Audit of the Greater Attleboro Taunton Regional Transit Authority Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

An overview of the purpose and process of auditing the Greater Attleboro Taunton Regional Transit Authority.

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 certain activities of the Greater Attleboro Taunton Regional Transit Authority (GATRA) for the period July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2023.

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
Did GATRA comply with Sections 1, 2, and 3 of the “Commonwealth of Massachusetts Agreement between Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection and Greater Attleboro–Taunton Regional Transit Authority” for acquiring battery electric buses (BEBs) and charging stations?	Yes
Did GATRA comply with Chapter 2 of the GILLIG Service Manual and perform preventative maintenance on BEBs on the required items based on the preventative maintenance schedule?	No; see Finding 2
Did GATRA update its safety and risk management processes to identify and mitigate safety hazards to address potential electrical fires in accordance with Section 673.25 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)?	Partially; see Other Matters
Did GATRA comply with Section 6 of the “Commonwealth of Massachusetts Agreement between Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection and Greater Attleboro–Taunton Regional Transit Authority” for training on the operation and maintenance of BEBs and charging stations?	No; see Finding 1
Did GATRA collect BEB performance and operation data in its BEB Annual Report to the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) in accordance with Section 8 of the “Commonwealth of Massachusetts Agreement between Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection and Greater Attleboro–Taunton Regional Transit Authority”?	Yes

To accomplish our audit objectives, we gained an understanding of the aspects of GATRA’s internal control environment relevant to our objectives by reviewing GATRA’s internal policies and procedures and by interviewing GATRA officials. We reviewed policies and procedures related to acquiring the BEBS, as well as the preventative maintenance, reporting, safety, and operation and maintenance training processes related to the vehicles. In addition, to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to address our audit objectives, we performed the procedures described below.

BEB Procurement Plan

To determine whether GATRA complied with Sections 1, 2, and 3 of the “Commonwealth of Massachusetts Agreement between Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection and Greater Attleboro–Taunton Regional Transit Authority” for acquiring BEBs and charging stations, we took the following actions.

• We compared the number of months between the contract agreement date and the date the BEBs were placed in service to determine whether GATRA put the BEBs and charging stations into service within the required time frame.
• We examined Attachment A of the contract and reviewed vehicle work order data that GATRA provided to us to determine whether the BEBs and charging stations that GATRA purchased and put into service matched the requirements set forth in Attachment A of the contract.
• We calculated the total cost of all six BEBs and the six charging stations and compared this total cost to the grant total to determine whether the purchases exceeded the amount of the grant that MassDEP awarded to GATRA. We also interviewed GATRA officials about the additional funding that GATRA received to purchase extended warranties for all six BEBs and charging stations.
• We confirmed the date that GATRA submitted to MassDEP the list of cities and towns where the buses would be stored and operated to determine whether GATRA submitted this list within the required time frame.

We noted no significant exceptions in our testing. Therefore, we concluded that, during the audit period, GATRA submitted all required documentation to MassDEP within the required time frame.

BEB Preventative Maintenance Services

To determine whether GATRA complied with Chapter 2 of the GILLIG Service Manual and performed preventative maintenance on BEBs on the required items based on the preventative maintenance schedule, we took the following actions.

• We determined that there should have been a total of 39 routine preventative maintenance services performed during the audit period.
• We examined all preventative maintenance checklists to ensure that the maintenance employee assigned to perform this work inspected the high-voltage cables, high-voltage batteries, jump-start connections, the battery equalizer, the main disconnect switch, and the automatic disconnect system for each BEB according to the required maintenance schedules, as required by Chapter 2 of the GILLIG Service Manual.

Based on the results of our testing, we determined that GATRA’s contracted transit provider did not document its preventative maintenance services on GATRA’s BEBs for the required components. See Finding 2 for more information.

BEB Safety

To determine whether GATRA updated its safety and risk management processes to identify and mitigate safety hazards to address potential electrical fires in accordance with 49 CFR 673.25, we inspected the “GATRA Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan” to determine whether it included a safety risk management process, a risk assessment, and risk mitigation procedures and identifications of safety hazards.

Based on the results of our testing, we determined that GATRA’s safety plan was compliant with the Safety Risk Management Requirements outlined in 49 CFR 673.25. However, we noted that GATRA’s safety plan did not specify electrical fires as part of its process. See Other Matters for more information.

BEB Training

To determine whether GATRA complied with Section 6 of the “Commonwealth of Massachusetts Agreement between Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection and Greater Attleboro–Taunton Regional Transit Authority” for training on the operation and maintenance of BEBs and charging stations, we took the following actions.

• We interviewed GATRA officials to determine whether pertinent maintenance employees are required to attend training on BEBs and charging stations. We identified a population of 18 employees of GATRA’s contracted transit provider who were required to attend the BEB training during the audit period.
• We inspected the training attendance sheets that GATRA provided to us to ensure that all 18 pertinent maintenance employees received the required training on BEBs and charging stations.
• We inspected the training completion dates on the attendance sheets to ensure that GATRA’s contracted transit provider’s maintenance employees received training from GILLIG before the BEBs were put into service.

Based on the results of our testing, we determined that not all pertinent maintenance employees attended the required BEB training. See Finding 1 for more information.

BEB Annual Report

To determine whether GATRA collected BEB performance and operation data in its BEB Annual Report to MassDEP in accordance with Section 8 of the “Commonwealth of Massachusetts Agreement between Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection and Greater–Taunton Regional Transit Authority,” we inspected the BEB Annual Report for the following data:

• vehicle miles traveled for each BEB;
• total number of riders for each BEB;
• electrical usage by each BEB;
• BEB and charging station operation and maintenance costs and records;
• BEB drivers’ experiences; and
• administrative issues with the BEBs.

We also inspected the email that GATRA sent to MassDEP with the BEB Annual Report to ensure that the annual report was submitted within one year after the first BEB went into service.

We noted no significant exceptions in our testing. Therefore, we concluded that, during the audit period, GATRA submitted the BEB Annual Report to MassDEP within the required time frame, and GATRA collected all required performance and operation data.

Data Reliability Assessment

Fleet Management Software

To assess the reliability of the vehicle work order data provided by employees of the fleet management software company used by GATRA’s contractor, we interviewed GATRA officials and conducted a system walkthrough with employees of the fleet management software company who were responsible for oversight of the data. We reviewed the System and Organization Control reports¹¹ that covered the audit period to determine whether there were exceptions in the testing performed for certain general information technology controls (access controls, configuration management, contingency planning, segregation of duties, and security management).

We selected a random sample of 20 work orders from the population of 99 work orders for BEBs and compared the vehicle numbers and service dates to the original source documentation (i.e., the work orders). We also selected a random sample of 20 hardcopy work orders to compare the vehicle numbers and service dates to the fleet management software data. In addition, we compared record counts from the system to records that we received from employees of the fleet management software company. We tested the work order data for any worksheet errors (hidden rows, headers, and other contents) and for duplicates. We tested the work order data from the fleet management software for gaps in the work order numbers and followed up on instances of gaps in the numbering to determine whether there were any deleted work orders.

Global Positioning System Software

To assess the reliability of the mileage and the operation performance data for the six BEBs from GATRA’s Global Positioning System (GPS) software, we tested the application controls for GATRA’s GPS software by comparing the distance traveled on the selected BEB on the scheduled fixed route to the distance measured by Google Maps.

Transit Fare Collection System

To assess the reliability of the farebox revenue and the ridership data for BEBs from the fixed-route transit fare collection system, we tested the application controls for the system by comparing the farebox cash revenue to the cash revenue recorded in the transit fare collection system. However, because GATRA never reconciled its transit fare collection system to the amount of cash payments received for any of its fixed-route vehicles, we were not able to conclude whether the ridership information reported in the BEB Annual Report was accurate. We used this data as it was the only source available for our audit purpose. See Finding 3 for more information.

Based on the results of the data reliability assessment procedures described above, we determined that the information we obtained during the course of our audit was sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our audit.

 

[1].    A System and Organization Control report is a report issued by an independent contractor on controls about a service organization’s systems relevant to security, availability, processing integrity, confidentiality, or privacy.

Date published:	December 24, 2024