Report No. 7D2-E06-018
Date: February 12, 1997
Office of Inspector General
Washington DC 20420
1. The purpose of the audit was to assess
the efficiency and effectiveness of the Department of Veterans
Affairs (VA) disposal of excess and surplus personal property.
The audit was completed at the request of management of the Office
of Acquisition and Materiel Management. We focused on assessing
program operations in the following key areas: (1) accuracy of
reporting, (2) adequacy of controls over the receipt and disposition
of funds from the sale of VA personal property, and (3) overall
level of compliance with policies and procedures.
2. Personal property (equipment, supplies,
etc.) controlled by the VA is subject to periodic review to determine
if it is excess to needs. Procedures have been published which
are intended to promote the maximum use of serviceable property
which is identified as excess and to minimize the amount of new
procurement. Reporting requirements have also been developed to
provide employees and managers with information on the amount
of property determined to be excess and its disposition. Once
property is identified as excess to the needs of the program to
which it was assigned, it is inspected to determine its condition
and, if not in serviceable condition, could be sold as scrap,
processed as salvage, or abandoned/destroyed. If found to be in
serviceable condition and not needed by another service/activity
within the facility or for trade-in, it is offered to other VA
facilities, other Federal agencies and, ultimately, for donation
to local governments and institutions or it is sold.
3. For Fiscal Year (FY) 1995 VA reported
to the General Services Administration (GSA) that personal property
originally costing $82 million
had been determined to be excess to program needs and had been
transferred directly to other federal agencies, scrapped, abandoned,
destroyed, or sold. VA also reported that personal property originally
costing a total of
$49 million had been traded-in or sold pending replacement with
like items. Proceeds from the sale of this property in FY 1995
by VA totaled less than $6 million with an additional $4.5 million
in sales by GSA and $3.4 million in trade-in allowances.
4. The audit found that much of the effort
which facilities direct towards their excess equipment programs
is focused on clearing away the clutter of worn-out equipment
and on documenting these actions to comply with VA and Federal
Property Management Regulations (FPMR) inventory accountability
requirements. This focus has resulted in less effort directed
toward accurate reporting of program activity to VA Central Office
(VACO) or to the maximization of receipts derived from sale of
excess property. We concluded that the program can be more effectively
managed to enhance its financial benefits, controls, and reporting.
Specifically, we found that this can be accomplished by: (1) assuring
that facilities take available opportunities to retain revenues
from the sale or exchange of unneeded equipment, (2) strengthening
controls over the receipt and disposition of funds from the sale
of personal property, and (3) establishing a more accurate reporting
system that reflects the results of property disposal activities.
5. Our audit found that VA facilities
need to take advantage of available opportunities to retain the
majority of revenue received from the sale or exchange of unneeded
equipment which could increase funds available to support their
program operations. We concluded, and program management agreed,
that the proceeds from the sale of surplus and unneeded personal
property should be retained by VA with the exception of the sale
of serviceable equipment which is not being replaced with equipment
of a similar kind, and which was not purchased through the VA
Supply Fund or through a contract administered by the VA National
Acquisition Center (NAC). Our audit found that during FY 1995
approximately $5 million was transferred to the U.S. Treasury
from VA property sales that should have been retained by the Department.
6. We also found that a lack of effective
control over the receipt and disposition of proceeds from the
sale of surplus and sale/exchange property has resulted in the
inconsistent handling of proceeds by VA facilities. We identified
a total of six different accounts in which funds were deposited
according to local interpretations of what was appropriate. Although
a majority of facilities routinely used a Treasury miscellaneous
receipts account, others used VA accounts including those established
for medical care, supply activities, and recycling. This, combined
with an accounting/reporting system, which we found does not provide
information on the expected proceeds from the sale (or fair market
value) of surplus property, prevents an effective means to ensure
that all receipts are accounted for or that the ultimate disposition
of the funds is appropriate.
7. Although we determined that the two
primary excess equipment program reports: (1) Utilization and
Disposal of Excess and Surplus Property, and (2) Property
Disposed of Pursuant to Exchange/Sale Authority were not accurate,
we could not find where these reports were used to support procurement,
resource allocation, or other significant decisions by VA or GSA
managers. As a result, we concluded that they should be replaced
with a single report that could provide program management with
useful information on property disposal activities. We believe
the new reporting system should: (1) be compiled with a minimum
of manual intervention, (2) address the value of property being
excessed/scrapped/exchanged rather than original acquisition cost,
(3) relate proceeds to the value of the property which was disposed,
and (4) specify the disposition of all proceeds.
8. The implementation of the recommendations
contained in this report will result in more effective management
of VA's excess equipment program with increased resources becoming
available to VA facilities to support program operations. Although
we estimate the current level of these resources to be approximately
$5 million annually, we believe this could increase substantially
when facilities become fully aware of the opportunities available
for retaining the receipts from property sales that are discussed
in this report. The Deputy Assistant Secretary for Acquisition
and Materiel Management indicated agreement with the report recommendations
and provided appropriate implementation actions. The Deputy Assistant
Secretary also agreed with the dollar impact figure discussed
in the report. We consider the report resolved and will follow
up on planned actions until they are completed.
For the Assistant Inspector General for
Auditing
[Signed]
Mr. Stephen L. Gaskell
Director, Central Office Operations
Division
Page
Memorandum to the Deputy Assistant Secretary
for Acquisition and Materiel Management (90) i
RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Opportunities Are Available For VA to Retain the Majority of Revenues
Received From the Sale or Exchange of Unneeded Equipment.
1
Conclusion 3
Recommendation 1 3
2. Controls Over the Receipt and Disposition of Funds From
the Sale of Personal Property Need Strengthening.
5
Conclusion 6
Recommendation 2 6
3. The Department Needs More Accurate Reporting of the
Results of its Property Disposal Activities 9
Conclusion 10
Recommendation 3 11
APPENDICES
I OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY 13
II BACKGROUND 15
III FISCAL YEAR 1995 EXCESS EQUIPMENT STATISTICS - BY FACILITY
19
IV RESULTS OF SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE 31
V MONETARY BENEFITS IN ACCORDANCE WITH IG ACT AMENDMENTS
35
VI DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR ACQUISITION AND
MATERIEL MANAGEMENT COMMENTS 37
VII FINAL REPORT DISTRIBUTION 41
1. Opportunities Are Available For VA to
Retain the Majority of Revenues Received From the Sale or Exchange
of Unneeded Equipment
Our audit found that VA facilities should take advantage of available
opportunities to retain the majority of revenue received from
the sale or exchange of unneeded equipment which could increase
funds available to support their program operations. With few
exceptions, VA facilities return to the U.S. Treasury the revenues
they generate from the sale of excess equipment. This occurs because
facilities do not have a clear understanding of how sale proceeds
may be retained by the Department. Since there is a general belief
that revenue from property sales should be returned to the U.S.
Treasury, facilities have had little incentive to try to maximize
revenues from these sale activities because they would not directly
benefit the Department's mission accomplishment. We found that
the primary focus of property disposal efforts were on ridding
the facility of clutter, rather than maximizing proceeds from
sales which would require additional efforts to advertise, locate,
and negotiate with potential buyers.
Based on our discussions with program management and the Federal
Property Management Regulations (FPMR), Public Law, VA policy,
and VA General Counsel (GC) opinions, VA may properly retain proceeds
from the sale of the majority of equipment and other personal
property whether it is found to be excess, surplus, unneeded,
or worn-out. The only time VA should deposit proceeds to Treasury
are if the property: (1) was not sold as scrap/salvage, (2) was
not purchased through the Supply Fund, (3) was not purchased through
a national contract negotiated by the VA National Acquisition
Center, (4) has not already been replaced with equipment within
the same supply category, or (5) will not be replaced with equipment
within the same supply category before the end of the following
Fiscal Year (FY).
Appropriate retention of sale proceeds could provide facilities
with additional funds that could be used to help support program
operations. In FY 1995, facility direct sales of excess, unneeded,
and worn-out equipment generated approximately $5 million in revenue
which could have been retained by VA, but instead was deposited
to non-VA miscellaneous receipts accounts with the U.S. Treasury.
VA Has Authority to Retain the Majority of Proceeds From Sale
of Property
VA has the authority to retain the majority of proceeds from the
sale of equipment and other personal property whether it is found
to be excess, surplus, unneeded, or worn-out. However, our audit
found that facilities are not taking advantage of this authority
because they do not have a clear understanding of how sale proceeds
can be retained. As a result, they do not keep revenues that they
could retain from property sales but instead return the funds
to the U.S. Treasury. (Details of the results of our survey
questionnaire concerning disposition of funds is in Appendix IV
on page 33.)
As discussed in the following narrative, our audit found that
VA can retain the proceeds from the sale or exchange of unneeded
property involving the following types of disposition methods
covered by FPMR, Public Law, and VA policy: (1) sale/exchange,
(2) recycling, (3) scrap/salvage, and (4) sale of serviceable
equipment not being replaced.
Sale/Exchange: The FPMR distinguishes between
the sale of excess/surplus/unneeded personal property and the
sale of property which is to be, or has been, replaced. Proceeds
from the sale of property under this authority can be credited
to VA and used to support VA activities. The property being replaced
must be within the same Federal Supply Classification Group as
the replacement property. Our audit found that VA facilities believe
that sale/exchange authority is specific to each facility; however,
it is applicable to the Department as a whole. Therefore, if any
facility excesses equipment of the same category which another
facility has, is, or will be buying, the authority to retain/apply
the proceeds from the sale exists.
Recycling: Public Law 103-329 authorizes VA
to receive and use funds resulting from the sale of materials
recovered through recycling or waste prevention programs. These
funds are available for obligation until expended (e.g., no-year
funds). The authority for this program is new and has not been
fully recognized and implemented by facilities.
Scrap/Salvage: Salvage is defined by the FPMR
as property having greater value than its basic material content
but has no reasonable prospect of use. Scrap is defined as property
which has no value except for its basic material content. For
purposes of sale/disposal, the terms are, in practice, used as
a single combined term. Although VA facilities have historically
treated proceeds from the sale of scrap/salvage no differently
than proceeds from the sale of working equipment, our review of
the statute authorizing retention of recycling revenue (P.L. 103-329),
the implementing Executive Order (E.O. 12873) and initial VA guidance
(Office of Financial Policy Bulletin 95GA1-1) leads us to conclude
that scrap/salvage revenue should be considered part of the recycling
and waste management program and thus retained by facilities.
Sale of Serviceable Equipment Not Being Replaced: In July 1993, the GC published an advisory opinion regarding the deposit of receipts from the sale of VA personal property into the Supply Fund. The opinion was prompted by an April 1993, letter from the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Acquisition and Materiel Management putting forth that office's contention that funds from the sale of VA personal property should be deposited to VA's Supply Fund. The GC concluded that proceeds from the sale of excess or surplus property purchased from Supply Fund sources including contracts administered by the VA's NAC were properly creditable to the Supply Fund. Following the GC advisory opinion, in September 1993, VA's Director, Materiel Management Service proposed to GSA that VA deposit proceeds from the sale of VA's excess property into the Supply Fund. GSA responded in November 1993, and January 1994, that it would defer to VA to make a decision on the proper disposition of proceeds from sale and that GSA had notified its regional offices that VA had determined that it would retain the proceeds from the sale of excess/unneeded medical equipment purchased through the Supply Fund. VA needs to assure that appropriate guidance is provided to facilities that highlight these property disposition methods which can generate revenue that can be retained by the Department.
Retention of Revenue From Property Sales Would Provide Added
Financial Support to Facility Program Operations
Appropriate retention of proceeds from property sales would provide
facilities with additional funds that could be used to help support
program operations. In FY 1995, facility direct sales of excess,
unneeded, and worn-out equipment generated approximately $5 million
in revenue which should have been retained by VA, but instead
were deposited to non-VA miscellaneous receipts accounts with
the U.S. Treasury. We believe that once facilities realize that
the majority of these proceeds may be retained, they will have
an incentive to maximize revenues from these sales activities
which would increase revenues to the Department and help support
program operations.
Conclusion
Proceeds from the sale or exchange of unneeded equipment should,
with few exceptions, be retained by the Department. VA facilities
need to be provided with appropriate guidance on how to effectively
handle property dispositions that will assure that revenues from
these actions are retained by the Department to the maximum extent
possible.
Recommendation 1
We recommend that the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Acquisition
and Materiel Management take action to ensure that guidance is
provided to facilities so that proceeds from the sale or exchange
of unneeded equipment are retained for use by the Department to
the maximum extent possible.
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Acquisition and Materiel
Management Comments
We agree with Recommendation 1 that the revenue from property
sales should be retained by VA as a budget enhancement and that
approximately $5.0 million dollars was generated in FY 1995, the
majority of which was returned to the Treasury Department.
In order to furnish facilities procedures and instructions for
processing revenues into VA accounts, a request was forwarded
to the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Financial Policy (047G)
in July 1996. The procedures have now been developed and are being
reviewed by Central Office program officials, as well as selected
VA medical centers. When the procedures have been finalized, they
will be publicized nationwide.
(See Appendix VI on pages 37-39 for the full text of the Deputy
Assistant Secretary's comments.)
Office of Inspector General Comments
The Deputy Assistant Secretary's comments and implementation actions are acceptable and responsive to the recommendation. We consider the issue resolved and will follow up on planned actions until they are completed.
2. Controls Over the Receipt and Disposition
of Funds From the Sale of Personal Property Need Strengthening
VA's current accounting/reporting system does not require facilities
to estimate the fair market value of property that is to be sold.
Although VA has issued financial policies regarding the capitalization
of property and how to derive the "book value" of such
property, it does not require facilities to estimate the expected
receipts from property that is to be sold. Absent this information,
there is no effective way to measure the appropriateness of the
sales price or even whether all of the sales proceeds were deposited
to the proper VA or Treasury accounts. Further, subsequent to
receipt of whatever proceeds are derived from these sales, the
proceeds themselves are not handled consistently among VA facilities.
Although proceeds are most frequently deposited to a Treasury
account for miscellaneous receipts, several other accounts and
funds are used depending on local interpretations of VA policies
and traditional practices which have evolved at each facility.
VA's Accounting/Reporting System For Surplus Property That
is to be Sold Does Not Provide Information on Expected Proceeds
In July 1996, VA's excess equipment program management requested
the financial policy staff to provide a "step by step description
of the fiscal transactions field activities should follow when
processing the proceeds from the sale of excess and exchange/sale
property." The request was prompted "as a result of
numerous inquiries from field activities." In response, a
financial bulletin was issued on "VA Capitalization Policy"
which addresses accounting policy for VA property, plant, and
equipment.
Our review of the financial policy described within the bulletin
showed that it focused on the proper classification of all property
as either "real or personal" and requires that all property
with an acquisition cost of $5,000 or more, or an expected useful
life of 2 years or more, be recorded in facility accounting records
so that depreciation expenses can be accumulated. Our review also
showed that the only requirement that "fair market value"
be determined is for recording assets which are acquired as the
result of trade-in or exchanges. Our review of excess equipment
records for the facilities included in the audit confirmed that
no estimate of fair market value is made for property which is
sold. We believe that this information would be helpful to the
Department in measuring the appropriateness of the actual sales
price and whether all sales proceeds were credited to the proper
accounts.
Disposition of Proceeds Generated From the Sale of VA Property
is Not Consistent and Does Not Allow Total Proceeds to be Identified
Our review found that the proceeds from the sale of surplus and
sale/exchange property conducted by VA were deposited directly
into one of six accounts: (1) General Fund Receipts/Treasury (36
3220), (2) Proceeds of Sale, Personal Property (36X3845), (3)
Budget Clearing Account (36F3875), (4) Recycling Revenue (36X0160X2),
(5) Supply Fund (36F4537), and (6) Medical Care (36_0160). The
majority of facilities we surveyed (66 percent) primarily use
the General Fund Receipts/Treasury account. However, the other
facilities (34 percent) primarily use either the Medical Care,
the Supply Fund, or the Recycling Program accounts. (Details
of the results of our survey questionnaire concerning disposition
of funds is in Appendix IV on page 33.)
Deposits of proceeds from the sale of surplus or sale/exchange
property are made to each of these accounts according to local
interpretations of account descriptions by each facility. Our
review found that these local interpretations vary considerably,
resulting in the inability of VA to identify total proceeds from
the sale of surplus property. This is compounded by the use of
these accounts for other receipts, revenues, etc., making the
verification of total sales as reported in recurring excess equipment
program reports not feasible.
Conclusion
The inconsistent handling of property sale proceeds by VA facilities,
combined with an accounting/reporting system which does not provide
information on the expected sale proceeds prevents an effective
means to ensure that all receipts are accounted for or that the
ultimate disposition of the funds is appropriate.
Recommendation 2
We recommend that the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Acquisition
and Materiel Management take action to assure that controls are
strengthened over the receipt and disposition of funds from the
sale of VA personal property by:
a. Ensuring that sale proceeds are handled in a consistent
manner.
b. Requiring facility property managers to estimate
the "fair market value" of excess equipment that is
to be sold or exchanged.
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Acquisition and Materiel
Management Comments
The procedures for the processing of revenues have been developed
and are being reviewed prior to release to the field. As part
of the instructions, a revenue source code has been established
for tracking proceeds. This should satisfy the requirements as
outlined in Recommendation 2, paragraph a. The Deputy Assistant
Secretary also agreed that facility property managers will be
required to establish the "fair market value" of excess
property that is to be sold or exchanged as outlined in Recommendation
2, paragraph b.
(See Appendix VI on pages 37-39 for the full text of the Deputy
Assistant Secretary's comments.)
Office of Inspector General Comments
The Deputy Assistant Secretary's comments and implementation actions are acceptable and responsive to the recommendations. We consider the issues resolved and will follow up on planned actions until they are completed.
3. The Department Needs More Accurate Reporting
of the Results of its Property Disposal Activities
VA's reporting mechanism for property disposal activities is the
Utilization and Disposal of Excess and Surplus Property
report and the companion report of Property Disposed of Pursuant
to Exchange/Sale Authority. Both of these reports are compiled
and published annually and submitted to GSA. For FY 1995, VA reported
to GSA that personal property originally costing $82
million had been determined to be excess to program needs and
had been transferred directly to other federal agencies, scrapped,
abandoned, destroyed, or sold. VA also reported that personal
property originally costing a total of
$49 million had been traded-in or sold pending replacement with
like items. (Details on FY 1995 excess equipment statistics
by facility is in Appendix III on pages 19-29.)
Our examination of the supporting records
at VACO for these reports disclosed that both were essentially
estimates and could not be verified. Although both are initially
compiled from data reported by facilities, they are then adjusted
to eliminate apparent errors and mistakes which are identified
by program managers in VACO. These adjustments are based on judgment
and at best are supported by a notation of a phone conversation
with staff at the facility, but are frequently undocumented. The
reasonableness of the data reported to GSA was examined during
our visits to field facilities and our survey questionnaire to
37 additional facilities. We found that the data for none
of the facilities were reported completely accurately. (Details
of the results of our survey questionnaire is in Appendix IV on
pages 31-34.)
We believe that the inaccuracy of the reports is the result of
the data being reported having little meaning or usefulness. Local
and national program staff were unable to provide a clear reason
as to the benefits of the data, other than meeting a reporting
requirement of GSA. When we approached GSA as to their need for
and uses for this data, we were told they did not use it. To the
contrary, GSA compiles its own data (acquired directly from forms
submitted by VA facilities to GSA regional offices through the
year) for use in its annual report to Congress which bears little
resemblance to VA supplied data. For example, GSA's FY 1994 report
to Congress showed that VA had excessed $23.8 million in personal
property while VA's own annual report showed a total of $110 million
was excessed (GSA's FY 1995 report was unavailable at the time
of our audit).
Examples of Significant Inaccuracies and Disparities in Current
VA Excess Property Reports
None of the VA facilities which we visited or included in our
survey confirmed the excess/surplus property information which
was reported in VA's annual report to GSA. The table on the following
page presents a sampling of the extent of differences we identified
between facility data and that reported to GSA in VA's consolidated
annual report.
Facility | Acquisition Costs of Excessed Property Per Audit Survey | Acquisition Costs of Excessed Property Per VA Annual Report to GSA | Difference | Proceeds Per Audit Survey | Proceeds Per Annual Report to GSA | Difference |
| Amarillo | $409,583 | $1,770,630 | ($1,361,047) | $806 | $4,143 | ($3,337) |
| Atlanta | $2,606,696 | $585,875 | $2,020,821 | $19,063 | $0 | $19,063 |
| Bay Pines | $79,564 | $916,471 | ($836,907) | $6,503 | $51,353 | ($44,850) |
| Birmingham | $1,614,401 | $ 2,644,230 | ($1,029,829) | $6,271 | $4,107 | $2,164 |
| Hines | $593,860 | $6,053,055 | ($5,459,195) | $3,137 | $25,767 | ($22,630) |
| Indianapolis | $2,594,222 | $643,015 | $1,951,207 | $39,276 | $10,889 | $28,387 |
| Little Rock | $5,968,790 | $2,905,062 | $3,063,728 | $20,550 | $17,364 | $3,186 |
| Richmond | $1,068,226 | $433,468 | $634,759 | $10,569 | $40,319 | ($29,750) |
Although the above examples show large discrepancies between the
data reported in VA's FY 1995 annual report to GSA and the data
for the same period which was reported to us directly by facilities,
we were unable to identify any negative consequence because this
data was not being used. However, with improved accuracy of reporting
we believe that this data could provide useful information on
property disposal activities that could be used for enhanced management
oversight and reporting. (Details of reporting discrepancies
for all facilities surveyed is in Appendix IV on page 32.)
New Reporting System Could Provide Useful Management Information
VACO program managers recognize that a new reporting system is
needed for the VA excess/surplus equipment program. Action is
being taken to develop a new system which is intended to improve
the accuracy of overall reporting. Our review of an outline of
the proposed new reporting system showed it to be comprehensive,
but we believe that some enhancements could be made to strengthen
controls over the receipt and distribution of proceeds resulting
from sales and sales/exchanges of personal property. These enhancements
include: (1) reducing manual intervention to a minimum, (2) including
the estimated market value of property being excessed/scrapped/exchanged
in addition to or even in lieu of the original acquisition cost,
(3) relating proceeds to the value of the property which was disposed,
and (4) specifying the disposition of all proceeds.
Conclusion
The current reporting system for VA's excess equipment program
is inaccurate and cumbersome and should be replaced with a single
report that could provide program management with more useful
and accurate information on property disposal activities.
Recommendation 3
We recommend that the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Acquisition
and Materiel Management take action to include the enhancements
we identified in the new reporting system.
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Acquisition and Materiel
Management Comments
At the time of this audit, the requirement for submission of annual
reports to GSA for excess and exchange/sale activity was still
valid. However, we have received an interim notice prior to a
formal FPMR amendment from GSA eliminating the requirement effective
for FY 96. A revised VA reporting system will address the issues
highlighted in the report. Specifically, (1) manual intervention
will be reduced to a minimum, (2) estimates of fair market value
of property to be disposed will be recorded in addition to the
original acquisition cost, and (3) the inclusion of a revenue
source code will allow for the tracking of proceeds.
(See Appendix VI on pages 37-39 for the full text of the Deputy
Assistant Secretary's comments.)
Office of Inspector General Comments
The Deputy Assistant Secretary's comments and implementation actions
are acceptable and responsive to the recommendation. We consider
the issue resolved and will follow up on planned actions until
they are completed.
Objectives
The audit was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency
of the Department's disposal of excess and surplus personal property.
Specific emphasis was placed on: (1) the adequacy of controls
over the receipt and disposition of funds from the sale of property,
(2) the accuracy of reporting, and (3) compliance with policies
and procedures governing the disposal of property. The review
was requested by the Office of Acquisition and Materiel Management.
Scope and Methodology
To accomplish the audit objectives, we interviewed program officials
at the national and local levels to obtain their views and acquire
an overall understanding of the policies and procedures affecting
the disposal of excess and surplus VA equipment. We obtained and
reviewed written publications and directives issued by VA and
GSA to identify appropriate audit tests and questions which would
need to be addressed. Two facility sites (Miami and Cincinnati)
were selected to be visited based on a review of FY 1995 reports
showing that the level of excess equipment activity at each were
sufficient to provide us with a reasonably fair basis to form
initial conclusions. Following these two visits, we developed
a detailed survey questionnaire which we sent to 37 VA facilities
representing a broad cross section of excess equipment activity.
The audit was performed in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards.
Federal Property Management Regulations (FPMR 101-43) prescribe
the policies governing the utilization and disposal of excess
personal property (including equipment) which is under the control
of the VA. VA implements these policies in the form of its own
directives and guidelines. Included within these policies are
the definitions of the terms used throughout the process. For
our audit, the most important of these terms include: (1) personal
property, (2) excess personal property, (3) salvage, (4) scrap,
and (5) surplus personal property. Following are brief definitions
of each of these terms:
(1) Personal Property - any property, except real
property, records of the Federal government, and naval vessels
of the following categories: battleships, cruisers, aircraft carriers,
destroyers and submarines.
(2) Excess Personal Property - any personal property
under the control of any Federal agency which is not required
for its needs and the discharge of its responsibilities, as determined
by the head thereof.
(3) Salvage - personal property having value greater
than its basic material content but which is in such condition
that is has no reasonable prospect of use for any purpose as a
unit (either by the holding or other Federal agency), and its
repair or rehabilitation for use as a unit is clearly impracticable.
Repairs or rehabilitation estimated to cost in excess of 65 percent
of acquisition cost would be considered "clearly impracticable"
for purposes of this definition.
(4) Scrap - personal property that has no value except
for its basic material content.
(5) Surplus Personal Property - any excess personal
property not required for the needs and the discharge of the responsibilities
of all Federal agencies, as determined by the Administrator of
General Services.
The primary objective of FPMR policies governing the utilization
of excess personal property is to ensure, to the extent practicable,
that such property is considered the first source of supply. Each
VA facility is responsible for making excess personal property
available to other VA facilities and other Federal agencies. Internal
controls are required to ensure an adequate system of property
accountability, and reporting requirements are intended to inform
potential users of excess property of its availability.
Identification of Excess Personal Property
VA directives require an annual "housecleaning" to identify
items which may be excess to program requirements. In practice,
most VA facilities conduct an ongoing "housecleaning"
wherein each employee is responsible for identifying unused or
unneeded equipment and supplies within his/her work area. Particularly
in medical centers, where space is at a premium and unused equipment
can quickly become "clutter" and a potential risk to
accreditation by the Joint Commission on the Accreditation of
Healthcare Organizations, unused equipment is routinely reported
to the supply activity (Materiel Management Service) via a standardized,
multipurpose VA form (Request, Turn-in, and Receipt for Property
or Services). Usually, the employee responsible for submitting
the form is the service chief or other designated official in
whose custody the equipment was originally entrusted.
Inspection and Classification of Excess Personal Property
When the Turn-In form is received in Materiel Management
Service, the property is inspected to determine its condition
and classified into one of three categories: (1) scrap/salvage,
(2) exchange/sale, or (3) excess. Although Materiel Management
Service is to ensure that all required information is entered
on the form including acquisition date and cost, controls numbers,
etc., frequently the equipment being excessed is so old that this
information is not readily available.
Processing Scrap/Salvage
Over half of the equipment/property which is excessed by VA is
scrap and/or of salvage value only. When this determination is
made, the most economical method of disposing of the property
is used. Frequently, this involves the use of "small lot
sales" where like/similar items are stored until a sufficient
quantity is acquired to entice a scrap/salvage dealer to purchase
the property and remove them from the facility.
Exchange/Sale
When equipment is "Turned-In" as a result of its being
replaced by similar equipment, the turn-in process involves an
effort by Materiel Management Service to obtain a trade-in allowance
or the sale of the equipment.
Excess Equipment Usable by Other VA Activities/Programs
On receipt of the paperwork, inspection of the property, and coding
appropriate input into the accounting records, Materiel Management
Service is responsible for determining if the equipment can be
used by another activity/service within the facility. If not required
by another service within the facility, efforts are made to determine
if another VA facility can make use of it. This is done both through
informal contacts (e.g., word of mouth) or via VA's electronic
messaging system known as FORUM.
Excess Equipment Usable by Other Federal Agencies
If otherwise serviceable excess equipment is not used by another
VA facility, it is offered to other Federal agencies via reporting
to GSA via an SF-120 (Report of Excess Personal Property) or an
electronic format (REPADE). When the excess equipment is not used
by another Federal agency, it is re-classified as surplus
property and made available for donation to non-federal/non profit
organizations or is offered for sale.
Disposal of Surplus Personal Property
Surplus personal property is by definition excess property that
is not required for use by any Federal agency. Once classified
as surplus it is available for donation to non-profit/non-federal
entities (e.g., states, schools, charities, etc.,) or, alternately,
for sale to a successful private bidder.
Exceptions
While the great majority of VA excess equipment is processed under
the above procedures, certain equipment, because of its nature
or specific legislation/regulatory requirements are handled somewhat
differently. For example, hazardous materials, weapons, and vehicles
each have specific excessing procedures which apply to them. In
addition, some activities such as precious metal recovery are
treated somewhat differently.
Conduct of Sales
The Secretary of Veterans Affairs has delegated to the heads of
VA contracting activities the authority to determine whether VA
or GSA will sell agency owned property. VA policy is for VA to
conduct the sale when it is in the best interest of VA. Thresholds
have been established to determine when a specific "reviewing
authority" must approve a sale for competitive and negotiated
bid sales.
In practice, each VA facility has a Materiel Management Service
employee who is responsible for organizing, advertising, and conducting
sales including the method to be used. In most instances, this
involves the use of small lot sales where, periodically, similar
items are grouped (used TVs, used medical equipment, communications,
pagers, furniture, etc.) and offered to local scrap/salvage dealers
via an advertised competitive bidding process. When determined
locally that attempting to sell excess property would not be in
VA's best interest (e.g. difficulty in locating a potential buyer),
GSA is contacted and requested to conduct the sale.
Receipt and Disposition of Proceeds
Proceeds from the sale of excess/unneeded VA personal property
result from the following circumstances: (1) sale/trade-in/exchange,
(2) recycling, (3) scrap/salvage, and (4) sale of serviceable
equipment which is not being replaced. In addition to the proceeds
from each of these methods being treated differently, the disposition
also is affected by the means/method of original acquisition and
who conducts the sale.
Sale/Exchange
The FPMR distinguishes between the sale of excess/surplus/unneeded
personal property and the sale of property which is to be, or
has been, replaced. Proceeds from the sale of property replaced
under this authority can be credited to VA and used to support
VA activities. The property being replaced must be within the
same Federal Supply Classification Group as the replacement property
(e.g., Group 65 is all medical, dental, and veterinary equipment
and supplies, Group 66 is Laboratory equipment, and Group 74 is
office machines).
Recycling
Public Law 103-329 authorizes VA to receive and use funds resulting
from the sale of materials recovered through recycling or waste
prevention programs. These funds are available for obligation
until expended (e.g., no-year funds). The authority for this program
is new and is currently being recognized and implemented by facilities.
Scrap/Salvage
Salvage is defined by the FPMR as property having greater value
than its basic material content but has no reasonable prospect
of use. Scrap is defined as property which has no value except
for its basic material content. For purposes of sale/disposal,
the terms are, in practice, used as a single combined term. Proceeds
from the sale of scrap/salvage are treated the same as proceeds
from the sale of serviceable equipment (i.e., usually deposited
to Treasury's miscellaneous receipts account). Although VA facilities
have historically treated proceeds from the sale of scrap/salvage
no differently than proceeds from the sale of working equipment,
our review of the statute authorizing retention of recycling revenue
(P.L. 103-329), the implementing Executive Order (E.O. 12873)
and initial VA guidance (Office of Financial Policy Bulletin 95GA1-1)
leads us to conclude that scrap/salvage revenue should be considered
part of the recycling and waste management program and thus retained
by facilities.
Sale of Serviceable Equipment Not Being Replaced
In July 1993, the VA General Counsel (GC) published an advisory
opinion regarding the deposit of receipts from the sale of VA
personal property into the Supply Fund. The opinion was prompted
by an April 1993 letter from the Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Acquisition and Materiel Management putting forth that office's
contention that funds from the sale of VA personal property should
be deposited to VA's Supply Fund. The GC concluded that proceeds
from the sale of excess or surplus property purchased from non-Supply
Fund sources were not properly creditable to the Supply Fund.
In September 1993, VA's Director, Materiel Management Service
proposed to GSA that VA deposit proceeds from the sale of VA's
excess property into the Supply Fund. GSA responded in November
1993, and January 1994 that it would defer to VA to make a decision
on the proper disposition of proceeds from sale and that GSA had
notified its regional offices that VA had determined that it would
retain the proceeds from sale of excess/unneeded medical equipment
purchased through the Supply Fund.
The primary sources of statistics describing VA's excess equipment
activities are two annual reports compiled by the Office of the
Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary for Program Management and
Operations and submitted to GSA's Property Management Division.
The Report of Utilization and Disposal of Excess and Surplus
Property and the Report of Property Disposed of Pursuant
to Exchange/Sale Authority are prescribed by FPMR 101-43.47
and 101-46.305 respectively. Data for the reports are input to
the VA's LOG system by facilities as transactions occur (sales,
exchanges, transfers, etc.) where they are stored until a consolidated
report is generated.
When the data is reviewed to compile the annual reports, obvious
errors and omissions are identified by the Excess Equipment Program
Office staff (i.e., Special Assistant for Excess Property) and
corrected. Although facilities are usually contacted to verify
the questioned data, documentation of these contacts is not always
completed, and even when documented, it is frequently in the form
of a notation of a telephone call. As a result, our success at
verifying the data in the annual reports was limited. For example,
the supporting documentation, which is maintained within the program
office, did not precisely reconcile with the totals shown in the
two reports (see below). In addition, our on-site audit work at
two facilities and the responses of the 37 facilities included
in our survey questionnaire also disclosed discrepancies in the
data contained in the annual reports. Nevertheless, these data
are the only that exist and, as such provide the only facility
specific overview of program activity. We have therefore included
these data for information purposes and to show the variations
in program activity levels (including property sales and exchanges)
which exist among facilities. (Details on Fiscal Year 1995
excess and surplus property transactions reported to GSA is on
pages 20 - 24, and details on Fiscal Year 1995 excess property
transactions under FPMR sale/exchange authority is on pages 25
- 29.)
|
|
Total Excess Reported | Transferred To other Federal Agencies |
Scrapped | Abandoned Destroyed | Sold by VA | Proceeds from Non Scrap Sales |
Proceeds from Scrap Sales | |
| Buffalo | $409,339 | $0 | $243,145 | $0 | $77,679 | $4,204 | $0 | |
| Newark | $43,180 | $0 | $43,180 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | |
| Pittsburgh | $13,301 | $13,301 | ||||||
| Atlanta | $17,616 | $0 | $17,616 | |||||
| St Petersburg | $162,288 | $162,288 | ||||||
| Columbia | $181,216 | $27,828 | ||||||
| Montgomery | $205,000 | $16,516 | $65 | |||||
| Jackson | $0 | $26,392 | $76 | |||||
| Cleveland | $0 | |||||||
| Louisville | $90,609 | $162,962 | $64,088 | |||||
| St. Louis | $0 | $159,691 | $1,230 | |||||
| Des Moines | $22,734 | $19,874 | $39,570 | $175 | $100 | |||
| Los Angeles | $22,335 | $22,335 | ||||||
| Seattle | $91,196 | $43,895 | $35,316 | |||||
| Waco | $82,245 | |||||||
| San Diego | $0 | $98,265 | $195 | |||||
| Togus | $161,406 | $41,038 | $800 | |||||
| White River | $237,897 | $62,630 | $240,275 | $815 | $861 | |||
| Fort Harrison | $379,151 | $133,241 | $38,824 | $101 | ||||
| Fargo | $301,069 | $167,051 | $61,197 | $321,055 | $2,649 | $137 | ||
| Sioux Falls | $332,100 | $195,947 | $15,156 | $2,227 | ||||
| Cheyenne | $0 | |||||||
| Wichita | $289,006 | $1,269 | $249,657 | $700 | $750 | |||
| Wilmington | $3,214 | $2,802 | $239 | $13 | ||||
| Albany | $130,276 | $21,625 | $21,910 | $5,000 | $501,458 | $12,630 | $2,729 | |
| Alexandria | $1,286,864 | $39,475 | $973,756 | $2,610 | ||||
| Altoona | $34,870 | $8,163 | $22,275 | $248 | $54 | |||
| Amarillo | $1,770,630 | $1,319 | $15 | $11,550 | $3,274 | $869 | ||
| Atlanta | $585,875 | $153,269 | ||||||
| Augusta | $512,341 | $507,434 | $1,500 | $310,110 | $1,062 | $1,043 | ||
| Baltimore | $493,172 | $145,234 | ||||||
| Batavia | $0 | $109,484 | $1,201 | |||||
| Bath | $62,183 | $62,183 | $53,703 | $1,217 | ||||
| Battle Creek | $2,102,806 | $1,172,178 | $69,756 | $59 | $2,198 | |||
| Bay Pines | $916,471 | $642,738 | $820,052 | $48,716 | $2,637 | |||
| Beckley | $298,016 | $12,648 | $263,827 | |||||
| Bedford | $118,217 | $118,217 | $521 | |||||
| Big Spring | $149,972 | $138,972 | $91,736 | $75 | $800 | |||
| Biloxi | $514,562 | $28,124 | $44,667 | $1,020 | $106 | |||
| Birmingham | $2,644,230 | $353,069 | $4,107 | |||||
| Bonham | $198,398 | $84,655 | $2,849 |
|
|
Total Excess Reported | Transferred To other Federal Agencies |
Scrapped | Abandoned Destroyed | Sold by VA | Proceeds from Non Scrap Sales |
Proceeds from Scrap Sales | |
| Brockton/West Roxbury | $2,138,874 | $2,138,874 | ||||||
| Bronx | $979,147 | $865,322 | $113,037 | $100,749 | $676 | $1,193 | ||
| Brooklyn | $363,808 | $344,287 | $19,521 | |||||
| Buffalo | $810,326 | $400,000 | $388,528 | $0 | $453,384 | $11,199 | ||
| Butler | $66,362 | $29,163 | $34,505 | $219 | $632 | |||
| Boise | $50,000 | $50,000 | $28,000 | $923 | $424 | |||
| Canandaigua | $21,249 | $21,249 | $85,866 | $2,499 | ||||
| Castle Point | $138,784 | $20,263 | $15,065 | $2,521 | $1,652 | |||
| Charleston | $603,839 | $186,970 | $520,000 | $4,016 | $315 | |||
| Chillicothe | $235,284 | $235,284 | $49,096 | $1,131 | ||||
| Cincinnati | $852,552 | $119,040 | $17,186 | $350,063 | $671,272 | $6,346 | $172 | |
| Clarksburg | $90,703 | $4,400 | $87,303 | |||||
| Cleveland | $502,856 | $375 | $502,481 | $4,161 | ||||
| Coatesville | $68,749 | $20 | $10,682 | $257 | ||||
| Columbia, MO | $238,597 | $36,443 | $167,862 | $34,292 | $68,405 | $1,735 | $1,674 | |
| Columbia, SC | $122,104 | $27,766 | $94,338 | $245,636 | $68,525 | $592 | ||
| Miami | $600,597 | $46,089 | $10,000 | $12,000 | $40,000 | $14,924 | $5,372 | |
| West Palm Beach | $599,069 | |||||||
| Dallas | $290,304 | $243,641 | $2,005 | |||||
| Danville | $861,349 | $157,644 | $696,019 | $7,589 | $1,165 | |||
| Dayton | $497,517 | $41,233 | $268,624 | $5,727 | $356,962 | $400 | ||
| Detroit | $534,052 | $152,176 | $381,876 | $105,935 | $582 | $346 | ||
| Denver | $708,441 | $573,918 | $127,523 | $50 | ||||
| Des Moines | $107,174 | $29,335 | $113,424 | $2,034 | $200 | |||
| North Chicago | $526,442 | $526,442 | ||||||
| Dublin | $273,903 | $144,266 | $7,894 | $55,581 | $83 | $534 | ||
| East Orange | $71,871 | $71,871 | $630 | |||||
| Erie | $53,808 | $4,787 | $4,000 | $455 | ||||
| Fayetteville, AR | $105,754 | $91,938 | $1,961 | |||||
| Fayetteville, NC | $26,441 | $1,500 | $337,694 | $11,816 | ||||
| Ft. Lyon | $148,694 | $106,512 | $4,776 | |||||
| Ft. Meade | $151,949 | $16,045 | $89,690 | $25,972 | $24,268 | $77 | $2,817 | |
| Ft. Wayne | $386,981 | $49,488 | $286,486 | $3,119 | ||||
| Fresno | $269,828 | $107,576 | $125,487 | $36,765 | $247,892 | $673 | $335 | |
| Gainesville | $538,577 | $19,747 | $207,567 | $5,550 | $90 | |||
| Grand Island | $315 | $315 | $13,595 | $113 | ||||
| Grand Junction | $28,706 | $28,706 | $61,522 | $686 | $95 | |||
| Hines | $6,053,055 | $3,832,596 | $2,220,459 | $991,578 | $18,000 | $7,767 | ||
| Hot Springs | $988,651 | $3,000 | $948,978 | $948,978 | $2,998 | |||
| Houston | $405,099 | $45,156 | $161,062 | $507 | ||||
| Huntington | $95,460 | $60,296 | $22,526 | $4,950 | $202 |
|
|
Total Excess Reported | Transferred To other Federal Agencies |
Scrapped | Abandoned Destroyed | Sold by VA | Proceeds from Non Scrap Sales |
Proceeds from Scrap Sales | |
| Indianapolis | $643,015 | $8,579 | $7,998 | $540,516 | $10,889 | |||
| Iowa City | $143,350 | $18,028 | $125,322 | $9,590 | ||||
| Iron Mountain | $165,805 | $81,273 | $95,333 | $1,742 | $39 | |||
| Jackson | $391,003 | $66,822 | $99,895 | $568,845 | $5,040 | $36 | ||
| Kansas City | $448,722 | $316,190 | $147,770 | $5,575 | $880 | |||
| Hampton | $493,759 | $493,759 | $895 | |||||
| Kerrville | $177,931 | $1,565 | $12,430 | $123,453 | $4,698 | $811 | ||
| Knoxville | $155,516 | $10,372 | $133,373 | $15,830 | $156 | $3,527 | ||
| Las Vegas | $168,694 | $12,913 | $225 | |||||
| Lake City | $149,824 | $76,863 | $13,509 | $855 | ||||
| Lebanon | $302,386 | $176,871 | $84,251 | $182,626 | $723 | |||
| Lexington | $108,534 | $26,676 | $38,506 | $2,144 | ||||
| Lincoln | $0 | |||||||
| Little Rock | $2,905,062 | $1,026,283 | $2,905,062 | $17,364 | ||||
| Livermore | $80,382 | $10,555 | $50,437 | $2,048 | ||||
| Long Beach | $1,435,540 | $251,072 | $1,184,468 | $19,778 | $20,500 | $2,315 | ||
| Louisville | $457,625 | $29,205 | $7,238 | $376,286 | $8,095 | $1,220 | ||
| Lyons | $0 | |||||||
| Loma Linda | $819,458 | $819,458 | $6,225 | |||||
| Madison | $1,534,427 | $917,177 | $147,532 | $275,125 | $1,266 | $1,037 | ||
| Manchester | $108,937 | $63,073 | $10,397 | $35,467 | $169,749 | $5,571 | ||
| Marion, IN | $78,610 | $26,506 | $49,104 | $2,180 | ||||
| Marlin | $17,636 | $10,661 | $200 | |||||
| No. Ca. Health Care | $0 | |||||||
| Martinsburg | $705,430 | $99,238 | $37,180 | $332,277 | $2,062 | $450 | ||
| Memphis | $730,602 | $666,332 | $3,016 | |||||
| Miles City | $113,308 | $35,305 | $18,418 | $658,700 | $443 | |||
| Minneapolis | $596,190 | $108,412 | $336,778 | $10,038 | $1,401 | |||
| Montgomery | $106,416 | $8,445 | $6,878 | $320 | $42 | |||
| Mountain Home | $178,617 | $41,575 | $114 | |||||
| Murfreesboro | $1,066,262 | $381,899 | $272,564 | $12,083 | $2,360 | |||
| Nashville | $605,670 | $59,607 | $479,543 | $164,715 | $1,300 | |||
| Newington | $15,524 | $15,524 | $33,224 | $4,465 | ||||
| New Orleans | $104,119 | $1,041,194 | $5,679 | |||||
| New York | $93,973 | |||||||
| Northampton | $117,789 | $96,269 | $306 | |||||
| Northport | $26,329 | |||||||
| Oklahoma City | ||||||||
| Omaha | $349,581 | $349,581 | $5,047 | |||||
| Palo Alto | $41,868 | $16,485 | $25,383 | $300 | ||||
| Perry Point | $753,335 | $753,335 | $2,250 |
|
|
Total Excess Reported | Transferred To other Federal Agencies |
Scrapped | Abandoned Destroyed | Sold by VA | Proceeds from Non Scrap Sales |
Proceeds from Scrap Sales | |
| Philadelphia | $264,502 | $264,502 | ||||||
| Phoenix | $415,510 | $390,800 | $16,302 | |||||
| Pittsburgh Highland | $800,349 | $372,951 | $380 | |||||
| Pittsburgh University | $693,097 | $229,656 | ||||||
| Poplar Bluff | $99,931 | $6,862 | ||||||
| Prescott | $7,925 | $7,925 | $57,474 | $2,307 | $1,368 | |||
| Providence | $288,165 | $4,250 | $288,165 | $7,044 | ||||
| Richmond | $433,468 | $433,468 | $2,415 | $37,904 | ||||
| Roseburg | $9,179 | $280 | $8,899 | $752 | ||||
| Reno | $290,561 | $6,031 | $1,320 | $129,572 | $1,323 | |||
| Saginaw | $76,738 | $33,989 | $751 | $561 | ||||
| St. Cloud | $154,848 | $134,743 | $8,434 | $1,358 | ||||
| St. Louis | $37,273 | $37,273 | $720,710 | $11,089 | $387 | |||
| Salem | $313,159 | $23,422 | $137,774 | $137,361 | $1,074 | $81 | ||
| Salisbury | $22,000 | $22,000 | $836 | |||||
| Salt Lake City | $1,532,681 | $868,616 | $519,264 | $1,457,297 | $2,342 | $720 | ||
| San Francisco | $1,609,993 | $1,556,296 | $2,154 | |||||
| Seattle | $334,311 | $53,965 | $1,460 | $1,572 | ||||
| San Diego | $891,596 | $244,672 | $226,108 | $460,107 | $705 | |||
| Sepulveda | $1,600,803 | $525,000 | $34,654 | $2,228 | ||||
| Shreveport | $105,384 | $74,346 | $17,232 | $10,000 | $109,675 | $7,645 | $75 | |
| Spokane | $7,505 | $5,383 | $2,122 | $1,695 | ||||
| Syracuse | $9,233 | $2,826 | $18,659 | $532 | $81 | |||
| San Antonio | $600,641 | $0 | $353,276 | $63,500 | $750 | $4,595 | ||
| San Juan | $2,198,482 | $43 | $640 | $640 | ||||
| Tampa | $627,440 | $1,000 | $449,004 | $41,244 | $3,036 | |||
| Temple | $331,734 | |||||||
| Tomah | $411,715 | $125,572 | ||||||
| Topeka | $140,476 | $10,195 | ||||||
| Tucson | $133,248 | $133,248 | $24,358 | |||||
| Tuscaloosa | $475,290 | $475,290 | $156,323 | $103 | ||||
| Tuskegee | $1,140,746 | $1,083,061 | $57,685 | $521 | $279 | |||
| Waco | $554,933 | |||||||
| Walla Walla | $79,630 | $1,522 | ||||||
| Washington | $2,155,299 | $1,995,529 | $5,325 | |||||
| West Haven | $112,019 | $1,932 | $110,087 | |||||
| West Los Angeles | $1,619,186 | $1,619,186 | $4,391 | |||||
| White City | $187 | $371 | ||||||
| Wilkes Barre | $378,686 | $167,358 | $182,385 | $32,117 | $2,940 | $1,200 | ||
| Milwaukee | $390,731 | $105,403 | $1,139 | |||||
| Income Match Program | $1,050 | $1,050 |
|
|
Total Excess Reported | Transferred To other Federal Agencies |
Scrapped | Abandoned Destroyed | Sold by VA | Proceeds from Non Scrap Sales |
Proceeds from Scrap Sales | |
| Columbus | $514,362 | $93,771 | $339,213 | $66,801 | $15,385 | |||
| Atlanta | $32,249 | |||||||
| Bath | $0 | $685 | $26 | |||||
| Calverton | $0 | |||||||
| Camp Butler | $17,321 | $9,549 | $7,772 | |||||
| Danville | $4,619 | $2,049 | $2,570 | |||||
| Dayton | $60,048 | $60,048 | ||||||
| Keokuk | $1,460 | $1,460 | ||||||
| Massachusettes | $2,318 | $2,318 | ||||||
| Alexandria | $191 | $191 | $6 | |||||
| Camp Nelson | $7,838 | $7,838 | ||||||
| Corinth | $9,691 | $9,691 | ||||||
| Jefferson Barracks | ||||||||
| Marietta | $9,814 | |||||||
| Memphis | $28,640 | $28,640 | ||||||
| Natchez | $5,704 | $5,704 | $285 | $20 | ||||
| Zachery Taylor | $0 | $11,380 | $2,638 | |||||
| Fort Logan | $2,810 | $200 | $68 | |||||
| Fort Rosecrans | $25,999 | $1,983 | $177,701 | |||||
| Golden Gate | $241,210 | $176,210 | ||||||
| Los Angeles | $10,456 | $10,456 | ||||||
| Riverside | $3,537,822 | $91,927 | $3,445,895 | |||||
| Sitka | ||||||||
| Fort Mitchell | $5,590 | $330 | ||||||
| Fort Custer | $64,813 | $935 | ||||||
| Ft. Richardson | ||||||||
| Florida | $63,019 | $63,019 | $160 | |||||
| Totals | $78,857,963 | $8,519,578 | $37,847,445 | $2,847,760 | $23,459,836 | $548,846 | $191,962 | |
| totals per annual report | $82,149,971 | $9,533,318 | $39,592,468 | $3,456,035 | $26,966,662 | $508,437 | $123,075 |
|
| Original Cost of Property Exchanged | Value Received in Exchange |
Original Cost of Property Sold | Value Received in Exchange | |
| Buffalo | |||||
| Newark | |||||
| Pittsburgh | |||||
| Atlanta | |||||
| St Petersburg | |||||
| Columbia | $181,236 | $36 | |||
| Montgomery | |||||
| Jackson | |||||
| Cleveland | $14,270 | $2,525 | |||
| Louisville | |||||
| St. Louis | $1,075 | $100 | |||
| Des Moines | $21,590 | $171 | |||
| Los Angeles | |||||
| Seattle | |||||
| Waco | |||||
| San Diego | |||||
| Togus | $36,986 | $5,250 | |||
| White River | $346,303 | $94,106 | $1,635 | $56 | |
| Fort Harrison | |||||
| Fargo | $166,493 | $14,500 | $9,938 | $3,711 | |
| Sioux Falls | $207,598 | $30,810 | |||
| Cheyenne | |||||
| Wichita | $225,076 | $3,704 | |||
| Wilmington | |||||
| Albany | $1,060,473 | $78,900 | $44,960 | $1,124 | |
| Alexandria | $450,846 | $42,961 | $149,407 | $3,542 | |
| Altoona | $1,237,991 | $84,875 | $1,572 | $10 | |
| Amarillo | $114,119 | $64,229 | $28,213 | $106 | |
| Atlanta | $1,738,147 | $130,500 | $2,204,720 | $27,046 | |
| Augusta | $298,181 | $10,000 | $504,872 | $16,467 | |
| Baltimore | |||||
| Batavia | $57,779 | $4,653 | |||
| Bath | $31,822 | $4,112 | $270,644 | $12,130 | |
| Battle Creek | $174,799 | $6,917 | $69,417 | $24 | |
| Bay Pines | $566,520 | $11,738 | |||
| Beckley | $65,245 | $19,505 | $90,654 | $1,218 | |
| Bedford | $205,329 | $8,001 | |||
| Big Spring | $298,887 | $3,283 | |||
| Biloxi | $882,138 | $2,835 | $202,259 | $227 | |
| Birmingham | $205,000 | $3,487 | |||
| Bonham | $64,897 | $6,401 | |||
| Brockton/West Roxbury |
|
| Original Cost of Property Exchanged | Value Received in Exchange |
Original Cost of Property Sold | Value Received in Exchange | |
| Bronx | $413,725 | $127,717 | |||
| Brooklyn | $21,500 | $1,500 | |||
| Buffalo | $186,678 | $7,759 | $834,653 | $22,919 | |
| Butler | $149,285 | $2,572 | |||
| Boise | |||||
| Canandaigua | $6,720 | $600 | $16,269 | $236 | |
| Castle Point | |||||
| Charleston | |||||
| Chillicothe | $23,411 | $5,000 | |||
| Cincinnati | $427,069 | $42,400 | $293,903 | $1,279 | |
| Clarksburg | $213,074 | $5,720 | $74,360 | $80 | |
| Cleveland | $146,618 | $6,100 | |||
| Coatesville | $19,538 | $220 | |||
| Columbia, MO | $1,060,049 | $172,532 | $66,629 | $9,170 | |
| Columbia, SC | $245,636 | $68,525 | $886,439 | $9,200 | |
| Miami | |||||
| West Palm Beach | $5,329 | $3,105 | |||
| Dallas | |||||
| Danville | |||||
| Dayton | $16,877 | $900 | |||
| Detroit | $285,082 | $63,951 | |||
| Denver | $79,300 | $10,550 | |||
| Des Moines | $828,233 | $18,925 | $70,807 | $2,677 | |
| North Chicago | |||||
| Dublin | $425,681 | $79,531 | $67,140 | $5,179 | |
| East Orange | $12,000 | $300 | |||
| Erie | $140,124 | $12,577 | $6,896 | $5,750 | |
| Fayetteville, AR | $163,050 | $1,138 | |||
| Fayetteville, NC | $318,827 | $19,272 | $342,231 | $15,756 | |
| Ft. Lyon | |||||
| Ft. Meade | |||||
| Ft. Wayne | $33,660 | $19,598 | $71,400 | $8,529 | |
| Fresno | $87,128 | $28,911 | $313,957 | $503 | |
| Gainesville | $179,524 | $22,870 | $510,585 | $15,083 | |
| Grand Island | $1,800 | $600 | |||
| Grand Junction | $6,412 | $1,000 | $77,260 | $5,454 | |
| Hines | |||||
| Hot Springs | |||||
| Houston | $244,037 | $2,913 | |||
| Huntington | $891,480 | $22,710 | $5,727 | $65 | |
| Indianapolis | $2,273,690 | $128,144 | $722,778 | $19,033 | |
| Iowa City | $282,034 | $127,996 |
|
| Original Cost of Property Exchanged | Value Received in Exchange |
Original Cost of Property Sold | Value Received in Exchange | |
| Iron Mountain | $2,485 | $1,500 | |||
| Jackson | $49,317 | $17,796 | $75,722 | $1,195 | |
| Kansas City | $17,424 | $463 | $36,263 | $1,211 | |
| Hampton | $55,584 | $8,260 | $407,680 | $3,684 | |
| Kerrville | $4,500 | $100 | |||
| Knoxville | $7,367 | $500 | $123,095 | $10,713 | |
| Las Vegas | |||||
| Lake City | $320,480 | $52,941 | $125,776 | $13,318 | |
| Lebanon | $32,258 | $2,275 | |||
| Lexington | $240,768 | $130,225 | $608,245 | $4,071 | |
| Lincoln | |||||
| Little Rock | $1,476,217 | $71,142 | $544,692 | $574 | |
| Livermore | $24,470 | $700 | $15,005 | $659 | |
| Long Beach | |||||
| Louisville | $166,236 | $28,216 | $795,877 | $5,556 | |
| Lyons | |||||
| Loma Linda | |||||
| Madison | |||||
| Manchester | $44,390 | $17,345 | |||
| Marion, IN | $127,702 | $1,001 | $354,447 | $10,030 | |
| Marlin | $55,886 | $7,000 | |||
| No. Ca. Health Care | |||||
| Martinsburg | |||||
| Memphis | $1,421,820 | $170,900 | |||
| Miles City | $11,083 | $1,000 | |||
| Minneapolis | |||||
| Montgomery | |||||
| Mountain Home | $1,039,791 | $65,470 | $611,038 | $12,106 | |
| Murfreesboro | $183,851 | $31,717 | $239,979 | $2,925 | |
| Nashville | $13,651 | $9,706 | $63,968 | $2,511 | |
| Newington | $82,307 | $500 | |||
| New Orleans | |||||
| New York | $685,846 | $3,230 | |||
| Northampton | $950,427 | $3,400 | |||
| Northport | $149,771 | $32,704 | |||
| Oklahoma City | $137,520 | $34,926 | $57,635 | $34,926 | |
| Omaha | $1,542,526 | $19,522 | $159,281 | $7,261 | |
| Palo Alto | $7,822 | $33 | |||
| Perry Point | |||||
| Philadelphia | |||||
| Phoenix | $1,179,822 | $71,434 | |||
| Pittsburgh Highland | $131,651 | $3,850 |
|
| Original Cost of Property Exchanged | Value Received in Exchange |
Original Cost of Property Sold | Value Received in Exchange | |
| Pittsburgh University | |||||
| Poplar Bluff | |||||
| Prescott | |||||
| Providence | $107,232 | $5,815 | |||
| Richmond | |||||
| Roseburg | $148,500 | $3,300 | $71,363 | $563 | |
| Reno | $37,539 | $12,329 | $7,650 | $668 | |
| Saginaw | $7,896 | $850 | $33,989 | $751 | |
| St. Cloud | $41,187 | $3,100 | |||
| St. Louis | $268,074 | $29,417 | $308,824 | $9,010 | |
| Salem | $1,611,876 | $46,000 | $24,720 | $142 | |
| Salisbury | $347,525 | $4,073 | |||
| Salt Lake City | |||||
| San Francisco | |||||
| Seattle | $85,116 | $29,240 | $264,359 | $12,279 | |
| San Diego | |||||
| Sepulveda | $7,985 | $400 | $404,598 | $837 | |
| Shreveport | $1,265,144 | $189,190 | $80,288 | $5,999 | |
| Spokane | |||||
| Syracuse | $16,956 | $2,500 | $18,659 | $502 | |
| San Antonio | $189,039 | $139,425 | $1,453,837 | $107,362 | |
| San Juan | |||||
| Tampa | $610,691 | $48,103 | |||
| Temple | $172,887 | $1,530 | |||
| Tomah | |||||
| Topeka | $218,701 | $5,252 | |||
| Tucson | $24,358 | $23 | |||
| Tuscaloosa | $75,400 | $11,874 | |||
| Tuskegee | $111,198 | $72,084 | $72,810 | $664 | |
| Waco | |||||
| Walla Walla | $18,353 | $352 | |||
| Washington | |||||
| West Haven | $32,291 | $1 | |||
| West Los Angeles | |||||
| White City | $27,630 | $894 | |||
| Wilkes Barre | $603,783 | $32,800 | $36,475 | $2,336 | |
| Milwaukee | $824,580 | $10,000 | $14,186 | $12,316 | |
| Income Match Program | |||||
| Columbus | |||||
| Atlanta | |||||
| Bath | $16,515 | $1,153 | |||
| Calverton | $13,079 | $1,850 |
|
| Original Cost of Property Exchanged | Value Received in Exchange |
Original Cost of Property Sold | Value Received in Exchange | |
| Camp Butler | |||||
| Danville | |||||
| Dayton | |||||
| Keokuk | |||||
| Massachusettes | |||||
| Alexandria | |||||
| Camp Nelson | |||||
| Corinth | |||||
| Jefferson Brrcks | $65,077 | $7,000 | $23,300 | $1,551 | |
| Marietta | |||||
| Memphis | |||||
| Natchez | |||||
| Zachery Taylor | |||||
| Fort Logan | |||||
| Fort Rosecrans | |||||
| Golden Gate | |||||
| Los Angeles | |||||
| Riverside | |||||
| Sitka | |||||
| Fort Mitchell | |||||
| Fort Custer | $41,027 | $10,464 | |||
| Ft. Richardson | |||||
| Florida | $63,019 | $159 | |||
| Totals | $28,717,273 | $4,216,433 | $19,885,494 | $758,449 | |
| totals per annual report | $33,235,251 | $3,386,483 | $15,814,079 | $673,901 |
As a result of visits to two sites (Miami and Cincinnati), we
concluded that VA facilities were likely to vary significantly
in their locally implemented policies and procedures regarding
the handling of proceeds from the sale of excess equipment. We
also concluded that facilities were probably inaccurately reporting
program activity. We developed and sent a survey questionnaire
to an additional 37 facilities which were selected based on the
level of excess equipment activity that they reported for FY 1995.
The criteria used was judgmental and was based on the requirement
that the facility chosen had reported that it was among the most
active in at least one category (e.g., total property excessed,
transferred, scrapped, sold, exchanged, etc.).
The objectives of the questionnaire were to: (1) gain an understanding
of the processes employed by facilities to implement excess property
policies and to identify significant differences among facilities
in their operations, (2) verify the information reported in the
FY 1995 Annual Report of Utilization and Disposal of Excess and
Surplus Personal Property submitted to GSA, and (3) determine
where/how facilities disposed of the proceeds received from the
sale of VA personal property.
The following summarizes our principal questions and the responses
provided by the surveyed facilities:
Record Keeping
We asked facilities to list all personal property excessed/surplused
during FY 1995 to include the original turn-in date, requesting
office, property description and condition, acquisition value,
final disposition, date of final disposition, and if sold the
amount (proceeds) received and where the funds were deposited.
Some facilities were unable to provide the information requested.
Eleven (30 percent) were unable to provide all of the requested
specifics regarding turn-in dates, requesting office, condition,
and/or disposition and seven (19 percent) were unable to provide
specifics regarding proceeds and/or the disposition of proceeds.
Reporting Accuracy
We asked all facilities to provide summary data for FY 1995 showing the total acquisition cost of property excessed and total proceeds. These data were compared with what was reported to GSA in the annual report compiled by the VACO program office for the same period. The chart on the following page shows the significant reporting variations which were found:
|
|
|
|
| |||
| San Diego | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $195 | ($195) |
| Albany | $637,479 | $130,276 | $507,203 | $17,325 | $15,359 | $1,966 |
| Altoona | $21,915 | $34,870 | ($12,955) | $548 | $302 | $246 |
| Amarillo | $409,583 | $1,770,630 | ($1,361,047) | $806 | $4,143 | ($3,337) |
| Atlanta | $2,606,696 | $585,875 | $2,020,822 | $19,063 | $0 | $19,063 |
| Bay Pines | $79,564 | $916,471 | ($836,907) | $6,503 | $51,353 | ($44,850) |
| Birmingham | $1,614,401 | $2,644,230 | ($1,029,829) | $6,271 | $4,107 | $2,164 |
| Brockton/W. Roxbury | $2,690,851 | $2,138,874 | $551,977 | $100 | $0 | $100 |
| Buffalo(1) | $2,262,031 | $1,219,665 | $1,042,366 | $17,021 | $16,604 | $417 |
| Columbia, SC | $195,394 | $122,104 | $73,290 | $2,914 | $69,117 | ($66,203) |
| Hines | $593,860 | $6,053,055 | ($5,459,195) | $3,137 | $25,767 | ($22,630) |
| Hot Springs | $770,651 | $988,651 | ($218,000) | $3,095 | $2,998 | $97 |
| Houston | $936,088 | $405,099 | $530,989 | $7,978 | $507 | $7,471 |
| Indianapolis | $2,594,222 | $643,015 | $1,951,207 | $39,276 | $10,889 | $28,387 |
| Little Rock | $5,968,790 | $2,905,062 | $3,063,728 | $20,550 | $17,364 | $3,186 |
| Long Beach | $1,054,190 | $1,435,540 | ($381,350) | $19,730 | $22,815 | ($3,085) |
| Madison | $258,325 | $1,534,427 | ($1,276,102) | $1,811 | $2,303 | ($492) |
| Memphis | $2,296,220 | $730,602 | $1,565,618 | $0 | $3,016 | ($3,016) |
| Minneapolis | $979,244 | $596,190 | $383,054 | $755 | $1,401 | ($646) |
| Mountain Home | $10,851 | $178,617 | ($167,766) | $0 | $114 | ($114) |
| Murfreesboro(2) | $777,843 | $1,671,932 | ($894,089) | $14,608 | $15,743 | ($1,135) |
| New Orleans | $247,303 | $104,119 | $143,184 | $6,195 | $5,679 | $516 |
| Oklahoma City | $682,213 | $0 | $682,213 | $14,600 | $0 | $14,600 |
| Phoenix | $95,889 | $415,510 | ($319,621) | $16,302 | $16,302 | $0 |
| Richmond | $1,068,227 | $433,468 | $634,759 | $10,569 | $40,319 | ($29,750) |
| Salem | $2,085,301 | $313,159 | $1,772,142 | $1,996 | $1,155 | $841 |
| Salt Lake City | $3,222,524 | $1,532,681 | $1,689,843 | $2,539 | $3,062 | ($523) |
| Seattle(3) | $0 | $334,311 | ($334,311) | $0 | $3,032 | ($3,032) |
| San Diego | $1,776,021 | $891,596 | $884,425 | $20,537 | $705 | $19,832 |
| Sepulveda | $2,159,471 | $1,600,803 | $558,668 | $1,830 | $2,228 | ($398) |
| Shreveport | $195,561 | $105,384 | $90,177 | $8,165 | $7,720 | $445 |
| Spokane | $185,261 | $7,505 | $177,756 | $1,518 | $1,695 | ($177) |
| Syracuse | $751,705 | $9,233 | $742,472 | $71 | $613 | ($542) |
| San Antonio | $508,305 | $600,641 | ($92,336) | $4,372 | $5,345 | ($973) |
| Tampa | $988,310 | $627,440 | $360,870 | $13,991 | $44,280 | ($30,289) |
| Milwaukee | $0 | $390,731 | ($390,731) | $0 | $1,139 | ($1,139) |
| Riverside | $115,310 | $3,537,822 | ($3,422,512) | $872 | $0 | $872 |
| Totals | $40,839,599 | $37,609,588 | $3,230,011 | $285,048 | $397,371 | ($112,323) |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) The survey data submitted by VAMC Buffalo included the Buffalo Regional Office, Batavia, and the Rochester Outpatient Clinic. The data was not separated by station. We included all of the information that was submitted to GSA.
(2) VAMC Murfreesboro and Nashville acquisition costs and proceeds could not be separated. It could not be determined which items were turned in by which station. Because of this the Nashville annual reports were included.
(3) VAMC Seattle acquisition cost and proceeds could
not be determined. The cost of property excessed in FY 1995 and
FY 1996 were combined. No sale proceeds were indicated.
Disposition of Proceeds
We asked facilities to identify where they deposited funds derived
from the sale of their excess/surplus equipment and other personal
property. In response, 32 of the 37 facilities included in our
survey informed us that during FY 1995 they had sales of surplus
equipment and/or scrap totaling $285,047 of which the disposition
of $2,127 was not specified in the facilities responses. The following
chart shows which appropriation accounts were used to deposit
sale proceeds:
| Account Number | |||
| 36 3220 | $ 128,447 | $ 57,795 | |
| 36X3845 | 19,125 | 993 | |
| 36_0160 | 22,620 | 8,240 | |
| 36X0160X2 | 18,933 | 0 | |
| 36F4537 | 8,142 | 4,405 | |
| 36F3875 | 14,220 | 0 | |
| Total Deposits specified | $211,487 | $ 71,433 | $282,920 |
| Total Deposits not specified. | 1,949 | 178 | $2,127 |
| Total Proceeds | $ 213,436 | $ 71,611 | $285,047 |
Of the 32 facilities which responded to our inquiry as having
deposited sales proceeds, 21 (66 percent) primarily used the General
Fund Receipts/Treasury account (36 3220).
Use of Sale/Exchange Authority
We asked facilities to list all personal property which was sold
or exchanged during FY 1995 under the authority contained in FPMR
101-46 including the original turn-in date, requesting office,
property description and condition, acquisition value, final disposition,
date of final disposition, and if sold the amount (proceeds) received
and where the funds were deposited. Ten facilities reported that
they did not use the authority during FY 1995.
Procedures Used in Identifying, Processing, and Disposing
of Excess Property
To determine the extent facilities use tools and techniques which
are available and intended to make the identification and disposition
of excess property more efficient, we asked each to describe local
procedures and to what extent electronic tools such as REPADE,
FEDS-SCREEN, and FORUM are used.
Most stations use FORUM to advertise excess property to other
VA facilities. However, very few use REPADE or FEDS-SCREEN. Of
the 37 stations in our survey 27 used FORUM, 6 used REPADE, 6
used FEDS-SCREEN, 3 did not use any of the 3 systems (5 stations
did not indicate what systems they had, if any). Reasons given
for not using REPADE and/or FEDS-SCREEN included the difficulty
and slowness in accessing the systems, the need to purchase software
and a modem, the need to dedicate a telephone line, and the fact
that a computer is needed to access these systems. One facility
reported that they had developed their own system and another
reported that although they initially go "on line" with
REPADE and FEDS-SCREEN, GSA asked them to continue their manual
reporting.
REPORT TITLE: Audit of
VA's Excess Equipment Program
Project Number: 6D2-172
| |||
| Ensure that proceeds from the sale or exchange of unneeded equipment are retained for use by the Department to the maximum extent possible. | $5 million | ||
| $5 million |
Department of Veterans Affairs | Memorandum |
Date: December 24, 1996
From: Deputy Assistant Secretary for Acquisition and Materiel Management (90)
Subj: Draft Report of Audit of VA's Excess Equipment Program (Your Memo dated November 26, 1996)
To: Assistant Inspector General for Auditing (52)
1. This office has reviewed the draft report of the Audit of VA's Excess Equipment Program, and we offer the following comments:
a. Memorandum to the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Acquisition and Materiel Management (DAS for A&MM):
(1) Stated in paragraph 2: "If property is not in serviceable condition, then it is sold as scrap", is not entirely accurate since the property could be processed as salvage or abandoned/destroyed.
(2) Stated in paragraph 3: Process of $14.5 million dollars appear overstated. The approximate total, as reflected on the Annual Reports to GSA, was $5.0 million dollars.
b. Opportunities are available for VA to retain the majority of revenues received from the sale or exchange of unneeded equipment.
(1) Although Public Law 103-329, Executive Order 12873, authorizing VA retention and usage of funds resulting from the sale of materials recovered through recycling of scrap/salvage is relatively new, several media methods are being utilized for recognition and implementation of the program. These include publication of newsletters to field activities and VISN Directors, periodic national conference calls, and dissemination via the national e-mail system. (2) We agree with Recommendation 1 that the revenue from property sales should be retained by VA as a budget enhancement and that approximately
$5.0 million dollars was generated in FY 95, the majority of which was returned to the Treasury Department. VA FORM 2105 MAR 1989 | |
2.
Assistant Inspector General for Auditing (52)
(3) In order to furnish facilities procedures and instructions for processing revenues into VA accounts, a request was forwarded to the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Financial Policy (047G) in July 1996. The procedures have now been developed and are being reviewed by Central Office program officials, as well a selected VA medical centers. When the procedures have been finalized, they will be publicized nationwide.
c. Controls over the receipt and disposition of funds from the sale of personal property need strengthening.
(1) As stated in paragraph 3 above, the procedures for the processing of revenues have been developed and are being reviewed prior to release to the field. As part of the instructions, a revenue source code has been established for tracking proceeds. This should satisfy the requirements as outlined in Recommendation 2, paragraph 2., "ensuring that sale proceeds are handled in a consistent manner."
(2) We do not agree with Recommendation 2b. that the DAS for A&MM establish a "fair market value" for excess equipment that is to be sold or exchanged. This is a function that should remain decentralized. Several factors affect the equipments fair market value such as age, obsolescence, and usage.
d. The Department needs more accurate reporting of the results of its property disposal activities.
(1) At the time of this audit, the requirement for submission of annual reports to GSA for excess and exchange/sale activity was valid. However, we have received an interim notice prior to a formal FPMR amendment from GSA eliminating the requirement effective FY 96. Therefore, in our opinion, no action is necessary for Recommendation 3. [Signed]
Gary J. Krump VA FORM 2105 MAR 1989 |
Department of Veterans Affairs | Memorandum |
Date: January 24, 1997
From: Deputy Assistant Secretary for Acquisition and Materiel Management (90) Subj: Draft Report of Audit of VA's Excess Equipment Program (My memo dated December 24, 1996)
To: Assistant Inspector General for Auditing (52)
1. Per telephone conversation between Kathy Jackman, (92A) and Greg Gibson (52CO) the following changes were agreed on:
a. Your report will be amended to reflect the additional alternative of processing unserviceable excess equipment as salvage or abandoning/destroying it as suggested in my previous memo.
b. Paragraph 3 of the report will be amended to more clearly explain that the term "total Proceeds" includes proceeds from VA sales as well as from GSA sales and the reported value of trade-in allowances as suggested in the previous memo.
c. Recommendation 2b of the report will reflect our intention that facility property managers and staff will establish the "fair market value" of excess property and not the DAS/OA&MM. The wording agreed on is as follows: "Requiring facility property managers to estimate the "fair market vale" of excess equipment that is to be sold or exchanged."
d. Finally, the last paragraph of the previous memo should be amended to read as follows: "A revised VA reporting system will address the issues highlighted in the report. Specifically; (1) manual intervention will be reduced to a minimum, (2) estimates of fair market value of property to be disposed will be recorded in addition to the original acquisition cost, and (3) the inclusion of a revenue source code will allow for the tracking of proceeds."
The revenue source code "SF20" will be added to the Financial Management System tables. This will denote Supply Fund proceeds; most other proceeds go into Fund 3220 - Treasury Department.
4. Should additional information be required please contact Ms. Jackman, 273-6088.
Gary J. Krump VA FORM 2105 MAR 1989 | |
VA Distribution
Secretary of Veterans Affairs (00)
Under Secretary for Health (105E)
General Counsel (02)
Assistant Secretary for Management (004)
Assistant Secretary for Policy and Planning (008)
Assistant Secretary for Congressional Affairs (009)
Office of the Chief Financial Officer (17)
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Acquisition and Materiel Management (90)
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs (80)
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Congressional Affairs (60)
Network Directors, VISN 1 - 22
Director, VA Medical Center Miami, FL (546/00)
Director, VA Medical Center Cincinnati, OH (539/00)
Non-VA Distribution
Office of Management and Budget
U.S. General Accounting Office
Congressional Committees:
Chairman, Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs
Ranking Member, Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs
Chairman, Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Ranking Member, Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Chairman, House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight
Ranking Member, House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight
Chairman, House Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Ranking Democratic Member, House Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Chairman, Senate Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies,
Committee on Appropriations
Ranking Member, Senate Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies,
Committee on Appropriations
Chairman, House Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies,
Committee on Appropriations
Ranking Member, House Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies,
Committee on Appropriations