Audit 297336

FY End
2023-09-30
Total Expended
$785,509
Findings
2
Programs
2
Organization: White Castle Housing Authority (LA)
Year: 2023 Accepted: 2024-03-25
Auditor: Mike Estes PC

Organization Exclusion Status:

Checking exclusion status...

Findings

ID Ref Severity Repeat Requirement
384228 2023-001 Material Weakness - N
960670 2023-001 Material Weakness - N

Programs

ALN Program Spent Major Findings
14.872 Public Housing Capital Fund $454,031 Yes 1
14.850 Public and Indian Housing $331,478 - 0

Contacts

Name Title Type
XHFMVAB83EB4 Don O'Bear Auditee
2255453967 Mike Estes Auditor
No contacts on file

Notes to SEFA

Accounting Policies: Expenditures reported on the Schedule are reported on the accrual basis of accounting. Such expenditures are recognized following the cost principles contained in the Uniform Guidance, wherein certain types of expenditures are not allowable or are limited as to reimbursement. De Minimis Rate Used: N Rate Explanation: The Housing Authority did not elect to use the 10-precent de minimis indirect cost rate allowed under the Uniform Guidance.

Finding Details

Capital Fund #14.872 Finding 2023-001-Contractor Payments-Special Tests Criteria and Condition Federal regulations require that monitoring of construction or rehabilitation type expenses be documented in writing. Monitoring notes of construction progress, lack of progress, or issues such as contractor delay must be timely made and available for third parties. There are not required forms or format. However, the more they correlate to field reports prepared by architects, the more reliable they are. In addition, contractors must present proof of insurance before they are allowed to work on Authority jobs. Context In the audit year, approximately $71,897 was paid in approximately twenty payments to one contractor. It appears there were no written monitoring notes made on the various type of rehab work. In addition, it appears that the contractor did not present proof of contractor insurance of bond to Authority management. Cause Apparent oversight. Effect Federal regulations were not complied with. In addition, assurance was not as strong as necessary that the work was properly done and in accordance with specifications. Management attests that they timely review the work. However, written documentation is required. In addition, the Authority would likely be liable if the contractor or his employees were injured on the job. Questioned Costs NoneRecommendation Written monitoring reports need to be made on each job. These notes do not need to be extremely detailed. For small type jobs, a punch list type of review with a few words, and initials and dates of the reviewer will suffice. View of Responsible Official I will comply with the auditor’s recommendation.
Capital Fund #14.872 Finding 2023-001-Contractor Payments-Special Tests Criteria and Condition Federal regulations require that monitoring of construction or rehabilitation type expenses be documented in writing. Monitoring notes of construction progress, lack of progress, or issues such as contractor delay must be timely made and available for third parties. There are not required forms or format. However, the more they correlate to field reports prepared by architects, the more reliable they are. In addition, contractors must present proof of insurance before they are allowed to work on Authority jobs. Context In the audit year, approximately $71,897 was paid in approximately twenty payments to one contractor. It appears there were no written monitoring notes made on the various type of rehab work. In addition, it appears that the contractor did not present proof of contractor insurance of bond to Authority management. Cause Apparent oversight. Effect Federal regulations were not complied with. In addition, assurance was not as strong as necessary that the work was properly done and in accordance with specifications. Management attests that they timely review the work. However, written documentation is required. In addition, the Authority would likely be liable if the contractor or his employees were injured on the job. Questioned Costs NoneRecommendation Written monitoring reports need to be made on each job. These notes do not need to be extremely detailed. For small type jobs, a punch list type of review with a few words, and initials and dates of the reviewer will suffice. View of Responsible Official I will comply with the auditor’s recommendation.