Scope and Methodology. We reviewed the Starlight concession and use agreement and other related contracts to understand their terms.
Scope and Methodology. We performed our audit work at the Authority’s office in San Diego, CA, from February 25 to May 2, 2019. Our review covered the period October 1, 2015, to September 30, 2018. To accomplish our objective, we • Reviewed relevant background information, which included the Authority’s administrative plan and agency plan. • Reviewed applicable HUD requirements. • Reviewed the Authority’s intergovernmental agreement file and program expenses related to its agreement. • Obtained an understanding of the Authority’s internal controls. • Interviewed Authority officials to obtain an understanding of its program processes, specifically its intergovernmental agreement services. • Interviewed HUD officials to obtain an understanding of the use of intergovernmental agreements. • Reviewed HUD funding and monitoring reports. • Reviewed the Authority’s audited financial statements for fiscal years 2016 and 2017. • Reviewed the Authority’s general ledgers. • Reviewed the Authority’s board minutes. We determined that the audit universe consisted of one intergovernmental agreement that was in place between October 1, 2015, and September 30, 2018. Using the Authority’s agreement log, we identified that it executed one intergovernmental agreement with the County. This agreement authorized the County to perform all administrative and operations activities on behalf of the Authority. Therefore, we determined that a 100 percent selection was appropriate to review during the survey phase. The audit universe totaled more than $31.5 million in public housing program expenses, which consisted of 34 disbursements made between October 1, 2015, and September 30, 2018. Of the 34 disbursements, we selected a nonstatistical sample3 of 13 disbursements of at least $1 million between October 1, 2015, and September 30, 2018. The 13 disbursements totaled more than $17.5 million in total expenses. For the survey phase, we reviewed six disbursements, which consisted of two of the highest disbursements from each fiscal year, totaling more than $8.8 million in expenses. Overall, we reviewed 28 percent ($8,838,684/$31,573,467) of the total expenses that the Authority incurred using program funds. The sampling method did not allow us to project to the universe, but it was sufficient to meet the audit objective. We relied in part on the computer-processed data from the Authority, such as the agreement logs, general ledgers, and financial data schedules. We used the data to determine the audit univers...
Scope and Methodology. An audit of a selected City lease agreement was included on the City Council-approved Fiscal Year (FY) 2012/13 Audit Plan. Six major leases were evaluated based on factors including dollar value and complexity of the lease payments, such as rent based on a percentage of sales rather than a fixed fee rent. We selected the Tournament Players Club (TPC) Lease and Management Agreement (Lease Agreement) for this audit. To gain an understanding of regulatory laws and regulations related to the Lease Agreement, we reviewed: Contract 850060, with amendments 1 through 6, TPC Lease and Management Agreement, between the Tournament Players Club of Scottsdale, Inc., PGA TOUR, Inc., and the City. Contract 860299 with amendments 1 through 9, Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) Recreational Land Use Agreement, between the United States of America and the City. City Ordinance 2632, Establishing a Surcharge on the Usage of City Golf Courses. Administrative Regulation 215, Contract Administration. To verify oversight responsibilities and identify internal controls over terms of the Lease Agreement, we interviewed the Contract Administrators, including a Parks & Recreation Manager of the Community Services Division and a Real Estate Management Specialist of the Public Works Division. We also interviewed TPC Scottsdale personnel, including the Accounting Director, Senior Business Development Director, and Head Golf Professional related to financial records and golf operations. Additionally, we interviewed the Chief Accountant of the Fairmont Scottsdale Princess, which operates The Grille at TPC and provides food and beverage services during the Phoenix Open. To validate the completeness and accuracy of TPC revenues and rounds of golf played, which are key factors in the calculation of lease and ticket surcharge payments, we: Interviewed the TPC Accounting Director to gain an understanding of the TPC’s internal controls over cash handling and revenue reporting. Compared the TPC’s general ledger revenues to point-of-sale reconciliations and deposit records for randomly selected days in FYs 2011/12 and 2012/13. Analyzed the TPC Scottsdale’s general ledger year-to-date revenues to quarterly payments and revenue reports sent to the City. Reviewed revenues reported to the TPC Scottsdale by the Fairmont Scottsdale Princess for The Grille operations and Phoenix Open food and beverage sales. To validate the completeness of these reported revenues, we: o Interviewed the Chief Ac...
Scope and Methodology. UNICEF aims to select a cleaning services provider of high industry standards and professionalism using environmentally friendly cleaning products and supplies, for office premises including both indoors and outdoors (front and back garden areas). The layout of the office is fully at ground level, comprising of office space, conference facilities and common areas (including bathrooms, kitchen and lobby), as well as surrounding sidewalks and garden. The selected company will be awarded initially with a 6 months-contract with the possibility of extension, subject to satisfactory performance for this work.
Scope and Methodology. To identify controls in place and assess the extent to which NASA is adhering to controls related to fair reimbursement, we analyzed all 44 partially reimbursable agreements awarded in fiscal years 2009 and 2010 as identified in the Space Act Agreement Maker (SAAM) database, including the agreement, estimated price report, and justification for waived costs. These agreements were located at five NASA centers (Glenn, Xxxxxxx, Xxxxxxx, Xxxxxxx, and Xxxxxxxx). We reviewed estimated price reports for each partially reimbursable agreement, but did not validate the inputs to the cost estimate, including labor and indirect cost rates. To identify controls in place and assess the extent to which NASA is adhering to controls to help ensure alignment with NASA’s mission and to minimize interference, we reviewed laws and strategic planning documents and analyzed all 34 fully reimbursable agreements awarded in fiscal year 2010 that involved the use of facilities at three NASA centers (Xxxx, Xxxxx, Xxxxxxxx) and one test facility (White Sands Test Facility) as identified in the SAAM database. These centers and test facility were selected because they accounted for the highest dollar value for this type of agreement. For both objectives, we also reviewed NASA policies and procedures for reimbursable SAAs, conducted site visits to three NASA centers, and interviewed NASA officials. Additional information on our scope and methodology is provided on pages 8 to 10 of the enclosed briefing slides. We conducted this performance audit from July 2010 to May 2011 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. Summary At the time of our review, NASA had requirements and controls in place related to fair reimbursement on Space Act agreements and was generally adhering to those controls. Unclear guidance in place at the time of our review, however, may have contributed to variation in the level of detail and format for waived cost rationales. In December 2010, NASA published an interim directive that increased oversight and provided additional guidance for determining when it is appropriate to waive costs. Partner activities appear to be co...
Scope and Methodology. We assessed the reliability of the SAAM database by (1) performing electronic testing of required data elements, (2) reviewing existing information about the data and the system that produced them, and (3) interviewing agency officials knowledgeable about the data. We determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report. • Additional data on the 78 agreements we reviewed can be found on pages 39 to 49. • We conducted this performance audit from July 2010 to May 2011 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. Page 10 Centera Total full cost Total waived costsb Total waived- direct Total waived- indirect Waived as percentage of total Xxxxx Research Center (11) $3,579,559 $1,011,515 $921,850 $89,665 28% Xxxxxxx Space Center (5) $1,319,078 $228,792 $107,945 $120,847 17% Xxxxxxx Space Center (1) $209,777 $25,277 $0 $25,277 12% Xxxxxxx Research Center (23) $27,193,464 $15,614,089 $13,152,388 $2,461,701 57% Xxxxxxxx Space Flight Center (4) $2,117,478 $1,035,978 $915,014 $120,964 49% Total (44) Source: GAO analysis $34,419,356based on NASA data. $17,915,651 $15,097,197 $2,818,454 52% Scope and Methodology Table 1: Total and Waived Costs for Partially Reimbursable Agreements Awarded in FY 2009 and 2010 aThere were 44 partially reimbursable Space Act agreements awarded in total. The number in parentheses represents the number of agreements we reviewed at each NASA center. bTotal waived costs include those instances where NASA agreed to share costs with the agreement partner. Page 11 Centera Reimbursed cost Percentage of reimbursed cost Xxxx Research Center (4) $2,155,265 19% Xxxxx Research Center (14) $4,304,810 37% Xxxxxxxx Space Flight Center (13) $1,808,572 16% White Sands Test Facility (3) $1,839,500 16% Remaining Centers and Wallops Flight Facility(14) $1,509,044 13% Total (48) Source: GAO analysis based on NASA data. $11,617,191 100% Scope and Methodology Table 2: Fully Reimbursable SAAs Using NASA Facilities Awarded in FY 2010 Note: Percentages do not add to 100 due to rounding. aWe reviewed 34 fully reimbursable SAAs involving use of facilities at Xxxx, Xxxxx, Xxxxxxxx, and White Sa...
Scope and Methodology. In 2019, the OIG team conducted an unannounced site visit to inspect the completion and documentation of domiciliary health and safety rounds, and cleanliness. An announced site visit was conducted approximately one month later, which included staff interviews, and inspections of the Emergency Department, and the domiciliary dining area and kitchen. Facility leaders and staff, the VOA domiciliary program manager and staff, representatives and property managers of the CGA, Executive and Deputy Directors of the VA Office of Asset Enterprise Management, and the two county medical examiner physicians involved in the patient’s autopsy were interviewed.19 The OIG reviewed the patient’s electronic health record and autopsy report, as well as facility internal review documents related to the patient’s care. Other pertinent documents that were reviewed included VHA handbooks, directives, and other guidance, facility policies, meeting minutes, nursing schedules, nurse staffing methodology, and relevant organizational charts. The OIG also reviewed VOA documentation for rounding and safety inspections, and domiciliary contract documents. In the absence of current VA or VHA policy, the OIG considered previous guidance to be in effect until superseded by an updated or recertified directive, handbook, or other policy document on the same or similar issue(s). The OIG substantiates an allegation when the available evidence indicates that the alleged event or action more likely than not took place. The OIG does not substantiate an allegation when the available evidence indicates that the alleged event or action more likely than not did not take place. The OIG is unable to determine whether an alleged event or action took place when there is insufficient evidence.
Scope and Methodology. My research seeks to understand better the expansion of the Iraqi armed forces through security cooperation. In particular, I look at Iraqi history between 1968, when the Baath party took over through a military coup, and 1990, just before Iraq invaded Kuwait. I focus on the policies that Baathist leaders pursued throughout this period in order to establish and exercise sovereignty over Iraq and project Baghdad’s power in the region. Furthermore, I look at some of the political and economic challenges that they faced in increasing Iraq’s military power through arms imports. Although military power is a core issue of my research, I do not attempt to describe every battle that the Iraqi armed forces participated in. Instead, I focus on the military campaigns or policies that directly relate to the subject of Iraqi military imports. My methodology involves examining a number of primary sources. Prior to the 2003 invasion, interviews with Baathist officials were limited. Although the Baathist regime was not completely reclusive prior to 1990,78 information on Iraq’s national security strategy was kept as one of the highest state secrets by the Iraqi political leadership. Most historic accounts of Baathist political-military decision-making, therefore, rely mostly on either official Iraqi government propaganda or secondary sources which do not reveal the internal deliberations of Iraqi policymakers during this period. For example, utilizing discourse analysis, Xxxx Xxxxxx has looked at Baathist propaganda sources, such as the daily periodical Al-Thawra, in order to “follow the political processes” in Iraq.79 Other authors, as discussed in greater detail in the 78 A limited number of Western journalists were able to conduct interviews with Iraq’s top leadership in the period under study. For example, see Xxxxxxxxx Xxxx Xxxxx and Xxxxxx Xxxxxxx, President Xxxxxxx Interviewed by American Researcher (Xxx xx-Xxxxx: Baghdad, 1983) <xxxx://xxxxxxx.xxx/details/PresidentHusseinInterviewedByAmericanResearcher > and Xxxxx, Iraq.
Scope and Methodology. The EC8 site classification based on the surface geology (see Appendix A) was subsequently "corrected" in the following cases:
Scope and Methodology. Regarding the scope: • The focus will be on work at semi-skilled level, this is because the partner Qudra project in Jordan implemented by GIZ is already focussing on higher level skills; • The geographic focus will include the North and Centre (where the majority of Syrian refugees reside), but also the South of Jordan (where a lot of vulnerable Jordanians reside and fewer actors have been supporting vocational training in spite of a perceived need); • Specific attention will be given in the analysis to targeted groups, i.e. vulnerable Jordanian youth, Syrian refugees and women. Regarding the methodology, given the variety and high number of actors active in the area of VET and skills development on the one hand, and given the high volume of advisory and analytical work already undertaken by those actors, it is suggested that the assignment will be primarily carried out through information gathering, and hence a meta-analysis and structured presentation of existing information, logically leading up to recommendations for the project implementation team. Should existing information be too limited, additional gathering and analysis of primary data may complement the meta-analysis. Core tasks Below is a broad description of core tasks of the assignment, which will be appraised in the applicant’s bid and details of which will be discussed and agreed within the orientation stage of the assignment,
