1 

Audit of Federal Emergency 

Management Agency Public 

Assistance Grant Funding Awarded to 

the City of Richmond California After 

the Loma Prieta Earthquake 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Office of Inspector General 

OIG-07-26 February 2007

2 

City both as an Office of Emergency Services and FEMA employee, we are addressing this report to 

FEMA Headquarters for review and comment. 

INTRODUCTION 

The Ford Assembly Building is a registered historical landmark that first opened in 1931. The Ford 

Motor Company used the Ford Assembly Building during World War II as a plant for jeep and tank 

construction. In 1955, the Ford Motor Company sold the plant to the University of California and in 

March 1979, the City acquired it from the University for $7.7 million and allowed the University to 

occupy it until 1984. In 1984, the City rented approximately one third of the Ford Assembly 

Building to a commercial bio-technical firm that used the rented space as a laboratory. In December 

2004, the City sold the land and most of the Ford Assembly Building (holding onto the portion 

subject to coastal/environmental concerns) for $5.4 million after expending $16.2 million in project 

costs for repair and mitigation work accomplished after the Loma Prieta Earthquake. 

Exhibit A to this report provides a chronology and the key events surrounding public assistance 

funding and the general FEMA-approved scope of work for Ford Assembly Building repairs and 

mitigation. Exhibit A also details the appeal history associated with the nearly 141⁄2-year project 

duration. Exhibit B provides a summary of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) provisions for 

grantee and subgrantee appeals of FEMA decisions and actions in effect at the time of the City’s 

appeals. 

RESULTS OF AUDIT 

With the Region’s approval, the City spent all of the FEMA funds received for repairs to the Ford 

Assembly Building but did not finish the reduced scope of work described in Damage Survey Report 

21043 (supplement to Damage Survey Report 78123) before selling the building. The Region did 

not implement the final agency determination. Specifically, the Region reduced the scope of 

required work approved by the FEMA Director but allowed the City to claim all of the $15.5 million 

awarded for disaster repairs and mitigation as a result of the City’s third appeal. Additionally, the 

Region further reduced the scope of work approved in the Director’s determination and did not 

ensure that the City complied with grant requirements. In this regard, the City sold the Ford 

Assembly Building before completing the 12 specific work items contrary to specific conditions of 

the final grant award (see Exhibit C). Also, while FEMA provided $16.2 million for Ford Assembly 

Building architectural, engineering, repair, and mitigation costs, the City sold the Ford Assembly 

Building to a developer in December 2004 for $5.4 million, bringing into question the efficacy of the 

project. Therefore, we question total project funding of $16.2 million (FEMA’s share is 

$12.2 million). 

FEMA Region IX Exceeded Its Authority and Did Not Require the City to Comply with the 

Terms and Conditions of the Grant Award

The Region exceeded its authority when it overrode the FEMA Director’s third and final appeal 

determination. Specifically, the Region reduced the required scope of work, including work required 

to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Also, the Region did not require the City to 

comply with grant requirements. As discussed below, the City (1) did not comply with specific 

terms and conditions of the final grant award because it did not complete the scope of work 

approved and funded by FEMA and (2) abrogated its legal responsibility for the Ford Assembly 

Building when the City sold it to a private developer. 
3 

• FEMA Region IX Disregarded the FEMA Director’s Scope of Work Determination 

As shown in Exhibit A to this report, the FEMA Director provided the City with a final agency 

determination in July 1997, bringing an end to the City’s administrative appeal rights relating to 

the scope of disaster damage and related funding for the project. The third appeal determination 

provided a total of $15.5 million for disaster repairs and mitigation to the Ford Assembly 

Building, including funding for one Americans with Disabilities Act-compliant passenger 

elevator, repairs to other elevators, and other Americans with Disabilities Act upgrades for the 

portion of the building in use at the time of the earthquake (such as widening some doors, adding 

handicap hardware and making a portion of the existing bathrooms Americans with Disabilities 

Act compliant). While the Director’s determination was specific as to the project’s scope of work 

and funding, and gave the City notice that its administrative appeal rights had been exhausted, on 

July 29, 2002, the Region reduced the scope of required work and yet still allowed the City to 

claim all of the $15.5 million the Director awarded for disaster repairs and mitigation. 

The reduced scope of work did not require the City to comply with the Americans with 

Disabilities Act although the appeal decisions earmarked specific funding for an Americans with 

Disabilities Act-compliant elevator. FEMA issued its Public Assistance Guide (FEMA 286, 

September 1996) prior to the Director’s determination and in it indicated that the requirements 

for access to buildings by persons with disabilities as specified in the Americans with Disabilities 

Act apply to restorations under the Stafford Act.3

 While the second and third appeal 

determinations provided additional project funding for Americans with Disabilities Act 

upgrades, the Region did not include the Americans with Disabilities Act work in the revised 

scope when it approved supplemental Damage Survey Report 21043. 

Section 423 of the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C. § 5189a, allows disaster assistance applicants to 

appeal FEMA’s decisions regarding eligibility and funding, and 44 CFR § 206.206 implements 

the statutory provisions of the Act by providing guidance on the timeframes for submitting and 

adjudicating appeals by subgrantees (see the Exhibit B). While the 71⁄2 years taken to adjudicate 

the three City appeals far exceeded the established statutory timeframes, the Region was bound 

by those regulations to take appropriate implementing action based on the Director’s third and 

final appeal determination. We based this conclusion on the regulatory provisions of 44 CFR § 

2.2(a) and 44 CFR § 2.4(a) that indicate: 

o The Director is the head of FEMA. 

o All authorities of FEMA are either vested in the Director by statute or have been 

transferred to or delegated to the Director. 

o All powers and duties not delegated by the Director are reserved to the Director. 

Thus, the Region exceeded its authority when it reduced the scope of work specified in the 

Director’s determination. Further, the Region’s files and correspondence on the project lacked 

the documentation necessary to justify its actions. We could only conclude that the Region’s 

actions were taken to effect resolution of longstanding scope of work and funding issues and 

closure of a project that remained open for about 141⁄2 years. As previously indicated, FEMA 

 

3

 FEMA’s Public Assistance Policy Digest (FEMA 321), issued October 2001, provided additional Americans with 

Disabilities Act eligibility guidelines and indicated that for buildings eligible for repair, FEMA will fund the full cost of 

Americans with Disabilities Act-relevant repairs to the damaged elements of the facility. Also see 44 CFR §206.226(b). 
4 

and Office of Emergency Services records showed that the City expressed concerns about 

meeting the requirements of the grant and believed the project was not in the best interest of the 

City. However, rather than terminating the project because the City was uncertain as to if, how, 

or when the disaster repair work would be done, the Region allowed the City to expend and 

claim $15.5 million for disaster repairs for a reduced scope of work over the course of about 

141⁄2 years. 

• FEMA Region IX Did Not Require the City to Comply with the Terms and Conditions of 

the Grant Award 

As further discussed in Exhibit A to this report, the FEMA Director’s third appeal decision in 

July 1997, determined the eligible funding to be $16,226,089 for this project’s identified scope 

of work. In a letter dated July 28, 1998, FEMA informed the City that FEMA does “...not 

require that funds for specific items of approved work be tracked to those particular items of 

work. The work for which FEMA funding was approved must, however, be completed before 

the final FEMA-approved completion date.” In July 1998, the project completion deadline was 

December 31, 1998. All the involved parties acknowledged that this was not a realistic 

completion date; however, FEMA indicated it would approve further deadline extensions as long 

as the City continued to make progress in completing the Ford Assembly Building project. In 

the same July 1998 letter, the Region required the City to complete the FEMA-funded repair 

work prior to transferring title to a developer or buyer. We noted that in February 2002, project 

documentation reflected a completion deadline of September 29, 2000 but little actual progress 

had been made in the rehabilitation of Ford Assembly Building. For reasons not clear in project 

documentation, the Region reduced the scope of work in July 2002 but not the funding amount 

approved through the third appeal and imposed the following terms and conditions regarding the 

grant: 

o Complete the reduced scope of work, consisting of 12 specific items by March 31, 2003 

(see Exhibit C), 

o Complete repairs to the entire building before selling Ford Assembly Building, and 

o Spend the entire $16,226,089 funded for this project by the March 31, 2003 deadline 

($743,306 funded for architectural and engineering fees to determine the scope of disaster 

damage and $15,482,783 funded for repairs). 

Of the three requirements, the City only met the third - it had spent the $16.2 million by the 

March 31, 2003 deadline. According to the contractor records we reviewed, the City did not 

finish 3 of the 12 items required by March 31, 2003: (1) repair the south wall, (2) replace the 

monitor sash frames, and (3) complete repair of the fire sprinkler system. In fact, the monitor 

sash frames were not fully repaired until September 30, 2005, 9 months after the building was 

sold to a developer. City officials told us that based on direction provided by FEMA, the City 

met the requirements of the grant when the funds were exhausted, irrespective of the level of 

disaster work completed. 

As previously stated, the Region established another grant requirement in supplemental Damage 

Survey Report 21043 (July 29, 2002) wherein the City was informed, “...The eligibility of the 

facility is predicated on it remaining the legal responsibility of the subgrantee until all work 

approved in this Damage Survey Report is completed....” Because the City sold the building 
5 

prior to completing the work, it failed to retain legal responsibility for the work and thus, was not 

eligible for public assistance funding. According to 44 CFR § 206.223 (a)(3), to be eligible for 

financial assistance, an item of work must be the legal responsibility of an eligible applicant. In 

addition, 44 CFR § 206.204, Requests for time extensions, established the regulatory procedures 

for extending the project performance periods and indicates if a project is not completed within 

the approved schedule no federal funding will be provided for that project. In this case, the 

project was not completed before the City’s legal responsibility for the repairs and mitigation 

ended with the sale of the Ford Assembly Building in December 2004. 

We question FEMA’s decision that allowed the City to keep and use public assistance funding 

for a project that: 1) did not comply with grant requirements, and 2) did not invest federal dollars 

effectively. In addition to selling the Ford Assembly Building prior to complying with grant 

requirements and after spending all of the $16.2 million in federal funding, the City sold a part of 

the property for substantially less than the federal investment. Thus, FEMA’s funding for this 

project did not provide any immediate benefit to local governments and communities. 

Summary. We concluded that since the City did not comply with grant requirements, it was not 

eligible to receive the $16,226,089 FEMA provided for repairs to the Ford Assembly Building under 

Damage Survey Report 78123. Project records showed that the City did not complete the reduced 

scope of work prior to the stated March 31, 2003 deadline or prior to the December 2004 sale of the 

building. Since the City failed to comply with the grant requirements by not completing the project 

within the specified deadlines and by selling the building before the project scope was completed, 

the project is ineligible for FEMA funding, as explained in 44 CFR § 206.204(d)(2). Therefore, as 

allowed by 44 CFR § 13.43(a)(2), Enforcement: Remedies for Noncompliance, we recommend that 

FEMA disallow the $15.5 million for repairs/mitigation and the $743,306 for earlier funded 

architectural and engineering costs, for total questioned costs of $16,226,089. 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

We recommend that the Director, Recovery Division, FEMA Headquarters: 

1. Require FEMA Region IX to abide by and carry out FEMA Headquarters appeal decisions and 

develop a method to track appeal decisions and their final regional resolutions; and 

2. Require that FEMA Region IX, in coordination with the Office of Emergency Services, disallow 

$16,226,089 since the City did not comply with the terms and conditions of the grant award. 

DISCUSSION WITH MANAGEMENT AND AUDIT FOLLOW UP 

We communicated the results of this audit to City and Office of Emergency Services officials on 

September 6, 2006. Those officials did not agree with our conclusion that FEMA should disallow 

the questioned costs. We also discussed the audit results with FEMA on September 18, 2006. 

FEMA withheld comments pending receipt of this report. 

Please advise this office within 90 days, of any actions taken in response to the recommendations in 

this report. Should you have any questions, please contact me at (202) 254-4100, or your staff may 

contact Robert Lastrico, Western Regional Director, Office of Disaster Assistance Oversight, at 

(510) 637-1461. Key contributors to this assignment were Humberto Melara, Trudi Powell, and 

Willard Stark. 
 

6 

Exhibit A 

Page 1 of 4 

Chronology and Key Events

Public Assistance Funding, Scope of Work, and Appeal History

Event Date Description 

Time 

Between 

Events 

Total 

Elapsed 

Time 

1 Oct. 17, 1989 The Loma Prieta Earthquake occurred. -- -- 

2 Dec. 18, 1989 The City forwarded its first appeal documentation to the 

Office of Emergency Services challenging FEMA’s 

$272,000 damage repair estimate. 

2 months 0.2 years 

3 Aug. 14, 1991 The Office of Emergency Services forwarded the City’s first

appeal to FEMA Region IX (Region). 

20 months 1.8 years 

4 Jul. 21, 1995 The Region rendered its first appeal determination awarding 

$3.7 million in public assistance funding. 

47 months 5.8 years 

5 Jan. 12, 1996 The City submitted its second appeal to FEMA’s Associate 

Director, Response and Recovery Directorate requesting 

replacement versus repair of the Ford Assembly Building at 

an estimated cost of $112.4 million. 

5 months 6.2 years 

6 Jul. 02, 1996 FEMA’s second appeal determination awarded 

$13.2 million for repairs and seismic mitigation and 

classified the project as an “improved project”. 

5 months 6.6 years 

7 Jan. 31, 1997 The City exercised its third appeal right. 7 months 7.2 years 

8 Jul. 16, 1997 The FEMA Director’s third appeal determination became 

effective with $16.2 million in total approved funding. 

5 months 7.6 years 

9 Dec. 11, 2001 City Council Resolution 174-01 stated that the public 

welfare would not be best served by restoring the Ford 

Assembly Building or the function of that facility. 

53 months 12.0 years 

10 Feb. 13, 2002/ 

Mar. 01, 2002 

The City requested that an “alternate project” be approved in 

lieu of repairing the Ford Assembly Building because the 

City could not guaranty success in restoring the Building. 

3 months 12.2 years 

11 Mar. 28, 2002 The Region informed the Office of Emergency Services that 

the City would not pursue the alternate project and that the 

City must complete the work before March 31, 2003. 

1 month 12.3 years 

12 Jul. 29, 2002 The Region approved the supplemental funding authorized 

by the FEMA Director on July 16, 1997 (the third appeal 

determination was made 5 years prior to providing the 

funding). According to City officials, the Region verbally 

informed the City that it needed only to expend approved 

project funding on whatever scope of work could be 

completed by March 31, 2003. 

4 months 12.7 years 

13 May 5, 2004 The Region considered the City’s grant application closed. 17 months 14.4 years 

14 December 2004 The City sold the land and most of the Ford Assembly 

Building for $5.4 million after expending $16.2 million in 

project funding. 

-- -- 

Pages 2 through 4 of this exhibit provide additional details regarding each of the listed events. 

Exhibit B provides 44 CFR § 206.206 appeal provisions in effect at the time of the City’s appeals. 
 

7 

Exhibit A 

Page 2 of 4 

Event 1. The 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake caused extensive damage to the Ford Assembly 

Building that was only about one third occupied at the time of the disaster. Because 

two thirds of the building was idle space or vacant, FEMA determined that only the 

occupied portion of the building was eligible for public assistance funding and 

estimated that eligible damage repairs would cost about $272,000. 

Event 2. The City appealed the Region’s funding determination when it forwarded appeal 

documentation to the Office of Emergency Services for submission to the Region. In 

that first appeal, the City challenged the Region’s funding determination ($272,000), 

arguing that the building should be completely repaired because it was part of a 

redevelopment plan. In the appeal, the City claimed that it had started negotiations 

with a developer interested in entering exclusive negotiations with the City regarding 

the building. The City had suspended negotiations with the developer a month before 

the earthquake, and was in the process of determining what to do next when the 

earthquake occurred. Representatives of the City assured the Office of Emergency 

Services that had the earthquake not occurred, further short-term rentals would have 

been arranged. 

Event 3. The Office of Emergency Services forwarded the City’s first appeal to the Region. 

Event 4. The Region’s first appeal determination resulted in the award of $3.7 million to repair 

the entire building. 

Event 5. The City rejected the Region’s funding proposal for complete building repairs and 

proposed in a second appeal to FEMA’s Associate Director, Response and Recovery 

Directorate, a major change to the scope of work. The City proposed demolishing 

and replacing the Ford Assembly Building, complete with upgrades to existing codes 

and standards. The City claimed that based on the 50 percent rule, the Ford 

Assembly Building was eligible for replacement. (44 CFR § 206.226(c) states that a 

facility is considered repairable if the costs of the damage repairs do not exceed 

50 percent of replacing the facility. The regulation implies that if the repairs cost 

more than 50 percent of a new facility, the new facility is warranted.) The City 

estimated a replacement cost of $112.4 million that included ineligible building code 

upgrades, fire and life safety codes, and zoning, as well as $21 million for a 2-story 

parking garage and landscaping. Repair costs were estimated at $81.6 million. 

Event 6. FEMA’s second appeal determination approved $13.2 million for building repairs and 

seismic bracing (hazard mitigation), and classified the project as an improved project 

(44 CFR § 206.203(d)(1) defines an improved project as a funding option wherein a 

subgrantee (a) elects to make improvements but still restore the pre-disaster function 

of a damaged facility and (b) agrees that federal funding for such projects is limited to 

the federal share of the approved estimate of eligible costs.) FEMA’s second appeal 

analysis did not result in wholesale improvements to the facility, as it was in disrepair 

at the time of the disaster. Rather, FEMA examined each area of the damaged facility 
 

8 

Exhibit A 

Page 3 of 4 

and used best estimates and FEMA guidelines to place a dollar value on eligible 

repairs. 

Event 7. The City exercised its regulatory third appeal rights by asking the FEMA Director to 

review the Associate Director’s second appeal determination. 

Event 8. The FEMA Director upheld the Associate Director’s decision but approved an 

additional $2.3 million for disaster repair/mitigation work that was not included with 

the City’s second appeal. This work consisted of rehabilitating two historic elevators, 

adding an Americans with Disabilities Act-compliant passenger elevator, and 

repairing the electrical system including installing new main transformers, a 15KV 

feeder, and conduits. Repair funding authorized as a result of the third appeal totaled 

$15.5 million plus $743,306 for earlier funded architectural and engineering costs 

(total project funding equaled $16.2 million). 

Event 9. City Council Resolution 174-01 stated that the public welfare would not be best 

served by restoring the Ford Assembly Building or the function of that facility. 

Event 10. The City twice requested that the Ford Assembly Building repair project be discarded 

and that FEMA approve an alternate project (44 CFR § 206.203(d)(2) defines an 

alternate project as a funding option wherein a subgrantee (a) determines that the 

public welfare would not be best served by restoring a damaged public facility and 

(b) agrees that federal funding for such projects will be limited to 90 percent of the 

federal share of the approved estimate of eligible costs). In one of those requests, the 

City informed FEMA that it did not guaranty success in restoring the Ford Assembly 

Building. While the City informed FEMA that it would continue to pursue Ford 

Assembly Building rehabilitation, it indicated that the earliest a groundbreaking 

ceremony could occur was in early 2003. Because of these delays, the City’s 

alternate project proposed the purchase of a building to serve as its City Hall. 

Event 11. The Region’s Director of the Readiness, Response and Recovery Division informed 

the Office of Emergency Services that the City had decided not to pursue the alternate 

project. The Region also informed the Office of Emergency Services that the City 

had until March 31, 2003 to complete the scope of work outlined in the appeal 

determinations and to expend the funding. 

Event 12. The Region approved supplemental Damage Survey Report 21043 (supplemental to 

Damage Survey Report 78123) that added the funding and additional work approved 

by the FEMA Director on July 16, 1997. According to City officials, the Region 

verbally informed the City that it needed only to expend approved project funding on 

whatever scope of work could be completed by March 31, 2003. The supplemental 

Damage Survey Report also required that the City comply with certain conditions, 

one of which stated, “...The eligibility of the facility is predicated on it remaining the 

Exhibit A 
 

9 

Page 4 of 4 

legal responsibility of the subgrantee until all work approved in this Damage Survey 

Report is completed...” (44 CFR § 206.223(a) requires applicants to have legal 

responsibility for an item of work to be eligible for federal assistance). An 

attachment to the supplemental Damage Survey Report also provided 12 specific 

work items that the City needed to complete to satisfy the requirements of the grant. 

These 12 specific work items were included in Damage Survey Report 21043 as 

‘Attachment A’. See Exhibit C of this report for the listed work. 

Event 13. The Region considered this grant application closed after it determined that the 

project funds totaling $16.2 million had been expended. 

Event 14. The City sold the land and most of the Ford Assembly Building (holding onto the 

portion subject to coastal/environmental concerns) for $5.4 million after expending 

$16.2 million in project funding but before completing the scope of work approved in 

the Director’s third appeal determination. 
10 

Exhibit B 

44 CFR § 206.206 Appeal Provisions Summary 

A subgrantee shall make a written appeal to the grantee within 60 days after receipt of notice of an 

action that is being appealed. 

The grantee shall review the material/justification submitted by a subgrantee, conduct additional 

investigation if needed, and forward the appeal with a written recommendation to the Regional 

Director within 60 days of receipt. 

The Regional Director shall review the material/justification submitted by the grantee and 

subgrantee, conduct additional investigation if needed, and notify the grantee in writing as to the 

disposition of the appeal or the need for additional information within 90 days of receipt. (If 

additional information is needed to make a determination, the Regional Director shall notify the 

grantee in writing of the disposition of the appeal within 90 days of receipt of the additional 

information). 

If the Regional Director denies the first appeal, the subgrantee may submit a second appeal in 

writing (through the grantee and Regional Director) to the Associate Director within 60 days of the 

Regional Director’s first appeal denial. The Associate Director shall render a determination on the 

subgrantee’s second appeal within 90 days of receipt of the appeal or shall make a request for 

additional information if needed. (If additional information is needed, the Associate Director shall 

notify the grantee in writing of the disposition of the appeal within 90 days of receipt of the 

additional information). If the Associate Director grants the second appeal, the Regional Director 

will be instructed to take appropriate implementing action. 

If the Associate Director denies the second appeal, the subgrantee may submit a third appeal in 

writing (through the grantee and Regional Director) to the FEMA Director within 60 days of the 

Associate Director’s second appeal denial. The Director shall render a determination on the 

subgrantee’s third appeal within 90 days of receipt of the appeal or shall make a request for 

additional information if needed. (If additional information is needed, the Director shall notify the 

grantee in writing of the disposition of the appeal within 90 days of receipt of the additional 

information). If the Director grants the third appeal, the Regional Director will be instructed to take 

appropriate implementing action. 

Note: The City’s third appeal for the Ford Assembly Building was filed in 1997. At that time, the 

CFR allowed three appeals for FEMA projects. 
11 

Exhibit C 

Statement of Work Attached to Damage Survey Report 21043 

Damage Survey Report 21043 instructed the City to disregard the scope of work in previously 

approved Damage Survey Reports and to complete Ford Assembly Building Phase 1 work described 

in Attachment A to Damage Survey Report 21043 by March 31, 2003. Although this action 

decreased the scope of work approved by the FEMA Director in his third appeal determination, the 

Region did not decrease the approved funding commensurately. 

Attachment A to Damage Survey Report 21043 states, “The scope of work is limited to the first 

phase of work, proposed to be completed by March 31, 2003. The first Phase work, as generally 

described includes; preliminary testing and evaluation, site security, abatement of hazardous 

materials, stabilization of the building shell and core, seismic bracing, project management, required 

historical preservation, environmental compliance, design, and engineering.” 

“The Phase 1 scope of work includes the general work previously described and the following, 

specific work elements: 

1. Remove and/or abate on-site hazardous materials as required by regulating agencies. 

2. Removal, (sic) of the canopy and sheds along the east side of the building. The sheds are 

considered non-contributors in the National Register Nomination form. 

3. Mothball the boiler house and oil house in accordance with the NPS Preservation Brief: 

Mothballing Historic Buildings, which includes stabilizing and making weather tight. 

4. Earthquake damaged exterior brick masonry will be removed and reset. 

5. Reconstruct south wall and parapet with masonry to match original, over lightweight 

metal framing. 

6. Repair, reinstall, and anchor limestone parapet caps. Replace missing caps in-kind. 

7. Repair the steel sash in all exterior walls and replace broken glazing. 

8. Repair existing corrugated transite roof. 

9. Repair existing clay tile roof over office area. 

10. Replace saw-tooth monitor sash (due to poor condition) frames, with an aluminum 

system similar to the original, using wire glass. 

11. Install a light steel cable system attached to welded steel plates for seismic stability. 

12. Repair and modify fire sprinkler system as required by regulating agencies to meet Phase 

1 requirements.” 
12 

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.