Motor Vehicle Fleet Performance Audit - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 20
About This Presentation
Title:

Motor Vehicle Fleet Performance Audit

Description:

... an agency director, or a resolution from the Legislation to conduct a performance audit. ... A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Department of Corrections ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:308
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 21
Provided by: jeffandall
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Motor Vehicle Fleet Performance Audit


1
Motor Vehicle Fleet Performance Audit
  • Jeff A. McMahan, CFE
  • Oklahoma State Auditor Inspector
  • NSAA Annual Conference 2005
  • Wrightsville Beach, NC

2
Background
  • 74 O.S. 213.2 B. of the Oklahoma State Statutes
    requires a written request from the Governor, an
    agency director, or a resolution from the
    Legislation to conduct a performance audit.
  • Governor Brad Henry made an official request for
    a performance audit of the States motor vehicles
    in December 2003 to determine if the fleet was
    being used in an economical and efficient manner.
  • The Department of Central Services-Fleet
    Management Division (FMD) is responsible for
    maintaining records of the States vehicles.

3
Scope
  • The scope was limited to include only passenger
    type vehicles (two and four door cars, SUVs, pick
    ups one ton or less, and vans) owned by the
    State.
  • Colleges and universities were excluded.

4
Objectives
  • I. To determine if vehicle fleet records
    are adequately maintained so the State can
    accurately track the number of vehicles in its
    fleet, the usage of the vehicles in its fleet,
    and the costs associated with the fleet
  • II. To determine if agencies utilize fleet
    management policies and procedures
  • III. To determine if the vehicles in the
    States fleet are adequately utilized
  • IV. To determine if vehicles are assigned to
    employees in only those instances where a true
    need exists
  • V. To determine if state employees are
    driving their private vehicles and being
    reimbursed for mileage when it would be more
    economical to utilize the State motor pool

5
Objective I Vehicle Records
  • Inventory records maintained by FMD are not
    adequate.
  • Duplicate and invalid VIN numbers
  • 75 of a sample consisting of vehicle purchases
    were not included in the inventory.

6
Objective I Vehicle Records
  • Vehicle operating cost information is not
    maintained or analyzed.
  • Mileage, fuel costs, and maintenance costs had
    not been entered into the FMD system since 1999.
  • Analysis on operating cost data was non-existent.
  • There were 428 purchase requests in 2003. None
    of the requests were denied.

7
Objective II Policies and Procedures
  • Agencies often lack comprehensive fleet policies
    and procedures.
  • A survey sent to 73 agencies revealed
  • 62 of respondents did not have a vehicle
    replacement policy.
  • 28 of respondents did not have a vehicle
    maintenance policy.
  • 56 of respondents did not have a policy related
    to the assignment of vehicles to individuals.

8
Objective III Assigned Vehicles Driven Home
  • Assigned vehicles driven to and from employees
    residences may be unjustified.
  • 47 O.S. 156.1 A. and B. requires the following
    to commute in a State vehicle
  • Approval of the Governor
  • Regularly receives emergency phone calls at the
    employees residence when not on dutymust have
    documentation
  • Specific law enforcement agencies are authorized
    to commute in State vehicles.

9
Objective III Assigned Vehicles Driven Home
  • A survey was sent to 73 state agencies to
    determine the number of employees driving a
    vehicle to and from their residences. We asked
  • Make, model, VIN
  • Distinction between Governors approval or an
    after hour responder
  • Number of calls responded to in 2003
  • Mileage at 1-1-03 and 12-31-04
  • 680 vehicles identified through survey

10
Objective III Assigned Vehicles Driven Home
  • A sample of 133 vehicles were selected. From
    this, we noted
  • Nine had the approval of the Governor. Only one
    of the nine had an approval letter for the time
    period.
  • 70 reported they maintained no documentation to
    support whether or not they responded to after
    hour calls.
  • 54 reported they did maintain documentation
    however, 28 of the 54 responded to 10 calls or
    less.
  • 19 out of 30 employees did not have commuting
    fringe benefits reported on their W-2.
  • A reduction of 25 in commuting vehicles could
    produce savings of 3,000,000.

11
Objective III Assigned Vehicles Not Driven Home
  • Mileage criteria indicates assigned vehicles not
    driven home are underutilized.
  • 1,018 vehicles identified through survey as
    assigned but not driven home
  • Selected a sample of 127 vehicles
  • 29 of sample was driven less than 9,000 miles in
    2003 (GSA standard is 12,000) which projects to
    approximately 300 vehicles across population.
  • Estimated 2,500,000 in savings from reduction in
    underutilized vehicles

12
Objective III Agency Fleet Vehicles
  • Mileage criteria indicates State agencies
    owned/leased fleet vehicles are underutilized.
  • 3,137 vehicles identified through survey as
    agency fleet.
  • Selected a sample of 131 vehicles
  • 45 of sample was driven less than 9,000 miles in
    2003 (GSA standard is 12,000) which projects to
    approximately 1,400 vehicles across the
    population.
  • Estimated 11,500,000 in savings from reduction
    in underutilized vehicles

13
Objective III State Motor Pool
  • Number of vehicles in State motor pools appears
    to be excessive.
  • On average, 52 vehicles were available for lease
    each day.
  • On average, 14 vehicles were used each day.
  • No analysis on miles driven or days of use

14
Objective VReimbursement vs. Use of State Car
  • The State has no process for evaluating cost
    effectiveness for use of State owned vehicles
    versus use of private vehicles.
  • Analysis of break-even point had never been
    performed.
  • 1,048 employees were reimbursed for more than
    9,967 miles. Had the employees utilized a State
    vehicle, the State would have saved approximately
    1,200,000.

15
Other Items Noted
  • Additional justifications for sport utility
    vehicles is needed.
  • The State owns 233 SUVs.
  • Had the State purchased this number of sedans
    rather than SUVs, potential savings over the life
    of these vehicles would have been approximately
    1,800,000.

16
Other Items Noted
  • Unauthorized agencies are acquiring vehicles.
  • 22 agencies in addition to the Department of
    Central Services have the authority to purchase
    their own vehicles.
  • FMD purchased vehicles on behalf of agencies
    without specific authority to purchase and
    charged them a 20 per month administrative
    feeover 260,000 from 1986 to 2003.

17
Other Items Noted
  • Cost of certain car washes, details, and fuel
    appears excessive.
  • 38 instances of car washes/details greater than
    50 with 13 of these 100 or more
  • 142,941 in premium fuel purchases
  • Approximately 10,000 in savings had unleaded
    fuel been purchased.

18
A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the
Department of Corrections
19
A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the
Department of Corrections
20
Closing Comments
  • Administration of fleet is inadequate.
  • Lack of adequate policies
  • Utilization
  • Assignment
  • Maintenance
  • Decentralization
  • FMD is not operating in a regulatory capacity
  • 22 different agencies have the authority to
    purchase and own their vehicles.
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com