Appendix A: Objective, Scope, and Methodology

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL Department of Homeland Security

Appendix A Objective, Scope, and Methodology

Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General was established by the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Public Law 107−296) by amendment to the Inspector General Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. app. 3 (1978).

Our audit objective was to determine to what extent FEMA managed and distributed commodities in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico in response to Hurricanes Irma and Maria. To answer the objective, we interviewed FEMA, Puerto Rico, and contract officials, reviewed applicable policies and procedures related to disaster support, conducted site visits, observed operations, and analyzed LSCMS data.

We evaluated FEMA’s internal controls to the extent necessary to accomplish our objective. Specifically, we developed an understanding of internal controls over the commodity distribution process by reviewing program documentation and other FEMA and DHS guidance, and interviewing FEMA personnel assigned to oversee and manage the process. We assessed the internal controls in place at the time of the response, and examined their effectiveness in light of the evidence obtained throughout the audit.

To determine how FEMA managed and distributed commodities in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico in response to Hurricanes Irma and Maria, we met with officials from FEMA including FEMA Headquarters, FEMA Region II, the Joint Field Office, and the FSAs in Puerto Rico. We interviewed representatives from the National Response Coordination Center. We also interviewed officials from across the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, including the Puerto Rico Emergency Management Agency (PREMA), the Puerto Rico National Guard, the Puerto Rico State Guard, and the Puerto Rico municipalities.

We conducted site visits in Jacksonville, FL, which included the Port of Jacksonville and a Federal Staging Area. We also conducted site visits in Puerto Rico, which included the Joint Field Office, the Port of San Juan, FEMA’s Caribbean Distribution Center, two FSAs, one RSA, and several warehouse facilities used to store commodities.

We obtained an understanding of FEMA’s supply chain management process, including use of LSCMS. We also obtained an understanding of FEMA’s regional planning and preparedness process, including PREMA’s role and responsibilities in that process.

www.oig.dhs.gov 24 OIG-20-76

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL Department of Homeland Security

Our fieldwork procedures included testing a random, judgmental sample of 90 LSCMS commodity shipments from September 2017 through April 2018 to determine whether FEMA could substantiate delivery of commodities. Supporting documentation requested consisted of required shipping documentation for point-to-point shipping such as gate logs, packing slips, shipping sheets, bills of lading, and manifests.

To analyze FEMA’s commodity movements in LSCMS, we performed an analytical review of LSCMS data for 20,012 Puerto Rico commodity shipments for Hurricanes Maria and Irma. We identified our universe by matching unique shipping numbers, purchase orders, and disaster numbers. From the universe, we focused our review on the 11,883 shipments, between September 2017 and April 2018, that contained life-sustaining commodities, specifically meals, waters, blankets, cots, tarps, and sheeting.

LSCMS has data reliability issues, such as missing fields, unknown locations, and no source documentation to provide proof of delivery. However, despite the known challenges, it remains FEMA’s system of record for all commodity shipments.

To increase the overall data reliability of the LSCMS records, we accounted for fields containing inconsistent information, such as those with incorrect or mismatched disaster names or numbers. Likewise, we extracted FEMA’s shipments to unknown locations. Many of the unknown shipments likely contained erroneous transit data that would have skewed overall transit time and quantity analyses. We analyzed these separately from shipments that never passed through unknown locations. Additionally, we used GPS information, where available, to assess the overall reliability of received dates and determined the data fields, including those with manual entries, were sufficiently reliable for reporting purposes.

Although we could not substantiate the total amount of commodities received by Puerto Rico during our testing because FEMA did not maintain adequate documentation, we believe other corroborating evidence mitigates this issue at a summary level. This included testimonial evidence from FEMA, Puerto Rico, and local government officials along with evidence gathered through a survey of 78 Puerto Rico municipalities to obtain their perspective on FEMA’s response to commodity distribution in the aftermath of Hurricanes Irma and Maria. We administered the survey as a structured interview questionnaire via an official DHS OIG email account which yielded a response rate of approximately 38 percent. Additionally, we observed the commodity distribution process and discussed FEMA’s performance with Puerto Rico officials, including the Puerto Rico National Guard.

www.oig.dhs.gov 25 OIG-20-76

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL Department of Homeland Security

Overall, while the data is not without errors and FEMA cannot provide proof of delivery, we conclude that our adjustments, in conjunction with corroborating evidence, make the data sufficiently reliable to support the findings, conclusions, and recommendations in this report.

In response to Hurricanes Irma and Maria, FEMA heavily relied on transportation contracts to fulfill transportation needs outside of the continental United States. To obtain an understanding of FEMA's administration and oversight of these contracts, we met with officials in FEMA’s Office of Contracting and Procurement. We also met with representatives from Crowley Maritime Corporation. Further, we performed a review and conducted testing of the contracts, including their respective invoices and supporting documentation.

We conducted this performance audit between November 2017 and February 2020 pursuant to the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, and according to 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 upon our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based upon our audit objectives.

www.oig.dhs.gov 26 OIG-20-76