Scope and Methodology Sample Clauses

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. 4 2 EPA’s Reimbursable Research Provided Benefits That Supported the EPA Mission............................................................................. 6 ORD’s RRAs Provided Benefits for EPA Program Offices.......................... 6 3 ORD Did Not Consistently Estimate In-Kind Contributions for RRA Projects 12 Federal Laws and Standards, Along With EPA Policies, Provide Guidance for Financial Management 12 ORD In-Kind Contribution Estimates Were Developed Inconsistently 13 Conclusion 15 Recommendations 16 Agency Response and OIG Evaluation 16 Status of Recommendations and Potential Monetary Benefits 17 Appendices A Details on Scope and Methodology 18 B Federal Laws and Standards, and EPA Policies, for Financial Management 21 C Full Agency Response and OIG Comments 23 D Distribution 29 Chapter 1 Introduction Purpose We conducted our review to determine whether the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) benefited from research under reimbursable agreements, and how those benefits supported the EPA’s mission. The EPA’s Office of Research and Development (ORD) receives funds from other entities for conducting collaborative research and development through reimbursable research agreements (RRAs). RRAs allow ORD to collaborate with these other entities to accomplish a shared objective and achieve efficiencies while doing business together. From October 1, 2009, through March 31, 2015, XXX received about $42.8 million in reimbursable funds from other entities under 115 interagency agreements (IAs) and 121 cooperative research and development agreements (CRADAs).

Scope and Methodology. 11. The review covered four Professional posts and one General Service post. A fifth Professional post, the Team Leader of the Joint Information, Communications and Outreach Unit, is fully funded by AEWA but was reviewed as part of the CMS Classification Review. The findings for that post were reported in the CMS report but also included here to show results for all AEWA posts. Temporary posts, interns, consultants and project-funded posts were not evaluated with the exception on one P-2 Associate Programme Management post for which classification guidance is provided. Three GS posts had already been reclassified earlier this AEWA Classification Review (2016) year by UNON/UNEP to G5 and were therefore not included in this review. The post of Executive Secretary was also excluded from this review because it was determined to take the grade level before the AEWA governing bodies for consideration. Within the CMS Family, CMS was covered by a separate contract, while ASCOBANS and EUROBATS were not reviewed.

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 a. The review covered 13 General Service posts and 11 Professional posts. Temporary posts, interns, consultants and project-funded posts were not evaluated, with the exception of informal guidance provided on one project-funded Associate Programme Officer. Because of the retirement of the Team Leader in Bangkok, the consultant was also asked to provide informal guidance on the grade level for that post. Vacant posts were evaluated based on the job description and /or vacancy announcement with clarification as needed from the hiring manager. Within the CMS Family, AEWA was covered by a separate contract, while ASCOBANS and EUROBATS were not included in this review except where CMS staff might work part-time for either group.

Scope and Methodology. The EC8 site classification based on the surface geology (see Appendix A) was subsequently "corrected" in the following cases: