002 to replace its aging utility boat fleet. The Coast 

Guard identified potential Anti-Deficiency Act violations in this 

project in 2009 and initiated an internal investigation. As a result 

of its review, the Coast Guard issued a stop-work order in 2010 to 

limit additional Anti-Deficiency Act violations. The Coast Guard 

requested an Office of Inspector General audit to determine if it 

had incurred Anti-Deficiency Act violations in connection with this 

project. 

The objective of our audit was to determine whether AntiDeficiency Act violations occurred through improper use of 

appropriations during the administration of the Response BoatMedium Major Acquisition project between fiscal years 2004 and 

2009. We examined the Coast Guard’s reported potential 

violations, expenditures, and acquisition contract actions, as well 

as the effectiveness of the Coast Guard’s new policies and 

procedures to ensure compliance with future appropriations. 

The Coast Guard exceeded its appropriated funding for the 

Response Boast-Medium project during fiscal years 2004 through 

2009. The violations were caused by a lack of Coast Guard 

acquisition policies, procedures, and training, which resulted in 

unallowable use of appropriations for design changes. 

Accordingly, we recommend that the Coast Guard notify the 

Secretary that it incurred 20 Anti-Deficiency Act violations totaling 

approximately $7 million and identify the names of the responsible 

parties, including the funding officials (headquarters funds 

managers) and obligating officials (contracting officers). We also 

recommend that the Coast Guard revise its standard operating 

procedures. The Coast Guard agreed with both recommendations 

and has initiated action to implement them. 

U.S. Coast Guard’s Anti-Deficiency Act Violations for the Response Boat-Medium Major Acquisition Project for 

Fiscal Years 2004 Through 2009 


Page 1 

 

Background 

In 2002, the Coast Guard initiated an acquisition project called 

Response Boat-Medium (RB-M) to replace its aging fleet of 41­

foot utility boats. While the 41-foot utility boat was designed 

primarily to engage in search and rescue missions, the Response 

Boat-Medium has greater speed and range than its predecessor to 

better fulfill expanding operations in ports, waterways, and coastal 

security missions. The Response Boat-Medium Major Acquisition 

project will provide the Coast Guard improvements in 

performance, crew efficiency, and operational availability. 

Response Boat-Medium 41-Foot Utility Boat 

The RB-M project is a two-phase procurement to quickly acquire 

and field an operationally effective and suitable craft to meet Coast 

Guard needs. The first phase allowed the Coast Guard to select the 

most operationally effective test boat to meet its needs. After the 

test boat selection, the Coast Guard initiated the second phase to 

procure 180 RB-Ms. In 2006, the Coast Guard awarded a firm 

fixed-price contract to Marinette Marine Corporation for boat design 

and production. The contract consists of a base period of 5 years 

with an option period of an additional 3 years. Production began 

with the delivery of the first boat in March 2008. As of November 

2010, the RB-M project had delivered 41 boats, with 19 additional 

boats currently in production. The project expects to reach full 

operating capability by the end of fiscal year (FY) 2015, producing 

approximately 30 boats per year. 

In 2009, the Coast Guard identified a potential violation of the 

Anti-Deficiency Act (ADA) in the RB-M project. The Coast Guard 

received appropriations for this project beginning in 2004. The 

Coast Guard recognized that the RB-M project may have 

inappropriately exceeded its appropriations and began an internal 

U.S. Coast Guard’s Anti-Deficiency Act Violations for the Response Boat-Medium Major Acquisition Project for 

Fiscal Years 2004 Through 2009 


Page 2 

inquiry, which found potential ADA violations totaling 

approximately $7.8 million. 

Results of Review 

The Coast Guard exceeded its appropriated funding for the RB-M project during 

FYs 2004 through 2009. As a result, the Coast Guard incurred ADA violations 

totaling approximately $7 million, which cannot be corrected. We found that the 

Coast Guard lacked standard operating procedures on how to account for future1 

liabilities and that personnel had inadequate training. Although the Coast Guard 

has taken some corrective actions, additional measures are needed to prevent 

future ADA violations. We recommend that the Coast Guard notify the Secretary 

of 20 ADA violations totaling approximately $7 million. The Coast Guard must 

also revise its standard operating procedures to require responsible staff to make 

an initial future liability determination, review and revise future liability amounts 

at regular intervals, and determine if funding for future liabilities should be held at 

the Coast Guard headquarters or with the Project Residence Office. 

ADA Violations for FYs 2004 Through 2009 

The Coast Guard entered into a firm fixed-price contract in 2006 to design 

and build the Response Boat-Medium. Subsequently, the Coast Guard 

initiated design changes. Federal appropriations law2 states that contract 

claims arising from changes to an existing contract are chargeable to 

appropriations current at the time the base contract was executed. This 

type of change, commonly referred to as a within-scope change, is 

considered a future liability. A contract claim is based on a future liability 

if the modification is within the general scope of the original contract. 

The Coast Guard made contract modifications that were not recognized as 

future liabilities and were not charged to appropriations related to the 

original contract. The Coast Guard’s design changes were incorrectly 

charged to current year funding rather than to appropriations used for the 

original boat delivery order. 

The Coast Guard initiated a review of the RB-M project in 2009 and 

identified potential ADA violations during FYs 2004 through 2009, 

totaling approximately $7.8 million. We reviewed each of the ADA 

transactions identified by the Coast Guard to determine if they were 

appropriately identified and correctable. We concur with the Coast 

Guard’s results, but we identified corrections made to the RB-M project 

after the Coast Guard’s review was completed. These corrections reduced 

1

 Future liability refers to government liabilities that arise and are enforceable under a provision in the 
 

original contract. 
 

2

 65 Comp. Gen. 741(1986); 59 Comp. Gen. 518 (1980). 
 

U.S. Coast Guard’s Anti-Deficiency Act Violations for the Response Boat-Medium Major Acquisition Project for 

Fiscal Years 2004 Through 2009 


Page 3 

the ADA total initially reported in the internal review by approximately 

$800,000. 

The Coast Guard initiated two corrective actions to minimize its ADA 

violations. First, the Coast Guard corrected inappropriate charges where 

funding was available in the correct appropriations. These corrections 

reduced the ADA amount by approximately $500,000. Second, the Coast 

Guard issued a stop-work order on design changes in 2010. This order 

reduced obligations by approximately $300,000 by reducing the work 

required of the contractor. 

As illustrated in Table 1, we determined that the Coast Guard incurred 20 

ADA violations totaling approximately $7 million. The Coast Guard does 

not have the funding available to correct these deficiencies. In addition, 

the Coast Guard still owes the contractor approximately $1 million for 

partial work completed before it issued the stop-work order. 

Table 1. RB-M Anti-Deficiency Act Total 

Anti-Deficiency Number of Anti-Deficiency 

Related Transaction Transactions Amounts 

Number Affected Identified 

1002 9 $5,505,2593 

1003ac 1 $217,944 

1003bc 1 $108,972 

1009 9 $877,775 

Totals 20 $6,709,950 

We tested RB-M acquisition expenditures for FYs 2004 through 2010 to 

ensure that no other ADA violations occurred in addition to those 

identified during the Coast Guard’s internal review. We reviewed 84 

expenditures totaling approximately $252 million and found no additional 

ADA violations. 

The Coast Guard initiated corrective actions to prevent future ADA 

violations. It revised its acquisition policies and procedures to require 

contracting officers to identify future liabilities or use a 10% standard set3

 Adjustment made due to an agreement between the contractor and the government to assess the value for 

partial work completed on transaction number 1002 (ECP-009). The total amount spent on transaction 

number 1002 was $5.9 million; however, there was a reduction to this amount for $1,356,320 as a partial 

termination for convenience. Subsequently, a termination proposal settlement was reached for a value of 

$1,024,551, which was $331,769 lower than the partial termination for convenience, $1,356,320. 

U.S. Coast Guard’s Anti-Deficiency Act Violations for the Response Boat-Medium Major Acquisition Project for 

Fiscal Years 2004 Through 2009 


Page 4 

aside. However, this guidance does not fully address all requirements for 

future liability determinations. The revised acquisition guidance does not 

identify all responsible parties necessary to make accurate future liability 

determinations. In addition, it does not require future liability revisions at 

regular intervals, nor does it address whether funding for future liabilities 

should be held at the Coast Guard headquarters or with the Project 

Residence Office. 

The Coast Guard has updated training requirements to include 

appropriations law training for acquisition staff, including funds managers 

and contracting officers. This training requirement was added to ensure 

that acquisition staff understand the guidelines and requirements for 

appropriations. We reviewed training files to ensure that acquisition staff 

had completed this course and found that all but two staff members had 

done so. These two remaining staff are scheduled to complete the training 

in February 2011. 

The Coast Guard has also revised its general process for contract 

administration. On the basis of the ADA violations identified in the RBM project, the Coast Guard’s Office of Resource Management now 

requires secondary review of large acquisitions initiated at the Project 

Resident Office. Fund managers at the Project Resident Office must now 

receive approval from acquisition management before issuing change or 

delivery orders to the contracting officer. 

Conclusion 

We concur with the conclusions from the Coast Guard’s internal 

investigation identifying ADA violations for FYs 2004 through 2009. The 

Coast Guard’s lack of policies, procedures, and training led to the 

improper use of appropriations for design changes. The Coast Guard has 

instituted changes to the required training for acquisition staff, which 

provide funds managers and contracting officers the knowledge to 

recognize requirements for expending appropriations. However, the Coast 

Guard needs to provide further clarification in its guidance on future 

liabilities. 

Recommendations 

We recommend that the Coast Guard’s Assistant Commandant for 

Resources and Chief Financial Officer: 

Recommendation #1: Report the 20 ADA violations totaling 

approximately $7 million to the DHS Secretary in compliance with 

U.S. Coast Guard’s Anti-Deficiency Act Violations for the Response Boat-Medium Major Acquisition Project for 

Fiscal Years 2004 Through 2009 


Page 5 

ADA reporting requirements. For each violation, the report should 

include the title and Treasury symbol (including fiscal year) of the 

appropriation or fund account, the amount involved, the date the 

violation occurred, the type of violation, the primary reason or 

cause, and the names of the responsible parties, including the 

funding officials (headquarters funds managers) and obligating 

officials (contracting officers). 

Recommendation #2: Revise the Coast Guard’s standard 

operating procedures on future liabilities to include the following: 

�	 

�	 

�	 

Initial future liability determinations should be made by 

contracting officers, funds managers, program managers, 

and the engineering group. 

Initial future liability determinations should be reviewed 

and revised at regular intervals to ensure accuracy. 

A determination should be made to specify if funding for 

future liabilities should be held at the Coast Guard 

headquarters or with the Project Residence Office. 

Management Comments and OIG Analysis 

Coast Guard’s Comments to Recommendation #1: 

Concur. As required, the Coast Guard has reported on each 

violation to include the title, Treasury symbol, amount, the date 

violations occurred, the type of violation, the primary reason or 

cause, and the responsible officials. The Coast Guard provided us 

with a copy of its letter to the Deputy Chief Financial Officer of 

Homeland Security identifying the violations. The Coast Guard 

also provided draft transmittal letters for use in advising the 

President, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB), Congress, and the Comptroller General per OMB Circular 

A-11, section 145. 

OIG Analysis: 

The Coast Guard’s corrective actions satisfy the intent of the 

recommendation, and we consider it resolved and closed. 

Coast Guard’s Comments to Recommendation #2: 

Concur. The Coast Guard revised its policy to provide clarity for 

future liabilities to ensure consistent application of the policy 

U.S. Coast Guard’s Anti-Deficiency Act Violations for the Response Boat-Medium Major Acquisition Project for 

Fiscal Years 2004 Through 2009 

Page 6 
throughout the Coast Guard. The Coast Guard included the 

relevant sections of the CG-9 Acquisition Financial Standard 

Operating Procedures with the revised procedures on future 

liabilities. 

OIG Analysis: 

The Coast Guard’s corrective actions satisfy the intent of the 

recommendation, and we consider it resolved and closed. 

U.S. Coast Guard’s Anti-Deficiency Act Violations for the Response Boat-Medium Major Acquisition Project for 

Fiscal Years 2004 Through 2009 

Page 7 
Appendix A 

Purpose, Scope, and Methodology 

The objective of our audit was to determine whether ADA violations 

occurred through improper use of appropriations during the 

administration of the Response Boat-Medium project between FYs 

2004 and 2009. 

The Coast Guard provided its universe of 117 RB-M contract 

actions totaling about $260 million, funded and executed from 

June 21, 2006, through September 20, 2010. Included within this 

universe were 26 transactions identified by the Coast Guard as 

potential ADA violations totaling approximately $7.8 million, as 

well as 7 transactions where the Coast Guard took actions to 

correct the ADA violations. We tested all 26 potential violations 

to determine (1) whether the Coast Guard properly identified the 

transactions as ADA violations, (2) the responsible parties who 

authorized the expenditures, and (3) whether any of the ADA 

violations were correctable based on available funding. To ensure 

that there were no additional ADA violations, we selected, 

reviewed, and tested all transactions from FYs 2004 to 2010 that 

were not included in the Coast Guard’s internal review. They 

included 84 additional transactions totaling approximately $252 

million. In addition, we reviewed the Coast Guard’s acquisition 

policies and procedures, prior audit reports, and other applicable 

laws and regulations. Finally, we examined DHS Appropriation 

Acts for FYs 2005 through 2010 for the Coast Guard’s Acquisition 

Construction & Improvement account. 

We interviewed officials at the Coast Guard’s headquarters in 

Washington, D.C., at the Coast Guard’s RB-M Project Resident 

Office in Kent, Washington, and at the Coast Guard’s RB-M 

Contracting Office in Marinette, Wisconsin. 

We relied on Coast Guard computer-processed data that contained 

information on the potential ADA violation universe, including 

accounting and appropriation data for its RB-M project. We 

conducted limited tests on this information by verifying all 117 

contract actions back to the source contract documentation. In 

addition, we validated the Coast Guard’s universe of 26 potential 

ADA violations. On the basis of these tests, we concluded that the 

data were sufficiently reliable for addressing our audit objective. 

We performed our audit between September and December 2010. 

We conducted the audit pursuant to the Inspector General Act of 

1978, as amended, and according to generally accepted 

U.S. Coast Guard’s Anti-Deficiency Act Violations for the Response Boat-Medium Major Acquisition Project for 

Fiscal Years 2004 Through 2009 

Page 8 
Appendix A 

Purpose, Scope, and Methodology 

government auditing standards. These standards require that we 

plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate 

evidence to provide for a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe the 

evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

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

courtesies extended to our staff during this review. 

U.S. Coast Guard’s Anti-Deficiency Act Violations for the Response Boat-Medium Major Acquisition Project for 

Fiscal Years 2004 Through 2009 

Page 9 
U.S. Dep;utment Command,nl 2100 8econdSt_. SW..Slop 7245

UnMd $l'~ COllSl Guard Washinglon. DC 205!n-7245 Homeland Security SI,fI Symbol: COMOT (CG-S)

P!Ione: (202) 372·:1569 United Statell f ....' (202) 372-3947 Coast Guard

7000

APR I 3 2011

MEMORANDUM FOR: Anne L. Richards

Assistant Inspector General for Audits

~C~_ FROM: Rear Admiral Keith A. Taylor

Assistant Commandanl for Resources and

Chief Financial Officer

U.S. Coast Guard

SUBJECT: United Stales Coast Guard's Reported Antidejlciency Vialatian/ar

the Response BOOf-Medium Major Acquisition Project/or Fiscal

Years 2004 Through 2009 - FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (FOUO)

DIG Prajecf No: lo-I55-AUD-USCG

This memorandum lransmits the Coast Guard's comments to the draft Office of inspector

General (OIG) Report, Project No: 10-155-AUD-USCG

My poin! of contact is CAPT Frank H. Kingelt, ChiefOffice of Resource Management. He can

be reached at (202) 372-3550 if you have any questions.

Anachments: (1) Response to Recommendations

(2) Financial Standard Operating Procedures, Revision 3.5

(3) Notification memo to DHS reporting violations

ofYII

Appendix B 

Management Comments to the Draft Report 

U.S. Coast Guard’s Anti-Deficiency Act Violations for the Response Boat-Medium Major Acquisition Project for 

Fiscal Years 2004 Through 2009 
 

Page 10
 
UNITED STATES COAST GUARD (USCG) STATEMENT

ON DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

INSPECTOR GENERAL DRAFT REPORT

OIG 10-155 DATED 14 FEB 2011

TITLE: UNITED STATES COAST GUARD'S REPORTED ANTI-DEFICIENCY

VIOLATION FOR THE RESPONSE BOAT-MEDIUM MAJOR ACQUISITION

PROJECT FOR FISCAL YEARS 2004 THROUGH 2009 - FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

(FOUO). DIG PROJECT NO: lO-155-AUD-USCG

Recommendation #1: Report the 20 ADA violations totaling approximately $7 million

to the DHS Secretary in compliance with ADA reporting requirements. For each

violation, the report should include the title and Treasury symbol (including fiscal year)

ofthe appropriation or fund account, the amount involved, the date the violation

occurred, the type of violation, the primary reason or cause, and the names ofthe

responsible parties, including the funding officials (headquarters funds managers) and

obligating officials (contracting officers).

CG Response: The Coast Guard concurs with the recommendation. As required, the

Coast Guard has reported on each violation to include the title, Treasury symbol, amount,

the date violations occurred, the type of violation, primary reason or cause and the

responsible officials (Encl 3).

Recommendation #2: Revise the Coast Guard's standard operating procedures on future

liabilities to include the following:

• Initial future liability determinations should be made by contracting officers,

funds managers, program managers, and the engineering group.

• Initial future liability determinations should be reviewed and revised at regular

intervals to ensure accuracy.

• A determination should be made to specify iffunding for future liabilities

should be held at the Coast Guard headquarters or with the Project Residence

Office.

CG Response: The Coast Guard concurs with the recommendation. The Coast Guard's

revised policy provides clarity for future liabilities to ensure consistent application ofthe

policy throughout the Coast Guard (Encl 2). An excerpt ofthe CG-9 Acquisition

Financial Standard Operating Procedures, Revision 3.5 is provided.

ENCLOSURE( I )

Appendix B 

Management Comments to the Draft Report 

U.S. Coast Guard’s Anti-Deficiency Act Violations for the Response Boat-Medium Major Acquisition Project for 

Fiscal Years 2004 Through 2009 
 

Page 11
 
Appendix C 

FY 2004 Through 2009 Anti-Deficiency Act Violations 

FY 2004 Through 2009 Anti-Deficiency Act Violations 

Item Count Transaction Number Total 

1 CLIN 1002 – 1 $396,000 

2 CLIN 1002 – 2 $352,000 

3 CLIN 1002 – 3 $308,000 

4 CLIN 1002 – 4 $1,067,640 

5 CLIN 1002 – 5 $482,160 

6 CLIN 1002 – 6 $206,640 

7 CLIN 1002 – 7 $482,160 

8 CLIN 1002 – 8 $2,105,400 

9 CLIN 1002 – 9 $500,000 

10 CLIN 1003ac $217,944 

11 CLIN 1003bc $108,972 

12 CLIN 1009 $150,000 

13 CLIN 1009 – 1 $14,000 

14 CLIN 1009 – 2 $42,308 

15 CLIN 1009 – 3 $340,000 

16 CLIN 1009 – 4 $29,238 

17 CLIN 1009 – 5 $28,123 

18 CLIN 1009 – 6 $14,106 

19 CLIN 1009 – 7 $130,000 

20 CLIN 1009 – 8 $130,000 

4

($ 62,972)

5

($ 331,769) 

Grand Total $6,709,950 

4

 Adjustment made due to agreement to deobligate ECP-009 for transaction number 1002 by $62,972. 

5

 Adjustment made due to an agreement between the contractor and the government to assess the value for 

partial work completed on transaction number 1002 (ECP-009). The total amount spent on transaction 

number 1002 was $5.9 million; however, there was a reduction to this amount for $1,356,320 as a partial 

termination for convenience. Subsequently, a termination proposal settlement was reached for a value of 

$1,024,551, which was $331,769 lower than the partial termination for convenience, $1,356,320. 

U.S. Coast Guard’s Anti-Deficiency Act Violations for the Response Boat-Medium Major Acquisition Project for 

Fiscal Years 2004 Through 2009 


Page 12 

Appendix D 

Major Contributors to this Report 

Brooke Bebow, Director 

Stephanie Christian, Audit Manager 

Andrew Herman, Auditor in Charge 

Frank Lucas, Auditor 

Falon Newman-Duckworth, Auditor 

Kalim Ahmad, Referencer 

U.S. Coast Guard’s Anti-Deficiency Act Violations for the Response Boat-Medium Major Acquisition Project for 

Fiscal Years 2004 Through 2009 


Page 13 

Appendix E 

Report Distribution 

Department of Homeland Security 

Secretary 

Deputy Secretary 

Chief of Staff 

Deputy Chief of Staff 

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 

Director of Local Affairs, Office of Intergovernmental Affairs 

United States Coast Guard 

Audit Liaison 

Office of Management and Budget 

Chief, Homeland Security Branch 

DHS OIG Budget Examiner 

Congress 

Congressional Oversight and Appropriations Committees, as 

appropriate 

U.S. Coast Guard’s Anti-Deficiency Act Violations for the Response Boat-Medium Major Acquisition Project for 

Fiscal Years 2004 Through 2009 
 

Page 14
 
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.