Audit of DCAMM Objectives, Scope and Methodology

An overview of the purpose and process of auditing the Division of Capital Asset Management and Maintenance.

Overview

In accordance with Section 12 of Chapter 11 of the Massachusetts General Laws, the Office of the State Auditor has conducted a performance audit of the Division of Capital Asset Management and Maintenance (DCAMM) for the period July 1, 2014 through December 31, 2016.

We conducted this performance audit in accordance with 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 on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

Below is a list of our audit objectives, indicating each question we intended our audit to answer; the conclusion we reached regarding each objective; and, if applicable, where each objective is discussed in the audit findings. 

Objective	Conclusion
At state-owned buildings, does DCAMM comply with its Facilities Management & Maintenance Standard 04 and Section 7C of Executive Order 515, including the following?
ensuring that agencies are aware of solid waste requirements	Yes
ensuring that banned materials do not go to landfills	No; see Finding 1a
ensuring that janitorial providers separate recyclables from other waste material	Partially; see Finding 1a
ensuring that credits are provided for recyclable materials with value	No; see Finding 1a
ensuring that solid waste stream audits are conducted, hauler reports are collected, and both are used to improve waste management	No; see Finding 1a
Does DCAMM include language in its Requests for Proposals and leases for agencies procuring private space that requires recycling of waste material in accordance with Section 7C of Executive Order 515?
Does DCAMM monitor the implementation of policies for private property the state leases that are similar to those set forth for Commonwealth buildings in its Facilities Management & Maintenance Standard 04?	No; see Finding 1b

 

We gained an understanding of DCAMM’s internal control environment related to our audit objectives by reviewing applicable laws, regulations, and agency policies and procedures as well as conducting inquires with management.

To achieve our objectives, we performed the following audit procedures:

• We obtained a list of all 21 state buildings managed and/or operated by DCAMM. Of the 21 properties, we excluded 11 from our review because DCAMM was not responsible for monitoring the janitorial services at those buildings.
• We visited the 10 state buildings where DCAMM directly manages janitorial and trash-removal activities. Some buildings contained multiple state agencies. We interviewed the facility manager at each building and observed the recycling activities at each building, as well as those of at least one state agency within each building, to determine the level of recycling performed and evaluate adherence to Facilities Management & Maintenance Standard 04.
• We obtained from DCAMM a list of 517 leases that were active as of the end of our audit period, December 31, 2016. We eliminated 120 leases that we determined were for buildings with confidential addresses. From this revised list of 397 leases, we randomly selected a sample of 50 leases for review. We surveyed the recycling activities at the buildings under those leases by sending a survey to each agency occupying one of the buildings to verify that recycling was performed at that location and to determine whether building owners were meeting the recycling requirements in the leases. Of the 50 agencies whose leases were part of our sample, 39 responded to our survey.
• From the above population of 397 leases, we chose a sample of 50 leases and obtained copies of the Request for Proposals and Lease Agreement to determine whether they contained the required recycling language in accordance with Section 7C of Executive Order 515.

We obtained a published list of state-owned buildings from DCAMM’s website, interviewed management, and compared the published data to information provided by management. We concluded that the data were reliable for the purposes of our audit.

We performed a data reliability test on the list of leases we received from DCAMM. We traced five hardcopy lease files to the list of leases and traced five leases from the list to hardcopy files. We concluded that the data in the list of leases were reliable for the purposes of our audit objectives.

Whenever sampling was used, we applied a nonstatistical approach, and as a result, we were not able to project our results to the entire populations.

Date published:	April 27, 2018