The audit claims that no overlap between the two programs should have existed, when, in fact, the programs were intended to be highly complementary. In fact, the majority of leak savings identified by the RWS were identified in economically fragile buildings that benefitted from surveys and the installation of low-flow toilets. DEP ended the overlap between the two programs for programmatic and contractual considerations long before the Comptroller's audit began. The audit ignores this fact. While the audit claims that some surveys were accepted from TRP participants after that date, it fails to mention that they were exceedingly few and that DEP has already made a claim against the RWS contractor for those fees.
Fundamental flaws undermine the sample selection used to support the audit's analysis.
The auditors rely upon a non-representative sample of residential units and fail to account for their choice of buildings. The audit's sampling methods are not supportable. Intrinsically non-representative sampling was employed in the selection of residences, and the audit stated no sampling theory to support this choice. The audit's discussion of customer satisfaction issues draws conclusions that aren't supported by legitimate statistical sampling. But even accepting this skewed data as valid, the audit itself shows that more than three-quarters of respondents have never experienced any problems.