-
Job Description
Marketing Statement
Ride BART to a satisfying career that lets you both: 1) make a difference to Bay Area residents, and 2) enjoy excellent pay, benefits, and employment stability. BART is looking for people who like to be challenged, work in a fast-paced environment, and have a passion for connecting riders to work, school and other places they need to go. BART offers a competitive salary, comprehensive health benefits, paid time off, and the CalPERS retirement program.
Job Summary
Pay Rate
Non-Represented Pay Band N08
Minimum: $141,610.00 to Maximum: $ 214,540.00
The starting negotiable salary offer range will begin between $ 141,610.00 and $178,075.00, commensurate with qualifications.
Reports To
Deputy Inspector General or Inspector General, or designee
Who May Apply
All current BART employees and qualified individuals who are not yet BART employees.
Current Assignment
The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) plays a critical and expanding role within the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART), serving as an independent oversight function established under Public Utilities Code Sections 28840-28845. The OIG is charged with promoting transparency, accountability, and integrity across all District operations by identifying opportunities to improve service delivery and reduce the risk of fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement.
The Inspector General Investigative Auditor (IGIA) serves as a key member of the OIG team and reports directly to the Deputy Inspector General. The position has substantial independent responsibility for investigations involving fraud, waste, abuse, and serious misconduct. This critical role receives allegations through the BART OIG whistleblower hotline or referrals; determines jurisdiction and priority; and develops a structured investigation plan that defines scope, applicable standards, key issues, evidence requirements, and interview strategy. The IGIA is then responsible for carrying cases through completion, ensuring work is timely, objective, and consistent with due-process and professional investigative standards.
A central part of the role is the management of the OIG whistleblower hotline and associated case triage. The IGIA ensures allegations are handled respectfully and neutrally, evaluates credibility and risk, prioritizes matters based on impact and urgency, and communicates with complainants when appropriate while protecting confidentiality and the integrity of the process. The IGIA also monitors patterns and trends in hotline activity and provides analytic summaries to support risk-based oversight.
In conducting investigations, the IGIA independently gathers, preserves, and analyzes documentary and digital evidence across District systems, including procurement and contracting records, vendor and payment data, payroll and timekeeping information, access logs, emails, and other communications. The IGIA maintains thorough case files and chain-of-custody practices, conducts fair and well-prepared interviews of complainants, witnesses, and subjects (including those represented by unions or counsel), and evaluates credibility through careful corroboration and consistency analysis. The IGIA is expected to distinguish fraud from waste, policy violations, and control failures, and to adjust investigative direction as evidence develops.
The IGIA produces clear, defensible investigative reports that separate facts from analysis, support findings with evidence, and identify practical recommendations or referrals. The role includes briefing OIG leadership and coordinating, as appropriate, with General Counsel, Human Resources, Labor Relations, or law enforcement while maintaining the independence of the OIG. Success requires strong investigative judgment, disciplined documentation, effective interviewing, and high integrity in managing sensitive, high-visibility matters.
In addition, the IGIA supports OIG performance audits on an as-needed basis. This may include assisting with evidence collection and analysis; conducting interviews; developing or testing audit observations related to fraud risk or control effectiveness; and providing investigative subject-matter input to strengthen audit findings and recommendations.
Examples of Duties
Plan, conduct, and manage multiple ongoing fraud, waste, and abuse investigations of District staff or contractors in compliance with Quality Standards for Investigations issued by the Association of Inspectors General.
Assist in triaging fraud, waste, and abuse complaints to determine whether to investigate, refer to another department to investigate, or decline to investigate.
Plan, direct, and report on performance audits in compliance with Government Auditing Standards issued by the Comptroller General of the United States.
Develop recommendations for improvement in District operations that are practical and feasible and focus on eliminating the cause of findings in audits and investigations.
Assist in presenting oral and written information to BART management regarding audit and investigation findings and recommendations for improvement.
Prepare professional-quality written audit and investigation reports for presentation to the BART Board of Directors, BART management, and the public, describing the complaint or audit objective, findings, and recommendations.
Conduct probing, fact-finding audit and investigation interviews and meetings of employees, contractors, civilian complainants, and witnesses, who could be either cooperative or confrontational.
Maintain thorough supporting documentation of all audit and investigative work in compliance with professional standards and office policies and procedures.
Coordinate proposed audit and investigation recommendations with BART management to ensure they are cost-effective and feasible, and if not, discuss alternative solutions to address the findings.
Provide testimony in administrative, civil, and/or criminal hearings.
Provide in-house training regarding audit and investigation methodologies, procedures, and techniques, and compliance with relevant professional standards and office policies and procedures.
Minimum Qualifications
Education :
Possession of a bachelor’s degree in Business Administration, Public Policy, Public Administration, Accounting, Finance, Law, or a closely related field from an accredited college or university.
Experience :
The equivalent of four (4) years of full-time professional verifiable experience in performance auditing, public policy, program evaluation, or criminal or administrative investigation, or a closely related field, which must have included at least one (1) year of lead experience. Public sector experience are highly desirable.
Other Requirements :
Possession of a valid certificate as a Certified Fraud Examiner (CFE), Certified Internal Auditor (CIA), Certified Public Accountant (CPA), or Certified Inspector General Investigator is desirable.
Substitution :
Additional professional experience as outlined above may be substituted for the education on a year- for- year basis. A college degree is preferred.
Knowledge and Skills
Knowledge of :- Government Auditing Standards published by the Comptroller General of the United States, Principles and Standards for Offices of Inspector General published by the Association of Inspectors General or Quality Standards for Investigations published by the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency
- Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government published by the Comptroller General of the United States or Internal Control
- Integrated Framework published by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission
- Principles, tools, techniques, and qualitative and quantitative methodologies used in conducting audits and investigations in a public sector environment, analyzing operational and financial transactions, and evaluating complex programs and operations
- Rules of evidence for conducting audits and investigations
- Fraud schemes, including methods for prevention and detection
- Principles of contracting and procurement
- Principles and practices of general accounting
- “Plain Language” report writing guidelines
- Related federal, state, and local laws, codes, and regulations
- General office operation and equipment, including computers and supporting word processing and spreadsheet applications
Skill/Ability in :- Independently conducting fraud, waste, and abuse investigations and audits
- Overseeing, coordinating, and reviewing the work of subordinate professional staff
- Planning and designing audit and investigation work, including detailed methodologies for complex audit and investigation activities
- Interpreting and applying applicable federal, state, and local laws, regulations, provisions of contracts and grant agreements, and administrative policies and procedures
- Researching and evaluating best practices, new service delivery methods and techniques, and policies and practices to identify opportunities for improvements
- Maintaining an objective, independent attitude about the subjects of an audit or under investigation
- Critical and innovative thinking, analysis, and problem solving, including the ability to test conclusions that are based on abstract or incomplete information against relevant criteria
- Performing statistical, financial, data, and other quantitative analysis techniques
- Using data analysis software, such as ACL, IDEA, or Arbutus
- Preparing clear and concise written audit and investigation reports
- Clear oral communication, including public speaking and giving presentations to management - Working under deadlines, managing time, and shifting gears to respond to emerging priorities
- Anticipating audit and investigation needs and making decisions in a changing environment Interviewing potential witnesses and subjects of audits or investigations
- Handling sensitive and confidential information appropriately
- Understanding and following oral and written instructions
- Using project management principles to plan, organize, and prioritize responsibilities so projects and reports are completed within established timelines
- Operating office equipment, including computers and supporting word processing and spreadsheet applications
- Establishing and maintaining professional, effective, and collaborative working relationships with those contacted in the course of work
Equal Employment Opportunity GroupBox1
The San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District is an equal opportunity employer. Applicants shall not be discriminated against because of race, color, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, age (40 and above), religion, national origin (including language use restrictions), disability (mental and physical, including HIV and AIDS), ancestry, marital status, military status, veteran status, medical condition (cancer/genetic characteristics and information), or any protected category prohibited by local, state or federal laws.
The BART Human Resources Department will make reasonable efforts in the examination process to accommodate persons with disabilities or for religious reasons. Please advise the Human Resources Department of any special needs in advance of the examination by emailing at least 5 days before your examination date at employment@bart.gov .
Qualified veterans may be eligible to obtain additional veteran's credit in the selection process for this recruitment (effective Jan. 1, 2013). To obtain the credit, veterans must attach to the application a DD214 discharge document or proof of disability and complete/submit the Veteran's Preference Application no later than the closing date of the posting. For more information about this credit please go to the Veteran's Preference Policy and Application link at www.bart.gov/jobs .
The San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) prides itself in offering best in class benefits packages to employees of the District. Currently, the following benefits may be available to employees in this job classification.
Highlights- Medical Coverage (or $350/month if opted out)
- Dental Coverage
- Vision Insurance (Basic and Enhanced Plans Available)
- Retirement Plan through the CA Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS)
- 2% @ 55 (Classic Members)
- 2% @ 62 (PEPRA Members)
- 3% at 50 (Safety Members - Classic)
- 2.7% @ 57 (Safety Members - PEPRA)
- Reciprocity available for existing members of many other public retirement systems (see BART website and/or CalPERS website for details)
- Money Purchase Pension Plan (in-lieu of participating in Social Security tax)
- 6.65% employer contribution up to annual maximum of $1,868.65
- Deferred Compensation & Roth 457
- Sick Leave Accruals (12 days per year)
- Vacation Accruals (3-6 weeks based on time worked w/ the District)
- Holidays: 9 observed holidays and 5 floating holidays
- Life Insurance w/ ability to obtain additional coverage
- Accidental Death and Dismemberment (AD&D) Insurance
- Survivor Benefits through BART
- Short-Term Disability Insurance
- Long-Term Disability Insurance
- Flexible Spending Accounts: Health and Dependent Care
- Commuter Benefits
- Free BART Passes for BART employees and eligible family members.
Closing Date/Time: 1/5/2026 11:59 AM Pacific -
ABOUT THE COMPANY
-
-
BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit)
Show moreThe BART story began in 1946. It began not by governmental fiat, but as a concept gradually evolving at informal gatherings of business and civic leaders on both sides of the San Francisco Bay. Facing a heavy post-war migration to the area and its consequent automobile boom, these people discussed ways of easing the mounting congestion that was clogging the bridges spanning the Bay. In 1947, a joint Army-Navy review Board concluded that another connecting link between San Francisco and Oakland would be needed in the years ahead to prevent intolerable congestion on the Bay Bridge. The link? An underwater tube devoted exclusively to high-speed electric trains.
Since 1911, visionaries had periodically brought up this Jules Verne concept. But now, pressure for a traffic solution increased with the population. In 1951, the State Legislature created the 26-member San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit Commission, comprised of representatives from each of the nine counties which touch the Bay. The Commission's charge was to study the Bay Area's long range transportation needs in the context of environmental problems and then recommend the best solution.
The Commission advised, in its final report in 1957, that any transportation plan must be coordinated with the area's total plan for future development. Since no development plan existed, the Commission prepared one itself. The result of their thoroughness is a master plan which did much to bring about coordinated planning in the Bay Area, and which was adopted a decade later by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG).
The BART Concept is Born
The Commission's least-cost solution to traffic tie-ups was to recommend forming a five-county rapid transit district, whose mandate would be to build and operate a high-speed rapid rail network linking major commercial centers with suburban sub-centers.The Commission stated that, "If the Bay Area is to be preserved as a fine place to live and work, a regional rapid transit system is essential to prevent total dependence on automobiles and freeways."
Thus was born the environmental concept underlying BART. Acting on the Commission's recommendations, in 1957, the Legislature formed the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District, comprising the five counties of Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, San Francisco and San Mateo. At this time, the District was granted a taxing power of five cents per $100 of assessed valuation. It also had authority to levy property taxes to support a general obligation bond issue, if approved by District voters. The State Legislature lowered the requirement for voter approval from 66 percent to 60 percent.
Between 1957 and 1962, engineering plans were developed for a system that would usher in a new era in rapid transit. Electric trains would run on grade-separated right-of-ways, reaching maximum speeds of 75-80 mph, averaging perhaps 45 mph, including station stops. Advanced transit cars, with sophisticated suspensions, braking and propulsion systems, and luxurious interiors, would be strong competition to "King Car " in the Bay Area. Stations would be pleasant, conveniently located, and striking architectural enhancements to their respective on-line communities.
BART employees in the 1970s.
Hundreds of meetings were held in the District communities to encourage local citizen participation in the development of routes and station locations. By midsummer, 1961, the final plan was submitted to the supervisors of the five District counties for approval. San Mateo County Supervisors were cool to the plan. Citing the high costs of a new system-plus adequate existing service from Southern Pacific commuter trains - they voted to withdraw their county from the District in December 1961.
With the District-wide tax base thus weakened by the withdrawal of San Mateo County, Marin County was forced to withdraw in early 1962 because its marginal tax base could not adequately absorb its share of BART's projected cost. Another important factor in Marin's withdrawal was an engineering controversy over the feasibility of carrying trains across the Golden Gate Bridge.
BART had started with a 16-member governing Board of Directors apportioned on county population size: four from Alameda and San Francisco Counties, three from Contra Costa and San Mateo, and two from Marin. When the District was reduced to three counties, the Board was reduced to 11 members: four from San Francisco and Alameda, and three from Contra Costa. Subsequently, in 1965, the District's enabling legislation was changed to apportion the BART Board with four Directors from each county, thus giving Contra Costa its fourth member on a 12-person Board. Two directors from each county, hence forth, were appointed by the County Board of Supervisors. The other two directors were appointed by committees of mayors of each county (with the exception of the City and County of San Francisco, whose sole mayor made these appointments).
The five-county plan was quickly revised to a three-county plan emphasizing rapid transit between San Francisco and the East Bay cities and suburbs of Contra Costa and Alameda counties. The new plan, elaborately detailed and presented as the "BART Composite Report, " was approved by supervisors of the three counties in July 1962, and placed on the ballot for the following November general election.
The plan required approval of 60 percent of the District's voters. It narrowly passed with a 61.2 percent vote District-wide, much to the surprise of many political experts who were confident it would fail. Indeed, one influential executive was reported to have said: "If I'd known the damn thing would have passed, I'd never have supported it. "
The voters approved a $792 million bond issue to finance a 71.5 mile high-speed transit system, consisting of 33 stations serving 17 communities in the three counties. The proposal also included another needed transit project: rebuilding 3.5 miles of the San Francisco Municipal Railway. The new line would link muni streetcar lines directly with BART and Market Street stations, and four new Muni stations would be built.
The additional cost of the transbay tube -- estimated at $133 million -- was to come from bonds issued by the California Toll Bridge Authority and secured by future Bay Area Bridge revenues. The additional cost of rolling stock, estimated at $71 million, was to be funded primarily from bonds issued against future operating revenues. Thus, the total cost of the system, as of 1962, was projected at $996 million. It would be the largest single public works project ever undertaken in the U.S. by the local citizenry.
After the election, engineers immediately started work on the final system designs, only to be halted by a taxpayer's suit filed against the District a month later. The validity of the bond election, and the legality of the District itself, were challenged. While the court ruled in favor of the District on both counts, six months of litigation cost $12 million in construction delays. This would be the first of many delays from litigation and time-consuming negotiations involving 166 separate agreements reached with on-line cities, counties, and other special districts. The democratic processes of building a new transit system would prove to be major cost factors that, however necessary, were not foreseen.
-