jurisdiction: US

text: b"United States Department of Agriculture\nOffice of Inspector General\n\n\n\n\nAgreed-Upon Procedures: Employee\nBenefits, Withholdings, Contributions,\nand Supplemental Headcount Reporting\nSubmitted to OPM\n\n\n\n\n Audit Report 11401-0006-11\n September 2013\n\x0c Agreed-Upon Procedures: Employee Benefits,\n Withholdings, Contributions, and Supplemental\n Headcount Reporting Submitted to OPM\n\n Audit Report 11401-0006-11\nWhat Were OIG\xe2\x80\x99s\nObjectives\n\nTo perform procedures to\nassist OPM in (1) assessing\nthe reasonableness of\nretirement, health benefits, and OIG performed agreed-upon procedures for\nlife insurance withholdings assessing information reported by USDA\xe2\x80\x99s\nand contributions, as well as\nenrollment information\n National Finance Center.\nsubmitted via the\nSupplemental Semiannual\n What OIG Found\nHeadcount Report, and (2)\nidentifying errors relating to\n The Department of Agriculture\xe2\x80\x99s (USDA) National Finance Center\nprocessing and distributing\n (NFC) reports Federal employee benefits, enrollment information, and\nCFC payroll deductions.\n Combined Federal Campaign (CFC) deductions to the Office of\n Personnel Management (OPM). Reported information includes\nWhat OIG Reviewed\n retirement, health benefits, and life insurance withholdings and\nWe performed agreed-upon contributions, agency-submitted headcounts, and payroll deductions\naudit procedures as required relating to the CFC. In applying agreed-upon audit procedures, we\non Federal employee benefits, identified differences through calculations, analysis, and comparisons.\nenrollment information, and For instance, we identified that headcounts for military deposit and\nCFC payroll deductions, as of salary offsets often differed by more than 2 percent, and that reported\nAugust 31, 2013. Our review counts relating to certain types of payers for health, life insurance,\nincluded information and/or retirement benefits differed as well. We also found that total\nsubmitted for the Departments headcounts were sometimes misallocated, and an inconsistency exists\nof Agriculture, Commerce, in counts for those enrolled with no deductions for retirement and\nHomeland Security, Housing other counts. NFC stated that scheduled programming modifications\nand Urban Development, will correct the majority of the issues identified.\nJustice, Labor, and the\nTreasury; as well as the Additionally, we identified differences related to CFC deductions for\nAgency for International employees at duty stations with no CFC, accounting code differences,\nDevelopment; and Small and instances of incorrect CFC pledge form use. Generally, NFC\nBusiness Administration. attributed the CFC errors to manual processes and human error,\n including by personnel at various agencies. NFC noted the low error\nWhat OIG Recommends rate overall, and stated it was responsible for processing very few of\n the transactions identified as differences.\nWe do not make any\nrecommendations in this Our sample document review disclosed 8 errors for benefits entered\nreport. into the system by entity staff. Furthermore, we were unable to verify\n entries for 151 personnel documents we tested because entities\xe2\x80\x99\n personnel officers were unable to locate the documents. However, to\n ensure that information from the system was accurate, we performed\n any applicable calculations for salary, retirement, life, and health\n insurance. We noted no exceptions.\n\x0c\x0c United States Department of Agriculture\n Office of Inspector General\n Washington, D.C. 20250\n\n\nSeptember 27, 2013\n\nThe Honorable Patrick E. McFarland\nInspector General\nU.S. Office of Personnel Management\nOffice of Inspector General\nTheodore Roosevelt Federal Building\n1900 E Street NW, Room 6400\nWashington, D.C. 20415-0001\n\nSubject: Agreed-Upon Procedures: Employee Benefits, Withholdings, Contributions, and\n Supplemental Semiannual Headcount Reporting Submitted to the Office of Personnel\n Management\n\n\nDear Mr. McFarland:\n\nThis report presents the results of the Agreed-Upon Procedures performed on the subject\ninformation processed by the Department of Agriculture\xe2\x80\x99s Office of the Chief Financial\nOfficer/National Finance Center as of August 31, 2013.\n\nOur review included information for the following entities, listed in Appendix A of the Office of\nManagement and Budget (OMB) Bulletin 07-04, Audit Requirements for Federal Financial\nStatements, dated September 4, 2007, and amended by OMB Memorandum 09-33, dated\nSeptember 23, 2009: Department of Agriculture, Department of Commerce, Department of\nHomeland Security, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Department of Justice,\nDepartment of Labor, Department of the Treasury, Agency for International Development, and\nSmall Business Administration.\n\nThis review was performed as required by OMB and in accordance with applicable generally\naccepted government auditing standards and the Statements of Standards for Attestation\nEngagements established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants.\n\nIf you have questions, please contact me at (202) 720-6945, or have a member of your staff\ncontact Ernest M. Hayashi, Director, Farm, Trade, Research, and Environment Division, at\n(202) 720-2887.\n\nSincerely,\n\n\n\nGil H. Harden\nAssistant Inspector General for Audit\n\ncc:\nDennis D. Coleman, Chief Financial Officer, Office of Personnel Mangement\n\x0c\x0cTable of Contents\n\nIndependent Auditors\xe2\x80\x99 Report................................................................................1\nAbbreviations ...........................................................................................................3\nExhibit A: Procedures Performed and Results .....................................................4\nExhibit B: Combined Federal Campaign (CFC) Deductions for Employees\nWith No Local CFC Campaign ............................................................................19\nExhibit C: Name, Principal Combined Fund Organization (PCFO) and\nAddress Differences ...............................................................................................21\nExhibit D: Accounting Code Differences .............................................................23\nExhibit E: Incorrect Combined Federal Campaign (CFC) Pledge Forms ......47\n\x0c\x0cIndependent\xc2\xa0Auditors\xe2\x80\x99\xc2\xa0Report\xc2\xa0\n\nTo: Honorable Patrick E. McFarland\n Inspector General\n U.S. Office of Personnel Management\n\n\nWe have performed the procedures described in exhibit A, which were agreed to by the Inspector\nGeneral and Chief Financial Officer of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM), solely\nto assist OPM with respect to the employee withholdings and employer contributions reported by\nthe Department of Agriculture\xe2\x80\x99s Office of the Chief Financial Officer/National Finance Center\n(OCFO/NFC) on the Standard Form 2812, Report of Withholdings and Contributions for Health\nBenefits, Life Insurance, and Retirement, and OPM 1523, Supplemental Semiannual Headcount\nReport,1 as of August 31, 2013. The reports submitted by OCFO/NFC included information for\nthe following entities listed in Appendix A of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)\nBulletin 07-04, Audit Requirements for Federal Financial Statements, as amended:2 Department\nof Agriculture, Department of Commerce, Department of Homeland Security, Department of\nHousing and Urban Development, Department of Justice, Department of Labor, Department of\nthe Treasury, Agency for International Development, and Small Business Administration.\nFurthermore, we performed agreed-upon procedures to assist OPM with identifying errors\nrelating to processing and distributing Combined Federal Campaign payroll deductions.\n\nThe engagement to apply the Agreed-Upon Procedures was performed in accordance with\napplicable generally accepted government auditing standards and the statement of standards for\nattestation engagements established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants.\nThe sufficiency of the procedures is solely the responsibility of the Inspector General and the\nChief Financial Officer of OPM. Consequently, we make no representation regarding the\nsufficiency of the procedures described either for the purpose for which this report has been\nrequested or for any other purpose. The results of the engagement are detailed in exhibits A\nthrough E.\n\nWe are not engaged to, and did not, perform an audit, the objective of which would be the\nexpression of an opinion on the withholdings and contributions for health benefits, life insurance,\nand retirements; the Combined Federal Campaign; and the headcount reports prepared by\nOCFO/NFC. Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. Had we performed additional\nprocedures, other matters might have come to our attention that would have been reported to\nyou.\n\n\n\n1\n We selected our samples from pay period (PP) 17 (August 12, 2012, through August 25, 2012, paid September 6,\n2012), PP 26 (December 16, 2012, through December 29, 2012, paid January 10, 2013), and PP 3 (February 10,\n2013, through February 23, 2013, paid March 7, 2013). PPs 17 and 3 coincided with the OPM 1523, Supplemental\nSemiannual Headcount Report.\n2\n OMB Bulletin 07-04, Audit Requirements for Federal Financial Statements, September 4, 2007, was amended by\nOMB Memorandum 09-33, Technical Amendments to OMB Bulletin 07-04, Audit Requirements for Federal\nFinancial Statements, September 23, 2009.\n\n REPORT 11401-0006-11 1\n\x0cThis report is intended solely for the use of the Inspector General and Chief Financial Officer of\nOPM and should not be used by those who have not agreed to the procedures and taken\nresponsibility for the sufficiency of the procedures for their purposes.\n\n\n\n\nGil H. Harden\nAssistant Inspector General for Audit\n\nSeptember 16, 2013\n\n\n\n\n2 REPORT 11401-0003-11\n\x0cAbbreviations\n\nCFC ............................. Combined Federal Campaign\nCSRS ........................... Civil Service Retirement System\nFEGLI ......................... Federal Employees\xe2\x80\x99 Group Life Insurance\nFEHB .......................... Federal Employees Health Benefits\nFERS ........................... Federal Employees\xe2\x80\x99 Retirement System\nFERS-RAE .................. Federal Employees Revised Annuity Employees System\nHUD ............................ Department of Housing and Urban Development\nNFC ............................. National Finance Center\nOCFO .......................... Office of the Chief Financial Officer\nOCFCO ....................... Office of CFC Operations\nOIG ............................. Office of Inspector General\nOMB ........................... Office of Management and Budget\nOPF ............................. Official Personnel File\nOPM ............................ U.S. Office of Personnel Management\nPP ................................ Pay Period\nRITS ............................ Retirement and Insurance Transfer System\nSF ................................ Standard Form\nTMGT ......................... Table Management\nUSDA.......................... Department of Agriculture\n\n\n\n\n REPORT 11401-0003-11 3\n\x0cExhibit A: Procedures Performed and Results\n Exhibit A \xe2\x80\x93 Page 1 of 15\n\n 1. Compare the Retirement and Insurance Transfer System (RITS) submission data to the\n payroll information by performing the following procedures (note: for cross-servicing\n agencies, if the internal controls are the same for all agencies serviced, it is only\n necessary to perform this procedure for one agency):\n\n a. Recalculate the mathematical accuracy of the payroll information.\n\n b. Recalculate the mathematical accuracy of each RITS submission for the payroll\n information selected in step 1.a.\n\n c. Compare the employee withholding information at the aggregate level for retirement,\n health benefits, and life insurance (as adjusted for reconciling items) shown on the\n payroll information obtained in step 1.a. to the related amounts shown on the RITS\n submission for the corresponding period.\n\n Report any differences for each of the retirement, health benefits, and life insurance\n (categories) for step 1.c. that are over 1 percent of the aggregate amount reported for each\n of the three categories. Obtain a management official name, an explanation, telephone\n number, and an email address for the differences above the 1 percent threshold.\n\n Results\n\n There were no differences over 1 percent.\n\n 2. See sub-steps below.\n\n a. Randomly select a total of 25 individuals (from each Department) who were in the\n payroll system for all 3 of the RITS submissions selected above that meet all of the\n following criteria. In addition, randomly select five individuals (from each\n Department) who are under Federal Employees Revised Annuity Employees System\n (FERS-RAE) to test that their FERS-RAE contribution rate was calculated correctly:\n\n \xc2\xb7 Covered by the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) or the Federal\n Employees\xe2\x80\x99 Retirement System (FERS);\n\n \xc2\xb7 enrolled in the Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) Program;\n\n \xc2\xb7 covered by Basic Life Insurance; and\n\n \xc2\xb7 covered by at least one Federal Employees\xe2\x80\x99 Group Life Insurance (FEGLI)\n optional coverage (Option A, B, or C).\n\n\n\n4 REPORT 11401-0006-11\n\x0cExhibit A: Procedures Performed and Results\n Exhibit A \xe2\x80\x93 Page 2 of 15\n\n b. Obtain the following documents, either in electronic or hard copy format, from the\n Official Personnel File (OPF) for each individual selected in step 2.a. Hard copies\n can be originals or certified copies.\n\n \xc2\xb7 All Notifications of Personnel Actions Standard Form-50 (SF) covering pay\n periods (PP) in the RITS submissions chosen;\n\n \xc2\xb7 the Health Benefits Election Form (SF-2809) covering the PPs in the RITS\n submissions chosen or, if applicable, obtain a report (via the agency personnel\n office) from the agency\xe2\x80\x99s automated system that allows participants to change\n benefits, (e.g., Employee Express), for any health benefits transactions in the\n system for the individuals selected in step 2.a. (Note: a new SF-2809 is needed\n only if an employee is changing health benefit plans. Therefore, the form could\n be many years old). Also for health benefits, compare the date of transaction with\n the date on the certified copy of the SF-2809 or the agency\xe2\x80\x99s automated system\n report obtained above to identify whether the health benefit information to be\n used in step 2.f. covers the PPs in the RITS submissions chosen; and\n\n \xc2\xb7 the Life Insurance Election Form (SF-2817) covering the PPs in the RITS\n submission chosen. (Note: a new SF-2817 is needed only if an employee is\n changing life insurance coverage; therefore, the form could be many years old).\n\n Results\n\n Personnel officers were not able to locate the following 139 documents; however, we\n performed the calculations for salary, retirement, life and health insurance in these cases\n to ensure that information from the Office of the Chief Financial Officer/National\n Finance Center (OCFO/NFC) system was accurate.\n\n Entity SF-50 FEHB FEGLI\n Department of Agriculture 0 4 3\n Agency for International Development 6 17 8\n Department of Commerce 3 3 1\n Department of Justice 5 6 2\n Department of Labor 5 8 0\n Department of Homeland Security 1 3 3\n Department of Housing and Urban 15 5 17\n Development\n Small Business Administration 1 13 2\n Department of the Treasury 5 2 1\n Total 41 61 37\n\n\n REPORT 11401-0006-11 5\n\x0cExhibit A: Procedures Performed and Results\n Exhibit A \xe2\x80\x93 Page 3 of 15\n\n c. For each individual selected in step 2.a., compare the base salary used for payroll\n purposes and upon which withholdings and contributions generally are based to the\n base salary reflected on the employee\xe2\x80\x99s SF-50. Report any differences resulting from\n this step and obtain management\xe2\x80\x99s explanation for the differences.\n\n Results\n\n We noted one Small Business Administration employee\xe2\x80\x99s SF-50, reflecting the\n employee\xe2\x80\x99s within grade pay increase, was not processed timely. Agency personnel were\n not able to provide an explanation. No other exceptions were noted.\n\n d. For Retirement for each individual selected in step 2.a., compare the retirement plan\n code from the employee\xe2\x80\x99s SF-50 to the plan code used in the payroll system. Report\n any differences resulting from this step and obtain management\xe2\x80\x99s explanation for the\n differences.\n\n Results\n\n No exceptions were noted.\n\n e. For each individual selected in step 2.a., calculate the retirement amount to be\n withheld and contributed for the plan code from the employee\xe2\x80\x99s SF-50, by\n multiplying the base salary from the employee\xe2\x80\x99s SF-50 by the official withholding\n and contribution rates required by law. Compare the calculated amounts to the actual\n amounts withheld and contributed for the retirement plan. Report any differences\n resulting from this step and obtain management\xe2\x80\x99s explanation for the differences.\n\n Results\n\n No exceptions were noted.\n\n f. For health benefits for each individual selected in step 2.a., compare the employee\n withholdings and agency contributions to the official subscription rates issued by\n OPM for the plan and option elected by the employee, as documented by a Health\n Benefits Election Form (SF-2809) in the employee\xe2\x80\x99s OPF or automated system that\n allows the participant to change benefits (e.g., Employee Express). Report any\n differences resulting from this step and obtain management\xe2\x80\x99s explanation for the\n differences. The health benefits rates can be found on OPM\xe2\x80\x99s website at\n http://www.opm.gov/insure/health/rates/index.asp.\n\n\n\n\n6 REPORT 11401-0006-11\n\x0cExhibit A: Procedures Performed and Results\n Exhibit A \xe2\x80\x93 Page 4 of 15\n\n Results\n\n No exceptions were noted.\n\n g. For life insurance for each individual selected in step 2.a., confirm that Basic Life\n Insurance was elected by the employee by inspecting the Life Insurance Election\n Form (SF-2817) documented in the employee\xe2\x80\x99s OPF. Report any differences\n resulting from this step and obtain management\xe2\x80\x99s explanation for the differences.\n\n Results\n\n We found three FEGLI codes in the payroll system that did not match the basic coverage\n elected on the SF-2817\xe2\x80\x94one each at Small Business Administration, Department of the\n Treasury, and Agency for International Development. Small Business Administration\n officials confirmed the error and stated that the employee will be notified to complete a\n new SF-2817. In addition, Department of the Treasury personnel noted the discrepancy\n on the employee\xe2\x80\x99s SF-2817. However, agency personnel at the Agency for International\n Development did not respond to our request to confirm their error.\n\n h. For each individual selected in step 2.a., calculate the withholding and contribution\n amounts for Basic Life Insurance using the following:\n\n \xc2\xb7 For employee withholdings: round the employee\xe2\x80\x99s annual base salary up to the\n nearest thousand dollars and add $2,000. Divide this total by 1,000 and multiply\n by the rate required by law. The life insurances rates are on OPM\xe2\x80\x99s website at\n http://www.opm.gov/insure/life/rates/index.asp.\n\n \xc2\xb7 For agency contributions: divide the employee withholdings calculated above by\n two.\n\n Compare the calculated employee withholdings and agency contributions to the\n actual amounts withheld and contributed for the Basic Life Insurance. Report any\n differences resulting from this step and obtain management\xe2\x80\x99s explanation for the\n differences.\n\n Results\n\n No exceptions were noted.\n\n i. Also, for life insurance for each individual selected in step 2.a., compare optional\n coverage elected as documented on the SF-2817 in the employee\xe2\x80\x99s OPF to the\n optional coverage documented in the payroll system. Report any differences resulting\n from this step and obtain management\xe2\x80\x99s explanation for the differences.\n REPORT 11401-0006-11 7\n\x0cExhibit A: Procedures Performed and Results\n Exhibit A \xe2\x80\x93 Page 5 of 15\n\n Results\n\n We found three FEGLI codes in the payroll system that did not match the optional\n coverage elected on the SF-2817 \xe2\x80\x93 two at the Department of Agriculture and one at the\n Department of the Treasury. Agency personnel at the Department of Agriculture\n confirmed one of the errors. However, we did not receive a response to our requests to\n confirm the remaining two errors.\n\n j. For each individual selected in step 2.a., calculate the withholding amounts for\n optional life insurance using the following:\n\n \xc2\xb7 For Option A: locate the employee\xe2\x80\x99s age group using the age groups provided for\n Option A in the FEGLI Program Booklet. The withholding amount to be used is\n the rate listed in the FEGLI Program Booklet for that age group. Compare the\n calculated amount to the amount withheld for Option A Life Insurance. Report\n any differences resulting from this step and obtain management\xe2\x80\x99s explanation for\n the differences.\n\n Results\n\n No exceptions were noted, other than the Department of Agriculture error noted in 2i\n above.\n\n \xc2\xb7 For Option B: inspect the SF-2817 to obtain the number of multiples chosen for\n Option B. Locate the employee\xe2\x80\x99s age group using the age groups provided for\n Option B in the FEGLI Program Booklet. Round the employee\xe2\x80\x99s annual rate of\n basic pay up to the next 1,000, divide it by 1,000, and then multiply it by the rate\n for the respective age group. Multiply this amount by the number of multiples\n chosen for Option B Life Insurance. Compare the calculated amount to the\n amount withheld for Option B Life Insurance. Report any differences resulting\n from this step and obtain management\xe2\x80\x99s explanation for the differences.\n\n Results\n\n No exceptions were noted, other than the Departments of Agriculture and Treasury errors\n noted in 2i above.\n\n \xc2\xb7 For Option C: inspect the SF-2817 to obtain the number of multiples chosen for\n Option C. Locate the employee\xe2\x80\x99s age group using the age groups provided for\n Option C in the FEGLI Program Booklet. Multiply the rate for the age group by\n the number of multiples chosen for Option C Life Insurance. Compare the\n calculated amount to the amount withheld for Option C Life Insurance. Report\n\n\n8 REPORT 11401-0006-11\n\x0cExhibit A: Procedures Performed and Results\n Exhibit A \xe2\x80\x93 Page 6 of 15\n\n any differences resulting from this step and obtain management\xe2\x80\x99s explanation for the\n differences.\n\n Results\n\n No exceptions were noted, other than the Department of the Treasury error noted in 2i\n above.\n\n 3. Randomly select a total of 10 employees (from each Department) who have no health\n benefits withholdings from the payroll information corresponding to the 3 RITS\n submissions selected above and perform the following for each employee selected.\n\n a. Obtain SF-2809s covering the PPs in the RITS submissions chosen, either in\n electronic or hard copy format, from the selected employee\xe2\x80\x99s OPF or, if applicable,\n obtain a report (via the agency personnel office) from the agency\xe2\x80\x99s automated system\n that allows participants to change benefits, (e.g., Employee Express), for any health\n benefit transactions in that system for the individuals selected. Hard copies can be\n originals or certified copies. Inspect the documentation (that is, SF-2809 or the\n agency\xe2\x80\x99s system-generated report) to identify whether health benefits coverage was\n not elected. This can be identified in the following ways:\n\n \xc2\xb7 Absence of an SF-2809 in the OPF and no election of coverage made through the\n agency\xe2\x80\x99s automated system that allows participants to change benefits (e.g.,\n Employee Express); or\n\n \xc2\xb7 an SF-2809 in the OPF with Section E checked (indicating cancellation of\n coverage) an no later election of coverage through the agency\xe2\x80\x99s automated system\n that allows participants to change benefits (e.g., Employee Express); or\n\n \xc2\xb7 cancellation of coverage through the agency\xe2\x80\x99s automated system that allows\n participants to change benefits (e.g., Employee Express) and no later election\n coverage with an SF-2809.\n\n b. Compare the result in step 3.a. to the RITS submissions. Report any differences\n resulting from this step and obtain management\xe2\x80\x99s explanation for the differences.\n\n Results\n\n Personnel officers could not locate two of the SF-2809 in the employees\xe2\x80\x99 OPFs (one each\n at the Departments of Agriculture and Homeland Security). Additionally, for one\n Agency for International Development employee, we noted that health insurance had\n been elected, however the payroll system showed coverage was waived. As a result, no\n\n REPORT 11401-0006-11 9\n\x0cExhibit A: Procedures Performed and Results\n Exhibit A \xe2\x80\x93 Page 7 of 15\n\n health deductions were made for the periods under review. Agency for International\n Development personnel did not respond to our request to confirm the error. In addition,\n for another employee with the Agency for International Development, we noted a status\n of eligible pending in the payroll system from December 16, 2012, through\n February 23, 2013. According to the FEHB Handbook, the employee must complete an\n election form within 60 days of becoming eligible. Agency personnel confirmed the\n error. No other exceptions were noted.\n\n 4. Randomly select a total of 10 employees (from each Department) who have no life\n insurance withholdings from the payroll information corresponding to the 3 RITS\n submissions selected above and perform the following for each employee selected.\n\n a. Obtain the SF-2817s covering the PPs in the RITS submissions chosen, either in\n electronic or hard copy format, from the selected employee\xe2\x80\x99s OPF. Hard copies can\n be originals or certified copies. Inspect the SF-2817 to identify that the employee\n waived or cancelled Basic Life Insurance coverage.\n\n b. Compare the results in step 4.a. to the RITS submissions. Report any differences\n resulting from this step and obtain management\xe2\x80\x99s explanation for the differences.\n\n Results\n\n The personnel officers could not locate 10 of the forms (four at the Department of\n Housing and Urban Development, three at the Department of the Treasury, and one each\n at the Department of Homeland Security, the Small Business Administration and the\n Agency for International Development). We also identified one instance at the Small\n Business Administration where the basic life insurance election on the SF-2817 did not\n match the payroll system, which indicated \xe2\x80\x9cineligible.\xe2\x80\x9d As a result, premiums were not\n being withheld from the employee\xe2\x80\x99s salary. Agency personnel provided documentation\n to show that the error was later corrected. Further, we identified one instance at the\n Department of Justice where basic life insurance was waived on the SF-2817, but the\n payroll system indicated the employee was ineligible. This difference however, did not\n result in erroneous withholdings. No other exceptions were noted.\n\n 5. Calculate the headcount reflected on the September 2012 and March 2013 Semiannual\n Headcount Report selected, as follows.\n\n Obtain existing payroll information (from step 1.a.) supporting each Supplemental\n Semiannual Headcount Report. If existing payroll data are not available, obtain a\n payroll system query that summarized detailed payroll data supporting each\n Supplemental Semiannual Headcount Report, as follows:\n\n \xc2\xb7 Benefit Category (see Supplemental Semiannual Headcount Report),\n\n10 REPORT 11401-0006-11\n\x0cExhibit A: Procedures Performed and Results\n Exhibit A \xe2\x80\x93 Page 8 of 15\n\n \xc2\xb7 dollar amount of withholdings and contributions,\n\n \xc2\xb7 number enrolled (deductions made/no deductions),\n\n \xc2\xb7 central personnel data file code, and\n\n \xc2\xb7 aggregate base salary.\n\n a. Recalculate the headcount reflected on each Supplemental Semiannual Headcount\n Report. If an electronic file is not available, a suggested method of recalculating the\n headcount is as follows: (1) estimate the number of employees per payroll register\n page by counting the employees listed on several pages, (2) count the number of\n pages in the payroll register, and (3) multiply the number of employees per page by\n the number of pages, or count (using a computer audit routine) the number of\n employees on the payroll data file for the period.\n\n b. Compare the payroll information obtained in step 5.a. and the calculated headcount\n from step 5.b. to the information shown on each respective Semiannual Headcount\n Report.\n\n c. Report any differences (i.e., gross rather than net) greater than 2 percent between the\n headcount reporting on each respective agency Semiannual Headcount Report and\n payroll information from step 5.a. and the calculated headcount from step 5.b. Obtain\n a management official name, telephone number, an email address, and an explanation\n for the differences.\n\n Results\n\n Similar to prior years, our estimated headcounts for military deposits and salary offsets\n often differed by more than 2 percent from those reported on the Supplemental\n Semiannual Headcount Report (OPM 1523). This year NFC established project 524267\n to research and make the required programming modifications, and indicated these\n changes should eliminate these differences in the future.\n\n Also, similar to last year we identified some differences greater than 2 percent of the\n reported count for payers of full premiums for health benefits, and for those with no\n deductions for, but enrolled in various life insurance and/or retirement plans for various\n reasons. For example, NFC tended to slightly overstate some reported counts for these\n by using a sorting method that occasionally caused the number of summarized records to\n exceed the number of employees who have more than one type of payment. This year,\n NFC indicated project 524267 includes a sorting modification it intends to implement in\n PP 9, 2014, that will reduce this tendency. However, NFC also clarified this future\n sorting modification is limited to records with the same department code.\n\n REPORT 11401-0006-11 11\n\x0cExhibit A: Procedures Performed and Results\n Exhibit A \xe2\x80\x93 Page 9 of 15\n\n In addition, sometimes a correct total headcount was misallocated resulting in opposing\n misstatements of related subtotals. For example, similar to last year several individuals\n required to pay full FEHB premiums after they had been on a military furlough for more\n than 365 days were included in the subtotal NFC reported for those paying \xe2\x80\x9cregular\xe2\x80\x9d\n premiums instead of the reported subtotal of \xe2\x80\x9cpayers of full premiums.\xe2\x80\x9d Since this\n misallocation slightly overstated some \xe2\x80\x9cregular\xe2\x80\x9d subtotals and slightly understated some\n \xe2\x80\x9cfull premium\xe2\x80\x9d subtotals (the latter by over 2 percent), NFC indicated they \xe2\x80\x9cwill contact\n OPM for a ruling . . . [and] if system changes are warranted, . . . establish a project to\n implement those changes.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\n We again noted other misallocations between related subtotals that caused very small\n misstatements of those with, and those without deductions for optional life insurance, the\n latter by more than 2 percent in some cases. These misallocations were caused by NFC\n using the existence/absence of a deduction for basic FEGLI instead of the\n existence/absence of a deduction for the FEGLI option. This year NFC indicated project\n 524267 also includes modifying the program logic to base future subtotals of enrollment\n in FEGLI options A, B, and C \xe2\x80\x9con whether the applicable optional deduction itself was\n made. These programming changes will be implemented in PP 9, 2014.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\n Additionally, in regard to those \xe2\x80\x9cenrolled with no deductions made for retirement,\xe2\x80\x9d NFC\n included significantly more \xe2\x80\x9cunpaid employee\xe2\x80\x9d records than those included in other\n counts. NFC indicated additional extensive research will be required to address this\n inconsistency and stated it will work with OIG to get the details necessary to perform the\n research and will establish a project if further programming changes are identified.\n\n The magnitude of any overstatement in retirement headcounts caused by this\n inconsistency will be reduced by another project 524267 modification that NFC\n developed in response to a prior year finding regarding those who recently separated.\n This modification will allow NFC to exclude those whose separations were recorded in,\n but effective before the current pay period (although this will not apply to separations\n recorded after, but effective before the current PP).\n\n 6. Calculate employer and employee contributions for retirement, health benefits, and life\n insurance as follows:\n\n a. Calculate retirement withholdings and contributions for the three PPs selected in step\n 1.a. as follows:\n\n i. Multiply the CSRS and FERS payroll base by the withholding and employer\n contribution rates required by law.\n\n\n\n\n12 REPORT 11401-0006-11\n\x0cExhibit A: Procedures Performed and Results\n Exhibit A \xe2\x80\x93 Page 10 of 15\n\n ii. Compare the calculated totals from step 6.a.i. to the related amounts shown on\n the RITS submissions. Report any differences (i.e., gross rather than net)\n between the calculated amounts and the amounts reported on the RITS\n submissions that are greater than 5 percent of the amounts on the RITS\n submission, and obtain management\xe2\x80\x99s explanation for the differences.\n\n Results\n\n There were no differences greater than 5 percent, except in some cases, our calculation of\n military deposit dollar subtotal differed by more than 5 percent from the corresponding\n CSRS and FERS subtotal reported on the SF-2812. Similar to previous years,\n OCFO/NFC personnel stated that misallocations continue to occur rarely with manually\n processed payments. However, these errors are identified and corrected in the subsequent\n PP. Additionally, NFC stated that the number of Federal Erroneous Retirement Coverage\n Corrections Act3 cases (the number of which have increased significantly), as well as\n adjustments made using the NFC Special Payment Processing System may lead to some\n of the differences identified.\n\n b. Calculate employee withholdings and employer contributions for health benefits for\n the three PPs selected in step 1.a., as follows:\n\n i. Multiply the number of employees enrolled in each health benefits plan and\n plan option by the employee withholdings and employer contributions for the\n plan and option.\n\n ii. Sum the totals in step 6.b.i. and compare the results with the health benefit\n withholding and contribution amounts shown on the RITS submissions.\n Report any differences (i.e., gross rather than net) between the calculated\n amounts and the amounts reported on the RITS submissions that are greater\n than 5 percent of the amounts on the RITS submission, and obtain\n management\xe2\x80\x99s explanation for the differences.\n\n Results\n\n There were no differences greater than 5 percent.\n\n c. Calculate the basic life insurance employee withholdings and employer contributions\n for the three PPs selected in step 1.a., as follows:\n\n\n\n3\n The Federal Erroneous Retirement Coverage Corrections Act, Public Law 106-265, was enacted\nSeptember 19, 2000.\n\n REPORT 11401-0006-11 13\n\x0cExhibit A: Procedures Performed and Results\n Exhibit A \xe2\x80\x93 Page 11 of 15\n\n i. Obtain a payroll system query from agency payroll provider personnel to\n obtain the total number of employees with Basic Life Insurance coverage and\n the aggregate annual basic pay for all employees with Basic Life Insurance.\n\n ii. For employee withholdings: add the product of 2,500 times the number of\n employees with Basic Life Insurance coverage from step 6.c.i. above to the\n aggregate annual basic pay for all employees with Basic Life Insurance from\n step 6.c.i above to calculate the estimated total Basic Life Insurance coverage.\n Divide this calculated total by 1,000 and multiply it by the withholding rate\n required by law. The Life Insurance withholding rates are in the FEGLI\n Program Booklet on OPM\xe2\x80\x99s website.\n\n iii. Compare the results in step 6.c.ii. to the withholdings for Basic Life Insurance\n coverage reported on the RITS submission. Report any difference (i.e., gross\n rather than net) between the estimate and the amount of the withholdings\n reported on the RITS submission greater than 5 percent of the amounts on the\n RITS submission, and obtain management\xe2\x80\x99s explanation for the difference.\n\n Results\n\n There were no differences greater than 5 percent.\n\n iv. For agency contributions: divide the results of step 6.c.ii. by two \xe2\x80\x93 this\n approximates agency contribution, which are one-half of employee\n withholdings. Compare this result to the amount reported on the RITS\n submission. Report any differences (i.e., gross rather than net) between the\n estimated amount and the actual amount reported on the RITS submission that\n are greater than 5 percent of the amounts on the RITS submission, and obtain\n management\xe2\x80\x99s explanation for the differences.\n\n Results\n\n There were no differences greater than 5 percent.\n\n d. Calculate the Option A, Option B, and Option C Life Insurance coverage\n withholdings for the three PPs selected by using the detail payroll reports used to\n reconcile the RITS reports in Step 1. In addition to the information used for step 1,\n the reports should include the employee\xe2\x80\x99s date of birth, annual rate of basic pay, and\n number of multiples selected for Option B and C. Note: while similar to step 2.j., the\n calculation at this step is for the entire amount reported on the RITS submissions for\n the three PPs selected, as opposed to the sample of 25 employees in step 2.j.\n\n\n\n14 REPORT 11401-0006-11\n\x0cExhibit A: Procedures Performed and Results\n Exhibit A \xe2\x80\x93 Page 12 of 15\n\n i. Multiply the number of employees in each age group by the appropriate rate\n for Option A in accordance with the rates for age groups provided in the\n FEGLI Program Booklet.\n\n ii. Compare the result in step 6.d.i. to the amounts for Option A reported on the\n RITS submissions. Report any differences (i.e., gross rather than net) greater\n than 2 percent of the amounts on the RITS submission, and obtain\n management\xe2\x80\x99s explanation for the differences.\n\n Results\n\n There were no differences greater than 2 percent.\n\n iii. Segregate the reports for Option B and Option C insurance into the age groups\n shown in the FEGLI Program Booklet. For Option B, round the employee\xe2\x80\x99s\n annual rate of basic pay up to the next 1,000, then divide it by 1,000, and then\n multiply this amount by the rate for the age group by then multiplying this by\n the number of multiples:\n\n (Annual rate of basic pay (rounded up)/1,000*rate*multiples).\n\n For Option C, multiply the rate for the age group by the number of multiples\n chosen for each employee.\n\n iv. Compare the result in step 6.d.iii. to the amounts for Option B and Option C,\n respectively, reported on the RITS submissions. Report any differences (i.e.\n gross rather than net) greater than 2 percent of the amounts on the RITS\n submission for Option B or Option C, and obtain management\xe2\x80\x99s explanation\n for the differences.\n\n Results\n\n There were no differences greater than 2 percent.\n\n 7. Compare the list of field offices/duty stations to the list of local Combined Federal\n Campaign (CFC) campaigns obtained from OPM\xe2\x80\x99s Office of CFC Operations (OCFCO).\n Determine in which campaign each field office/duty station is located. (Note: it is\n possible for a field office/duty station to be in a location with no local CFC campaign.)\n\n\n\n\n REPORT 11401-0006-11 15\n\x0cExhibit A: Procedures Performed and Results\n Exhibit A \xe2\x80\x93 Page 13 of 15\n\n Report as a finding the following: all instances in which a Federal agency has a CFC\n deduction for an employee whose official duty station is in an area with no local CFC\n campaign. A chart listing the Federal agency, the duty station code and the campaign\n receiving the funds should be included. Obtain management\xe2\x80\x99s explanation for the\n differences and a corrective action plan.\n\n Results\n\n We analyzed the records of 83,123 employees with CFC deductions reported by\n OCFO/NFC for PP 3, 2013. Of these 83,123 employees, 80,613 had the same duty\n station code in PP 17, 2012 and PP 26, 2012, which roughly coincide, respectively with\n the beginning and end of the 2012 CFC solicitation period. Of these 80,613, we\n identified 44 employees (or .05 percent) at duty stations with no corresponding CFC. See\n exhibit B for a chart listing the Federal agency, the duty station code and the campaign\n receiving the funds as well as OCFO/NFC management\xe2\x80\x99s response.\n\n 8. Compare a list of accounting codes to the identified campaigns for each field office/duty\n station.\n\n a. Determine the accounting code for each field office/duty station.\n\n b. Determine if the name of the campaign, Principal Combined Fund Organization\n (PCFO), address of the PCFO in the agency payroll provider\xe2\x80\x99s system agree with the\n information for that field office/duty station on the list of local CFC campaigns\n obtained from OPM\xe2\x80\x99s OCFCO.\n\n Report as a finding the following: all instances in which the name of the campaign,\n PCFO, or address of the PCFO on the list of accounting codes from the Federal Payroll\n Office does not agree to the information on the list of all local CFC campaigns obtained\n from OPM\xe2\x80\x99s OCFCO. A chart detailing the differences should be included. Obtain\n management\xe2\x80\x99s explanation for the differences and a corrective action plan.\n\n Results\n\n We identified differences when we compared the name of the CFC campaign, PCFO, or\n address of the PCFO on the list of CFC areas from the OCFO/NFC system to the list of\n local CFC areas provided by OPM. See exhibit C for a chart detailing the differences and\n OCFO/NFC management\xe2\x80\x99s response.\n\n\n\n\n16 REPORT 11401-0006-11\n\x0cExhibit A: Procedures Performed and Results\n Exhibit A \xe2\x80\x93 Page 14 of 15\n\n 9. Sort the report of all employees with CFC deductions by official duty station.\n\n a. Compare the official duty stations to the campaigns identified for those locations.\n\n b. Compare the accounting codes for each employee with CFC deductions to the\n accounting code identified for that employee\xe2\x80\x99s official duty station. Determine if this\n agrees with the accounting code identified for that field/duty station.\n\n Report as a finding the following: all instances in which the accounting code for an\n employee with CFC deductions does not agree with the accounting code for that\n employee\xe2\x80\x99s official duty station. A chart listing the Federal agency, the duty station\n code, the campaign used and the correct campaign should be included. Obtain\n management\xe2\x80\x99s explanation for the differences and corrective action plan.\n\n Results\n\n Of the 83,123 employees with CFC deductions reported by OCFO/NFC for PP 3, 2013,\n 80,613 had the same duty station code in PP 17, 2012 and PP 26, the PPs that roughly\n coincide respectively with the beginning and end of the fall 2012 CFC solicitation period.\n We determined that the OCFO/NFC code was not consistent with the OPM CFC code by\n duty station for 1,969 of the 80,613 employees with the same duty station in PP 17, 2012\n and PP 26, 2012. See exhibit D for a chart detailing the differences and OCFO/NFC\n management\xe2\x80\x99s response.\n\n 10. From the list of accounting codes that do not agree with the field office/duty station,\n select a judgmental sample of two pledges per federal agency and request the hard copy\n pledge form the agency.\n\n \xc2\xb7 Determine if the pledge form used was for the correct campaign based on the\n official duty station.\n\n Report as a finding the following: all instances in which the incorrect pledge form was\n used by the employee. A chart listing the Federal agency, the correct campaign and the\n campaign used should be included.\n\n\n\n\n REPORT 11401-0006-11 17\n\x0cExhibit A: Procedures Performed and Results\n Exhibit A \xe2\x80\x93 Page 15 of 15\n\n Results\n\n We requested 17 CFC pledge forms4 from 9 agencies. Agencies were unable to provide\n two of the requested pledge forms \xe2\x80\x93 one for the Agency for International Development,\n and the other for the Department of Commerce. Of the 15 pledge forms received, 11\n were for the incorrect CFC campaign. See exhibit E for a chart listing the Federal\n agency, the correct campaign and the campaign used.\n\n\n\n\n4\n Agency for International Development only had one CFC code that did not agree with field office duty stations; all\nother departments tested had at least two.\n\n18 REPORT 11401-0006-11\n\x0cExhibit B: Combined Federal Campaign (CFC) Deductions for\nEmployees With No Local CFC Campaign\n Exhibit B \xe2\x80\x93 Page 1 of 2\n\n\n\n CFC Per the National Number of\n Duty Station Department\n Finance Center (NFC) Exceptions\n\n 081500073 0141 1 Agriculture\n 130270059 0211 5 Agriculture\n 130270059 0211 1 Homeland Security\n 130490013 0211 1 Agriculture\n 212640195 0405 1 Labor\n 401510009 0712 1 Justice\n 420840083 0684 3 Agriculture\n 421710105 0990 1 Commerce\n 480820271 0840 1 Homeland Security\n 483570255 0852 9 Homeland Security\n 485260163 0852 9 Homeland Security\n 485280389 0840 11 Homeland Security\n Totals 44\n\nThis chart lists instances in which a federal agency has a CFC deduction for an employee whose\nofficial duty station is in an area with no CFC campaign. The Office of Personnel Management\ndata shows CFC code of \xe2\x80\x9cN/A\xe2\x80\x9d for each of the duty stations listed above. This chart has separate\ncolumns for duty station code, the CFC code for the campaign receiving the funds, number of\nexceptions, and the federal agency.\n\n\n\n\n REPORT 11401-0006-11 19\n\x0cExhibit B: CFC deductions for employees with no local CFC\ncampaign\n Exhibit B \xe2\x80\x93 Page 2 of 2\n\nNFC Response\n\nOIG identified 44 employees who were in duty stations that had no corresponding CFCs and thus\ncannot participate in the CFC; however, per NFC\xe2\x80\x99s database records, the employees had CFC\ndeductions that were being sent to CFCs which do not cover those duty stations. For the 2012\nCFC, NFC\xe2\x80\x99s human resources management personnel processed CFC allotments, upon request,\nfor the following agencies\xe2\x80\x99 employees only, based on NFC\xe2\x80\x99s service level agreements with these\nagencies: USDA Office of the Chief Financial Officer (agency code 90), USDA National\nAppeals Division (agency code NA), DHS Coast Guard (agency code CG), and DHS Office of\nthe Inspector General (agency code OG). We reviewed the records provided by OIG for the 44\nemployees and noted that there were no agency 90, NA, CG, and OG employees on the list. The\nCFC personnel for the individual campaigns areas are responsible for the solicitation,\ndistribution, and the collection of the CFC pledge forms for their campaign areas, and the\nagencies\xe2\x80\x99 human resources management personnel are responsible for processing the CFC\nallotments for their own employees. Since this is a once a year activity that may include\nemployees both new and unfamiliar to the process, the errors were most likely caused by\ninexperienced personnel accepting pledge forms from employees in duty stations with no\ncorresponding CFCs. Of the 44 employees identified by OIG as assigned to duty stations that\nhad no corresponding CFCs, 26 of those employees work for DHS Immigrations and Customs\nEnforcement (agency code BB).\n\nFrom the universe of Chief Financial Officer Act entities serviced by NFC, there were 83,123\nemployees who had CFC deductions during pay period 3, 2013. The 44 errors represented only\n0.05 percent (or 5 hundredths of 1 percent) of employees with CFC deductions. As such, we feel\nthe root cause is human input/process errors, and the findings should be subjected to acceptable\nnormal input error rates.\n\n\n\n\n20 REPORT 11401-0006-11\n\x0cExhibit C: Name, Principal Combined Fund Organization (PCFO)\nand Address Differences\n Exhibit C \xe2\x80\x93 Page 1 of 2\n\nA. CFC not on OPM\xe2\x80\x99s list due to merger\n\nIn pay period 3, 2013, the National Finance Center (NFC) attributed CFC withholdings (of\n$15.60) of one employee of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to the\nInland Empire CFC, and attributed withholdings (of $28) of two Internal Revenue Service\nemployees to the Greater Utica Herkimer City CFC. However, neither CFC were included in\nOPM\xe2\x80\x99s 2012 CFC PCFO Finance Contacts because of mergers before the 2012 solicitation\nperiod. Instead, these withholdings should have been transferred to the PCFO of Intermountain\nCFC,and the PCFO of Greater Rome Area CFC, respectively.\n\nNFC Response\n\na. The instance in which an employee\xe2\x80\x99s CFC deductions were attributed to the Inland Empire\nCFC involved a Housing and Urban Development employee (HUD, agency code 83), and the\ncharitable contribution allotment record was entered by the employee\xe2\x80\x99s personnel office. NFC\npersonnel do not enter charitable contribution allotment records for HUD employees. NFC\npersonnel contacted the PCFO for the Intermountain CFC and obtained the CFC pledge form for\nthe employee, verified the personnel transaction history records in the payroll/personnel system,\nand confirmed that while the employee used the correct CFC pledge form (Intermountain CFC),\nthe employee\xe2\x80\x99s personnel office selected the incorrect CFC code when entering the employee\xe2\x80\x99s\ncharitable contribution allotment record.\n\nTo rectify the problem, NFC has notified the employee\xe2\x80\x99s personnel office to correct the\nemployee\xe2\x80\x99s charitable contribution allotment record. Once the charitable contribution allotment\nrecord has been corrected, NFC will then notify OPM\xe2\x80\x99s Office of CFC Operations to have the\nCFC funds for the affected pay periods transferred to the Intermountain CFC.\n\nNFC has established a tickler to inactivate the Inland Empire CFC record (16 0960) in Table\nManagement (TMGT) when changes are made in January 2014 for the 2013 CFC campaign so\nthat this code could no longer be used.\n\nb. The Greater Utica Herkimer County CFC (36 6220 per NFC) merged into the Greater Rome\nArea CFC (36 5260 per NFC, 0361 per OPM), effective as of the 2011 campaign. However,\nNFC personnel was not informed of the merger until January 30, 2013, after NFC personnel\nnotified OPM\xe2\x80\x99s Office of CFC Operations that the Greater Utica Herkimer County CFC was still\nlisted as an active CFC on OPM\xe2\x80\x99s CFC website. Since NFC was not timely notified of the\nmerger, TMGT did not timely reflect the correct information for the merger.\n\nBecause two Internal Revenue Service (agency code 93) employees\xe2\x80\x99 CFC deductions are\ncurrently associated with the Greater Utica Herkimer County CFC, NFC personnel cannot delete\nthis record from TGMT.\n\n REPORT 11401-0006-11 21\n\x0cExhibit C: Name, Principal Combined Fund Organization (PCFO)\nand Address Differences\n Exhibit C \xe2\x80\x93 Page 2 of 2\n\nHowever, to ensure that the funds are sent to the correct CFC organization, on March 7, 2013,\nNFC personnel modified the routing and bank account number for the Greater Utica Herkimer\nCounty CFC\xe2\x80\x99s PCFO in TMGT to reflect the routing and bank account number of the Greater\nRome Area CFC\xe2\x80\x99s PCFO. Therefore, CFC disbursements beginning in pay period 4, 2013 will\nbe sent to the correct PCFO. In addition, NFC has notified OPM\xe2\x80\x99s Office of CFC Operations to\nrequest the PCFO for the Greater Utica Herkimer County CFC to transfer the funds for pay\nperiods 1, 2, and 3 of 2013 (totaling $84) to the PCFO for the Greater Rome Area CFC.\n\nNFC personnel has established a tickler to inactivate the Greater Utica Herkimer County CFC\nrecord (36 6220 per NFC) in TMGT when changes are made in January 2014 for the 2013 CFC\ncampaign so that this code could no longer be used.\n\nB. Incorrect PCFO names:\n\nThe table below shows four differences in PCFO names. The differences occurred because the\nNFC TMGT 006 reported no PCFO name, the name of the CFC instead of the PCFO, or the\nname of the PCFO\xe2\x80\x99s bank instead of the PCFO. For these four, this is the only difference\nbetween OPM and NFC name and address information.\n\n\n CFC\n per PCFO per OPM PCFO per NFC\n OPM\n0006 United Way of SW Alabama, Inc.\n0842 Greater Fort Hood United Way FORT HOOD NATL BANK\n0921 United Way of Kitsap County KITSAP BANK\n0943 United Way of Eastern Panhandle EASTERN PANHANDLE CFC\n\nNFC Response:\n\nWhile PCFO name differences may exist between NFC\xe2\x80\x99s TMGT table 006 and OPM\xe2\x80\x99s CFC\nPCFO Finance Contacts file, the CFC funds were disbursed to the correct PCFO bank accounts.\nOn April 12, 2013, NFC personnel made corrections to TMGT for the PCFO name differences\nthe Office of Inspector General identified above.\n\n\n\n\n22 REPORT 11401-0006-11\n\x0cExhibit D: Accounting Code Differences\n Exhibit D \xe2\x80\x93 Page 1 of 24\n\n CFC Codes attributed Department Code\n OPM\xe2\x80\x99s Duty Station by NFC differing from and frequencies\n CFC\n OPM\xe2\x80\x99s & frequencies (if not 1 or all)\n 0002 010350117 0990 1 CM\n 011710073 0811 1 TR\n 0004 011730089 0990 3 DJ\n 0002 1 HS\n 0005 010200081 0373 9 AG\n 013050125 0002 1 DJ\n 0006 012100097 0500 1 HS\n 0051 040070021 0052 1 AG\n 040130003 0840 1 HS\n 040160021 0052 2 HS\n 040170005 0052 2 DJ\n 040180021 0052 1 HS\n 040297021 0052 15 AG\n 040330023 0840 1 HS\n 040429017 0052 1 SB\n 040431003 0990 2 DJ & HS\n 040530019 0407 2 CM\n 0839 1 DJ\n 0990 1 HS\n 040590005 0606 1 AG\n 0052 040370013 0560 2 HS & Other\n 0990 2 AG & DJ\n 0141 1 HS\n 040490013 0990 1 CM\n 0072 052320119 0839 6 FD(5) & AG\n 0990 1 AG\n 0095 060240029 0116 1 AG\n 060461051 0560 2 AG\n 062130019 0106 1 DJ\n\n\n\n\n REPORT 11401-0006-11 23\n\x0cExhibit D: Accounting Code Differences\n Exhibit D \xe2\x80\x93 Page 2 of 24\n\n CFC Codes attributed Department Code\n OPM\xe2\x80\x99s\n Duty Station by NFC differing from and frequencies\n CFC\n OPM\xe2\x80\x99s & frequencies (if not 1 or all)\n 0096 060030037 0990 1 CM\n 060720037 0990 1 CM\n 061110037 0589 1 TR\n 061430037 0990 1 DJ\n 061782059 0990 1 CM\n 061786059 0839 1 HS\n 061970037 0923 1 DL\n 061980037 0990 4 DJ, HS & TR(2)\n 0106 3 DJ, FD, & Other\n 062327065 0105 6 HS\n 063070065 0100 3 HS\n 0990 2 CM & DJ\n 063250059 0105 29 HS\n 063420059 0106 2 HU & Other\n 063851065 0105 11 HS\n 064025037 0990 1 CM\n 069990037 0990 1 CM\n 0100 060410065 0051 75 HS\n 061690065 0105 1 HS\n 062650065 0096 1 HS\n 0105 061090025 0100 1 HS\n 061200073 0990 1 CM\n 063260073 0096 2 HS\n 0106 1 TR\n 0117 1 CM\n 0923 1 CM\n 0990 1 DJ\n 063418073 0096 1 HS\n 0772 1 HS\n\n\n\n\n24 REPORT 11401-0006-11\n\x0cExhibit D: Accounting Code Differences\n Exhibit D \xe2\x80\x93 Page 3 of 24\n\n CFC Codes attributed Department Code\n OPM\xe2\x80\x99s\n Duty Station by NFC differing from and frequencies\n CFC\n OPM\xe2\x80\x99s & frequencies (if not 1 or all)\n 0106 060330095 0990 1 DL\n 060340001 0751 1 AG\n 0990 1 Other\n 060980113 0990 1 AG\n 061300067 0990 1 CM\n 062182085 0990 1 CM\n 062480001 0990 5 HS\n 0105 2 Other\n 062980081 0990 1 CM\n 063150067 0728 1 AG\n 0990 1 AG\n 063290075 0990 3 CM, DL & TR\n 0096 1 CM\n 0115 061280111 0095 4 AG\n 062890111 0096 1 HS\n 063460083 0096 1 DJ\n 064027111 0096 3 DJ\n 0116 064050107 0095 1 AG\n 0117 063180053 0106 1 TR\n 064100087 0106 1 DJ\n 0140 080430041 0141 1 DL\n 0990 1 HS\n 081680105 0870 1 AG\n 081956041 0990 1 HS\n 082050101 0990 2 HS & Other\n 082350009 0870 1 AG\n 0141 080354005 0990 1 HS\n 080600031 0990 10 CM, HS(7), & HU(2)\n 081435059 0791 1 AG\n\n\n\n\n REPORT 11401-0006-11 25\n\x0cExhibit D: Accounting Code Differences\n Exhibit D \xe2\x80\x93 Page 4 of 24\n\n CFC Codes attributed Department Code\n OPM\xe2\x80\x99s\n Duty Station by NFC differing from and frequencies\n CFC\n OPM\xe2\x80\x99s & frequencies (if not 1 or all)\n 0142 080860069 0990 5 AG\n 0870 2 AG\n 0141 1 AG\n 081550069 0141 1 HS\n 0870 1 DJ\n 0162 090280003 0427 3 DJ & HS(2)\n 0990 1 DJ\n 0164 090080001 0770 3 DL\n 090110009 0990 1 CM\n 090385009 0589 3 CM\n 090510001 0162 4 TR\n 090520011 0162 2 AG & Other\n 090655001 0990 1 CM\n 090700001 0990 1 CM\n 090760005 0162 1 AG\n 0175 100130001 0751 1 HS\n 100360003 0405 1 TR\n 100490003 0751 5 HS(2), HU(2) & TR\n 0990 1 CM\n 0181 120620009 0189 1 AG\n 121483009 0990 1 CM\n 123000009 0192 1 DJ\n 0185 121130001 0990 3 DJ, HS, & Other\n 121510031 0192 1 AG\n 0211 1 DL\n 0355 1 HU\n 0990 1 FD\n 122350019 0990 1 CM\n 122940073 0211 1 HS\n 0838 1 CM\n 0990 1 DJ\n 130760127 0990 1 HS\n 132394127 0560 1 HS\n 0605 1 HS\n 0990 1 HS\n\n26 REPORT 11401-0006-11\n\x0cExhibit D: Accounting Code Differences\n Exhibit D \xe2\x80\x93 Page 5 of 24\n\n\n OPM\xe2\x80\x99s CFC Codes attributed Department Code\n Duty Station by NFC differing from and frequencies\n CFC\n OPM\xe2\x80\x99s & frequencies (if not 1 or all)\n 0189 120290099 0990 1 CM\n 121050011 0990 1 HS\n 121280011 0990 1 CM\n 122010086 0990 4 AG, CM & HS(2)\n 0185 2 HS & HU\n 0192 1 HS\n 0897 1 DJ\n 0975 1 DJ\n 122083011 0990 8 HS\n 122260011 0990 1 CM\n 122300093 0990 1 CM\n 122900085 0975 1 HS\n 0192 120810127 0185 1 AG\n 121840117 0990 1 CM\n 121895095 0197 3 DJ\n 122190127 0189 1 CM\n 122360095 0990 2 CM & HS\n 0197 1 HS\n 0211 1 DL\n 0943 1 AG\n 122420107 0185 1 AG\n 122700097 0990 1 CM\n 123270095 0990 1 CM\n 0193 120457071 0990 1 CM\n 121070071 0197 2 DJ & HS\n 0990 1 HS\n 0194 122490033 0197 1 DJ\n 0197 122730103 0990 1 CM\n 122806103 0192 1 DJ\n 122950057 0192 9 HS\n 0990 3 AM, DJ & CM\n 0189 1 SB\n 123173101 0990 1 CM\n 0210 135460275 0211 1 HS\n\n\n\n REPORT 11401-0006-11 27\n\x0cExhibit D: Accounting Code Differences\n Exhibit D \xe2\x80\x93 Page 6 of 24\n\n CFC Codes attributed by Department Code\n OPM\xe2\x80\x99s\n Duty Station NFC differing from OPM\xe2\x80\x99s and frequencies\n CFC\n & frequencies (if not 1 or all)\n 0211 130280089 0257 1 TR\n 0809 1 TR\n 0990 1 HS\n 130280121 0990 6 DJ, TR, DL(2) & HU(2)\n 0189 1 DL\n 0197 1 HU\n 0218 1 DJ\n 131250121 0990 1 CM\n 133230297 0990 1 CM\n 134020089 0990 1 CM\n 0212 130310245 0218 2 DJ\n 0211 1 DJ\n 0990 1 CM\n 450020003 0990 1 Other\n 0214 131280215 0211 3 DJ(2) & HS\n 133310259 0211 8 HS\n 0217 131775021 0211 1 AG\n 0218 134910051 0211 2 DJ & DL\n 0225 152400003 0990 3 HU & HS(2)\n 0096 1 HS\n 153002001 0990 1 CM\n 156200007 0990 1 HS\n 0249 171670031 0990 38 CT(28), DJ(2) & HS(8)\n 0964 2 HU & TR\n 0427 1 DL\n 171670043 0990 3 CM & HS(2)\n 172440043 0211 1 TR\n 0964 1 TR\n 0990 1 TR\n 174958097 0990 1 CM\n 177000197 0990 1 CM\n 178770019 0257 2 DJ & HS\n 182972089 0457 1 TR\n 184960127 0283 1 Other\n 0257 178220167 0524 1 AG\n\n28 REPORT 11401-0006-11\n\x0cExhibit D: Accounting Code Differences\n Exhibit D \xe2\x80\x93 Page 7 of 24\n\n CFC Codes attributed Department Code\n OPM\xe2\x80\x99s\n Duty Station by NFC differing from and frequencies\n CFC\n OPM\xe2\x80\x99s & frequencies (if not 1 or all)\n 0259 177460201 0249 2 DJ\n 0990 1 CM\n 177470161 0249 2 HS\n 191340113 0481 1 DL\n 198670011 0507 1 Other\n 0283 180380105 0990 1 CM\n 181950081 0095 1 TR\n 182210097 0095 1 TR\n 182570091 0249 1 AG\n 0339 204000079 0524 2 AG\n 0355 181480163 0283 2 DJ & HS\n 0528 2 TR\n 212980211 0682 1 AG\n 0371 220040079 0372 1 DL\n 221230055 0372 1 DL\n 0990 1 CM\n 221250019 0372 2 HS\n 221560073 0372 1 DL\n 0809 1 AG\n 0372 221070109 0374 15 AG\n 221690071 0374 2 HS & TR\n 0845 1 HS\n 0990 1 DJ\n 0373 222130017 0372 1 DJ\n 0839 1 FD\n 0374 220150033 0372 5 HS\n 0506 1 AG\n 0391 230160011 0990 1 HS\n 230250019 0990 1 AG\n 232500009 0427 1 CM\n 234150031 0845 1 HS\n 236400005 0427 2 CM & HS\n\n\n\n\n REPORT 11401-0006-11 29\n\x0cExhibit D: Accounting Code Differences\n Exhibit D \xe2\x80\x93 Page 8 of 24\n\n\n OPM\xe2\x80\x99s CFC Codes attributed Department Code\n Duty Station by NFC differing from and frequencies\n CFC\n OPM\xe2\x80\x99s & frequencies (if not 1 or all)\n 0405 240030003 0990 5 CM\n 0944 2 AG\n 0409 1 AG\n 240050510 0990 2 CM & DJ\n 0751 1 CM\n 240255005 0990 1 CM\n 240358027 0990 1 CM\n 240381027 0990 2 CM & DJ\n 240401003 0990 1 CM\n 240403003 0990 1 CM\n 240419003 0990 1 CM\n 240496003 0990 7 SM\n 240530027 0990 3 CM\n 240543005 0990 1 CM\n 240673003 0897 1 HS\n 240765003 0990 1 CM\n 241189005 0990 1 CM\n 241296005 0990 1 CM\n 241380045 0990 1 CM\n 241662027 0990 1 CM\n 510490001 0897 1 HS\n 0407 240540021 0405 1 HS\n 0990 1 HS\n 240580021 0990 4 AG & CM(3)\n 0405 2 DJ & Other\n 240730043 0990 1 CM\n 241090021 0990 1 CM\n 0409 240930037 0405 2 Other\n 0427 250120025 0432 10 DJ\n 0770 3 HU & DJ(2)\n 0990 2 HS & SM\n A* 6 HU, DJ, TR, DL(2), & AG\n 250370021 0571 1 FD\n 250850005 0770 2 HS\n 251280005 0770 8 CM\n\n30 REPORT 11401-0006-11\n\x0cExhibit D: Accounting Code Differences\n Exhibit D \xe2\x80\x93 Page 9 of 24\n\n CFC Codes attributed Department Code\n OPM\xe2\x80\x99s Duty Station by NFC differing from and frequencies\n CFC\n OPM\xe2\x80\x99s & frequencies (if not 1 or all)\n 251465021 0990 1 CM\n 0432 251270013 0162 1 FD\n 0452 260940125 0990 1 CM\n 261260163 0249 1 AG\n 0773 1 TR\n 0990 1 HS\n 262090163 0990 1 CM\n 262104163 0990 1 TR\n 264430161 0990 1 CM\n 0453 261730049 0452 3 DJ\n 0454 262010081 0839 1 DJ\n 0458 260320017 0452 1 DJ\n 264350145 0452 1 DJ\n 0466 262160047 0990 1 CM\n 262450043 0964 1 TR\n 262470053 0964 1 AG\n 263050103 0454 3 DJ\n 263700131 0964 1 AG\n 0481 192260153 0249 1 DL\n 198980153 0259 1 TR\n 271900137 0672 3 HS\n 0964 1 AG\n 273480071 0672 1 HS\n 274760053 0990 1 TR\n 274810053 0990 1 CM\n 275335069 0672 2 HS\n 276330123 0957 1 TR\n 0990 1 CM\n 277360135 0672 1 HS\n 380380009 0672 1 HS\n 0500 280130045 0990 1 HS\n 280230047 0189 1 DL\n 0503 1 DL\n 0503 281220049 0189 1 DL\n 0839 1 FD\n\n REPORT 11401-0006-11 31\n\x0cExhibit D: Accounting Code Differences\n Exhibit D \xe2\x80\x93 Page 10 of 24\n\n\n OPM\xe2\x80\x99s CFC Codes attributed Department Code\n Duty Station by NFC differing from and frequencies\n CFC\n OPM\xe2\x80\x99s & frequencies (if not 1 or all)\n 0990 1 HU\n 0520 291800019 0283 1 AG\n 0528 1 SB\n 0990 1 FD\n 0521 296910161 0528 2 DJ\n 0524 203080091 0990 1 TR\n 205400177 0990 1 AG\n 294120095 0990 21 CT(14), FD(5), TR & SB\n 0528 2 AG &TR\n 294120165 0552 1 HS\n 294490095 0990 1 AG\n 0527 297070021 0520 1 AG\n 0528 293980031 0524 1 CM\n 294380197 0520 1 AG\n 297080510 0524 5 DJ(2), AG, DL & FD\n 0990 2 CM\n 0520 1 AG\n 0540 300100111 0030 2 AG\n 0542 300530013 0540 1 HS\n 301125101 0540 1 HS\n 0543 300340001 0540 1 AG\n 301290069 0540 1 AG\n 0545 300830063 0543 1 AG\n 0551 312830109 0552 1 HS\n 0552 197960059 0481 1 AG\n 310580177 0551 1 AG\n 311890061 0551 1 Other\n 311900053 0551 1 Other\n 313240099 0524 1 AG\n 315050155 0551 1 AG\n 315360185 0551 1 Other\n 0560 320120003 0096 11 HS\n 0606 1 AG\n 320170031 0106 1 TR\n\n\n\n32 REPORT 11401-0006-11\n\x0cExhibit D: Accounting Code Differences\n Exhibit D \xe2\x80\x93 Page 11 of 24\n\n CFC Codes attributed Department Code\n OPM\xe2\x80\x99s Duty Station by NFC differing from and frequencies\n CFC\n OPM\xe2\x80\x99s & frequencies (if not 1 or all)\n 0571 330070013 0990 2 HS & TR\n 0427 1 AG\n 330098013 0990 1 AG\n 330100017 0990 1 CM\n 330310011 0427 1 HS\n 0626 1 HU\n 330385003 0990 1 CM\n 330430015 0990 1 TR\n 500100025 0432 1 TR\n 0626 1 Other\n 500200007 0990 1 CM\n 0580 340090001 0990 4 HS\n 340520007 0589 1 HS\n 340598007 0589 10 HS(5) & TR(5)\n 0751 3 DJ\n 340696005 0589 2 AG\n 341230007 0990 1 CM\n 341270001 0589 1 AG\n 341290005 0589 1 AG\n 341778005 0751 1 HS\n 341833005 0990 3 HS\n 341850001 0990 1 CM\n 342081005 0589 5 HS\n 0751 1 TR\n 343380021 0589 1 TR\n 0990 1 DJ\n 343460011 0589 2 AG\n 343760033 0589 1 AG\n 0589 340640003 0990 1 CM\n 340779023 0751 1 TR\n 340938013 0839 1 DJ\n 341430017 0990 1 CM\n 341985037 0990 1 CM\n 342130013 0626 2 HS & Other\n 342420003 0990 1 CM\n 343096035 0580 3 DJ\n REPORT 11401-0006-11 33\n\x0cExhibit D: Accounting Code Differences\n Exhibit D \xe2\x80\x93 Page 12 of 24\n\n CFC Codes attributed Department Code\n OPM\xe2\x80\x99s\n Duty Station by NFC differing from and frequencies\n CFC\n OPM\xe2\x80\x99s & frequencies (if not 1 or all)\n 0605 350020035 0840 89 HS\n 0606 4 AG\n 350154035 0840 1 HS\n 0606 350030001 0840 1 HS\n 0990 1 AG\n 350510028 0990 1 Other\n 350710049 0990 1 HS\n 350810051 0840 10 HS\n 0615 350310045 0606 2 DJ\n 0620 360050001 0634 1 DJ\n 366110083 0751 1 AG\n 0621 360750029 0626 1 Other\n 0627 1 TR\n 0772 1 HS\n 361117029 0642 1 TR\n 362260069 0634 6 AG\n 362899013 0990 1 CM\n 365230055 0990 1 CM\n 366622055 0990 1 CM\n 0626 364170005 0427 1 HS\n 0644 1 DJ\n 0990 1 DJ\n 364170047 0990 2 TR\n DJ, HS, TR, Other, CM(2)\n 364170061 0990 27\n & CT(21)\n 0642 3 HS\n 0211 1 DL\n 0580 1 TR\n 0589 1 DJ\n 0620 1 CM\n 0751 1 DJ\n 364170081 0642 3 HS\n 0990 2 HS & CM\n 0631 366220065 0634 1 DL\n\n\n\n34 REPORT 11401-0006-11\n\x0cExhibit D: Accounting Code Differences\n Exhibit D \xe2\x80\x93 Page 13 of 24\n\n CFC Codes attributed Department Code and\n OPM\xe2\x80\x99s\n Duty Station by NFC differing from frequencies\n CFC\n OPM\xe2\x80\x99s & frequencies (if not 1 or all)\n 0634 364540075 0621 7 HS\n 0682 1 HS\n 0638 366450045 0621 22 HS\n 0639 362320071 0990 1 DJ\n 364560071 0760 1 DJ\n 0642 360500103 0427 1 CM\n 362758103 0626 1 TR\n 0990 1 TR\n 363933103 0990 1 CM\n 364505103 0626 1 HS\n 0990 1 HS\n 0644 362680111 0642 1 AG\n 365030027 0990 1 CM\n 0650 370170021 0655 4 DJ(2) & HS(2)\n 0990 1 CM\n 0654 370350031 0189 1 CM\n 373250049 0990 1 DJ\n 0655 370860135 0990 1 CM\n 370870119 0211 2 DJ\n 0990 2 CM & FD\n 371040025 0990 1 CM\n 371940081 0990 1 DJ\n 372730069 0990 1 CM\n 373750183 0990 2 HS & TR\n 0225 1 CM\n 374790183 0990 1 CM\n 451110057 0990 1 CM\n\n\n\n\n REPORT 11401-0006-11 35\n\x0cExhibit D: Accounting Code Differences\n Exhibit D \xe2\x80\x93 Page 14 of 24\n\n CFC Codes attributed Department Code and\n OPM\xe2\x80\x99s\n Duty Station by NFC differing from frequencies\n CFC\n OPM\xe2\x80\x99s & frequencies (if not 1 or all)\n 0656 371670051 0655 3 DJ\n 373600125 0990 1 CM\n 374090105 0990 1 CM\n 375060129 0990 2 CM\n 0452 1 TR\n 0655 1 SB\n 0660 374070159 0655 1 AG\n 0670 380370015 0481 1 DJ\n 381600093 0672 1 AG\n 0672 381020017 0481 1 AG\n 0682 182020077 0524 1 AG\n 211980067 0355 2 DJ\n 391610061 0355 1 TR\n 0684 1 TR\n 0975 1 DJ\n 0990 1 CM\n 0684 391320151 0990 1 DJ\n 391680035 0990 1 DL\n 396320085 0990 1 CM\n 397880035 0990 1 CM\n 398870169 0685 1 AG\n 422640049 0621 1 HS\n 0754 1 DJ\n 422769049 0621 8 HS\n 0685 391800049 0452 1 HS\n 0481 1 AG\n 541270011 0751 1 DL\n 0686 392090113 0685 1 AG\n 394610165 0682 1 TR\n 398300021 0990 1 CM\n 399040027 0685 1 AG\n 0689 392820083 0685 1 AG\n\n\n\n\n36 REPORT 11401-0006-11\n\x0cExhibit D: Accounting Code Differences\n Exhibit D \xe2\x80\x93 Page 15 of 24\n\n CFC Codes attributed Department Code\n OPM\xe2\x80\x99s\n Duty Station by NFC differing from and frequencies\n CFC\n OPM\xe2\x80\x99s & frequencies (if not 1 or all)\n 0712 403550109 0839 8 FD\n 0189 1 TR\n 404460119 0990 1 AG\n 0715 403310101 0712 1 HS\n 404780143 0839 2 FD\n 0728 411650051 0990 2 AG & HS\n 0729 411510011 0728 3 HS\n 411670011 0728 4 AG\n 411780019 0728 2 AG & Other\n 0746 423500043 0990 1 HS\n 428100027 0990 2 CM\n 0748 424340075 0751 1 AG\n 0749 420115119 0751 1 HS\n 424053119 0751 1 DJ\n 0751 420910017 0990 1 CM\n 422725029 0990 1 CM\n 424180071 0990 1 CM\n 424520071 0746 1 HS\n 425074091 0990 1 Other\n 426540101 0990 3 HU & CM(2)\n 0626 2 DL & HU\n 0142 1 AG\n 0211 1 DL\n 0754 421980129 0990 1 CM\n 424290129 0990 1 CM\n 424865053 0684 1 AG\n 426600003 0990 2 DL & TR\n 0626 1 Other\n 0751 1 DJ\n 428880125 0990 1 CM\n\n\n\n\n REPORT 11401-0006-11 37\n\x0cExhibit D: Accounting Code Differences\n Exhibit D \xe2\x80\x93 Page 16 of 24\n\n CFC Codes attributed Department Code and\n OPM\xe2\x80\x99s\n Duty Station by NFC differing from frequencies\n CFC\n OPM\xe2\x80\x99s & frequencies (if not 1 or all)\n 0760 420630037 0990 1 CM\n 421860079 0990 1 CM\n 427460069 0751 1 DJ\n 0754 1 TR\n 429340079 0751 1 HS\n 429510015 0751 1 AG\n 0770 250140023 0754 1 TR\n 250564023 0427 3 DJ\n 440190007 0432 4 DJ\n 0990 3 HS & DJ(2)\n 0427 1 DJ\n 0772 450410019 0990 1 DJ\n 0773 450520063 0990 1 HS\n 450520079 0774 2 DJ & TR\n 451060083 0774 3 CM\n 452880007 0990 1 CM\n 0791 462250103 0792 3 HS\n 0792 462450099 0990 2 FD\n 0805 131080213 0211 2 AG\n 470400065 0808 2 DJ\n 0808 374900087 0655 1 AG\n 470290163 0728 1 AG\n 471300093 0839 1 FD\n 0990 1 DJ\n 472477171 0805 1 AG\n 0809 470450157 0990 1 CM\n 471620157 0839 3 FD\n 0811 471200113 0506 2 AG\n 0809 2 AG & DJ\n 471760037 0351 1 TR\n 0830 484140303 0832 1 TR\n 484560329 0840 1 HS\n\n\n\n38 REPORT 11401-0006-11\n\x0cExhibit D: Accounting Code Differences\n Exhibit D \xe2\x80\x93 Page 17 of 24\n\n CFC Codes attributed Department Code\n OPM\xe2\x80\x99s\n Duty Station by NFC differing from and frequencies\n CFC\n OPM\xe2\x80\x99s & frequencies (if not 1 or all)\n 0831 480330453 0839 4 FD\n 0830 2 TR\n 0809 1 SB\n 0845 1 HS\n 0990 1 CM\n 486780491 0852 2 HS\n 0832 480150375 0990 1 Other\n 0838 481550273 0845 2 HS\n 481550355 0105 1 HS\n 0845 1 HS\n 0852 1 HS\n 482290047 0846 8 HS\n 483700273 0846 2 HS\n 0840 1 HS\n 0839 481730113 0990 3 FD(2) & HS\n 481840121 0374 1 HS\n 0905 1 HS\n 482450439 0852 2 HU\n 0002 1 HU\n 0990 1 HS\n 483420113 0990 1 CM\n 484802085 0990 1 CM\n 0840 350470013 0606 1 AG\n 350735013 0990 1 HS\n 350750017 0606 1 AG\n 482190141 0832 1 DJ\n 0990 1 CM\n 485525377 0051 1 HS\n\n\n\n\n REPORT 11401-0006-11 39\n\x0cExhibit D: Accounting Code Differences\n Exhibit D \xe2\x80\x93 Page 18 of 24\n\n CFC Codes attributed Department Code\n OPM\xe2\x80\x99s\n Duty Station by NFC differing from and frequencies\n CFC\n OPM\xe2\x80\x99s & frequencies (if not 1 or all)\n 0845 483280201 0990 4 HS, TR & DJ(2)\n 0162 1 TR\n 0185 1 HS\n 0839 1 DJ\n 0846 1 DJ\n 0852 1 HU\n 485430245 0189 1 CM\n 0990 1 HS\n 486553201 0990 1 CM\n 486660157 0990 1 CM\n 487410481 0524 1 AG\n 0846 484197215 0845 5 DJ(4) & HS\n 485780427 0840 2 HS\n 0847 482030323 0840 1 HS\n 483080247 0846 2 HS\n 483899479 0852 2 HS\n 487660505 0846 4 HS\n 0852 486090029 0990 2 DJ & HS\n 0372 1 DL\n 0831 1 DL\n 0845 1 HS\n 0846 1 HS\n 0847 1 HS\n 0851 1 TR\n 0854 053810091 0072 7 HS\n 0861 484160005 0371 1 AG\n 0870 081040077 0141 2 AG\n 081700085 0141 1 AG\n 160890083 0540 1 AG\n 161830083 0540 1 HS\n 491350057 0524 1 TR\n 0751 1 TR\n 0839 1 TR\n 491700035 0524 1 AG\n 0990 1 DL\n 0891 510440540 0900 2 DJ\n 0990 2 CM\n 512135079 0990 1 CM\n\n40 REPORT 11401-0006-11\n\x0cExhibit D: Accounting Code Differences\n Exhibit D \xe2\x80\x93 Page 19 of 24\n\n CFC Codes attributed Department Code\n OPM\xe2\x80\x99s\n Duty Station by NFC differing from and frequencies\n CFC\n OPM\xe2\x80\x99s & frequencies (if not 1 or all)\n 0896 511180650 0897 1 TR\n 512630830 0990 1 CM\n 0897 375140091 0990 1 DJ\n 511760710 0896 2 DJ & HS\n 511970740 0990 1 HS\n 0898 510690047 0990 4 Other\n 511020630 0990 6 CM\n 511393099 0990 1 CM\n 511461137 0990 1 CM\n 512010153 0990 275 DJ\n 0897 1 DJ\n 512147033 0990 1 CM\n 512303177 0990 1 CM\n 512307179 0990 4 CM\n 512570061 0990 2 CM\n 0900 510520117 0990 1 HS\n 512060760 0990 2 CM & TR\n 0831 1 TR\n 0901 510180121 0990 1 CM\n 510300520 0990 1 DJ\n 510993019 0990 1 CM\n 512100770 0900 2 DJ\n 0990 1 AG\n 0905 511040187 0990 3 SM(2) & CM\n 511190660 0990 1 CM\n 512640840 0990 14 DJ\n 0839 1 HS\n 0921 531255035 0923 1 CM\n 531700009 0931 2 HS\n 531730035 0923 1 DJ\n 531775031 0925 1 AG\n 532012035 0923 2 DJ & TR\n 0922 531850005 0990 1 Other\n\n\n\n\n REPORT 11401-0006-11 41\n\x0cExhibit D: Accounting Code Differences\n Exhibit D \xe2\x80\x93 Page 20 of 24\n\n CFC Codes attributed Department Code\n OPM\xe2\x80\x99s\n Duty Station by NFC differing from and frequencies\n CFC\n OPM\xe2\x80\x99s & frequencies (if not 1 or all)\n 0923 530170033 0931 45 HS\n 531050033 0096 1 CM\n 531960033 0925 11 AG(4), HS(5) & DJ(2)\n 0990 6 DJ, HU, Other & HS(3)\n 0931 1 TR\n 0924 532110063 0923 1 DJ\n 532111063 0923 1 HS\n 0925 531795041 0728 1 AG\n 0928 532460007 0924 6 AG\n 0931 530050057 0772 1 HS\n 530150073 0923 1 HS\n 0990 1 CM\n 530500061 0728 1 AG\n 0940 540170081 0870 1 DL\n 0941 540540033 0990 1 DJ\n 542843049 0944 1 AG\n 0943 541660003 0990 2 HS & TR\n 0405 1 HS\n 0944 541840061 0990 1 CM\n 0957 552780025 0990 1 CM\n 0964 551305133 0990 1 CM\n 551962001 0481 1 DJ\n 552405078 0957 1 AG\n 552880073 0957 1 AG\n 553100079 0957 1 AG\n 0975 RQ0030000 0840 1 HS\n RQ0450000 0905 1 HS\n RQ0480000 0905 7 HS\n 0185 2 TR\n RQ0900000 0905 1 HS\n RQ0930000 0905 9 HS\n 0990 1 CM\n\n\n\n\n42 REPORT 11401-0006-11\n\x0cExhibit D: Accounting Code Differences\n Exhibit D \xe2\x80\x93 Page 21 of 24\n\n CFC Codes attributed Department Code\n OPM\xe2\x80\x99s\n Duty Station by NFC differing from and frequencies\n CFC\n OPM\xe2\x80\x99s & frequencies (if not 1 or all)\n 0990 110010001 0905 6 HS\n 0249 4 DJ, DL, HS, & HU\n 0162 3 HU\n 0644 3 HS\n TR, HS(2),HU(2), DL(4),\n B** 14\n AG(2) & Other(3)\n FD, TR, HU, DJ, HS(2)\n C*** 9\n & DL(3)\n 240228033 0405 2 DJ\n 240710033 0405 7 DJ\n 240888033 0405 1 DJ\n 241089033 0642 1 TR\n 0751 1 TR\n 241175033 0751 1 TR\n 241450031 0923 1 CM\n 241675031 0405 1 DL\n 510040510 0452 2 CM\n 510100013 0975 3 DJ\n 0189 1 HS\n 0405 1 DL\n 0540 1 HS\n 0940 1 DL\n 512034059 0391 1 HS\n 512130107 0905 65 HS\n 512345107 0846 1 HS\n AA0800000 0189 9 HS\n AF2000000 0852 1 DJ\n AQ6000000 0225 16 CM(12) & AG(4)\n BC4000000 0185 1 HS\n BD2000000 0189 10 HS\n BF2500000 0189 9 HS\n BF5000000 0189 15 HS(12) & DJ(3)\n CA1750000 0249 3 HS\n CA4550000 0192 1 HS\n CA7000000 0621 14 HS\n\n\n REPORT 11401-0006-11 43\n\x0cExhibit D: Accounting Code Differences\n Exhibit D \xe2\x80\x93 Page 22 of 24\n\n CFC Codes attributed Department Code\n OPM\xe2\x80\x99s\n Duty Station by NFC differing from and frequencies\n CFC\n OPM\xe2\x80\x99s & frequencies (if not 1 or all)\n CA7700000 0995 26 HS\n 0846 1 HS\n FM5000000 0225 2 AG\n IT7000000 0728 1 DJ\n MX5100000 0105 1 DJ\n MX6100000 0847 1 DJ\n TD5500000 0975 1 DJ\n Totals 1,969\n*(A) Each of the following had one contribution from the 0427 CFC area attributed to it: CFCs\n0162, 0524, 0571, 0626, 0839 and 0964.\n**(B) Each of the following had two contributions from the 0990 CFC area attributed to it:\nCFCs 0106, 0211, 0372, 0405, 0751, 0839 and 0900.\n***(C) Each of the following had one contribution from the 0990 CFC area attributed to it:\nCFCs 0096, 0185, 0189, 0524, 0621, 0682, 0770, 0845 and 0846.\n\n\n\n\n44 REPORT 11401-0006-11\n\x0cExhibit D: Accounting Code Differences\n Exhibit D \xe2\x80\x93 Page 23 of 24\n\nAG ............................... Department of Agriculture\n\nAM .............................. Agency for International Development\n\nCM .............................. Department of Commerce\n\nCT ............................... Commodity Futures Trading Commission\n\nDJ ................................ Department of Justice\n\nDL ............................... Department of Labor\n\nFD ............................... Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation\n\nHS ............................... Department of Homeland Security\n\nHU ............................... Department of Housing and Urban Development\n\nSB................................ Small Business Administration\n\nSM ............................... Smithsonian Institution\n\nTR ............................... Department of the Treasury\n\n\n\n\n REPORT 11401-0006-11 45\n\x0cExhibit D: Accounting Code Differences\n Exhibit D \xe2\x80\x93 Page 24 of 24\n\nNFC Response:\n\nFor AUP step 9, OIG identified 1,969 differences between the OPM CFC code based on the\nemployees\xe2\x80\x99 duty station and the NFC CFC code used for the employees\xe2\x80\x99 CFC deductions. Of the\n1,969 differences, 2 were associated with USDA Office of the Chief Financial Officer (agency 90)\nemployees, and 1 was associated with a USDA National Appeals Division (agency NA) employee.\nFor the 2012 CFC campaign, NFC processed CFC allotments for agency 90 and NA only. Details\nfor the agency 90 and NA differences are provided below:\n\n The agency 90 differences involved two employees whose duty station is in Washington,\n DC, which would be included under the CFC of the National Capital Area. However, their\n CFC contributions were sent to the CFC for the Greater New Orleans Area. We\n determined that this was most likely an NFC processing error.\n\n The agency NA difference involved a hearing officer, whose duty station is his home in\n Monroe, Louisiana, and his regional office is in Memphis, Tennessee. NA hearing officers\n are hired for a particular location allowing them to work from their homes across the U.S.,\n and they are responsible for reporting to their respective regional offices. According to\n OPM, if the employee\xe2\x80\x99s duty station is in Monroe, Louisiana, the employee should be\n contributing to the Fort Polk-Central Louisiana CFC. However, because the employee's\n regional office is located in Memphis, Tennessee, which is included under the CFC of the\n MidSouth, the employee used the pledge form for the CFC of the MidSouth, and his CFC\n deductions were sent to the CFC of the MidSouth. NFC personnel correctly processed the\n employee\xe2\x80\x99s CFC allotment based on the CFC pledge form provided by the agency.\n\nBecause NFC processed CFC allotments for only agency 90 and NA employees for the 2012\ncampaign, NFC is responsible for only 0.15 percent of the difference identified by OIG (3 of 1,969\ndifferences). Other customer agencies\xe2\x80\x99 personnel are responsible for processing CFC allotments\nfor their own employees, which represented the remaining 99.85 percent of the difference. From\nthe universe of Chief Financial Officer Act entities serviced by NFC, there were 83,123 employees\nwho had CFC deductions during pay period 3, 2013. The 1,969 differences identified by OIG\nrepresented approximately 2.4 percent of employees with CFC deductions. The error rate for\nNFC-processed CFC transactions was less than 1 percent (0.8 percent, or 3 of 380 agency 90 and\nNA employees with CFC deductions in pay period 3, 2013).\n\nSince the CFC is a once a year process, employees unfamiliar with the process may use the wrong\nform, and agency personnel unfamiliar with the process may accept and process CFC forms from\nemployees who are in duty stations outside of the CFC campaign areas. This may be common for\nagencies that have multiple duty locations. As such, we feel the root cause is human input/process\nerrors, and the findings should be subjected to acceptable normal input error rates.\n\n\n\n\n46 REPORT 11401-0006-11\n\x0cExhibit E: Incorrect Combined Federal Campaign (CFC) Pledge\nForms\n Exhibit E \xe2\x80\x93 Page 1 of 1\n\nRegarding the Office of Personnel Management\xe2\x80\x99s Agreed-Upon Procedure 10, the following table\nlists all instances in which the incorrect Combined Federal Campaign (CFC) pledge form was used\nby the employee, including the Federal agency, the correct campaign and the campaign used.\n\n CFC\n Department Correct per OPM Per Pledge form used by employee\nAgriculture 0051 Arizona CFC 0052 Maricopa County CFC\n\n Lincoln and Lancaster County\nAgriculture 0552 Heart of Midlands CFC 0551 Area CFC\n CFC of Monterey and Santa Cruz\nCommerce 0105 So Cal CFC 0117 Counties\n\nJustice 0162 Greater Hartford CFC 0990 CFC of the National Capital Area\nJustice 0194 EscaRosa CFC 0197 Suncoast CFC\n\nHomeland\nSecurity 0006 Southwest Alabama CFC 0500 Greater Mississippi CFC\nHomeland\nSecurity 0051 Arizona CFC 0840 Sun Country CFC\nHousing and\nUrban CFC of Eastern Rhode Island and Southeastern\nDevelopment 0427 Massachusetts 0770 Massachusetts CFC\nSmall Business\nAdministration 0051 Arizona CFC 0052 Maricopa County CFC\nSmall Business\nAdministration 0197 Suncoast CFC 0189 Atlantic Coast CFC\n\nTreasury 0096 CFC of Greater SoCal 0990 CFC of the National Capital Area\n\n\n\n\n REPORT 11401-0006-11 47\n\x0c To learn more about OIG, visit our website at\n www.usda.gov/oig/index.htm\n How To Report Suspected Wrongdoing in USDA Programs\n\n Fraud, Waste and Abuse\n e-mail: USDA.HOTLINE@oig.usda.gov\n phone: 800-424-9121\n fax: 202-690-2474\n\n Bribes or Gratuities\n 202-720-7257 (24 hours a day)\n\n\n\n\nThe U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all of its programs and activities on\nthe basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex (including gender identity\nand expression), marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, political beliefs,\ngenetic information, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual\xe2\x80\x99s income is derived from any public\nassistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require\nalternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should\ncontact USDA\xe2\x80\x99s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).\nTo file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, Office of the Assistant\nSecretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Stop 9410, Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call\ntoll-free at (866) 632-9992 (English) or (800) 877-8339 (TDD) or (866) 377-8642 (English Federal-relay) or\n(800) 845-6136 (Spanish Federal relay).USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.\n\x0c"