Funds Used for the Arctic Military Environment Cooperation Program.

• Other Authors: INSPECTOR GENERAL DEPT OF DEFENSE ARLINGTON VA
• Format: Text
• Language: English
• Published: 1998
• Subjects: Administration and Management; Economics and Cost Analysis; Environmental Health and Safety; *FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT; *AUDITING; USSR; UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT; MANAGEMENT PLANNING AND CONTROL; CONTRACTS; ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; NORWAY; COOPERATION; AQ I99-12-2423; *ARCTIC MILITARY ENVIRONMENTAL COOPERATION PROGRAM; Arctic; Norway
• Online Access: http://www.dtic.mil/docs/citations/ADA368240; http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?&verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA368240

The audit was requested by the Principal Assistant Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Environmental Security) to determine whether $1.2 million of funds for the Arctic Military Environmental Cooperation Program were used properly. The Arctic Military Environmental Cooperation Program is a trilateral initiative between Norway, the Russian Federation, and the U.S. to generally refocus the Russian Defense Department environmental practices. A declaration was signed by all parties in September 1996. Total DoD program support of $1.2 million came from FY 1995 Environmental Security Technology Certification Program funds that could not be expended for their intended purpose. The audit objectives were to determine whether Environmental Security Technology Certification Program funds provided for the Arctic Military Environmental Cooperation Program were used for their intended purpose, and whether contracting functions were properly performed. In addition, the audit was originally to review the management control program as it applied to the other objectives. We did not review the management control program because the scope of the audit was limited to two contract actions and one in-house project. We could not verify that Environmental Security Technology Certification Program funds provided for the Arctic Military Environmental Cooperation Program were used for their intended purpose. The funds were not managed in the most efficient and effective manner, and contracting functions were not always properly performed. As a result, the Government has no assurance it will receive expected products and services for the $1.2 million provided to support the Arctic Military Environmental Cooperation Program, and the plan to direct a contractor to subcontract with a specific subcontractor would have been improper if it had been implemented.