caltrans audit: "caltrans employees engaged in inexcusable neglect of duty, received overpayment for...

7/29/2019 Caltrans Audit: "Caltrans Employees Engaged in Inexcusable Neglect of Duty, Received Overpayment for Overtime, Falsified Test Data, and Misappropriated

1/38

California Departmentof Transportation

Caltrans Employees Engaged in Inexcusable Neglecto Duty, Received Overpayment or Overtime, FalsifedTest Data, and Misappropriated State Property

Report I2009-0640

March 2

COMMITMENTINTEGRITY

LEADERSHIP


2/38

Te rst ve copies o each Caliornia State Auditor report are ree. Additional copies are $3 each, payable by check

or money order. You can obtain reports by contacting the Caliornia State Auditors Oce at the ollowing address:

Caliornia State Auditor

555 Capitol Mall, Suite 300

Sacramento, Caliornia 95814

916.445.0255 or Y 916.445.0033

OR

Tis report is also available on the World Wide Web http://www.auditor.ca.gov

Te Caliornia State Auditor is pleased to announce the availability o an online subscription service.

For inormation on how to subscribe, please contact the Inormation echnology Unit at 916.445.0255, ext. 456,or visit our Web site at www.auditor.ca.gov.

Alternate ormat reports available upon request.

Permission is granted to reproduce reports.

For questions regarding the contents o this report ,

please contact Margarita Fernndez, Chie o Public Aairs, at 916.445.0255.


3/38

Doug CordinerChie DeputyElaine M. HowleState Auditor

5 5 5 C a pit o l Ma l l , Su i t e Sa c ra m ent o , C A 5 8 . 5 . 5 5 . 7 . a x www.a ud it o r .c a .go v

March 28, 2013 I20090640

Te Governor o CaliorniaPresident pro empore o the SenateSpeaker o the AssemblyState CapitolSacramento, Caliornia 95814

Dear Governor and Legislative Leaders:

Pursuant to the Caliornia Whistleblower Protection Act, the Caliornia State Auditor presentsthis investigative report concerning improper inexcusable neglect o duty, overpayment orovertime, testing data alsifcation, and misappropriation o state property.

Tis report concludes that a supervisor neglected his duty to supervise two technicians, whichacilitated the technicians being paid or work they did not perorm at an estimated cost o$13,788 in overpayments. One o the technicians, as determined by the Caliornia Departmento ransportation (Caltrans) and two ederal agencies, alsifed concrete pile testing data or atleast three transportation projects. A subsequent review by Caltrans identifed eight additionalincidents o data alsifcation. Te supervisor also misappropriated Caltrans property withassistance rom the technicians and other subordinate employees.

Respectully submitted,

ELAINE M. HOWLE, CPAState Auditor


4/38

Blank page inserted or reproduction purposes only.


5/38

California State Auditor Report I2009-0640

March 2013

Contents

Investigative ResultsResults in Brie 1

Background 1

Facts and Analysis 7

The Technicians Supervisor Neglected His Duty to Supervise the

Technicians, Thus Allowing Them to Be Paid or Work

Not Perormed 7

Two Technicians Improperly Claimed Overtime and Dierential

Pay or Work Not Perormed 9

One Technician Falsifed Gamma Gamma Logging Test Results 10

The Supervisor Misappropriated State Property or Personal Use

With Assistance From the Two Technicians and Other Subordinates 19

Actions by Caltrans Regarding the Employees Misdeeds 22

Recommendations 23

Appendix

The Investigations Program 27

Summary o Agency Response and Caliornia

State Auditors Comments 29


6/38


March 2013

vi



7/38


March 2013

Investigative Highlights . . .

Our investigation at the Caliornia

Department o Transportation (Caltrans)

substantiated the ollowing:

A supervisor neglected his duty to

supervise two technicians, which

acilitated their being able to get paid or

work they did not perorm.

Two technicians improperly claimed

overtime and dierential pay or work

not perormed, costing the State an

estimated $13,788 in overpayments.

Caltrans employees engaged in

11 incidents o data alsifcation

10 o the incidents involved one o the

technicians, while the remaining incident

involved an engineer who reviewed

testing data collected by that technician.

Caltrans could not identiy the engineer

who alsifed the data.

The supervisor improperly used Caltrans

property by taking it to land that he

owned with help rom two technicians

and other subordinate employees.

Investigative Results

Results in Brie

Pursuant to the Caliornia Whistleblower Protection Act(Whistleblower Act, ound at Government Code section 8547 et seq.),the Caliornia State Auditor (state auditor) presents this reportconcerning an investigation conducted at the Caliornia Departmento ransportation (Caltrans). Te Whistleblower Act authorizes thestate auditor to investigate and report on improper governmentalactivities by state agencies and employees. Under the WhistleblowerAct, an improper governmental activity, as dened by GovernmentCode section 8547.2, subdivision (c), includes any action by astate agency, or by a state employee in connection with his or her

employment, that violates a state or ederal law; violates an executiveorder o the Governor, a Caliornia Rule o Court, or a policy orprocedure mandated by the State Administrative Manualor StateContracting Manual; is economically wasteul; or involves grossmisconduct, incompetence, or ineciency.

Tis report concludes that a supervisor neglected his duty tosupervise two transportation engineering technicians (technicians),which acilitated the technicians being paid or work they did notperorm, at an estimated cost o $13,788 in overpayments. One othe technicians, as determined by Caltrans and two ederal agencies,alsied concrete pile testing data or at least three transportationprojects. A subsequent review by Caltrans identied eight additionalincidents o data alsication. Te supervisor also misappropriatedCaltrans property with assistance rom the technicians and othersubordinate employees.

Background

As part o executing its responsibility to design, build, operate,and maintain Caliornias highway system, Caltrans operates aFoundation esting Branch within its division o engineering

services to perorm oundation testing or transportationstructures, including reeway overpasses and bridges. Caltransemploys technicians in the branch to conduct the testing, whichincludes gamma gamma logging and pile load testing, amongother methods o testing, to analyze the strength and durabilityo the piles that are used to provide a deep oundation or thesupport o bridges and other transportation structures. Gammagamma logging constitutes approximately 80 percent o thework o the Foundation esting Branch, with other methods otesting, including pile load testing, constituting the remaindero the branchs work. Caltrans also employs engineers to interpretthe data generated by the testing.


8/38


March 2013

2

Gamma gamma logging uses a probe to detect anomalies orinconsistencies in the density o the concrete used to orm a

pile that will support a structure. A technician perorms gammagamma logging by using gear loaded into a specially equipped vanthat the technician drives to the construction site where piles arebeing installed. Each pile that is installed at a location where wateris present in the ground is required to have vertical testing tubescast into the concrete orming the pile, spaced an equal distanceapart, with one tube or every 12 inches o the piles diameter. Tetechnician attaches a pulley device to the top o a tube and attachesa radiation source to one end o the probe and a cable to the otherend o the probe. Te cable is connected to a winch located in thevan. With the pulley device guiding the cable, the technician usesthe winch to lower and then raise the probe through the tube at a

steady pace. As it moves through the tube, the probe emits gammaradiation particles into the concrete surrounding the tube andcollects data regarding the density o the concrete in the pile asmeasured by the manner in which the gamma particles penetrate theconcrete and defect back to the probe. Te probe sends this data to anearby laptop computer to which the probe is linked. Te technicianrepeats this process or every tube in every pile being installed. Telaptop computer stores the data it receives in a raw data le and ina log ASCII data le created or each tube.1 Ater completing thegamma gamma logging testing at a site, the technician submitsthe log ASCII les or each o the piles tested to a Caltrans engineerto evaluate the testing results. Figure 1 shows a gamma gammalogging test being perormed at a construction site.

Te Foundation esting Branch is expected to perorm tests onits gamma gamma logging equipment on a regular basis to ensurethat the equipment is recording data accurately and perormingproperly. At least annually, a branch technician perorms acalibration test on the equipment to ensure that it accuratelyrecords the data it collects. In addition, prior to undertaking atesting assignment, each technician assigned to perorm testingat a construction site is expected to veriy that the gamma gammalogging equipment he or she will be using is operating properly.

o do this, the technician perorms a unctionality test using theequipment to test a concrete block o known density (a concretereerence block). Te branch establishes the density o theconcrete reerence blocks that it uses by perorming qualicationtests to veriy that the blocks are o a standard density.

Pile load testing uses pressure exerted by a hydraulic jack tomeasure whether the design o a concrete or steel pile willwithstand the load it is intended to hold once the structure it

ASCII is an acronym that stands or American Standard Code or Inormation Interchange.An ASCII le is a common text le in which each alphabetic, numeric, and special character is

represented by a number.


9/38


March 2013

Figure 1

Example o Gamma Gamma Logging at a Construction Site

CablePulley

Winch

Inspection Tube

Source: Caliornia Department o Transportation, Foundation Testing Branch.

supports is completed and in use. Pile load testing is not perormedor all construction projects, but only when an engineer or aproject wants conrmation that the design o the piles used ina project will have the load capacity that is necessary when putin place at the construction site. Since the condition o the soilwhere a pile is installed can aect the amount o load the pile canwithstand, the testing must be perormed at the construction site.

o perorm this test, a team o technicians and an engineer attachdigital displacement gauges to the pile being tested, place hydraulicjacks atop the pile, and center a large steel beam, called a maintest beam, over the jack. Te main test beam is attached at each

end to a cross beam that is secured to vertical beams that aredrilled or driven into the ground. When a technician activates thehydraulic jack, the jack applies incrementally increasing pressureon the test pile, simulating an incremental increase in the amounto load being placed on the pile that will be installed at the site tosupport the structure being built. As the amount o load increases,the gauges attached to the test pile collect data about the pilesmovement at each level o load and transmit this data to a nearbycomputer. Te technician continues to increase the amount o loaduntil the test pile ails, as evidenced by the gauge revealing that thepile is displaying too much movement to be considered stable at


10/38


March 2013

4

that particular amount o load. Tis establishes the maximum loadcapacity o the pile that will be installed at the construction site.

Ater the test is concluded, the data collected by the technicians isanalyzed by a Caltrans engineer to determine whether the design othe pile is adequate to provide the support needed or the structurebeing built. I the testing reveals that a pile cannot withstand theintended load, the pile is redesigned. Figure 2 depicts a pile loadtest being conducted.

Figure 2

Example o a Pile Load Test at a Construction Site

Maintest

beam

Crossbeam

Vertical beams driven into the ground

Hydraulic jack

Pile being tested

Source: Caliornia Department o Transportation, Foundation Testing Branch.

Pile load testing can involve physically demanding activity. Asa result, the collective bargaining agreement between the Stateand the employees o bargaining unit 11, which includes Caltranstechnicians, provides that a technician perorming this test receivesincreased compensation (called a pay dierential) o $1.25 orevery hour that he or she is engaged in the pile load testing. o

qualiy or the dierential, a technician must be assigned to pileload testing duties at a specic site, and the pile load testingequipment must be en route to, en route rom, or at the site.

Gamma gamma logging and pile load testing are essential toensuring that a particular transportation structure is reliable andsae or extended use. By checking or anomalies or inconsistenciesin the concrete that orms the piles used in a constructionproject, along with other quality assurance measures, gammagamma logging helps to ensure that the piles are not deectiveand thereore will provide proper support or a structure overtime. By establishing the load capacity o a pile designed or use


11/38


March 2013

in a construction project, pile load testing helps to ensure that thepiles used in a transportation structure will be strong enough to

support the structure saely. Because circumstances oten requirethat a testing project be completed within a short amount o time,technicians perorming gamma gamma logging and pile load testingcommonly are required to work overtime to complete the testing ina timely manner.

Both tests are very technical in nature, involve the use o specialtesting equipment, and require travel to a construction site.Tus, whenever gamma gamma logging or pile load testing hasbeen conducted, many documents should exist to conrm thatthe testing was perormed. When a technician perorms gammagamma logging, the ollowing documents typically are generated or

review to ensure that the test has been perormed properly: a dailyeld report, a test setup sheet, a nuclear gauge checkout log, gaugeunctionality test result, and data les in two dierent ormats orevery tube tested. When a technician perorms pile load testing, thedocuments typically generated or review include a pile load testingsetup sheet, a daily eld report, an engineer report, pictures o thetesting, and timestamped raw data les. In addition, Caltransroutine procedures require project work olders and travel expenseclaims to be generated or either test.

In perorming the previously described testing and all other aspectso their employment, state employees are required to behavehonestly. Government Code section 19572, subdivision () declaresthat any act o dishonesty by a state employee constitutes groundsor discipline. Moreover, United States Code, title 18, section 1020expressly prohibits any ederal or state employee rom making alsestatements or representations regarding the materials used or workperormed in a highway construction project.

o protect state resources, every state agency is required tosupervise its employees in a manner that prevents the unnecessaryexpenditure o state unds. Caliornia Code o Regulations, title 2,section 599.665 provides that state agencies must keep complete

and accurate time and attendance records or all o their employees.Further, Caliornia Code o Regulations, title 2, section 599.702requires that or an agency to compensate an employee orovertime, the overtime must be authorized in advance, except inan emergency. Consistent with these statutory requirements, theState Administrative Manualprovides at section 8540 that as ageneral practice, compensation or overtime should be based onprior written approval signed by a designated supervisor.

o ensure that state employees receive proper supervision, statesupervisory employees must ulll their duties adequately. Inexcusableneglect o duty by a state employee is prohibited misconduct

Both pile load testing and gamma

gamma logging tests are very

technical in nature, involve the use

o special testing equipment, and

require travel to a construction site.


12/38


March 2013

6

that constitutes grounds or discipline under Government Codesection 19572, subdivision (d). In a precedential decision, the State

Personnel Board dened inexcusable neglect o duty as anintentional or grossly negligent ailure to exercise due diligence in theperormance o a known ocial duty.2 A supervisor has a duty toensure that the time reports submitted by his or her subordinates areaccurate and that their overtime requests are reasonable.

In addition, Government Code section 8314, subdivision (a)prohibits any state employee rom misappropriating publicresources or a personal purpose. When the misappropriationamounts to the taking and carrying away o state resources orpersonal use with the intent to consume them or keep thempermanently, it constitutes thet by embezzlement in violation o

Penal Code section 504.

Ater we received inormation in early 2009 that certain Caltranstechnicians might be receiving overtime and dierential paymentsor work not perormed, we asked Caltrans in April 2009 to assistus with an investigation by reviewing all 2008 timesheets orthese technicians. Ater we made this request, and in responseto a complaint that it received in 2009, Caltrans and two ederalagenciesthe Oce o the Inspector General or the United StatesDepartment o ransportation (Inspector General) and the FederalHighway Administration (Highway Administration)initiatedrelated investigations into the alsication o testing data andmisappropriation o state property by Caltrans employees in theFoundation esting Branch.

Caltrans did not provide us with the results o its review o thetechnicians timesheets until September 2009, despite our repeatedrequests or a quicker response. However, when we received theresults o the review and examined Caltrans methodology orconducting the review, we ound the review to be inadequate, asCaltrans did not explain how the technicians could have worked somuch overtime on days when they were not assigned to perormtesting in the eld. We thereore asked Caltrans in January 2010 to

explain why the technicians overtime hours were not associatedwith eld testing and to review supporting documents to ensure thetechnicians worked all o the hours they claimed.

In February 2010 Caltrans responded that the overtime hoursclaimed by the technicians were incurred while perorming tasksassociated with conducting tests in the eld. However, when wecompared the technicians travel claims to their overtime and pile

Jack Tolchin (1996) SPB Dec. No. 9604, page 11, citing Gubser v. Dept. of Employment(1969) 271 Cal.App.2d 240, 242.

When we received the results o

the review and examined Caltrans

methodology or conducting the

review, we ound the review to

be inadequate.


13/38


March 2013

load testing hours, we ound that most o the overtime and pile loadtesting hours claimed were not associated with eld testing. Instead,

the technicians claimed overtime and pile load testing hoursregularly, without regard to their assignments. We posed additionalquestions to Caltrans in March 2010, which prompted it to conductinterviews. From March 2010 through October 2011, we repeatedlyasked Caltrans to provide us with updates on the status o its work.Caltrans submitted its nal report to us in October 2011. Aterreviewing its report, however, we ound that we needed to conductadditional interviews and perorm additional analyses to validateCaltrans ndings. We also needed to take into account the resultso the investigatory work being perormed by the ederal agenciesthat were drawn into examining the activities o the technicians aterthey learned that one o the technicians had alsied the results o

some o the gamma gamma logging tests that he had perormed.

Facts and Analysis

Te previously described investigative work revealed that asupervisor neglected his duty to supervise two technicians, whichacilitated their being able to get paid or work they did notperorm. In 2008 technicians A and B improperly claimed overtimeand dierential pay or work not perormed, costing the State anestimated $13,788 in overpayments to the technicians. In addition,Caltrans employees engaged in 11 incidents o data alsication.en o the incidents involved echnician A, while the remainingincident involved an engineer who reviewed testing data collectedby echnician A. However, Caltrans could not identiy the engineerwho alsied the data. Te supervisor also made improper useo Caltrans property by taking it to land that he owned nearSusanville, Caliornia, with help rom the two technicians and othersubordinate employees.

The Technicians Supervisor Neglected His Duty to Supervise the

Technicians, Thus Allowing Them to Be Paid or Work Not Perormed

Our investigation ound that a supervisor substantially neglected hisduty to supervise two technicians in the Foundation esting Branch.In particular, the supervisor neither required the technicians toobtain preapproval or overtime nor reviewed records readilyavailable to him to conrm that the technicians perormed thework they claimed. As a result, the supervisor approved 267 hourso overtime claimed by the technicians even though there was noevidence to demonstrate that they actually worked the overtime.Similarly, he approved the technicians claims o perorming1,373 hours o pile load testing, or which they received dierentialpay, even though there was no evidence to veriy that they


14/38


March 2013

8

perormed this work during those hours. In act, in some instances,documents were available to indicate that they were perorming

another kind o work entirely.

Under Caliornia Code o Regulations, title 2, section 599.702,overtime requests were to be approved in advance by the supervisor.At a weekly sta meeting held every Friday, the supervisor routinelyinstructed his employees to submit requests or authorization towork overtime. echnicians A and B submitted blanket overtimerequests any time they believed an assignment was likely, regardlesso the actual occurrence. However, the supervisor did not sign ordate any o the overtime requests submitted by the two techniciansin 2008. Tereore, because the overtime was only requested and notapproved, this process did not ulll the legal requirement.

Given the nature o the technicians eldwork assignments, whichrequired them to check out specic testing equipment and producea work product each time they conducted eldwork, the supervisorhad sucient records available to conrm whether the techniciansworked the hours they claimed. Te supervisor asserted that heregularly looked at the overtime claimed by each technician todetermine whether the overtime claimed or various projectsappeared credible. However, had the supervisor perormed even acursory comparison between the two technicians time reports andavailable testing documents, he would have discovered that bothtechnicians were claiming overtime or work that did not involvetesting, which generally is the only justication or technicians towork overtime. He also would have discovered that the technicianswere claiming dierential pay or hours they did not perorm workthat entitled them to receive the dierential. At a minimum, thesupervisor should have questioned the overtime and pay dierentialhours claimed when no corresponding test results or record ousing testing equipment existed.

Te requency o the pile load testing hours claimed should haveraised concerns or the supervisor, as this kind o testing generallyconstitutes only about 20 percent o the branchs work. For

example, echnician A reported pile load testing during our weeksin January 2008. Such an unusually high amount o pile loadtesting in a single month, as reported by the technician, should haveprompted the supervisor to take a closer look at the accuracy o theclaim. I he had done so, he would have ound that echnician Aactually was working on gamma gamma logging during one o theour weeks he claimed to be working on pile load testing. Further,the supervisor would have ound no evidence o pile load testingor any o the remaining weeks that echnician A claimed to beperorming such testing in January 2008. Similarly, echnician Bregularly claimed pile load testing hours that exceeded the amounto this testing that generally is perormed, which should have

The requency o the pile load

testing hours claimed should have

raised concerns or the supervisor,

as this kind o testing generallyconstitutes only about 20 percent o

the branchs work.


15/38


March 2013

prompted the supervisor to examine the accuracy o the pile loadtesting hours that echnician B claimed. For instance, echnician B

claimed to be working on pile load testing or the majority o themonth o September 2008. Had the supervisor perormed a closerreview, he would have ound no evidence o any pile load testingwork perormed by echnician B during that month. Even in thoserare instances when the technicians legitimately could have workedovertime without conducting tests, the supervisor should haveobtained and reviewed documentation o the overtime work thetechnicians claimed they were perorming beore approving theirtime reports, in order to comply with Caltrans overtime policy.

Trough his ailure to exercise due diligence in monitoring theovertime work perormed by the technicians under his supervision

and conrming the accuracy o the overtime they claimed on theirtime reports beore approving them, the supervisor inexcusablyneglected a duty o his position in violation o Government Codesection 19572, subdivision (d).

Two Technicians Improperly Claimed Overtime and Dierential Pay

or Work Not Perormed

As technicians assigned to the Foundation esting Branch,technicians A and B were responsible or testing piles used intransportation construction projects throughout Caliornia.Both worked under the same supervisor, who supervised all othe technicians in the branch. Tey began working in the branchin 2003 and 2002, respectively, and were authorized to perormgamma gamma logging, pile load testing, and other methods opile testing as directed by their supervisor. However, as describedin greater detail earlier in this report, how the techniciansreported spending their work hours and what hours they actuallyworked received little oversight rom their supervisor. When thetechnicians reported working hundreds o hours o overtime in2008, we examined whether there was evidence showing they hadworked the hours they claimed.

We ound that in 2008 the two technicians claimed a total o267 hours o overtime work they did not perorm and received$12,072 in overtime pay to which they were not entitled. echnician Aalsely claimed 138 hours o overtime work, consisting o 115 hoursclaimed as testing work and 23 hours claimed as nontesting work, orwhich he was paid $6,384. echnician B alsely claimed 129 hours oovertime work, consisting o 111 hours claimed as testing work and18 hours claimed as nontesting work, or which he was paid $5,688.We determined that neither technician perormed the testing workbecause during the hours they claimed to be working overtime doing

When the technicians reported

working hundreds o hours o

overtime in 2008, we examined

whether there was evidence

showing they had worked the hours

they claimed.


16/38


March 2013

10

testing, there was no record o the equipment needed or such testinghaving been checked out and no activity records to indicate that

testing work was perormed during that time.

We also ound that in 2008 the two technicians alsely claimedthey perormed a total o 1,373 hours o pile load testing work andreceived $1,716 in dierential pay to which they were not entitled.echnician A alsely claimed 360 hours o pile load testing work, orwhich he was paid $450 in dierential pay, and echnician B alselyclaimed 1,013 hours o pile load testing work, or which he was paid$1,266 in dierential pay. We determined that the technicians didnot perorm any pile load testing during these hours because therewas no record o the equipment necessary or this type o testinghaving been checked out and no activity records to indicate that

pile load testing work was perormed at that time. In act, orsome o these hours, we ound documentation indicating thatthe technicians actually were perorming gamma gamma logging,which did not entitle them to receive a pay dierential.

Accordingly, we established that technicians A and B did not adhereto the standard o honesty required o state employees underGovernment Code section 19572, subdivision ( ), and throughailing to adhere to this standard, the two technicians improperlyenriched themselves by $13,788. When a Caltrans investigatorconronted the two technicians with evidence that they made alseclaims about working overtime and perorming pile load testing,the technicians were unable to provide any evidence to reute thatthey had reported their time alsely.

One Technician Falsifed Gamma Gamma Logging Test Results

At the same time that questions arose about whether technicians Aand B had reported their work hours honestly, a question arose as towhether echnician A had been honest and truthul when conductingthe gamma gamma logging testing he was assigned to perorm.

In September 2008 echnician A was assigned to perorm gammagamma logging testing on piles that were being used to support theLa Sierra Avenue bridge in Riverside. Ater echnician A perormedthe testing and orwarded the log ASCII data le containing theresults to a Caltrans engineer or evaluation, the engineer inormedechnician A that the test results or one o the piles being usedin the project appeared incomplete because the size o the datale or the testing did not seem consistent with the amount otesting that needed to be perormed. Te engineer thereoreasked echnician A to redo the testing on the pile. wo days later,echnician A submitted to the engineer a larger data le purportedlycontaining more testing data regarding the pile. Tis caused the

We ound that in 2008 the

two technicians alsely claimed they

perormed a total o 1,373 hours o

pile load testing work and received

$1,716 in dierential pay to which

they were not entitled.


17/38


March 2013

engineer to become concerned about the authenticity o the testingdata echnician A presented, because the technician would not

have been able to perorm additional testing and obtain the testingdata in such a short amount o time. As a result, the engineer closelyreviewed the data that echnician A submitted regarding the pile.Trough this review, the engineer discovered that echnician Ahad copied data rom a dierent gamma gamma logging test andpasted it into the data le or the pile. Te engineer alerted Caltransmanagement to this discovery. Tey conronted echnician A aboutthe duplicate data ound in the testing le or the pile being used in theLa Sierra Avenue bridge project. When conronted, echnician Aadmitted that he alsied testing data or the pile because he didnot want it to appear that he had submitted incomplete data, buthe asserted that he did not alsiy any other test results. By alsiying

the testing data, echnician A violated his duty o honesty underGovernment Code section 19572, subdivision () and made alsestatements regarding his work on a highway construction project,which is prohibited by United States Code, title 18, section 1020.

In response to echnician As admitted alsication o testing dataor one o the piles used in the La Sierra Avenue bridge project,on September 19, 2008, an engineer rejected echnician Astest results or the pile and directed that the pile be retested byanother technician. Te engineer did not direct that any otherpiles used in the project be retested. A second technician testedthe pile and concluded that there were no signicant anomaliesor inconsistencies in the concrete used to orm the pile andrecommended that the pile be accepted or use in the project. Also,in response to echnician As admitted alsication o testing dataregarding the pile, a Caltrans engineer conducted an examination otesting data or some other gamma gamma logging tests perormedby echnician A. In June 2009, the engineer identied two otherincidents, each involving separate construction projects, in which itappeared that echnician A had alsied testing data or a pile beingused to support a highway structure by copying data rom a portiono a tube being tested into another portion o the same tube or byrenaming a test le or one tube and representing it as results or

another tube. Despite identiying these additional data alsications,Caltrans did not at that time take any action to determine whetherthe structures aected were indeed sound.

Subsequently, in March 2010, the Inspector General contactedCaltrans about a complaint it received regarding echnician Aalsiying gamma gamma logging test results on ederally undedhighway projects in Caliornia. Based on what the Inspector Generallearned rom Caltrans, in June 2010 the Inspector General alertedthe Highway Administration to the likelihood that gamma gammalogging testing on ederally unded highway projects in Caliorniahad been alsied. Te Highway Administration, in turn, began

Despite identiying these additional

data alsifcations, Caltrans did

not at that time take any action todetermine whether the structures

aected were indeed sound.


18/38


March 2013

12

gathering data rom Caltrans about its gamma gamma loggingtesting. Te Highway Administration encountered diculty obtaining

rom Caltrans all o the documentation it wanted to examine, butbased on the documents it was able to compile, it identied only thesame three projects that Caltrans identied in 2008 and 2009 as beingprojects in which echnician A had alsied gamma gamma loggingtesting data by copying data rom other tests and pasting the datainto the data les or the piles he was assigned to test. Te HighwayAdministration reely acknowledged that because it had not obtainedall o the inormation it hoped to obtain rom Caltrans, it had notcompleted a comprehensive review o all o the testing perormed byechnician A and other employees o the Foundation esting Branch,and thereore there could be additional gamma gamma logging testson highway projects not perormed properly due to the alsication

o testing data. In 2011, when echnician As alsication o gammagamma logging testing data was receiving attention rom the press,Caltrans directed engineers to conduct engineering analyses o thetwo additional structures that Caltrans rst identied in 2009 ashaving been tested improperly due to echnician As data alsication.Caltrans completed those engineering analyses in October 2011 andound that the piles structurally were adequate. Figure 3 describesthe three projects that Caltrans and the Highway Administrationidentied as being aected by echnician A alsiying data.

Figure 3

Dates o Each Falsifcation, Location, Project Description, Description o Falsifcation, and the Caliornia Department oTransportations Response to the Falsifcation

Retaining wall at Braddock Drive on Interstate 5

Data file for one tube was renamed and represented as data for another tube inanother pile.

ResponseCaliforniaDepartment of Transportation (Caltrans) conducted an engineering analysis inOctober 2011 and confirmed that the foundation is structurally adequate.

Test results from two tubes in the same pile showed that data was copied fromsections of one test and pasted into other sect ions of the same test.

ResponseCaltrans conducted an engineering analysis in October 2011 and confirmed that thefoundation is structurally adequate.

Riverside Test results from two tubes in the same pile showed that sections of data werecopied from either different tubes in the same pile or from tubes in an adjacent pile.

ResponseCaltrans rejected the test results immediately after the falsification was discovered,assigned another technician to retest the pile, and then recommended the pile be accepted.

Los AngelesApril 4, 2007

March 19, 2008

September 19, 2008

Overhead sign on Interstate 580

La Sierra Avenue bridge

!

!

!

Oakland

Sources: Caltrans investigative report (August ), Oce o the Inspector General or the United States Department o Transportationreport (October ), November letter to the State Senate Committee on Transportation and Housing.

Note: None o the improper overtime or pay diferential hours identied in this report occurred on the days that Technician A alsied test results.


19/38


March 2013

Tere are two critical points to note about the determinationin 2010 by Caltrans and the Highway Administration that

echnician A alsied gamma gamma logging test results oronly three projects. First, at that time, none o the agenciesinvolved in reviewing his testing had examined all o the gammagamma logging testing echnician A had perormed. Second, theexamination o his gamma gamma logging testing ocused only onwhether he alsied test results by copying and pasting data, andnot by any other means. echnician A perormed gamma gammalogging testing rom July 2003 through October 2008, but neitherCaltrans, the Highway Administration, nor any other agencyconducted a complete review o all gamma gamma logging testingperormed by echnician A during this entire span. Specically,Caltrans ocused on the three projects involving data alsication

in 2007 and 2008 that its employees previously identied. TeHighway Administration reviewed some data rom 2001 through 2010,but its review was limited to the data it was able to collect romCaltrans. Specically, it cited ve caveats to its ability to conduct acomprehensive review, including its inability to copy Caltrans leswith lenames that exceeded 255 characters and, most notably,the loss o an undetermined amount o data caused by a servercrash at Caltrans in 2007. Caltrans did not back up the data and,as a result, the Highway Administration could not identiy themissing data. Tereore, its review o gamma gamma logging testingby the Foundation esting Branch should not be construed as acomprehensive review. Furthermore, Caltrans allowed echnician Ato have access to electronic job les or eight months ater he wasremoved rom testing duties in early November 2008. Tis lengthyperiod o time provided echnician A with ample opportunity tourther manipulate or delete those data les.

Caltrans Subsequently Identifed Additional Falsifed Testing Data

In November 2011 inormation about the alsication o gammagamma logging testing by echnician A was reported publicly bythe news media, prompting the Legislature to convene oversight

hearings inquiring into Caltrans handling o the evidence itreceived o the alsication o gamma gamma logging testing dataand the extent to which the alsication presented a threat topublic saety. At the hearings, legislators expressed concern aboutwhether Caltrans had been doing enough to identiy the extento the alsication o testing data and to ensure that Caliorniasbridges and highway structures were sae despite the alsication.In response to these concerns, and at the request o CaltransStructure Policy Board, Caltrans assembled a team o engineers,called the Gamma Gamma Logging Data Integrity Revieweam (GAMDA team), to conduct a comprehensive technicalreview o the archived gamma gamma logging data compiled by

Caltrans allowed the technician

to have access to electronic job

fles or eight months ater he

was removed rom testing duties

in early November 2008ample

opportunity to urther manipulate

or delete those data fles.


20/38


March 2013

14

Caltrans technicians over an 18year period and issued a reporton the results o that review. Te GAMDA team is made up

o engineering personnel rom Caltrans geotechnical services,structures construction, and research and innovation divisions, aswell as rom the Highway Administration. In addition to havingmembership on the GAMDA team, the Highway Administrationestablished a group o engineers and subjectmatter experts to serveas independent peer reviewers o the GAMDA team, providingcomments and suggestions to the team as it progressed withits work.

In conducting its work, the GAMDA team collected all availablegamma gamma logging test les rom March 1994 throughMay 2012, which amounted to a total o 224,104 test les. As

described in the Background section o this report, every pileinstalled where water is present in the ground is required to havevertical testing tubes cast into the concrete orming a pile, spacedan equal distance apart, with one tube or every 12 inches o apiles diameter. Te 224,104 test les each contain data obtainedrom a testing tube ound in a pile at a construction site or at theFoundation esting Branch, where equipment is tested beorebeing taken into the eld. Te GAMDA team then used a serieso computer programs to review the 224,104 test les and fag orurther evaluation any data les containing data that appearedabnormal or the test being perormed, thus indicating that the datain the les might have been alsied.

As an example o what the GAMDA team fagged or urtherevaluation during its review o the data les using the computerprograms, the team fagged test les in which either a portion or anentire series o data ound in one gamma gamma logging test lewas identical to data ound in another gamma gamma logging testle. Tis kind o repetition o data indicates that data was copiedrom one test le and pasted into another. As another example, theteam fagged or urther evaluation test les in which the deptho the tube being tested was not recorded consistently within thele, such as when a technician identied the depth o a tube as

being 20 eet but collected only 15 eet o data rom the tube. Asyet another example, the team fagged or urther evaluation testles in which the data collected by a technician did not match thedata evaluated by an engineer. As described in the Backgroundsection o this report, a technician is responsible or collectingdata rom a test, and an engineer is responsible or evaluatingthe data. When a technician perorms a gamma gamma loggingtest, the technicians equipment generates a raw data le at thesame time that it generates a log ASCII data le. Tose two lesshould be identical, as they are supposed to collect the same data.Te computer programs compared the two les to identiy anydierences in the data ound in the two les, as dierences could

This kind o repetition o data

indicates that data was copied

rom one test fle and pasted

into another.


21/38


March 2013

indicate that the data ound in one o the les was altered in someway ater it was generated. As a nal example, the GAMDA team

fagged or urther evaluation any test le in which there was aquestion concerning the timing o the testing perormed, such aswhen a test took less time to perorm than the amount o timegenerally expected.

From the 224,104 test les gathered, the GAMDA team fagged atotal o 1,102 test les or urther evaluation due to abnormalitiesthat the computer programs detected in the data contained in theles. Te team organized the 1,102 suspect test les into groupso related tests or related irregularities to acilitate an indepthanalysis o the les by GAMDA team members. For example,the GAMDA team grouped some les together based on the

bridge or structure involved or the type o data irregularityfagged by the computer programs. Te analysis perormed atthis stage required the team to review the available records orthe test le to determine whether a data irregularity existed, itsimpact, and the cause. For example, i a test was fagged becausethe depth o the tube tested was not reported consistently,urther evaluation o the project le by the GAMDA team wasundertaken to determine whether the technician intentionallymanipulated the testing data or the technician simply made an errorwhen identiying the depth o the tube. Trough examining the1,102 test les, the GAMDA team identied additional instanceso data alsication.

In January 2013 the GAMDA team issued a report on itscomprehensive review o the gamma gamma logging testingperormed by Caltrans during the past 18 years. Te reportdescribed the total number o gamma gamma logging dataalsications it was able to uncover through the comprehensivereview, an assessment o the impact o the alsications onCaltrans construction projects, and recommendations or how thealsications should be addressed by Caltrans. Te GAMDA teamidentied eight additional incidents o data alsication involvinggamma gamma logging testing in addition to the three that

Caltrans discovered in 2008 and 2009, or a total o 11 incidents oalsication. en o these involved echnician A and one involvedan unidentied engineer assigned to review testing data collectedby echnician A.

Six o the additional eight incidents o data alsication occurredduring the testing o a pile supporting a highway structure orbridge. In ve o the incidents, echnician A alsied gammagamma logging data as described in Figure 4 on the ollowingpage. In the sixth incident, an engineer analyzing data collected byechnician A alsied gamma gamma logging data used in a 2004

The GAMDAT team identifed

eight additional incidents o data

alsifcation involving gamma

gamma logging testing inaddition to the three that Caltrans

discovered in 2008 and 2009, or a

total o 11 incidents o alsifcation.


22/38


March 2013

16

analysis by copying data rom another test and using it to replacesome incomplete data collected by echnician A. Te GAMDA

team ound that this data alsication was intentional.

Figure 4

Additional Incidents o Data Manipulation Identifed by the Gamma Gamma Logging Data Integrity Review Team

Benicia-Martinez bridge along Interstate 680

Calibration test conducted at headquarters to ensure the equipment accurately recorded data

Bridge in Lake Hodges along Interstate 15

Data was collected from one tube twice and used to represent two different tubes.

Benicia-Martinez

Sacramento

April 4, 2004

San Diego

Riverside

Sacramento

Los Angeles

!

Data was collected from one tube twice and used to represent two different tubes.October 19, 2004 !

Data was collected from one tube twice and used to represent two different tubes.January 5, 2005 !

Southeast connector on a bridge along Interstate 215Data was collected from one tube twice and used to represent two different tubes.May 3, 2005 !

The raw data file identified a series of zero values that was not represented in the engineering analysis.The team determined the zero values were replaced with data from another test file.*

August 7, 2004

August 16, 2004

!

Data was collected from one tube twice and used to represent two different tubes.!

Retaining wall at Sawtelle Boulevard along Interstate 405Data was collected from one tube twice and used to represent two different tubes.May 17, 2007 !

Qualification tests conducted at headquarters to ensure concrete blocks used for equipment testing have the same density

Data collected from nine tests showed that it was copied from another test to hide potentialirregularities. These irregularities in the qualification test could have led to the test being rejected.

January 5, 2007

February 23, 2007

!and

Source: Caliornia Department o Transportation.

* Although all other incidents involved intentional data manipulation by Technician A, this incident involved an engineer who intentionally manipulated the data.

Although this test alsication occurred on two dates, the Gamma Gamma Logging Data Integrity Review Team and its peer reviewers are counting thealsication as one incident.

Ater Caltrans learned rom the GAMDA team that an engineerhad alsied gamma gamma logging testing data, Caltrans

attempted to determine the circumstances o the alsication. Itound that two engineers were involved in the analysis o the testingdata, and either o them thereore could have alsied the data. Inthis incident, one o the engineers alsied data by replacing datathat appeared as a series o zeros with data that he copied romanother test. Te GAMDA team reported that when data appearas a series o zeros, this typically means that the probe used orthe test became disconnected rom the winch that was movingit through the testing tube or there was a physical deect in thecable connected to the winch that caused the probe not to collectvalid data. One o the two engineers was primarily responsibleor preparing the analysis that was supported by the alsied data.


23/38


24/38


March 2013

18

In the other incident, echnician A alsied testing data or acalibration test that he perormed in October 2004 on gamma

gamma logging equipment. Here too, however, the GAMDAteam determined that the alsication o the testing data had noimpact on the validity o any subsequent gamma gamma loggingtesting perormed with the equipment, because the equipment hadits calibration properly tested by another technician one monthprior, and the results o this test conrmed that the equipment wascalibrated properly. In addition, the GAMDA team ound that thealsied test results rom the October 2004 test were not used inany subsequent analysis.

By alsiying the testing data, echnician A and the unidentiedengineer violated their duty o honesty under Government Code

section 19572, subdivision () and made alse statements regardingtheir work on a highway construction project, which is prohibitedby United States Code, title 18, section 1020.

In addition to identiying the eight additional incidents o dataalsication discussed above, the GAMDA team also expressedconcern about another eight gamma gamma logging test les thatcontained incomplete testing data. Tese les contained datathat appeared as null values (blank inormation) rather than aszeros. Te GAMDA team reported that when data appear as nullvalues, this can mean that the probe was collecting data aster thanthe sotware in the computer receiving the data rom the probecould process it. As a result, data collected by the probe was notrecorded into a computer le. Tis prompted concern amongmembers o the GAMDA team that the engineers analyzingthe testing data may have replaced the nullvalue data when theyconducted analyses using the data.

o address the concern o the GAMDA team about the incompletedata gathered or these eight test les, Caltrans asked a GAMDAteam member to evaluate the les to determine whether data inthe les had been replaced during analysis. Te team memberdetermined that the data in the les had been analyzed by

two engineers who were not the same as the engineers involved in theanalysis o the data that had been alsied. Tese engineers omittedthe null values during their engineering analyses rather than replacingany o them. o do this, they omitted data rom the test les rangingrom 1 percent to 12 percent o the data in a le.

Ater reviewing the circumstances o the data omissions, Caltransasserted that the engineers simply omitting the null values romtheir engineering analyses rather than requiring the testing be redonewas appropriate and within the responsibilities o the two assignedengineers. However, the state bridge engineer, ater learning o thedata omissions, directed an analysis on two o the three structures

In addition to identiying the

eight additional incidents o data

alsifcation, the GAMDAT team also

expressed concern about another

eight gamma gamma logging test

fles that contained incomplete

testing data.


25/38


March 2013

and bridges related to these eight test les to evaluate their structuralintegrity. He excluded one bridge rom urther analysis ater an

engineers evaluation determined that the number o null valuesin the le did not merit a structural evaluation. Te state bridgeengineer determined that the structure and bridge that wereevaluated were adequate structurally. In addition, the Foundationesting Branch issued a new policy that requires retesting wheneverzero or null values are ound in testing data.

In addition to the GAMDA teams report, the HighwayAdministrations group o peer reviewers undertook a criticalreview o the GAMDA teams methodologies and issued their ownreport assessing the validity o the GAMDA teams ndings andconclusions. Te peer reviewers issued their report in January 2013

and concluded that the GAMDA team perormed a reasonable andcomprehensive review o all available gamma gamma logging dataand discovered data irregularities with a high degree o certainty.Tey also made recommendations to the Foundation esting Branchintended to improve its practices in perorming gamma gammalogging testing. Similarly, the state bridge engineers report alsowill be reviewed by a group o specialists in structural integrityassembled by the Highway Administration or the purpose odeclaring whether they agree with the state bridge engineersconclusions regarding the soundness o the bridges and structuresidentied in gures 3 and 4. We are hopeul that through theGAMDA teams comprehensive review o the gamma gammalogging testing perormed by the Foundation esting Branch, thestate bridge engineers analysis o the bridges and structures aectedby alsied testing, and validation o the work o both the GAMDAteam and the state bridge engineer by independent peer reviewersassembled by the Highway Administration, Caliornians now havean accurate assessment o the extent to which the gamma gammalogging testing o Caliornias bridges and highway structures hasbeen alsied and the impact that those alsications has had on thesaety o the bridges and structures that were tested improperly.

The Supervisor Misappropriated State Property or Personal Use WithAssistance From the Two Technicians and Other Subordinates

In February 2010 Caltrans received inormation indicating thatthe supervisor improperly directed state employees to transportsteel beams and abricate, transport, and install a metal gate onhis private property using stateowned materials. Caltrans sharedthis inormation with the Inspector General in March 2010 aterthe Inspector General contacted Caltrans about data alsicationby echnician A. Te Inspector General advised Caltrans thatbecause it already was conducting a criminal investigation oechnician A related to his alsiying testing data, it would include

Caliornians now have an accurate

assessment o the extent to which

the gamma gamma logging testing

o Caliornias bridges and highway

structures has been alsifed and

the impact that those alsifcations

has had on the saety o the

bridges and structures that were

tested improperly.


26/38


March 2013

20

this allegation regarding echnician As supervisor within the scopeo its investigation. Caltrans thereore suspended its investigation o

the supervisor.

Te investigation by the Inspector General revealed that the supervisorwe discussed earlier, with help rom technicians A and B, secretlyremoved materials rom Caltrans acilities and had the materialstransported to land that he owned near Susanville. Te transportedmaterials included 12 steel beams, about 50 eet long, thathad been used or pile load testing at a Caltrans constructionproject in Visalia and then moved to a Caltrans laboratory inSacramento in 2000 or 2001. Te transported materials alsoincluded scrap steel and other materials, such as galvanized metalsheeting, drill rods, pipes, and buckets stored at the Caltrans

Maintenance Equipment raining Academy in Sacramento. Someo the scrap steel and other materials were ashioned into a largegate that was installed at an entrance to the supervisors land.

Regarding his removal and transportation o the beams to hisland near Susanville, the supervisor, during a newspaper interviewin January 2012, denied that he had removed the beams withany intention o stealing them. He claimed that he had beeninstructed by a Caltrans senior ocial to move the beams romtheir laboratory location to get them out o the way. Lackingany other place to store them, the supervisor stated that hedirected echnicians A and B to transport the beams to his landnear Susanville, approximately 180 miles away, or storage. Tesupervisor admitted that he did not tell the senior ocial thatthis was how he resolved the storage location issue. When askedabout the supervisors statement, the senior ocial acknowledgedthat he had told the supervisor to move the beams to anotherlocation but assumed that he would take them either to theMaintenance Equipment raining Academy or to a job site wherethey could be used. Te supervisor stated that he believed thebeams were suitable or recycling or could be reused. However,one o the technicians who helped move the beams stated thathe believed the beams were warped and should be valued only

as scrap metal. Nevertheless, the senior ocial stated that allCaltrans scrap metal, including the beams, has a recycling valuethat is dependent on the price o steel. In April 2012 the supervisorarranged or the beams to be moved rom his land to anotherstorage location in Susanville. In May 2012, more than two yearsater Caltrans learned that the supervisor had transported thebeams to his land near Susanville, Caltrans arranged or the beamsto be picked up and returned to a Caltrans acility at a cost o$2,000. Caltrans estimated the salvage value o the beams to beapproximately $10,000.

The investigation by the Inspector

General revealed that the

supervisor, with help rom

technicians A and B, secretly

removed materials rom Caltrans

acilities and had the materials

transported to land that he owned

near Susanville.


27/38


March 2013

Regarding his transporting o other Caltrans materials to his landnear Susanville, the supervisor admitted to investigators that he

had removed miscellaneous pieces o scrap metal and other suchmaterials rom a Caltrans recycling container and took themto his land. Further, the supervisor admitted that he requestedanother subordinate employee to abricate a gate rom scrap steeland other materials obtained rom the Maintenance Equipmentraining Academy. Te subordinate employee stated that heabricated the gate in December 2007. He and another subordinatetransported the gate to the supervisors land and installed it aroundMay 2008. Te supervisor asserted that the material used or thegate had no value and that Caltrans employees were allowed totake steel let over rom projects or their personal use. However,the senior ocial contradicted the supervisors assertion and

stated that Caltrans employees are not allowed to take suchmaterials or personal use. As o January 2013, aside rom thebeams, none o the materials that the supervisor removed romCaltrans acilities and transported to his land has been returnedto Caltrans custody, and the supervisor has not reimbursedCaltrans or the value o the materials taken.

By misappropriating Caltrans materials or his personal use,the supervisor violated Government Code section 8314, whichprohibits the misappropriation o state property or personal use,and Penal Code section 504, which prohibits the embezzlement ostate property. Tis is particularly evident regarding the Caltransmaterials that he did not simply store on his land, but had ashionedinto a gate and installed on his land or personal use.

In the atermath o the Inspector Generals investigation o thesupervisors alleged misappropriation o Caltrans materials,the Highway Administration took issue with the supervisors decisionto take the beams and other materials and move them to his land,because the beams and other materials were salvaged rom ederalprojects without being either properly recorded or reuse in otherederal projects or returned to the Highway Administration or creditagainst the projects in which the materials were intended to be used.

More importantly, because the supervisors managers were unawareo what the supervisor had done with the beams, they were unable toaccount or them properly and reuse them in other ederal projects.Also, the Inspector General reerred the matter o the supervisorsmisappropriation o Caltrans materials to the United StatesAttorneys Oce and the Sacramento County District Attorney ortheir consideration o whether to le criminal charges against thesupervisor. o date, no decision has been made by either agency tole criminal charges.

As o January 2013, aside rom

the beams, none o the materials

that the supervisor removed

rom Caltrans acilities and

transported to his land has been

returned to Caltrans custody, and

the supervisor has not reimbursed

Caltrans or the value o the

materials taken.


28/38


March 2013

22

Actions by Caltrans Regarding the Employees Misdeeds

Caltrans took disciplinary action against technicians A and Band the supervisor or the improprieties identied in thisreport. However, it subsequently reached agreements withtechnicians A and B that substantially modied the terms o itsdisciplinary actions.

Ater a long history o taking disciplinary actions against echnician Adating back to 1990, including an unsuccessul attempt to dismisshim in 1998, Caltrans addressed echnician As rst conrmedincident o the alsication o gamma gamma logging data in2008 by issuing a letter o warning to him in May 2009. However,when the Highway Administration conrmed in 2011 that he had

alsied data on at least two other occasions and soon aterwardhis alsications were receiving a lot o public attention, Caltransplaced echnician A on administrative leave in November 2011and dismissed him on November 18, 2011. Caltrans cited amongits reasons or dismissing echnician A was that he was dishoneston multiple occasions and that he had engaged in inexcusableneglect o duty. However, echnician A appealed his dismissalto the State Personnel Board and, while the appeal was pending,reached an agreement with Caltrans in January 2012. Under theagreement, Caltrans allowed echnician A to retire rom stateservice eective November 2011 rather than being dismissed. Teagreement also prohibits echnician A rom seeking or acceptingany uture employment with the State but does not speciy how thisprohibition will be enorced, particularly because the agreementrequired Caltrans to remove all documentation pertaining tothe November 2011 disciplinary action rom echnician Asocial personnel records. As such, we see a substantial risk thatechnician A could be hired by another state agency or by a privateemployer who would be unaware o his past dishonesty and neglecto duty.

Caltrans initially addressed echnician B alsely claimingovertime and dierential pay by suspending him without pay or

45 days rom November 2011 through January 2012. However,echnician B appealed this action to the State Personnel Boardand, while the appeal was pending, reached an agreement withCaltrans in March 2012. Under the agreement, Caltrans reducedechnician Bs 2011 suspension to 10 days, withdrew all chargesrelated to his alsely claiming overtime pay and dierential pay, andallowed him to use paid leave hours or the other 35 days o the2011 suspension.

As or the supervisor, in November 2011, Caltrans placed him onadministrative leave and dismissed him eective November 18, 2011.Te dismissal notication indicated that this was Caltrans

We see a substantial risk that

Technician A could be hired by

another state agency or by a

private employer who would be

unaware o his past dishonesty

and neglect o duty.


29/38


March 2013

rst disciplinary action against him and cited numerous instanceso dishonesty, misappropriation o state resources, and inexcusable

neglect o duty as its reasons or the dismissal. Te supervisor hasappealed this dismissal to the State Personnel Board, where thematter still is pending.

Because Caltrans could not identiy with certainty which o thetwo engineers was responsible or alsiying gamma gamma loggingtesting data in 2004, it was unable to initiate any disciplinary actionor that incident. As a result, Caltrans has ocused on revising itspolicies to try to prevent any similar alsications rom occurring inthe uture.

Recommendations

o remedy the eects o the improper governmental activitiesdescribed in this report and to prevent them rom recurring, wemake the ollowing recommendations.

o address the alse claims or overtime and dierential work hourssubmitted by technicians A and B and approved by their supervisor,we recommend that Caltrans:

Seek$6,834inreimbursementfromTechnicianAforthe overtime and pay dierential payments that hereceived improperly.

Seek$6,954inreimbursementfromTechnicianBforthe overtime and pay dierential payments that hereceived improperly.

Establishasystemtoenforcetherequirementthatspecicovertime hours be preapproved or an employee to becompensated or the hours.

ReinforcewithCaltranssupervisorsthattheyhaveadutyto

veriy that overtime and specially compensated work actually hasbeen perormed prior to authorizing payment or the work.

Requirethehoursofovertimeanddierentialworkclaimedbyan employee to be matched with specic projects beore theyare approved or payment to help ensure that the hours claimedare legitimate.


30/38


March 2013

24

o address the lack o controls that allowed the alsication ogamma gamma logging testing data by echnician A and the

engineer, we recommend that Caltrans:

RequirethatFoundationTestingBranchtechnicianssubmittoan engineer both the raw data le and log ASCII data le orevery gamma gamma logging test perormed or a project to helpensure that testing data has not been alsied.

ImplementtherecommendationsoftheGAMDATpeerreviewers intended to improve the gamma gamma loggingtesting procedures o the Foundation esting Branch.

ImplementanyrecommendationsmadebytheGAMDAT

team intended to strengthen the integrity o the gamma gammalogging testing perormed by the Foundation esting Branch.

Implementapolicytoensurethatengineersperformanalysesonproperly collected data and do not misrepresent gamma gammalogging test results.

o address the misappropriation o state property by the supervisor,we recommend that Caltrans:

Obtainanestimateofthevalueofthematerialsthesupervisorremoved rom Caltrans acilities and placed on his property(aside rom the steel beams) as well as the value o thestate employee time spent reashioning and transportingthose materials.

Seekreimbursementfromthesupervisorforthe$2,000costoftransporting the steel beams that he placed on his land back to aCaltrans acility.

Seekreimbursementfromthesupervisorforthecostofthe Caltrans materials (aside rom the steel beams) that hetransported to his land and the cost o the state employee time

spent transporting and reashioning those materials.

Establishcontrolstoensurethatmaterialsintendedforaconstruction project are tracked properly, and that whenmaterials intended or a ederal highway project are not used orthe project, the materials are reused or other ederal projects orreturned to the Highway Administration.

Establishcontrolstoensurethatscrapmaterialsarerecycledandnot taken or personal use by Caltrans employees.


31/38


March 2013

Respectully submitted,

ELAINE M. HOWLE, CPAState Auditor

Date: March 28, 2013

Steven Benito Russo, JD, Chie o Investigations

Sta: Russ Hayden, CGFM, Manager o InvestigationsSiuHenh Canimo, CFEMichael A. Urso, CFE

For questions regarding the contents o this report, do not contactthe abovelisted sta. Please contact Margarita Fernndez, Chie oPublic Aairs, at 916.445.0255.


32/38


33/38


34/38


March 2013

28



35/38


March 2013

Summary of Agency Response and

California State Auditors CommentsTe Caliornia Department o ransportation (Caltrans) respondedthat although it disagrees with our characterization o what weasked Caltrans to do to assist us with the investigation and ourcharacterization o Caltrans responsiveness to our requests, itagrees with our ndings.

Regarding our characterization o what we asked Caltrans todo to assist us with the investigation, Caltrans protested that inour April 2009 request or assistance, we did not ask Caltrans toreview or analyze time sheets, and Caltrans did not know that

the complaint we were investigating involved overtime relatedto pile load testing. Caltrans also noted that in July 2010 itprovided inormation to us regarding the status o its work and inOctober 2010 inormed us that it would issue a report regardingits work. We agree that in July 2010, our months ater we askedCaltrans to explain why technicians were claiming overtime notassociated with eld testing, it provided us with an update regardingits work. We also agree that three months later, in October 2010,Caltrans told us it would provide a written report about its work,which it eventually did one year later, in October 2011. Tese actsaccurately describe Caltrans level o responsiveness during theperiod March 2010 through October 2011. However, we disagreewith Caltrans assertion that we mischaracterized the assistancethat we asked it to provide in April 2009.

In April 2009 we asked Caltrans or copies o time sheets andtravel documents or employees o the branch, as well as Caltransjustication or the overtime that these employees reportedlyworked. We specically identied the hours o overtime associatedwith each employee or which we wanted to receive documentationand justication. Our request or Caltrans to provide justicationor the overtime hours inherently called or a review and analysis othe available inormation. Moreover, the reports that we received

rom Caltrans in response to our request refect that it understoodwe had requested it to review and analyze the time sheets andtravel documents in order to provide a response. Specically, in itsstatus reports to the state auditor in June, July, and August 2009,Caltrans reported that it was analyzing and evaluating theinormation it collected (time sheets and travel documents) in orderto respond to our request. In addition, the inormation Caltranssubmitted to us in September 2009 included a spreadsheet analysisor each employee that compared the employees daily overtimeto the travel expense claims submitted by the employee and theemployees stated reason or the trip.


36/38


March 2013

30

We expected that, as part o Caltrans due diligence in responding toour request, it would have ensured that the justication it provided

or overtime was consistent with its own analysis. However, Caltransresponse in September 2009 was inconsistent. Caltrans justied theovertime charged by technicians A and B by saying it perormedtesting procedures in the eld as described in the report. However,in its analysis o the time sheets and travel documents, a Caltransinvestigator noted many instances in which a technician claimedovertime or eld work when there was no documentation indicatingthat the technician had been in the eld. Tis discrepancy shouldhave raised concerns with Caltrans, because its stated reasonor a technician working overtime was not supported. Althoughits methodology was fawed, its response included a review andanalysis o the inormation requested. As a result, we believe our

characterization o what we asked Caltrans to do in April 2009 toassist us with our investigation is accurate.

Caltrans also included in its response to this report a summary o theactions it has taken or will take to implement our recommendations.o address the alse claims or overtime and dierential work hourssubmitted by technicians A and B, Caltrans stated it could not seekreimbursement rom technicians A and B or the $6,834 and $6,954.Tese are the amounts we concluded they were overpaid or overtimeand dierential work they did not perorm. Caltrans reason or notseeking reimbursement is that it reached settlement agreements withboth o these technicians as described in this investigative report.Caltrans also reported that eective December 2011, it made revisionsto an overtime policy that requires additional documentation prior toclaimed overtime hours being approved. It also sent an email to allmanagers and supervisors the same month that communicated boththe revised policy and supervisors responsibility to review the policywith their employees. Caltrans also reported that eective January 2012,all overtime requests by employees o the branch were to be reviewedby the branchs supervisor and oce chie prior to being approvedand that the supervisor must perorm weekly reviews o the overtimeclaimed by employees through a comparison o the inormation availablerom timesheets and daily eld reports. Te supervisor also must ensure

that overtime will be charged to the correct project prior to approving it.

o address the control weakness allowing the alsication ogamma gamma logging testing data by echnician A and anengineer, Caltrans reported that in November 2011 it beganrequiring technicians to submit both the raw data le and the logASCII le when transmitting gamma gamma logging test resultsto an engineer or analysis. In addition, Caltrans reported thateective October 2012, it implemented a new process that requiresa second engineer and the branch supervisor, in addition to theproject engineer, to review all gamma gamma logging testing dataor a pile beore the pile is given approval. Caltrans also introduced


37/38


March 2013

to the branch a computer tool, provided by the Gamma GammaLogging Data Integrity Review eam (GAMDA team), that would

enable its sta to identiy gamma gamma logging data irregularitiesthat could indicate data alsication. Caltrans also reported that itwould assemble a team o oundation testing subjectmatter expertsto review and analyze the recommendations made by the GAMDAteam and the teams peer reviewers or the purpose o implementingtheir recommendations by November 2013. Finally, Caltrans reportedthat it implemented a policy in August and September 2012 torequire retesting whenever a gamma gamma logging test includesdata results with zero or null values, as this suggests the data was notcollected or recorded properly in the eld.

o address the misappropriation o state property by the supervisor,

Caltrans reported that it led a civil action against the supervisor inMay 2012 in an eort to discover the extent o the materials heremoved rom Caltrans possession and to seek the return o thoseitems or compensation or them. In order to provide improvedaccountability or materials intended or ederal constructionprojects, Caltrans plans to implement a new management system inJuly 2013 that will allow it to track the purchase and subsequent useand/or return o all materials used on ederal projects. o ensurethat scrap materials are recycled rather than taken or personaluse, Caltrans reported that it established a policy in July 2012 thatspecically addresses recycling and storing scrap materials, andthat the deputy division chie communicated this policy to all sta.In addition, Caltrans plans to post signs in April 2013 specicallyprohibiting the removal o scrap materials and in July 2013 willprovide training to ensure compliance with this policy.

We plan to evaluate Caltrans eorts as part o our ollowupprocess to ensure Caltrans asserted actions comply withour recommendations.


38/38


March 2013

32

cc: Members o the LegislatureOce o the Lieutenant Governor

Little Hoover CommissionDepartment o FinanceAttorney GeneralState ControllerState reasurerLegislative AnalystSenate Oce o ResearchCaliornia Research BureauCapitol Press

caltrans audit: "caltrans employees engaged in inexcusable neglect of duty, received overpayment for...

Documents