FAC Explorer

Audit 304180

FY End
2022-12-31
Total Expended
$67.20M
Findings
320
Programs
18
Organization: U.s. Civilian Research and Development Foundation (VA)
Year: 2022 Accepted: 2024-04-22
Auditor: Marcum LLP

Organization Exclusion Status:

Findings

ID Ref Severity Repeat Requirement
394065 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
394066 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
394067 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
394068 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
394069 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
394070 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
394071 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
394072 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
394073 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
394074 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
394075 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
394076 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
394077 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
394078 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
394079 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
394080 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
394081 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
394082 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
394083 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
394084 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
394085 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
394086 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
394087 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
394088 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
394089 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
394090 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
394091 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
394092 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
394093 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
394094 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
394095 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
394096 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
394097 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
394098 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
394099 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
394100 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
394101 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
394102 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
394103 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
394104 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
394105 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
394106 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
394107 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
394108 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
394109 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
394110 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
394111 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
394112 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
394113 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
394114 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
394115 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
394116 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
394117 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
394118 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
394119 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
394120 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
394121 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
394122 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
394123 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
394124 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
394125 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
394126 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
394127 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
394128 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
394129 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
394130 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
394131 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
394132 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
394133 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
394134 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
394135 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
394136 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
394137 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
394138 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
394139 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
394140 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
394141 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
394142 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
394143 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
394144 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
394145 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
394146 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
394147 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
394148 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
394149 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
394150 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
394151 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
394152 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
394153 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
394154 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
394155 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
394156 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
394157 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
394158 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
394159 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
394160 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
394161 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
394162 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
394163 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
394164 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
394165 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
394166 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
394167 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
394168 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
394169 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
394170 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
394171 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
394172 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
394173 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
394174 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
394175 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
394176 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
394177 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
394178 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
394179 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
394180 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
394181 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
394182 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
394183 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
394184 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
394185 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
394186 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
394187 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
394188 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
394189 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
394190 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
394191 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
394192 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
394193 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
394194 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
394195 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
394196 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
394197 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
394198 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
394199 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
394200 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
394201 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
394202 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
394203 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
394204 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
394205 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
394206 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
394207 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
394208 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
394209 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
394210 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
394211 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
394212 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
394213 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
394214 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
394215 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
394216 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
394217 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
394218 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
394219 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
394220 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
394221 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
394222 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
394223 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
394224 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
970507 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
970508 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
970509 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
970510 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
970511 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
970512 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
970513 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
970514 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
970515 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
970516 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
970517 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
970518 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
970519 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
970520 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
970521 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
970522 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
970523 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
970524 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
970525 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
970526 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
970527 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
970528 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
970529 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
970530 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
970531 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
970532 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
970533 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
970534 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
970535 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
970536 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
970537 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
970538 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
970539 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
970540 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
970541 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
970542 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
970543 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
970544 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
970545 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
970546 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
970547 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
970548 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
970549 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
970550 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
970551 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
970552 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
970553 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
970554 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
970555 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
970556 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
970557 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
970558 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
970559 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
970560 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
970561 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
970562 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
970563 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
970564 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
970565 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
970566 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
970567 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
970568 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
970569 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
970570 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
970571 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
970572 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
970573 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
970574 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
970575 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
970576 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
970577 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
970578 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
970579 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
970580 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
970581 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
970582 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
970583 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
970584 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
970585 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
970586 2022-002 Material Weakness Yes P
970587 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
970588 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
970589 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
970590 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
970591 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
970592 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
970593 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
970594 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
970595 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
970596 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
970597 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
970598 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
970599 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
970600 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
970601 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
970602 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
970603 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
970604 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
970605 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
970606 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
970607 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
970608 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
970609 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
970610 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
970611 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
970612 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
970613 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
970614 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
970615 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
970616 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
970617 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
970618 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
970619 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
970620 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
970621 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
970622 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
970623 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
970624 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
970625 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
970626 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
970627 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
970628 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
970629 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
970630 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
970631 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
970632 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
970633 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
970634 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
970635 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
970636 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
970637 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
970638 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
970639 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
970640 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
970641 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
970642 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
970643 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
970644 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
970645 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
970646 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
970647 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
970648 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
970649 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
970650 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
970651 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
970652 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
970653 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
970654 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
970655 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
970656 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
970657 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
970658 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
970659 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
970660 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
970661 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
970662 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
970663 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
970664 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
970665 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P
970666 2022-003 Material Weakness Yes P

Programs

ALN Program Spent Major Findings
19.700 General Department of State Assistance $3.96M Yes 2
19.402 Exbs Idiq $2.59M Yes 2
19.878 Eur-Other $1.46M Yes 2
81.005 Jordan Hospital X-Ray Blood Irradiator Chemical Security Practices Virtual Engagements in Jordan $843,916 Yes 2
19.033 Global Threat Reduction $732,592 Yes 2
19.000 Advisory & Mission Support Services - Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention $612,901 Yes 2
93.947 Tuberculosis Demonstration, Research, Public and Professional Education $444,091 Yes 2
19.901 Export Control and Related Border Security $443,045 Yes 2
93.318 Protecting and Improving Health Globally: Building and Strengthening Public Health Impact, Systems, Capacity and Security $395,198 Yes 2
16.000 Demonstration Grants for Domestic Victims of Severe Forms of Human Trafficking $283,918 Yes 2
12.351 Viliant Global Defense: Consulting Services on Dtra Priorities $132,065 Yes 2
81.000 Technical Engagement Support - Jordan $54,218 Yes 2
10.001 Agricultural Research_basic and Applied Research $43,157 Yes 2
47.079 Office of International Science and Engineering $42,440 Yes 2
81.000 Consultant Support for Middle East and North Africa Outreach & Events $42,054 Yes 2
19.402 Professional and Cultural Exchange Programs - International Visitor Leadership Program $35,271 Yes 2
19.040 Public Diplomacy Programs $9,611 Yes 2
19.000 Professional and Cultural Exchange Programs - International Visitor Leadership Program $4,261 Yes 2

Contacts

Name Title Type
MR7ZQXJSQKA5 Andrei Pinto Auditee
2024869646 Gery Ivanova Auditor
No contacts on file

Notes to SEFA

Title: BASIS OF PRESENTATION Accounting Policies: Expenditures reported on the Schedule are reported on the accrued 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. Negative amounts shown on the Schedule represent adjustments or credits made in the normal course of business to amounts reported as expenditures in prior years. De Minimis Rate Used: N Rate Explanation: U.S. Civilian Research and Development Foundation elected not to use the 10% de minimis indirect cost rate allowed under the Uniform Guidance. U.S. Civilian Research used the provisional indirect rate and adjusted for approval rate. The accompanying schedule of expenditures of federal awards of U.S. Civilian Research and Development Foundation is presented on the accrual basis of accounting. The information in this schedule is presented in accordance with the requirements of Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance). Therefore, some amounts presented in this schedule may differ from amounts presented in, or used in the preparation of, the basic financial statements.
Title: SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES Accounting Policies: Expenditures reported on the Schedule are reported on the accrued 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. Negative amounts shown on the Schedule represent adjustments or credits made in the normal course of business to amounts reported as expenditures in prior years. De Minimis Rate Used: N Rate Explanation: U.S. Civilian Research and Development Foundation elected not to use the 10% de minimis indirect cost rate allowed under the Uniform Guidance. U.S. Civilian Research used the provisional indirect rate and adjusted for approval rate. 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. Negative amounts shown on the Schedule represent adjustments or credits made in the normal course of business to amounts reported as expenditures in prior years.
Title: INDIRECT COST RATE Accounting Policies: Expenditures reported on the Schedule are reported on the accrued 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. Negative amounts shown on the Schedule represent adjustments or credits made in the normal course of business to amounts reported as expenditures in prior years. De Minimis Rate Used: N Rate Explanation: U.S. Civilian Research and Development Foundation elected not to use the 10% de minimis indirect cost rate allowed under the Uniform Guidance. U.S. Civilian Research used the provisional indirect rate and adjusted for approval rate. U.S. Civilian Research and Development Foundation elected not to use the 10% de minimis indirect cost rate allowed under the Uniform Guidance.
Title: AGENCY TRANSACTIONS Accounting Policies: Expenditures reported on the Schedule are reported on the accrued 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. Negative amounts shown on the Schedule represent adjustments or credits made in the normal course of business to amounts reported as expenditures in prior years. De Minimis Rate Used: N Rate Explanation: U.S. Civilian Research and Development Foundation elected not to use the 10% de minimis indirect cost rate allowed under the Uniform Guidance. U.S. Civilian Research used the provisional indirect rate and adjusted for approval rate. The amounts disbursed through CRDF Global’s Solutions Services, which include federal funds, are reported as agency transactions in CRDF Global’s financial statements and accordingly are not recorded in the Schedule. Solutions Services provides administrative and financial infrastructure to organizations that administer funds and materials safely flexibly and accountably in support of qualifying projects. Through Solutions Services, organizations have access to CRDF Global’s substantial administrative infrastructure. The funds are held by the Foundation, and the organizations direct where the funds will be spent.

Finding Details

Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-002
Late Filing of Data Collection Form – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria In accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the audit package and the Data Collection Form must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ report or nine months after the end of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. Condition There are inadequate internal controls in place to ensure that CRDF Global financial statement audit is completed in a manner to allow the Data Collection Form to be filed by the reporting deadline. Context The Data Collection Form for the year ended December 31, 2022 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by the September 30, 2023 deadline. Cause There were delays in completing the 2022 audit as management needed additional time to reconcile accounts and provide the requested supporting documentation due to employee turnover. Effect Management was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding Yes. Recommendation We recommend that management enhance its internal controls, policies and procedures to ensure that all filing requirements under federal awards are met.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.
Finding 2022-003
Time Keeping – Material Weakness – Internal Control and Compliance Finding Criteria Management has identified an issue pertaining to timekeeping compliance with their proposal response to their Department of State- International Security and Non-Proliferation bureau, Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOS – ISN/CTR) customer. Specifically, certain activities related to preparing or working on proposals for DOS – ISN/CTR were classified as direct payroll costs charged to DOS – ISN/CTR programs, rather than being treated as indirect costs. Context CRDF Global works closely with the DOS – ISN/CTR office year-round to provide concepts, rescopes, and new ideas on how best to use to already awarded funds to the organization to execute the DOS – ISN/CTR’s mission. The labor for such activity is charged directly to the DOS – ISN/CTR agreements these concepts, if approved, will fund. However, once the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released, labor for such concept development intended to respond to the NOFO requirements should be charged as proposal costs. According to 2 CFR 200.460, proposal costs encompass the expenses incurred in preparing bids, proposals, or applications for potential federal and non-federal awards or projects. This includes the development of data necessary to support the bids or proposals. Generally, proposal costs, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities of the non-federal entity. Cause Ineffective time charging guidance was provided to program staff supporting the DOS – ISN/CTR’s NOFO response to clearly differentiate between time spent developing new concepts for a new funding opportunity versus time spent developing new concepts to be funded from active awarded agreements. Effect As a result, there is an incorrect reporting of payroll costs between direct and indirect categories for federally funded projects. Questioned Costs None. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation To address this issue, we recommend that management enhances its current policies and procedures. Specifically, there should be a focus on ensuring that effective time charging guidance is provided to program staff. Additionally, payroll and other expense allocations should be corrected to avoid any further discrepancy.