RatherBeOnATrain
Jun 16, 12, 12:18 pm
A March 21, 2012 report from the DHS Office of Inspector General (OIG) (http://www.oig.dhs.gov/) alleged that the TSA "reimbursed" the City of Atlanta $1,354,740.00 for expenses that the City was not eligible to collect.
Here is the report posted on the DHS OIG's website:
DHS OIG:
Review of Costs Invoiced by the City of Atlanta, Georgia, Relating to the Maynard H. Jackson, Jr. International Terminal Checked Baggage Screening Project Under Other Transaction Agreement Number HSTS04-09-HREC154 Awarded by the Transportation Security Administration
March 21, 2012
PDF, 12 Pages, 1.13 megabytes (http://www.oig.dhs.gov/assets/Mgmt/2012/OIG_12-60_Mar12.pdf)
And here is a 1-page "Spotlight" by DHS OIG that succinctly explains what OIG determined and why it matters:
DHS OIG "Spotlight":
Review of Costs Invoiced by the City The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, as amended, (Recovery Act) of Atlanta for a Checked Baggage appropriated $1 billion to the Transportation Security Screening Project At Hartsfield-Administration (TSA) for buying and installing baggage and passenger screening equipment at Jackson International Airport
March 21, 2012
PDF, 1 Page, 158 Kilobytes (http://www.oig.dhs.gov/assets/Mgmt/2012/OIG_SLP_12-60_Mar12.pdf)
Now, nearly three months after the OIG's report was issued, the Atlanta fishwrap got around to covering the story. Here is their coverage from earlier this week:
Atlanta Journal Constitution:
$1.3 million in city bills for terminal questioned
5:57 a.m. Wednesday, June 13, 2012 (http://www.ajc.com/news/1-3-million-in-1457111.html)
The city, which owns the airport and managed the terminal project, sought [$13 million in federal money] as reimbursement for costs of putting in [a checked baggage inspection system at ATL.]
A review by the Department of Homeland Security's Office of Inspector General found about $11.5 million in reimbursement invoices were proper. It questioned about $1.3 million of invoiced costs.
The report said the billings were based on the maximum that could be invoiced for the costs, rather than actual costs incurred. The amounts — $916,914 for design services and $437,826 for project and construction management — were not supported by accounting records, the report said.
Here is the report posted on the DHS OIG's website:
DHS OIG:
Review of Costs Invoiced by the City of Atlanta, Georgia, Relating to the Maynard H. Jackson, Jr. International Terminal Checked Baggage Screening Project Under Other Transaction Agreement Number HSTS04-09-HREC154 Awarded by the Transportation Security Administration
March 21, 2012
PDF, 12 Pages, 1.13 megabytes (http://www.oig.dhs.gov/assets/Mgmt/2012/OIG_12-60_Mar12.pdf)
And here is a 1-page "Spotlight" by DHS OIG that succinctly explains what OIG determined and why it matters:
DHS OIG "Spotlight":
Review of Costs Invoiced by the City The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, as amended, (Recovery Act) of Atlanta for a Checked Baggage appropriated $1 billion to the Transportation Security Screening Project At Hartsfield-Administration (TSA) for buying and installing baggage and passenger screening equipment at Jackson International Airport
March 21, 2012
PDF, 1 Page, 158 Kilobytes (http://www.oig.dhs.gov/assets/Mgmt/2012/OIG_SLP_12-60_Mar12.pdf)
Now, nearly three months after the OIG's report was issued, the Atlanta fishwrap got around to covering the story. Here is their coverage from earlier this week:
Atlanta Journal Constitution:
$1.3 million in city bills for terminal questioned
5:57 a.m. Wednesday, June 13, 2012 (http://www.ajc.com/news/1-3-million-in-1457111.html)
The city, which owns the airport and managed the terminal project, sought [$13 million in federal money] as reimbursement for costs of putting in [a checked baggage inspection system at ATL.]
A review by the Department of Homeland Security's Office of Inspector General found about $11.5 million in reimbursement invoices were proper. It questioned about $1.3 million of invoiced costs.
The report said the billings were based on the maximum that could be invoiced for the costs, rather than actual costs incurred. The amounts — $916,914 for design services and $437,826 for project and construction management — were not supported by accounting records, the report said.