A Performance Audit
An Audit Report on Vehicle Fleet Management at Selected State Entities
October 2018
Summary Analysis
Two of the three agencies audited had processes and related controls to help ensure that they complied with the Texas State Vehicle Fleet Management Plan (State Fleet Plan).
The Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) followed the processes and controls it had in place to help ensure compliance with State Fleet Plan requirements. For example, it conducted and documented its assessment of its vehicle fleet needs for fiscal years 2017 and 2018 as required.
The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) generally had processes to help ensure that it complied with the State Fleet Plan; however, it did not consistently follow those processes. For example, while it assessed its vehicle fleet needs as required, it did not consistently document the justification and results of its assessment.
The Texas Animal Health Commission (TAHC) did not comply with the State Fleet Plan. Specifically, while TAHC performed some activities required by the State Fleet Plan, it did not document an annual fleet assessment as required. In addition, TAHC had some controls over the purchase and disposal of vehicles.
For fiscal years 2017 and 2018, TxDOT followed the processes and controls it had in place to help ensure compliance with the fleet assessment and management requirements in the State Fleet Plan.
As required, TxDOT: (1) performed a vehicle replacement evaluation, (2) conducted a fleet rightsizing evaluation (to determine the appropriate fleet size and composition), and (3) developed a fleet assessment report.
For all 36 new vehicle purchase orders tested, TxDOT complied with procurement requirements in the State Fleet Plan.
TxDOT also had a process to track maintenance expenses in its internal fleet management system.
Starting in October 2017, TxDOT stopped reporting information to the Texas Fleet System (TxFS), which is maintained by Office of the Comptroller of Public Accounts (Comptroller’s Office), when it determined that submissions were resulting in the creation of duplicate records. Prior to October 2017, TxDOT did not always report accurate information to TxFS related to vehicle maintenance and repair costs and vehicle dispositions as required by the State Fleet Plan.
As a result of not reporting vehicle information to TxFS as required, TxDOT’s vehicle fleet information in TxFS was not current as of March 2018.
Prior to October 2017, TxDOT did not consistently report accurate and complete maintenance and repair costs to TxFS, as required by the State Fleet Plan. For example, for May 2017, TxDOT did not report any monthly maintenance costs because that information did not upload properly into TxFS and TxDOT did not identify and correct that error.
TxDOT had a process to update TxFS when disposing a vehicle; however, that process did not ensure that (1) the net disposal proceeds were correctly recorded and (2) the final mileage was consistently recorded, as required by the State Fleet Plan.
TxDOT accurately reported acquisition, disposal, and most other vehicle identification data in the State Property Accounting (SPA) system. However, it should strengthen its data entry controls to help ensure the accuracy of the vehicle identification numbers (VIN) and asset class codes reported.
TxDOT did not report the VIN for 62 (83 percent) of 75 vehicles it placed in service in fiscal year 2018.
TxDOT reported incorrect asset class codes for 4 (6 percent) of 68 vehicle records tested. In addition, TxDOT reported different asset class codes for 635 additional vehicles in SPA than what it had reported in TxFS.
While TPWD had processes in place to help ensure compliance with State Fleet Plan requirements, it did not consistently follow those processes.
For fiscal years 2017 and 2018, TPWD (1) performed a vehicle replacement evaluation and (2) conducted a fleet rightsizing evaluation (to determine the appropriate fleet size and composition) as required by the State Fleet Plan.
However, TPWD did not comply with all State Fleet Plan requirements for developing a fleet assessment report because it did not ensure that all of the divisions documented their (1) justifications for the necessary disposals and replacements and (2) the results of their fleet size assessments.
In addition, TPWD does not have a documented process for approving significant maintenance and repairs to verify that the costs are appropriate for the age and condition of the vehicle.
TPWD did not always report complete and accurate vehicle information to TxFS related to maintenance and repair costs, purchases, and disposals and vehicle information, as required by the State Fleet Plan.
TPWD’s process to submit maintenance data to TxFS does not include all maintenance cost components. For 16 (24 percent) of 68 maintenance and repair work orders tested, TPWD reported incomplete maintenance and repair costs. For 42 (55 percent) of 76 vehicle records tested, TPWD reported incomplete maintenance and repair costs to TxFS.
TPWD did not always report accurate vehicle identification or acquisition data to TxFS. For 34 (45 percent) of 76 vehicle records tested, TPWD reported inaccurate data for one or more of key fields.
TPWD correctly reported all purchased vehicles tested in fiscal years 2017 and 2018; however, it did not always accurately report vehicle dispositions to TxFS.
TPWD reported vehicle information to SPA for all 60 purchases and disposals tested, as required by the SPA Process User’s Guide. In addition, for 65 (97 percent) of 67 other vehicle records tested, TPWD accurately reported the vehicles’ makes, models, and years to SPA.
However, TPWD did not consistently report accurate acquisition dates and asset class codes. Specifically, for 11 (16 percent) of the 67 vehicle records tested, TPWD reported acquisition dates in SPA that were more than 60 days before or after the date TPWD received the vehicle. For 6 (9 percent) of 67 vehicles records tested, TPWD reported inaccurate asset class codes.
TAHC asserted that it conducted an annual fleet assessment meeting for fiscal year 2017 attended by its executive management and fleet management; however, it did not document that meeting occurred or document the results of an assessment.
TAHC did have some controls in place over the disposal and purchase of vehicles. Specifically, TAHC had a documented vehicle replacement policy that contains criteria for evaluating vehicles to be replaced based on vehicle mileage, age, and condition that is consistent with the recommendations in the State Fleet Plan. Also, TAHC documented its need for increasing its fleet size prior to requesting and procuring additional vehicles.
TAHC did not always report accurate or timely vehicle information to TxFS, and it did not always maintain support for key information that it reported in TxFS. TAHC reported to TxFS all six vehicles it received since September 2016. However, for those six vehicles, TAHC inaccurately reported the receipt date by 20 days in TxFS because it reported the day it entered the vehicles’ information into TxFS rather than date it received the vehicles.
In addition, TAHC reported inaccurate or unsupported data in one or more key fields for 16 (70 percent) of 23 active and recently disposed vehicle records tested. For 9 (39 percent) of the 23 vehicle records tested,TAHC did not retain documentation supporting the vehicles’ reported acquisition information. For 8 (35 percent) vehicles, TAHC did not update usage data. For 4 (17 percent) vehicles, TAHC had not reported significant maintenance and repair costs to TxFS.
TAHC did not always report accurate vehicle information to SPA, and it did not always maintain support for key information in SPA, as required by the SPA Process User’s Guide. It also reported inaccurate or unsupported data in key fields for 27 (93 percent) of 29 vehicle records tested.
For 18 (62 percent) of 29 vehicle records tested, TAHC reported inaccurate or unsupported acquisition costs.
For 14 (48 percent) of 29 vehicle records tested, TAHC reported inaccurate or unsupported asset class codes. In addition, TAHC reported different asset class codes in SPA and TxFS for 68 (71 percent) of its population of 96 active and recently disposed vehicles in SPA and TxFS.
Graphics, Media, Supporting documents