This page, Audit of the Nantucket Regional Transit Authority Objectives, Scope, and Methodology, is offered by

Audit of the Nantucket Regional Transit Authority Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

An overview of the purpose and process of auditing the Nantucket Regional Transit Authority

Table of Contents

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 Nantucket Regional Transit Authority (NRTA) for the period July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2017.

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

1. Did NRTA maintain a cost maintenance log for each vehicle to ensure that preventive maintenance for vehicles and equipment for transporting passengers with disabilities under the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 was up to date per Federal Transit Administration (FTA) guidelines?

Yes

2. Did NRTA submit all required financial records to the Commonwealth for inclusion on the Commonwealth’s searchable website as required by Section 14C of Chapter 7 of the General Laws?

No; see Finding 1

3. Did NRTA properly manage the use of its non-revenue-producing vehicles?

No; see Finding 2

To achieve our audit objectives, we gained an understanding of NRTA’s internal controls that we deemed significant to our audit objectives through inquiries and observations, and we evaluated the design of controls over cost maintenance logs, financial reporting to the Commonwealth, and non-revenue-producing vehicles.

In addition, we performed the following procedures to obtain sufficient, appropriate audit evidence to address the audit objectives.

  • We analyzed the data in the Fleet Maintenance Pro fleet management software maintained by NRTA, which documents all vehicle fleet maintenance and repairs, to determine whether all vehicles used and vehicle maintenance performed during the audit period were recorded in the database.
  • We verified that NRTA had a vehicle maintenance schedule and tested to determine whether the agency followed the recommended schedule for preventive maintenance and replacement. We tested 10 of the 28 vehicles that were active during our audit period, choosing the 6 vehicles with the highest number of work orders and the 4 vehicles with the lowest number of work orders. We compared records of the mileage traveled per vehicle to records of oil changes performed during the audit period and tested to determine whether NRTA followed specific vehicles’ manufacturer guidelines and the required FTA preventive maintenance guidelines. Since we used a nonstatistical sampling approach, we could not project the results of the test to the entire population.
  • We asked NRTA management about the use of non-revenue-producing vehicles and the process of lending non-revenue-producing vehicles to NRTA employees.
  • We asked NRTA management whether the keys to non-revenue-producing vehicles were in the possession of the general manager of Valley Transportation Services of Massachusetts Inc. or NRTA personnel or were left in the vehicles.
  • We requested the sign-in/sign-out log for non-revenue-producing vehicles.
  • We examined the state’s publicly available, searchable website, as well as NRTA’s website, to determine whether they included data for NRTA expenditures, including payroll, to ensure transparency with regard to the agency’s spending.

We analyzed the data in the Fleet Maintenance Pro fleet management software by performing validity and integrity tests, including testing for missing data and scanning for duplicate records. We performed a source documentation review of NRTA’s vehicle list to ensure that it matched the information in the Fleet Maintenance Pro software. We determined that the data from this system were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our audit.

Date published: October 2, 2018
Feedback