type: other

jurisdiction: US

text: b"Report No. D-2010-055 April 29, 2010\n\n\n\n\n Medical/Surgical Prime Vendor Contract Supporting\n Coalition Forces in Iraq and Afghanistan\n\x0cAdditional Copies\nTo obtain additional copies of this report, visit the Web site of the Department of Defense\nInspector General at http://www.dodig.mil/audit/reports or contact the Secondary Reports\nDistribution Unit at (703) 604-8937 (DSN 664-8937) or fax (703) 604-8932.\n\nSuggestions for Audits\nTo suggest or request audits, contact the Office of the Deputy Inspector General for\nAuditing by phone (703) 604-9142 (DSN 664-9142), by fax (703) 604-8932, or by mail:\n\n ODIG-AUD (ATTN: Audit Suggestions)\n Department of Defense Inspector General\n 400 Army Navy Drive (Room 801)\n Arlington, VA 22202-4704\n\n\n\n\nAcronyms and Abbreviations\nACPOP Alternate Commercial Product Ordering Program\nASD(HA) Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs\nDAPA Distribution and Pricing Agreements\nDLA Defense Logistics Agency\nDSCP Defense Supply Center Philadelphia\nMSPV Medical/Surgical Prime Vendor\nUSAMMA U.S. Army Medical Materiel Agency\nUSAMMCE U.S. Army Medical Materiel Center Europe\nUSAMMC-SWA U.S. Army Medical Materiel Center - Southwest Asia\nUSCENTCOM U.S. Central Command\n\x0c INSPECTOR GENERAL \n\n DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE \n\n 400 ARMY NAVY DRIVE \n\n ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA 22202-4704 \n\n\n\n\n\n APR 29 D)\n\n\n\nMEMORANDUM FOR DIRECTOR, DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY\n\nSUBJECT: Medical/Surgical Prime Vendor Contract Supporting Coalition Forces in Iraq\n and Afghanistan (Report No. 0-20 I 0-055)\n\n\nWe are providing this report for your information and use. We performed this audit in\nresponse to the requirements in Public Law 110-181 , the FY 2008 National Defense\nAuthorization Act, section 842, which requires the DoD Inspector General to audit DOD\nlogistics contracts supporting coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.\n\nWe considered management comments on a draft of this repOlt when preparing the final\nreport. The Commander, Defense Supply Center Philadelphia, comments conformed to\nthe requirements of DOD Directive 7650.3; therefore, we do not need additional\ncomments.\n\nWe appreciate the courtesies extended to the staff. Please direct questions to me at\n(703) 604-8866.\n\n\n\n\n Alice F. Carey\n Acting Assistant Inspector General\n Readiness, Operations, and Support\n\n\n\n\ncc: Commander, Defense Supply Center Philadelphi a\n\x0c\x0cReport No. D-2010-055 (Project No. D2008-D000LF-0267.000) April 29, 2010\n\n\n Results in Brief: Medical/Surgical Prime\n Vendor Contract Supporting Coalition Forces\n in Iraq and Afghanistan\n Supply Center Philadelphia. As a result, the\nWhat We Did primary ordering facility for medical/surgical\nOur objectives were to determine whether terms supplies used in Iraq and Afghanistan did not\nand conditions for the Medical/Surgical Prime obtain the benefit of an estimated $65,000 of\nVendor contract were adequately developed and overcharge credits for FY 2008. In addition,\nthe administration of the contract and delivery other ordering organizations in the Global North\norders was effective. The primary ordering Region and the other regions may not be\nfacility for medical/surgical supplies used in obtaining due overcharge credits.\nIraq and Afghanistan ordered about $90 million\nin supplies in FY 2008 from the prime vendor. What We Recommend\nThe contract terms and conditions reviewed in We recommend that the Commander, Defense\nthis report include the methodology used to Supply Center Philadelphia, determine the status\ncompute rates that recoup the cost of the of FY 2008 and FY 2009 overcharge credits and\nMedical/Surgical Prime Vendor program and ensure the overcharge credits are applied to\nthe distribution process used to ship the customers\xe2\x80\x99 accounts, develop procedures to\nsupplies. In addition, this report focuses on the ensure the prime vendor notifies customers of\nmonitoring of contractor performance portion of credits and that the credits are applied to\ncontract administration. customers\xe2\x80\x99 accounts, and provide estimated\n milestones for completion of recommendations.\nWhat We Found\nTerms and conditions for the Medical/Surgical Management Comments and\nPrime Vendor contract were adequately Our Response\ndeveloped to meet users\xe2\x80\x99 needs. We reviewed The Commander, Defense Supply Center\nselected aspects of the contract based on Philadelphia, agreed with the recommendations.\nconcerns raised by the primary customers and Management comments were responsive.\nstakeholders. We found the terms and Please see the recommendations table on the\nconditions did not need improvement. In back of this page.\naddition, Defense Supply Center Philadelphia\nsolicits input from primary customers and\nstakeholders within the DOD logistics support\ncommunity to ensure key requirements are\nincorporated into the contract.\n\nControls over monitoring the performance of the\nprime vendor contractor for the Global North\nRegion were generally adequate. However,\nprocedures to monitor credits to ensure DOD\nobtains the benefit of credits need improvement.\nThe prime vendor did not apply FY 2008\novercharge credits resulting from price\nverification analyses performed by Defense\n\n i\n\x0cReport No. D-2010-055 (Project No. D2008-D000LF-0267.000) April 29, 2010\n\nRecommendations Table\n\nManagement Recommendations No Additional Comments\n Requiring Comment Required\nCommander, Defense Supply 1, 2, and 3\nCenter Philadelphia\n\n\n\n\n ii\n\x0cTable of Contents\n\nIntroduction 1\n\n\n Objectives 1\n\n Background 1\n\n Review of Internal Controls 3\n\n\nFinding. Medical/Surgical Prime Vendor Contract 4\n\n\n Recommendations, Management Comments, and Our Response 9\n\n\nAppendix\n\n Scope and Methodology 11 \n\n Prior Coverage 12 \n\n\nManagement Comments\n\n Defense Supply Center Philadelphia 13 \n\n\x0c\x0cIntroduction\nObjectives\nThe objectives of the audit were to determine whether terms and conditions for the\nMedical/Surgical Prime Vendor (MSPV) contract were adequately developed and the\nadministration of the contract and delivery orders was effective. Also, this report focuses\non the monitoring of contractor performance portion of contract administration. See\nAppendix A for the scope and methodology and prior coverage related to this report.\n\nWe held discussions with activities throughout DOD involved in planning for medical\nlogistics to discuss any concerns that they may have with the terms and conditions of the\ncontract. Specifically, we met with personnel from the offices of the Assistant Secretary\nof Defense for Health Affairs (ASD[HA]), Army Surgeon General, Army Medical\nCommand, U.S. Army Medical Materiel Agency (USAMMA), U.S. Army Medical\nMateriel Center Europe (USAMMCE), the 6th Medical Logistics Management Center,\nNavy Bureau of Medicine and Surgery, the Naval Medical Logistics Command, the\nNaval Supply Systems Command, the Air Force Surgeon General, and the Air Force\nMedical Logistics Office. Overall, personnel were pleased with most of the terms and\nconditions of the contract. However, the rates used to recover costs of the MSPV\nprogram were often cited as an area of concern. Accordingly, we decided to focus on the\nmethodology used by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) and Defense Supply Center\nPhiladelphia (DSCP) to compute system recovery rates that recoup the costs of the\nMSPV program. We also decided to review the distribution process used to send\nmedical/surgical supplies to requesting activities in Iraq and Afghanistan.\n\nWe performed this audit pursuant to Public Law 110-181, \xe2\x80\x9cThe National Defense\nAuthorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008,\xe2\x80\x9d section 842, \xe2\x80\x9cInvestigation of Waste, Fraud,\nand Abuse in Wartime Contracts and Contracting Processes in Iraq and Afghanistan,\xe2\x80\x9d\nJanuary 28, 2008. Section 842 requires \xe2\x80\x9cthorough audits \xe2\x80\xa6 to identify potential waste,\nfraud, and abuse in the performance of (1) Department of Defense contracts,\nsubcontracts, and task and delivery orders for the logistical support of coalition forces in\nIraq and Afghanistan; and (2) Federal agency contracts, subcontracts, and task and\ndelivery orders for the performance of security and reconstruction functions in Iraq and\nAfghanistan.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\nBackground\nDOD Directive 5101.09, \xe2\x80\x9cDoD Executive Agent for Medical Materiel,\xe2\x80\x9d August 23, 2004,\nestablishes DLA as the Executive Agent for operating the Class VIII (medical materiel)\nsupply chain. DLA delegated the day-to-day responsibility to execute the Class VIII\nsupply chain to DSCP. One mission of DSCP is to ensure that the warfighter has all\nClass VIII medical surge and sustainment materials needed in support of military or\nhumanitarian operations.\n\n\n\n\n 1\n\n\x0cDSCP provides medical supplies through the MSPV program to DOD military treatment\nfacilities worldwide. The MSPV program consists of three TRICARE global regions\n(North, South, and West) to provide routine ordering capability throughout the world.\nOne purpose of the MSPV program is to distribute medical supplies on a next-day\ndelivery basis. The MSPV contract for the Global North Region includes support to the\nmilitary in Iraq and Afghanistan within the U.S. Central Command (USCENTCOM) area\nof responsibility.\n\nU.S. Army Medical Materiel Center - Southwest Asia (USAMMC-SWA) in Doha, Qatar,\nis the Theater Lead Agent for Medical Materiel in the USCENTCOM area of\nresponsibility. As the lead agent, USAMMC-SWA is responsible for executing\nClass VIII storage and distribution. Customers in Iraq and Afghanistan place an order for\nmedical supplies with USAMMC-SWA. If the item is not in stock, USAMMC-SWA\norders the supplies from USAMMCE, located in Pirmasens, Germany. If USAMMCE\ndoes not have the item, an order is placed using the MSPV contract. The prime vendor\nfills the order, packages the items for shipment, and delivers the order to the prime\nvendor distribution center dock for pickup by a Government-supplied carrier for\nshipping. At this point, the shipment becomes the responsibility of the Government, and\nthe requested item is shipped to USAMMCE. USAMMCE then either replenishes its\nstock to replace supplies distributed or forwards the items to USAMMC-SWA for\ndelivery to the unit via Military Air Transportation.\n\nTable 1 shows the total FY 2008 cost of the Global North Region contract, cost of\nUSAMMCE orders that include items ordered for USAMMC-SWA, and direct shipments\ninto Iraq and Afghanistan. Our review focused on USAMMCE orders because of its role\nin supporting USAMMC-SWA.\n\n Table 1. FY 2008 Cost of Global North Region Medical Supplies\n Area Cost Percentage of Cost\nGlobal North Region $294,286,032 100.00\nUSAMMCE 89,556,341 30.43\nIraq and Afghanistan 145,475 0.05\n\nPrices for supplies available through the MSPV program are established under DSCP\nDistribution and Pricing Agreements (DAPAs). DSCP negotiates DAPAs with\nmanufacturers or distributors of medical surgical supplies, providing uniform supply\npricing for all DSCP prime vendor customers. DAPA catalogs are updated monthly with\nnew products and price changes effective the first day of the following month. In\naddition, the Alternate Commercial Product Ordering Program (ACPOP) is designed to\ngive customers access to items not covered by a DAPA.\n\n\n\n\n 2\n\n\x0cThe annual cost of medical and surgical supplies provided to USAMMCE under the\nMSPV contract, including supplies destined for USAMMC-SWA, is shown in Table 2.\n\n Table 2. USAMMCE Medical/Surgical Supplies\n Fiscal Year Delivered Quantity Cost\n 2006 923,732 $ 41,922,684\n 2007 2,528,608 107,206,873\n 2008 1,833,797 89,556,341\n\n\nReview of Internal Controls\nDOD Instruction 5010.40, \xe2\x80\x9cManagers\xe2\x80\x99 Internal Control (MIC) Program Procedures,\xe2\x80\x9d\nJanuary 4, 2006, requires DOD organizations to implement a comprehensive system of\ninternal controls that provides reasonable assurance that programs are operating as\nintended and to evaluate the effectiveness of the controls. Although internal controls\nwere generally adequate, we identified an internal control weakness for Defense Supply\nCenter Philadelphia. DSCP did not monitor the prime vendor\xe2\x80\x99s procedures to quantify\novercharge credits and notify ordering customers of them, instead relying on customers to\nidentify when the prime vendor was not complying with the requirements of the contract.\nImplementing Recommendation 1 should improve internal controls of overcharge credits\nto ensure the prime vendor contractor complies with contract requirements regarding\novercharge credits and DOD can obtain the benefit of credits. A copy of the report will\nbe provided to the senior officials responsible for internal controls, specifically the Senior\nProcurement Executive at DLA Headquarters and the Head of Contracting Activity at\nDSCP.\n\n\n\n\n 3\n\n\x0cFinding. Medical/Surgical Prime\nVendor Contract\nTerms and conditions for the Medical/Surgical Prime Vendor contract were adequately\ndeveloped to meet users\xe2\x80\x99 needs. In addition, controls over monitoring the performance of\nthe prime vendor contractor for the Global North Region were generally adequate.\nHowever, procedures to monitor credits to ensure DOD obtains the benefit of credits need\nimprovement. Specifically, the prime vendor did not apply FY 2008 overcharge credits\nto the USAMMCE account. As a result, USAMMCE, the primary ordering facility for\nmedical/surgical supplies used in Iraq and Afghanistan, did not obtain the benefit on an\nestimated $65,000 of overcharge credits for FY 2008. In addition, other ordering\norganizations in the Global North Region and the other regions may not be obtaining due\novercharge credits. Improving controls over monitoring the prime vendor\xe2\x80\x99s performance\nwill ensure overcharge credits are quantified and the customers are notified of available\ncredits.\n\nContract Terms and Conditions\nWe did not identify terms and conditions in the MSPV contract that needed improvement.\nWe solicited comments from key stakeholders to identify areas in the current MSPV\ncontract that could be improved. Considering the comments, we focused on the system\nrecovery rate and the supply distribution process. We found that DSCP solicits input\nfrom primary customers and stakeholders within the DOD logistics support community,\nto ensure key requirements are incorporated into the contract.\n\nSystem Recovery Rate\nThe methodology used to formulate the cost recovery rate, a portion of the system\nrecovery rate, complied with DLA guidance and the computations supporting the rate\nwere accurate. The system recovery rate is applied to purchases made by activities in\nIraq and Afghanistan to recover costs that DLA and DSCP incur while buying materiel\nand selling it to the customer. The system recovery rate is the cumulative total of the\nMSPV program cost recovery rate for Outside Continental United States and materiel-\nrelated costs that are charged to the customer. The cost recovery rate portion of the\nsystem recovery rate includes costs such as labor costs, depreciation, surcharges, and\nsustainment costs of materiel that DSCP incurs while buying materiel and selling it to the\ncustomer. Materiel-related costs are any costs incurred for an item before it can be sold,\nsuch as first destination transportation and assembly-related costs. DSCP is responsible\nfor developing and annually reassessing the cost recovery rate based on historical budget\ndata from the previous year. The FY 2009 MSPV Outside Continental United States cost\nrecovery rate portion of the system recovery rate is 11.5 percent and the materiel-related\ncosts rate is 17.4 percent. The total combined system recovery rate charged to ordering\nactivities in Iraq and Afghanistan was 28.9 percent.\n\n\n\n\n 4\n\n\x0cSupply Distribution Process\nWe planned to review different options that the prime vendor and DSCP could use to\ndeliver medical surgical supplies to their customers in Iraq and Afghanistan. However,\nwe discovered that the Commanding General, U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel\nCommand, was sponsoring a RAND Corporation study of the Class VIII medical\nsupplies distribution structure for all supplies being distributed into Iraq and Afghanistan.\nBased on the plans for the study, we decided not to review the contract delivery process\nto avoid duplication of effort.\n\nThe objective of the RAND Corporation study was to \xe2\x80\x9cEvaluate whether changes in the\nUSCENTCOM medical supply distribution structure would lead to decreased costs\nand/or improved performance of the theater health service support system.\xe2\x80\x9d The study\nwill directly review options for distributing medical logistics supplies through different\nmethods than those currently used. The study will determine and compare distribution\ntimes and costs for sending medical supplies from each of the distribution nodes (prime\nvendor, USAMMCE, and USAMMC-SWA) to the USCENTCOM area of responsibility.\nThe study will also determine and compare the costs of using the current medical\nlogistics structure and potential costs to use the non-medical logistics structure for\nmedical supplies. The study report is expected to be released in April 2010.\n\nCoordination of Terms and Conditions\nDSCP solicits input from multiple agencies and activities during the contract planning\nphases to ensure incorporation of valid requirements in the contract. DSCP coordinated\nwith personnel from the Offices of the Surgeon General and medical logistics personnel\nwithin the Office of the ASD(HA) and the Military Departments. For example, based on\nminutes of meetings for the next generation contracts, coordination meetings were held\nwith representatives from U.S. Army Medical Command, the Air Force Medical\nOperations Agency, the Defense Medical Logistics Standard Support Program Office, the\nJoint Medical Logistics Functional Development Center, and the Naval Medical Logistics\nCommand. DSCP coordinates with these activities for each new generation of the MSPV\ncontract. During these planning phases, DSCP reviews and incorporates any additional\nneeds the activities may have into the contract as well as removing any terms and\nconditions that should no longer apply. By performing this extensive coordination,\nDSCP helps to ensure that the customers\xe2\x80\x99 and stakeholders\xe2\x80\x99 needs for the contract are\nmet.\n\nPrime Vendor Performance\nControls over monitoring the performance of the prime vendor contractor for the Global\nNorth Region were generally adequate. However, procedures to monitor credits to ensure\nDOD obtains the benefit of the credits need improvement. Specifically, the prime vendor\ndid not apply FY 2008 overcharge credits resulting from price verification analyses. This\noccurred because DSCP did not monitor the prime vendor\xe2\x80\x99s procedures to quantify and\nnotify ordering customers of overcharge credits. As a result, USAMMCE, the primary\nordering facility for medical/surgical supplies used in Iraq and Afghanistan, was not\n\n\n\n\n 5\n\n\x0caware of an estimated $65,000 in overcharge credits for FY 2008 and therefore did not\nuse the credits.\n\nSurveillance Procedures\nDSCP ensures prime vendor compliance with contract requirements through multiple\nprocesses. Annual assessments review selected aspects of the prime vendor performance.\nQuarterly compliance audits determine whether the pricing and non-pricing performance\nmetrics meet established levels. In addition, the contract management plan monitors\nthree major metrics of contract performance: customer satisfaction, fill rate, and pricing\naccuracy. In FY 2009, the DLA Center for Excellence and Pricing began doing the\npricing portion of the annual assessments and compliance audits and DSCP continued\ndoing the non-pricing annual assessment and compliance audits.\n\nAnnual Assessments and Compliance Audits\nThe annual assessments and quarterly compliance audits performed by DSCP reported\nissues concerning the ACPOP pricing instrument for products used by the prime vendor.\nThe ACPOP program was conceived to reduce local purchase actions by customers and\nprovide greater visibility of acquisitions made by customers. ACPOP was intended to be\nthe pricing instrument of last resort.\n\nThe FY 2008 annual assessment identified where customers inappropriately used the\nACPOP. The DSCP Compliance Division\xe2\x80\x99s preliminary research indicated\napproximately 46 percent of procurements that fall into ACPOP are the result of\ncustomer failure to identify the correct DAPA information when placing an order. The\ncompliance audits reported that the ACPOP action plan, which was designed to move\nitems onto DAPA pricing agreements, has had a positive impact on decreasing the\nquantity of items ordered through ACPOP and progress has been made between each\ncompliance audit.\n\nDSCP plans for resolving the ACPOP problems by doing away with ACPOP pricing in\nthe next generation, 2010, of the MSPV contracts. DSCP sent letters to the companies\nthat fill the majority of the ACPOP orders informing them that the ACPOP pricing will\nnot be included in the next generation of contracts and providing information on how to\nenter into a DAPA agreement.\n\nContract Management Plan\nThe contract management plan for the MSPV program is an effective mechanism for\nmonitoring the key performance requirements of the MSPV contract. The plan,\nestablished June 4, 2008, uses a systematic approach to monitor key performance criteria\nby focusing on customer satisfaction, fill rate, and pricing accuracy.\n\n Customer Satisfaction\nCustomers appear generally satisfied with the service provided by the prime vendor.\nInterviews with USAMMCE personnel indicated they had no complaints with the level of\nservice provided by the prime vendor. The number of customer service issues is minimal\ncompared with the volume of orders. In addition, aged service ticket reviews do not\n\n\n 6\n\n\x0cindicate systemic problems with customer satisfaction. Although USCENTCOM\nSurgeon General personnel stated they did not have direct contact with the prime vendor,\nthey are generally satisfied with the medical supply support they receive.\n\nDSCP monitors customer satisfaction by informal customer contacts as well as formal\nsurveys. DSCP also has monthly teleconferences with USAMMCE to monitor the\nresolution of outstanding issues. Monthly meetings held with the DSCP Commander\nfocus on the top unfilled orders. The Customer Facing Division responds to and tracks\nthe status of customer issues, using the Dashboard System as a focus tool to capture\ncustomer service issues.\n\nThe number of customer service issues for USAMMCE was minimal compared with the\ntotal line items ordered by USAMMCE in FY 2008. Of the 329 customer service tickets\nin FY 2008 for the Global North Region contract, USAMMCE submitted 151. A\ncustomer service ticket may involve one or more line items. USAMMCE ordered 64,836\nline items in FY 2008. Based on the number of line items ordered, we consider the\n151 customer service tickets minimal. The 151 customer service tickets for USAMMCE\nwere divided into 22 categories, with customers wanting to know the status of their order\nrepresenting the largest category with 74 issues.\n\nDSCP acknowledges that delivery timeliness could be improved. DSCP holds monthly\nAged Service Ticket Review meetings that include a selection of the oldest three\ncustomer service tickets from the Customer Facing Division. As of November 2008,\n17 aged service tickets had been reviewed by DSCP and categorized as shown below:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 6 Delivery status update,\n \xe2\x80\xa2 2 Expedite order,\n \xe2\x80\xa2 1 Award delayed,\n \xe2\x80\xa2 2 Vendor price change and modification needed,\n \xe2\x80\xa2 1 No vendor contract,\n \xe2\x80\xa2 1 Medical supplies needed for deployment,\n \xe2\x80\xa2 2 Ticket closed, and\n \xe2\x80\xa2 2 Canceled by buyer - Contract had minimum order quantity.\n\nThe review identified a variety of reasons for the customer service tickets. Based on the\nvariety, the service tickets did not identify a systemic customer satisfaction problem.\n\n Fill Rate\nThe prime vendor met the FY 2008 order fill rate required by the contract. Customers\nprovide updated usage data each month, which is a listing of supplies and quantities the\ncustomers expect to use that month. The fill rate measures the prime vendor\xe2\x80\x99s ability to\nfulfill the expected customer\xe2\x80\x99s usage data. The contract states that 90 percent is the\nminimum monthly fill rate requirement for ordering facilities. Because the fill rate is\nbased in part on estimates provided by ordering facilities, a lower rate could result from\nfactors beyond the prime vendor control. For example, customers who did not keep\ncurrent usage data information or failed to acknowledge receipt of shipment could reduce\n\n\n 7\n\n\x0cthe rate. The rate is an indicator of conditions to explore and resolve. Our review of\nFY 2008 fill rate reports for the Global North Region prime vendor showed that the\nannual fill rate was 91.6 percent.\n\n Pricing Accuracy\nDSCP evaluates the prices charged by the prime vendor to ensure compliance with\npricing policies identified in the contract. The Global North Region contract states that\nthe prime vendor shall provide all medical/surgical products as a distributor under a\ndesignated contract. The types of designated contracts include ACPOP and DAPA.\n\nTo determine whether prices charged for ACPOP items are fair and reasonable, DSCP\npersonnel stated they review monthly the top 75 percent of ACPOP sales, and sample\nfrom the remaining 25 percent. To accomplish this review, DSCP personnel perform\nresearch, call manufacturers, and compare prices with distributors. In addition, prices are\ncompared with DAPA, the DOD Master Catalog, the GSA Web site, and Federal Supply\nSchedule prices. DSCP estimates about 70 percent of the items reviewed monthly have\nfair and reasonable prices and the remaining 30 percent are sent back to the prime vendor\nfor price renegotiation.\n\nItems ordered through the DAPA process are reviewed each month when the prime\nvendor submits customers\xe2\x80\x99 consumption data into the Customer Demand Management\nInformation Application. This program includes a tool that compares the consumption\ndata invoice price with the price in effect on the date the order was placed. Line items\nwith prices higher than DAPA prices are identified in a potential overcharge report.\nDSCP provides this report to the prime vendor for comment. The prime vendor either\nagrees the potential overcharge is valid or disputes the potential overcharge and provides\ncomments to DSCP. After DSCP and the prime vendor agree to the potential\novercharges, the prime vendor distribution center that originally filled the order calculates\nthe amount of the credit. The prime vendor is responsible for notifying the customer of\nthe overcharge credit and posting the credit to the customer\xe2\x80\x99s account.\n\nOvercharge Credits\nThe prime vendor did not apply FY 2008 overcharge credits to the USAMMCE account.\nThis occurred because DSCP did not have procedures in place to track or follow up on\nthe processing of overcharge credits. As discussed above, DSCP pricing accuracy proce\xc2\xad\ndures end with the agreement of potential overcharges. The calculation, application, and\nuse of credits after this point were left up to the prime vendor and the customers.\n\nNeither DSCP nor the prime vendor could provide the FY 2008 calculated overcharge\ncredits for USAMMCE. We reviewed potential pricing overcharge reports and\nUSAMMCE credit reports issued by the prime vendor, but could not determine whether\nthe potential credits were processed. In addition, discussions with USAMMCE personnel\nshowed they were not aware of any credits associated with the potential overcharge\ncredits. We presented a list of potential credits to the prime vendor to track down the\nstatus. Based on its review, the prime vendor acknowledged that it appears the credits\nwere not posted. The prime vendor also stated that it was working to correct the problem.\n\n\n 8\n\n\x0cTo estimate the amount of the credits, we obtained the monthly potential overcharge\nreports for FY 2008 that contained overcharge items agreed upon by DSCP and the prime\nvendor (without computed credit amounts). We calculated overcharge amounts for each\ncredit, an estimated $457,000 for the Global North Region. We extracted 460 line items\nassociated with USAMMCE overcharges and estimate USAMMCE did not receive about\n$65,000 in overcharge credits for FY 2008. Our review was limited to one customer in\none region, but without controls in place, there is the risk that other customers and other\nregions may not be receiving the benefits of overcharge credits.\n\nRecommendations, Management Comments, and Our\nResponse\nWe recommend that the Commander, Defense Supply Center Philadelphia:\n\n 1. Determine the status of FY 2008 and FY 2009 overcharge credits and\n ensure the credits are applied to customers\xe2\x80\x99 accounts.\n\n\nDefense Supply Center Philadelphia Comments\nThe Commander, Defense Supply Center Philadelphia, agreed with Recommendation 1\nand stated that Defense Supply Center Philadelphia personnel will research and\ndetermine the status of all FY 2008 and FY 2009 overcharge credits. They will work\ndirectly with the prime vendor and customers to ensure that all overcharge credits are\napplied to the appropriate customers\xe2\x80\x99 accounts.\n\n 2. Develop procedures to ensure the prime vendor notifies customers of\n credits and that the credits are applied to customers\xe2\x80\x99 accounts.\n\n\nDefense Supply Center Philadelphia Comments\nThe Commander, Defense Supply Center Philadelphia, agreed with Recommendation 2\nand stated that Defense Supply Center Philadelphia personnel will develop and\nimplement procedures to ensure the prime vendor notifies customers of credits and that\ncredits are applied to customers\xe2\x80\x99 accounts.\n\n 3. Provide estimated milestones for completion of Recommendations 1 and 2.\n\n\nDefense Supply Center Philadelphia Comments\nThe Commander, Defense Supply Center Philadelphia, agreed with Recommendation 3\nand provided an estimated completion date of April 30, 2010, to accomplish the actions\nrequired for Recommendations 1 and 2.\n\n\n\n\n 9\n\n\x0cOur Response\nWe consider the Commander\xe2\x80\x99s comments to be responsive. No further comments are\nrequired.\n\n\n\n\n 10 \n\n\x0cAppendix. Scope and Methodology\nWe conducted this performance audit from September 2008 through December 2009 in\naccordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards\nrequire that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to\nprovide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.\nThis final report was delayed approximately one month because we granted DSCP\xe2\x80\x99s\nrequest to extend the due date to comment on the draft report due to their involvement in\nthe Haiti relief effort. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis\nfor our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.\n\nWe interviewed personnel at DLA and DSCP to identify policies and procedures relevant\nto the Medical/Surgical Prime Vendor program. We determined the procurement and\npayment process for associated prime vendor contract. At DSCP we obtained\ninformation on customer satisfaction, consumption data, potential overcharges, price\nverification, fill rate reporting, and compliance with contract requirements. We also\nspoke with personnel from the Global North Region prime vendor to discuss the posting\nof credits resulting from overcharges. During the audit the Global North Region prime\nvendor was Owens & Minor Inc., contract number SP0200-05-D-7000.\n\nWe define prime vendor contract terms and conditions as requirements on how the\ncontractor provides the medical/surgical supplies, such as shipping and billing terms. We\nmet with personnel from the offices of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health\nAffairs (ASD[HA]), Army Surgeon General, Army Medical Command, U.S. Army\nMedical Materiel Agency (USAMMA), U.S. Army Medical Materiel Center Europe\n(USAMMCE), the 6th Medical Logistics Management Center, Navy Bureau of Medicine\nand Surgery, the Naval Medical Logistics Command, the Naval Supply Systems\nCommand, the Air Force Surgeon General, and the Air Force Medical Logistics Office to\nidentify stakeholder concerns with the prime vendor process of obtaining Class VIII\nsupplies, including the process to distribute supplies to Iraq and Afghanistan.\n\nWe reviewed public laws and DOD directives and regulations to identify requirements\npertaining to pricing, logistics, purchasing, delivery, oversight, and terms and conditions\nof the MSPV program. Specifically, we reviewed Public Law 110-181, section 842,\n\xe2\x80\x9cInvestigation of Waste, Fraud, and Abuse in Wartime Contracts and Contracting\nProcesses in Iraq and Afghanistan,\xe2\x80\x9d January 28, 2008; DOD Directive 5105.22, \xe2\x80\x9cDefense\nLogistics Agency,\xe2\x80\x9d May 17, 2006; DOD Directive 5101.9, \xe2\x80\x9cDOD Executive Agent for\nMedical Materiel,\xe2\x80\x9d August 23, 2004; Federal Acquisition Regulation, Subpart 4.8,\n\xe2\x80\x9cGovernment Contract Files\xe2\x80\x9d; section 2533a, title 10, United States Code, \xe2\x80\x9cRequirement\nto Buy Certain Articles from American Sources\xe2\x80\x9d; Army Regulation 40-61, \xe2\x80\x9cMedical\nServices: Medical Logistics Policies,\xe2\x80\x9d January 28, 2005; Navy Policy Letter 4200,\n\xe2\x80\x9cCommitted Use Requirements Contracts,\xe2\x80\x9d January 4, 1999; and Air Force\nInstruction 41-209, \xe2\x80\x9cHealth Services: Medical Logistics Support,\xe2\x80\x9d April 10, 2007.\n\nWe reviewed the Global North Region prime vendor contract and the contract\nmanagement plan to identify controls DSCP used to monitor prime vendor performance.\n\n\n 11\n\n\n\x0cWe evaluated the controls by reviewing procedures and performing selected tests of the\nprime vendor compliance with contract requirements regarding pricing overcharges. Our\nreview used data for the Global North Region for FY 2006 through FY 2008 and price\nverification summary reports for FY 2008. We reviewed each monthly report using the\nguidelines provided by DSCP to determine the accuracy of the reports.\n\nWe reviewed 12 months of Global North Region potential overcharge data for FY 2008\nand determined the potential overcharges for USAMMCE. Additionally, we obtained\nFY 2008 USAMMCE credits from the prime vendor and compared 5 months of potential\novercharge data to credits. We also reviewed FY 2008 Fill Rate Reports for trends or\npatterns. We met with DSCP personnel to discuss customer satisfaction with the MSPV\nprogram. We compared the customer service issues filed by USAMMCE with its\nconsumption data to determine whether the relative magnitude of customer complaints\nwas significant.\n\nUse of Computer-Processed Data\nWe used computer-processed data from: Customer Demand Management Information\nApplication 2, DASHboard System, and the Electronic Business System. These systems\nare used by DSCP to manage the MSPV program. The volume of transactions included\nin these systems precluded a formal reliability assessment of computer-processed data.\nHowever, we used summary reports generated by the systems to identify consumption\ndata, fill rates, customer complaints, potential overcharges, and price verification.\nComparing the summary reports with information obtained from USAMMCE and the\nprime vendor was adequate to determine that credits were not quantified and posted. We\ndid not use the data produced by these systems to make any statistical projections or\nperform evaluations at the transaction level. We do not believe that not evaluating the\nreliability of the computer-processed data materially affected the results of our review.\n\nPrior Coverage\nDuring the last 5 years, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued two reports\ndiscussing the Medical/Surgical Prime Vendor contracts. Unrestricted GAO reports can\nbe accessed over the Internet at http://www.gao.gov.\n\nGAO\nGAO Report No. 07-396R, \xe2\x80\x9cDefense Management: DLA Has Made Progress in\nImproving Prime Vendor Program, but Has Not Yet Completed All Corrective Actions,\xe2\x80\x9d\nFebruary 26, 2007\n\nGAO Report No. 06-739R, \xe2\x80\x9cDefense Management: Attention is Needed to Improve\nOversight of DLA Prime Vendor Program,\xe2\x80\x9d June 19, 2006\n\n\n\n\n 12\n\n\n\x0cDefense Supply Center Philadelphia Comments\n\n\n\n\n\n\n DEFBNSB l.OGlSTlCS AGENCY\n DEFENSE SUPPLY CENTER PHIL-\\J)Jo:I.PIIIA\n 700 ROBBINS AYENUE\n PJIIUDELPHlA, l'ENNSY),vANlA 19111\xc2\xb75002\n\n\n IN RI!PI.Y\n ItI!FERTO 0 JAN 2 1 2010\n\n MEMORANDUM FOR DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGE NCY , AnN. J-72\n\n SUBJECT: DOD IG Draft Report on Medical/Surgical P ~i me Vendor Contracts Supporting\n Coalition Forces in Iraq and Afghanistan (ProJect No. D2008\xc2\xb70000LF.0267.000)\n\n\n Reference is made to DLA\xc2\xb7DA e-mail dated January 4, 2010, subject as above. We\n have completed our review of the DOD IG Report on MedicaliSurgicat Prime Vendor Contracts\n Supporting Coalition Forces in Iraq and Afghanistan and our response to the recommendations\n are as follows:\n\n a. Recommendation 1; Determine the status of FY 2008 and FY 2009 o....ercharge\n credits and ensure the credits are applied to customers' accounts.\n\n Response: Concur. DSCP will research and determine the status of all FY 2008\n and FY 2009 o ....ercharge credI ts and work directly with the prime .... endor and the applicab!e\n Click to add JPEG file\n customers to ensure thai aU overcharge credits were app lied 10 the appropriate customers'\n accounts.\n\n b. Recommendation 2: De ....elop procedures to ensure the prime vendor notifies\n customers of credits and that the credits are applied to customers' accounts.\n\n Response: Concur. DSCP win develop and implement procedures to ensure the\n prime vendor notifies customers of, and applies. due credits to their accounts .\n\n c. Recommendation 3: Provide estimated milestones for completion of\n Recommendations 1 & 2.\n\n Response: Estimated compleUon date for action on both recommendations IS no\n later than April 30. 2010.\n\n Point of COniact for this aClion is;\xe2\x80\xa2 \xe2\x80\xa2 \xe2\x80\xa2 \xe2\x80\xa2 \xe2\x80\xa2 \xe2\x80\xa2 \xe2\x80\xa2 Internal Audit. \xe2\x80\xa2 DSN\n \xe2\x80\xa2 \xe2\x80\xa2 \xe2\x80\xa2 \xe2\x80\xa2ker e\xc2\xb7mail: 2ldla.mil.\n\n\n\n ~~ eR~\n SCO TT D. CH AMBERS\n Bligadier General, USAF\n Commander\n\n\n\n\n 13\n\x0c\x0c\x0c"


type: wikipedia

text:
Kastilie-La Mancha () je jedno ze 17 autonomních společenství. Rozkládá se v jižní polovině španělského vnitrozemí. Většina regionu tvořila součást historické španělské provincie Nová Kastilie, zatímco provincie Albacete byla součástí historické provincie Království Murcie. Metropolí regionu je starobylé město Toledo, přestože město Albacete je podstatně větší.
 La Mancha byla proslavena románem o Donu Quijotovi de la Mancha, v knize je popisováno jeho putování po Kastilii La Mancha.
 Geografie
 Region na západě hraničí s autonomním společenstvím Extremadurou; na jihu s autonomními společenstvími Andalusie a Murcie; na východě s autonomním společenstvím Valencie; na severovýchodě s autonomním společenstvím Aragonie; na severu s autonomními společenstvími Madrid a Kastilie a León.
 Většina kraje je tvořena suchou a větrnou náhorní plošinou La Mancha s nadmořskou výškou okolo 600 m. Napříč severní částí oblasti protéká řeka Tajo. Další velkou řekou je jižnější Guadiana. Na jihu je Kastilie-La Mancha ohraničena pohořím Sierra Morena.
 Pamětihodnosti
 Toledo, kde se nacházejí památky maurské, židovské i křesťanské
 La Ciudad Encantada – tzv. začarované město
 Sigüenza – středověké město
 národní parky Tablas de Daimiel a Cabañeros
 Administrativní členění
 Území autonomního společenství se administrativně člení na 5 provincií: Albacete, Ciudad Real, Cuenca, Guadalajara, Toledo.
 Města
 Zemědělství
 Česnek
 Tento region vyrábí a vyváží spoustu česneku. Ajo morado neboli fialový česnek se nachází v obci las Pedroñas, kde se koná každoroční celosvětový festival česneku. V předešlých letech byla výroba česneku potlačena kvůli nepříznivému počasí a konkurenci z Číny. Nicméně dnes je již výroba na vysoké úrovni.
 Olivový olej
 Kastilie-La Mancha je druhou nejdůležitější oblastí pro výrobu olivového oleje, hned za Andalusií. Opět je důraz kladen na vysokou kvalitu, než na produkování velkého množství.
 Šafrán
 Dnes téměř tři čtvrtiny světové šafránové produkce je pěstováno ve Španělsku, konkrétně v regionu Kastilla-La Mancha.
 Gastronomie
 I když typické pokrmy z tohoto regionu bývají těžká dušená masa a polévky, Pisto Manchego je jedním z nejvíce známých regionálních jídel, a to s mnoha variacemi. Arabského původu je tradiční pisto pouze s červenými a zelenými paprikami, rajčaty a squashem.
 Sopa de ajo neboli česneková polévka, je dalším velice známým jídlem po celém Španělsku, vyrobena z česneku, vývaru, oleje, papriky a suchého chlebu.
 Další známá jídla
 El Asadillo – kousky pečené červené papriky, obložené s česnekem, rajčaty a olejem.
 El Salpicon – mleté telecí maso s cibulí, rajčaty, česnekem, petrželkou a pepřem.
 Ajo Arriero a El Tiznao – grilované kousky tresky vařené v hliněné misce s paprikami, rajčaty, cibulí a česnekem.
 Tradiční pastýřská jídla
 Los Gazpachos, v překladu „zimní dušené maso“, které se obvykle v restauracích nepodává, protože jeho příprava je dosti náročná. Skládá se ze dvou částí – dušené maso a velké ploché kusy nekvašených chlebů. Za prvé, se připraví tzv. torta (lívanec), zpravidla velice tenký. Dále přichystáme vývar, do kterého přidáme např. papriky, rajčata, králíka, holubice, kuřecí maso a cokoli dalšího, co je k dispozici na přípravu Gazpachery. V současné době se naštěstí tortas dají zakoupit i v obchodě.
 Migas de Pastor neboli Pastýřské Migas doslova znamenají drobky chleba. Tato chytrá a chutná cesta použitím suchého chleba se jí na celém poloostrově a každý region ve Španělsku má různé variace Migas. Pastýřský styl Migas jsou malé kousky suchého bílého chleba ve směsi s česnekem a slaninou. Migas canas jsou naopak kousky namočené v mléce, posypané cukrem a skořicí. Nakonec Migas mulatas je variace s mlékem a rozpuštěnou čokoládou.
 Odkazy
 Reference
 Externí odkazy
 Oficiální stránky vlády společenství
 Fotografie z Kastilie-La Manchy
 Autonomní společenství Španělska


type: caselaw

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 7.11.2009
 SL
 Uradni list Evropske unije
 C 267/78
 Tožba, vložena 15. septembra 2009 – Pucci International proti UUNT – El Corte Inglés (Emidio Tucci)
 (Zadeva T-357/09)
 2009/C 267/140
 Jezik, v katerem je bila tožba vložena: angleščina
 Stranke
 Tožeča stranka: Emilio Pucci International BV (Baarn, Nizozemska) (Zastopniki: M. Boletto, E. Gavuzzi, G. Lazzeretti in P. Roncaglia, odvetniki)
 Tožena stranka: Urad za usklajevanje na notranjem trgu (znamke in modeli)
 Druga stranka pred odborom za pritožbe: El Corte Inglés, SA (Madrid, Španija)
 Predlogi tožeče stranke
 —
 Odločba drugega odbora za pritožbe Urada za usklajevanje na notranjem trgu (znamke in modeli) z dne 18. junija 2009 v združenih zadevah R-770/2008 2 in R-826/2008 2, naj se v delu, v katerem je bila z njo dovoljena registracija znamke Skupnosti št. 3679594 „Emidio Tucci“ za proizvode in storitve iz razredov 1, 2, od 4 do 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 in od 26 do 45, razveljavi;
 —
 toženi stranki naj se naloži plačilo stroškov, ki so nastali tožeči stranki v tem postopku; in
 —
 drugi stranki pred odborom za pritožbe naj se naloži plačilo stroškov, ki so nastali tožeči stranki v postopkih pred oddelkom za ugovore in odborom za pritožbe UUNT.
 Tožbeni razlogi in bistvene trditve
 Prijavitelj znamke Skupnosti: Druga stranka pred odborom za pritožbe
 Zadevna znamka Skupnosti: besedna znamka „Emidio Tucci“ za proizvode iz razredov od 1 do 45
 Imetnik znamke ali znaka, navajanega v postopku z ugovorom: El Corte Inglés, SA
 Znamka ali znak, navajan v postopku z ugovorom: figurativna znamka Skupnosti „Emilio Pucci“ registrirana za proizvode iz razredov 18 in 24; italijanska besedna znamka „EMILIO PUCCI“ registrirana za proizvode iz razredov 3, 14, 18, 21, 24, 25 in 33; italijanska besedna znamka „EMILIO PUCCI“ registrirana za proizvode iz razredov 9, 12, 18, 20, 26, 27 in 34; italijanska figurativna znamka „EMILIO PUCCI“ registrirana za proizvode iz razredov 14, 18, 24 in 25
 Odločba oddelka za ugovore: delna ugoditev ugovoru
 Odločba odbora za pritožbe: delna ugoditev pritožb v zadevah R-826/2008 2 in R-770/2008 2; zavrnitev pritožbe v preostalem
 Navajani tožbeni razlogi: kršitev členov 8(1)(b) in 8(5) Uredbe Sveta št. 207/2009 (1) saj naj bi odbor za pritožbe napačno sklenil, da se te pravne določbe ne uporabijo za zadevno znamko Skupnosti za proizvode in storitve iz razredov 1, 2, od 4 do 17, 19, 20, 21 (delno), 22, 23 in od 26 do 45.
 (1) Uredba Sveta (ES) št. 207/2009 z dne 26. februarja 2009 o blagovni znamki Skupnosti (UL 2009, L 78, str. 1).


type: contracts

text:
23.6.2005
 LT
 Europos Sąjungos oficialusis leidinys
 L 161/50
 EEE JUNGTINIO KOMITETO SPRENDIMAS
 Nr. 22/2005
 2005 m. vasario 8 d.
 iš dalies keičiantis EEE susitarimo XXI priedą (Statistika)
 EEE JUNGTINIS KOMITETAS,
 atsižvelgdamas į Europos ekonominės erdvės susitarimą su pakeitimais, padarytais Protokolu, patikslinančiu Europos ekonominės erdvės susitarimą (toliau - Susitarimas), ypač į jo 98 straipsnį,
 kadangi:
 (1)
 Susitarimo XXI priedas buvo iš dalies pakeistas 2004 m. gruodžio 3 d. EEE jungtinio komiteto sprendimu Nr. 175/2004 (1).
 (2)
 Į susitarimą turi būti įtrauktas 2004 m. rugpjūčio 13 d. Komisijos reglamentas (EB) Nr. 1450/2004, įgyvendinantis Europos Parlamento ir Tarybos sprendimą Nr. 1608/2003/EB dėl Bendrijos inovacijų statistikos rengimo ir plėtros (2),
 NUSPRENDĖ:
 1 straipsnis
 Po Susitarimo XXI priedo 30 punkto (Komisijos reglamentas (EB) Nr. 753/2004) įterpiamas šis punktas:
 „31.
 32004 R 1450: 2004 m. rugpjūčio 13 d. Komisijos reglamentas (EB) Nr. 1450/2004, įgyvendinantis Europos Parlamento ir Tarybos sprendimą Nr. 1608/2003/EB dėl Bendrijos inovacijų statistikos rengimo ir plėtros (OL L 267, 2004 8 14, p. 32).“
 2 straipsnis
 Reglamento (EB) Nr. 1450/2004 tekstai islandų ir norvegų kalbomis, kurie turi būti paskelbti Europos Sąjungos oficialiojo leidinio EEE priede, yra autentiški.
 3 straipsnis
 Šis sprendimas įsigalioja 2005 m. vasario 9 d., jei EEE jungtiniam komitetui (3) buvo pateikti visi pranešimai pagal Susitarimo 103 straipsnio 1 dalį.
 4 straipsnis
 Šis sprendimas skelbiamas Europos Sąjungos oficialiojo leidinio EEE dalyje ir EEE priede.
 Priimta Briuselyje, 2005 m. vasario 8 d.
 EEE jungtinio komiteto vardu
 Pirmininkas
 Richard WRIGHT
 (1) OL L 133, 2005 5 26, p. 29.
 (2) OL L 267, 2004 8 14, p. 32.
 (3) Konstituciniai reikalavimai nenurodyti.