type: legislation

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 Avis juridique important
 |
 31991D0158
 BESCHLUSS DES RATES vom 4. März 1991 über den Abschluß des Rahmenabkommens über Zusammenarbeit zwischen der Europäischen Wirtschaftsgemeinschaft und der Republik Chile (91/158/EWG) -
 Amtsblatt Nr. L 079 vom 26/03/1991 S. 0001 - 0001
 BESCHLUSS DES RATES vom 4 . März 1991 über den Abschluß des Rahmenabkommens über Zusammenarbeit zwischen der Europäischen Wirtschaftsgemeinschaft und der Republik Chile ( 91/158/EWG ) DER RAT DER EUROPÄISCHEN GEMEINSCHAFTEN gestützt auf den Vertrag zur Gründung der Europäischen Wirtschaftsgemeinschaft, insbesondere auf die Artikel 113 und 235, auf Empfehlung der Kommission, nach Stellungnahme des Europäischen Parlaments(1 ), in der Erwägung, daß es sich empfiehlt, daß die Gemeinschaft zur Verwirklichung ihrer Ziele im Bereich der Aussenwirtschaftsbeziehungen das Rahmenabkommen über Zusammenarbeit mit der Republik Chile genehmigt BESCHLIESST : Artikel 1 Das Rahmenabkommen über Zusammenarbeit zwischen der Europäischen Wirtschaftsgemeinschaft und der Republik Chile wird im Namen der Gemeinschaft genehmigt . Der Wortlaut des Abkommens ist diesem Beschluß beigefügt . Artikel 2 Der Präsident des Rates nimmt die in Artikel 21 des Abkommens vorgesehene Notifizierung im Namen der Gemeinschaft vor(2 ). Artikel 3 Die Kommission, unterstützt von Vertretern der Mitgliedstaaten, vertritt die Gemeinschaft in dem mit Artikel 17 des Abkommens eingesetzten Gemischten Ausschuß . Artikel 4 Dieser Beschluß wird im Amtsblatt der Europäischen Gemeinschaften veröffentlicht . Er wird am Tag seiner Veröffentlichung wirksam . Geschehen zu Brüssel am 4 . März 1991 . Im Namen des Rates Der Präsident J . F . POOS ( 1)Stellungnahme vom 18 . Februar 1991 ( noch nicht im Amtsblatt veröffentlicht ). ( 2)Der Zeitpunkt des Inkrafttretens des Abkommens wird auf Veranlassung des Generalsekretariats des Rates im Amtsblatt der Europäischen Gemeinschaften veröffentlicht .


type: contracts

text:
 Важна правна забележка
 |
 22006D0001
 Официален вестник n° L 092 , 30/03/2006 стр. 0017 - 0019
 Решение на Съвместния комитет на ЕИПNo 1/2006от 27 януари 2006 годиназа изменение на приложение I (Ветеринарни и фитосанитарни въпроси) към Споразумението за ЕИПСЪВМЕСТНИЯТ КОМИТЕТ НА ЕИП,като взе предвид Споразумението за Европейското икономическо пространство, изменено с Протокола за адаптиране на Споразумението за Европейското икономическо пространство, по-нататък наричано "Споразумението", и по-специално член 98 от него,като има предвид, че:(1) Приложение I към Споразумението е изменено с Решение No 140/2005 на Съвместния комитет на ЕИП от 2 декември 2005 г. [1](2) Регламент (EО) No 1/2005 на Съвета от 22 декември 2004 г. за защитата на животните по време на транспортирането им и свързаните с това операции и изменящ Директиви 64/432/ЕИО и 93/119/EО и Регламент (EО) No 1255/97 [2] следва да се включи в Споразумението.(3) Регламент (EО) No 36/2005 на Комисията от 12 януари 2005 г., за изменение на приложения III и X към Регламент (EО) No 999/2001 г. на Европейския парламент и Съвета във връзка с епидемиологичния надзор за трансмисивни спонгиформни енцефалопатии при едър рогат добитък, овце и кози [3] следва да се включи в Споразумението.(4) Решение 2005/93/EО на Комисията от 2 февруари 2005 г. във връзка с преходните разпоредби относно въвеждането и срока на съхранение на пратки на определени продукти от животински произход в митническите складове на Общността [4] следва да се включи в Споразумението.(5) Регламент (EО) No 260/2005 на Комисията от 16 февруари 2005 г. за изменение на Регламент (EО) No 999/2001 на Европейския парламент и Съвета във връзка с бързите тестове [5] следва да се включи в Споразумението.(6) Настоящото решение не се прилага по отношение на Исландия и Лихтенщайн,РЕШИ:Член 1Глава I от приложение I към Споразумението се изменя, както е посочено в приложението към настоящото решение.Член 2Текстовете на Регламенти (EО) No 1/2005, (EО) No 36/2005 (EО) и (EО) No 260/2005 и Решение 2005/93/EО на норвежки език, които предстои да бъдат публикувани в притурката за ЕИП към Официален вестник на Европейския съюз, са автентични.Член 3Настоящото решение влиза в сила на 28 януари 2006 г. при условие че всички нотификации до Съвместния комитет на ЕИП съгласно член 103, параграф 1 от Споразумението са направени [******].Член 4Настоящото решение се публикува в раздела за ЕИП и в притурката за ЕИП към Официален вестник на Европейския съюз.Съставено в Брюксел на 27 януари 2006 година.За Съвместния комитет на ЕИППредседателR. Wright[1] ОВ L 53, 23.2.2006 г., стр. 34.[2] ОВ L 3, 5.1.2005 г., стр. 1.[3] ОВ L 10, 13.1.2005 г., стр. 9.[4] ОВ L 31, 4.2.2005 г., стр. 64.[5] ОВ L 46, 17.2.2005 г., стр. 31.[******] Не са посочени конституционни изисквания.--------------------------------------------------ПРИЛОЖЕНИЕГлава I от приложение I към Споразумението се изменя, както е посочено по-долу:1. Следната точка се добавя след точка 1 (Решение 95/117/EО на Комисията) в част 5.2:"2. 32005 D 0093: Решение 2005/93/EО на Комисията от 2 февруари 2005 г. във връзка с преходните разпоредби относно въвеждането и срока за съхранение на пратки от определени продукти от животински произход в митническите складове на Общността. (ОВ L 31, 4.2.2005, стр. 64)."2. Следните тирета се добавят към точка 12 (Регламент (EО) No 999/2001 г. на Европейския парламент и Съвета) в част 7.1:- "— 32005 R 0036: Регламент (EО) No 36/2005 на Комисията от 12 януари 2005 г. (ОВ L 10, 13.1.2005 г., стр. 9),- — 32005 R 0260: Регламент (EО) No 260/2005 на Комисията от 16 февруари 2005 г. (ОВ L 46, 17.2.2005 г., стр. 31)."3. Следната точка се добавя след точка 9 (Решение 2000/50/EО на Комисията) в част 9.1:"10. 32005 R 0001: Регламент (EО) No 1/2005 на Съвета от 22 декември 2004 г. за защита на животните при транспортирането им и свързаните с това операции и изменящ Директиви 64/432/EEC и 93/119/EC и Регламент (EО) No 1255/97 (ОВ L 3, 5.1.2005 г., стр. 1)."4. Следното тире се добавя към точка 1 (Директива 64/432/EИО на Съвета) в част 4.1:- "— 32005 R 0001: Регламент (EО) No 1/2005 на Съвета от 22 декември 2004 г. (ОВ L 3, 5.1.2005 г., стр. 1)."5. Следното се добавя към точка 2 (Директива 93/119/EО на Съвета) в част 9.1:"изменена със:- 32005 R 0001: Регламент (EО) No 1/2005 на Съвета от 22 декември 2004 г. (ОВ L 3, 5.1.2005 г., стр. 1)."6. Следното се добавя към четвърти параграф (Регламент (EО) No 1255/97 на Съвета) от точка 1 (Директива 91/628/EИО на Съвета) в част 9.1:"изменена със:- 32005 R 0001: Регламент (EО) No 1/2005 на Съвета от 22 декември 2004 г. (ОВ L 3, 5.1.2005 г., стр. 1)."--------------------------------------------------


type: other

jurisdiction: US

text: b"AMERICAN RECOVERY AND\nREINVESTMENT ACT:\nSome Questioned Invoice Charges and Minimal Benefit from\nDuplicative Invoice-Review Process\n\n\n\n\n Report No. OIG-A-2012-021 | September 21, 2012\n\n\n\n\n 1\n\x0c\x0c Amtrak Office of Inspector General 2\n American Recovery and Reinvestment Act:\n Some Questioned Invoice Charges and Minimal Benefit from Duplicative Invoice-Review Process\n OIG-A-2012-021, September 21, 2012\n\n\nOur\xc2\xa0objectives\xc2\xa0were\xc2\xa0to\xc2\xa0determine\xc2\xa0whether\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0(1)\xc2\xa0costs\xc2\xa0billed\xc2\xa0by\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0design/build\xc2\xa0\ncontractors\xc2\xa0were\xc2\xa0adequately\xc2\xa0supported\xc2\xa0and\xc2\xa0allowable\xc2\xa0under\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0contracts\xe2\x80\x99\xc2\xa0terms\xc2\xa0and\xc2\xa0\nconditions\xc2\xa0and\xc2\xa0(2)\xc2\xa0process\xc2\xa0to\xc2\xa0review\xc2\xa0design/build\xc2\xa0contractors\xe2\x80\x99\xc2\xa0invoices\xc2\xa0was\xc2\xa0effective\xc2\xa0\nand\xc2\xa0economical.\xc2\xa0For\xc2\xa0a\xc2\xa0detailed\xc2\xa0discussion\xc2\xa0of\xc2\xa0our\xc2\xa0scope\xc2\xa0and\xc2\xa0methodology,\xc2\xa0see\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\nAppendix\xc2\xa0I.\xc2\xa0\n\xc2\xa0\n\xc2\xa0\nSUMMARY OF RESULTS\n\nMost\xc2\xa0of\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0invoiced\xc2\xa0costs\xc2\xa0were\xc2\xa0adequately\xc2\xa0supported\xc2\xa0and\xc2\xa0allowable\xc2\xa0for\xc2\xa0about\xc2\xa0$35.7\xc2\xa0\nmillion\xc2\xa0of\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0$158.8\xc2\xa0million\xc2\xa0of\xc2\xa0invoiced\xc2\xa0costs\xc2\xa0that\xc2\xa0we\xc2\xa0reviewed.\xc2\xa0However,\xc2\xa0we\xc2\xa0question\xc2\xa0\nabout\xc2\xa0$1.2\xc2\xa0million\xc2\xa0of\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0costs\xc2\xa0(3\xc2\xa0percent)\xc2\xa0because\xc2\xa0they\xc2\xa0were\xc2\xa0not\xc2\xa0adequately\xc2\xa0supported\xc2\xa0\nor\xc2\xa0allowable.\xc2\xa0We\xc2\xa0also\xc2\xa0found\xc2\xa0that\xc2\xa0Amtrak\xc2\xa0put\xc2\xa0in\xc2\xa0place\xc2\xa0a\xc2\xa0duplicative\xc2\xa0and\xc2\xa0costly\xc2\xa0process\xc2\xa0to\xc2\xa0\nreview\xc2\xa0contractor\xc2\xa0invoices\xc2\xa0that\xc2\xa0added\xc2\xa0little\xc2\xa0value.\xc2\xa0This\xc2\xa0duplicative\xc2\xa0review\xc2\xa0process\xc2\xa0cost\xc2\xa0\nan\xc2\xa0additional\xc2\xa0$2.2\xc2\xa0million.\xc2\xa0\n\xc2\xa0\nOverall,\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0invoice\xe2\x80\x90review\xc2\xa0process\xc2\xa0did\xc2\xa0not\xc2\xa0fully\xc2\xa0ensure\xc2\xa0that\xc2\xa0contractors\xc2\xa0adhered\xc2\xa0to\xc2\xa0all\xc2\xa0\ncontract\xc2\xa0terms\xc2\xa0and\xc2\xa0conditions,\xc2\xa0thus\xc2\xa0resulting\xc2\xa0in\xc2\xa0some\xc2\xa0overpayments.\xc2\xa0Further,\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0\nduplicative\xc2\xa0review\xc2\xa0process\xc2\xa0that\xc2\xa0Amtrak\xc2\xa0established\xc2\xa0resulted\xc2\xa0in\xc2\xa0minimal\xc2\xa0benefit.\xc2\xa0Since\xc2\xa0\nthe\xc2\xa0contract\xc2\xa0has\xc2\xa0been\xc2\xa0completed,\xc2\xa0Amtrak\xc2\xa0cannot\xc2\xa0recover\xc2\xa0its\xc2\xa0costs\xc2\xa0from\xc2\xa0this\xc2\xa0duplicative\xc2\xa0\nreview\xc2\xa0process.\xc2\xa0However,\xc2\xa0it\xc2\xa0can\xc2\xa0take\xc2\xa0steps\xc2\xa0to\xc2\xa0ensure\xc2\xa0that\xc2\xa0such\xc2\xa0a\xc2\xa0process\xc2\xa0is\xc2\xa0not\xc2\xa0\nestablished\xc2\xa0in\xc2\xa0any\xc2\xa0future\xc2\xa0contracts.\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\n\xc2\xa0\nWe\xc2\xa0are\xc2\xa0recommending\xc2\xa0that\xc2\xa0Amtrak\xc2\xa0(1)\xc2\xa0recover\xc2\xa0over\xc2\xa0$1.2\xc2\xa0million\xc2\xa0in\xc2\xa0questioned\xc2\xa0costs\xc2\xa0\nidentified\xc2\xa0in\xc2\xa0this\xc2\xa0report;\xc2\xa0(2)\xc2\xa0direct\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0program\xc2\xa0manager\xc2\xa0to\xc2\xa0review\xc2\xa0other\xc2\xa0ARRA\xc2\xa0projects\xc2\xa0\nwith\xc2\xa0significant\xc2\xa0rental\xc2\xa0charges\xc2\xa0to\xc2\xa0determine\xc2\xa0if\xc2\xa0all\xc2\xa0contract\xc2\xa0terms\xc2\xa0and\xc2\xa0conditions\xc2\xa0were\xc2\xa0\nmet;\xc2\xa0and\xc2\xa0(3)\xc2\xa0establish\xc2\xa0a\xc2\xa0policy\xc2\xa0that\xc2\xa0would\xc2\xa0prohibit\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0contracting\xc2\xa0for\xc2\xa0invoice\xe2\x80\x90review\xc2\xa0\nservices\xc2\xa0that\xc2\xa0would\xc2\xa0duplicate\xc2\xa0other\xc2\xa0contract\xe2\x80\x90review\xc2\xa0services.\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\n\xc2\xa0\nAmtrak\xe2\x80\x99s\xc2\xa0Acting\xc2\xa0Chief\xc2\xa0Financial\xc2\xa0Officer\xc2\xa0and\xc2\xa0Controller\xc2\xa0provided\xc2\xa0comments\xc2\xa0on\xc2\xa0a\xc2\xa0draft\xc2\xa0\nof\xc2\xa0this\xc2\xa0report\xc2\xa0(see\xc2\xa0Appendix\xc2\xa0II).\xc2\xa0He\xc2\xa0concurred\xc2\xa0with\xc2\xa0our\xc2\xa0recommendations\xc2\xa0to\xc2\xa0recover\xc2\xa0\nquestioned\xc2\xa0costs\xc2\xa0and\xc2\xa0review\xc2\xa0other\xc2\xa0ARRA\xc2\xa0contracts\xc2\xa0with\xc2\xa0significant\xc2\xa0rental\xc2\xa0charges,\xc2\xa0and\xc2\xa0\npartially\xc2\xa0concurred\xc2\xa0with\xc2\xa0our\xc2\xa0recommendation\xc2\xa0regarding\xc2\xa0duplicate\xc2\xa0invoice\xe2\x80\x90review.\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0We\xc2\xa0\ncontinue\xc2\xa0to\xc2\xa0believe\xc2\xa0that\xc2\xa0invoice\xc2\xa0review\xc2\xa0can\xc2\xa0be\xc2\xa0adequately\xc2\xa0addressed\xc2\xa0under\xc2\xa0one\xc2\xa0contract.\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\n\x0c Amtrak Office of Inspector General 3\n American Recovery and Reinvestment Act:\n Some Questioned Invoice Charges and Minimal Benefit from Duplicative Invoice-Review Process\n OIG-A-2012-021, September 21, 2012\n\n\n\nCONTRACT INVOICES REVIEWED TOTALED ABOUT $35.7\nMILLION\n\xc2\xa0\nWe\xc2\xa0reviewed\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0following\xc2\xa0three\xc2\xa0ARRA\xc2\xa0contracts:\xc2\xa0\n\xef\x82\xb7 A\xc2\xa0nearly\xc2\xa0$125.3\xc2\xa0million\xc2\xa0contract\xc2\xa0(#1038)\xc2\xa0to\xc2\xa0Kiewit\xc2\xa0Western\xc2\xa0Company\xc2\xa0for\xc2\xa0\n improvement\xc2\xa0to\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0Chicago\xc2\xa0Station\xc2\xa0and\xc2\xa0Yard;\xc2\xa0we\xc2\xa0reviewed\xc2\xa0two\xc2\xa0invoices\xc2\xa0totaling\xc2\xa0\n approximately\xc2\xa0$26.3\xc2\xa0million.\xc2\xa0\n\xef\x82\xb7 A\xc2\xa0contract\xc2\xa0to\xc2\xa0Consigli/JF\xc2\xa0White\xc2\xa0Joint\xc2\xa0Venture\xc2\xa0(#1004)\xc2\xa0for\xc2\xa0approximately\xc2\xa0$22.6\xc2\xa0\n million\xc2\xa0for\xc2\xa0various\xc2\xa0improvement\xc2\xa0projects\xc2\xa0to\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0Boston\xc2\xa0Yard;\xc2\xa0we\xc2\xa0reviewed\xc2\xa0two\xc2\xa0\n invoices\xc2\xa0totaling\xc2\xa0approximately\xc2\xa0$7.1\xc2\xa0million.\xc2\xa0\n\xef\x82\xb7 A\xc2\xa0more\xc2\xa0than\xc2\xa0$11million\xc2\xa0contract\xc2\xa0(#1056)\xc2\xa0to\xc2\xa0Commercial\xc2\xa0Contracting\xc2\xa0Corporation\xc2\xa0\n (CCC)\xc2\xa0for\xc2\xa0inventory\xc2\xa0security\xc2\xa0projects\xc2\xa0at\xc2\xa0nine\xc2\xa0mid\xe2\x80\x90Atlantic\xc2\xa0locations;\xc2\xa0we\xc2\xa0reviewed\xc2\xa0\n two\xc2\xa0invoices\xc2\xa0totaling\xc2\xa0approximately\xc2\xa0$2.3\xc2\xa0million.\xc2\xa0\n\n\n\nQUESTIONED COSTS\n\nFor\xc2\xa0more\xc2\xa0than\xc2\xa0$35.7\xc2\xa0million\xc2\xa0in\xc2\xa0invoices\xc2\xa0for\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0three\xc2\xa0contracts,\xc2\xa0we\xc2\xa0question\xc2\xa0$1,175,470\xc2\xa0in\xc2\xa0\nequipment\xc2\xa0rental\xc2\xa0and\xc2\xa0overhead\xc2\xa0costs.\xc2\xa0Our\xc2\xa0basis\xc2\xa0for\xc2\xa0questioning\xc2\xa0these\xc2\xa0invoice\xc2\xa0costs\xc2\xa0\nincluded\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0following:\xc2\xa0\n\xc2\xa0\n\xef\x82\xb7 We\xc2\xa0identified\xc2\xa0$1,027,443\xc2\xa0in\xc2\xa0equipment\xc2\xa0rental\xc2\xa0costs\xc2\xa0for\xc2\xa0contracts\xc2\xa01004\xc2\xa0and\xc2\xa01038\xc2\xa0that\xc2\xa0\n the\xc2\xa0contractors\xc2\xa0did\xc2\xa0not\xc2\xa0adequately\xc2\xa0support.\xc2\xa0The\xc2\xa0invoices\xc2\xa0were\xc2\xa0for\xc2\xa0claimed\xc2\xa0costs\xc2\xa0to\xc2\xa0\n own\xc2\xa0and\xc2\xa0operate\xc2\xa0vehicles.\xc2\xa0According\xc2\xa0to\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0Federal\xc2\xa0Acquisition\xc2\xa0Regulation\xc2\xa0(FAR),2\xc2\xa0\n the\xc2\xa0costs\xc2\xa0to\xc2\xa0own\xc2\xa0and\xc2\xa0operate\xc2\xa0vehicles\xc2\xa0should\xc2\xa0be\xc2\xa0considered\xc2\xa0in\xc2\xa0developing\xc2\xa0overhead\xc2\xa0\n rates.\xc2\xa0We\xc2\xa0requested\xc2\xa0that\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0contractors\xc2\xa0provide\xc2\xa0data\xc2\xa0to\xc2\xa0support\xc2\xa0how\xc2\xa0they\xc2\xa0calculated\xc2\xa0\n their\xc2\xa0overhead\xc2\xa0rates,\xc2\xa0but\xc2\xa0this\xc2\xa0data\xc2\xa0was\xc2\xa0not\xc2\xa0provided.\xc2\xa0Therefore,\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0possibility\xc2\xa0exists\xc2\xa0\n that\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0vehicle\xc2\xa0related\xc2\xa0costs\xc2\xa0could\xc2\xa0be\xc2\xa0duplicated\xc2\xa0in\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0overhead\xc2\xa0calculation.\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\n Without\xc2\xa0adequate\xc2\xa0support\xc2\xa0to\xc2\xa0determine\xc2\xa0whether\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0overhead\xc2\xa0rates\xc2\xa0contained\xc2\xa0costs\xc2\xa0\n related\xc2\xa0to\xc2\xa0owning\xc2\xa0and\xc2\xa0operating\xc2\xa0vehicles,\xc2\xa0we\xc2\xa0question\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0claimed\xc2\xa0costs\xc2\xa0for\xc2\xa0owning\xc2\xa0\n and\xc2\xa0operating\xc2\xa0vehicles.\xc2\xa0\n \xc2\xa0\n\n\n\n2 \xc2\xa0See\xc2\xa0FAR\xc2\xa031.205\xe2\x80\x9011,\xc2\xa0Depreciation,\xc2\xa0.\xc2\xa0\n\t\n\x0c Amtrak Office of Inspector General 4\n American Recovery and Reinvestment Act:\n Some Questioned Invoice Charges and Minimal Benefit from Duplicative Invoice-Review Process\n OIG-A-2012-021, September 21, 2012\n\n\n\xef\x82\xb7 We\xc2\xa0question\xc2\xa0$80,262\xc2\xa0in\xc2\xa0overhead\xc2\xa0costs\xc2\xa0under\xc2\xa0contract\xc2\xa01056\xc2\xa0because\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0contractor\xc2\xa0\n inappropriately\xc2\xa0billed\xc2\xa0for\xc2\xa0overhead\xc2\xa0costs\xc2\xa0that\xc2\xa0were\xc2\xa0not\xc2\xa0allowed\xc2\xa0by\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0contract.\xc2\xa0\n Under\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0terms\xc2\xa0and\xc2\xa0conditions\xc2\xa0of\xc2\xa0this\xc2\xa0contract,\xc2\xa0overhead\xc2\xa0costs\xc2\xa0are\xc2\xa0not\xc2\xa0allowable\xc2\xa0\n unless\xc2\xa0specifically\xc2\xa0identified\xc2\xa0in\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0contract.\xc2\xa0Our\xc2\xa0review\xc2\xa0of\xc2\xa0invoices\xc2\xa0indicated\xc2\xa0that\xc2\xa0\n the\xc2\xa0contractor\xc2\xa0billed\xc2\xa0for\xc2\xa0overhead\xc2\xa0expenses\xc2\xa0that\xc2\xa0were\xc2\xa0not\xc2\xa0allowed\xc2\xa0in\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0contract.\xc2\xa0\n Therefore,\xc2\xa0we\xc2\xa0question\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0$80,262\xc2\xa0billed\xc2\xa0for\xc2\xa0overhead.\xc2\xa0\n \xc2\xa0\n\xef\x82\xb7 We\xc2\xa0question\xc2\xa0$67,765\xc2\xa0of\xc2\xa0equipment\xc2\xa0costs\xc2\xa0on\xc2\xa0contract\xc2\xa01038\xc2\xa0because\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0contractor\xc2\xa0\n inappropriately\xc2\xa0billed\xc2\xa0for\xc2\xa0equipment.\xc2\xa0Under\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0terms\xc2\xa0and\xc2\xa0conditions\xc2\xa0of\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0\n contract,\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0contractor\xc2\xa0was\xc2\xa0allowed\xc2\xa0to\xc2\xa0charge\xc2\xa0up\xc2\xa0to\xc2\xa075\xc2\xa0percent\xc2\xa0of\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0fair\xc2\xa0market\xc2\xa0\n value\xc2\xa0for\xc2\xa0equipment\xc2\xa0rental\xc2\xa0based\xc2\xa0on\xc2\xa0actual\xc2\xa0usage.\xc2\xa0We\xc2\xa0identified\xc2\xa017\xc2\xa0cases,\xc2\xa0totaling\xc2\xa0\n $67,765,\xc2\xa0in\xc2\xa0which\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0contractor\xc2\xa0billed,\xc2\xa0and\xc2\xa0was\xc2\xa0paid,\xc2\xa0more\xc2\xa0than\xc2\xa075\xc2\xa0percent\xc2\xa0of\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0\n fair\xc2\xa0market\xc2\xa0value\xc2\xa0for\xc2\xa0equipment.\xc2\xa0When\xc2\xa0we\xc2\xa0raised\xc2\xa0this\xc2\xa0with\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0contractor\xc2\xa0they\xc2\xa0\n agreed\xc2\xa0with\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0entire\xc2\xa0amount\xc2\xa0we\xc2\xa0questioned.\xc2\xa0However,\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0contractor\xc2\xa0\n subsequently\xc2\xa0increased\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0amount\xc2\xa0billed\xc2\xa0for\xc2\xa0other\xc2\xa0pieces\xc2\xa0of\xc2\xa0equipment\xc2\xa0by\xc2\xa0$31,172.\xc2\xa0\n This\xc2\xa0increase\xc2\xa0was\xc2\xa0not\xc2\xa0based\xc2\xa0on\xc2\xa0actual\xc2\xa0usage\xc2\xa0of\xc2\xa0equipment\xc2\xa0but\xc2\xa0rather\xc2\xa0was\xc2\xa0intended\xc2\xa0\n to\xc2\xa0offset\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0overbilling\xc2\xa0that\xc2\xa0we\xc2\xa0had\xc2\xa0identified.\xc2\xa0The\xc2\xa0Statement\xc2\xa0of\xc2\xa0Financial\xc2\xa0\n Accounting\xc2\xa0Standards\xc2\xa0No.\xc2\xa0133\xc2\xa0defines\xc2\xa0how\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0fair\xc2\xa0market\xc2\xa0value\xc2\xa0for\xc2\xa0assets\xc2\xa0is\xc2\xa0\n determined\xc2\xa0and\xc2\xa0does\xc2\xa0not\xc2\xa0allow\xc2\xa0one\xc2\xa0asset\xc2\xa0to\xc2\xa0be\xc2\xa0offset\xc2\xa0against\xc2\xa0another.\xc2\xa0Taking\xc2\xa0these\xc2\xa0\n two\xc2\xa0billings\xc2\xa0together,\xc2\xa0we\xc2\xa0question\xc2\xa0$67,675\xc2\xa0in\xc2\xa0equipment\xc2\xa0rental\xc2\xa0costs.\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\n\xc2\xa0\n\n\nWASTEFUL, DUPLICATIVE REVIEW PROCESS\n\nAmtrak\xc2\xa0put\xc2\xa0into\xc2\xa0place\xc2\xa0a\xc2\xa0duplicative\xc2\xa0and\xc2\xa0costly\xc2\xa0process\xc2\xa0to\xc2\xa0review\xc2\xa0contractor\xc2\xa0invoices\xc2\xa0\nthat\xc2\xa0added\xc2\xa0minimal\xc2\xa0benefit\xc2\xa0potentially\xc2\xa0wasting\xc2\xa0an\xc2\xa0estimated\xc2\xa0$2.2\xc2\xa0million.\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0Amtrak\xc2\xa0hired\xc2\xa0\ntwo\xc2\xa0separate\xc2\xa0contractors\xc2\xa0to\xc2\xa0review\xc2\xa0invoices\xc2\xa0submitted\xc2\xa0by\xc2\xa0design/build\xc2\xa0contractors.\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\nAccording\xc2\xa0to\xc2\xa0a\xc2\xa0senior\xc2\xa0Amtrak\xc2\xa0official,\xc2\xa0two\xc2\xa0levels\xc2\xa0of\xc2\xa0review\xc2\xa0were\xc2\xa0established\xc2\xa0to\xc2\xa0provide\xc2\xa0\nassurance\xc2\xa0that\xc2\xa0contractor\xc2\xa0invoices\xc2\xa0were\xc2\xa0properly\xc2\xa0supported.\xc2\xa0However,\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0need\xc2\xa0for\xc2\xa0a\xc2\xa0\nsecond\xc2\xa0review\xc2\xa0appears\xc2\xa0to\xc2\xa0be\xc2\xa0duplicative\xc2\xa0and\xc2\xa0not\xc2\xa0cost\xe2\x80\x90effective\xc2\xa0for\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0following\xc2\xa0\nreasons:\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\n\xc2\xa0\n\xef\x82\xb7 First,\xc2\xa0Amtrak\xc2\xa0paid\xc2\xa0Jacobs\xc2\xa0an\xc2\xa0estimated\xc2\xa0$2.7\xc2\xa0million\xc2\xa0to\xc2\xa0perform\xc2\xa0a\xc2\xa0100\xc2\xa0percent\xc2\xa0review\xc2\xa0\n of\xc2\xa0invoices.\xc2\xa0According\xc2\xa0to\xc2\xa0Jacobs\xe2\x80\x99s\xc2\xa0officials\xc2\xa0they\xc2\xa0perform\xc2\xa0a\xc2\xa0100\xc2\xa0percent\xc2\xa0review.\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\n \xc2\xa0\n\n3 \xc2\xa0Statement\xc2\xa0of\xc2\xa0Financial\xc2\xa0Accounting\xc2\xa0Standards\xc2\xa0No.\xc2\xa013.\xc2\xa0\n\x0c Amtrak Office of Inspector General 5\n American Recovery and Reinvestment Act:\n Some Questioned Invoice Charges and Minimal Benefit from Duplicative Invoice-Review Process\n OIG-A-2012-021, September 21, 2012\n\n\n\xef\x82\xb7 Second,\xc2\xa0Amtrak\xc2\xa0paid\xc2\xa0URS\xc2\xa0an\xc2\xa0estimated\xc2\xa0$2.2\xc2\xa0million\xc2\xa0for\xc2\xa0a\xc2\xa0second\xc2\xa0review\xc2\xa0of\xc2\xa0invoices,4\xc2\xa0\n which\xc2\xa0resulted\xc2\xa0in\xc2\xa0about\xc2\xa0$56,893\xc2\xa0credit\xc2\xa0for\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0three\xc2\xa0contracts\xc2\xa0we\xc2\xa0reviewed.\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\n \xc2\xa0\n\xef\x82\xb7 Third,\xc2\xa0neither\xc2\xa0Jacobs\xc2\xa0nor\xc2\xa0URS\xc2\xa0identified\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0almost\xc2\xa0$1.2\xc2\xa0million\xc2\xa0we\xc2\xa0question\xc2\xa0based\xc2\xa0\n on\xc2\xa0our\xc2\xa0audit.\xc2\xa0\n \xc2\xa0\nSince\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0contract\xc2\xa0has\xc2\xa0been\xc2\xa0completed,\xc2\xa0Amtrak\xc2\xa0does\xc2\xa0not\xc2\xa0intend\xc2\xa0to\xc2\xa0recover\xc2\xa0its\xc2\xa0costs\xc2\xa0from\xc2\xa0\nthis\xc2\xa0duplicative\xc2\xa0review\xc2\xa0process.\xc2\xa0\n\xc2\xa0\n\n\nRECOMMENDATIONS\n\nWe\xc2\xa0recommend\xc2\xa0that\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0Acting\xc2\xa0Chief\xc2\xa0Financial\xc2\xa0Officer\xc2\xa0direct\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0Chief\xc2\xa0of\xc2\xa0Procurement\xc2\xa0\nto\xc2\xa0take\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0following\xc2\xa0actions:\xc2\xa0\n\xc2\xa0\n1. Recover\xc2\xa0over\xc2\xa0$1.2\xc2\xa0million\xc2\xa0in\xc2\xa0questioned\xc2\xa0costs\xc2\xa0identified\xc2\xa0in\xc2\xa0this\xc2\xa0report.\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\n2. Direct\xc2\xa0Jacobs\xc2\xa0to\xc2\xa0review\xc2\xa0other\xc2\xa0ARRA\xc2\xa0contracts\xc2\xa0with\xc2\xa0significant\xc2\xa0equipment\xc2\xa0rental\xc2\xa0\n charges\xc2\xa0to\xc2\xa0determine\xc2\xa0if\xc2\xa0all\xc2\xa0contract\xc2\xa0terms\xc2\xa0and\xc2\xa0conditions\xc2\xa0were\xc2\xa0met.\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\n3. Establish\xc2\xa0policies\xc2\xa0that\xc2\xa0prohibit\xc2\xa0contracting\xc2\xa0for\xc2\xa0invoice\xe2\x80\x90review\xc2\xa0services\xc2\xa0that\xc2\xa0duplicate\xc2\xa0\n other\xc2\xa0contract\xe2\x80\x90review\xc2\xa0services.\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\n\xc2\xa0\n\nMANAGEMENT COMMENTS AND OIG ANALYSIS\nAmtrak\xe2\x80\x99s\xc2\xa0Acting\xc2\xa0Chief\xc2\xa0Financial\xc2\xa0Officer\xc2\xa0and\xc2\xa0Controller\xc2\xa0provided\xc2\xa0comments\xc2\xa0on\xc2\xa0a\xc2\xa0draft\xc2\xa0\nof\xc2\xa0this\xc2\xa0report\xc2\xa0on\xc2\xa0September\xc2\xa010,\xc2\xa02012\xc2\xa0(see\xc2\xa0Appendix\xc2\xa0II).\xc2\xa0He\xc2\xa0concurred\xc2\xa0with\xc2\xa0our\xc2\xa0\nrecommendations\xc2\xa0to\xc2\xa0recover\xc2\xa0questioned\xc2\xa0costs\xc2\xa0and\xc2\xa0review\xc2\xa0other\xc2\xa0ARRA\xc2\xa0contracts\xc2\xa0with\xc2\xa0\nsignificant\xc2\xa0rental\xc2\xa0charges.\xc2\xa0He\xc2\xa0partially\xc2\xa0concurred\xc2\xa0with\xc2\xa0our\xc2\xa0recommendation\xc2\xa0regarding\xc2\xa0\nduplicate\xc2\xa0invoice\xc2\xa0review.\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0He\xc2\xa0noted\xc2\xa0that\xc2\xa0management\xc2\xa0will\xc2\xa0in\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0future\xc2\xa0only\xc2\xa0institute\xc2\xa0\nduplicative\xc2\xa0invoice\xc2\xa0reviews\xc2\xa0in\xc2\xa0extraordinary\xc2\xa0circumstances\xc2\xa0and\xc2\xa0upon\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0approval\xc2\xa0of\xc2\xa0\nthe\xc2\xa0Chief\xc2\xa0Financial\xc2\xa0Officer.\xc2\xa0We\xc2\xa0recognize\xc2\xa0that\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0Chief\xc2\xa0Financial\xc2\xa0Officer\xca\xb9s\xc2\xa0approval\xc2\xa0of\xc2\xa0\nduplicative\xc2\xa0review\xc2\xa0adds\xc2\xa0a\xc2\xa0control\xc2\xa0to\xc2\xa0help\xc2\xa0avoid\xc2\xa0wasteful\xc2\xa0practices.\xc2\xa0However,\xc2\xa0we\xc2\xa0\ncontinue\xc2\xa0to\xc2\xa0believe\xc2\xa0that\xc2\xa0any\xc2\xa0extraordinary\xc2\xa0circumstances\xc2\xa0regarding\xc2\xa0invoice\xc2\xa0review\xc2\xa0\ncould\xc2\xa0be\xc2\xa0adequately\xc2\xa0addressed\xc2\xa0under\xc2\xa0one\xc2\xa0contract.\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\n\n4 \xc2\xa0According\xc2\xa0to\xc2\xa0URS\xc2\xa0officials,\xc2\xa0URS\xc2\xa0was\xc2\xa0only\xc2\xa0required\xc2\xa0to\xc2\xa0review\xc2\xa0a\xc2\xa0sample\xc2\xa0of\xc2\xa0invoices\xc2\xa0to\xc2\xa0ensure\xc2\xa0that\xc2\xa0costs\xc2\xa0\nwere\xc2\xa0allowable\xc2\xa0and\xc2\xa0reasonable.\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\n\t\n\x0c Amtrak Office of Inspector General 6\n American Recovery and Reinvestment Act:\n Some Questioned Invoice Charges and Minimal Benefit from Duplicative Invoice-Review Process\n OIG-A-2012-021, September 21, 2012\n\n\nAmtrak\xc2\xa0also\xc2\xa0noted\xc2\xa0that\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0second\xc2\xa0invoice\xc2\xa0review\xc2\xa0of\xc2\xa0all\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0design\xc2\xa0build\xc2\xa0projects\xc2\xa0\nmanaged\xc2\xa0by\xc2\xa0Jacobs\xc2\xa0Program\xc2\xa0Management\xc2\xa0Company\xc2\xa0questioned\xc2\xa0costs\xc2\xa0of\xc2\xa0$8.4\xc2\xa0million,\xc2\xa0\nwhich\xc2\xa0resulted\xc2\xa0in\xc2\xa0a\xc2\xa0$3.3\xc2\xa0million\xc2\xa0credit\xc2\xa0to\xc2\xa0Amtrak,\xc2\xa0thus\xc2\xa0showing\xc2\xa0that\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0second\xc2\xa0review\xc2\xa0\nwas\xc2\xa0a\xc2\xa0cost\xe2\x80\x90effective\xc2\xa0investment.\xc2\xa0However,\xc2\xa0$2.8\xc2\xa0million\xc2\xa0(85\xc2\xa0percent)\xc2\xa0of\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0credits\xc2\xa0cited\xc2\xa0\nwere\xc2\xa0not\xc2\xa0identified\xc2\xa0by\xc2\xa0second\xc2\xa0invoice\xc2\xa0review;\xc2\xa0these\xc2\xa0amounts\xc2\xa0were\xc2\xa0identified\xc2\xa0by\xc2\xa0a\xc2\xa0\ncertified\xc2\xa0public\xc2\xa0accounting\xc2\xa0firm\xc2\xa0hired\xc2\xa0by\xc2\xa0Jacobs,\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0first\xe2\x80\x90level\xe2\x80\x90invoice\xe2\x80\x90review\xc2\xa0\ncontractor.\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0 \xc2\xa0\n\x0c Amtrak Office of Inspector General 7\n American Recovery and Reinvestment Act:\n Some Questioned Invoice Charges and Minimal Benefit from Duplicative Invoice-Review Process\n OIG-A-2012-021, September 21, 2012\n\n\n Appendix I\n\n SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY\n\xc2\xa0\nThis\xc2\xa0report\xc2\xa0provides\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0results\xc2\xa0of\xc2\xa0an\xc2\xa0Amtrak\xc2\xa0Office\xc2\xa0of\xc2\xa0Inspector\xc2\xa0General\xc2\xa0review\xc2\xa0to\xc2\xa0\ndetermine\xc2\xa0(1)\xc2\xa0if\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0costs\xc2\xa0billed\xc2\xa0by\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0design/build\xc2\xa0contractors\xc2\xa0are\xc2\xa0allowable\xc2\xa0under\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0\nterms\xc2\xa0and\xc2\xa0conditions\xc2\xa0of\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0contracts\xc2\xa0and\xc2\xa0(2)\xc2\xa0whether\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0process\xc2\xa0to\xc2\xa0review\xc2\xa0\ndesign/build\xc2\xa0contractors\xe2\x80\x99\xc2\xa0invoices\xc2\xa0was\xc2\xa0effective\xc2\xa0and\xc2\xa0economical.\xc2\xa0We\xc2\xa0conducted\xc2\xa0this\xc2\xa0\naudit\xc2\xa0work\xc2\xa0from\xc2\xa0June\xc2\xa02011\xc2\xa0through\xc2\xa0August\xc2\xa02012,\xc2\xa0in\xc2\xa0Boston,\xc2\xa0Chicago,\xc2\xa0Detroit,\xc2\xa0and\xc2\xa0\nPhiladelphia.\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\n\nTo\xc2\xa0determine\xc2\xa0if\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0costs\xc2\xa0billed\xc2\xa0are\xc2\xa0allowable\xc2\xa0under\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0terms\xc2\xa0and\xc2\xa0conditions\xc2\xa0of\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0\ncontracts,\xc2\xa0we\xc2\xa0selected\xc2\xa0three\xc2\xa0contracts\xc2\xa0funded\xc2\xa0with\xc2\xa0American\xc2\xa0Recovery\xc2\xa0and\xc2\xa0\nReinvestment\xc2\xa0Act\xc2\xa0funds.\xc2\xa0The\xc2\xa0three\xc2\xa0contracts\xc2\xa0are:\xc2\xa0\n\n\xef\x82\xb7 A\xc2\xa0nearly\xc2\xa0$125.3\xc2\xa0million\xc2\xa0contract\xc2\xa0(#1038)\xc2\xa0to\xc2\xa0Kiewit\xc2\xa0for\xc2\xa0various\xc2\xa0improvement\xc2\xa0projects\xc2\xa0\n to\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0Chicago\xc2\xa0Station\xc2\xa0and\xc2\xa0Yard;\xc2\xa0we\xc2\xa0reviewed\xc2\xa0two\xc2\xa0invoices\xc2\xa0totaling\xc2\xa0approximately\xc2\xa0\n $26.3\xc2\xa0million.\xc2\xa0\n\n\xef\x82\xb7 An\xc2\xa0approximate\xc2\xa0$22.6\xc2\xa0million\xc2\xa0contract\xc2\xa0(#1004)\xc2\xa0to\xc2\xa0Consigli\xc2\xa0for\xc2\xa0various\xc2\xa0improvement\xc2\xa0\n projects\xc2\xa0to\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0Boston\xc2\xa0Yard;\xc2\xa0we\xc2\xa0reviewed\xc2\xa0two\xc2\xa0invoices\xc2\xa0totaling\xc2\xa0approximately\xc2\xa0$7.1\xc2\xa0\n million.\xc2\xa0\n\n\xef\x82\xb7 A\xc2\xa0more\xc2\xa0than\xc2\xa0$11\xc2\xa0million\xc2\xa0contract\xc2\xa0(#1056)\xc2\xa0to\xc2\xa0Commercial\xc2\xa0Contracting\xc2\xa0Corporation\xc2\xa0\n (CCC),\xc2\xa0for\xc2\xa0inventory\xc2\xa0security\xc2\xa0projects\xc2\xa0at\xc2\xa0nine\xc2\xa0mid\xe2\x80\x90Atlantic\xc2\xa0locations;\xc2\xa0we\xc2\xa0reviewed\xc2\xa0\n two\xc2\xa0invoices\xc2\xa0totaling\xc2\xa0approximately\xc2\xa0$2.3\xc2\xa0million.\xc2\xa0\n\nWe\xc2\xa0selected\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0Kiewit\xc2\xa0and\xc2\xa0Consigli\xc2\xa0contracts\xc2\xa0because\xc2\xa0they\xc2\xa0were\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0largest\xc2\xa0in\xc2\xa0terms\xc2\xa0of\xc2\xa0\ndollars\xc2\xa0of\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0design/build\xc2\xa0contracts.\xc2\xa0We\xc2\xa0added\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0Commercial\xc2\xa0Contracting\xc2\xa0\nCorporation\xc2\xa0contract\xc2\xa0based\xc2\xa0on\xc2\xa0Amtrak\xc2\xa0managements\xe2\x80\x99\xc2\xa0request\xc2\xa0to\xc2\xa0include\xc2\xa0a\xc2\xa0small\xc2\xa0\ncontractor.\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\n\nWe\xc2\xa0compared\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0costs\xc2\xa0billed\xc2\xa0for\xc2\xa0two\xc2\xa0selected\xc2\xa0invoices\xc2\xa0for\xc2\xa0each\xc2\xa0contract\xc2\xa0to\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0contract\xc2\xa0\nterms\xc2\xa0and\xc2\xa0conditions.\xc2\xa0Further,\xc2\xa0for\xc2\xa0each\xc2\xa0selected\xc2\xa0invoice,\xc2\xa0we\xc2\xa0compared\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0amount\xc2\xa0\nbilled\xc2\xa0for\xc2\xa0labor,\xc2\xa0material,\xc2\xa0equipment,\xc2\xa0other\xc2\xa0direct\xc2\xa0costs,\xc2\xa0subcontractors,\xc2\xa0overhead,\xc2\xa0\ngeneral\xc2\xa0and\xc2\xa0administrative\xc2\xa0costs,\xc2\xa0and\xc2\xa0fixed\xe2\x80\x90fee\xc2\xa0costs\xc2\xa0to\xc2\xa0supporting\xc2\xa0documentation.\xc2\xa0The\xc2\xa0\ninvoices\xc2\xa0reviewed\xc2\xa0for\xc2\xa0each\xc2\xa0contract\xc2\xa0were\xc2\xa0as\xc2\xa0follows:\xc2\xa0Consigli\xc2\xa0(1004)\xc2\xa0pay\xc2\xa0application\xc2\xa05\xc2\xa0\nfor\xc2\xa0September\xc2\xa02010\xc2\xa0and\xc2\xa0pay\xc2\xa0application\xc2\xa07\xc2\xa0for\xc2\xa0November\xc2\xa02010,\xc2\xa0Kiewit\xc2\xa0(1038)\xc2\xa0pay\xc2\xa0\n\x0c Amtrak Office of Inspector General 8\n American Recovery and Reinvestment Act:\n Some Questioned Invoice Charges and Minimal Benefit from Duplicative Invoice-Review Process\n OIG-A-2012-021, September 21, 2012\n\n\napplication\xc2\xa07\xc2\xa0for\xc2\xa0November\xc2\xa02010\xc2\xa0and\xc2\xa0pay\xc2\xa0application\xc2\xa013\xc2\xa0for\xc2\xa0May\xc2\xa02011,\xc2\xa0CCC\xc2\xa0(1056)\xc2\xa0pay\xc2\xa0\napplication\xc2\xa02\xc2\xa0for\xc2\xa0October\xc2\xa02010\xc2\xa0and\xc2\xa0pay\xc2\xa0application\xc2\xa05\xc2\xa0for\xc2\xa0January\xc2\xa02011.\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\n\n\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\n\n\xef\x82\xb7 For\xc2\xa0labor\xc2\xa0costs,\xc2\xa0we\xc2\xa0traced\xc2\xa0hourly\xc2\xa0personnel\xc2\xa0labor\xc2\xa0costs\xc2\xa0to\xc2\xa0certified\xc2\xa0payroll\xc2\xa0reports;\xc2\xa0\n the\xc2\xa0hours\xc2\xa0per\xc2\xa0employee\xc2\xa0on\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0certified\xc2\xa0payroll\xc2\xa0reports\xc2\xa0were\xc2\xa0traced\xc2\xa0to\xc2\xa0timecards;\xc2\xa0\n and\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0hourly\xc2\xa0rates\xc2\xa0were\xc2\xa0traced\xc2\xa0to\xc2\xa0those\xc2\xa0identified\xc2\xa0in\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0respective\xc2\xa0design/build\xc2\xa0\n agreements.\xc2\xa0Finally,\xc2\xa0for\xc2\xa0salaried\xc2\xa0personnel,\xc2\xa0we\xc2\xa0traced\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0hours\xc2\xa0to\xc2\xa0timecards.\xc2\xa0We\xc2\xa0\n verified\xc2\xa0all\xc2\xa0labor\xc2\xa0costs\xc2\xa0except\xc2\xa0on\xc2\xa0Kiewit\xc2\xa0contract\xc2\xa01038,\xc2\xa0where\xc2\xa0a\xc2\xa0judgmental\xc2\xa0sample\xc2\xa0\n was\xc2\xa0taken\xc2\xa0due\xc2\xa0to\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0size\xc2\xa0of\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0invoice.\xc2\xa0\n\n\xef\x82\xb7 For\xc2\xa0material\xc2\xa0costs,\xc2\xa0we\xc2\xa0traced\xc2\xa0100\xc2\xa0percent\xc2\xa0of\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0invoiced\xc2\xa0amounts\xc2\xa0to\xc2\xa0supporting\xc2\xa0\n documentation\xc2\xa0such\xc2\xa0as\xc2\xa0purchase\xc2\xa0orders\xc2\xa0or\xc2\xa0receiving\xc2\xa0reports.\xc2\xa0We\xc2\xa0completed\xc2\xa0a\xc2\xa0\n random\xc2\xa0sample\xc2\xa0on\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0Kiewit\xc2\xa0contract.\xc2\xa0\n\n\xef\x82\xb7 For\xc2\xa0equipment\xc2\xa0rental\xc2\xa0costs,\xc2\xa0we\xc2\xa0traced\xc2\xa0100\xc2\xa0percent\xc2\xa0of\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0invoiced\xc2\xa0amounts\xc2\xa0to\xc2\xa0\n supporting\xc2\xa0documentation\xc2\xa0and\xc2\xa0compared\xc2\xa0rates\xc2\xa0included\xc2\xa0in\xc2\xa0contracts.\xc2\xa0As\xc2\xa0a\xc2\xa0result\xc2\xa0of\xc2\xa0\n our\xc2\xa0testing,\xc2\xa0we\xc2\xa0expanded\xc2\xa0our\xc2\xa0review\xc2\xa0of\xc2\xa0Consigli\xe2\x80\x99s\xc2\xa0vehicle\xc2\xa0rental\xc2\xa0charges.\xc2\xa0\n\n\xef\x82\xb7 For\xc2\xa0other\xc2\xa0direct\xc2\xa0costs\xc2\xa0such\xc2\xa0as\xc2\xa0travel,\xc2\xa0per\xc2\xa0diem,\xc2\xa0and\xc2\xa0supplies,\xc2\xa0we\xc2\xa0traced\xc2\xa0100\xc2\xa0percent\xc2\xa0of\xc2\xa0\n the\xc2\xa0invoiced\xc2\xa0amounts\xc2\xa0to\xc2\xa0supporting\xc2\xa0documentation\xc2\xa0such\xc2\xa0as\xc2\xa0airplane,\xc2\xa0meal,\xc2\xa0or\xc2\xa0hotel\xc2\xa0\n receipts;\xc2\xa0and\xc2\xa0verified\xc2\xa0that\xc2\xa0employees\xc2\xa0receiving\xc2\xa0per\xc2\xa0diem\xc2\xa0were\xc2\xa0covered\xc2\xa0by\xc2\xa0an\xc2\xa0out\xe2\x80\x90of\xe2\x80\x90\n state\xc2\xa0per\xc2\xa0diem\xc2\xa0agreement\xc2\xa0and\xc2\xa0were\xc2\xa0at\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0out\xe2\x80\x90of\xe2\x80\x90state\xc2\xa0job\xc2\xa0site.\xc2\xa0\n\n\xef\x82\xb7 For\xc2\xa0subcontractor\xc2\xa0costs,\xc2\xa0we\xc2\xa0traced\xc2\xa0100\xc2\xa0percent\xc2\xa0of\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0invoiced\xc2\xa0amount\xc2\xa0to\xc2\xa0supporting\xc2\xa0\n documentation.\xc2\xa0\n\n\xef\x82\xb7 For\xc2\xa0overhead,\xc2\xa0general\xc2\xa0and\xc2\xa0administrative\xc2\xa0and\xc2\xa0fixed\xe2\x80\x90fee\xc2\xa0costs,\xc2\xa0where\xc2\xa0applicable,\xc2\xa0we\xc2\xa0\n verified\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0percentage\xc2\xa0used\xc2\xa0to\xc2\xa0calculate\xc2\xa0these\xc2\xa0costs\xc2\xa0to\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0percentage\xc2\xa0allowed\xc2\xa0under\xc2\xa0\n each\xc2\xa0contract.\xc2\xa0For\xc2\xa0CCC\xc2\xa0we\xc2\xa0expanded\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0review\xc2\xa0to\xc2\xa0include\xc2\xa0all\xc2\xa0invoices,\xc2\xa0as\xc2\xa0a\xc2\xa0result\xc2\xa0of\xc2\xa0\n concerns\xc2\xa0expressed\xc2\xa0by\xc2\xa0Amtrak\xc2\xa0management.\xc2\xa0\n\nIf\xc2\xa0there\xc2\xa0was\xc2\xa0a\xc2\xa0difference\xc2\xa0between\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0supporting\xc2\xa0documentation\xc2\xa0and\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0amount\xc2\xa0paid\xc2\xa0\nfor\xc2\xa0any\xc2\xa0cost\xc2\xa0category,\xc2\xa0we\xc2\xa0discussed\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0difference\xc2\xa0with\xc2\xa0Jacobs\xc2\xa0and\xc2\xa0URS\xc2\xa0personnel.\xc2\xa0If\xc2\xa0\nJacobs\xc2\xa0or\xc2\xa0URS\xc2\xa0could\xc2\xa0not\xc2\xa0provide\xc2\xa0documentation\xc2\xa0to\xc2\xa0support\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0difference,\xc2\xa0we\xc2\xa0\nquestioned\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0cost.\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\n\nTo\xc2\xa0determine\xc2\xa0if\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0invoice\xc2\xa0review\xc2\xa0process\xc2\xa0was\xc2\xa0effective\xc2\xa0and\xc2\xa0economical,\xc2\xa0we\xc2\xa0reviewed\xc2\xa0\nthe\xc2\xa0program\xc2\xa0management\xc2\xa0agreements\xc2\xa0between\xc2\xa0Amtrak\xc2\xa0and\xc2\xa0Jacobs\xc2\xa0and\xc2\xa0URS\xc2\xa0to\xc2\xa0identify\xc2\xa0\n\x0c Amtrak Office of Inspector General 9\n American Recovery and Reinvestment Act:\n Some Questioned Invoice Charges and Minimal Benefit from Duplicative Invoice-Review Process\n OIG-A-2012-021, September 21, 2012\n\n\nthe\xc2\xa0requirements\xc2\xa0and\xc2\xa0responsibilities\xc2\xa0for\xc2\xa0reviewing\xc2\xa0invoices\xc2\xa0submitted\xc2\xa0by\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0\ndesign/build\xc2\xa0contractors.\xc2\xa0We\xc2\xa0then\xc2\xa0reviewed\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0procedures\xc2\xa0established\xc2\xa0by\xc2\xa0Jacobs\xc2\xa0and\xc2\xa0\nURS\xc2\xa0to\xc2\xa0implement\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0program\xc2\xa0agreement\xc2\xa0requirements.\xc2\xa0We\xc2\xa0also\xc2\xa0interviewed\xc2\xa0Jacobs\xc2\xa0\nand\xc2\xa0URS\xc2\xa0personnel\xc2\xa0responsible\xc2\xa0for\xc2\xa0reviewing\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0applications\xc2\xa0for\xc2\xa0payment\xc2\xa0to\xc2\xa0\nunderstand\xc2\xa0how\xc2\xa0they\xc2\xa0validated\xc2\xa0or\xc2\xa0questioned\xc2\xa0costs.\xc2\xa0We\xc2\xa0compared\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0costs\xc2\xa0questioned\xc2\xa0\nby\xc2\xa0Jacobs\xc2\xa0and\xc2\xa0URS\xc2\xa0to\xc2\xa0determine\xc2\xa0if\xc2\xa0they\xc2\xa0were\xc2\xa0questioning\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0same\xc2\xa0or\xc2\xa0different\xc2\xa0costs.\xc2\xa0\nFinally,\xc2\xa0we\xc2\xa0analyzed\xc2\xa0how\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0questioned\xc2\xa0costs\xc2\xa0were\xc2\xa0resolved.\xc2\xa0We\xc2\xa0obtained\xc2\xa0cost\xc2\xa0data\xc2\xa0on\xc2\xa0\nthe\xc2\xa0invoice\xc2\xa0review\xc2\xa0process\xc2\xa0from\xc2\xa0Jacobs\xc2\xa0and\xc2\xa0URS\xc2\xa0officials.\xc2\xa0\n\nWe\xc2\xa0conducted\xc2\xa0this\xc2\xa0performance\xc2\xa0audit\xc2\xa0in\xc2\xa0accordance\xc2\xa0with\xc2\xa0generally\xc2\xa0accepted\xc2\xa0\ngovernment\xc2\xa0auditing\xc2\xa0standards.\xc2\xa0Those\xc2\xa0standards\xc2\xa0require\xc2\xa0that\xc2\xa0we\xc2\xa0plan\xc2\xa0and\xc2\xa0perform\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0\naudit\xc2\xa0to\xc2\xa0obtain\xc2\xa0sufficient,\xc2\xa0appropriate\xc2\xa0evidence\xc2\xa0to\xc2\xa0provide\xc2\xa0a\xc2\xa0reasonable\xc2\xa0basis\xc2\xa0for\xc2\xa0our\xc2\xa0\nfindings\xc2\xa0and\xc2\xa0conclusions\xc2\xa0based\xc2\xa0on\xc2\xa0our\xc2\xa0audit\xc2\xa0objectives.\xc2\xa0We\xc2\xa0believe\xc2\xa0that\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0evidence\xc2\xa0\nobtained\xc2\xa0provides\xc2\xa0a\xc2\xa0reasonable\xc2\xa0basis\xc2\xa0for\xc2\xa0our\xc2\xa0findings\xc2\xa0and\xc2\xa0conclusions\xc2\xa0based\xc2\xa0on\xc2\xa0our\xc2\xa0\naudit\xc2\xa0objectives.\xc2\xa0\n\xc2\xa0\n\xc2\xa0\nInternal Controls\n\nIn\xc2\xa0conducting\xc2\xa0this\xc2\xa0audit,\xc2\xa0we\xc2\xa0assessed\xc2\xa0certain\xc2\xa0internal\xc2\xa0controls\xc2\xa0pertinent\xc2\xa0to\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0audit\xc2\xa0\nobjectives.\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0We\xc2\xa0reviewed\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0internal\xc2\xa0controls\xc2\xa0that\xc2\xa0Jacobs\xc2\xa0and\xc2\xa0URS\xc2\xa0established\xc2\xa0for\xc2\xa0\nreviewing\xc2\xa0invoices\xc2\xa0submitted\xc2\xa0by\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0design/build\xc2\xa0contractors.\xc2\xa0Specifically,\xc2\xa0we\xc2\xa0reviewed\xc2\xa0\nthe\xc2\xa0following\xc2\xa0internal\xc2\xa0controls:\xc2\xa0\n\xc2\xa0\n\xef\x82\xb7 controls\xc2\xa0put\xc2\xa0in\xc2\xa0place\xc2\xa0by\xc2\xa0Jacobs\xc2\xa0to\xc2\xa0review\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0invoices\xc2\xa0submitted\xc2\xa0by\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0\n Design/Builder\xc2\xa0contractors\xc2\xa0to\xc2\xa0assure\xc2\xa0they\xc2\xa0are\xc2\xa0accurate,\xc2\xa0in\xc2\xa0compliance\xc2\xa0with\xc2\xa0contract\xc2\xa0\n terms,\xc2\xa0and\xc2\xa0in\xc2\xa0accordance\xc2\xa0with\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0Federal\xc2\xa0Acquisition\xc2\xa0Regulations,\xc2\xa0and\xc2\xa0\n \xc2\xa0\n\xef\x82\xb7 procedures\xc2\xa0used\xc2\xa0to\xc2\xa0validate\xc2\xa0labor,\xc2\xa0material,\xc2\xa0equipment\xc2\xa0rental,\xc2\xa0other\xc2\xa0direct\xc2\xa0costs,\xc2\xa0\n overhead,\xc2\xa0general\xc2\xa0and\xc2\xa0administrative\xc2\xa0rates,\xc2\xa0subcontractor\xc2\xa0costs,\xc2\xa0and\xc2\xa0fixed\xe2\x80\x90fee\xc2\xa0costs\xc2\xa0\n submitted\xc2\xa0by\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0contractors.\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\n \xc2\xa0\nWe\xc2\xa0did\xc2\xa0not\xc2\xa0review\xc2\xa0other\xc2\xa0aspects\xc2\xa0of\xc2\xa0Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s\xc2\xa0financial\xc2\xa0control\xc2\xa0systems\xc2\xa0or\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0reporting\xc2\xa0\nrequirements\xc2\xa0for\xc2\xa0projects\xc2\xa0funded\xc2\xa0by\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0American\xc2\xa0Recovery\xc2\xa0and\xc2\xa0Reinvestment\xc2\xa0Act.\xc2\xa0\n\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\n\xc2\xa0\n\xc2\xa0\n\x0c Amtrak Office of Inspector General 10\n American Recovery and Reinvestment Act:\n Some Questioned Invoice Charges and Minimal Benefit from Duplicative Invoice-Review Process\n OIG-A-2012-021, September 21, 2012\n\n\nComputer-processed Data\n\xc2\xa0\n\xc2\xa0We\xc2\xa0relied\xc2\xa0on\xc2\xa0data\xc2\xa0obtained\xc2\xa0from\xc2\xa0Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s\xc2\xa0SharePoint\xc2\xa0database.\xc2\xa0We\xc2\xa0did\xc2\xa0not\xc2\xa0review\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0\noverall\xc2\xa0accuracy\xc2\xa0and\xc2\xa0reliability\xc2\xa0of\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0database.\xc2\xa0We\xc2\xa0also\xc2\xa0relied\xc2\xa0on\xc2\xa0data\xc2\xa0from\xc2\xa0contractor\xc2\xa0\ninvoices\xc2\xa0and\xc2\xa0supporting\xc2\xa0documentation\xc2\xa0for\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0three\xc2\xa0contracts.\xc2\xa0We\xc2\xa0verified\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0\naccuracy\xc2\xa0of\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0data\xc2\xa0to\xc2\xa0source\xc2\xa0documents\xc2\xa0on\xc2\xa0two\xc2\xa0invoices\xc2\xa0for\xc2\xa0each\xc2\xa0contract.\xc2\xa0Some\xc2\xa0of\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0\nsupporting\xc2\xa0documentation,\xc2\xa0such\xc2\xa0as\xc2\xa0certified\xc2\xa0payroll\xc2\xa0reports,\xc2\xa0were\xc2\xa0generated\xc2\xa0from\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0\ndesign/\xc2\xa0build\xc2\xa0firms\xe2\x80\x99\xc2\xa0computer\xc2\xa0systems.\xc2\xa0As\xc2\xa0stated,\xc2\xa0we\xc2\xa0did\xc2\xa0not\xc2\xa0validate\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0design\xc2\xa0\nbuilders\xe2\x80\x99\xc2\xa0payroll\xc2\xa0systems.\xc2\xa0We\xc2\xa0traced\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0certified\xc2\xa0payroll\xc2\xa0data\xc2\xa0to\xc2\xa0timecards\xc2\xa0for\xc2\xa0each\xc2\xa0\napplication\xc2\xa0for\xc2\xa0payment\xc2\xa0we\xc2\xa0reviewed\xc2\xa0and\xc2\xa0did\xc2\xa0not\xc2\xa0identify\xc2\xa0any\xc2\xa0discrepancies.\xc2\xa0Given\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0\nfocus\xc2\xa0of\xc2\xa0our\xc2\xa0work\xc2\xa0and\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0steps\xc2\xa0we\xc2\xa0took\xc2\xa0to\xc2\xa0verify\xc2\xa0computer\xe2\x80\x90generated\xc2\xa0data,\xc2\xa0we\xc2\xa0have\xc2\xa0\nconcluded\xc2\xa0that\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0data\xc2\xa0is\xc2\xa0sufficiently\xc2\xa0reliable\xc2\xa0for\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0purposes\xc2\xa0of\xc2\xa0our\xc2\xa0objectives.\xc2\xa0\n\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\n\nPrior Audit Reports\n\xc2\xa0\nWe\xc2\xa0identified\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0following\xc2\xa0Office\xc2\xa0of\xc2\xa0Inspector\xc2\xa0General\xc2\xa0reports\xc2\xa0as\xc2\xa0being\xc2\xa0relevant\xc2\xa0to\xc2\xa0this\xc2\xa0\naudit\xe2\x80\x99s\xc2\xa0objectives:\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\n\xc2\xa0\nAmerican\xc2\xa0Recovery\xc2\xa0and\xc2\xa0Reinvestment\xc2\xa0Act:\xc2\xa0Infrastructure\xc2\xa0Improvements\xc2\xa0Achieved\xc2\xa0but\xc2\xa0Less\xc2\xa0\nthan\xc2\xa0Planned\xc2\xa0(Report\xc2\xa0No.\xc2\xa0908\xe2\x80\x902010,\xc2\xa0June\xc2\xa022,\xc2\xa02011)\n\nAmerican\xc2\xa0Recovery\xc2\xa0and\xc2\xa0Reinvestment\xc2\xa0Act:\xc2\xa0Fewer\xc2\xa0Security\xc2\xa0Improvements\xc2\xa0than\xc2\xa0Anticipated\xc2\xa0Will\xc2\xa0\nbe\xc2\xa0Made\xc2\xa0and\xc2\xa0Majority\xc2\xa0of\xc2\xa0Projects\xc2\xa0Are\xc2\xa0Not\xc2\xa0Complete\xc2\xa0(Report\xc2\xa0No.\xc2\xa0914\xe2\x80\x902010,\xc2\xa0June\xc2\xa016,\xc2\xa02011)\n\xc2\xa0\nAmerican\xc2\xa0Recovery\xc2\xa0and\xc2\xa0Reinvestment\xc2\xa0Act:\xc2\xa0Assessment\xc2\xa0of\xc2\xa0Project\xc2\xa0Risks\xc2\xa0Associated\xc2\xa0with\xc2\xa0Key\xc2\xa0\nEngineering\xc2\xa0Projects\xc2\xa0(Report\xc2\xa0No.\xc2\xa0912\xe2\x80\x902010,\xc2\xa0May\xc2\xa014,\xc2\xa02010)\xc2\xa0\n\x0c Amtrak Office of Inspector General 11\n American Recovery and Reinvestment Act:\nSome Questioned Invoice Charges and Minimal Benefit from Duplicative Invoice-Review Process\n OIG-A-2012-021, September 21, 2012\n\n\n Appendix II\n\n COMMENTS FROM AMTRAK\xe2\x80\x99S ACTING\n CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER AND CONTROLLER\n\x0c Amtrak Office of Inspector General 12\n American Recovery and Reinvestment Act:\nSome Questioned Invoice Charges and Minimal Benefit from Duplicative Invoice-Review Process\n OIG-A-2012-021, September 21, 2012\n\x0c Amtrak Office of Inspector General 13\n American Recovery and Reinvestment Act:\n Some Questioned Invoice Charges and Minimal Benefit from Duplicative Invoice-Review Process\n OIG-A-2012-021, September 21, 2012\n\n\n Appendix III\n \xc2\xa0\n OIG TEAM MEMBERS\t\n \t\nDavid\xc2\xa0R.\xc2\xa0Warren,\xc2\xa0Assistant\xc2\xa0Inspector\xc2\xa0General,\xc2\xa0Audits\xc2\xa0\n\xc2\xa0\nMichael\xc2\xa0Kennedy,\xc2\xa0Senior\xc2\xa0Director\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\n\xc2\xa0\nDavid\xc2\xa0Burrell,\xc2\xa0Auditor\xe2\x80\x90in\xe2\x80\x90Charge\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\n\xc2\xa0\nRoslyn\xc2\xa0Kessler,\xc2\xa0Senior\xc2\xa0Auditor\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\n\xc2\xa0\nMaryellen\xc2\xa0Moran,\xc2\xa0Senior\xc2\xa0Auditor\xc2\xa0\n\xc2\xa0\nJohn\xc2\xa0Weinle,\xc2\xa0Senior\xc2\xa0Auditor\xc2\xa0\n \xc2\xa0\nMichael\xc2\xa0P.\xc2\xa0Fruitman,\xc2\xa0Principal\xc2\xa0Communications\xc2\xa0Officer\xc2\xa0\n\x0c Amtrak Office of Inspector General 14\n American Recovery and Reinvestment Act:\n Some Questioned Invoice Charges and Minimal Benefit from Duplicative Invoice-Review Process\n OIG-A-2012-021, September 21, 2012\n\n\n\n OIG MISSION AND CONTACT INFORMATION\n\nAmtrak OIG\xe2\x80\x99s Mission Amtrak OIG\xe2\x80\x99s mission is to\n\n \xef\x82\xb7 conduct and supervise independent and objective\n audits, inspections, evaluations, and investigations\n relating to Amtrak programs and operations;\n \xef\x82\xb7 promote economy, effectiveness, and efficiency within\n Amtrak;\n \xef\x82\xb7 prevent and detect fraud, waste, and abuse in Amtrak's\n programs and operations;\n \xef\x82\xb7 review security and safety policies and programs; and\n \xef\x82\xb7 review and make recommendations regarding existing\n and proposed legislation and regulations relating to\n Amtrak's programs and operations.\nObtaining Copies of OIG Available at our website: www.amtrakoig.gov.\nReports and Testimony\nTo Report Fraud, Waste, Report suspicious or illegal activities to the OIG Hotline\nand Abuse (you can remain anonymous):\n\n Web: www.amtrakoig.gov/hotline\n Phone: 800-468-5469\n\nCongressional and E. Bret Coulson, Senior Director\nPublic Relations Congressional and Public Affairs\n\n Mail: Amtrak OIG\n 10 G Street, N.E., 3W-300\n Washington, D.C. 20002\n\n Phone: 202.906.4134\n E-mail: bret.coulson@amtrakoig.gov\n\n\n\xc2\xa0\n\x0c"


text:
 Svarbus teisinis pranešimas
 |
 52006PC0242
 Pasiūlymas Tarybos reglamentas iš dalies keičiantis Europos Parlamento ir Tarybos reglamento (EB) Nr. 850/2004 dėl patvariųjų organinių teršalų ir iš dalies keičiančio Direktyvą 79/117/EEB, IV priedą /* KOM/2006/0242 galutinis */
 [pic] | EUROPOS BENDRIJŲ KOMISIJA |Briuselis, 31.5.2006KOM(2006) 242 galutinisPasiūlymasTARYBOS REGLAMENTASiš dalies keičiantis Europos Parlamento ir Tarybos reglamento (EB) Nr. 850/2004 dėl patvariųjų organinių teršalų ir iš dalies keičiančio Direktyvą 79/117/EEB, IV priedą(pateikta Komisijos)AIŠKINAMASIS MEMORANDUMASReglamento (EB) Nr. 850/2004 dėl patvariųjų organinių teršalų 7 straipsnio 4 dalies a punkte numatyta, kad IV Priede išvardytų medžiagų kiekis neturi viršyti leistinos koncentracijos, kuri turi būti nurodyta IV priede iki 2005 m. gruodžio 31 d. 17 straipsnio 2 dalyje nustatyta tvarka. Pagal to reglamento 17 straipsnio 1 dalį, su atliekomis susijusius klausimus Komisijai padeda spręsti komitetas, įsteigtas pagal Direktyvos 75/442/EEB 18 straipsnį.Remdamasi tuo Komisija 2006 m. sausio 25 d. pateikė reglamento projektą balsuoti pagal Direktyvos 75/442/EEB dėl atliekų 18 straipsnį įsteigtame komitete. Už reglamento projektą nebuvo nubalsuota kvalifikuota balsų dauguma.Todėl Sprendimo 1999/468/EB 5 straipsnyje nustatyta tvarka Tarybos reglamento pasiūlymas pateikiamas Tarybai. Jei, gavusi pasiūlymą, Taryba per tris mėnesius nepriima jokio sprendimo, pasiūlytas priemones patvirtina Komisija.Remdamasi Reglamento (EB) 2004/850 7 straipsnio 6 dalimi ir 14 straipsnio 3 dalimi, Komisija taip pat ketino pasiūlyti priimti priemonę dėl kitaip perdirbti skirtų atliekų, viršijančių 1 mg/kg PCDD/PCDF koncentraciją, bet neviršijančių 15 mg/kg PCDD/PCDF mažiausios leistinos koncentracijos, kietinimo. Šios papildomos priemonės patvirtinimas priklauso nuo mažiausios leistinos PCDD/PCDF koncentracijos patvirtinimo. Kadangi už reglamento projektą dėl mažiausios leistinos PCDD/PCDF koncentracijos, išreikštos mg/kg, nebuvo nubalsuota kvalifikuota balsų dauguma, vien tik papildomos priemonės patvirtinimas neturėtų prasmės ir ji dar nebuvo pateikta balsavimui.PasiūlymasTARYBOS REGLAMENTASiš dalies keičiantis Europos Parlamento ir Tarybos reglamento (EB) Nr. 850/2004 dėl patvariųjų organinių teršalų ir iš dalies keičiančio Direktyvą 79/117/EEB, IV priedą(Tekstas svarbus EEE)EUROPOS SĄJUNGOS TARYBA,atsižvelgdama į Europos bendrijos steigimo sutartį,atsižvelgdama į 2004 m. balandžio 29 d. Europos Parlamento ir Tarybos reglamentą (EB) Nr. 850/2004 dėl patvariųjų organinių teršalų ir iš dalies keičiantį Direktyvą 79/117/EEB[1], ypač į jo 7 straipsnio 4 dalies a punktą ir 14 straipsnio 3 dalį,kadangi:(1) Komisija atliko su atliekomis susijusių Reglamento Nr. (EB) 850/2004 nuostatų įgyvendinimo tyrimą.(2) IV priede siūloma leistina koncentracija yra tinkamiausia, aukštam apsaugos lygiui užtikrinti patvariųjų organinių teršalų naikinimo arba jų negrįžtamos transformacijos procesų atveju.(3) Dar nėra nusistovėjusio tinkamo analizės metodo toksafeno, 670 medžiagų mišinio, bendrai koncentracijai nustatyti. Tačiau, atliekant pirmiau minėtą tyrimą Europos Sąjungoje nebuvo aptikta jokių iš toksafeno susidedančių, sudėtyje toksafeno turinčių arba juo užterštų atsargų. Tyrimo rezultatai taip pat rodo, kad visais atvejais, kai atliekose buvo aptikta pesticidų, kurių sudėtyje yra patvariųjų organinių teršalų, jų koncentracija paprastai buvo didelė, palyginus su siūloma leistina koncentracija. Naudojamus analizės metodus toksafeno kiekiui nustatyti šiame reglamente kol kas galima laikyti tinkamais.(4) Leistina PCDF/PCDD koncentracija išreiškiama toksinio ekvivalento koncentracija (angl. „TEQ“), remiantis 1998 m. Pasaulio sveikatos organizacijos toksinio ekvivalentiškumo faktoriais („TEF“). Apie dioksinų tipo PCB turimų duomenų nepakanka tam, kad tuos junginius būtų galima įtraukti į „TEQ“.(5) Heksachlorcikloheksanas (HCH) yra įvairių izomerų techninio mišinio pavadinimas. Nėra prasmės stengtis išsamiai juos ištirti. Tik alfa-, beta- ir gama-HCH yra toksikologiškai svarbūs. Todėl leistina koncentracija yra taikoma tik jiems. Dauguma standartinių analitinių mišinių, kuriuos galima įsigyti, naudojamų šios junginių klasės analizei atlikti, galima nustatyti tik šiuos izomerus.(6) Todėl Reglamentas (EB) Nr. 850/2004 turėtų būti atitinkamai iš dalies pakeistas,(7) Pagal Direktyvos 850/EB 17 straipsnio 1 dalį įsteigtas komitetas po 2006 m. sausio 25 d. vykusių konsultacijų to reglamento 17 straipsnio 2 dalyje nustatyta tvarka nepateikė nuomonės apie Komisijos reglamento projekte nustatytas priemones,PRIĖMĖ ŠĮ REGLAMENTĄ:1 straipsnisReglamento (EB) Nr. 850/2004/EEB IV priedas pakeičiamas šio reglamento priede pateiktu tekstu.2 straipsnisŠis reglamentas įsigalioja dvidešimtą dieną nuo jo paskelbimo Europos Sąjungos oficialiajame leidinyje .Šis reglamentas yra privalomas visas ir tiesiogiai taikomas visose valstybėse narėse.Priimta Briuselyje,Tarybos varduPirmininkasPRIEDASReglamento (EB) Nr. 850/2004 IV priedas pakeičiamas taip:IV PRIEDAS„MEDŽIAGŲ, KURIOMS TAIKOMOS 7 STRAIPSNIO NUOSTATOS DĖL ATLIEKŲ TVARKYMO, SĄRAŠASMEDŽIAGA | CAS Nr. | EB Nr. | 7 STRAIPSNIO 4 DALIES a PUNKTE NURODYTA DIDŽIAUSIA LEISTINA KONCENTRACIJA |Aldrinas | 309-00-2 | 206-215-8 | 50 mg/kg |Chlordanas | 57-74-9 | 200-349-0 | 50 mg/kg |Dieldrinas | 60-57-1 | 200-484-5 | 50 mg/kg |Endrinas | 72-20-8 | 200-775-7 | 50 mg/kg |Heptachloras | 76-44-8 | 200-962-3 | 50 mg/kg |Heksachlorbenzenas | 118-74-1 | 200-273-9 | 50 mg/kg |Mireksas | 2385-85-5 | 219-196-6 | 50 mg/kg |Toksafenas | 8001-35-2 | 232-283-3 | 50 mg/kg |Polichlorinti bifenilai (PCB) | 1336-36-3 ir kiti | 215-648-1 | 50 mg/kg* |DDT (1,1,1-trichlor-2,2-bis(4-chlorfenil)etanas) | 50-29-3 | 200-024-3 | 50 mg/kg |Chlordekonas | 143-50-0 | 205-601-3 | 50 mg/kg |Polichlorinti dibenzo-p-dioksinai ir dibenzofuranai (PCDD/PCDF) | 15 mg/kg** |alfa-, beta- ir gama-HCH bendras kiekis | 58-89-9, 319-84-6, 319-85-7 | 206-270-8, 206-271-3 ir 200-401-2 | 50 mg/kg |Heksabrombifenilas | 36355-01-8 | 252-994-2 | 50 mg/kg |*Prireikus naudojamas Europos standartuose EN 12766-1 ir EN 12766-2 nustatytas apskaičiavimo metodas**Leistina koncentracija apskaičiuojama kaip PCDD ir PCDF, remiantis šiais toksinio ekvivalentiškumo faktoriais (TEF):PCDD | Toksinio ekvivalentiškumo faktorius (TEF) |2,3,7,8-TeCDD | 1 |1,2,3,7,8 - PeCDD | 1 |1,2,3,4,7,8 - HxCDD | 0.1 |1,2,3,6,7,8 - HxCDD | 0.1 |1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD | 0.1 |1,2,3,4,6,7,8 - HpCDD | 0.01 |OCDD | 0.0001 |PCDF |2,3,7,8-TeCDD | 0.1 |1,2,3,7,8 - PeCDF | 0.05 |2,3,4,7,8 - PeCDF | 0.5 |1,2,3,4,7,8 - HxCDF | 0.1 |1,2,3,6,7,8 - HxCDF | 0.1 |1,2,3,7,8,9 - HxCDF | 0.1 |2,3,4,6,7,8 - HxCDF | 0.1 |1,2,3,4,6,7,8 - HpCDF | 0.01 |1,2,3,4,7,8,9 - HpCDF | 0.01 |OCDF | 0.0001 |“[1] OL L 158, 2004 4 30, p. 7; ištaisyta versija OL L 229, 2004 6 29, p. 5.


text:
 5.4.2018
 SL
 Uradni list Evropske unije
 L 89/10
 SKLEP SKUPNEGA ODBORA EGP
 št. 208/2016
 z dne 28. oktobra 2016
 o spremembi Priloge II (Tehnični predpisi, standardi, preskušanje in certificiranje) k Sporazumu EGP [2018/529]
 SKUPNI ODBOR EGP JE –
 ob upoštevanju Sporazuma o Evropskem gospodarskem prostoru (v nadaljnjem besedilu: Sporazum EGP) in zlasti člena 98 Sporazuma EGP,
 ob upoštevanju naslednjega:
 (1)
 Delegirano uredbo Komisije (EU) 2016/127 z dne 25. septembra 2015 o dopolnitvi Uredbe (EU) št. 609/2013 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta glede posebnih zahtev za sestavo in informacije pri začetnih formulah za dojenčke in nadaljevalnih formulah ter glede zahtev za informacije o hranjenju dojenčkov in majhnih otrok (1) je treba vključiti v Sporazum EGP.
 (2)
 Uredbo Komisije (EU) 2016/479 z dne 1. aprila 2016 o spremembi Priloge II k Uredbi (ES) št. 1333/2008 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta glede uporabe steviol glikozidov (E 960) kot sladila v nekaterih pijačah z zmanjšano energijsko vrednostjo ali brez dodanega sladkorja (2) je treba vključiti v Sporazum EGP.
 (3)
 Uredba (EU) 2016/127 z učinkom od 22. februarja 2020 razveljavlja Direktivo Komisije 2006/141/ES (3), ki je vključena v Sporazum EGP in jo je zato treba v okviru Sporazuma EGP razveljaviti z učinkom od 22. februarja 2020.
 (4)
 Ta sklep se nanaša na zakonodajo v zvezi z živili. Zakonodaja v zvezi z živili se ne uporablja za Lihtenštajn, dokler se Sporazum med Evropsko skupnostjo in Švicarsko konfederacijo o trgovini s kmetijskimi proizvodi uporablja tudi za Lihtenštajn, kakor je podrobno določeno v uvodu v poglavje XII Priloge II k Sporazumu EGP. Ta sklep se zato ne uporablja za Lihtenštajn.
 (5)
 Prilogo II k Sporazumu EGP bi bilo zato treba ustrezno spremeniti –
 SPREJEL NASLEDNJI SKLEP:
 Člen 1
 Poglavje XII Priloge II k Sporazumu EGP se spremeni:
 1.
 za točko 77a (Delegirana uredba Komisije (EU) 2016/128) se vstavi naslednja točka:
 „77b.
 32016 R 0127: Delegirana uredba Komisije (EU) 2016/127 z dne 25. septembra 2015 o dopolnitvi Uredbe (EU) št. 609/2013 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta glede posebnih zahtev za sestavo in informacije pri začetnih formulah za dojenčke in nadaljevalnih formulah ter glede zahtev za informacije o hranjenju dojenčkov in majhnih otrok (UL L 25, 2.2.2016, str. 1).
 Za namene tega sporazuma se določbe Uredbe uporabljajo z naslednjimi prilagoditvami:
 (a)
 v delu A Priloge VI se doda naslednje:
 —
 v islandskem jeziku: ‚Ungbarnablanda‘ in ‚Stoðblanda‘,
 —
 v norveškem jeziku: ‚Morsmelkerstatning‘ in ‚Tilskuddsblanding‘;
 (b)
 v delu B Priloge VI se doda naslednje:
 —
 v islandskem jeziku: ‚Ungbarnamjólk‘ in ‚Mjólkurstoðblanda‘,
 —
 v norveškem jeziku: ‚Morsmelkerstatning basert på melk‘ in ‚Tilskuddsblanding basert på melk‘.“;
 2.
 v točki 54zzzzr (Uredba (ES) št. 1333/2008 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta) se doda naslednja alinea:
 „—
 32016 R 0479: Uredba Komisije (EU) 2016/479 z dne 1. aprila 2016 (UL L 87, 2.4.2016, str. 1).“;
 3.
 besedilo točke 54zzzv (Direktiva Komisije 2006/141/ES) se črta z učinkom od 22. februarja 2020.
 Člen 2
 Besedili Delegirane uredbe (EU) 2016/127 in Uredbe (EU) 2016/479 v islandskem in norveškem jeziku, ki se objavita v Dopolnilu EGP k Uradnemu listu Evropske unije, sta verodostojni.
 Člen 3
 Ta sklep začne veljati 29. oktobra 2016 pod pogojem, da so bila predložena vsa uradna obvestila v skladu s členom 103(1) Sporazuma EGP (*1).
 Člen 4
 Ta sklep se objavi v sklopu EGP Uradnega lista Evropske unije in Dopolnilu EGP k Uradnemu listu Evropske unije.
 V Bruslju, 28. oktobra 2016
 Za Skupni odbor EGP
 Predsednica
 Bergdís ELLERTSDÓTTIR
 (1) UL L 25, 2.2.2016, str. 1.
 (2) UL L 87, 2.4.2016, str. 1.
 (3) UL L 401, 30.12.2006, str. 1.
 (*1) Navedena ni nobena ustavna zahteva.


type: wikipedia

text:
Sit ta' Wirt Dinji (l-isem uffiċjali kif jidher fuq il-plakka tas-Siti ta' Wirt Dinjii f'Malta u Għawdex) huwa sit ikoniku jew żona bi protezzjoni legali permezz ta' konvenzjoni internazzjonali amministrata mill-Organizzazzjoni tan-Nazzjonijiet Uniti għall-Edukazzjoni, ix-Xjenza u l-Kultura (UNESCO). Is-Siti ta' Wirt Dinji jiġu deżinjati mill-UNESCO talli jkunu sinifikanti kulturalment, storikament, xjentifikament jew għal xi mod ieħor. Is-siti jiġu ġġudikati bħala "wirt kulturali u naturali madwar id-dinja ta' valur straordinarju għall-umanità". Sabiex sit jintgħażel bħala Sit ta' Wirt Dinji jrid b'xi mod ikun sit ikoniku uniku, li jkun identifikabbli ġeografikament u storikament, u jkollu xi karatteristika speċjali sinifikanti kulturalment jew fiżikament. Pereżempju, is-Siti ta' Wirt Dinji jistgħu jkunu fdalijiet antiki jew strutturi storiċi, binjiet, bliet (fl-1978 Quito, l-Ekwador, u Krakovja, il-Polonja, kienu l-ewwel żewġ bliet sħaħ li ġew iddikjarati bħala Siti ta' Wirt Dinji tal-UNESCO), deżerti, foresti, gżejjer, lagi, monumenti, muntanji, jew żoni b'natura selvaġġa. Sit ta' Wirt Dinji jista' jirrappreżenta kisba notevoli tal-umanità, u jservi bħala evidenza tal-istorja intellettwali tagħna fid-dinja, jew ikun post ta' ġmiel naturali kbir. Minn Lulju 2021, jeżistu 1,154 Sit ta' Wirt Dinji (897 sit kulturali, 218-il sit naturali, u 39 sit ‘imħallat', jiġifieri jkun hemm kulturali kif ukoll naturali) f'167 pajjiż. L-Italja, bi 58 sit, hija l-pajjiż bl-ikbar ammont ta' Siti ta' Wirt Dinji, segwita miċ-Ċina b'56 sit.
 Il-ħsieb wara s-siti huwa li jiġu kkonservati għall-posterità, għaliex inkella jissograw iġarrbu xi ħsara mill-aċċess mhux sorveljat, mhux kontrollat jew mhux ristrett tal-annimali jew tal-bniedem, jew ikunu mhedda minħabba xi negliġenza amministrattiva lokali. Is-siti jiġu ddemarkati mill-UNESCO bħala żoni protetti. Il-lista tas-siti jieħu ħsiebha l-Programm tal-Wirt Dinji amministrat mill-Kumitat għall-Wirt Dinji tal-UNESCO, magħmul minn 21 Stat Membru li jiġu eletti mill-Assemblea Ġenerali tagħhom. Il-Programm jikkataloga, jelenka u jikkonserva s-siti ta' importanza kulturali jew naturali straordinarja għall-kultura u għall-wirt komuni tal-umanità. Il-Programm ingħata bidu mill-"Konvenzjoni dwar il-Protezzjoni tal-Wirt Kulturali u Naturali Dinji", li ġiet adottata mill-Konferenza Ġenerali tal-UNESCO fis-16 ta' Novembru 1972. Minn dak iż-żmien 'l hawn, 193 Stat Membru rratifikaw il-Konvenzjoni, li titqies bħala wieħed mill-iktar ftehimiet internazzjonali rrikonoxxuti l-iktar madwar id-dinja u bħala wieħed mill-iktar programmi kulturali popolari fid-dinja. Dawn l-Istati Membri huma maqsuma f'ħames żoni/reġjuni tad-dinja: l-Afrika, l-Istati Għarab, l-Asja u l-Paċifiku, l-Ewropa u l-Amerka ta' Fuq, u l-Amerka Latina u l-Karibew.
 Storja
 Oriġini
 Fl-1954, il-gvern tal-Eġittu ddeċieda li jibni d-Diga ta' Aswan, li kienet tfisser il-ħolqien futur ta' ġibjun li kien se jgħerreq medda kbira tal-wied tan-Nil, mimlija teżori kulturali tal-Eġittu u ta' Nubja tal-qedem. Fl-1959, il-gvernijiet tal-Eġittu u tas-Sudan talbu lill-UNESCO tgħinhom jipproteġu u jsalvaw il-monumenti u s-siti li kienu fil-periklu. Fl-1960, id-Direttur Ġenerali tal-UNESCO nieda l-Kampanja Internazzjonali biex jiġu Salvati l-Monumenti ta' Nubja. Din irriżultat fl-iskavi u fir-reġistrazzjoni ta' mijiet ta' siti, fl-irkupru ta' eluf ta' oġġetti, kif ukoll fis-salvataġġ u r-rilokazzjoni ta' diversi tempji importanti f'elevazzjoni ogħla mil-livell tal-ilma tad-diga. Fost l-iktar tempji famużi kien hemm dawk ta' Abu Simbel u Philae. Il-kampanja ntemmet fl-1980 u ġiet ikkunsidrata bħala suċċess. Sabiex irodd ħajr lil dawk il-pajjiżi li taw kontribut speċjali biex il-kampanja tirnexxi, l-Eġittu tahom erba' tempji bħala donazzjoni: it-Tempju ta' Dendur ġie mċaqlaq lejn il-Metropolitan Museum of Art fi New York, l-Istati Uniti, it-Tempju ta' Debod ġie mċaqlaq lejn il-Parque del Oeste f'Madrid, it-Tempju ta' Taffeh ġie mċaqlaq lejn ir-Rijksmuseum van Oudheden f'Amsterdam, in-Netherlands, u t-Tempju ta' Ellesyia ġie mċaqlaq lejn il-Museo Egizio f'Torino, l-Italja.
 Il-proġett sewa US$80 miljun, u madwar $40 miljun minnhom inġabru minn 50 pajjiż. Is-suċċess tal-proġett wassal għal kampanji oħra ta' salvagwardja, fosthom dawk biex jiġu salvati Venezja u l-laguna tagħha fl-Italja, il-fdalijiet ta' Mohenjo-daro fil-Pakistan, u t-Tempju ta' Borobodur fl-Indoneżja. Flimkien mal-Kunsill Internazzjonali għall-Monumenti u s-Siti (ICOMOS), l-UNESCO mbagħad bdiet tfassal abbozz ta' konvenzjoni għall-protezzjoni tal-wirt kulturali.
 Konvenzjoni u sfond
 Il-konvenzjoni (id-dokument iffirmat tal-ftehim internazzjonali) li tiggwida l-ħidma tal-Kumitat għall-Wirt Dinji ġiet żviluppata fuq perjodu ta' seba' snin (1965-1972).
 L-Istati Uniti taw bidu għall-idea li jiġu ssalvagwardjati l-postijiet li jkollhom importanza kulturali jew naturali kbira. Konferenza li seħħet fil-White House fl-1965 sejħet għal Grupp tal-Wirt Dinji ("World Heritage Trust") biex jippreserva "ż-żoni naturali u xeniċi kif ukoll is-siti storiċi straordinarji tad-dinja għall-ġenerazzjonijiet attwali u futuri kollha". Fl-1968, l-Unjoni Internazzjonali għall-Konservazzjoni tan-Natura żviluppat proposti simili, u fl-1972 dawn ġew ippreżentati lill-Konferenza tan-Nazzjonijiet Uniti dwar l-Ambjent Uman fi Stokkolma, l-Iżvezja. Fi ħdan il-Kumitat għall-Wirt Dinji, il-pajjiżi firmatarji huma meħtieġa jipproduċu u jippreżentaw rapportar perjodiku tad-data sabiex il-kumitat ikollu ħarsa ġenerali għal kull pajjiż parteċipant tal-implimentazzjoni tal-Konvenzjoni tal-Wirt Dinji u tal-kundizzjonijiet attwali tas-Siti ta' Wirt Dinji.
 Abbażi tal-abbozz tal-konvenzjoni li kienet ħejjiet l-UNESCO, eventwalment intlaħaq qbil bejn il-partijiet kollha fuq test uniku, u fis-16 ta' Novembru 1972 "il-Konvenzjoni Dwar il-Protezzjoni tal-Wirt Kulturali u Naturali Dinji" ġiet adottata mill-Konferenza Ġenerali tal-UNESCO. Il-Konvenzjoni daħlet fis-seħħ fis-17 ta' Diċembru 1975. Sa minn Ġunju 2020, ġiet irratifikata minn 193 parti: 189 Stat Membru tan-NU, 2 stati osservaturi tan-NU (is-Santa Sede u l-Palestina) u 2 stati f'assoċjazzjoni ħielsa ma' New Zealand (il-Gżejjer Cook u Niue). Erba' Stati Membri tan-NU biss ma rratifikawx il-Konvenzjoni: il-Liechtenstein, Nauru, is-Somalja u Tuvalu.
 Objettivi u riżultati pożittivi
 Billi tassenja t-titlu ta' Siti ta' Wirt Dinji lil xi postijiet, l-UNESCO trid tkun ta' għajnuna biex ikunu jistgħu jitgawdew mill-ġenerazzjonijiet futuri. Il-motivazzjoni tal-UNESCO hi li "l-wirt huwa l-legat tagħna mill-imgħoddi, dak li ngħixu bih illum" u li kemm il-wirt kulturali kif ukoll dak naturali huma "sorsi ta' ħajja u ta' ispirazzjoni li ma jista' jeħdilhom posthom xejn". Il-missjoni tal-UNESCO fir-rigward tal-wirt dinji fiha tmien sottogħanijiet. Dawn jinkludu t-tħeġġiġ tal-impenn tal-pajjiżi u tal-popolazzjoni lokali favur il-konservazzjoni tal-wirt dinji b'diversi modi, il-provvista ta' assistenza ta' emerġenza għal siti fil-periklu, l-offerta ta' assistenza teknika u ta' taħriġ professjonali, u l-appoġġ għall-attivitajiet tal-Istati Membri biex ikun hemm sensibilizzazzjoni tal-pubbliku.
 Meta sit jiġi elenkat bħala Sit ta' Wirt Dinji, dan jista' jkollu impatt pożittiv fuq is-sit stess, fuq l-ambjent tiegħu, kif ukoll fuq l-interazzjonijiet bejn is-sit u l-ambjent tiegħu. Ladarba jiġi elenkat, Sit ta' Wirt Dinji jikseb rikonoxximent internazzjonali u protezzjoni legali, u jista' jingħata finanzjament, fost l-oħrajn mill-Fond tal-Wirt Dinji, sabiex tiġi ffaċilitata l-konservazzjoni tiegħu b'ċerti kundizzjonijiet. L-UNESCO ssemmi r-restawr tal-erba' siti li ġejjin bħala ġrajjiet ta' suċċess: Angkor Wat fil-Kambodja, il-Belt Antika ta' Dubrovnik fil-Kroazja, il-Minjiera tal-Melħ ta' Wieliczka qrib Krakovja, fil-Polonja, u ż-Żona ta' Konservazzjoni ta' Ngorongoro fit-Tanzanija. Barra minn hekk, il-popolazzjoni lokali qrib is-sit tista' tgawdi minn żieda sinifikanti fid-dħul mit-turiżmu. Meta jkun hemm interazzjonijiet sinifikanti bejn in-nies u l-ambjent naturali, dawn jistgħu jiġu rrikonoxxuti bħala "pajsaġġi kulturali" u jgħoddu bħala sit fihom infushom. Dan ir-rikonoxximent ilu jeżisti mill-1992.
 Proċess tan-nominazzjoni
 L-ewwel u qabel kollox pajjiż irid jelenka s-siti kulturali u naturali sinifikanti tiegħu f'dokument magħruf bħala Lista Indikattiva. Dan huwa pass importanti għaliex pajjiż ma jistax jaqbad u jinnomina xi sit li ma jkunx għadu ġie inkluż fil-Lista Indikattiva tiegħu. Ladarba jagħmel dan l-ewwel pass, pajjiż jista' jqiegħed xi siti magħżulin minn dik il-lista f'Dokument tan-Nominazzjoni, li jiġi evalwat mill-Kunsill Internazzjonali għall-Monumenti u s-Siti u mill-Unjoni Internazzjonali għall-Konservazzjoni tan-Natura. Imbagħad, dawn il-korpi jistgħu jagħmlu r-rakkomandazzjonijiet tagħhom lill-Kumitat għall-Wirt Dinji. Il-Kumitat jiltaqa' darba fis-sena biex jiddetermina jekk sit innominat għandux jiddaħħal fil-Lista tal-Wirt Dinji; xi kultant jiddifferixxi d-deċiżjoni tiegħu jew jitlob iktar tagħrif mill-pajjiż li jkun innomina s-sit. B'kollox hemm għaxar kriterji tal-għażla u biex sit jiġi inkluż fil-Lista tal-Wirt Dinji, irid jissodisfa minn tal-inqas wieħed minnhom.
 Kriterji tal-għażla
 Sal-2004 kien hemm sitt kriterji għall-wirt kulturali u erba' għall-wirt naturali. Fl-2005 dan ġie mmodifikat u issa hemm sett wieħed biss ta' għaxar kriterji. Is-siti li jiġu nnominati jrid ikollhom "valur universali straordinarju" u jridu jissodisfaw minn tal-inqas wieħed mill-għaxar kriterji. L-uniku eċċezzjoni huwa l-kriterju 6 li l-Kumitat għall-Wirt Dinji jqis li preferibbilment għandu jkun ikkombinat ma' xi kriterju ieħor. Dawn il-kriterji ġew immodifikati jew emendati diversi drabi minn mindu tfasslu iżda l-għaxar kriterji attwali huma dawn li ġejjin:
 "Rappreżentazzjoni ta' kapulavur frott il-kreattività tal-bniedem";
 "Wirja ta' skambju importanti ta' valuri umani, tul perjodu ta' żmien jew fi ħdan żona kulturali fid-dinja, dwar l-iżviluppi fl-arkitettura jew it-teknoloġija, l-arti monumentali, l-ippjanar tal-bliet jew id-disinn tal-pajsaġġ";
 "Xhieda unika jew minn tal-inqas eċċezzjonali ta' tradizzjoni kulturali jew ta' ċivilizzazzjoni li għadha ħajja jew li għebet";
 "Eżempju straordinarju ta' tip ta' bini, ta' grupp ta' siti jew ta' pajsaġġ arkitettoniku jew teknoloġiku li joħroġ fid-dieher stadju/i sinifikanti fl-istorja tal-bniedem";
 "Eżempju straordinarju ta' insedjament uman tradizzjonali, ta' użu tal-art jew ta' użu tal-baħar, li jirrappreżenta kultura (jew kulturi), jew interazzjoni umana mal-ambjent, speċjalment meta jkun sar vulnerabbli minħabba l-impatt ta' bidla irreversibbli";
 "Assoċjazzjoni diretta jew tanġibbli ma' avvenimenti jew ma' tradizzjonijiet ħajjin, ma' ideat jew ma' twemmin, jew ma' xogħlijiet artistiċi jew letterarji ta' valur universali straordinarju";
 "Post fejn iseħħu fenomeni naturali tal-għaġeb jew fejn hemm żoni ta' ġmiel naturali u ta' importanza estetika eċċezzjonali";
 "Eżempju straordinarju li jirrappreżenta stadji importanti tal-istorja tad-dinja, inkluż it-trapass tal-ħajja, il-proċessi ġeoloġiċi kontinwi sinifikanti fl-iżvilupp tat-tipi differenti ta' art, jew il-karatteristiċi ġeomorfiċi jew fiżjografiċi sinifikanti";
 "Eżempju straordinarju li jirrappreżenta proċessi ekoloġiċi u bijoloġiċi kontinwi sinifikanti fl-evoluzzjoni u fl-iżvilupp ta' ekosistemi u ta' komunitajiet ta' pjanti u ta' annimali terrestri, tal-ilma ħelu, kostali u tal-baħar";
 "Post fejn hemm l-iktar ħabitats naturali importanti u sinifikanti għall-konservazzjoni fil-post tad-diversità bijoloġika, inkluż fejn hemm speċijiet mhedda ta' valur universali straordinarju mill-perspettiva tax-xjenza jew tal-konservazzjoni".
 Estensjonijiet u modifiki oħra
 Pajjiż jista' jitlob estensjoni jew tnaqqis tal-konfini, jimmodifika l-isem uffiċjali, jew jibdel l-kriterji tal-għażla ta' wieħed jew iktar mis-Siti ta' Wirt Dinji tiegħu li diġà jkunu iskritti fil-lista tal-UNESCO. Kwalunkwe proposta biex issir xi bidla sinifikanti fil-konfini jew biex jiġu mmodifikati l-kriterji tal-għażla ta' xi sit iridu jiġu ppreżentati bħallikieku s-sit kien qed jiġi nnominat mill-ġdid, inkluż li jitqiegħed l-ewwel fil-Lista Indikattiva tal-pajjiż u mbagħad fid-Dokument tan-Nominazzjoni. Meta ssir talba biex ikun hemm bidla żgħira fil-konfini, waħda li ma jkollhiex impatt sinifikanti fuq is-sit inġenerali jew li ma taffettwax il-valur universali straordinarju tiegħu, xorta waħda tiġi evalwata mill-korpi konsultattivi qabel ma tintbagħat lill-Kumitat. Tali proposti jistgħu jiġu rrifjutati kemm mill-korpi konsultattivi kif ukoll mill-Kumitat jekk fil-fehma tagħhom il-bidla tkun waħda sinifikanti minflok waħda minuri. Il-proposti biex jinbidel l-isem uffiċjali ta' xi sit jintbagħtu direttament lill-Kumitat.
 Siti ta' Wirt Dinji fil-Periklu
 Sit jista' jitniżżel fil-Lista ta' Siti ta' Wirt Dinji fil-Periklu jekk il-kundizzjonijiet tiegħu jew esterni jheddu l-karatteristiċi li għalihom is-sit tniżżel fil-Lista tal-Wirt Dinji. Dawn jinvolvu pereżempju l-kunflitti armati u l-gwerer, id-diżastri naturali, it-tniġġis, l-insib, l-urbanizzazzjoni mhux ikkontrollata jew l-iżvilupp uman eċċessiv. Din il-lista ta' siti fil-periklu għandha l-għan li żżid is-sensibilizzazzjoni internazzjonali fir-rigward tat-theddidiet, filwaqt li tħeġġeġ it-teħid ta' miżuri biex jilqgħu għalihom. It-theddidiet jistgħu ikunu theddidiet imminenti jew potenzjali li jista' jkollhom effetti avversi fuq sit partikolari.
 L-istat ta' konservazzjoni ta' kull sit fil-Lista ta' Siti ta' Wirt Dinji fil-Periklu tiġi rieżaminata kull sena; u mbagħad, il-Kumitat jista' jitlob li jittieħdu miżuri addizzjonali, li s-sit jitħassar minn dik il-lista jekk ma jkunx hemm iktar theddidiet, jew li s-sit jitħassar kemm minn dik il-lista kif ukoll mil-Lista tal-Wirt Dinji tal-UNESCO. Din tal-aħħar ġrat tlieta darbiet biss għal tliet siti: is-Santwarju tal-Għażżiel Għarab (Oryx leucoryx bil-Latin) fl-Oman, il-pajsaġġ kulturali tal-Wied tax-Xmara Elbe fi Dresden, il-Ġermanja, u l-Belt Merkantili Marittima ta' Liverpool, ir-Renju Unit. Is-Santwarju tal-Għażżiel Għarab fl-Oman tħassar direttament mil-Lista tal-Wirt Dinji fl-2007, minflok tpoġġa l-ewwel fil-lista tas-siti fil-periklu, wara li l-gvern tal-Oman ddeċieda li jnaqqas id-daqs taż-żona protetta b'90 %. Il-pajsaġġ kulturali tal-Wied tax-Xmara Elbe fi Dresden, l-ewwel tpoġġa fil-lista tas-siti fil-periklu fl-2006, wara li l-Kumitat għall-Wirt Dinji ddeċieda li l-pjanijiet ta' kostruzzjoni tal-Pont Waldschlösschen kienu se jalteraw b'mod sinifikanti l-pajsaġġ tal-wied. Minkejja li l-Kunsill Lokali tal-Belt ta' Dresden ipprova jwaqqaf il-kostruzzjoni tal-pont, diversi deċiżjonijiet tal-qorti ppermettew il-kostruzzjoni tal-pont xorta waħda, u b'hekk il-wied tneħħa mil-Lista tal-Wirt Dinji fl-2009. Il-Belt Merkantili Marittima ta' Liverpool tħassret mil-lista tas-Siti ta' Wirt Dinji f'Lulju 2021 minħabba l-kostruzzjoni ta' bosta binjiet moderni fil-qalba tas-sit, speċjalment il-proġett tal-grawnd il-ġdid tal-Everton FC.
 Mill-ewwel valutazzjoni globali biex jitkejlu b'mod kwantitattiv it-theddidiet għas-Siti Naturai ta' Wirt Dinji threats to Natural World Heritage Sites ħareġ li f'dawn l-aħħar għoxrin sena, 63 % tas-siti naturali ġarrbu xi ħsara minħabba żieda fil-pressjoni mill-attivitajiet tal-bniedem, pereżempju l-bini ta' toroq, ta' infrastruttura agrikola u ta' insedjamenti. Dawn l-attivitajiet ipoġġu lis-Siti Naturali ta' Wirt Dinji fil-periklu u jistgħu jikkompromettu l-valur universali straordinarju tagħhom. Mis-Siti Naturali ta' Wirt Dinji li fihom xi tip ta' foresta, 91 % minnhom esperjenzaw xi telf ta' foresti mis-sena 2000 'l hawn. Ħafna minnhom huma mhedda ferm iktar milli kien maħsub u jeħtieġu azzjoni immedjata ta' konservazzjoni.
 Barra minn hekk, il-qerda tal-assi kulturali u tas-siti li jiffurmaw parti integranti mill-identità ta' pajjiż saret waħda mill-objettivi primarji tal-gwerer asimetriċi moderni. Sfortunatament, f'dawn l-aħħar snin, it-terroristi, ir-ribelli u l-armati merċenarji qabdu jkissru b'mod deliberat is-siti arkeoloġiċi, jeqirdu l-monumenti sagri u lajċi, u jisirqu l-affarijiet mil-libreriji, mill-arkivji u mill-mużewijiet. It-tim konġunt tan-NU u tal-UNESCO għaż-żamma tal-paċi, b'kooperazzjoni mal-Organizzazzjoni Internazzjonali tat-Tarka Blu (Blue Shield International), huwa attiv biex jipprevjeni kemm jista' jkun dawn l-atti. Barra minn hekk, jitħejjew listi apposta ta' assi kulturali li mhux suppost jiġu affettwati minn attakki mill-ajru. Madankollu, l-implimentazzjoni sostenibbli tal-protezzjoni tas-Siti ta' Wirt Dinji, tal-fdalijiet arkeoloġiċi, tas-siti u tal-artefatti arkeoloġiċi mill-qerda, mill-ħsarat u mis-serq, tista' ssir biss permezz tal-kooperazzjoni mal-popolazzjonijiet lokali.
 Kritika
 Minkejja s-suċċessi tal-Lista tal-Wirt Dinji tal-UNESCO fil-promozzjoni tal-konservazzjoni, dan il-proġett amministrat mill-UNESCO rċieva wkoll xi kritika. Din il-kritika tressqet minħabba l-perċezzjoni ta' sottorappreżentanza ta' siti ta' wirt kulturali barra l-Ewropa, diżgwidi dwar xi deċiżjonijiet rigward l-għażla tas-siti, u l-impatt negattiv tat-turiżmu tal-massa fuq ċerti siti li xi kultant isibuha diffiċli biex ilaħħqu maż-żieda rapida fin-numru ta' viżitaturi. B'xorti ħażina, żviluppat industrija kbira ta' pressjoni biex siti partikolari jsiru Sit ta' Wirt Dinji minħabba li dan ir-rikonoxximent jista' jġib miegħu żieda sinifikanti fl-introjtu mit-turiżmu. Il-proċedura biex sit jittanta xortih biex isir Sit ta' Wirt Dinji spiss tieħu ħafna żmien u tiswa' ħafna flus, u għalhekk il-pajjiżi l-fqar huma żvantaġġati. L-isforzi tal-Eritrea biex tippromwovi l-belt kapitali ta' Asmara huma eżempju ċar ta' dan. Fl-2016, intqal li l-gvern tal-Awstralja kien irnexxielu jġibha żewġ biex l-isforzi ta' konservazzjoni tas-Sikka l-Kbira tal-Qroll (Great Barrier Reef) jitneħħew minn rapport tal-UNESCO bit-titlu "Il-Wirt Dinji u t-Turiżmu fi Klima li Qed Tinbidel". Jingħad li l-azzjonijiet tal-gvern tal-Awstralja ttieħdu minħabba t-tħassib tiegħu li jekk is-Sikka l-Kbira tal-Qroll titqiegħed fil-Lista tas-Siti ta' Wirt Dinji fil-Periklu, dan seta' jkollu impatt negattiv fuq it-turiżmu. Diversi Siti ta' Wirt Dinji bħal George Town f'Penang, il-Malasja, Casco Viejo fil-Panama u Hội An fil-Vjetnam sabuha diffiċli biex ikollhom bilanċ tajjeb bejn il-benefiċċji ekonomiċi taż-żieda kbira fin-numru ta' viżitaturi u l-preservazzjoni tal-kultura oriġinali u tal-komunitajiet lokali li fl-aħħar mill-aħħar wasslu biex is-sit inkwistjoni jitqies li għandu valur universali straordinarju.
 Ara wkoll
 Listi ta' Siti ta' Wirt Dinji
 Referenzi
 Wirt kulturali
 Kultura


text:
Sąd asesorski (nazywany także Asesorią) – zadworny sąd królewski (funkcjonujący bez obecności króla) w I Rzeczypospolitej. Powstał w połowie XVI wieku.
 Przewodniczył w nim kanclerz lub w jego zastępstwie podkanclerzy, asesorami byli referendarze i urzędnicy królewskiej kancelarii.
 Jego właściwość określono przy okazji utworzenia Trybunału Koronnego w 1578 roku. Orzekał w sprawach, w których stroną pozwaną było miasto rządzące się prawem magdeburskim lub chełmińskim, albo mieszczanin pochodzący z takiego miasta; a także w sprawach dotyczących dóbr i dochodów królewskich.
 Wobec słabości sądownictwa dawnej Rzeczypospolitej, sąd asesorski jako jedyny fachowy (m.in. dopuszczający mieszczan do palestry) uchodził za najbardziej kompetentny i bezstronny. Odwołania od jego wyroków kierowano początkowo do sądu relacyjnego. Z czasem apelacje od Asesorii zostały zakazane.
 Przypisy
 Historia mieszczaństwa w I Rzeczypospolitej
 !
 Sądownictwo I Rzeczypospolitej


type: caselaw

text:
This action was brought by the appellees against the appellant for the recovery of damages alleged to have been caused by negligent delay in the delivery of a telegram sent to them.
 The appellees are exporters of cattle, and have been engaged in the business many years in the city of Baltimore, shipping large numbers to Liverpool, London, Glasgow and other ports in Europe, chiefly by the Johnston Line steamers sailing from Baltimore. These cattle are purchased through agents in various States, largely in Virginia, Kentucky and Ohio, and are shipped as required from the place of purchase, so as to arrive one day before the day fixed for loading the steamer. Under the arrangement with the steamer line, the appellees contract for space according to the capacity of the steamer, and this space must be paid for whether it is all used or not, and the steamer line gives notice usually a week ahead, of the sailing day, and again notifies the shippers a day or two before sailing, when to have the stock alongside the vessel. Under this arrangement, the appellees in November, 1903, had contracted for space for 505 cattle on the Steamer Ulstermore, and on November 7th were notified by the steamer's agents to have the stock ready for Saturday, November 14th, and on November 13th were notified to have the stock alongside the ship at seven o'clock next morning.
 In order to make up this shipment, the appellees had purchased through their agents in Tazewell, Virginia, Messrs. Brown
 Crockett, 331 head of cattle, which the appellees directed to be shipped on November 11th, 1903, for the Ulstermore, and also directed Brown Crockett to telegraph them when the shipment was made. The cattle were shipped accordingly on November 11th, and immediately thereafter, *Page 445
 on the afternoon of the same day, Brown Crockett sent the appellees the following telegram:
 "Tazewell, Va. Nov. 11th, 1903.
 To N. Lehman Bro. 1819 Eutaw Place. Shipped cattle to-day Brown Crockett."
 Instructions had been given the defendant company to deliver all messages received at night, at 1819 Eutaw place, the residence of the appellees, and to deliver those received in business hours at the office, 16 South Paca street. This telegram was received by the defendant company at 9.30 P.M. on the 11th inst., at its office, No. 321 Wilson street, two blocks distant from 1819 Eutaw place, but was not delivered until three o'clock in the afternoon of the 12th inst., when it was sent to the office at 16 South Paca street.
 Not receiving any notice of the shipment of these cattle during the night of the 11th, or the morning of the 12th, the appellees, in order to ensure as far as possible the loading of the Ulstermore, were obliged to telegraph during the morning of the 12th to points in Fauquier and Rappahannock Counties, Va., where they had other cattle intended for shipment by a later steamer, and did order from these points 171 cattle which arrived in time for the purpose. On Friday, the 13th, the 331 head shipped by Brown Crockett arrived in Baltimore, the result being, that the appellees had on their hands in Baltimore 164 head of cattle for which there was no space on the Ulstermore. This was on Friday; the next market day in Baltimore was on Monday, and there was no opportunity to dispose of these cattle in Baltimore before Monday. In Philadelphia there was a market on Saturday, and the appellees immediately shipped them over to Philadelphia, and there sold them on Saturday, one of the appellees going with them and personally attending to the sale. The result was a loss of $4.43 a head on the 164 cattle, aggregating $726.52, payment of which was demanded of the company, and was refused, and upon the trial in the lower Court the jury rendered a verdict *Page 446
 for the amount claimed, the evidence being that this was the difference between what these cattle cost the appellees, and what they sold for in Philadelphia.
 The only exception was to the ruling of the Court upon the prayers.
 The plaintiffs offered the following prayer which was granted:
 Plaintiff's Prayer. — The jury are instructed that if they find that the defendant, in the usual course of its business, for compensation, received and accepted from the plaintiff's agents, the telegram mentioned in evidence, for transmission and delivery to the plaintiff in Baltimore City, and if they shall further find that said telegram was received by said defendant's agents at the office of the defendant, No. 321 Wilson street, in said city of Baltimore, at 9.30 P.M., on November 11th, 1903, and if they shall further find that said telegram was addressed to said plaintiffs at their residence, No. 1819 Eutaw place, in said Baltimore City, and that such residence was within two blocks from said defendant's office, and if they shall further find that said telegram was not delivered to said plaintiffs until 3 P.M. of November 12th, 1903, and then delivered at 16 S. Paca street, and if they shall further find that the defendant did not use such ordinary care and diligence in delivering said telegram as is usually used and adopted by prudent business men in like business, and if they shall further find that by reason of such neglect, the loss in question arose, then the plaintiffs are entitled to recover to such an extent as the jury shall believe from the evidence, they sustained loss. Granted.
 And the defendant offered the following three prayers which were refused:
 1st. The Court instructs the jury that should they find for the plaintiff in this case, their verdict must be limited to nominal damages.
 2nd. The Court instructs the jury that there can be no damages given in this case for loss incurred by the plaintiff by the sale of cattle in Philadelphia at a less price :han that paid for the same, or for the expense incurred in sending the *Page 447
 said cattle to Philadelphia, but their verdict, if they should find for the plaintiff, must be limited to the amount paid by the plaintiff to the defendant for the sending of the telegram testified to by the witness.
 3rd. The Court instructs the jury that there has been no evidence offered in this case, legally sufficient to show a breach of its contract by said defendant, and their verdict must therefore be for the defendant.
 The defendant specially excepted to the granting of plaintiff's prayer, because there was no evidence offered legally sufficient to prove that the original telegram mentioned therein was addressed to the plaintiffs at their residence, 1819 Eutaw street, in Baltimore, and this motion was overruled.
 The defendant's first and second prayers which seek to limit its liability either to nominal damages, or to the amount paid for the transmission of the telegram, are based upon the rule as to the measure of damages which was applied in Hadley v.Baxendale, 9 Exchequer, 341, and which was adopted and applied by this Court in United States Tel. Co. v. Gildersleeve,29 Md. 251. The case of Hadley v. Baxendale, was reviewed inWilson v. Newport Dock Co., 1 L.R. Exch. 184, and BARON MARTIN, though he had concurred in that judgment, in a dissenting opinion in Wilson v. Newport Dock Co., while sustaining the correctness of the rule as applied to the facts in Hadley v.Baxendale, declared that it was "not of universal application." That case however, remains the law of England, and has been generally approved in this country, and has been too often recognized in this State, to be departed from even if we were so disposed. We agree with the language of JUDGE ALVEY in 29 Md.supra, where he said, "We believe it to be obviously just and reasonable, and we take it to be the true rule upon the subject." In that case, the dispatch was, "Sell fifty gold," and damages were claimed for loss caused by delay in delivering the dispatch. It was proved that this would be understood among brokers to mean $50,000 of gold, but it was not shown, nor was it put to the ury to find that the defendant's agents so understood it, or *Page 448
 that they understood it at all. The Court said this was as likely to be taken to mean fifty dollars, as fifty thousand dollars by the uninitiated, and it was held that the meaning and importance of the dispatch should have been communicated to the agent when it was offered for transmission, and as that was not done, the damages claimed were not recoverable.
 In Webster v. Woolford, 81 Md. 331, where Hadley v.Baxendale was again cited and approved JUDGE ROBINSON directs attention to the division of the rule into two parts, and uses the following language indicating quite clearly the two classes of cases governed by the rule; "The first part of the rule as thus laid down applies to cases in which the damages are the direct and natural result of the breach of the contract, andwhich the law presumes to have been in the contemplation of bothparties. The latter part of the rule applies in cases where special damages are claimed under special circumstances madeknown by the plaintiff to the defendant at the time the contract was made; and in such cases the plaintiff is entitled to recover such damages as may reasonably be supposed to have been in the contemplation of both parties in view of the circumstances thus disclosed."
 The case before us we think clearly comes within the first class thus described in Webster v. Woolford.
 In Jones on Telegraph and Telephone Companies, sec. 519, it is said: "It is presumed they know, where no information is given them to the contrary, that all messages are of importance, and that great loss or injury may be the result of a failure on their part to properly discharge their duty; and that they are therefore supposed to have contemplated all the damages flowing naturally and directly from such failure, though they may not have had actual knowledge of what damages might result at the time of accepting the message." And again in sec. 535, "If it (the message) is sufficiently plain to indicate that it relates to business transactions of much importance, and that loss will probably result unless it is promptly transmitted and delivered, recovery will not be limited to nominal damages." *Page 449
 In this case the record shows that the plaintiffs had been buying cattle in that part of Virginia for twenty years, and that it was known there that they bought for export as well as for sale in this country, and Mr. Lehman said that they received in the course of a year as many as 2500 or 3000 similar telegrams from Brown Crockett from Tazewell, Virginia. At a small station such as Tazewell, the shipment of so large a number of cattle at one time must have been known to the telegraph operator, as well as the custom of the plaintiffs, and such a message bore upon its face the necessity of prompt transmission and delivery. It also appears that this importance was known to the receiving office in Baltimore, because they were instructed to deliver all such messages received after business hours, at the plaintiffs residence, and had been accumstomed to do so up to so late an hour as midnight. We therefore think the damages claimed in this case are such as arise "naturally, i.e. according to the usual course of things, from the breach of contract," and must be presumed to have been in the contemplation of the parties. There are ample illustrations of this view, among which may be cited the following:
 "If enough appears in the message to show that it relates to a commercial transaction between the correspondents it will be sufficient to charge the company with damages resulting from its negligent transmission. It certainly cannot be contended that the agent must be informed of all the facts and circumstances pertaining to a transaction referred to in a telegram, which are known to the parties themselves, to make his company liable for more than nominal damages. If it should be so held, the telegraph would cease to be of practical utility in the commercial world."Postal Tel. Co. v. Lathrop, 131 Ills. 575.
 Where the message sent and negligently delayed was, "ship hogs at once," the measure of damages was held to be the difference between the market value of the hogs on the day the plaintiff was able to put them in market after receiving the delayed telegram, and their value on the day they would *Page 450
 have been in market if the dispatch had been promptly delivered.Manville v. W.U. Tel. Co., 37 Iowa 217.
 Where a message ordered the purchase of stock which advanced in price between the time when the message should have been delivered, and the time when it was purchased under a second message, the advance was held the measure of damages. The Court said, "The dispatch was such as to disclose the nature of the business to which it related, and that loss might be likely to occur if there was want of promptitude in transmiting the dispatch." U.S. Tel. Co. v. Wenger, 55 Pa. St. 267.
 Where one sold cattle for future delivery, at the option of the purchaser, and the latter sent a dispatch, "Want your cattle in the morning," in pursuance of a custom among stock dealers to take and weigh cattle at early daylight, which dispatch was not promptly delivered whereby the weighing of the cattle was delayed, and their weight decreased, the seller may recover for the loss of weight so resulting from the company's negligence.Hadley v. W.U. Tel. Co., 115 Ind. 191.
 It may be observed that in that case the Court cited and approved both Hadley v. Baxendale and U.S. Tel. Co. v.Gildersleeve.
 We discover no error in the rejection of the defendant's first and secondprayers.
 The reasons which led to the rejection of the defendant's first and second prayers would also require the rejection of the defendant's third psayer; but there is a further reason for its rejection. It is well settled that it makes no difference whether the form of the action is ex delicto or ex contractu, the real and substantial gravamen of the complaint is the alleged breach of the contract, and in such a case the same law is applicable to both classes of action * * * and the measure of damages is equally a question of law, and as much under the control of the Court as if the right rested in agreement merely.B. O.R.R. v. Pumphrey, 59 Md. 399.
 In B. O.R.R. v. Carr, 71 Md. 135, the defendant's first prayer, the Court said, seemed to be based upon the theory *Page 451
 that the action was, in substance at least, an action upon the contract of carriage. But the Court said, "This is in form an action in tort," and "in cases of the class to which this action belongs, the refusal or neglect to perform a duty, as well as the negligent performance of it, furnishes a ground of action in tort. In such case, both the non-feasance and the misfeasance constitute a wrongful act, for which the remedy may be either by action on the contract or in tort, at the option of the party injured. The prayer, as an abstract proposition may be correct enough, but it would likely have a tendency to mislead in a case like the present, and therefore there was no error in its rejection." This is directly applicable to defendant's third prayer in the present case.
 There was no error in overruling the special exception to the plaintiffs' prayer since the copy of the telegram delivered on the 12th of November was addressed to plaintiffs' residence, and though the paper shown the witness Binswanger, and alleged to be the original message, purported to be addressed to 16 South Paca street, it was for the jury to determine whether it was the original message, and how that message was addressed. This brings us to the plaintiffs' prayer.
 The plaintiff relies in support of this prayer upon the case ofB. O.R.R. v. Schumacher, 29 Md. 170, in which a prayer was granted which concludes with the precise language of the plaintiffs' prayer in this case, and the ruling was not reversed on appeal. However that prayer may have been regarded in that case, we think it should not have been granted in this case.
 In B. O.R.R. v. Carr, 71 Md. 143, an instruction was granted that "the plaintiff is entitled to such damages as the jury may find under all the circumstances, would compensate him for the refusal of entrance to the train." JUDGE ALVEY said, "This left the whole question of damages at large, without definition by the Court, to the discretion of the jury, and without any criterion to guide them. What compensation would embrace, whether for actual and necessary expenses incurred by reason of the refusal, or the mere delay, or disappointment *Page 452
 in pleasure, or the possible loss in business transactions, however remote or indirect, were matters thrown open to the jury, and they were allowed to speculate upon them without restraint. This is not justified by any well established rules of law * * * The Court must decide and instruct the jury, in respect to what elements, and within what limits, damages may be estimated in the particular action." For these reasons we cannot approve that prayer. But it is apparent, we think, that the granting of this prayer worked no injury to the defendant, and if this be so, there is no reversible error. The declaration claimed $1,500 damages, and if the jury had given that amount, or any sum greater than that shown by all the evidence to be the actual loss sustained in the transaction, there would have been a concurrence of error and injury. But the jury found a verdict for the precise sum testified to as the actual loss sustained, the difference between the cost of the cattle in Virginia, and the amount realized on them in Philadelphia, and under these circumstances we do not feel justified in disturbing the verdict.
 Judgment affirmed with costs above and below.