We determined whether Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) Disposition Services (DS) was properly disposing of equipment during the drawdown in Afghanistan. We determined whether adequate controls existed over the receipt, inspection, coding, and disposal of equipment.
DLA DS did not have adequate controls over disposal of excess equipment. DLA DS did not:
- have accountability over and correctly code excess equipment. This occurred because DLA DS officials did not adequately train personnel.
- certify and verify demilitarization of excess equipment in accordance with guidance and accurately account for and bill scrapped equipment sold. This occurred because DLA DS Afghanistan officials did not adequately monitor the certification and scrap accounting processes.
- have adequate access and security controls. This occurred because DLA DS officials did not develop local standard operating procedures.
- include the export-controlled items clause in the Afghanistan labor contract. This was an oversight on the part of DLA DS officials.
In addition, these conditions occurred because DLA DS officials did not assign an appropriate number of personnel responsible for oversight within Afghanistan.
As a result, DLA DS had an increased risk of fraud, theft, improper release of sensitive excess equipment, and transfer of sensitive equipment technology. In addition, DLA DS did not receive optimal monetary return for scrapped equipment sold.
We communicated preliminary observations to management throughout the audit, and management was proactive in correcting the deficiencies we identified. DLA DS eliminated backlogs, identified and corrected system problems, provided additional system training, corrected coding errors, added personnel to key positions, addressed scale issues, submitted debit memorandums to bill scrap contractors, properly secured the facilities, increased visitor access controls, developed local standard operating procedures, modified the labor contract, increased trained personnel with oversight responsibilities, and added contracting officer representative training to the pre-deployment requirements. These actions are commendable and address the conditions identified during the audit; therefore, no additional actions ar e required.
We considered management comments on a discussion draft of this report in preparing the final and revised the report as appropriate. No official response was required, and none was received. Therefore, we are issuing this report in final form.