ST A T E O F L O U ISIA N A

ST A T E O F L O U ISIA N A L E G ISL A T IV E A U D IT O R Departm entof Revenue State of Louisiana Baton Rouge,Louisiana Septem ber1,1999 A udit R esolution R ep ort D anielg.k yle,ph.d.,c PA,C FE L egislative A uditor

LEG ISLA TIVE A UDIT A DVISO RY CO UNCIL M EM B ERS SenatorJ."Tom " Schedler,C hairm an Representative Francis C.Thom pson,v ice C hairm an SenatorRobertJ.Barham SenatorW ilson E.Fields Senator Thom as A.G reene Senator C raig F.Rom ero Representa tive F~C harles M cm ains,jr Representa tive Edw in R.M urray Representa tive W arren J.Triche,Jr. LEG ISLATIV E A U D ITO R DanielG.Kyle,Ph.D.,C PA,C FE A lbert J.Robinson,Jr.,C PA This docum entis produced by the Legislative Auditor,State oflouisiana,post Ofi ce Box 94397, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70804-9397 in accordance w ith Louisiana Revised Statute 24:513. Thirty-three copies ofthis public docum ent were produced atan approximate costof$60.72. This materialwas produced in accordance w ith the standards forstate agencies established pursuantto R.S. 43:31. A copy ofthis docum entis available on the Legislative Auditor's W eb site atwww.lla.state.la.us. In co m pliance w ith the Am ericans W ith Disabilities Act, if you need specia assistance relative to this docum ent,orany docum ents ofthe Legislative Auditor please co ntactw ayne "Skip"Irw in,directorofadm inistration,at225/339-3800.

D EPA RTM ENT O F R EV EN U E STA TE O F LO U ISIA NA Baton Rouge,Louisiana A uditresolution Report Dated Septem ber1,1999 Underthe provisions ofstate law,this report is a public docum ent. A copy ofthis reporthas been subm itted to the G overnor,to the Attorney G eneray,and to other public oficials as required by state law. A copy ofthis report has been m ade available forpublic inspection atthe Baton Rouge,New O rleans,and Shreveport o fices ofthe Legislative Auditor. Septem ber1,1999

DEPA RTM ENT O F REVENUE STA TE O F LO UISIA NA A uditresolution Report Dated Septem ber1,1999 CO NTENTS Page No Legislative A uditor's Transm italleter Background and M ethodology Conclusions and Recom m endations Attachm ent M anagem ent's Response

DAN IEI~G.KYI.E,PII.D.,CPA,CFE I.E.GISLATIVE AUDITOR O FFICE O F L EG ISLA TIV E A U D ITO R STA TE O F LOU ISIAN A BATON ROUGE,LOUISIAN A 70804-9397 Septem ber1,1999 1600 N ORTIITIIIRD STREE'I POST OFFICE BOX 94397 TELEPIIONE:(225)339-3800 FACSIM ILE: (225)339-3870 M r.brettc rawford,secretary Louisiana Departm entofrevenue P.O.Box 201 Baton Rouge,LA 70821 DearM r.c rawford W e have perform ed a lim ited review of data relating to tim eliness of deposits m ade by the Louisiana Departm entofrevenue. O urexam ination w as conducted in accordance w ith Title 24 ofthe Louisiana Revised Statutes. The exam ination w as perform ed to analyze data and to assistus in ourfo low -up on the finding relating to tim eliness ofdeposits oftax co lections forthe yearended June 30,1998. The accom panying report includes conclusions and recom m endations beginning on page 7 C opies ofthis report have been delivered to otherauthorities as required by law BB:D LH :D SP:dl Legislative A uditor

D EPA RTM ENT O F REVENUE STATE O F LO UISIA NA Baton Rouge,Louisiana BA C KG RO U N D A N D M ETHO DO LO G Y Ourmanagementleterto the DepartmentofRevenue (Department),dated December16,1998, included a finding titled "Tim eliness ofdeposits oftax C o lections." This finding reported that the Departm entw as notin com pliance w ith A rticle 7,Section 9 ofthe Louisiana Constitution, w hich requires the im m ediate depositofreceipts w ith the State Treasury. The finding stated that11of63 payments reviewed (17% )were notdeposited timely.these tax payments ranged from 3 to 16 days late in being deposited foran average of9 days late. A rticle 7,Section 9 ofthe Louisiana Constitution requires the im m ediate depositofreceipts w ith the State Treasury. The Division of Adm inistration and State Treasurer Policies and Procedures M anualdefines im m ediately as "w ithin 24 hours ofreceipt." Furtherm ore,departm entpolicy and Procedure Memorandum (PPM)Number10.26 dated July 1,1995,establishes guidelines forthe timely depositoftax payments. PPM 10.26 requires the majority oftax payments to be deposited the day ofreceiptorthe day after,w ith the exception ofpaym ents received during peak processing tim es. PPM 10.26 a low s foran additionalthree days fordeposits during peak processing tim es. The objective ofourexamination was to determine whetherappropriate action was taken to correct the finding included in the m anagem ent letter. O ur procedures consisted of the folowing: (1)examining selected Departmentalrecords;(2) interviewing managementand certain employees of the Department;(3) reviewing applicable Louisiana laws,rules and regulations;and (4)making inquiries to the extentwe considered necessary to achieve our purpose. W e analyzed data relating to tim eliness ofdeposits subm itted to us by the Departm ent. W e used AuditCommand Language (ACL)software to determine the time thatittakes forthe Departm entto deposita tax receiptin the State Treasury. O urprocedures w ere as fo low s: W e review ed the proce ssing procedures in the Departm ent's O perations Division. This division includes the fo low ing sections: Incom ing M ail, M ail O pening,deposit,pre-audit,batching Serv ices,m icrographics,data Entry,Error Resolution,Im aging and Scanning System Pipeline,M icrofilm ing,and Data Entry Pipeline. There are three m ethods for processing tax returns, rem ittances, supporting docum entation,and correspondence received by the Departm ent. These include scannable, unscannable, and electronic funds transfers (EFT) processing. Scannable returns are sim ple returns such as individualincom e tax returns that are proce ssed through a high-speed processing m achine. The returns, rem itance, et cetera, are photographed; the inform ation is captured during scanning and autom aticaly updated to the Departm ent's m ainfram e com puter. Unscannable returns are those that cannot be scanned because of the volum inous size ofthe return,such as those forcorporate incom e taxes. These unscannable returns are m anua ly processed and do not autom atica ly postto

LEGISLATIVE A UDITOR DEPA RTM ENT O F R EVENUE STATE O F LO UISIA NA Background and M ethodology the Departm ent's m ainfram e com puter. EFT paym ents are received over the phone lines from the taxpayer's financial institution and recorded in the Departm ent's m ainfram e com puter. See page 6 fora sum m ary ofthe usage of the three m ethods. 2 3 W e obtained a data file from the Departm ent's Inform ation Services Unit that contained over141,000 batch headers fordeposits forthe period January 1998 through February 1999. A batch is a num berofdocum ents,ranging from one to 99 item s per batch,that represents tax inform ation including tax returns and rem itances. The batch headeris a sum m ary ofthe inform ation in the batch that includes totaldo laram ount,dates,and num berofitem s in the batch. Attem pts to validate batch header totals to physical docum ents w ere unsuccessful. Exceptions noted during the validation process w ere researched and review ed w ith Departm entpersonnel,butthe causes w ere too num erous and varied to be resolved (see section titled "Data Reliability Issues"). W e re quested and received from Inform ation Services a file of 121,075 batch headers forcalendaryear1998. The 1998 calendaryearw as chosen forreview in order to have 12 com plete m onths of data, including the peak processing m onths ofa priland M ay. A sam ple ofthe data file inform ation w as perform ed to determ ine if key dates and am ounts on the physicaldocum ents m atched the inform ation in the related batch header. Testresults revealed thatapproxim ately 25% ofthe item s tested did notfu ly m atch the batch headerdepositinform ation (see section titled "Data Reliability Issues"). Data Reliability Issues An analysis ofthe 121,075 batch headers forthe calendaryear 1998 identified the fo lowing data reliability problem s thatrem ain unresolved: inability to Reconcile Batch Header Totals to the Contro ler's Totals - Deposit totals from batch headers could not be reconciled to the contro ler's totals w ithoutsignificantadditionalefort. Som e ofthe reasons forthe difference in the totals include: The batch header inform ation w as not origina ly designed for use in reconciling deposits. Corre ctions to individualitems and adjustments m ade by the contro ler to batch header deposit am ounts m ay not be m odified on the corresponding batch header. Incorrectdepositdates in the batch headers m ay cause m onthly totals to vary betw een the data files and the contro ler's totals. Duplicate batch headers m ay nothave been entirely elim inated from the data file.

LEGISLATIVE A UDITOR DEPARTM ENT O F REVENUE STATE O F LO UISIA NA Background and M ethodology 2 3 4 5 6 Invalid D eposit D ate - O ver 50 deposit dates w ere show n as a Saturday or Sunday--a condition thatshould notoccur. Mal(Receipt)Date -The maildate was notreliable fora significantnumberof batches. The maildate could notbe determined for12,821 batches (over9% )in the data files. These batches were given ~ m aildate of"999999"to signify that item s in the batch contained various m aildates. Consequently,a calculation ofthe num ber of days betw een deposit date and m aildate could not be perform ed. 2,769 batches contain m aildates before 1998. Som e ofthese appearvalid, w hile others appearto be keying errors. The m aildates included over80 dates thatw ere w eekends. This should not occur since m ailis not received on w eekends. These appearto be data entry errors. A smalpercentage (less than 1%)ofthe items batcheshad a negative "days diference," indicating a depositdate earlierthan the m aildate--a condition thats~o~,notoccur. Duplicate Docum entlocatornum bers (DLNs)forBatch Headers -DLNs are used to identify information processed through the Department's computersystem. The DLN is com posed ofa 15-characterfield. The first13 digits in the DLN indicate various inform ation,such as type oftax,calefldaryear,and w hetherthe docum ent was proce ssed m anualy or as an EFT payment. The last tw o digits are the sequence num berofthe individualdocum ents in the batch. The sequence num ber forthe batch w ilhave "00"as the sequence nljm ber, The sequence num berforthe documents in the batch wilbe =01"to =99." The individualdocuments in the batch w ilhave the sam e DLN as the batch headerw ith the exception ofthe sequence num ber. O fthe 121,075 batch headers,there w ere 116,049 unique DLNs;2,421 DLNs w ith one duplicate fora totalof4,842 batch headers;60 DLNs thathave tw o duplicates fora totalof180 batch headers;and one DLN thathas three duplicates for a totaloffourbatch headers. Duplicate DLNs m ight be valid in ce rtain situations where item s are corrected. How ever, our discussions w ith Departm ent personnel indicate that additional research is needed to determ ine w hy duplicate batch headers are occurring and how to correct this problem. W e could not reconcile the batch am ounts betw een O perations and Contro lers. W e believe the duplicate DLNs m ay contribute to the factthatw e could notreconcile the data. Q uestions Concerning Batch Am ounts -The depositam ountfor5,281 batches was zero. The reason forthe zero am ounts could notbe determ ined during this exam ination. Invalid DLN Year - This field contained 408 batches w ith a year otherthan =98" (1998).Otheryears included were 00,80,88,97,and 99.The reason forthe invalid D LN years could notbe determ ined during this exam ination,

LEGISLATIVE A UDITOR DEPA RTM ENT O F REVENUE STATE O F LO UISIA NA Background and M ethodology S um m ary of B atch H eader A nalysis Average Day Dif = Average DepositDate m inus M aildate fora lbatches w ith a day diference of0 through 60 days. This calculation excludes roughly 10% ofthe batches containing less than 3% ofthe totalbatch headeram ounts, M ostofthese batches had invalid m ailordepositdates resulting in a day diference thatwas invalid.

D EPA RTM ENT O F R EVEN U E STATE O F LO UISIA NA Baton Rouge,Louisiana CO NC LUSIO NS A ND RECO M M ENDATIO NS These conclusions and recom m endations are based on the data as received from the Departm ent. W e m ake no representations norprovide assurances concerning the undedying data. O ur concerns about the reliability of the data are sum m arized in the section "Data Reliability Issues." Ifcorrections orchanges are m ade to the underlying data,the results ofthe analysis m ay also be afected. Confirm ation of Prior Year Finding - Using the data provided by the Departm ent, which is not com pletely reliable (as explained in "Data Reliability Issues"), we determ ined that the conditions described in the prior year finding on tim eliness of deposits w ere valid and stilin existence after June 30, 1998. Analysis of the data revealed thatthe average days diference between depositdate and mail(rece ipt)date w as: Fora lbatches analyzed ForElectronic Funds Transferbatches ForScannable Batches ForUnscannable Batches 8 days 0 days 6 days 11 days The num ber and percentage of batches and am ounts are show n on the Sum m ary of Batch HeaderRecords Analyzed on page 6. Recom m endation: The Departm entshould identify the prim ary causes forthe delays betw een receiptdate and depositdate. M anagem entshould then identify changes that can be m ade to enhance the Departm ent's com pliance w ith the Louisiana Constitution and the Division of A dm inistration and State Treasurer Policies end Procedures M anual. Proposed changes should include a consideration of im plem entation costs and the potentialim pacton the overa loperations ofthe D epartm ent. 2 Data Reliability Issues Lim it Usefulness of A nalysis - The data reliability issues docum ented in this reportlim itthe usefulness ofthe currentanalysis. Analysis ofdata using ACL or other sim ilar data re trieval program s can be efective in helping m anagem entassess the tim eliness of deposits and related operations issues. How ever, the efect iveness ofthe analysis is directly related to the reliability ofthe data. Recom m endation: The Departm ent should review the issues noted in the section "Data Reliability Issues"and work to m ake operationalordata inputchanges thatw ould m ake the data m ore re liable and w ould be cost-efective. 3 SignificantInterestIs atstake -W e calculated the am ountofinterestthatw ould have been earned ifa ldeposits had been m ade w ithin 24 hours ofre ceipt,as re quired by the Louisiana Constitution and the Division of Adm inistration and State Treasurer Policies and Procedures M anual. To calculate the potentialinterestearnings,the excess num ber

LEGISLATIVE A UDITOR DEPA RTM ENT O F REVENUE STATE O F LO UISIANA Conclusions and Recom m endations ofdays (overthe required one day or24 hours)between receiptand depositwasapplied to an assum ed interestrate of5%,sim ple interest. This re sulted in over$1.4 m ilion in interestthatw ould have been earned had the Departm entdeposited a lreceipts w ithin 24 hours.

A ttachm ent 1 M anagem ent's R esponse

S TA T E O F LO U IS IA N A D E P A R T M E N T O F R E V E N U E M J.*'M ike"fosle Governor BreltCrawford Secretary A ugust30,1999 I)r.DanielG.K ylc,cpa,cfe Legislative A uditor O ffice of Legislative A uditor PoslO ffice Box 94397 P,aton Rouge,Louisiana 70804-9397 I)carI)r.K yle 1 w ould like to thank you for the opportunity to respond to your audit report rclatcd to Ihe tim elinessof depositsm ade by the D epartm entof Revenue. The l)cpartm entconcurs w ith the basic finding thatnotalltax paym ents w ere deposited w ilhin the 24-hour tim cfram e standard established by the Statc Treasurer and tile D ivision of A dm inistration. H ow ever,w e w ould like to place time finding in the properhistorical, Iogislical and econom ic contextso thatitcan be evaluated appropriately. Specifically,w e feel it is im portant to nole that the D epartm ent of Revenue has never in its hislory been ablc to depositallof its lax collectionsw ithin 24 hours. N evertheless, w e arc proud of lime faclthaiw e have m ade significantprogress in recentyears tow ard m eeting thatstandard. A tpresent,the efficiency of ourdepositefforts is tile besttime D eparlm enthaseverachieved,and w c arc striving to im prove upon ourperformance. W e have em braced new technologies,such aselectronic fundstransfer(eft),docum entim aging, and clectronic filing, il order to accelerate the processing of tax paym ents. W e have also expanded ouruse of tem porary em ployees during peak filing seasons and lengthened our w ork day to ncarly 18 hours during peak periods in an effortto speed up time process. C onsequently, m uch of w hat once took days to process and deposit can now be accom plished nearly instantaneously orw ithin a m atterof hours of receiving a paym ent. Forexam ple,in 1992 the Departm ent w as capable of depositing w ithin 24 hours less than 40 percent of the funds it received (outof $4.4 billion collected). In contrast,the analysis yourstaff conducted indicated thatin 1998,we deposited nearly 68 percentof the funds w ithin 24 hours (outof $5.5 billion co leeted)--a significantimprovementinjustsix years.w eexpectthispercentageto continueto increase once w e com plete the installation laterthisyearof a new autom ated paym entprocessing system thathasbeen underdevelopm entsince early 1998. 330 NorthArdenwood Sireel~PO Box201~BatonRouge,LA 70821~(225)925 7680

1)1".l)t~nielG.I(i,le,I~age 2 Augl~xt30,1999 N evertheless,continued im provem entin ourcash m anagem entefforls w illnotbe an easy task owing to a]lumberoffactorsthatmakeourjob ofcollecting and depositing taxesamontm]cnta efforl. Sto ne of these factors include: ~ tile concentrated tim ing and trem ettdous volum e o.i"tax-returns attd pak,toent,~"we proces.~'. For exam ple,w e process m ore than 3.8 m illion lax returns a year,m ostof w hich are concentrated around a handfulof due dalesscattered throughoulthe year. In parlicular,atthe heightof incom e tax season,w e can receive m ore than 120,00(]lax returnsand 65,000 paym entsin a single day. These ]lum bers increase every yearasthe numberoftaxpayersincreases,thereby making ourjob evenmoredifficult. ~ labor m arketand budgetconstraints w hich have severely lim ited ourability to recruit and retain skilled perm anentand tem porary em ployees. M ostof the em ployees w ho w ork in our tax paym ent processing section are in entry-level positions. The com bination of low pay,tediousw ork,and frequentopporluniticsforprom otion to other areas of the D epartm enthave resulted in a run,over rate of perm anentand tem porary staf ofm ore than 50 percentannually. M any of the vacanciesare essentially unfillablc, w hile m any of the rem aining staf require substantialtraining tim e to bring them up to an acceptable perform ance level, fi~rther diluting productivity w hile they arc being trained. ~ problem atic ttlr returns,which are a faclof life in Ihe D eparlm enl. Even the besl designed system s fordepositing paym ents w illsuccum b to the gear-slopping efects of taxpayerm istakes and oversights. 13ccause our currentprocess has been optim ized to allow rapid processing of tile relatively hom ogeneous tax returns w hich com prise the vastmajority of allrcturl]s,we use a separate process to handle returns tlaalcol]lain errors ortilatare uniquely problem atic. This process for handling exceptionalreturns and paym ents is necessarily slow er than the norm alprocess because of tile additional w ork involved in researching, evaluating and correcting the errors. How ever, by dew ~ting m ore tim e up frontto correcting those errors,w e save considerably m ore tim e and effortin later processing steps and avoid considerable potcntialfor w rongfultax billsbeing sentto taxpayers. W e believe itpays to be extra carefulin ourefforts. A syou can see from the im pedim entsdescribed above,w e are w orking againsta stiff hcadw ind to depositallpaym ents w ithin 24 hours. N everlheless,w e believe thatw ith sufficienthum an. technical and financial resources w e could com e m uch closer to m eeting the 24-hour requirem ent, l~uta m ore pragm atic view of oursituation leadsusto question atw hatcostshould w e pursue totalcom pliance w ith the 24-hourstandard. Specifically,yourstaf hasestim ated at$1.4 m illion the am ountof additionalinterestthatcould be earn ed annually if w e deposited every tax paym entw ithin 24 hours. H ow ever,thatam ount reprcsenls only one side of the equation. A s you pointoutin yourreport,w hatis m issing from youranalysisisthe costto the state to achieve totalcom pliance w ith the standard. W e have estim ated conservatively lhatthe additionalcostto the slate necessary to m eetthe 24- hourstandard foralldeposits w ould exceed $5.9 m illion in the firstyear(including additional paym entprocessing equipm ent)and $2.6 m illion in each successive year. A detailed breakdown

D r.l)anielg.kyle,page 3 August30,1999 of these costshas been provided to yourstaff. A spartof ourcostfigures,w e estim ate thaiw c w illneed nearly 600 additionaltem porary employees(who,asnoted above,are in very scarce supply)in orderto depositallfundswithin 24 hours. 1 feel certain you w ould not advocate thatw e em bark o l such a path,know ing that the state w ould expend considerably m ore taxpayerdollars in the effortthan itw ould actually receive in return. C learly,there is a pointatw hich oureffortsto increase the percentage of deposits m ade w ithin 24 hoursw illbecom e costprohibitive. W e don'tknow exactly w here thalbrcakeven poin! is at this tim e, and w e don't believe w c have reached it yet. N onetheless, w e believe the breakeven point is considerably closer to our current performance levelthan to thc absolute standard againstw hich w e are being m easured, Thus, w e believe a m ore flexible interpretation should be allow ed of the constitutional requirem entthatdeposits be m ade "im m ediately"-one thatrequires deposits to be m ade w ithout unnecessat]l,delay and in a m annerthatisboth practicable and costeffective. In the absence of such flexibility,the 24-hourstandard is both unrealistic and uneconom icalin the conlexlof the D epartrnentof R evenue. Fortunately,two of the entities responsible for ovcrsccing the state's cash m anagcm cnt have recognized the practical logic of such flexibility. Just last m onth,the Treasurer's O ffice,in col~junclion with thedivision of Administration,modified itspoliciesand ProceduresM anualio allow agencies like Revenue to receive exceptionsto the 24-hourrule. O nce ournew autom atcd paym entprocessing system that1mcntioned earlierbecomesoperational(expected by December 1999),weintend to requestjustsuch an exception linked to theimproved operating capabilities of the new system and the logisticaland econom ic realities confronting the D epartrnent. D ata ReliabiliO,Issues Regarding thc data reliability issuesyou identify in yourreport,w e concurw ith yourfindingsand recom m endations. Iw ould like to em phasize how ever,thatthe data issues in question pertain only Io statistics m easuring the efficiency of the D epartm ent's intern alprocesses. The accuracy and integrity of tax data and taxpayerrecordsare unaffected by these issues. Severalof the data reliability issuesare being addressed aspartof ourcurrenteffortsto upgrade the autom ated paym entprocessing equipm entin ouro perations D ivision. A ddilionaldata issues willbcaddressed inourongoing computerreengincering projectoverthenexttwo to threeyears. W c anticipate thatthese im provem ents w illhelp us to assess m ore accurately the tim eliness of deposits and othcr tax return and paym entprocessing issues. A s w c discussed w ith your staf during the audit,w hen ourm ainfram e system w asdesigned 25 yearsago,little thoughtw asgiven to the tracking and reporting of inform ation related to ourinterlm lproccsscs. Consequently,the depositdata records generated foryourauditorsw ere neverdesigned forthatpurpose,resulting in the data inconsistencies you identified. W e w illcontinue to analyze these issues to ensure that ourperform ance data isreliable.

Dr.DanielG.l~t,le,Page4 August30,1999 Corrective A etion Plan The Departm ent has an action plan in place to im prove the tim eliness of its lax collection depositsw hich includesthe follow ing elem ents: ~ Com pletion by D ecem ber 1999 of the installation and im plem entation of autom ated rapid paym entprocessing equipm entand softw are in ouro perations D ivision. ~ Concentra ted efforts to recruit, train and retain qualified em ployees to assist in the processing of tax returns and the depositof paym enls. Thisincludesreview ing existing budgetary resources to identify funds thalcan be used to increase the pay of the entrylevelposilions w ho are responsible forthe processing of tax returnsand the depositof tax pa)qnenls. ~ Continued effortsto stream line the intern alprocessesand proceduresrequired to deposit fundsin orderto m ake them m ore efficicnl. ~ D evelopm ent of im proved inform ation system s to m onitor the tim eliness of our deposits. ~ D evelopm entof an appropriatc depositperformance standard thatrcflccts the logistical and econom ic realitiesconfronting the D epartm ent. W c anticipate w orking closely w ith yourstaff and thc staff of the Treasurer's O ffice and the D ivision of A dm inislralion to establish this realistic perform ance standard, as provided in the recent change to C hapter6,section 6.1.1 of the State Treasurerand D ivision of A dm inistration Policies and ProceduresM anual. A s 1noted earlier,w e expectto begin w ork by January 2000 to develop this standard,once our new autom ated paym ent processing system bceom es operationaland w e have an opportunity to assess its perforrnancc capabilities. Lh/til then,any efforts to develop such a standard w ould be prem ature and w asted,given our im pending shift to a com pletely new depositsystem. The im plem entation of our action plan is currently underw ay. O ur O perations D ivision has prim ary responsibility for the im plem enlation of our action plan, w ith support from the C ontroller's I)ivision,the Inform ation Services D ivision,and the O ffice of the U ndersecretary. W e appreciate the hard w ork and professionalism exhibited by yourstaf and w e know thaiw e have benefited from 'the w ork they have perform ed.