Department of Homeland Security

Office of Inspector General 

Review of Costs Invoiced by the City of San 
 

Francisco Relating to the Terminal 2 Checked 
 

Baggage Screening Project at San Francisco 
 

International Airport Under Other Transaction 
 

Agreement Number HSTS04-09-H-REC123
 


American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
 


OIG-11-104 August 2011 
 

                           

Office of Inspector General 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 

Washington, DC 20528 

August 24, 2011

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 audits, inspections, and 

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

projects administered by the department under the American Recovery and Reinvestment 

Act of 2009 (Recovery Act). 

This report presents the results of our audit of the costs invoiced for reimbursement by 

the City of San Francisco under an agreement funded by the Recovery Act from the 

Transportation Security Administration. The purpose of the agreement was to finance a 

portion of the costs of modifications to San Francisco International Airport to 

accommodate a checked baggage inspection system. 

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. 

Anne L. Richards 

Assistant Inspector General for Audits 
 

Table of Contents/Abbreviations
 


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

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

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


 Unsupported Construction Management Costs ..............................................................3 


 Use of American Iron, Steel, and Manufactured Goods .................................................4 
 

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

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

Appendices 

Appendix A: Purpose, Scope, and Methodology.............................................................7 
 

Appendix B: Management Comments to the Draft Report .............................................9 
 

Appendix C: Major Contributors to this Report ............................................................12 
 

Appendix D: Report Distribution...................................................................................13 
 

Abbreviations 

CBIS Checked Baggage Inspection System 
 

DHS Department of Homeland Security 
 

OIG Office of Inspector General 
 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 
 

TSA Transportation Security Administration
 

 

 

 

OIG
 


Department of Homeland Security 

Office of Inspector General 

Executive Summary 

The Transportation Security Administration entered into an Other 

Transactional Agreement with the City of San Francisco to fund a 

portion of the costs to modify Terminal 2 at the San Francisco 

International Airport to incorporate a checked baggage inspection 

system. Under the agreement, the Transportation Security 

Administration agreed to reimburse the city up to $15,346,800 for 

designing, managing, and building the project. At the time of our 

audit, the Transportation Security Administration had paid the city 

$12,837,196 on the basis of invoices submitted through January 

31, 2011. 

We conducted our audit to determine whether invoiced costs were 

allowable, allocable, and reasonable according to the funding 

agreement and applicable federal requirements. 

We concluded that costs of $303,474 invoiced for construction 

management were questionable for reimbursement because they 

were not adequately supported by the city’s accounting records. 

Also, we believe that the Transportation Security Administration 

needs to ensure that the city complied with the requirement for 

buying goods purchased/manufactured in America. 

The Transportation Security Administration agreed with our two 

recommendations to resolve these matters. It concluded that the 

city should repay $142,633 of the unsupported costs and said that 

the contracting officer will verify whether the city’s vendors 

qualify under the Buy American requirement. 

Review of Costs Invoiced by the City of San Francisco Relating to the
 


Terminal 2 Checked Baggage Screening Project at San Francisco International Airport 
 

Under Other Transaction Agreement Number HSTS04-09-H-REC123
 


Page 1
 

 

Background 

On February 17, 2009, Congress enacted the American Recovery 

and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act), in part to preserve 

and create jobs, promote economic recovery, and invest in 

transportation, environmental protection, and other infrastructure 

that will provide long-term economic benefits. The Recovery Act 

appropriated $1 billion to the Transportation Security 

Administration (TSA) for “procurement and installation of 

checked baggage explosive detection systems and checkpoint 

explosives detection equipment. . . .” Of that amount, TSA 

awarded $574,023,483 to 29 airport organizations for modifying 

facilities to accommodate new baggage-screening equipment. 

On March 5, 2009, TSA notified the City of San Francisco that it 

was considering the city’s in-line explosive detection system 

matrix for Recovery Act funding. At that point, the city had 

already awarded a contract for renovation of Terminal 2 of San 

Francisco International Airport that included a $32,105,580 

subcontract for the baggage-handling system renovation. 

Subsequently, the city estimated that TSA’s Checked Baggage 

Inspection System (CBIS) project represented about $17,052,000 

of the total cost. Negotiations with TSA resulted in the award of 

Recovery Act funds of $15,346,800, which represented 90% of the 

$17,052,000. City officials told us that the Recovery Act funding 

allowed them to use money previously committed to CBIS for 

other airport projects. 

The terms and conditions for the funding are set forth in Other 

Transaction Agreement No. HSTS04-09-H-REC123 between TSA 

and the city, dated June 11, 2009. The agreement period is from 

May 1, 2009, through September 30, 2011, and requires the city to 

submit invoices for reimbursement of project costs. The eligibility 

of project costs for reimbursement is based on the scope of the 

agreement; Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A87, as revised, Cost Principles for State, Local and Indian Tribal 

Governments (May 10, 2004); and TSA publication Reimbursable 

and Non-Reimbursable Costs for the Electronic Baggage 

Screening Program, version 1.0 (June 2008). As of January 31, 

2011, the city had invoiced $12,837,196 for construction 

($12,533,722) and for construction management ($303,474), which 

it incurred from June 2009 to August 2010. Those costs 

represented 90% of costs incurred. The agreement also includes 

requirements for complying with OMB Circular A-133, as revised, 

Review of Costs Invoiced by the City of San Francisco Relating to the
 


Terminal 2 Checked Baggage Screening Project at San Francisco International Airport 
 

Under Other Transaction Agreement Number HSTS04-09-H-REC123
 


Page 2
 

 

 

 

 

Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non-Profit 

Organizations, and Recovery Act provisions for submitting 

quarterly recipient reports to the federal funding agency; paying 

prevailing wages as determined by the Secretary of Labor; and 

using American1

 iron, steel, and manufactured goods. 

The objective of this audit was to determine whether costs invoiced 

by the city are allowable, allocable, and reasonable according to 

the funding agreement and applicable federal requirements. 

Results of Review 

We determined that costs of $12,533,722 invoiced for construction were 

allowable, allocable, and reasonable, and that costs of $303,474 invoiced for 

construction management were questionable for reimbursement because they 

were not adequately supported by the accounting records. Also, we concluded 

that the city complied with the requirements for submitting quarterly reports and 

for paying prevailing wages. Regarding the requirement for buying goods 

purchased/manufactured in America, we are recommending that TSA examine the 

relevant project documents to ensure that 95% of the project was built with 

American products. 

Unsupported Construction Management Costs 

The city assigned construction management costs of $303,474 for the 

baggage-handling system solely to the Recovery Act portion of the 

project. The costs are for personnel services ($276,624) plus fees 

($26,850) provided by the city’s construction management services firm. 

The baggage-handling system project consists of facilities to support 

the CBIS and other baggage-handling system facilities not eligible for 

reimbursement. 

The time records supporting the personnel services costs indicated, 

however, that the individual who performed-baggage handling duties 

worked on the entire terminal renovation. In that regard, the specialist 

who performed these duties told us that his time should have been 

allocated between the CBIS project and the remaining baggage-handling 

system activities. The TSA site lead confirmed that the specialist’s time 

was not limited to the CBIS project. 

1

 On October 13, 2009, TSA issued a waiver to the Buy American requirements. The waiver specifies that 

at least 95% of each project be built with American-produced products and allows up to 5% of total project 

costs to be used for non-American products. 

Review of Costs Invoiced by the City of San Francisco Relating to the
 


Terminal 2 Checked Baggage Screening Project at San Francisco International Airport 
 

Under Other Transaction Agreement Number HSTS04-09-H-REC123
 


Page 3
 

 

OMB Circular A-87 says that “a cost is allocable to a particular cost 

objective if the goods or services involved are chargeable or assignable to 

such cost objective in accordance with relative benefits received.” In 

addition, Article IV of the agreement specifically required that the 

reimbursable costs be associated with the CBIS project. Because fees are 

based on a percentage of personnel services costs and the supporting 

records do not identify the amount of personnel services costs that should 

be allocated to CBIS, we classified the entire $303,474 for construction 

management services as unsupported. 

City officials agreed that the construction management services costs had 

not been allocated. They also said that they used a conservative approach 

for identifying and billing of costs related to the CBIS project. In 

addition, city officials believed that they had incurred other eligible 

construction management costs that had not been invoiced and that are 

sufficient to offset the questionable costs. At the exit conference, the city 

informed us that it was working with TSA to determine an equitable basis 

for distributing the baggage-handling construction management costs. 

Use of American Iron, Steel, and Manufactured Goods 

Section 1605 of the Recovery Act requires the use of American iron, steel, 

and manufactured goods in the construction, alteration, maintenance, or 

repair of Recovery Act projects. The Recovery Act also authorizes the head 

of a Federal agency to waive the requirement under certain circumstances, 

such as when there are insufficient quantities of goods. Under TSA’s 

waiver of the requirement, up to 5% of total project costs may be from 

non-American sources. However, the support to demonstrate compliance 

with the requirement to use American goods was in some cases unclear or 

incomplete. 

The general contractor on the project, Turner Construction Company, 

obtained 20 letters from vendors regarding the source of the mechanical 

and control components and the electrical components the subcontractor 

used for the CBIS project. Most of the letters indicated that the goods 

were purchased, manufactured, and assembled in the United States. 

However, four letters indicated that some of the goods could have been 

made in foreign countries. 

The first letter stated that some of the goods were purchased from 

Germany and Asia but that “every carton, box, package, or pallet 

that they ship has ‘U.S. Made’ or ‘USA Performed’ content.” 

Review of Costs Invoiced by the City of San Francisco Relating to the
 


Terminal 2 Checked Baggage Screening Project at San Francisco International Airport 
 

Under Other Transaction Agreement Number HSTS04-09-H-REC123
 


Page 4
 
 

 

The second letter stated that (1) some of the finished components 

used in the conveyors were imported and (2) some of the bulk 

conveyor belt materials used in manufacturing may have been 

imported. 

The third letter stated that “all products manufactured in [our] U.S. 

facilities meet the criteria to be included in qualified ARRA 

projects. Additionally, depending on the funding agency, products 

manufactured in our Mexican facilities may also meet the criteria 

and should be evaluated on a project by project basis.” 

The fourth letter came from a catalog page and stated that “All 

Parts, Materials, and/or Articles in this catalog in black type may 

or may not comply with the Buy American ACT and the Buy 

American Improvement ACT of 2005, if necessary please check 

with the factory.” 

City officials also provided us a summary calculation showing that about 

99.7% of all of the equipment and material components used in the CBIS 

project were made in America. Although the city’s calculation was taken 

from the schedule of values for the CBIS project, the schedule of values 

did not include the name of the vendors that provided the goods for the 

various work activities. As a result, we could not readily validate the 

city’s calculation. 

TSA officials have not examined the city’s compliance with the 

requirement to use American goods. However, on February 3, 2011, TSA 

published an administration checklist to aid contracting officials in 

determining Buy American compliance. TSA’s Director, Security 

Technology Acquisition Division, told us that TSA is developing 

procedures to implement the checklist. 

We believe that TSA should use the checklist to help determine whether 

the city complied with the Buy American requirement for the CBIS 

project. At the exit conference, TSA’s Contracting Officer told us that the 

TSA site lead may be able to do a further analysis of the city’s schedule of 

values to determine the source of the goods used in the CBIS project. 

Recommendations 

We recommend that TSA’s Contracting Officer: 

Recommendation #1: Resolve the $303,474 of unsupported costs. 

Review of Costs Invoiced by the City of San Francisco Relating to the
 


Terminal 2 Checked Baggage Screening Project at San Francisco International Airport 
 

Under Other Transaction Agreement Number HSTS04-09-H-REC123
 


Page 5
 
 

 

Recommendation #2: Review the iron, steel, and manufactured 

goods used in the CBIS project to determine whether the city fully 

complied with applicable Buy American requirements. 

Management Comments and OIG Analysis 

TSA Comments to Recommendation #1: 

TSA Concurs: Based on TSA’s share of the cost of construction, it 

determined that $160,841 of the unsupported construction 

management costs of $303,474 were allocable to TSA. TSA said 

that the $142,633 balance will be deducted from a future invoice 

from the city. 

OIG Analysis: 

The TSA decision sufficiently responds to the recommendation. 

However, the recommendation will remain unresolved until TSA 

provides us with a copy of the invoice with the $142,633 reduction. 

TSA Comments to Recommendation #2: 

TSA Concurs: TSA said that the contracting officer will verify 

that the goods used by the city complied with the Buy American 

requirements. 

OIG Analysis: 

The TSA decision sufficiently responds to the recommendation. 

However, the recommendation will remain unresolved until TSA 

provides us with evidence that it has completed the verification. 

Review of Costs Invoiced by the City of San Francisco Relating to the
 


Terminal 2 Checked Baggage Screening Project at San Francisco International Airport 
 

Under Other Transaction Agreement Number HSTS04-09-H-REC123
 


Page 6
 

 

 

Appendix A 

Purpose, Scope, and Methodology 

The objective of the audit was to determine whether invoiced costs 

are allowable, allocable, and reasonable according to the funding 

agreement and applicable federal requirements. Our audit covered 

invoiced costs of $12,837,196 for the period June 2009 to August 

2010. This represents the total amount invoiced as of January 31, 

2011. 

Our tests and procedures included the following: 

Reviewing TSA project files, the award agreement and 

modifications, the Recovery Act, and TSA and OMB 

guidelines; 

Interviewing TSA officials to obtain an understanding of 

project operations; 

Examining city accounting records supporting amounts 

invoiced; 

Interviewing city officials to obtain an understanding of 

project management, accounting, procurement, and 

invoicing; 

Inspecting the CBIS project; 

Performing fraud detection procedures; and 

Reviewing the working papers of the certified public 

accountant firm that performed the Single Audit of the San 

Francisco International Airport for fiscal year ending June 

30, 2010. 

The Single Audit of the airport was performed by KPMG and 

included Recovery Act-funded CBIS project costs of $12,224,567 

(or 95% of invoiced costs). The Single Audit report classified the 

CBIS as a major program and assessed the airport as a low risk.2 

 

The Single Audit report did not identify any questionable costs 

related to the CBIS, but reported that (1) the contractor’s statements 

of compliance with the Davis-Bacon Act were submitted late and 

(2) the city did not appear to be in conformity with the Recovery 

Act (Section 1512) reporting requirements. The Single Audit did 

not classify either of these findings as a material weakness. 

We also tested city records supporting costs invoiced to determine 

compliance with OMB Circular A-87 and with other terms and 

2

 A low-risk assessment results from the preceding two annual Single Audits with unqualified opinions on 

the entity’s financial statements and the schedule of expenditures of federal awards, and no deficiencies in 

internal controls which were identified as material weaknesses under the requirements of generally 

accepted government auditing standards. 

Review of Costs Invoiced by the City of San Francisco Relating to the
 


Terminal 2 Checked Baggage Screening Project at San Francisco International Airport 
 

Under Other Transaction Agreement Number HSTS04-09-H-REC123
 


Page 7
 

 

Appendix A 

Purpose, Scope, and Methodology 

conditions of the agreement. We considered the Single Audit and 

the city’s internal controls over the administration of TSA funds in 

determining our audit procedures. 

We conducted this performance review between February 15, 2011 

and April 6, 2011, pursuant to the Inspector General Act of 1978, as 

amended, and according to generally accepted government auditing 

standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the 

audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a 

reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based upon our 

audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a 

reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based upon our 

audit objectives. We appreciate the cooperation of City of San 

Francisco and TSA officials in providing the information and access 

necessary to accomplish this review. 

Review of Costs Invoiced by the City of San Francisco Relating to the 

Terminal 2 Checked Baggage Screening Project at San Francisco International Airport 
 

Under Other Transaction Agreement Number HSTS04-09-H-REC123
 


Page 8
 

 

u.s. Dtp.r1nl.tpt 01 Hllmdud ~~\lrit)'

60.1 SCI\tlb ~2tb Strdl

AdUliJOn. VI( 20598

,

\

JUL 1 lOll

INFORMATION

Charles Ed"wards

Acting In:;peotor. General

Department o1'Homcland Securin>

fROM: JOhnS.pis(Ole~. p~ Adrnini~trator ·U'

The TransportaJion 'Security Adminisiralion's.(TSA) Response to

the Depanment af1{otneland, Security (OHS)OfficO" ofInspector

Gener.aI.~s Draft £eller"Report:" Review afCOs/:$./nvoiced.by the

City. ofSan Francisco:Relating 10. 1M Termlnol.2 Checked

B«ggpg~-Screening,Project (11 8m,.Francls/:o InleFnalio/1aJ Airport

Under Other Transaction Agr.eemenlNtfmbf!r· H8TS04..09-'H~

B:ECJ2S, For Official. Use.Only

This memoIJUld.um 'c'onsti.tutes TSA'sibllllal Agency TesppnsC"to DRS. Offi~ ofInsp'eetor

Oenel'8i" (OIGl draftf.etteneportentitfed, Drafj-~Jle,..Rep()l't: Revi.ew ofCosts lnvoic'ed by the

City of$dn,F'raifcisco.Relo.Jing·to 'tlie 7!e.r.-mitJa/2 Checked Baggage Screeidhg-Projet:1 al.San

FrQ1faLsco ];a:er.natf'onol"A:Up·or.t 'Under Other·Transaclicm:Agre'6me.m"Number BSTSO'l:"()!l-HREer2j:'"For Official Use. Only, dra Project No.. 11-112-AUD-TSA•. dated June 9','2"011. TSA

ilPpre"Ciates the: OP'portuQi~y to rev.iew and provide comments [0 your draft report,

Backgrpund

As part of'the AmetjcanRecavery nnd.ReinvestmentActof2"O09'(Recavery Act), TSA was

approprmte9~.1 billion for ·~pro.curement andlnstallati.on ofchecked baggage. explosives

detection s-ystems and -checkpoint e,!=plosives.det.eetion equipment.It TSA'has.awarded more than

·S500 million-in Recovery Act funding -[0 airport organizations for modifying-fu.cifities to

a~o,~Pdate;new .Q~gga&.~..screeDing.equjpmeqt lhrou&.h the' Electron'ic B~ggi!-ge Sc;;re~og

Pi:ogrem .(EBSP).

Appendix B 

Management Comments to the Draft Report 

Review of Costs Invoiced by the City of San Francisco Relating to the
 


Terminal 2 Checked Baggage Screening Project at San Francisco International Airport 
 

Under Other Transaction Agreement Number HSTS04-09-H-REC123
 


Page 9
 

 

2

One Recovery Actawaw was 10 the CitY ofSlln Francisco (lhe City)for a CheckedBaggage

;fospectionSysteril (CBISJ atSanFraru:is.co lntematiana!Airport(SFo.) tb,rougb @:QlheJ

TransactionA~eement (OTAJrdated.June II, 2009. TheCity lmdpreviously' awarded ~.teffi1lnal

renovation prOject at.SFO InwhicljTSA was not Inval.ed IbmiIlcludelIa '$3'l,1 05,5~O' .

subcontractfor tbe bag.gag,,"hanilling system renovation. Through the OTA, TIlA.waS:llble 10 ·provideR~cQvc;!;ry"Ac:t. fundin-g for the CBIS ·portioR.ofthe project. The. Ci~y if:sti"trmted that the

CBIS' projeolrepreseoted. approximatcily S"·17;052~OOO. ofthe tota!·cost. As.ofJanuary 3:1 ,201l.,

theCity!\ad.invoiced.$12,831,196for construction{S"12,533,722) and ·coostruclionmanagement

(8303,474). .

Djscussion

The results onhe audit determined· that approximately 2 percentofthecOSlS. invoic.ed 'bythe'City

. were. questionable because they were.not.adequately supported by accounting reoords.

Specifically, whHethe ,$:12,533,722' invoiced forc.onstruction was.aIiowable, thdi3.03,;474

irlv.oiced f6rconStructioD managementcoS!S (personnel servlccs;and fees) was not allocated

betweenthe Recovery Act funded CBIS projeCt and thela,rger teI1l\bral Tenov.pon proJect. To

resOlv~l)tis'issue, TSA WIll worle with the City.to·pro-rat"lhe~ costs hosed on tile perie.ntage·of

.aCl\1al oasIS oflhe.Sl7 miUionCBffipr4jectcol11pared.t<>lhetota! cost'ofthdarger terminal

renovation projee, $32 million, Based on this. &160,841 oflhe questioned construetfon

nianagoinent'costS'{;f303,474} coull1 be aliocated.·IO the CBIS project, with $142;633. being

allocated10 tl:Ie .larger terminal·renovation projec~~ This adjustment will he .attained'by TSA

-rece;i.v.'i!lg a future. iov:alee from the Clty reflective .ora: $142,'6'33 reduction i?- cQsts,~

Theaudil also determined.·thatTSAofficials·did.nol examinelbe Oity's.compliance.wilh the Bu.y

Amerit:an Act, While mo~1 of.the lettel'S obtained by !hi: general contracror indicated ·tha~lhe

goods "Were B.ny AmericanAet·complIant•.four leneI'S;iDdwat~ .thatsome.could.have been

manufactured inforeigIi countries. WhiJe.Cityo'fflcials]>rovwedDIDwith a ~_wnmary.

calculation from aschedule of,values·showing that·aboul99.7.% ofaU oflhe equipment.and

matc:riaJ. components used in. the·CalS project wer.e ,made in. Ameriea..n

·the 'schedule-didnot

Itmlude·the names,ofthe.ve.ndQrs: that p[Qvided these' goods. As a reSUlt. 010.~ not able-to

validate·ihOiCily's use ofB~ Am.rkan ActcompUant materi.ls, Tov.eritYih.tthe:goodi-used

are BuyAtnetiean.Act compliant, TSAwillconductfilrther anaJ,ysi$to ~nsutelha\ the SChedule

ofvaJues i:i1cLildes·tJie names·ofthe specifiQvendorswho provitled those materials.

·TSAconcurs-with both ofthe:recommendations made in. the·sutiject.draftIeport and will· take the

actions necessary to ~olve_ these. issues.

Recommendatiort 1:: TSNs-·Contrac.ting Officer resolve tbe.$303.t474 ofun,lru.ppo,rred (osts.

TSJ\..Concursl. A.-indiCated above. TSA will workwith iIle City to pro-rate Ihe .s303,414of

unsupj>-oned .constructio'n·management. C.osts based on the,percentage oJ actual casts:of:the

$1"7:miUion OB1S proje.ct compared to the tofa\' cost ofthe largertcnninal r.enovauollpr,oject,

$32 miHion. Based on .l11is, $] 60,8.41 oflhe questioned construction management COsts .

(S303.474}:could reaJloci!ledto the CBIS project, with $142.613 heing alloeatedto·thedatger

.\

Appendix B 

Management Comments to the Draft Report 

Review of Costs Invoiced by the City of San Francisco Relating to the
 


Terminal 2 Checked Baggage Screening Project at San Francisco International Airport 
 

Under Other Transaction Agreement Number HSTS04-09-H-REC123
 


Page 10
 

 

3·

tenninal renovation project This ~j.ustmentwillbe'attained by TSA Tece~vingI;l future inYQice

ftQm the City reflective oj 'SH2;6331eduction in total reimbursable CBlS costs.

,Recommendation 2: TSAls, Contracting Officer'review ,the iron, steel, and manufactured

.goods, used ',w-the CUTS proJ~ct to determinewhe,ther·the ,clty'ful,y"compii~d'wUh

ap.pjicabh~'Buy Amedcan ,reguiremecnts,

TSA Concurs.; While City officials PJO-vided the OIG with a summary calculation from a

'schedule ·ofvalu.esJShowi~g that .approximately 99:11'ercent of all oflthe ,equipment and materia)

compOnents used in the CBIS' project were made in America,. the ·Contracting Officer Will 'work

with theTSA ~i.te lead to ensure that the,schedlile-,ofvalues'includes the names,ofthe-spec~c

yendprs whp pr.ovid~d. tho'se materials 'in order to verif¥ that the_ goods ll-sed.a.re compliant with

Bqy Al:neric:ao Act reguirements.

Additionally. TSN'S Office ofAcquisition has developed a checklis!.to assist acquisition

workforce s~ffinassessing.and monitoring Recoyel'Y Act recipieol,·complia·nce:withBuy

American.Ac~~on:1.P!iance;. TSA.intends to jmplement use ofthis checklist within:90 days. This

checklist Wl!'ipre.iQusly PJ.o.i'ded to DIG in an upgateto OIG"U-07. FinarRepot/; Use of

Ameri.aanRe.coveryand ll'f!inyes'tmen.r A~ Funds by the XSA/or the Electrpn,ic BaggfJ$.e

Screening PrbgriJm (Novemb.er 12.,20JOJ

.,

Appendix B 

Management Comments to the Draft Report 

Review of Costs Invoiced by the City of San Francisco Relating to the
 


Terminal 2 Checked Baggage Screening Project at San Francisco International Airport 
 

Under Other Transaction Agreement Number HSTS04-09-H-REC123
 


Page 11
 

 

Appendix C 

Major Contributors to this Report 

Roger LaRouche, Director 

Robert Leonard, Audit Manager 

Karl Gallagher, Audit Manager 

Review of Costs Invoiced by the City of San Francisco Relating to the
 


Terminal 2 Checked Baggage Screening Project at San Francisco International Airport 
 

Under Other Transaction Agreement Number HSTS04-09-H-REC123
 


Page 12
 

 

 

Appendix D 

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 

Departmental Recovery Act Coordinator 

Acting General Manager, Checked Baggage Division/Program 

Manager, Electronic Baggage Screening Program, TSA 

Audit Liaison Official, TSA 

Office of Management and Budget 

Chief, Homeland Security Branch 

DHS OIG Budget Examiner 

Congress 

Congressional Oversight and Appropriations Committees, as 

appropriate 

Review of Costs Invoiced by the City of San Francisco Relating to the
 


Terminal 2 Checked Baggage Screening Project at San Francisco International Airport 
 

Under Other Transaction Agreement Number HSTS04-09-H-REC123
 


Page 13
 

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.