State of California California State Transportation Agency DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Memorandum Serious drought

Help Save Water

To RIHUI ZHANG Chief Division of Local Assistance

Date November 2 2016

File P2540-0057

O UGtNAL S~GNEu gmiddot~

From ALICE LEE Chief External Audits - Coi1Lracrs Audits and Investigations

Subject PROPOSITION lB AUDIT REPORT - BUTTE COUNTY

Caltrans Audits and Investigations (AampI) audited Proposition lB costs claimed and reimbursed to Butte County (County) The project audited was funded with Proposition lB Local Bridge Seismic Retrofit Account (LBSRA) funds Bridge No 12C0120 - Ord Ferry Road amp Sacramento River project STPLZ-5912(019) was partially funded with $1312399 in LBSRA funds The audit covered the period from April 20 2016 through July 31 2016

Based on our audit we determined that reimbursed project costs totaling $1312399 complied with the executed project agreement state and federal regulations contract provisions and CaltransCalifornia Transportation Commission (CTC) program guidelines except for $289983 that was not supported and the project deliverables and outcomes were in accordance with the project scope schedule and benefits described in the executed project agreement or approved amendments

This report is intended for the information of Caltrans management Federal Highway Administration the CTC and the County This report is a matter of public record however and its distribution is not limited In addition this report will be placed on Caltrans website

Please provide AampI a corrective action plan related to the audit recommendation within 90 days of this memorandum If you have questions please contact Luisa Ruvalcaba Audit Manager at (916) 323-7888

Enclosure

cc Scott Hightower Engineering Project Coordinator Butte County Cindy Jones Adminstrative Analyst Butte County Stephen Maller Deputy Director California Transportation Commission Dawn Cheser Assistant Deputy Director California Transportation Commission Bruce De Terra Chief Division of Programming Caltrans Doris Alkebulan Senior Transportation Engineer Division of Programming Caltrans Martin Villanueva District Local Assistance Engineer District 3 Caltrans Reza Fereshtehnejad Prop lB Program Coordinator Division of Local Assistance Caltrans Luisa Ruvalcaba Audit Manager Audits and Investigations Caltrans Sukhraj Kaur Staff Management Auditor Specialist Audits and Investigations Caltrans

Provide a safe suslainable in leg rated and efficienl ransportation system lo enhance California seconomy and livability

Audit Report

November 2016 lbltrcuvr

Butte County Proposition I B Audit

PREPARED BY California Department of Transportation

Audits and Investigations - MS 2

Post Office Box 942874

Sacramento California 94274-0001

wwwdotcagovhqaudits

AuoITTEAM

Alice Lee Chief External Audits

Luisa Ruvalcaba Audit Manager

Sukhraj Kaur Auditor-in-Charge

P2540-0057

Provide a safe sustainable integrated and efficient transportalion sysem lo enhance Californias economy and livabilily

Audit Report

November 2016 lbltrcuvr

Butte County Proposition I B Audit

PREPARED BY California Department of Transportation

Audits and Investigations - MS 2

Post Office Box 942874

Sacramento California 94274-0001

wwwdotcagovhqaudits

AuoITTEAM

Alice Lee Chief External Audits

Luisa Ruvalcaba Audit Manager

Sukhraj Kaur Auditor-in-Charge

P2540-0057

Provide a safe sustainable integrated and efficient transportalion sysem lo enhance Californias economy and livabilily

Butte County Proposition I B Audit

PREPARED BY California Department of Transportation

Audits and Investigations - MS 2

Post Office Box 942874

Sacramento California 94274-0001

wwwdotcagovhqaudits

AuoITTEAM

Alice Lee Chief External Audits

Luisa Ruvalcaba Audit Manager

Sukhraj Kaur Auditor-in-Charge

P2540-0057

Provide a safe sustainable integrated and efficient transportalion sysem lo enhance Californias economy and livabilily

Butte County Proposition 1 B Audit

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SUMMARY 1

OBJECTIVES 1

SCOPE 2

METHODOLOGY 2

BACKGROUND 3

CONCLUSION 3

VIEWS OF RESPONSIBLE OFFICIALS 3

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5

FINDING 1 - Unapproved Indirect Costs Billed to Caltrans 5

ATTACHMENTS

I Audit Response from Butte County

II Unallowable Indirect Cost

Provide a safe sustainable integrated and efficient transportation system to enhance California s economy and livability

Butte County Proposition JB Audit

SuMMARY OBJECTIVES ScoPE

METHODOLOGY BACKGROUND AND CONCLUSION

SUMMARY

The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Audits and Investigations (AampI) completed an audit of Butte County (County) The County is responsible for the fair presentation of incurred costs ensuring compliance with contract provisions state and federal regulations and CaltransCTC program guidelines and ensuring they have an adequate job costing system AampIs responsibility based on our audit is to express an opinion on the allowability of reimbursed costs in accordance with the applicable agreements contract provisions state and federal regulations and CaltransCTC guidelines

Proposition (Prop) lB funds from the Local Bridge Seismic Retrofit Account (LBSRA) were used on Bridge No 12C0120 - Ord Ferry Road amp Sacramento River in Butte County The County completed the project STPLZ-5912(019) funded in part with $1312399 in LBSRA funds The project involved the seismic retrofitting of the bridge in accordance with Caltrans standards

We tested total reimbursed project costs of $1312399 and found $289983 were not in compliance with the executed project agreement state and federal regulations contract provisions and CTC program guidelines

OBJECTIVES

We performed our audit to specifically determine whether bull The project costs incurred and reimbursed were in compliance with the executed

project agreement state and federal regulations contract provisions and CaltransCalifomia Transportation Commission (CTC) program guidelines

bull The project deliverables and outcomes were consistent with the project scope schedule and benefits described in the executed project agreement or approved amendments

The audit covered the period from April 20 2016 through July 31 2016 Changes after these date were not tested and accordingly our conclusions do not pertain to changes arising after July 312016

Because of inherent limitations in any financial management system misstatements due to error or fraud may occur and not be detected Also projections of any evaluation of the financial management system to future periods are subject to the risk that the financial management

1

Butte County Proposition 1 B Audit

system may become inadequate because of changes in conditions or that the degree of compliance with the policies and procedures may deteriorate

SCOPE

The scope of the audit was limited to financial and compliance activities related to the above referenced project

METHODOLOGY

We conducted this performance audit in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives The audit was less in scope than an audit performed for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the financial statements of the County Therefore we did not audit and are not expressing an opinion on the Countys financial statements

An audit includes examining on a test basis evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the data and the records selected An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by the County as well as evaluating the overall presentation

To achieve our audit objectives we performed the following audit procedures bull Reviewed the Countys prior audits and single audit reports

bull Reviewed the Countys policies and procedures relating to the job cost system and procurement

bull Interviewed employees completed a review of the financial management system and gained an understanding of the Countys internal controls j ob cost system timekeeping accounts payable and billing processes related to projects funded by Prop lB

For the project under review we performed the following audit procedures bull Reviewed project billing invoices sent to the Caltrans accounting office to ensure

that the County properly billed Caltrans for reimbursement ofproject expenditures

bull Reviewed supporting documentation from the project billing invoices to ensure that project expenditures were supported and in compliance with the project agreement state and federal laws and regulations contract provisions and CaltransCTC Guidelines

2

Butte County Proposition JB Audit

bull Obtained procurement records to ensure that the County procured billed contracts in accordance with applicable state and federal procurement requirements

bull Reviewed significant contract change orders to ensure that they were properly approved and supported

bull Reviewed and compared project agreement and project final delivery report to ensure that project deliverables and outcomes were met and that variances to the project s scope schedule costs and benefits were properly approved and supported

BACKGROUND

As approved by the voters in the November 2006 general elections Proposition lB (Prop lB) enacted the Highway Safety Traffic Reduction Air Quality and Port Security Bond Act of 2006 to authorize $19925 billion of state general obligation bonds for specified purposes including high-priority transportation corridor improvements State Route 99 corridor enhancements trade infrastructure and port security projects school bus retrofit and replacement purposes state transportation improvement program augmentation transit and passenger rail improvements state-local partnership transportation projects transit security projects local bridge seismic retrofit projects highway-railroad grade separation and crossing improvement projects state highway safety and rehabilitation projects local street and road improvement congestion relief and traffic safety

CONCLUSION

Based on our audit we determined that reimbursed project costs totaling $13123 99 were in compliance with the executed project agreement state and federal regulations contract provisions and CTC program guidelines except for $28998304 that is detailed in the Findings and Recommendations section of this report and the project deliverables and outcomes were consistent with the project scope schedule and benefits described in the executed project agreement or approved amendments

3

Butte County Proposition JB Audit

SuMMARY OBJECTIVES ScoPE

METHODOLOGY BACKGROUND AND CONCLUSION

SUMMARY

The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Audits and Investigations (AampI) completed an audit of Butte County (County) The County is responsible for the fair presentation of incurred costs ensuring compliance with contract provisions state and federal regulations and CaltransCTC program guidelines and ensuring they have an adequate job costing system AampIs responsibility based on our audit is to express an opinion on the allowability of reimbursed costs in accordance with the applicable agreements contract provisions state and federal regulations and CaltransCTC guidelines

Proposition (Prop) lB funds from the Local Bridge Seismic Retrofit Account (LBSRA) were used on Bridge No 12C0120 - Ord Ferry Road amp Sacramento River in Butte County The County completed the project STPLZ-5912(019) funded in part with $1312399 in LBSRA funds The project involved the seismic retrofitting of the bridge in accordance with Caltrans standards

We tested total reimbursed project costs of $1312399 and found $289983 were not in compliance with the executed project agreement state and federal regulations contract provisions and CTC program guidelines

OBJECTIVES

We performed our audit to specifically determine whether bull The project costs incurred and reimbursed were in compliance with the executed

project agreement state and federal regulations contract provisions and CaltransCalifomia Transportation Commission (CTC) program guidelines

bull The project deliverables and outcomes were consistent with the project scope schedule and benefits described in the executed project agreement or approved amendments

The audit covered the period from April 20 2016 through July 31 2016 Changes after these date were not tested and accordingly our conclusions do not pertain to changes arising after July 312016

Because of inherent limitations in any financial management system misstatements due to error or fraud may occur and not be detected Also projections of any evaluation of the financial management system to future periods are subject to the risk that the financial management

1

Butte County Proposition 1 B Audit

system may become inadequate because of changes in conditions or that the degree of compliance with the policies and procedures may deteriorate

SCOPE

The scope of the audit was limited to financial and compliance activities related to the above referenced project

METHODOLOGY

We conducted this performance audit in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives The audit was less in scope than an audit performed for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the financial statements of the County Therefore we did not audit and are not expressing an opinion on the Countys financial statements

An audit includes examining on a test basis evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the data and the records selected An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by the County as well as evaluating the overall presentation

To achieve our audit objectives we performed the following audit procedures bull Reviewed the Countys prior audits and single audit reports

bull Reviewed the Countys policies and procedures relating to the job cost system and procurement

bull Interviewed employees completed a review of the financial management system and gained an understanding of the Countys internal controls j ob cost system timekeeping accounts payable and billing processes related to projects funded by Prop lB

For the project under review we performed the following audit procedures bull Reviewed project billing invoices sent to the Caltrans accounting office to ensure

that the County properly billed Caltrans for reimbursement ofproject expenditures

bull Reviewed supporting documentation from the project billing invoices to ensure that project expenditures were supported and in compliance with the project agreement state and federal laws and regulations contract provisions and CaltransCTC Guidelines

2

Butte County Proposition JB Audit

bull Obtained procurement records to ensure that the County procured billed contracts in accordance with applicable state and federal procurement requirements

bull Reviewed significant contract change orders to ensure that they were properly approved and supported

bull Reviewed and compared project agreement and project final delivery report to ensure that project deliverables and outcomes were met and that variances to the project s scope schedule costs and benefits were properly approved and supported

BACKGROUND

As approved by the voters in the November 2006 general elections Proposition lB (Prop lB) enacted the Highway Safety Traffic Reduction Air Quality and Port Security Bond Act of 2006 to authorize $19925 billion of state general obligation bonds for specified purposes including high-priority transportation corridor improvements State Route 99 corridor enhancements trade infrastructure and port security projects school bus retrofit and replacement purposes state transportation improvement program augmentation transit and passenger rail improvements state-local partnership transportation projects transit security projects local bridge seismic retrofit projects highway-railroad grade separation and crossing improvement projects state highway safety and rehabilitation projects local street and road improvement congestion relief and traffic safety

CONCLUSION

Based on our audit we determined that reimbursed project costs totaling $13123 99 were in compliance with the executed project agreement state and federal regulations contract provisions and CTC program guidelines except for $28998304 that is detailed in the Findings and Recommendations section of this report and the project deliverables and outcomes were consistent with the project scope schedule and benefits described in the executed project agreement or approved amendments

3

Butte County Proposition 1 B Audit

system may become inadequate because of changes in conditions or that the degree of compliance with the policies and procedures may deteriorate

SCOPE

The scope of the audit was limited to financial and compliance activities related to the above referenced project

METHODOLOGY

We conducted this performance audit in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives The audit was less in scope than an audit performed for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the financial statements of the County Therefore we did not audit and are not expressing an opinion on the Countys financial statements

An audit includes examining on a test basis evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the data and the records selected An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by the County as well as evaluating the overall presentation

To achieve our audit objectives we performed the following audit procedures bull Reviewed the Countys prior audits and single audit reports

bull Reviewed the Countys policies and procedures relating to the job cost system and procurement

bull Interviewed employees completed a review of the financial management system and gained an understanding of the Countys internal controls j ob cost system timekeeping accounts payable and billing processes related to projects funded by Prop lB

For the project under review we performed the following audit procedures bull Reviewed project billing invoices sent to the Caltrans accounting office to ensure

that the County properly billed Caltrans for reimbursement ofproject expenditures

bull Reviewed supporting documentation from the project billing invoices to ensure that project expenditures were supported and in compliance with the project agreement state and federal laws and regulations contract provisions and CaltransCTC Guidelines

2

Butte County Proposition JB Audit

bull Obtained procurement records to ensure that the County procured billed contracts in accordance with applicable state and federal procurement requirements

bull Reviewed significant contract change orders to ensure that they were properly approved and supported

bull Reviewed and compared project agreement and project final delivery report to ensure that project deliverables and outcomes were met and that variances to the project s scope schedule costs and benefits were properly approved and supported

BACKGROUND

As approved by the voters in the November 2006 general elections Proposition lB (Prop lB) enacted the Highway Safety Traffic Reduction Air Quality and Port Security Bond Act of 2006 to authorize $19925 billion of state general obligation bonds for specified purposes including high-priority transportation corridor improvements State Route 99 corridor enhancements trade infrastructure and port security projects school bus retrofit and replacement purposes state transportation improvement program augmentation transit and passenger rail improvements state-local partnership transportation projects transit security projects local bridge seismic retrofit projects highway-railroad grade separation and crossing improvement projects state highway safety and rehabilitation projects local street and road improvement congestion relief and traffic safety

CONCLUSION

Based on our audit we determined that reimbursed project costs totaling $13123 99 were in compliance with the executed project agreement state and federal regulations contract provisions and CTC program guidelines except for $28998304 that is detailed in the Findings and Recommendations section of this report and the project deliverables and outcomes were consistent with the project scope schedule and benefits described in the executed project agreement or approved amendments

3

Butte County Proposition JB Audit

bull Obtained procurement records to ensure that the County procured billed contracts in accordance with applicable state and federal procurement requirements

bull Reviewed significant contract change orders to ensure that they were properly approved and supported

bull Reviewed and compared project agreement and project final delivery report to ensure that project deliverables and outcomes were met and that variances to the project s scope schedule costs and benefits were properly approved and supported

BACKGROUND

As approved by the voters in the November 2006 general elections Proposition lB (Prop lB) enacted the Highway Safety Traffic Reduction Air Quality and Port Security Bond Act of 2006 to authorize $19925 billion of state general obligation bonds for specified purposes including high-priority transportation corridor improvements State Route 99 corridor enhancements trade infrastructure and port security projects school bus retrofit and replacement purposes state transportation improvement program augmentation transit and passenger rail improvements state-local partnership transportation projects transit security projects local bridge seismic retrofit projects highway-railroad grade separation and crossing improvement projects state highway safety and rehabilitation projects local street and road improvement congestion relief and traffic safety

CONCLUSION

Based on our audit we determined that reimbursed project costs totaling $13123 99 were in compliance with the executed project agreement state and federal regulations contract provisions and CTC program guidelines except for $28998304 that is detailed in the Findings and Recommendations section of this report and the project deliverables and outcomes were consistent with the project scope schedule and benefits described in the executed project agreement or approved amendments

3

Butte County Proposition 1 B Audit

VIEWS OF RESPONSIBLE OFFICIALS Our findings and recommendations take into consideration the Countys response dated November 1 2016 to our October 18 2016 draft report Our findings and recommendations the County response and our analysis of the response are set forth in the Findings and Recommendations section of this report

Alice Lee Chief External Audits - Contracts Audits and Investigations

October 18 2016

4

Butte County Proposition 1 B Audit

FINDIN GS AND ampcoMMENDATIONs

FINDING- Unapproved Indirect Costs Billed to Caltrans

Butte County (County) billed the project for unapproved indirect costs totaling $289983 04 (see Attachment II) In order for a local agency to be reimbursed indirect costs on a project the local agency must have their Indirect Cost Rate Proposal (ICRP)Indirect Cost Allocation Plan (ICAP) approved by the Caltrans Division of Audits amp Investigations (AampI) The approval must be made prior to billing for the indirect costs The County did not have their FY 2011 to 2015 ICRPsICAPs approved prior to billing indirect costs to the project

Local Assistance Procedures Manual (LAPM) Chapter 5 Section 53 (Reimbursable project costs - Indirect costs Section) states Should any department division or other organization unit within the local agency seek reimbursement of their indirect costs they must receive an ApprovalAcceptance Letter of the local agencys ICRP ICAP for the fiscal year(s) involved from Caltrans AampI prior to billing for any indirect costs Ifa project involves more than one fiscal year approval of the indirect cost rate(s) for each fiscal year for each unit of the government wishing to bill indirect costs are required prior to claiming reimbursement

Master Agreement No 03-5912R Article IV-Fiscal Provisions Section 8 state 11 An Indirect Cost Rate Proposal and Central Service Cost Allocation Plan and related documentation are to be provided to State (AampI) annually for review and approval prior to Administering Agency seeking reimbursement of indirect cost incurred within each fiscal year being claimed for federal reimbursement 11

RECOMMENDATION We recommend that within three months of the issuance of this report the County obtain approval from AampI for the use of their ICRPs ICAPs for fiscal years 2011 to 2015 Ifthe County does not obtain the approval of AampI then the County reimburse Caltrans the unapproved indirect costs billed to this project totaling $28998304

COUNTYS RESPONSE

The County concurs with the finding and recommendation

5

Butte County Proposition 1 B Audit

FINDIN GS AND ampcoMMENDATIONs

FINDING- Unapproved Indirect Costs Billed to Caltrans

Butte County (County) billed the project for unapproved indirect costs totaling $289983 04 (see Attachment II) In order for a local agency to be reimbursed indirect costs on a project the local agency must have their Indirect Cost Rate Proposal (ICRP)Indirect Cost Allocation Plan (ICAP) approved by the Caltrans Division of Audits amp Investigations (AampI) The approval must be made prior to billing for the indirect costs The County did not have their FY 2011 to 2015 ICRPsICAPs approved prior to billing indirect costs to the project

Local Assistance Procedures Manual (LAPM) Chapter 5 Section 53 (Reimbursable project costs - Indirect costs Section) states Should any department division or other organization unit within the local agency seek reimbursement of their indirect costs they must receive an ApprovalAcceptance Letter of the local agencys ICRP ICAP for the fiscal year(s) involved from Caltrans AampI prior to billing for any indirect costs Ifa project involves more than one fiscal year approval of the indirect cost rate(s) for each fiscal year for each unit of the government wishing to bill indirect costs are required prior to claiming reimbursement

Master Agreement No 03-5912R Article IV-Fiscal Provisions Section 8 state 11 An Indirect Cost Rate Proposal and Central Service Cost Allocation Plan and related documentation are to be provided to State (AampI) annually for review and approval prior to Administering Agency seeking reimbursement of indirect cost incurred within each fiscal year being claimed for federal reimbursement 11

RECOMMENDATION We recommend that within three months of the issuance of this report the County obtain approval from AampI for the use of their ICRPs ICAPs for fiscal years 2011 to 2015 Ifthe County does not obtain the approval of AampI then the County reimburse Caltrans the unapproved indirect costs billed to this project totaling $28998304

COUNTYS RESPONSE

The County concurs with the finding and recommendation

5

Attachment I Audit Response from Butte County

Department of Public Works Dennis Schmidt Director Shawn H OBrien Assistant Director

7 County Center Drive I T 5305387681 I Oroville California 95965 F 5305387171 buttecountynetpubhcworks

Proposition 1 B Audit Response

November 1 2016

Alice M Lee Chief of External Audits - Contracts Department of Transportation Audits ampInvestigations PO Box 942874 Sacramento CA 94274-0001

Dear Ms Lee

In response to the Department of Transportation Division of Audits and Investigations report titled Butte County Proposition 1 B Audit Report dated October 2016 the County of Butte concurs with the Finding and Recommendation as stated on page 5of said report

During the audit period Butte County Department of Public Works began working with your office to rectify the situation and comply with your recommendation Therefore the Indirect Cost Rate Proposal for the first of these four years 2011 has already been approved by your office and Public Works Department is planning on obtaining approval for the remaining years 2012-2015 within the next month Your office staff have been most patient and helpful in resolving this situation

If you have any questions please contact Cindy Jones Administrative Analyst at phone number 530-538shy7157 extension 2044 or email her at CiJonesButteCountynet

Most Sincerely

_ORIGC~AL S~GNED 2

bull ~hawn H OBrien Assistant Director Public Works County of Butte

CC David Houser Auditor-Controller Paul Hahn County Administrative Officer

ATTACHMENT II

Unallowable Indirect Costs

Im Da te C~ 112~ 1pound 39 0laa Blle CoL-tv ri seamp~ ~middotea- 20L NlS NH i Gl 2012 201 Jtpamiddot1~n o~ Putgt11C itgtr o v~

Seltcu on Cn t en amp Sae Cogter aqe Cost Aec(uning Hart~l~n~ Syst ec YimiddotYur ro1et Expex1 tue - ) l a il

bull bull WAA~lG TOA ~CLUtES YPT OVHgt tltP lll lNGr xF U~N CllG bullbull bull

t ou l cts

5))19i ro )et l u-i r11ts Pus zc iO~ I o~o ~R~Y R BRlXiE ACFOSS SACAY110 RVR 201 fSCJL YEA 211~

20lS 2~5 1 A~ Apr i tgtS1211 5 Applied C~uu ~ o n 56 oc 0 () i ~o 2L5

2015 f2015J raquo R SUbtcUl 36660 - 000 000 000 522 JS - IJLls

201) (20151 AAyen ~ay

011igt11s A~i1ed Chaes 2euro 94 O JO J O~ o ~ middotLD(l 2 ~~ 07 )lJlS Alp1 ed Cha u cbull c~ 9610 OC oua 00() ~o Jr

2013 (2015) MAY SUbto1 12894 96 70 000 - 0 00 215 6( ---o-Oo bull bull 2015 Slbtoeal pld SI2266 1 8H49 000 ooo 000 6961 JS

1 u 3333795 Subtoul ixpid $46 5J3 $ 2899830f 18293 ff 2281 JB 1090816542 ll 16520 OJ

crJd ro tal Zgt1gtlt1d 56 SJ3 75 18 293 4( 2 28138 10908 lES 42 Jl 76520 CJ e

bullbullbull tlbull or RrJRr bullbullbull