Department of Homeland Security 

Office of Inspector General 

U.S. Coast Guard's Management of 2005 Gulf Coast 
 

Hurricanes Mission Assignment Funding 
 

OIG-09-34 March 2009 
 

 

Office of Inspector General 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 

Washington, DC 20528 

March 5, 2009 

Preface 

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

the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-296) by amendment to the Inspector General 

Act of 1978. This is one of a series of audit, inspection, and special reports prepared as part of our 

oversight responsibilities to promote economy, efficiency, and effectiveness within the department. 

This report addresses the strengths and weaknesses of the United States Coast Guard’s (Coast 

Guard’s) management of mission assignment funding from the Federal Emergency Management 

Agency (FEMA). It is based on interviews with employees and officials of relevant agencies and 

institutions, direct observations, and a review of applicable documents. 

We contracted with the independent public accounting firm of Regis & Associates, PC, to perform 

the review. The contract required that Regis & Associates, PC perform its review according to 

guidance from the Office of Management and Budget and the Government Accountability Office. 

Regis & Associates, PC, identified six areas where the Coast Guard’s management of mission 

assignment funds could be improved. Specifically, the Coast Guard needs to: (1) enhance its 

documentation requirements for its interagency agreements; (2) implement funds control processes; 

(3) enhance its vendor payment authorization process; (4) develop and implement disaster field 

command location policies and procedures that enhance property accountability; (5) provide FEMA 

complete documentation to support reimbursable expenditures; and (6) improve its mission 

assignment reimbursement billing processes. Regis & Associates, PC, is responsible for the attached 

independent accountants’ report, and the conclusions expressed therein. 

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. 

Richard L. Skinner 
 

Inspector General 
 
MANAGEMENTCONSULTANTS& 


CERTIFIEDPUBLICACCOUNTANTS 


Independent Accountants’ Report on Applying Agreed-Upon Procedures 

Office of Inspector General 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 

Washington, D.C. 

We have performed certain agreed-upon procedures (the Procedures), as summarized in the 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology section of this report, related to mission assignment funding to 

the U.S. Coast Guard (Coast Guard). These funds were allocated to the Coast Guard by the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for the 2005 Gulf Coast Hurricanes. This engagement 

consisted of reviewing selected management activities for the 57 mission assignments to the Coast 

Guard for hurricanes Katrina (August 2005), Rita (September 2005), and Wilma (October 2005) 

issued through March 31, 2006. 

The Procedures, which were agreed to by the Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector 

General, Office of Emergency Management Oversight, were performed to examine the expenditures 

made in executing the mission assignments, and to evaluate the management of the mission 

assignment process from origination to closeout. 

This agreed-upon procedures engagement was performed according to standards established by the 

American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, and guidance from the Office of Management 

and Budget and the Government Accountability Office. The sufficiency of the Procedures is solely 

the responsibility of the specified users of the report. Consequently, we make no representations 

regarding the sufficiency of the Procedures, either for the purpose for which this report has been 

requested, or for any other purpose. Our test procedures revealed internal control weaknesses in six 

areas. These findings and the associated recommendations are presented in the Results of Review 

section of this report. 

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

expression of an opinion on the specified elements, accounts, or items. 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 use of the Department of Homeland Security Office of 

Inspector General, Office of Emergency Management Oversight, and should not be used by those 

who have not agreed to the Procedures and taken responsibility for the sufficiency of the Procedures 

for their purposes. 

Regis & Associates, PC 

1400 Eye Street, NW, Suite 425, Washington, D.C. 20005 Tel 202-296-7101 Fax 202-296-7284 
Table of Contents/Abbreviations 
 

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


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


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


A. Supporting Documentation Requirements for Disaster Response Interagency Agreements ..........4 
 

B. Funds Controls Within the Financial Management System ...........................................................7 
 

C. Vendor Payment Authorization Process .........................................................................................9
 


D. Disaster Field Command Location Policies and Procedures ..........................................................9 
 

1. Property Management Controls ............................................................................................10 
 

2. Interagency Agreement Billings ...........................................................................................12
 


E. Documentation for Supporting Expenditures ................................................................................13 
 

F. The Mission Assignment Reimbursement Billing Process............................................................15 
 

Management Response and OIG Analysis ......................................................................................17 
 

Appendices 

Appendix A: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology............................................................................18 
 

Appendix B: Recommendations .........................................................................................................20
 


Appendix C: Schedule of Questioned Costs.......................................................................................21
 


Management Response to the Draft Report ....................................................................................22
 


Abbreviations 

DHS U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
 

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency 
 

OIG Office of Inspector General 
 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 
 

U.S. Coast Guard’s Management of 2005 Gulf Coast Hurricanes Mission Assignment Funding 
Executive Summary 
 

Regis & Associates, PC, under contract with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security Office of 

Inspector General, reviewed the U.S. Coast Guard’s management processes and internal controls for 

implementing Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)-issued mission assignments related 

to the 2005 Gulf Coast Hurricanes disaster relief efforts. FEMA is authorized to task other federal 

agencies, including components within Homeland Security, with needed expertise to carry out 

specific disaster relief activities. Our objective was to determine whether the Coast Guard had 

properly designed and implemented management processes and internal controls over the funds it 

received for the specific mission assignments. 

The Coast Guard, for the most part, had contractual instruments in place to quickly engage needed 

search and rescue assistance from its private sector and government partners. However, the 

unprecedented scope of the effort may have been a factor in using some of its blanket order 

agreements for work outside the scope or nature of work envisioned by the underlying contracts. 

The Coast Guard had weak funds control practices. Because the funds control feature of the Coast 

Guard’s financial management system was not activated, local operations monitored how much it 

had been allocated and had spent using spreadsheet applications, and reported use of funds to Coast 

Guard headquarters on an after-the-fact basis. While this achieved the desired effect of local 

authority over the use of funds, such practices also increased the risk of obligating more funds than 

were available, paying for items prior to establishing associated obligations, and paying for 

unauthorized items with mission assignment funds. These financial management practices are 

inconsistent with applicable anticipated budgetary and accounting controls. 

The Coast Guard did not have adequate documentation to satisfy FEMA’s requirements for 

reimbursements on a major portion of its incurred costs. This was established through our review of 

nine transactions, amounting to approximately $20.2 million, incurred by the Department of 

Defense’s Naval Sea Systems Command for underwater debris removal services. 

Cumulatively, we questioned approximately $20.6 million of the $100.3 million that the Coast 

Guard had incurred as of March 31, 2006. This included $20.4 million for unsupported expenditures 

and $0.2 million for the cost of property reimbursed by, but not yet returned to, FEMA. 

We are proposing 12 recommendations to the Coast Guard for improving its financial administration 

of mission assignment funding. The most important aspects of these recommendations deal with 

implementing the automated budgetary control features of its financial management system and 

ensuring that any contracts with supporting agencies include provisions for obtaining the cooperation 

needed to obtain relevant data for meeting its own mission assignment reporting obligations. 

U.S. Coast Guard’s Management of 2005 Gulf Coast Hurricanes Mission Assignment Funding 1 
�

�

�

�

Background
 

The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act), signed into law 

on November 23, 1988, is the statutory authority for most federal disaster response activities, 

especially as they pertain to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and FEMA 

programs. To make federal assistance under the Stafford Act available, states must initiate a request 

for an emergency or major disaster declaration that is reviewed by FEMA for approval of the 

President. The Stafford Act permits FEMA to anticipate declarations, and prestage federal personnel 

and resources when a disaster that threatens human health and safety is imminent, but not yet 

declared. FEMA cannot provide federal assistance until an emergency or major disaster declaration 

is made. 

The Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Homeland Security Act) created the United States Department 

of Homeland Security (DHS) and realigned FEMA, previously an independent agency, as part of 

DHS within the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate. In addition, the Homeland 

Security Act and other Presidential directives established a new, unified, all-hazards framework and 

plan for future responses to terrorism, natural disasters, special events, and emergencies. This plan, 

referred to as the National Response Plan, which was revised and renamed the National Response 

Framework in January 2008, establishes a comprehensive, all-hazards approach to enhance the 

ability of the United States to manage domestic incidents. The National Response Plan incorporates 

best practices and procedures from incident management disciplines such as emergency 

management, law enforcement, firefighting, public works, public health, responder and recovery 

worker health and safety, and emergency medical assistance, and integrates them into a unified 

structure. It forms the basis of how the federal government coordinates with state, local, and tribal 

governments and the private sector during incidents, and establishes lead agencies for many different 

aspects of possible disaster response. 

The United States Coast Guard’s authority under federal law to conduct maritime operations, such as 

search and rescue and port security, is continuously in effect, rather than dependent on a Presidential 

Stafford Act declaration or the implementation of the National Response Plan. This statutory 

authority uniquely positioned the Coast Guard to respond to Hurricane Katrina before the President 

made emergency or major disaster declarations under the Stafford Act. Concurrent with the Coast 

Guard’s historical missions and authorities, the National Response Plan identifies the Coast Guard as 

a primary agency in the oil and hazardous materials response, and the support agency in six other 

Emergency Support Functions, including urban search and rescue, and aspects of clearing 

waterways. 

The Coast Guard is responsible for performing a variety of Homeland Security and non-Homeland 

Security missions: 

Ensuring security in territorial and international waters, and within U.S. ports; 

Conducting search and rescue; 

Interdicting illegal drug shipments and illegal aliens; 

Enforcing fisheries laws; 

U.S. Coast Guard’s Management of 2005 Gulf Coast Hurricanes Mission Assignment Funding 2 
�

�

Ensuring the safety and facilitation of commerce; and 

Responding to reports of marine pollution. 

According to Coast Guard officials, it trains for and performs these missions every day, in units 

located all over the United States. 

To conduct these missions, the Coast Guard employs a wide range of personnel. In 2005, the Coast 

Guard consisted of approximately 39,000 active duty, 7,000 civilian, and 8,100 reserve members, for 

a total of approximately 54,100 personnel. The Coast Guard also has access to approximately 

31,000 volunteer auxiliary members. During the peak response time period for Hurricane Katrina, 

which was August 26 to September 16, 2005, the Coast Guard had approximately 5,600 personnel in 

the Gulf Coast region. About 53 % of these were active duty and civilian personnel who came from 

other parts of the United States to assist in the response. 

On August 29, 2005, Hurricane Katrina devastated the Gulf Coast states of Florida, Alabama, 

Mississippi, and Louisiana with Category Three winds and torrential rains. By September 9, 2005, 

Congress passed legislation that provided over $63 billion to DHS for disaster relief. In the 

aftermath of the Gulf Coast Hurricanes, FEMA issued mission assignments to the Coast Guard to 

conduct search and rescue activities and to provide law enforcement and air support during hurricane 

relief efforts. As of March 31, 2006, FEMA had assigned the Coast Guard 57 mission assignments 

with authority to incur costs up to $442.8 million. Under the provisions of the Stafford Act, the 

Coast Guard is authorized to seek reimbursement from FEMA for eligible costs incurred during the 

performance of assigned missions. As of March 31, 2006, the Coast Guard had requested $35.1 

million from FEMA as reimbursement for costs incurred under mission assignments, and incurred an 

additional $65.2 million of unbilled reimbursable costs. Of the remaining $342.5 million, $62.6 

million had been obligated as of March 31, 2006, and the remainder was designated for additional 

debris removal services. 

U.S. Coast Guard’s Management of 2005 Gulf Coast Hurricanes Mission Assignment Funding 3 
�

�

�

�

�

�

Results of Review 
 

This section presents the results of our assessment of the Coast Guard internal control environment 

used to administer mission assigned tasks and funding, and our tests to evaluate mission assignment 

procurements, expenditures, and supporting documentation for reimbursement billings. 

Our results are presented sequentially, as the Coast Guard would have progressed in its planning and 

administration of the 57 mission assignments, starting with organizing the effort and ending with 

steps for obtaining reimbursement for costs incurred on FEMA’s behalf. In addition to interviewing 

Cognizant Coast Guard management staff, we conducted extensive testing of transactions to assess: 

Initial preparedness to implement the mission assignments; 

Financial management system support available and used; 

Conformity of outlays with the mission assignments; 

Controls over receipt, acceptance, and payments for goods and services procured; 

Asset accountability; and 

Validity and support for reimbursement claims to FEMA. 

The basis for our test work was a detailed list of all mission assignment obligation, expenditure, and 

reimbursement billing transaction activity through our March 31, 2006, engagement cut-off date. 

For each aspect of our testing, we selected transactions that would allow us to cover a large 

percentage of the dollars involved. Because our work was based on a combination of high-dollar 

and judgmental sampling, the results are not statistically representative. However, due to high-dollar 

coverage obtained and the types of internal control issues discussed throughout this report, we 

believe that our test results reflect the management challenges the Coast Guard faced. Appendix A 

includes additional details on our objectives, scope, and methodology. 

A. Supporting Documentation Requirements for Disaster Response Interagency 

Agreements 

The Coast Guard’s requirements for supporting documentation, which were implemented through its 

use of Pollution Removal Funding Authorization interagency agreements, did not enable it to obtain 

the type of supporting documentation required by FEMA, nor the information necessary to validate 

mission assignment expenditures. Although these agreements required performing agencies to 

maintain supporting documentation that provides a clear audit trail, should a review of 

documentation become necessary, the agreements’ terms emphasized providing evidence of 

performance. This type of interagency agreement was used by the Coast Guard to order 

$37.2 million of 2005 Gulf Coast Hurricane response pollution remediation and debris removal 

services from other federal agencies. Of this total, $20.7 million had been expended as of March 31, 

2006. 

U.S. Coast Guard’s Management of 2005 Gulf Coast Hurricanes Mission Assignment Funding 4 
As part of our review of 136 expenditure transactions totaling $37.6 million, the Coast Guard was 

unable to provide sufficient supporting documentation for nine expenditures, totaling $20,164,597, 

that were incurred through the use of this type of interagency agreement and reported to FEMA for 

reimbursement as Other Contractual Services. 

These expenditures were incurred through an agreement with the Naval Sea Systems Command for 

debris removal services. While the supporting documentation supplied by Naval Sea Systems 

Command was compliant with Pollution Removal Funding Authorization interagency agreement 

requirements by providing a description of services performed, it did not provide the type of 

information necessary to determine whether the expenditures incurred were allowable under the 

mission assignment. 

Through its experiences as an oil and other hazardous materials spill clean-up responder, the Coast 

Guard has developed specific interagency agreement reimbursement procedures that include 

requirements for supporting documentation on bills. These procedures are implemented through its 

execution of a Pollution Removal Funding Authorization interagency agreement. This agreement is 

a funding tool available to Federal On-scene Coordinators to quickly obtain needed services and 

assistance from other government agencies (federal, state, or local), as well as recognized Indian 

Tribes, in oil spill and hazardous materials response actions. Under the terms of this type of 

agreement, a Federal On-scene Coordinator may agree to reimburse another government agency for 

costs incurred in providing any agreed-upon removal services and assistance, consistent with the 

National Contingency Plan.1

 Some of the costs that are reimbursable under a Pollution Removal 

Funding Authorization include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following: 

�

�

�

�

Personnel salary costs, including overtime; 

Travel and per diem expenses; 

Appropriate charges for the use of other government agency-owned equipment or facilities; 

and 

Actual expenses for contractor- or vendor-supplied goods and services obtained by the other 

government agency, through its own purchasing process, to provide agreed-upon assistance 

and support to the Federal On-Scene Coordinators. 

In accepting the Pollution Removal Funding Authorization, the performing government agency 

agrees to track its costs and provide documentation to support reimbursement and federal cost 

recovery actions. The requirements for reimbursement documentation under these agreements, 

however, require only that the agency organize its documentation in a manner that provides a clear 

audit trail for reimbursement, without providing specifics as to the type and extent of documentation 

required. 

1

 The National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan, more commonly called the National 

Contingency Plan, is the federal government's blueprint for responding to both oil spills and hazardous substance 

releases. It is the result of the country's efforts to develop a national response capability and promote overall 

coordination among the hierarchy of responders and contingency plans. 

U.S. Coast Guard’s Management of 2005 Gulf Coast Hurricanes Mission Assignment Funding 5 
 

As the steward of the Disaster Relief Fund, FEMA has the authority to specify the supporting 

documentation requirements for all federal agencies providing support and requesting 

reimbursement from the Fund.2

 Under the standard “Intragovernmental Business Rules,”3 the 

ordering and performing agencies agree to the form and content of the performing agency’s 

documented evidence of performance to be provided in support of Intra-Governmental Payment and 

Collection System4

 transactions. Generally, the agreed-upon form and content includes the 

information necessary to identify the transaction, its associated interagency agreement, and the 

charges by budget subobject class. Due to the debilitating impact of disaster response activities on 

normal agency internal controls, FEMA augmented its supporting documentation requirements to 

address the increased risk of internal control weaknesses that often occur during the life-saving and 

life-sustaining rescue and support operations involved with disaster responses. In addition to 

information necessary to identify a transaction and the associated mission assignment, FEMA 

requires the following: 

�

�

�

�

�

Description of the goods received or services provided; 

Breakdown of hours incurred in support of personnel services; 

For indirect costs, the percentage applied and a description of the costs included in the cost 

pool; 

For contract services, the contract number, vendor name, total contract cost, and a description 

of its purpose; 

For property acquisitions: 

- A description of item, vendor name, and unit cost for all nonexpendable or sensitive 

items greater than or equal to $1,000, and 

- The return of all items described above or an agreement to waive this requirement; 

�	 

�	 

�	 

�	 

For property leased, a description of the item, vendor name, and unit cost; 

Identification of motor vehicle costs; 

Identification of costs subtasked to another agency; and 

All “Other Costs” defined. 

RECOMMENDATION 

We recommend that the Coast Guard: 

�	 Recommendation #1: Ensure that all future interagency agreements used to meet mission 

assignment objectives require the performing agency to compile and provide supporting 

documentation, consistent with FEMA’s requirements. 

2 National Response Plan, Financial Management Support Annex, page FIN-5. 

3

 OMB Memorandum M-03-01, “Business Rules for Intragovernmental Transactions;” Treasury Financial Manual, 

Volume I, Bulletin No. 2007-03, “Intragovernmental Business Rules;” and Treasury Financial Manual, Volume 1, 

Part 6, Chapter 4000, “Intra-Governmental Payment and Collection System.” 

4

 The Intra-Governmental Payment and Collection System’s primary purpose is to provide a standardized interagency 

fund transfer mechanism for Federal Program Agencies. It facilitates the intragovernmental transfer of funds, with 

descriptive data from one agency to another. 

U.S. Coast Guard’s Management of 2005 Gulf Coast Hurricanes Mission Assignment Funding 6 
B. Funds Controls Within the Financial Management System 

We learned that the Coast Guard operated its financial management system during the fiscal years 

2005 and 2006 without fully using its funds control functionality. The full utilization of the system’s 

functionality could flag and prevent the recording of commitments (a reservation of funds for future 

obligation) in excess of budgetary authority provided by mission assignments. This system 

configuration resulted in an increased risk of incurring mission assignment expenditures in excess of 

funding limits, and the processing of improper payments. 

According to Coast Guard financial managers, this system configuration allowed field command 

locations5

 significant flexibility to meet mission objectives while, secondarily, tasking the financial 

management staff with the responsibility for ensuring compliance with applicable federal financial 

laws and regulations. 

During the performance of disaster response activities, the Coast Guard initially uses its appropriated 

funds and resources prior to requesting and receiving reimbursement of allowable expenditures from 

FEMA. By agreement, the Coast Guard may bill FEMA only for the incremental costs6

 of 

personnel, services, and material directly related to the authorized response effort. 

As a policy, Coast Guard field units are authorized to incur expenses, based on a verbal request for 

assistance from the authorized Emergency Support Function or FEMA representative, provided that 

the request is followed up by the required mission assignment from FEMA. The unit’s Commanding 

Officers/Officers-in-Charge are authorized to exceed normal operating budgets for their assigned 

programs in order to comply with a particular mission assignment, with the requirement to follow up 

with an emergency request for supplemental funding from its associated Administrative Target Unit 

(e.g., districts, Maintenance and Logistic Commands, headquarter units), as soon as practicable. The 

Administrative Target Unit has the responsibility of providing financial management services to 

field units during disaster responses; however, the mission assignment information such as funding 

limits and performance periods are generally provided by the Commanding Officers/Officers-inCharge after the response activities have been initiated. 

To minimize the agency’s risk of being anti-deficient and of processing improper payments while 

operating its financial management system without fully utilizing funds control, the Coast Guard 

uses a combination of the following procedures: 

5

 Other federal agencies carrying out mission assignment tasks usually establish a field or site office from which to 

oversee or administer operations. This office is entirely independent of the Joint Field Office established by FEMA for 

overall operations and command of the disaster. Most agencies use the standard operating procedures and policies 

already in place for their permanent field or regional locations to provide the control structure for temporary site 

locations as well. 

6

 Incremental costs as they relate to mission assignments are those expenditures that are incurred solely as a result of the 

related FEMA taskings. 

U.S. Coast Guard’s Management of 2005 Gulf Coast Hurricanes Mission Assignment Funding 7 
�	 

�	 

�	 

Field unit’s coding and tracking of ordered goods and services, and incurred expenditures on 

a personal computer spreadsheet application; 

Administrative Target Unit’s establishing mission assignment program codes within the 

Coast Guard’s financial management system to accumulate incremental costs; and 

The manual monitoring of ordered goods and services and incurred expenditures at both the 

field unit and Administrative Target Unit levels. 

The Anti-Deficiency Act prohibits agencies from obligating or disbursing more than their 

appropriations and apportionments, has strict requirements for reporting violations, and includes 

penalties for violations. According to the Joint Financial Management Improvement Program’s 

Core Financial System Requirements, an agency’s core financial management system must ensure 

that an agency does not obligate or disburse funds in excess of those appropriated or authorized. It 

must also ensure that specific system edits and user notifications related to funds control are in place. 

During our review of 49 Coast Guard procurement actions totaling $146.7 million, we identified an 

instance of an incurred obligation being recorded incrementally in its financial management system. 

In that instance, a $748,000 obligation increase, executed on September 26, 2005, was recorded as a 

$617,000 obligation as of October 10, 2005. The remaining $131,000 was recorded on 

November 14, 2005. 

Of the 136 expenditure transactions selected for validation, we determined that 22 transactions, 

totaling $143,856, were assigned inaccurate budget object classification codes. Examples included 

the following: 

�	 

�	 

A transaction for the purchase of boat motors, classified as Continental U.S. Travel; and 

A transaction for the purchase of a 28-foot camper, classified as Building 
 

Acquisition/Construction.
 


RECOMMENDATIONS 

We recommend that the Coast Guard: 

� Recommendation #2: Ensure that all incurred obligations are recorded in the financial 

management system, as required by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). 

� Recommendation #3: Fully implement the use of its financial management system’s funds 

control capabilities to minimize the risk of incurring mission assignment expenditures in 

excess of funding limits and the processing of improper payments. 

� Recommendation #4: Provide training to field command location and financial 

management personnel in the appropriate use of budget object codes and the processing of 

transactions in its financial management system with funds control functionality enabled. 

U.S. Coast Guard’s Management of 2005 Gulf Coast Hurricanes Mission Assignment Funding 8 
 

C. Vendor Payment Authorization Process 

We obtained documentation to enable us to determine the effectiveness of the established controls in 

the Coast Guard’s vendor payment authorization process for mission assignments. These 

procedures, as required by OMB Circular A-123, “Management’s Responsibility for Internal 

Control,” are to ensure that payments to vendors are authorized by the appropriate personnel and that 

the ordered goods or services are actually needed and requested by the appropriate personnel. We 

noted the following: 

1.	 	 Of the 136 expenditure transactions selected for validation, 6 did not contain any evidence of an 

authorized official’s review and approval of the vendors’ invoices. These six transactions, 

totaling $126,714, were recorded in the Coast Guard’s financial management system as follows: 

�	 

�	 

�	 

�	 

Supplies and Materials, $107,174; 

Travel and Transportation, $15,389; 

Equipment, $3,954; and 

Contractual Services, $197. 

2.	 	 For 1 of the 136 expenditure transactions selected for validation, the amount expended per the 

Coast Guard’s financial management system did not agree with the amount displayed on the 

corresponding vendor invoice. For this exception, the invoice supported the purchase of 

approximately 25 boats and motors amounting to $93,835. However, the Coast Guard’s 

financial management system and reimbursements billing request identified an expended 

amount of $107,174, which resulted in a variance of $13,339. 

The conditions described above resulted in the identification of $13,339 of questioned costs in 

unsupported expenditures. 

RECOMMENDATION 

We recommend that the Coast Guard: 

�	 Recommendation #5: Develop and implement a system of internal controls to ensure that 

all vendor invoices receive the appropriate reviews prior to payment. 

D. Disaster Field Command Location Policies and Procedures 

The lack of property management procedures and the absence of interagency agreement billing 

details resulted in weak controls over mission assignment-funded property in the disaster field 

command locations. We identified three other factors that significantly inhibited the Coast Guard’s 

ability to account for acquired mission assignment property. 

U.S. Coast Guard’s Management of 2005 Gulf Coast Hurricanes Mission Assignment Funding 9 
�	 

�	 

�	 

Absence of documentation regarding receipt of property items at field command locations; 

Lack of accountable property tracking systems at field command locations; and 

Coast Guard’s informal capitalization and accountable property policy that is inconsistent 

with DHS’ policy. 

1.	 Property Management Controls 

FEMA’s “Personal Property Management Program” manual7

 documents the procedures and internal 

controls needed to successfully ensure accountability for property during disaster responses. As 

documented, disaster field command location receiving processes should include: 

�	 

�	 

�	 

�	 

The receiving location receiving advance notice of ordered goods and their anticipated arrival 

date; 

The status and quantity of received goods being verified at the time of receipt by individuals 

with receiving responsibilities; 

Evidence of the received property’s status and quantity forwarded to the office responsible 

for vendor payment; and 

Ensuring received property is recorded in an asset tracking system that enables the field 

command location to continually track the property location; whether the property is 

currently assigned to anyone; and the property’s serviceability. 

The implementation of these processes provides an organization with the internal controls that help 

ensure that: 

�	 

�	 

�	 

�	 

The type and quantity of procured goods received by the field command location is 
 

accurately recorded; 
 

Vendor payment is valid; 

They maintain accountability over property; and 

Property meeting DHS’ capitalization criteria is completely and accurately presented in the 

organization’s financial management system. 

Our tests showed that the property management system contained evidence of receipt for only 106 of 

the 136 selected expenditure transactions. The acquisition costs of the 30 transactions for which 

evidence of receipt was not available totaled $194,069, and is classified as follows: 

�	 

�	 

�	 

�	 

�	 

Sixteen exceptions: Equipment, $106,795; 

One exception: Telecommunication Services, $30,000; 

Ten exceptions: Travel and Transportation, $29,920; 

Two exceptions: Supplies and Materials, $17,695; and 

One exception: Contractual Services, $9,659. 

7

 FEMA Manual 6150.1, “Personal Property Management Program” 

U.S. Coast Guard’s Management of 2005 Gulf Coast Hurricanes Mission Assignment Funding 10 
In the absence of receiving evidence, we could not confirm: 

�	 

�	 

�	 

The type and quantity of procured goods received by the field command location, 

Whether the vendor payments for these items were valid, or 

Whether the resulting records in the Coast Guard’s property management system are 
 

accurately presented. 
 

We also determined that 19 of the 136 expenditures selected for testing, acquired at a cost of 

$212,814, met DHS’ criteria as being accountable property, but had not been recorded in the Coast 

Guard’s asset tracking system. These property items included four transactions for the purchase of 

satellite telephones and boats totaling $130,493 that were miscoded as either Other Contractual 

Services or Rent, Supplies, and Miscellaneous. All of these 19 items were assets that should have 

been recorded as either capitalized assets or accountable property within the Coast Guard’s property 

management system until they were no longer useful and processed for disposal. 

Property acquired by the Coast Guard to conduct mission assignments is subject to the requirements 

of FEMA Manual 6150.1, “Personal Property Management Program” and DHS Management 

Directive 1120, “Capitalization and Inventory of Personal Property.” Collectively, this guidance 

requires accounting for accountable property with an original acquisition cost of $15,000 or more, 

that by its nature is not expendable or consumable,8

 and the capitalization of property with 

acquisition costs equal to or exceeding $50,000. In response to our request for the Coast Guard’s 

capitalized and accountable property policies and procedures manual, we were told that the current 

document was in draft form during the 2005 Gulf Coast Hurricane disaster response, through 

November 2006, the end of our engagement fieldwork. 

These guidelines require that all accountable and capitalized property acquired with mission 

assignment funding be tracked from their acquisition and use during an agency’s disaster field 

response through either its transfer to FEMA or its disposition. The Coast Guard was unable to 

provide evidence of its disaster field command location tracking of accountable property in response 

to our request. It is important to maintain information on the current status of property items for 

several reasons: to know the quantity available, where it is located, whether it has been issued, and, 

if so, who has responsibility for its use and possible loss. 

We also identified acquired and reimbursed accountable property items that were not returned to 

FEMA at the conclusion of mission assignments as required by its “Mission Assignment Billing and 

8

 Accountable property also includes sensitive and serialized property items. DHS defines sensitive property as 

accountable property (regardless of original acquisition cost), that is highly susceptible to misuse, loss, or theft, such as 

pagers, cellular telephones, electronic test equipment, personal computers, thumb drives, or any other storage device that 

may contain proprietary government information and will be individually accounted for and controlled through the 

agency’s property management system. Serialized equipment includes equipment with a manufacturer’s serial number, 

such as mechanical tools and miscellaneous data processing hardware that is not classified as sensitive property. 

U.S. Coast Guard’s Management of 2005 Gulf Coast Hurricanes Mission Assignment Funding 11 
Reimbursement Checklist.”9

 Within this checklist, FEMA establishes the requirement for an agency 

to meet one of the following conditions to justify the reimbursement of accountable property 

expenditures: 

�	 

�	 

�	 

Return the acquired property; 

Provide an account of the property’s disposition during its disaster response; or 

Obtain FEMA’s authorization to retain the property. 

For the $212,814 of expenditures selected that met DHS’ accountable property classification criteria 

and was included in the Coast Guard’s reimbursement requests, the Coast Guard could not provide 

the current location of the accountable property still on hand, nor records of their disposition, in 

response to our request. 

The conditions described above resulted in the identification of $212,814 of questioned costs for 

reimbursed accountable property that had not been returned to FEMA. 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

We recommend that the Coast Guard: 

�	 Recommendation #6: Conduct periodic reconciliations between procurements, receiving 

documentation, the disaster field command location property tracking system, and a physical 

inventory at all field sites to ensure that procured goods were properly received by the field 

command location, vendor payments are supported, and all acquired property is accurately 

presented in the property management system. 

�	 Recommendation #7: Forward acquired and reimbursed accountable property to FEMA, or 

process a billing adjustment for the identified accountable property amount of $212,814. 

2.	 Interagency Agreement Billings 

The Coast Guard’s expenditure records suggest that, compared to its overall outlays in support of the 

57 mission assignments, it had purchased only limited amounts of property to support deployed 

personnel. We determined that it had not developed, or put in place, effective procedures to sustain 

accountability for these items. The Coast Guard’s practices for contracting for the disaster response 

assistance, through its interagency agreement process, may mask the extent of property purchases. 

9

 Requirements established by FEMA for supporting documentation and reimbursement transactions on their website 

(http://www.fema.gov/government/billinst.shtm) as referred to in the Financial Management Support Annex of the 

National Response Plan (page FIN-5). 

U.S. Coast Guard’s Management of 2005 Gulf Coast Hurricanes Mission Assignment Funding 12 
For the most part, the Coast Guard contracted for debris removal and mitigation of environmental 

issues, which composed the bulk of its mission assignment work. As described previously, we 

selected transactions that covered approximately $37.6 million of the mission assignment 

expenditures. For those that the Coast Guard had arranged for and provided supporting 

documentation, our review of the supporting documentation did not identify substantial equipment 

purchases. These expenditures were for contractual services at agreed-upon rates. We found 

numerous instances where vendors could not meet contract requirements with their own equipment, 

and as a result, these vendors either subcontracted with others for assistance or leased items, as 

needed. 

The Coast Guard contracted with Naval Sea Systems Command to perform additional debris 

removal services through the use of its Pollution Removal Funding Authorization. As discussed 

previously, the type of interagency agreement used by the Coast Guard requires only that the 

performing agency provide performance data as support for reimbursement. In the absence of 

detailed billing data, we were not able to determine whether Naval Sea Systems Command met its 

contractual requirements through the use of subcontractors or leased or acquired property. While 

Naval Sea Systems Command had an established relationship with the Coast Guard for debris 

removal services, Coast Guard procurement officials informed us that the scope of this effort was 

beyond Naval Sea Systems Command’s internal capacity, and that additional contracting had 

occurred. In the absence of documentation supporting billed amounts paid by the Coast Guard, there 

is no certainty that the Coast Guard did not pay for certain property augmentation or subcontractor 

purchased property. To the extent that this occurred, additional detail would have to be obtained on 

the Naval Sea Systems Command billings to identify costs associated with property purchased and 

billed to the Coast Guard but retained by Naval Sea Systems Command. Upon our request, the 

Coast Guard was unable to provide the documentation required to assess the amount of accountable 

property to be refunded or turned over to FEMA. 

RECOMMENDATION 

We recommend that the Coast Guard: 

�	 Recommendation #8: Ensure that all future interagency agreements used to meet mission 

assignment objectives require the performing agency to compile and provide supporting 

detail on property purchased and billed to the Coast Guard. 

E. Documentation for Supporting Expenditures 

The Coast Guard did not have sufficient supporting documentation for approximately $20.4 million 

of the $100.4 million it had expended on the 57 mission assignments as of March 31, 2006. This is a 

significant weakness in accountability for federal funding and was a substantial portion of the $20.6 

million that we considered to be questionable costs incurred by the Coast Guard in carrying out the 

mission assignments. We identified the $20.4 million of unsupported costs by testing 136 

U.S. Coast Guard’s Management of 2005 Gulf Coast Hurricanes Mission Assignment Funding 13 
expenditure transactions totaling $37.6 million, about 38% of total Coast Guard outlays. Our 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology described in Appendix A provide the details on our sample 

selection. 

We asked the Coast Guard to provide us the underlying purchase orders, invoices, and acceptance 

and receipt documentation. We then analyzed the supporting documentation that the Coast Guard 

provided for each expenditure transaction to determine whether it was sufficient to confirm that each 

was a valid outlay. Based on this audit work, we concluded that 30 of the 136 transactions totaling 

about $20.4 million were not fully supported. In addition to OMB standards for maintaining 

documentation in support of incurred expenditures, documentation evidencing all mission 

assignment expenditures is required by FEMA for reimbursement. 

Of these unsupported amounts, $20.2 million was the direct result of interagency agreements 

previously discussed in this report. We present the remaining results of our work below, classified 

according to the related budget object class. For each budget object class, we identify the number of 

transactions for which the Coast Guard did not provide sufficient documentation and the amounts 

involved, which we consider to be questionable costs. 

1.	 	 Rent, Supplies, and Miscellaneous – supporting documentation was not provided for 12 of the 

40 rent, supplies, and miscellaneous expenditure selections. Questioned costs totaled $190,910. 

�	 

�	 

�	 

�	 

�	 

Supplies and materials, $72,024 

Contractual services $61,435 

Travel and transportation of persons, $32,456 

Transportation of things, $16,852 

Personnel compensation, $8,143 

2.	 	 Travel and Transportation – supporting documentation was not provided for 9 of the 33 travel 

and transportation expenditure selections. Questioned costs totaled $22,024. One of the nine 

transactions in the amount of $763 was processed in the Coast Guard’s financial management 

system as Supplies and Materials, while the remaining eight transactions were processed as 

travel and transportation expenditures. 

RECOMMENDATION 

We recommend that the Coast Guard: 

�	 Recommendation #9: Ensure adherence to its requirements to retain detailed 
 

documentation supporting transactions. 
 

U.S. Coast Guard’s Management of 2005 Gulf Coast Hurricanes Mission Assignment Funding 14 
F. The Mission Assignment Reimbursement Billing Process 

Inefficiencies in the Coast Guard’s manual mission assignment reimbursement billing process can be 

lessened through improvements in its financial system and management control environment. The 

Coast Guard’s practices for recording transactions, its financial management system controls, and 

lack of interagency supporting documentation made it administratively difficult to compile the 

necessary supporting documentation for reimbursement. This condition substantially increases the 

risk that expenditures may not be correctly classified for purposes of reimbursement from FEMA. 

The Coast Guard is cognizant of the fact that its budgetary control and accounting processes 

compromise the data quality that would otherwise be available for documenting billings to FEMA. 

We were informed that prior disaster billings have always been manageable, but that the increased 

volume of billings associated with the 2005 disaster response overwhelmed the capacity of in-house 

staff that performed these duties in addition to their normal daily functions. 

The Coast Guard’s operation of its financial management system, without the full utilization of its 

funds control function, increases the risk of obligations being incurred without confirmation of the 

availability of funds. This condition also has resulted in the processing of disbursements without 

preceding obligations, and incurring disaster relief expenditures that do not qualify for 

reimbursement. For example, in January 2006, a reimbursement bill was created that resulted in a 

$1.9 million Intra-Governmental Payment and Collection System collection by the Coast Guard of 

which $1.3 million was subsequently determined to be unallowable and refunded to FEMA as of the 

engagement’s cutoff date of March 31, 2006. 

In order to address the risk of overbilling or seeking the reimbursement of unallowable costs 

resulting from disabling its financial management system’s funds control functionality, the Coast 

Guard hired a contractor to perform disaster relief reimbursable expenditure validation and bill 

compilation services. Bills compiled were forwarded to Coast Guard headquarters for a second 

detailed review, which included recalculating all amounts and ensuring that all supporting 

documents and schedules were attached. Upon completion of the second review, the reimbursement 

billings are processed through the Intra-Governmental Payment and Collection System. However, 

the implementation of these additional controls has resulted in a backlog of reimbursement requests. 

The procedures created to minimize the risk of seeking reimbursement of disallowed expenditures 

included: 

�	 

�	 

The manual review of supporting documentation for all expenditures designated as 

reimbursable with disaster relief funding (7,612 transactions through March 31, 2006) during 

the preparation of the Intra-Governmental Payment and Collection System supporting 

documentation package; and 

A secondary review of the reimbursement billing package and supporting documentation 

package prior to processing an Intra-Governmental Payment and Collection System 

transaction. 

U.S. Coast Guard’s Management of 2005 Gulf Coast Hurricanes Mission Assignment Funding 15 
The manually intensive process of reviewing all expenditures during the preparation of a 

reimbursement-billing package resulted in the Coast Guard procuring a contractor with the full-time 

responsibility of performing disaster relief reimbursable expenditure validations. The secondary 

review performed on each Authorization to Bill (billing) package prior to its Intra-Governmental 

Payment and Collection System processing has resulted in a backlog of 72 billing packages, totaling 

$48.7 million. This represents 59% of the total number of disaster billings, and 47% of the total 

billed amount, that had not been processed through the Intra-Governmental Payment and Collection 

System as of March 31, 2006. 

We reviewed 28 billing packages covering more than $80 million and determined that, with minor 

exceptions, they substantially met FEMA’s documentation requirements. However, the inability of 

the Coast Guard to bill for reimbursement of incurred mission assignment expenditures in a timely 

manner affects its funding availability and negatively impacts its ability to respond to disaster 

activities and perform appropriated functions efficiently. 

Such delays in obtaining reimbursements under mission assignments can inhibit effective 

management of appropriated funds at year-end. When a disaster response is required and the extent 

of mission assignment funding is not known, the Coast Guard is required to initially fund disaster 

response activities with its annual appropriation until reimbursed by FEMA. The inability of the 

Coast Guard to bill for reimbursement of incurred mission assignment expenditures in a timely 

manner affects its funding availability, and can potentially detract from its ability to efficiently 

respond to disaster activities and perform functions supported by appropriated funds. 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

We recommend that the Coast Guard: 

�	 Recommendation #10: Create a reimbursement billing package preparation checklist 

consistent with FEMA’s reimbursement billing supporting documentation requirements. 

� Recommendation #11: Ensure that the billing package preparation checklist is completed 

during the Coast Guard’s reimbursable expenditure validation process and obtain 

certification of its completeness. 

� Recommendation #12: Modify the procedures performed during the secondary review of 

the reimbursement billing process to reduce backlog. 

U.S. Coast Guard’s Management of 2005 Gulf Coast Hurricanes Mission Assignment Funding 16 
Management Response and OIG Analysis 

We sought but did not receive formal comments from the U.S. Coast Guard to include in this report, 

although the U.S. Coast Guard did informally concur with all our recommendations. During the 

audit and after our fieldwork, the U.S. Coast Guard worked to improve its operation involving 

mission assignments. For example, the U.S. Coast Guard is revising its Financial Resources 

Management Manual to address many of the problems we identified. We offered 12 

recommendations aimed at improving the U.S. Coast Guard’s management of mission assignment 

funding from the Federal Emergency Management Agency. We consider all the recommendations 

resolved because steps have been taken to implement them, but they will remain open until they 

have been fully implemented. The U.S. Coast Guard anticipates revisions to the Financial Resources 

Management Manual will be completed by the 3rd quarter of fiscal year 2010. We will close each 

recommendation as the U.S. Coast Guard provides evidence they have been fully implemented. 

U.S. Coast Guard’s Management of 2005 Gulf Coast Hurricanes Mission Assignment Funding 17 
Appendix A 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 

DHS Office of Inspector General (OIG) contracted with Regis and Associates, PC to assess the U.S. 

Coast Guard’s (Coast Guard’s) mission assignment management and financial management controls 

and offer recommendations for any needed improvements. This effort is part of the overall objective 

of the DHS OIG to ensure accountability in the management and expenditure of funds for relief and 

recovery efforts relative to disasters. 

The scope of this review includes the 57 mission assignments issued to the Coast Guard by FEMA 

for disaster response assistance in the Gulf Coast region resulting from hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and 

Wilma (2005 Gulf Coast Hurricanes); the management processes and financial management controls 

applicable to these mission assignments; and the related contracts, expenditures, and reimbursement 

billings for the period August 29, 2005 through March 31, 2006. Our review objectives were to 

assess whether the management processes and financial management controls were properly 

designed and implemented, and to determine whether the contracts used, expenditures incurred, and 

reimbursements requested were authorized, valid, and appropriately supported. 

These agreed-upon procedures were performed in accordance with standards established by the 

American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and guidance from the Office of Management 

and Budget and Government Accountability Office. 

We reviewed selected previous DHS OIG and Government Accountability Office reports concerning 

the Coast Guard’s 2005 Gulf Coast Hurricanes mission assignment management to familiarize 

ourselves with prior recommendations, regulations, and guidance applicable to the Coast Guard’s 

processes and controls. The results of these reviews were incorporated into our risk assessment for 

this engagement and our reported results. 

The management processes and financial management controls assessment included information 

gathering through interviews with appropriate personnel, as well as evaluating the management 

controls and process design. These evaluations were done through review of current policies and 

procedures and those that existed during the 2005 Gulf Coast Hurricanes. 

The determination as to whether the contracts used, expenditures incurred, and reimbursements 

requested were authorized, valid, and appropriately supported included our review of supporting 

documentation made available by the Coast Guard in each of these areas. We obtained a list from 

the Coast Guard of all procurement, expenditure, and reimbursement billing transactions from its 

financial management system for the period August 29, 2005, through March 31, 2006. These 

transactions were stratified among procurement, expenditure, and reimbursement billing categories 

for the performance of test procedures specific to each transaction category. 

For our tests of procurements, we used a high-dollar criterion to select 49 procurements, representing 

$146.7 million, or 90% of the $163 million gross obligation total. 

U.S. Coast Guard’s Management of 2005 Gulf Coast Hurricanes Mission Assignment Funding 18 
 

 

�

�

�

�

�
 

Appendix A 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 

For our tests of expenditures, we stratified expenditure transactions by budget object code into five 

categories with similar processes and controls: 

Other contractual services; 


Overhead; 


Travel and transportation of persons; 


Supplies and materials and rent, communications, and utilities; and 


Equipment. 


We used a high-dollar criterion within each category to select a total of 136 expenditures. The 

following table provides an overview of expenditures incurred through March 31, 2006, and 

selections for each of the above categories. 

Table 1	 	 Coast Guard 2005 Gulf Coast Hurricane Incurred Expenditures through March 31, 2006 and 

Selections 

Expense Category 

Incurred 

Expenditures 

(000s) 

# of 

Selections 

Selection 

Total 

(000s) 

% 

Coverage 

Other Contractual Services $ 82,316 37 $ 27,831 34% 

Overhead 9,241 2 9,050 98% 

Travel and Transportation of Persons 5,068 33 99 2% 

Supplies and Materials and 

Rent, Communications, and Utilities 3,542 40 550 16% 

Equipment 107 24 107 100% 

TOTALS $ 100,274 136 $ 37,637 38% 

When summarized transactions were selected using the high-dollar value criterion, we made 

additional judgmental selections and performed detailed tests on individual personnel and travel 

expenditures within the summary transaction total. 

For our tests of reimbursement billings, we used a high-dollar criterion to select 28 billings 

representing $80.4 million of the total $102.5 million of reimbursements requested through 

March 31, 2006. 

Our fieldwork was conducted from April 25, 2006, through November 3, 2006, and included visits 

to Coast Guard headquarters in Washington, DC, and its offices in Virginia. 

U.S. Coast Guard’s Management of 2005 Gulf Coast Hurricanes Mission Assignment Funding 19 
Appendix B 

Recommendations 

Recommendation #1: Ensure that all future interagency agreements used to meet mission 

assignment objectives require the performing agency to compile and provide supporting 

documentation, consistent with FEMA’s requirements. 

Recommendation #2: Ensure that all incurred obligations are recorded in the financial management 

system, as required by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). 

Recommendation #3: Fully implement the use of its financial management system’s funds control 

capabilities to minimize the risk of incurring mission assignment expenditures in excess of funding 

limits and the processing of improper payments. 

Recommendation #4: Provide training to field command location and financial management 

personnel in the appropriate use of budget object codes and the processing of transactions in its 

financial management system with funds control functionality enabled. 

Recommendation #5: Develop and implement a system of internal controls to ensure that all vendor 

invoices receive the appropriate reviews prior to payment. 

Recommendation #6: Conduct periodic reconciliations between procurements, receiving 

documentation, the disaster field command location property tracking system, and a physical 

inventory at all field sites to ensure that procured goods were properly received by the field 

command location, vendor payments are supported, and all acquired property is accurately presented 

in the property management system. 

Recommendation #7: Forward acquired and reimbursed accountable property to FEMA, or process 

a billing adjustment for the identified accountable property amount of $212,814. 

Recommendation #8: Ensure that all future interagency agreements used to meet mission 

assignment objectives require the performing agency to compile and provide supporting detail on 

property purchased and billed to the Coast Guard. 

Recommendation #9: Ensure adherence to its requirements to retain detailed documentation 

supporting transactions. 

Recommendation #10: Create a reimbursement billing package preparation checklist consistent 

with FEMA’s reimbursement billing supporting documentation requirements. 

Recommendation #11: Ensure that the billing package preparation checklist is completed during the 

Coast Guard’s reimbursable expenditure validation process and obtain certification of its 

completeness. 

Recommendation #12: Modify the procedures performed during the secondary review of the 

reimbursement billing process to reduce backlog. 

U.S. Coast Guard’s Management of 2005 Gulf Coast Hurricanes Mission Assignment Funding 20 
 

Appendix C 

Schedule of Questioned Costs 

During our review, we observed the conditions listed below, which are discussed in detail in the 

Results of Review section of this report. The following questioned costs were identified: 

Condition10 

Description Amount 

A Unsupported interagency agreement expenditures S 20,164,597 

C Undocumented vendor payment authorization 13,339 

E Unsupported rent, supplies & miscellaneous 190,910 

E Unsupported travel & transportation 22,024 

D Accountable property not returned to FEMA 212,814 

TOTAL QUESTIONED COSTS $ 20,603,684 

10 The “condition” refers to the lettered section of the report in which the questioned costs are described. 

U.S. Coast Guard’s Management of 2005 Gulf Coast Hurricanes Mission Assignment Funding 21 
Appendix D 

Report Distribution 

Department of Homeland Security 

Secretary 

Deputy Secretary 

Chief of Staff 

Deputy Chief of Staff 

General Counsel 

Executive Secretary 

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 

Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard 

Coast Guard Audit Liaison 

Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency 

Assistant Administrator, Disaster Operations Directorate, FEMA 

FEMA Audit Liaison 

Office of Management and Budget 

Chief, Homeland Security Branch 

DHS OIG Budget Examiner 

Congress 

Congressional Oversight and Appropriations Committees, as appropriate 

U.S. Coast Guard’s Management of 2005 Gulf Coast Hurricanes Mission Assignment Funding 22 
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND COPIES 

To obtain additional copies of this report, please call the Office of Inspector General (OIG) at (202) 254-4199, 

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.