FAC Explorer

Audit 3106

FY End
2022-06-30
Total Expended
$754,335
Findings
6
Programs
1
Organization: Rescue Fire Protection District (CA)
Year: 2022 Accepted: 2023-11-14
Auditor: Richardson & Company LLP

Organization Exclusion Status:

Findings

ID Ref Severity Repeat Requirement
1785 2022-001 Significant Deficiency - P
1786 2022-002 Significant Deficiency - B
1787 2022-003 Significant Deficiency - I
578227 2022-001 Significant Deficiency - P
578228 2022-002 Significant Deficiency - B
578229 2022-003 Significant Deficiency - I

Programs

ALN Program Spent Major Findings
97.044 Assistance to Firefighters Grant $706,716 Yes 3

Contacts

Name Title Type
LPHUNMC8P175 Bryan Ransdell Auditee
9164064801 Brian Nash Auditor
No contacts on file

Notes to SEFA

Title: NOTE A – BASIS OF PRESENTATION Accounting Policies: Expenses reported on the Schedule are reported on the accrual basis of accounting. Such expenses are recognized following the cost principles contained in the Uniform Guidance, wherein certain types of expenses are not allowable or are limited as to reimbursement. De Minimis Rate Used: N Rate Explanation: The District did not charge indirect costs to federal programs during the year ended June 30, 2022. The accompanying schedule of expenditures of federal awards (the Schedule) includes the federal grant activity of the Rescue Fire Protection District (the District) under programs of the federal government for the year ended June 30, 2022. 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). Because the Schedule presents only a selected portion of the District’s operations, it is not intended to be and does not present the financial position, changes in net position, or cash flows of the District.
Title: NOTE D – SUBRECIPIENTS Accounting Policies: Expenses reported on the Schedule are reported on the accrual basis of accounting. Such expenses are recognized following the cost principles contained in the Uniform Guidance, wherein certain types of expenses are not allowable or are limited as to reimbursement. De Minimis Rate Used: N Rate Explanation: The District did not charge indirect costs to federal programs during the year ended June 30, 2022. Of the federal expenditures presented in the schedule, the District provided federal awards to subrecipients as follows: Assistance to Firefighters Grant 97.044 Cameron Park Community Services District $ 106,105 Diamond Springs/El Dorado Fire Protection District 70,737 El Dorado County Fire District 353,682 Georgetown Fire District 70,737 Mosquito Fire District 70,737
Title: NOTE E – CLUSTERS OF PROGRAMS Accounting Policies: Expenses reported on the Schedule are reported on the accrual basis of accounting. Such expenses are recognized following the cost principles contained in the Uniform Guidance, wherein certain types of expenses are not allowable or are limited as to reimbursement. De Minimis Rate Used: N Rate Explanation: The District did not charge indirect costs to federal programs during the year ended June 30, 2022. There were no clusters of the District’s federal programs during the year ended June 30, 2022.

Finding Details

Finding 2022-001
Assistance Listing No: 97.044, Assistance to Firefighters Grant Federal Grantor: U.S. Department of Homeland Security - Direct Award Compliance Requirement: Other Condition: The District submitted its audited financial statements and single audit report to the federal clearinghouse in October 2023, more than 6 months after it was due on March 31, 2023. Criteria: The District was required to submit its audited financial statements and single audit report to the federal audit clearinghouse no later than March 31, 2023, 9 months after the fiscal year-end (2 Code of Federal Regulations, Section 200.512(a)). Cause: The District failed to prepare its audited financial Statements and schedule of expenditures of federal awards (SEFA) in a timely manner due to not being able to locate and provide information to the auditor by the reporting deadline. Effect: Federal awarding agencies could deny future federal awards to recipients that do not comply with the Uniform Guidance. Context: In March 2022, the District was able to acquire additional accounting help from El Dorado Hills Fire District to close its books for the year ended June 30, 2022. Prior to obtaining this additional assistance, the District did not have qualified staff available to manage the audit and single audit. Recommendation: The District should consider contracting with an external accounting firm with significant knowledge in governmental and single audit accounting and reporting standards so that it can close its books and submit its audited financial statements and single audit report to the federal audit clearinghouse no later than the statutory deadline. View of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Action: Management’s response and planned corrective actions are included at the corrective action plan end of this report.
Finding 2022-002
Assistance Listing No: 97.044, Assistance to Firefighters Grant Federal Grantor: U.S. Department of Homeland Security - Direct Award Compliance Requirement: Allowable Costs/Costs Principals Condition: The District’s internal control over compliance procedures did not ensure the appropriate amount was claimed on the grant and did not ensure the appropriate local match amount was billed to five other local fire districts participating in the grant program (participating agencies). The District overclaimed federal grant funds by $6,399 and overcharged local matching fund amounts to the participating agencies by $6,557. Criteria: Uniform Guidance, Section 200.303 requires funding recipients to establish and maintain internal control over the Federal Award that provides reasonable assurance that the entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations and the terms and conditions of the federal award, which includes controls that ensure the entity claims the appropriate amount of grant funds. Cause: The District is not experienced in the requirements of the Uniform Guidance and does not have an experienced accountant on staff. Effect: The District overbilled grant funds and is not in compliance with the terms and conditions of the award. Context: The District previously contracted with the El Dorado Hills Fire Department for accounting assistance, but the contract terminated during 2022 and the District did not contract with a qualified accountant subsequent to the termination of the contract. Also, the District assumed a certain dollar amount would be received from the contractor from the trade-in of equipment being replaced with grant funds, but the trade-in proceeds exceeded the expected amount and the total contract costs declined. The District did not account for the additional trade in value of the equipment when claiming grant funds and billing local match to participating agencies. Recommendation: The District should implement additional control procedures to ensure grant expenses are reconciled and the appropriate amount of grant funds are claimed. The District should consider contracting with an external accountant with significant knowledge of governmental and single audit accounting and reporting standards so has an additional layer of review over grant activity. View of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Action: Management’s response and planned corrective actions are included at the corrective action plan end of this report.
Finding 2022-003
Assistance Listing No: 97.044, Assistance to Firefighters Grant Federal Grantor: U.S. Department of Homeland Security - Direct Award Compliance Requirement: Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Condition: The District piggybacked on a procurement with Los Angeles County to procure program equipment, but the District did not have a procurement policy that meets the requirements of Uniform Guidance and did not adopt a compliant procurement policy for the program by, for example, adopting the Los Angeles County procurement policy for purposes of the procurement. In addition, the District did not obtain enough procurement documentation from Los Angeles County prior to approving the procurement to ensure the procurement was in accordance with Uniform Guidance and the District was not able to obtain enough information from Los Angeles County to confirm the procurement was in accordance with the requirements of Uniform Guidance during the single audit. Specifically, the District did not obtain evidence that Los Angeles County publicized the procurement, received an adequate number of bids and adequately evaluated the bids to select the lowest responsible bidder, ensuring full and open competition occurred. Criteria: Uniform Guidance, Sections 200.318 to 200.327 lists procurement requirements that must be followed by non-federal entities other than states. Section 200.318(a) indicates “the non-Federal entity must use its own documented procurement procedures which reflect applicable State and local laws and regulations, provided that the procurements confirm to applicable Federal law and the standards identified in this section.” Section 200.318(h)(1) indicates “the non-Federal entity must maintain records sufficient to detail the history of procurement. These records will include, but are not necessarily limited to the following: rationale for the method of procurement, selection of contract type, contractor selection or rejection, and the basis for the contract price.” Cause: The District was inexperienced in the requirements of Uniform Guidance and did not know it needed to obtain evidence that the procurement met the requirements of Sections 200.318 to 200.327 of the Uniform Guidance. Effect: Federal awarding agencies could deny future federal awards to recipients that do not comply with the Uniform Guidance. Context: The District obtained the request for proposal, contract and the Los Angeles County purchasing policy after we identified this finding in an attempt to verify the procurement was in compliance with Uniform Guidance. The District was able to verify that the Los Angeles County purchasing policy appeared to comply with Sections 200.318 to 200.327 of the Uniform Guidance, was able to verify the request for proposal did not request certain name brands, have local preferences or any other provisions that limited competition, and was able to verify that the contractor’s agreement indicated in was required to comply with the provisions of the Uniform Guidance. The District was just not able to obtain evidence the procurement was publicized, an adequate number of bids were received and Los Angeles County adequately evaluated the bids to select the lowest responsible bidder, ensuring full and open competition occurred. Recommendation: The District should continue to try to obtain evidence that Los Angeles County publicized the procurement, obtained an adequate number of bids and adequately analyzed the bids to select the lowest responsible bidder. The District should also update its own procurement policy to be in compliance with Uniform Guidance in case future federal awards are received by the District. View of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Action: Management’s response and planned corrective actions are included at the corrective action plan end of this report.
Finding 2022-001
Assistance Listing No: 97.044, Assistance to Firefighters Grant Federal Grantor: U.S. Department of Homeland Security - Direct Award Compliance Requirement: Other Condition: The District submitted its audited financial statements and single audit report to the federal clearinghouse in October 2023, more than 6 months after it was due on March 31, 2023. Criteria: The District was required to submit its audited financial statements and single audit report to the federal audit clearinghouse no later than March 31, 2023, 9 months after the fiscal year-end (2 Code of Federal Regulations, Section 200.512(a)). Cause: The District failed to prepare its audited financial Statements and schedule of expenditures of federal awards (SEFA) in a timely manner due to not being able to locate and provide information to the auditor by the reporting deadline. Effect: Federal awarding agencies could deny future federal awards to recipients that do not comply with the Uniform Guidance. Context: In March 2022, the District was able to acquire additional accounting help from El Dorado Hills Fire District to close its books for the year ended June 30, 2022. Prior to obtaining this additional assistance, the District did not have qualified staff available to manage the audit and single audit. Recommendation: The District should consider contracting with an external accounting firm with significant knowledge in governmental and single audit accounting and reporting standards so that it can close its books and submit its audited financial statements and single audit report to the federal audit clearinghouse no later than the statutory deadline. View of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Action: Management’s response and planned corrective actions are included at the corrective action plan end of this report.
Finding 2022-002
Assistance Listing No: 97.044, Assistance to Firefighters Grant Federal Grantor: U.S. Department of Homeland Security - Direct Award Compliance Requirement: Allowable Costs/Costs Principals Condition: The District’s internal control over compliance procedures did not ensure the appropriate amount was claimed on the grant and did not ensure the appropriate local match amount was billed to five other local fire districts participating in the grant program (participating agencies). The District overclaimed federal grant funds by $6,399 and overcharged local matching fund amounts to the participating agencies by $6,557. Criteria: Uniform Guidance, Section 200.303 requires funding recipients to establish and maintain internal control over the Federal Award that provides reasonable assurance that the entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations and the terms and conditions of the federal award, which includes controls that ensure the entity claims the appropriate amount of grant funds. Cause: The District is not experienced in the requirements of the Uniform Guidance and does not have an experienced accountant on staff. Effect: The District overbilled grant funds and is not in compliance with the terms and conditions of the award. Context: The District previously contracted with the El Dorado Hills Fire Department for accounting assistance, but the contract terminated during 2022 and the District did not contract with a qualified accountant subsequent to the termination of the contract. Also, the District assumed a certain dollar amount would be received from the contractor from the trade-in of equipment being replaced with grant funds, but the trade-in proceeds exceeded the expected amount and the total contract costs declined. The District did not account for the additional trade in value of the equipment when claiming grant funds and billing local match to participating agencies. Recommendation: The District should implement additional control procedures to ensure grant expenses are reconciled and the appropriate amount of grant funds are claimed. The District should consider contracting with an external accountant with significant knowledge of governmental and single audit accounting and reporting standards so has an additional layer of review over grant activity. View of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Action: Management’s response and planned corrective actions are included at the corrective action plan end of this report.
Finding 2022-003
Assistance Listing No: 97.044, Assistance to Firefighters Grant Federal Grantor: U.S. Department of Homeland Security - Direct Award Compliance Requirement: Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Condition: The District piggybacked on a procurement with Los Angeles County to procure program equipment, but the District did not have a procurement policy that meets the requirements of Uniform Guidance and did not adopt a compliant procurement policy for the program by, for example, adopting the Los Angeles County procurement policy for purposes of the procurement. In addition, the District did not obtain enough procurement documentation from Los Angeles County prior to approving the procurement to ensure the procurement was in accordance with Uniform Guidance and the District was not able to obtain enough information from Los Angeles County to confirm the procurement was in accordance with the requirements of Uniform Guidance during the single audit. Specifically, the District did not obtain evidence that Los Angeles County publicized the procurement, received an adequate number of bids and adequately evaluated the bids to select the lowest responsible bidder, ensuring full and open competition occurred. Criteria: Uniform Guidance, Sections 200.318 to 200.327 lists procurement requirements that must be followed by non-federal entities other than states. Section 200.318(a) indicates “the non-Federal entity must use its own documented procurement procedures which reflect applicable State and local laws and regulations, provided that the procurements confirm to applicable Federal law and the standards identified in this section.” Section 200.318(h)(1) indicates “the non-Federal entity must maintain records sufficient to detail the history of procurement. These records will include, but are not necessarily limited to the following: rationale for the method of procurement, selection of contract type, contractor selection or rejection, and the basis for the contract price.” Cause: The District was inexperienced in the requirements of Uniform Guidance and did not know it needed to obtain evidence that the procurement met the requirements of Sections 200.318 to 200.327 of the Uniform Guidance. Effect: Federal awarding agencies could deny future federal awards to recipients that do not comply with the Uniform Guidance. Context: The District obtained the request for proposal, contract and the Los Angeles County purchasing policy after we identified this finding in an attempt to verify the procurement was in compliance with Uniform Guidance. The District was able to verify that the Los Angeles County purchasing policy appeared to comply with Sections 200.318 to 200.327 of the Uniform Guidance, was able to verify the request for proposal did not request certain name brands, have local preferences or any other provisions that limited competition, and was able to verify that the contractor’s agreement indicated in was required to comply with the provisions of the Uniform Guidance. The District was just not able to obtain evidence the procurement was publicized, an adequate number of bids were received and Los Angeles County adequately evaluated the bids to select the lowest responsible bidder, ensuring full and open competition occurred. Recommendation: The District should continue to try to obtain evidence that Los Angeles County publicized the procurement, obtained an adequate number of bids and adequately analyzed the bids to select the lowest responsible bidder. The District should also update its own procurement policy to be in compliance with Uniform Guidance in case future federal awards are received by the District. View of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Action: Management’s response and planned corrective actions are included at the corrective action plan end of this report.