U.S. Department of Homeland Security

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Office of Inspector General 

Special Transient Accommodations 

Program For the Evacuees 

From Hurricanes Katrina and Rita 

OIG-07-31 February 2007 

Table of Contents

Page 

Independent Accountants’ Report 

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

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

Objective, Scope and Methodology .............................................................................................2

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

A. Contractors Could Not Validate Eligibility ........................................................3 

B. Contractors Could Not Validate Occupancy ......................................................4 

C. Unallowable Charges .............................................................................................5 

D. Contractors Billed Excessive Room Rates ..........................................................5 

E. Contractors Could Not Ensure Billing Integrity.................................................6 

Other Matters ...........................................................................................................................................7

Appendices Schedule of Questioned Costs ............................................................................................ 9

A. Schedule of Hotels/Motels With Unsupported Eligibility...........................................10 

B-1. Schedule of Hotels/Motels With No Registration Cards On File...............................11 

B-2. Schedule of Hotels/Motels With No “Signed” Registration Card On File ...............12 

C. Schedule of Hotels/Motels With Rates That Exceeded Published Rates...................13 

D. Schedule of Questioned Costs ...........................................................................14 

Acronyms 

ARC American Red Cross 

BPA Blanket Purchase Agreement 

CLC Corporate Lodging Consultants 

 DHS Department of Homeland Security 

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

 OIG Office of Inspector General 

OG&C Ollie Green & Company 
Independent Accountants’ Report 

On Applying Agreed-Upon Procedures

For 

Department of Homeland Security 

Office of Inspector General 

Disaster Assistance Oversight

Under Contract No. FIG-90200-06-0011 

For The Period August 29, 2005 Through March 31, 2006 

To: Mr. Matt Jadacki 

Deputy Inspector General Disaster Assistance Oversight 

Department Of Homeland Security – Office Of Inspector General 

We have performed the procedures enumerated on pages 2 & 3, which were agreed to by your office 

solely to assist you in evaluating the accuracy of lodging invoices submitted by American Red Cross 

(ARC) and Corporate Lodging Consultants (CLC) to Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 

for reimbursement under contracts HSFEHQ-06-C-0024 (Special Transient Accommodations Program) 

and HSFEHQ-06-F-0047 (FEMA Short Term Lodging Program for Evacuees). Our review also 

encompassed determining whether lodging rates billed were reasonable, allowable and necessary; 

evacuees were eligible to receive lodging; and effective contracting practices were followed. This 

agreed-upon procedures engagement was performed in accordance with applicable Government Auditing 

Standards, 2003 revision, Chapter 2 and attestations standards established by the American Institute of 

Certified Public Accountants. The sufficiency of these procedures is solely the responsibility of those 

parties specified in this report. Consequently, we make no representation regarding the sufficiency of 

the procedures described on pages 2 & 3, either for the purpose for which this report has been requested 

or for any other purpose. 

We were not engaged to, and did not perform an examination, the objective of which would be the 

expression of an opinion on financial statements of Department of Homeland Security (DHS). 

Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. Had we performed additional procedures, other 

matters might have come to our attention that would have been reported to you. 

This report is intended solely for the information and use of Department of Homeland Security-Office of 

Inspector General (DHS-OIG), FEMA, ARC, CLC and other appropriate federal government offices. 

Ollie Green & Co., CPAs 

Certified Public Accountants 

Louisville, Kentucky 

August 30, 2006 
I. Executive Summary 

Ollie Green & Company, CPA’s (OG&C) completed its review of the Special Transient 

Accommodations Program funded by FEMA. This program provided interim housing for 

Hurricane Katrina evacuees. OG&C was engaged by DHS-OIG to conduct the review. 

Review work commenced during June 2006 and was completed during August 2006 and 

included reviewing a sample of 3,000 evacuee lodging charges paid by FEMA. Of this 

sample, the eligibility of 20% of these evacuee lodging charges for the FEMA program could 

not be verified. 

ARC and CLC did not always follow procedures authorized by FEMA for determining 

evacuee eligibility or require the hotels/motels they used to follow standard industry 

protocols (obtaining a signed registration card) for validating room occupancy. In 784 of the 

3000 evacuee lodging charges examined, either a registration card had not been retained or 

the registration card had not been signed. In addition, ARC and CLC billed room rates 

greater than the hotel/motels’ published rates. ARC and CLC did not determine whether 

hotel/motels had adequate accounting/billing systems. These problems were exacerbated by 

the high occupancy brought on by Hurricane Katrina activity and are discussed in detail in 

the body of this report. 

II. Background 

On August 29, 2005, Hurricane Katrina devastated the Gulf Cost states of Louisiana, 

Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida. Within a few weeks (September 24, 2005) Hurricane Rita 

hit the Gulf Coast causing further damage to the state of Louisiana and parts of Texas. As a 

result of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, hundreds of thousands of families and individuals were 

displaced from their homes in Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas due to damage 

and destruction of homes and residences in affected areas. FEMA identified an urgent need 

to provide interim shelter for certain families and individuals who were displaced by the 

declared disasters in these states. FEMA then initiated the Special Transient 

Accommodations Program that was designed to provide temporary housing and emergency 

pharmaceuticals1

 for Hurricane Katrina evacuees. The program was executed in three stages. 

First, there was an understanding or verbal agreement between FEMA and ARC (August 29, 

2005 to October 19, 2005), during which ARC identified temporary housing using its 

existing network managed by Corporate Lodging Consultants (CLC) to find hotels/motels for 

evacuees. This understanding was formalized in a contract signed on October 20, 2005 

retroactive to August 29, 2005. 

This contract (HSFEHQ-06-C-0024) between FEMA and ARC to provide interim housing 

and emergency pharmaceuticals for evacuees through October 24, 2005 was initially funded 

in the amount of $250,000,000. The contract was subsequently modified five times prior to 

its termination. The five modifications totaled $35,000,000 ($15,400,000, $7,350,000, 

1 While the initial contract (HSFEHQ-06-C0024) was for the provision of temporary housing (lodging) and 

pharmaceuticals, the subsequent contract (HSFEHQ-06-F0047) was for emergency lodging only. This 

review did not include addressing the emergency pharmaceuticals program. 
$4,550,000, $5,950,000, and $1,750,000). The contract also provided for a 10 percent 

administrative cost to implement the program. Under this contract, as well as the verbal 

agreement referenced above, CLC paid the hotels/motels for lodging charges and invoiced 

ARC for reimbursement plus a service fee. This service fee ranged from $2.50 to $3.00 per 

room per night and was based on a pre-existing contract between ARC and CLC. ARC then 

invoiced FEMA for all charges billed by CLC. 

Finally, FEMA awarded a contract (HSFEHQ-06-F-0047) directly to CLC to continue the 

interim housing program. This program was called the FEMA Short Term Lodging Program 

for Evacuees. This was the final step in transitioning oversight of the Special Transient 

Accommodations Program from ARC back to FEMA. The effective date of this contract was 

12:01 AM, October 25, 2005 when the FEMA/ARC contract for accommodations and 

pharmaceuticals expired. The FEMA/CLC contract was for a period of 40 days with six 

optional 30-day extensions, totaling up to 220 days. CLC was paid $2.48 per room per night 

for services in administering the program. Under this contract, hotels/motels were paid by 

CLC who, in turn, invoiced FEMA for reimbursement. FEMA estimated that 100,000 rooms 

per night for 40 nights would be required or 4,000,000 room nights. Average room rates 

were estimated at $60 per night. 

III. Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 

OG&C, in concurrence with DHS-OIG, judgmentally (non-statistical) sampled 3,000 

evacuees from 22 chain and independently owned hotels/motels in 9 high-evacuee/lowevacuee density cities across the country. The objective of the review was to evaluate 

whether FEMA through ARC/CLC effectively implemented and executed a plan for the 

Special Transient Accommodations Program and Short Term Lodging Program for Evacuees 

that would properly determine: 

• Evacuee eligibility for lodging, 

• Allowability of charges, 

• Reasonableness of room rates, and 

• Compliance with Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR). 

The scope of the review included conducting an entrance conference with DHS-OIG, 

FEMA, ARC and CLC officials in Washington, DC to discuss our planned approach and 

methodology. During this trip we met with DHS-OIG officials to be briefed on important 

contract matters and to obtain copies of pertinent information required to conduct the 

work. The scope also included reviewing records located at 22 chain and independently 

owned hotels/motels in 9 high-evacuee/low-evacuee density cities located in Louisiana, 

Texas, Georgia and Florida. Our original sampling strategy consisted of selecting for 

review from the FEMA invoice database, 3,000 evacuees lodged at 22 chain and 

independently owned hotels/motels in 12 high-evacuee/low-evacuee density cities. 

During the early stages of planning, FEMA estimated that approximately 60,000 rooms 

per night would be required to meet evacuee housing needs. In concurrence with DHSOIG, we judgmentally elected to sample 5% of this estimated per night lodging universe. 

We then judgmentally selected our sample from each of the 22 hotels based on the 

2
number of evacuees housed at that location. In the selection process we included, 

whenever possible, evacuees from each hotel covering the early, middle and late stages of 

both (ARC and CLC) contract periods. In this selection process, we wanted to include 

both high-evacuee and low-evacuee density cities. These categories (high density and 

low density) were judgmentally determined. 

During our fieldwork, we modified our sample, decreasing the number of cities from 12 

to 9. This change was necessitated because of the method used in the FEMA database to 

compile some evacuee housing information. Some invoices mistakenly showed that the 

evacuee was housed at the city of the home office for a chain of hotels. The evacuees 

were, in fact, housed at multiple locations of the hotel chain, not the home office location 

as indicated in the FEMA database. The number of evacuees housed at some of these 

previously selected sites did not merit the cost of conducting a review at that site. 

Accordingly, we adjusted our sample to meet the overall sampling objectives of our 

review. 

We also conducted risk assessments of the program activities with DHS OIG officials. 

These risk assessments were used to assist in developing procedures required to meet the 

objectives of the agreed upon procedure engagement. Four member review teams 

traveled to each of the 22 hotels/motels and conducted the following agreed-upon 

procedures: 

• Tested hotel/motel records to determine whether evacuees were eligible for 

lodging under this program, 

• Tested evacuee folios to determine whether charges other than lodging were 

billed to FEMA, 

• Tested lodging rates for reasonableness by comparing billed lodging rates to 

lodging rates advertised, 

• Interviewed managers and owners to discuss how lodging rates and charges were 

determined, and 

• Reviewed hotel/motel bills to ARC/CLC for consistency and fiscal integrity. 

IV. Results of the Review 

A. Contractors Could Not Validate Eligibility 

ARC/CLC did not ensure that hotel and motel owners and managers followed procedures 

authorized by FEMA for determining evacuee eligibility. Documentation required to verify 

eligibility was not always maintained in the evacuee’s file. ARC/CLC should have 

monitored this process in the early stages of the program and required each eligibility 

determination to be documented and maintained with the evacuee’s folio. Nineteen of the 22 

hotels/motels reviewed did not obtain or maintain sufficient documentation required to 

support eligibility for 587 or (20%) of the 3,000 evacuees selected in our sample. CLC 

invoiced FEMA $2,606,181 for these evacuees. See Appendix A for details. 

3
In establishing basic eligibility criteria, FEMA compiled a list of zip codes based on 

FEMA’s declared counties and parishes. This compilation of zip codes was referred to as 

Disaster Operations Guidance 1A (DOG 1A). DOG 1A was updated periodically as new 

information was provided by FEMA’s field disaster assistance personnel. Under FEMA 

guidance, anyone living within the declared counties and parishes was eligible for the 

interim housing program. Each lodging facility was instructed to download DOG 1A 

from CLC’s website and use listed zip codes to determine evacuee eligibility. ARC/CLC 

required evacuees to provide photo identification to hotel operators to validate their predisaster address. If photo identification could not be provided, other documentation, such 

as a utility bill, lease or mortgage statement could be substituted. In other cases, where 

the evacuee had already interacted with FEMA to independently establish eligibility, the 

hotel could accept a FEMA authorization code. 

This concept of establishing eligibility was a departure from ARC’s standard approach. 

ARC normally utilized disaster assessment information to determine eligibility, based on 

verified damage and resulting disaster-related needs, including preliminary damage 

assessments and client casework. Hurricane Katrina was so large and impacted so many 

individuals and families that ARC determined that it did not have the resources to obtain 

detailed damage information or provide client casework in the traditional manner within a 

reasonable timeframe. Because of this deviation from ARC’s standard protocol, it was 

critical that ARC ensure that hotel personnel obtained and retained eligibility 

documentation. According to Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR), Section 31.201-

2(d), a contractor (such as ARC/CLC) is responsible for accounting for costs 

appropriately and for maintaining records, including supporting documentation, adequate 

to demonstrate that costs claimed have been incurred, are allocable to the contract, and 

comply with applicable cost principles. 

Most hotel/motel managers and owners in our sample said they were not given specific 

instructions or guidelines from ARC/CLC regarding procedures or documentation. Many 

hotel/motel managers and owners said that they were severely understaffed and 

overwhelmed with the huge number of evacuees to be processed and housed and did not 

always obtain and retain documentation necessary to prove eligibility. 

Because ARC/CLC did not obtain and retain documentation required to prove evacuee 

eligibility, lodging payments may have been made for ineligible participants. This 

departure from FAR requirements may have resulted in payments for ineligible evacuees. 

Questioned costs are $2,606,181. 

Recommendations: 

We recommend that FEMA require ARC and CLC as part of FAR compliance: 

1. Contact hotels/motels where eligibility was questioned to resolve the eligibility 

issues cited and, where eligibility is not demonstrated, credit FEMA for payments 

for ineligible participants. 

4
B. Contractors Could Not Validate Occupancy 

ARC/CLC did not require definitive proof of occupancy prior to authorizing payments to 

hotels. Hotel and motel owners and managers did not always follow standard industry 

protocol (obtaining a signed registration card for occupants) for validating room 

occupancy. Many rooms were billed to ARC/CLC without any “signed” guest 

registration cards on file. 

Hotels listed in Appendix B-1 did not obtain and maintain guest registrations cards for 

two hundred seventy eight (278) evacuees validating their occupancy. Because 183 of 

these evacuees were cited under the “unsupported eligibility” finding, only 95 will be 

cited under this finding. Questioned costs are $246,419. 

Hotels listed in Appendix B-2 did not obtain and retain “signed” guest registration cards 

for five hundred and six (506) evacuees validating their occupancy. Because 362 of these 

evacuees were cited under the “unsupported eligibility” finding, only 144 will be cited 

under this finding. Questioned costs are $547,053. 

According to FAR, Section 31.201-2(d), a contractor (such as ARC/CLC) is responsible 

for accounting for costs appropriately and for maintaining records, including supporting 

documentation, adequate to demonstrate that costs claimed have been incurred, are 

allocable to the contract, and comply with applicable cost principles. 

Hotel/motel managers and owners said that, in the course of attempting to house and 

accommodate evacuees within the chaotic environment that accompanies a disaster with 

the magnitude of Hurricane Katrina, their managers and front line employees did not 

always obtain and retain appropriate documentation nor did ARC/CLC require the 

documentation for payment. 

This departure from FAR requirements may have resulted in FEMA payments of 

$793,472 ($246,419 – No Registration Cards, and $547,053 – No “Signed” Registration 

Cards) for rooms that were not supported with proper registration documentation. 

Recommendations: 

We recommend that FEMA require ARC and CLC as part of FAR compliance: 

2. Determine whether rooms with no registration cards were occupied with 

eligible evacuees. 

3. Determine whether rooms with no “signed” registration cards were occupied 

with eligible evacuees. 

4. Credit FEMA for rooms that cannot be associated with an eligible evacuee. 

5
C. Unallowable Charges 

Unallowable charges such as food, telephone, laundry, movies etc., were, appropriately, 

not billed to ARC/CLC. Most hotels/motels had systems in place that did not allow 

services other than lodging to be accessed without some form of prepayment. In other 

cases, local phone service was free or absorbed by the hotel. No unallowable charges 

were billed to the program. 

D. Contractors Billed Excessive Room Rates 

For thirteen of the twenty-two hotels/motels, ARC/CLC billed FEMA for room rates 

greater than published rates. The published rates examined were post-Katrina rates as we 

were not able to obtain pre-Katrina rates for the review. At a minimum, room rates 

should have been assessed for reasonableness prior to, or shortly after, engaging the 

hotel. ARC/CLC needs stronger controls to screen for excessive room rates. 

As indicated in Appendix C, the range for the high variance rate column was from $1.18 

to $116.71. This denotes that some hotels/motels charged, on the average, as little as 

$1.18 per night over their post disaster web-site published rates and other hotels/motels 

charged as much as $116.71 per night more. The rates shown in Appendix C were 

average rates. Some of the hotel rates were higher and some were lower than the 

“calculated” average shown in Appendix C. Appendix C also identifies eight 

hotels/motels that billed less than their post disaster web site published rates. 

According to FAR, Section 31.201-3 (a), a cost is reasonable if, in its nature and amount, 

it does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person in the conduct of a 

competitive business. FAR Section 31.201-3 (a) further states that, if an initial review of 

the facts results in a challenge of a specific cost by the contracting officer or the 

contracting officer’s representative, the burden of proof shall be upon the contractor to 

establish that such cost is reasonable. ARC/CLC should have determined that 

hotel/motel rates were reasonable prior to engagement. 

Many of the hotel/motel managers said that hotel pricing was based on demand and 

seasonality. In the high season, (which varied from hotel to hotel) prices are elevated and 

low season prices are lowered because of low demand. Based on our analysis in 

Appendix C, the smaller independent hotels/motels billed the higher rates. This departure 

from FAR requirements by ARC/CLC may have resulted in the payment of excessive 

lodging charges by FEMA. 

Recommendations: 

We recommend that FEMA require ARC and CLC as part of FAR compliance to: 

5. Determine whether pricing by hotels/motels was within a reasonable range. 

6
E. Contractors Could Not Ensure Billing Integrity 

ARC/CLC did not ensure billing integrity. There were numerous errors (i.e. wrong - 

room number, room rate, name, dates) on invoices submitted to CLC for payment. 

Invoices had to be revised for errors and some were submitted and paid more than once. 

CLC and hotels/motels are still trying to correct errors for over and under payments 

made. Contributing to billing issues was the “prepayment of lodging charges” allowed 

by FEMA for hotels/motels housing evacuees. FEMA allowed hotels/motels to invoice 

for lodging two weeks in advance of evacuee lodging. Although this practice was done 

with good intent (to ease the financial burden of lodging facilities housing evacuees), it 

created financial confusion. Many evacuees moved out prior to the expiration of the twoweek period and ARC and CLC were unable to properly account for these FEMA credits. 

A substantial amount of these excessive prepayments were not refunded or credited to 

FEMA. 

According to FAR, Section 31.201-2(d), a contractor (such as ARC/CLC) is responsible 

for accounting for costs appropriately and for maintaining records, including supporting 

documentation, adequate to demonstrate that costs claimed have been incurred, are 

allocable to the contract, and comply with applicable cost principles. 

Hotel/motel managers said they were overwhelmed with the number of evacuees to be 

processed and invoiced in a short period of time. They said that it was difficult to track 

rooms and evacuees during this time of high occupancy and transition. Because of this 

problem, FEMA may have been excessively billed by ARC/CLC for lodging paid to 

hotels/motels for Hurricane Katrina evacuees. 

Recommendations: 

We recommend that FEMA require ARC and CLC to: 

6. Determine whether payments made to hotels/motels were accurately 

calculated. 

7. Quantify credits due FEMA for early evacuee departure during the advance 

payment period. 

8. Credit FEMA for any duplicate or erroneous payments. 

V. OTHER MATTERS 

ARC Billed Employee/Volunteer Lodging To The Evacuee Housing Program 

Early in the conduct of our review, ARC informed us that it had invoiced FEMA 

$103,000 for lodging charges incurred by its employees and volunteers. These lodging 

7
charges were billed to the FEMA interim housing program. ARC discovered these 

charges after the DHS-OIG reviews had begun. 

ARC agreed to compile information on payments received for its employee/volunteer 

lodging charges billed to FEMA. Currently, we have received no additional information 

from ARC regarding these charges. 

According to FAR, Section 31.201-2(d), a contractor (such as ARC/CLC) is responsible 

for accounting for costs appropriately and for maintaining records, including supporting 

documentation, adequate to demonstrate that costs claimed have been incurred, are 

“allocable to the contract,” and comply with applicable cost principles. 

During the review, a separate Management Advisory Report was issued to the Senior 

Procurement Executive of FEMA recommending that FEMA: determine the extent of the 

unallowable charges under the lodging contract; initiate collection procedures to recoup 

unallowable charges from ARC; and develop and implement controls to identify and 

prevent future unallowable charges under lodging contracts. 

8
APPENDICES 

9
Total Number of 

Unsupported 

Eligibility 

Questioned 

Appendix A 

Unsupported Eligibility 

By Hotel 

Hotel 

Number 

Hotel 

Location Number of 

Evacuees 

In Sample 

Costs 

1 Houston, TX 62 4 $5,109.27 

2 Houston, TX 157 0 0.00 

3 Houston, TX 241 0 0.00 

4 Houston, TX 290 3 5,171.25 

5 Stafford, TX 95 1 497.98 

6 Stafford, TX 105 11 18,060.49 

7 Dallas, TX 139 2 1,344.00 

8 Dallas, TX 61 0 0.00 

9 New Orleans, LA 89 69 600,211.02 

10 New Orleans, LA 223 212 703,239.20 

11 New Orleans, LA 188 91 618,185.89 

12 Atlanta, GA 182 3 1,440.96 

13 Atlanta, GA 44 3 19,603.50 

14 Norcross, GA 115 18 11,740.22 

15 Norcross, GA 72 3 9,792.65 

16 Panama City, FL 139 10 81,898.27 

17 Panama City, FL 361 66 256,171.51 

18 New Orleans, LA 39 1 16,875.20 

19 New Orleans, LA 77 6 81,312.00 

20 New Orleans, LA 85 3 5,288.40 

21 Baton Rouge, LA 113 53 103,597.05 

22 Baton Rouge, LA 123 28 66,642.78 

3,000 587 $2,606,181.64 

10
Hotel 

Location 

Total 

Appendix B-1 

No Registration Card On File 

By Hotel 

Hotel 

 Number Number of 

Evacuees 

In Sample 

Rooms Billed 

With No 

Registration 

Card On File 

Questioned 

Costs 

1 Houston, TX 62 0 $0.00 

2 Houston, TX 157 0 0.00 

3 Houston, TX 241 0 0.00 

4 Houston, TX 290 47 99,290.05 

5 Stafford, TX 95 13 11,431.77 

6 Stafford, TX 105 0 0 

7 Dallas, TX 139 2 2,994.80 

8 Dallas, TX 61 0 0 

9 New Orleans, LA 89 2 14,673.85 

10 New Orleans, LA 223 0 0.00 

11 New Orleans, LA 188 2 14,109.95 

12 Atlanta, GA 182 0 0.00 

13 Atlanta, GA 44 0 0.00 

14 Norcross, GA 115 0 0.00 

15 Norcross, GA 72 1 147.00 

16 Panama City, FL 139 0 0.00 

17 Panama City, FL 361 3 4,896.00 

18 New Orleans, LA 39 1 20,121.00 

19 New Orleans, LA 77 0 0.00 

20 New Orleans, LA 85 1 2,576.40 

21 Baton Rouge, LA 113 2 6,739.70 

22 Baton Rouge, LA 123 21 69,438.56 

3,000 95 $246,419.08 

11
Hotel 

Location 

Total 

Appendix B-2 

No “Signed” Registration Card On File 

By Hotel 

Hotel 

Number Number of 

Evacuees 

In Sample 

Rooms Billed 

With No 

“Signed” 

Registration Card 

On File 

Questioned 

Costs 

1 Houston, TX 62 28 $108,271.62 

2 Houston, TX 157 0 0.00 

3 Houston, TX 241 0 0.00 

4 Houston, TX 290 0 0.00 

5 Stafford, TX 95 10 8,780.53 

6 Stafford, TX 105 4 630.87 

7 Dallas, TX 139 1 2,478.00 

8 Dallas, TX 61 0 0.00 

9 New Orleans, LA 89 6 59,094.25 

10 New Orleans, LA 223 0 0.00 

11 New Orleans, LA 188 2 4,615.80 

12 Atlanta, GA 182 10 8,915.94 

13 Atlanta, GA 44 1 3,935.18 

14 Norcross, GA 115 3 2,647.40 

15 Norcross, GA 72 30 110,226.19 

16 Panama City, FL 139 3 13,640.80 

17 Panama City, FL 361 20 81,550.14 

18 New Orleans, LA 39 3 39,245.32 

19 New Orleans, LA 77 1 25,137.00 

20 New Orleans, LA 85 3 29,967.60 

21 Baton Rouge, LA 113 9 22,983.35 

22 Baton Rouge, LA 123 10 24,933.14 

3,000 144 $547,053.13 

12
Hotel 

Location 

Published 

Room 

Rate 

High 

Variance 

Appendix C 

Rates Billed Exceeded Average Published 

Rate By Hotel 

Hotel 

Number 

“Average” 

Room 

Rate 

Billed 

1 Houston, TX $63.00 $73.47 $10.47 

2 Houston, TX $49.99 $42.59 

3 Houston, TX $45.00 $36.09 

4 Houston, TX $75.00 $88.10 $13.10 

5 Stafford, TX $49.00 $33.49 

6 Stafford, TX $54.99 $62.98 $7.99 

7 Dallas, TX $99.00 $100.18 $1.18 

8 Dallas, TX $79.00 $34.81 

9 New Orleans, LA $119.00 $146.49 $27.49 

10 New Orleans, LA $99.00 $142.10 $43.10 

11 New Orleans, LA $95.00 $148.30 $53.30 

12 Atlanta, GA $84.99 $86.71 $1.72 

13 Atlanta, GA $64.99 $51.96 

14 Norcross, GA $49.99 $34.74 

15 Norcross, GA $98.00 $50.21 

16 Panama City, FL $119.00 $85.42 

17 Panama City, FL $80.46 $83.20 $2.74 

18 New Orleans, LA $79.00 $142.27 $63.27 

19 New Orleans, LA $89.00 $205.71 $116.71 

20 New Orleans, LA $79.97 $135.60 $55.63 

21 Baton Rouge, LA $62.00 $58.04 

22 Baton Rouge, LA $32.00 $38.56 $6.56 

Note: 

All published rates shown in the table above were post Hurricane Katrina rates advertised in the 

hotels/motels website. 

13
Total Hotel 

Location 

Appendix D 

Schedule of Questioned Costs 

By Hotel/Motel 

Hotel 

Number Number of 

Evacuees 

In Sample 

Unsupported 

Eligibility 

No 

Registration 

Card On 

File 

No 

“Signed” 

Registration 

Card On 

File 

Total 

Questioned 

Costs 

1 62 Houston, TX $5,109.27 $0.00 $108,271.62 $113,380.89 

2 157 Houston, TX 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 

3 241 Houston, TX 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 

4 290 Houston, TX 5,171.25 99,290.05 0.00 104,461.3 

5 95 Stafford, TX 497.98 11,431.77 8,780.53 20,710.28 

6 105 Stafford, TX 18,060.49 0.00 630.87 18,691.36 

7 139 Dallas, TX 1,344.00 2,994.80 2,478.00 6,816.8 

8 61 Dallas, TX 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 

9 89 New Orleans, 

LA 

600,211.02 14,673.85 59,094.25 673,979.12 

10 223 New Orleans, 

LA 

703,239.20 0.00 0.00 703,239.2 

11 188 New Orleans, 

LA 

618,185.89 14,109.95 4,615.80 636,911.64 

12 182 Atlanta, GA 1,440.96 0.00 8,915.94 10,356.9 

13 44 Atlanta, GA 19,603.50 0.00 3,935.18 23,538.68 

14 115 Norcross, GA 11,740.22 0.00 2,647.40 14,387.62 

15 72 Norcross, GA 9,792.65 147.00 110,226.19 120,165.84 

16 139 Panama City, 

FL 

81,898.27 0.00 13,640.80 95,539.07 

17 361 Panama City, 

FL 

256,171.51 4,896.00 81,550.14 342,617.65 

18 39 New Orleans, 

LA 

16,875.20 20,121.00 39,245.32 76,241.52 

19 77 New Orleans, 

LA 

81,312.00 0.00 25,137.00 106,449 

20 85 New Orleans, 

LA 

5,288.40 2,576.40 29,967.60 37,832.4 

21 113 Baton Rouge, 

LA 

103,597.05 6,739.70 22,983.35 133,320.1 

22 123 Baton Rouge, 

LA 

66,642.78 69,438.56 24,933.14 161,014.48

 3,000 $2,606,181.64 $246,419.08 $547,053.13 $3,399,653.85 

14
15

Additional Information and Copies 

To obtain additional copies of this report, call the Office of Inspector General (OIG) at 

(202) 254-4100, fax your request to (202) 254-4285, 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 the 

OIG Hotline at 1-800-323-8603; write to DHS Office of Inspector General/MAIL 

STOP 2600, Attention: Office of Investigations - Hotline, 245 Murray Drive, SW, 

Building 410, Washington, DC 20528, fax the complaint to (202) 254-4292; or email 

DHSOIGHOTLINE@dhs.gov. The OIG seeks to protect the identity of each writer 

and caller.